Download
1 / 239
2.39k likes | 2.52k Views
Jason T. Siegel Benjamin D. Rosenberg Mario A. Navaro Elena Lyrintzis Yuliyana Beleva. Goal Disruption Theory: A Tolmanian Framework. Adolescent Behavior Tolman 7 years of development. Tolman. Purposive Model of Behavior ( Tolman , 1932)
E N D
Jason T. Siegel Benjamin D. Rosenberg Mario A. Navaro Elena Lyrintzis YuliyanaBeleva Goal Disruption Theory:A Tolmanian Framework
Tolman • Purposive Model of Behavior (Tolman, 1932) • As explained by Tolman, behavior, “…always seems to have the character of getting-to or getting-from a specific goal-object, or goal-situation” (p. 10). • 1) behavior is purposeful, and • 2) the causes of behavior are environmental stimuli and initiating physiological states.
An Expectation Model • Disruption When organisms develop “cognitive expectations” for stimuli or behavior to lead to more or less reward, and 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.
Goal Disruption Theory Psychological Disequilibrium Negative Goal Violation Constriction
Goal Disruption Theory • Humans strive to maintain a state of equilibrium. • Goal violations occur. • Some goal violation will lead to psychological disequilibrium. • Psychological disequilibrium leads to adaptation. • The process whereby a goal violation occurs, psychological disequilibrium follows, and the organism adapts is called a goal disruption. • “Why is he behaving that way?” • “He/She must be in goal disruption?”
Goal Adaptation • The mind and body will adapt to maximize the likelihood that equilibrium will be reestablished. • 1) hypersensitivity toward relevant stimuli, and • 2) continued fixation until the stimulation is reduced. • 3) less concern for equality • 4) less goal fluidity • 5) focus on short term goals • 6) purposive risk taking • 7) purposive aggression
The first explorations…. • Hypothesis 1:Socio-personal sensitivity is the result of an adaptive process. • Hypothesis 2: Deficits in an area of importance are related to activated desired end states in the same domain.
Study 1: Methods • Pen and Paper Survey • Participants: • 59 Middle School Students • 55.2%: Female. • 15.3%: 6th Grade, 64.4%: 7th Grade, 20,3%: 8th Grade • 19%: Hispanic • 55.7%: Caucasian • 10.2% American Indian/Native American • 5.1% report themselves as African American • 1.7% of respondents are Asian.
Study 1: Measures • Socio-Personal Sensitivity (5 items: α = .80) • I wonder why people treat me like they do. • I wonder what people are thinking about me. • I wonder what I can do to get people to like me more. • I worry about other people talking about me. • I imagine what other people are saying about me.
Study 1: Measures • Stability of Self (4 items: α = .72) • Does your opinion of yourself tend to change a good deal, or does it always continue to remain the same. • Do you ever find that on one day you have one opinion of yourself an on another day you have a different opinion of yourself? • I have noticed that ideas about myself seem to change very quickly. • Some days I have a very good opinion of myself, other days I have a very poor opinion of myself.
Study 1: Measures • Self-Esteem (10 items: α = .86) • On the whole I am very satisfied with myself. • At times I think I am no good at all. • I feel that I have a number of good qualities. • I am able to do things as well as most people. • I wish I could have more respect for myself.
Study 1: Measures • Peer Connectedness (15 items: α = .91) • My peers act like they do not care about me. • My peers treat me badly. • I really feel “left out” of my peer group. • I really feel as if my peers dislike me. • My peers do not seem to even notice me.
Study 1: Measures • Sensation Seeking (4 items: α = .71) • I would like to explore strange places. • I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-planned routes or timetables. • I prefer friends who are exciting and unpredictable. • I would like to try bungee jumping.
Study 1: Measures • Activated End State (single item) • I’d like you to think about what you think would make your life perfect THIS YEAR! For example, ‘If only I could be popular and have everyone like me, then my life would be perfect.’ ‘If only I could be the best student in the school, then my life would be perfect.’ ‘If only I could be more athletic, then my life would be perfect.’ ‘If only I could be rich, then my life would be perfect’. Please tell me what you think would make your life perfect.
Study 1: Results • Hypothesis 1: Socio-personal sensitivity is the result of an adaptive process. • SUPPORTED Socio-personal sensitivity was significantly associated with: Stability of Self (r = -.45, p < .001) Self-Esteem (r = -.51, p < .001) Peer Connectedness (r = -.58, p < .001) Socio-personal sensitivity was not significantly associated with: Sensation Seeking ( r = .013, ns)
Study 1: Results • Hypothesis 2: Deficits in an area of importance are related to activated desired end states in the same domain. • SUPPORTED Of the 51 participants that provided a activated end state, 14 had an activated end state that was categorized as referring to peers or popularity. Participants who reported an activated end state associated with peers or popularity reported significantly less peer connectedness (M = 3.49, SD = 1.02) than those reporting different activated end states (M = 3.98, SD = 0.67: t = 2.03, df = 51, p = .048).
Study 2: Replication Hypothesis 1: Socio-personal sensitivity is the result of an adaptive process.
Study 2: Methods • Computer-based survey, completed in school • Participants: • 349 Middle School Students • 56.7%: Female. • 46.1%: 6th Grade, 53.9%: 7th Grade • 40%: Hispanic
Study 2: Measures • Socio-Personal Sensitivity (5 items: α = .84) • I wonder why people treat me like they do. • I wonder what people are thinking about me. • I wonder what I can do to get people to like me more. • I worry about other people talking about me. • I imagine what other people are saying about me.
Study 2: Measures • Stability of Self (4 items: α = .74) • Does your opinion of yourself tend to change a good deal, or does it always continue to remain the same. • Do you ever find that on one day you have one opinion of yourself an on another day you have a different opinion of yourself? • I have noticed that ideas about myself seem to change very quickly. • Some days I have a very good opinion of myself, other days I have a very poor opinion of myself.
Study 2: Measures • Peer Connectedness (5 items: α = .86) • My friends seem to like me • My friends really understand me • I feel like an important member of my peer group. • My friends seem to like having me around. • My friends seem to like me very much.
Study 2: Measures • Sensation Seeking (8 items: α = .76) • I would like to explore strange places • I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-planned routes or timetables • I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable • I get restless when I spend too much time at home • I like to do frightening things • I would like to try bungee jumping • I like wild parties • I would love to have new and exciting experiences, even if they are illegal
Study 2: Measures • Need for popularity (3 items: α = .78) • Being popular is very important to me. • I often think about how I could be more popular. • People who are popular are happier than those who are not popular.
Study 2: Measures • Harm for Popularity (3 items: α = .87) • I would be willing to risk getting hurt if it would make me more popular. • I would be willing to have to go to the hospital if I knew it would make me more popular. • I would be willing to hurt myself if I knew it would make me more popular.
Study 2: Measures • Need for desired end state (3 items: α = .66) • Can you be happy if you never reach your "perfect world?" (recoded) • How important is it for you to reach your perfect world? • How much time do you spend thinking about what it will be like to reach your "perfect world"?
Study 2: Results • Hypothesis 1: Socio-personal sensitivity is the result of an adaptive process. • SUPPORTED • Socio-Personal Sensitivity is significantly associated with: • Peer Connectedness (r = -.22, p < .001) • Stability of Self (r = -.49, p < .001) • Sensation Seeking (r = .09, NS) • Need for Popularity (r = .46, p < .001) • Harm for Popularity (r = .20, p < .001) • Need for Activated End State (r = .33, p < .001)
Study 3: Goal Violations • Hypothesis 1: Negative goal violations are associated with psychological disequilibrium (increased stress and anxiety, reduced self-esteem and stability of self). • Hypothesis 2: Negative goal violations cause psychological constriction (increased need for activated end state and harm for activated end state).
Study 3: Methods • College Student Sample, pen and paper. • 60.7% Female • Mean Age: 19.7 • Ethnicity: • Asian: 7.3% • African American: 13.7% • Hispanic: 13.7% • Caucasian: 58.9% • Other: 8.5%
Study 3: Measures • Socio-Personal Sensitivity (5 items: α = .85) • I wonder why people treat me like they do. • I wonder what people are thinking about me. • I wonder what I can do to get people to like me more. • I worry about other people talking about me. • I imagine what other people are saying about me.
Study 3: Measures • Stress (14 items: α = .82) • I wonder why people treat me like they do. • I wonder what people are thinking about me. • I wonder what I can do to get people to like me more. • I worry about other people talking about me. • I imagine what other people are saying about me.
Study 3: Measures • Stability of Self (4 items: α = .87) • Does your opinion of yourself tend to change a good deal, or does it always continue to remain the same. • Do you ever find that on one day you have one opinion of yourself an on another day you have a different opinion of yourself? • I have noticed that ideas about myself seem to change very quickly. • Some days I have a very good opinion of myself, other days I have a very poor opinion of myself.
Study 3: Measures • Self-Esteem (10 items: α = .90) • On the whole I am very satisfied with myself. • At times I think I am no good at all. • I feel that I have a number of good qualities. • I am able to do things as well as most people. • I wish I could have more respect for myself.
Study 3: Measures • Beck Anxiety Inventory (21 items: α = .89) • Indicate how much you have been bothered by that symptoms during the past month, including today: • numbness or tingling • feeling hot • wobbliness in legs • Unable to relax • Fear of worst happening
Study 3: Measures • Goal Violation: Content • Participants were asked to describe one negative life change, event, or realization they believed was having the largest impact on their life and feelings. • “Next, I’d like to ask you about any recent life events/changes you have experienced. Has anything negative, possibly unexpectedly, occurred that changed how you feel about yourself, your life, your relationships, or the world in general?” • Participants were also asked, “How has this impacted your life, thoughts, or how you feel about others?” This question was asked to clarify any disrupted goal-situations that were unclear from the response to the first question.
Study 3: Measures • Goal Violation: Intensity (2 items: = .85) • 1) “How much do you worry/think about either this occurrence or the things that occurred as a result?” • 2) “How much of an impact does this change, event, or realization currently have on you?”
Study 3: Measures • Activated End State: Content • I’d like you to think about what you think would make your life perfect THIS YEAR! For example, ‘If only I could be popular and have everyone like me, then my life would be perfect.’ ‘If only I could be the best student in the school, then my life would be perfect.’ ‘If only I could be more athletic, then my life would be perfect.’ ‘If only I could be rich, then my life would be perfect’. Please tell me what you think would make your life perfect.
Study 3: Measures • Need for Activated End State: Intensity (5 items: = .87) • 1) “How much do you need to reach your perfect world?” • 2) “How much is your future happiness dependent on you reaching your perfect world?” • 3) “How much time do you spend thinking about what it will be like to reach your perfect world?”
Study 3: Measures • Harm for Activated End State (10 items) • Imagine there is a pill that can give you your perfect world, but it can also cause large amounts of physical pain. • “If there is a 100% chance you will get the remaining aspects of your perfect world, and a 0% chance the pill will cause extreme physical pain, will you take it?” • “If there is a 90% chance you will get the remaining aspects of your perfect world, and a 10% chance the pill will cause extreme physical pain, will you take it?”
Study 3: Results • Hypothesis 1: Negative goal violations are associated with psychological disequilibrium (increased stress and anxiety, reduced self-esteem and stability of self). • SUPPORTED Goal Violation Intensity is significantly associated with: Stress: r = .49, p < .001 Anxiety r = .38, p < .001 Self-Esteem r = -.19, p < .01 Stability of Self r = -.28, p < .001
Study 3: Results • Hypothesis 2: Negative goal violations cause psychological constriction (increased need for activated end state and harm for activated end state). • SUPPORTED
Study 3: Results • Priming of a negative goal violation leads to increased need for the person’s activated end state (Transformed Mean = 1.2 vs. 1.3). • Log transformed due to abnormality • Over and above gender, age, location, and GPA • F = 3.97, p = .047
Study 3: Results • Priming of a negative goal violation leads to increased willingness to hurt one’s self to reach an activated end state (Mean = 2.3 vs. 2.9). • Gender was the only significant covariate. • F = 3.05, p = .05.
Goal Disruption Theory ViolatedExpectations Psychological Disequilibrium Goal status Expectancy violation Goal Adaptation Process • Need to restore Equilibrium • Adaption of mental field • Focus on the desired goal/state • Changes in mental fluidity • Hypersensitivity to relevant stimuli • Changes in risk behavior • Changes in time perspective • Biased information processing
Romantic Disruption Study 41. Replication of Siegel (2011) study2. Experimental study—manipulates goal-state3. Adds the impact of (perceived) knowledge
Romantic Disruption Psychological Disequilibrium Goal status expectancy violation Goal Adaptation Process Loneliness Romantic Goal Expectations Violation Adaptation Process • Need to for Romance • Adaption of mental field • Changes in risk behavior
