1 / 102

Goal disruption theory: Introduction and empirical support

Jason T. Siegel Claremont Graduate University. Goal disruption theory: Introduction and empirical support. APS May 23, 2014. Collaborators. Benjamin Rosenberg Mario Navarro Elena Lyrintzis Lindsay Handren. Acknowledgment. Dr. Bill Crano. See GDTheory.com for the full presentation.

jeneil
Télécharger la présentation

Goal disruption theory: Introduction and empirical support

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jason T. Siegel Claremont Graduate University Goal disruption theory: Introduction and empirical support APS May 23, 2014

  2. Collaborators • Benjamin Rosenberg • Mario Navarro • Elena Lyrintzis • Lindsay Handren

  3. Acknowledgment • Dr. Bill Crano

  4. See GDTheory.com for the full presentation.

  5. Edward C. Tolman

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

  7. Disruption

  8. What is GDT? 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).

  9. Goal Disruption Theory

  10. Definitions

  11. Goals

  12. Expectations • 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.

  13. Goal Expectations

  14. Goal Expectation Violations

  15. Goal Disruption A persistent state of psychological disequilibrium that occurs as a result of a goal expectation violation.

  16. Theoretical Model • 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

  17. Mental Constriction Unexpected Goal Violation Ability Violation Severity Disposition Violation Imprint DISRUPTION (persistent psychological disequilibrium) Allocation of Resources Opinion of Efficacy Processing and Perception Structural Harmony Personality Traits Tactic

  18. Predicting Goal Disruption

  19. Violation Severity

  20. Predicting Goal Disruption

  21. If a goal disruption occurs…

  22. ADAPT

  23. Why care?

  24. Empirical Evidence

  25. Study Set 1 Will a goal violation become a goal disruption?

  26. Studies 1a-1c

  27. Study 1a Participants • MTurk Study • N = 333 • Compensated $0.51

  28. Study 1a • Intense vs. Minor goal violation • Pilot tested [N= 75; t(74) = 4.75, p < .001, d = 1.10] • Outcome of job interview • Manipulated 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)

  29. Study 1a

  30. Study 1a Significant interaction between violation and IUS: B = -.34, t(329) = -2.54, p = .01 ✔

  31. Study 1b Participants • Mturk sample • N = 308 • Compensated $0.51

  32. Study 1b

  33. Study 1b Significant interaction between violation and GSE: B = .46, t(302) = 2.52, p = .01 ✔

  34. Study 1c Participants • MTurkStudy • N = 90 • Compensated $1.00

  35. Study 1c • Unexpected vs. Expected academic failure • Waiting to take an important test • All students imagine failing • Expect to pass vs. Expect to fail

  36. Study 1c

  37. Study 1c Significant interaction between violation and Optimism: B = .48, t(89) = 2.05, p = .04 ✔

  38. Study 1c Significant interaction between violation and NFS: B = -.97, t(89) = -2.13, p = .04 ✔

  39. Study Set 1, Summary • Intolerance of uncertainty, self-efficacy, optimism, and need for structure are all moderators of goal disruption • Personality traits moderate whether a goal expectation violation leads to goal disruption Even when confronted with an intense goal violation, having certain personality traits can buffer the likelihood of experiencing a goal disruption.

  40. Study Set 2

  41. Study Set #2 • 2a: Pay cut Unexpected vs. Expected Violation on • PDQ • Threat Appraisal • Vulnerability • 2b: Unexpected vs. Expected Violation on • Ability: Self-reported Creativity • Disposition: Personal Need for Structure • Tactics: Purposive Harm Endurance • 2c: Unexpected vs. Expected Violation on • Allocation of resources: Goal Reengagement/Goal Disengagement • Perception and processing: Goal Rumination

  42. Study 2a • Methods: • MTurk Study • 211 Participants

  43. Study 2a Unexpected vs. Expected pay cut • Imagine you are in Jessie’s position • You receive a one percent pay cut • Unexpected (completely surprised) vs. Expected (not surprised)

  44. Study 2a

  45. Study 2a F(3,208) = 7.64, p <.001, Cohen’s d = .38

  46. Study 2b • Methods: • MTurkStudy • 158 Participants

  47. Study 2b • Unexpected vs. Expected academic failure • Waiting to take an important test • All students imagine failing • Expect to pass vs. Expect to fail

  48. Study 2b

  49. Study 2b

  50. Study 2b F(4, 152) = 4.41, p = .002; Cohen’s d = .33

More Related