goal disruption theory: a tolmanian framework

Goal Disruption Theory:A Tolmanian Framework

Jason T. SiegelBenjamin D. RosenbergMario A. NavaroElena LyrintzisYuliyana Beleva

Adolescent Behavior

Tolman

7 years of development

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

Negative Goal Violation

Psychological Disequilibrium

Constriction

Goal Disruption TheoryHumans 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

Goal Disruption Theory:The First Explorations

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: MethodsPen 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


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).

Goal Disruption Theory:A Exploratory Replication

Study 2: Replication


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







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: ResultsHypothesis 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)

Goal Disruption Theory:A small experiment

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







Study 3: Measures

Stress (14 items: α = .82)I wonder why people treat me like they do.





Study 3: Measures





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: ContentParticipants 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: ContentI’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: The Role of Knowledge


Violated Expectatio

ns

Goal status Expectancy

violation

Psychological

Disequilibrium Goal

Adaptation Process

Need to restore EquilibriumAdaption 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

Study 4

1. Replication of Siegel (2011) study

2. Experimental study—manipulates goal-state

3. Adds the impact of (perceived) knowledge

Romantic Disruption

Romantic Disruption

Goal status expectancy

violation


Goal Adaptation

Process

Need to for Romance

Adaption of mental field

•Changes in risk behavior

Romantic Goal Expectations

Violation

Loneliness

Adaptation Process

ParticipantsN = 250Single (i.e., not in an emotionally committed romantic relationship)54% Female65% Caucasian, 7% Hispanic, 10% Asian, 4% African-AmericanAdults (age M = 29)mTurk, Facebook ads

Manipulation (High vs. Low Romantic Disruption)

Manipulation Check 1: How do you feel about being single?

2 coders on a 5-point scale (1=I feel happy being single)t (246)=- 6.118, p<.001; High (M=2.94) vs Low (M=1.87)

Manipulation Check 2 (6-itesm scale; ; α = .63) t (248)=-3.912 (p<.001), High (M=4.37) vs Low (M=3.87

Dating Anxiety Scale (5 items, ; α = .91)t (248)=.241 (p=.81)

Romantic Disruption

Heightened drive state

“According to the latest research studies conducted at prestigious universities in the United States and Europe, being in an emotionally committed relationship (dating or married) is closely related to life satisfaction and happiness, i.e., dating/married people are happier with their lives than single people… …. single people are more likely than married and dating people to suffer from mental and physical health problems, and even conditions such as depression, social isolation and social anxiety are more common among singles.…

…. single people more often than married people feel lonely, excluded, bitter and angry at society in general … married people have higher self-esteem and are more respected than single people…”

Manipulation – High

Manipulation – Low

Low drive state

“According to the latest research studies conducted at prestigious universities in the United States and Europe, being in an emotionally committed relationship (dating or married) is not related to life satisfaction and happiness, i.e. single people can be just as happy as married or dating individuals ..

… single people are just as likely as married or dating people to be mentally and physically healthy, and even conditions such as depression, social isolation and social anxiety are common among both types of groups…

…. both single and married people can feel lonely, excluded, bitter and angry at society in general…. single people deal just as fast and well with stress as married people…”

Measures

Psychological Disequilibrium Loneliness (UCLA Loneliness scale, 8 items ; α = .91).

Need for Romance (9-item ; α =.89)

Having a satisfying romantic relationship is very important to me

I wish I could find my soulmate.

Risk for Romance (7-item; α =.86)

I will be willing to get physically hurt if I thought it would lead to a satisfying romantic relationship.

Perceived knowledge (7-item; α =.88)

When it comes to finding a romantic partner, I am knowledgeable/ confident/experienced.

Correlations:

Drive State

Knowledge

Loneliness

Need for

Romance

Risk for Romance

Drive State 1 .035 .153* .231** .150*

Knowledge 1 -.162* -.020 .01

Loneliness 1 .420** .926**

Need for Romance 1 .411**

Risk for Romance 1

Results

Testing the Model

Drive State

Loneliness

Need for

Romance

Step Predictor Δ R2 at step β Final Model

B SE(B) 1 Gender .001 -.032 Gender .05 *** -.02

Drive State .23**

3 Gender .21 *** .04 .10 .14Drive State .17** .43 .14Loneliness .40*** .52 .08

Final Model : (F 3,246) = 21.35, P < .001Note: **p < .001, p*** < .0001

.15* .40***

.23**/.17***

Testing the Model

Drive State

Loneliness

Risk for Romanc

e


B SE(B) 1 Gender .049*** -.2212 Gender .068* -.213**

Drive State .138*

3 Gender .864*** -.074** -.208 .067Drive State .006 .016 .067Loneliness .91*** 1.35 .036

Final Model : (F 3,246) = 519.64, p < .001Note: **p < .001, p*** < .0001

.153*.91***

.138* / .006

Disruption + Knowledge

Romantic Expectation Violation

Knowledge

The Influence of Knowledge

Need for RomanceRisk for RomanceLoneliness

Disruption +Knowledge

The Influence of Knowledge

Table: MANCOVA: The effect of Drive State and Knowledge on Loneliness, Need for Romance, and Risk for Romance , with Gender as covariate

Dependent Variable Predictor df Error

df F Sig

Need for Romance

Gender 1 245 .118 .732

DriveState 12.931 .000

Knowledge 2.203 .139

DriveXKnow 6.115 .014

Risk for Romance

Gender 1 245 21.281 .001


Knowledge .243 .622


Loneliness Gender 1 245 6.198 .013


Knowledge 3.080 .081


Need for Romance


Risk for Romance


Loneliness


Measuring Psychological Disequilibrium

Study 6: Methods

Mturk

Sample:

N=59

54.2% male (32), 45.8% female (27)

Mean age= 35.88, SD=13.04

74.6% Caucasian

Study 6- Qualitative Data

Please describe a situation when you might have felt psychological disequilibrium in as much detail as possible.

“I might have felt this when my car got reposessed and I felt like I was in over my head with bills. I wanted to scream, I felt like I was having a break down. My girlfriend also left me at this time, so everything kinda crashed in around me.”



“I felt psychological disequilibrium when my husband was threatening to leave me last April. I was so upset I felt like I was going to go crazy. I had several arguments with my husband and cried a lot. I ended up telling him to go ahead and leave because I could take care of myself. He ended up staying but our marriage will never be the same and still might come to an end sometime in the future.”



“Homelessness at a young age. Not knowing where i would get my next meal, what i would have to do to survive, having an utter overwhelming feeling of abandonment. This put me in a 'psychological disequilibrium”

Qualitative Data

In your own words, how would you describe a state of psychological disequilibrium?

“I would describe this as feeling mentally off-balance. Things around you may be turning out badly, but you have no idea how to fix it or at least how to make yourself feel better. You may feel that you should be able to do something, but just can't, and it causes a lot of psychological distress/discomfort.”

Qualitative Data


“Psychological disequilibrium is a state in which the person cannot find their center in order to think clearly and sort through their emotions effectively. It is both disconcerting and discombobulating. They are unable to fully understand and participate in the world around them because they are distracted by the emotional imbalance.”

Qualitative Data


“It feels as if things are too much. They are more than you can deal with. You try to keep functioning, but you're shaky and want to cry. When you are alone, you express a lot of emotion and then go sort of numb like cotton wool to protect yourself. You are glad you do not use drugs or alcohol because you figure those would possibly be problems if you did. It becomes hard to function or focus.”

Study 7: Replication

Study 7: Methods

Mturk

Sample:

N=203, 5 excluded

Mean age= 33.65, SD= 11.60

42.9% male (87), 57.1% female (116)

78.8% Caucasian

Study 7: ScalesBeck Anxiety Inventory (α=.94):

Beck Depression Inventory (α=.93):

Self-Esteem (α=.93):

Stress (α=.85):

PANAS-Pos (α=.92):

PANAS-Neg (α=.92):

Stability of Self (α=.90):

MeasuresBeck Anxiety Inventory 21 items, α= .94

ItemsNumbness or tinglingUnable to relaxHeart pounding/racingNervous

MeasuresBeck Depression Inventory 19 items, α= .93

ItemsSadnessSelf DislikeCryingLoss of Energy

MeasuresSelf-Esteem 10 items, α= .93

ItemsOn the whole I am satisfied with myself.I certainly feel useless at times.I feel I do not have much to be proud of.I am able to do things as well as most other people.

MeasuresStress 4 items, α= .85

Items

How often have you felt you were unable to control the important things in your life?

How often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?

How often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?

MeasuresPANAS10 items, α= .92

ItemsExcitedDistressedStrongIrritable

MeasuresStability of Self 5 items, α= .90

Items

My opinions about myself tend to change a good deal.

On some days I have one opinion of myself and on another day I have a different opinion of myself.

I feel that nothing, or almost nothing, can change the opinion I currently hold of myself.

The Final Instrument

I am mentally uneasy.

I feel psychologically off-balance.

I feel mentally disrupted.

I have lost my psychological center.

I feel psychologically disoriented.

Study 7: ResultsValidated Scale PDQ: 70-item PDQ: 5-item

Beck Anxiety Inventory (.94):

.67 .56

Beck Depression Inventory (.93):

.74 .68

Self-Esteem (.93): -.73 -.66

Stress (.85): .74 .66

PANAS-Pos (.92): -.33 -.30

PANAS-Neg (.92): .65 .61

Stability of Self (.90):

-.59 -.51

Study 8

Replication and Extension

Study 8: Methods

Mturk

Sample:

N=223, 17 excluded Mean age= 34.65, SD= 16.80

49.3% male (110), 50.7% female (113)

83.0% Caucasian

Study 8

ReplicationAnxiety (α=.94)Depression (α=.94)Self-Esteem (α=.94)Stress (α=.88)PANAS Pos (α=.92)PANAS Neg (α=.95)Stability of Self (α=.87)

Study 8

ExtensionAggression (α=.83)Elevation (α=.91)Need for Perfect World (α=.87)Self-Discrepancy; Ideal (α=.75)Self-Discrepancy; Ought (α=.82)Hopelessness (α=.96)Adolescent Egocentrism (α=.87)Satisfaction with Life (α=.93)

MeasuresAggression7 items, α= .83

Items

When angry or mad at a peer how likely are you to give him/her the silent treatment?

How likely are you to intentionally ignore a peer until s/he agrees to do something you want them to do?

When angry or mad at a peer how likely are you to try to retaliate by excluding him/her from group activities?

MeasuresElevation13 items, α= .91

ItemsAdmirationAweCompassionUplifted

MeasuresNeed for Perfect World5 items, α= .87

Items

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?

How much do you need to reach your perfect world?

MeasuresSelf Discrepancy 10 items, α= .80

Items

Please list 5 qualities that you would ideally like to be or to possess

Please list 5 qualities that you believe the person that is the most important to you would ideally like for you to be or to possess. In other words, what you ought to be or to possess.

Rate how much you think you possess these qualities right now.

MeasuresHopelessness20 items, α= .96

Items

I might as well give up because there's nothing I can do about making things better for myself.

In the future I expect to succeed in what concerns me most.

All I can see ahead of me is unpleasantness rather than pleasantness

Things just won't work out the way I want them to.

MeasuresAdolescent Egocentrism12 items, α= .87

Items

When walking in late to a group meeting, trying not to distract everyone's attention.

Having other people to better understand why I do the things the way I do

Become real good at knowing what others are thinking of me.

Trying to get other people to get to know what it is like being me

MeasuresSatisfaction with Life5 items, α= .93

ItemsIn most ways my life is close to my ideal.The conditions of my life are excellent.I am satisfied with my life.So far I have gotten the important things I want in life.

Study 8: ResultsValidated Scale PDQ: 5-item STUDY

2PDQ: 5-item STUDY 3

Beck Anxiety Inventory (.94):

.56 .59

Beck Depression Inventory (.94):

.68 .72

Self-Esteem (.94): -.66 -.63Stress (.88): .66 .62PANAS-Pos (.92): -.30 -.23PANAS-Neg (.95): .61 .72Stability of Self (.87):

-.51 -.43

Study 8: ResultsValidated Scale PDQ: 5-item STUDY 3

Aggression (.83) .20Elevation (.91) -.19

Need for Perfect World (.87)

.14Self-Discrepancy

(ideal; .75)-.28

Self-Discrepancy (ought; .82)

-.24

Hopelessness (.96) .60Adolescent Egocentrism

(.87).14

Satisfaction with Life (.93)

-.47

Goal Disruption Theory: Is it about goals?

Study 9: Goal Specific Additions

Mturk

Sample:

N=253, 9 excluded

Mean age=33.93, SD=11.31

37.5% (95) male, 62.5% (158) female

81.8% Caucasian

Study 9: Scales

Study 9

ReplicationSatisfaction with Life (α=.92)Stability of Self (α=.91)Stress (α=.85)Need for Perfect World (α=.84)Self Esteem (α=.93)

Study 9

ExtensionSocio-personal Sensitivity (α=.89)Goal Specific Hope (α=.91)Goal Fluidity (α=.85)Harm for Perfect World (α=.90)

MeasuresSocio-personal Sensitivity5 items, α= .89

ItemsI wonder why people treat me the way 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.

MeasuresGoal Specific Hope6 items, α= .91

Items

If I had problems achieving these goals, I could think of lots of ways around these problems.

Even when others get discouraged with similar goals, I know I can find a way to attain these goals.

I can think of many ways to achieve these goals.

I energetically pursue these goals.

MeasuresGoal Fluidity4 items, α= .85

Items

Do you think that most of these goals will stay the same in the next 2-3 days?

Do you think that most these goals will stay the same in the next week?

Do you think that most of these goals will stay the same in the next month?

MeasuresHarm for Perfect World7 items, α= .90

ItemsI would be willing to risk friendships. I would be willing to hurt my job.I would be willing to be embarrassed.

Study 9: ResultsValidated Scale PDQ: 5-item

STUDY 3PDQ: 5-item STUDY 4

Satisfaction with Life (.92):

-.47 -.48

Stability of Self (.91): -.43 -.50Stress (.85): .62 .60Need for Perfect World (.84)

.14 .18

Self-Esteem (.93) -.63 -.65

Study 9: Results

Validated Scale PDQ: 5-item STUDY 3

Socio-Personal Sensitivity (.89)

.38

Goal Specific Hope (.91) -.46Goal Fluidity (.85) -.14Harm for Perfect World (.90)

.18

Goal Disruption Theory: Time for an experiment

Study 10

Can psychological disequilibrium be changed through a negative goal violation?

Does psychological disequilibrium mediate the relationship between experiencing a negative goal violation and socio-personal sensitivity?

Sample

mTurk

Age (M = 32.60, SD = 11.70)

Gender 56 % Female, 44% Male

Ethnic Breakdown

Caucasian - 81.1%

Other- 18.9%

344 Mturk participants completed the online survey

22 were not from America

Negative Goal Violation (n = 181)

Control No Video(n = 141)

OUTCOME MEASURES

2 multivariate outliers

2 multivariate outliers

Manipulation Questions*Please describe your goal in detail.

What makes this goal important to you and why?

Manipulation Questions

Please explain the negative, and just the negative, emotions you think you would feel if this happened to you?

Dependent Variables

Psychological Disequilibrium(Siegel & Lyrintzis, in preparation)5 item α = .960

Items:I am mentally uneasy. I feel psychologically off-balance. I feel mentally disrupted. I have lost my psychological

center. I feel psychologically disoriented.

Dependent Variables

Socio-personal Sensitivity Scale(Siegel, 2004; Siegel, Crano, et al., 2012)5 items α = .892

Sample items:

.

I wonder why people treat me the way they do.



ResultsOutcome Measures

ControlMean (SD)

Disruption VideoMean (SD)

F, df, Partialη2


2.15 (1.52)

2.81 (1.71)

F (1, 317) = 13.43***

.04

Socio-personal Sensitivity

3.59 (1.57)

3.96 (1.59)

F (1, 317) = 6.41**

.02

F(2, 316) = 7.79**; Pillai’s Trace = .05; partial η2 = .05

N = 253 (N = 139, Control) (N = 171, Disruption)Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

Results – Mediation

Group


Socio-Personal Sensitivity

B = .68SE = .18b = .20t(1, 317) = 3.66***

B = .28SE = .05b = .30t(1, 317) = 5.68***

B = .24, SE = .17B = .08t(1, 317) = 1.45

R2 = .193, SE = 1.33, SE = 1.44, F(4, 317) = 18.75***Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

B = .42, SE = .17B = .14t(1, 317) = 2.53*

Study 11: Replication and Expansion


Negative Goal Violation


Constriction

Hypotheses:

H1: Experiencing a negative goal violation will result in psychological disequilibrium.

H2: Psychological disequilibrium is associated with adaptive processes seeking to restore equilibrium.

Goals of Study

1. Expand constriction measures by demonstrating the malleability of Goal Specific Hope and Need for Popularity.

2. Replicate psychological disequilibrium mediations with the Psychological Disequilibrium Scale.

3. Demonstrate that need for a goal can moderate the relationship between psychological disequilibrium and willingness to harm oneself for their specific goal.

263 Mturk participants completed the online survey

8 were not from America

Negative Goal Violation (n = 136)

Meditation (n = 119 )

OUTCOME MEASURES

1 multivariate outlier

1 multivariate outlier

Manipulation Questions*Please describe your goal in detail.

What makes this goal important to you and why?

Manipulation Questions

Please explain the negative, and just the negative, emotions you think you would feel if this happened to you?

Measures

Psychological Disequilibrium5 item α = .955

I am mentally uneasy.I feel psychologically off-balance.

I feel mentally disrupted.I have lost my psychological center.

I feel psychologically disoriented.

Prior Validation Study

Psychological Disequilibrium:Rosenberg Self- esteem: r = .66Rosenberg Stability of self: r = -.43

Beck’s Anxiety: r = .61Beck’s Depression Anxiety: r = .74

PANAS (PA: r = -.28, NA: r = .72)Stress: r = .64

Aggression: r = .19Elevation” r = -.20

Need for perfect world: r = .14

Measures

Arousal5 items α = .914

Sample items:

I feel mentally stimulated.

I feel psychologically aroused.

I feel psychological motivated.

I feel psychologically fired up.

Measures

Goal Specific Hope Scale(Feldman, Rand, & Kahle-Wrobleski, 2009)6 items α = .880

Sample items:

If I had problems achieving this goal, I could think of lots of ways around these problems.

Even when others get discouraged with similar goals, I know I can find a way to attain this goal.

I can think of many ways to achieve the goal.

Measures

Socio-personal Sensitivity Scale(Siegel, 2004; Siegel, Crano, et al., 2012)5 items α = .906

Sample items:

.

I wonder why people treat me the way they do.



MeasuresNeed for Popularity(Siegel et al., 2012)5 items α = .891

Being popular is very important to me.

I often think about how I could be popular.

I will not be truly happy until I am popular.

Sample items:

MeasuresHarm for Popularity(Siegel et al., 2012)5 items α = .939

I would be willing to endure discomfort if I thought itwould lead to being popular.

I would be willing to struggle if I thought it would lead to being popular.

I would be willing to take risks if I thought it would lead to being popular.

Sample items:

Measures

Experimental Realism

This may be the most important question of the survey.

We want you to be completely honest with us with this next question.

There will no negative consequences no matter how you answer this question.

Earlier on in the survey we had you watch a video. This meditation (disruption) video was meant to relax you (make you more anxious) and bring you to a peaceful state of mind (more depressed state).

How relaxed and at peace did the video make you feel?How depressed did the video make you feel?

Measures

Undoing the manipulation harmDisruption Condition

Please relive this goal accomplishment in detail. Please describe how you accomplished this event. What were all the positive emotions that were related to this goal accomplishment?Now please list as many accomplishments that you can think of.

Measures

Demographics:

Gender

Age

Marital Status

Ethnicity

Political Status

Results:Study 11

Demographics

253 mTurkers

Age: M = 33.04, SD = 11.18

Sex: 59% FemaleBreakdown

Other: 16.2%Caucasian - White: 83.8%

H1: Experiencing a negative goal violation will result in psychological disequilibrium.

H2: Psychological disequilibrium is associated with adaptive processes seeking to restore equilibrium.

Results – Direct Effects

Interaction: b = .96, B = .70, t (1, 252) = 6.85, p < .001

2.13 3.85 5.57Amount of Realism

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Psychological Disequilibrium (N = 253)

Medita-tion


1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Arousal (N = 253)

Medita-tion


Interaction: b = -.56, B = -.37, t (1, 252) = -3.61, p < .001


1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Goal Specific Hope (N = 253)

Medita-tion




1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Socio-personal Sensitivity (N = 253)

Medita-tion


Interaction: b = .61, B = .47, t (1, 252) = 3.98, p < .001


1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Need for Popularity (N = 253)

Medita-tion


Interaction: b = .36, B = .20, t (1, 252) = 2.24, p = .026

Results – Indirect Effects

Group

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Arousal

95% CI, 1000 bootstrap samplesRealism = 5.57, Indirect effect = -.630, CI : -.922; -.339

Realism

B = .70 SE = .10t(1, 252) = 6.85***

B = -.30 SE = .06t(1, 252) = -4.81***

B = -.17 SE = .11t(1, 252) = -1.54

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001


Group

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Goal SpecificHope


Realism

B = .70 SE = .10t(1, 252) = 6.85***

B = -.20 SE = .05t(1, 252) = -4.03***

B = -.18SE = .09t(1, 252) = -2.00*

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001


Group

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Socio-personal

Sensitivity

95% CI, 1000 bootstrap samplesRealism = 5.57, Indirect effect = .545, CI : .236; .875

Realism

B = .70SE = .10 t(1, 252) = 6.85***

B = .26 SE = .07t(1, 252) = 3.56***

B = .29 SE = .13t(1, 252) = 2.32*

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001


Group

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Need for Popularity


Realism

B = .70SE = .10 t(1, 252) = 6.85***

B = .20 SE = .05t(1, 252) = 3.66***

B = .06 SE = .10t(1, 252) = .64

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001



Need for Popularity

Harm for Popularity

B = .20, SE = .05t(1, 252) = 4.25***

95% CI, 1000 bootstrap samples

B = .74SE = .05t(1, 252) = 16.03***

B = -.002SE = .04t(1, 252) = -.05

Indirect effect = .1470 CI : .069; .230)Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

Study 12

Introduction

Study 12 Results N = 268

Measures

Experimental Realism

This may be the most important question of the survey.

We want you to be completely honest with us with this next question.

There will no negative consequences no matter how you answer this question.

Earlier on in the survey we had you watch a video. This disruption (meditation) video was meant to make you focus on a very important goal that you could no longer accomplish (allow you to meditate).

Were you able to think of a goal and experience what it would feel like to have the goal no longer possible (Were you able to focus on the video and follow the meditation)?

Measures

Measures

Arousal α = .913

Goal Specific Hope α = .867

Socio-personal sensitivity α = .900

Need for Popularity α = .890

Harm for Popularity α = .938


1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Psychological Disequilibrium (N = 268)

Medita-tion


Interaction: b = 1.13, B = .57, t (1, 267) = 4.74, p < .001


1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Arousal (N = 268)

Medita-tion




1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Socio-personal Sensitivity (N = 268)

Medita-tion


Interaction: b = .36, B = .19, t (1, 267) = 1.42, p = .156


1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Need for Popularity (N = 268)

Medita-tion


Interaction: b = .007, B = .003, t (1, 267) = .029, p = .977


Group

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Arousal


Realism

B = .57 SE = .12t(1, 267) = 4.74***

B = -.16 SE = .06t(1, 267) = -2.85**

B = -26 SE = .12t(1, 267) = -2.29*

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001


Group

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Goal SpecificHope


Realism

B = .57 SE = .12t(1, 267) = 4.74***

B = -.20 SE = .05t(1, 267) = -4.26***

B = .05SE = .09t(1, 267) = .56

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001


Group

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Socio-personal

Sensitivity


Realism

B = .57 SE = .12t(1, 267) = 4.74***

B = .34 SE = .07t(1, 267) = 5.16***

B = -.002SE = .13t(1, 267) = -.02

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001


Group

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Need for Popularity


Realism

B = .57 SE = .12t(1, 267) = 4.74***

B = .15 SE = .05t(1, 267) = 2.76**

B = -.08 SE = .11t(1, 267) = -.746

Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001



Need for Popularity

Harm for Popularity

B = .13SE = .05t(1, 267) = 2.58*

95% CI, 1000 bootstrap samples

B = .71SE = .04t(1, 267) = 17.90***

B = .004SE = .03t(1, 267) = .13

Indirect effect = .0905 CI : .016; .1685)Note: *p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

Prescription Stimulant Use in Universities

An application of Goal Disruption Theory

The problem

14.6% of college students reported using stimulants, opioids, sedatives, or tranquilizers

(Johnson et al., 2007)

63% reported using non-prescribed stimulants for the first time in college

(DeSantis, Webb, & Noar 2008)

What are prescription stimulants?

Includes: Adderall, Ritalin, Cocerta

Prescribed to people with ADD or ADHD

Nonmedical use is defined as the use of a prescription stimulant by an individual without a physician’s prescription for the medication

(McCabe & Teter, 2007)

Prescription Stimulants in Universities

Many students agree prescription stimulants are relatively harmless

(Weyandt et al., 2009)

Students have a general lack of guilt or dissonance

(DeSantis, Webb, & Noar, 2008)

What is the motivation?

Recreational UseThe desire to feel “high”

To be able to drink more

To enhance social abilities

(Judson & Langdon, 2009)

What is the motivation?

Performance EnhancementImproves concentration

Wakefulness

Focused studying

(Judson & Langdon, 2009)

• The most common motivation reported

(McCabe, 2008)

Hypotheses

Negative goal violation will lead to a greater willingness for harm in order to reach the goal

Negative academic goal violation (failing a test) will lead to a greater willingness for harm, manifested in future intentions to use prescription stimulants

ManipulationPlease imagine you are in your senior year of college. You are the first in your family to go to college, never mind graduate, so you have been the topic of family conversation all year.

Imagine it is a Tuesday morning and you are waiting to receive your score on a midterm you took last week. This class is extremely important for your graduation: you need to do well or you will not graduate. Based on the answers you knew you got right, you are certain that you will receive an 80 on the test. You know you got a couple wrong, but you were positive you got the others correct.

The professor hands you back the exam. You expected an 80. You were certain you would get an 80.

Negative goal violationYou receive a 60.

A 60. A 60. It goes through your mind over and over. How did this happen? Your heart sinks into your stomach. If you got an 80, you would have been on track to graduate. You have no idea what you are going to do. How will you tell your family? How could you do this to yourself?

Unexpectedly, the teacher announces a makeup test that will be given one hour before the next class (which is on Thursday—2 days away). You can make up half the points that were lost. This means if you can get a perfect score on the make-up exam, your score will become an 80. Graduation is again a possibility! Of course, you will have to find a way to study intensely and effectively for those 48 hours between now and the makeup test, in order to succeed. It is unlikely you will even have time to sleep.

Positive goal violationYou receive a 100.

Wow, you can't believe you got a perfect score! You are ecstatic and get the chills because you are so excited. Not only does this mean you get an A in the class, but the teacher says anyone that received a 98 or above does not have to take the final. Now you don't have to worry about this class and you can graduate on time, making your family proud. You can't wait to call and tell them the good news.

Because some other students got bad grades, the teacher announces a makeup test that will be given one hour before the next class (which is on Thursday—2 days away). You already received a perfect score so this makeup test is irrelevant because you have an A in the class.

MeasuresSensation Seeking(Hoyle et al., 2002)

4 item, α= .825

ItemsI would like to explore strange places.I like to do frightening thingsI like new and exciting experiencesI prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable.

MeasuresAcademic Satiation Scale(Siegel,2004)

11 items, α= .879

Sample itemsI am afraid I will not be as academically successful as I hoped.

Overall, I am unhappy with my academic performance in college.

I often worry about my grades.

MeasuresRisk for Perfect World(Siegel, 2011)

7 item, α= .860

Sample itemsI would be willing to risk friendships. I would be willing to hurt my job.I would be willing to be embarrassed.

Measures

Intentions to use a drug to pass

Imagine you were in the situation we just described. You expected an 80, but you received a 60 (100). Please imagine that there was a drug available to you that could help you focus and work for long period of time. The drug has side effects, such as increased heart rate, anxiety, and nausea, but it will definitely help you focus.

How likely are you to take this drug?

(1-7 Likert, Strongly Disagree/ Strongly Agree)

Measures

Intentions to use PS

“If it was available to me, I would use prescription stimulants to help me pass this test”


Measures

Intentions to use a drug seen in an Ad

I would be interested in finding out more about this drug.


Results

Sample

Sample N=282 college students from MTurk11 participants excluded

Mean age=23.8, SD= 6.05

52.5% male

73.8% Caucasian

Manipulation51.1% in goal violation, 48.9% in goal gain

Split on prior use of prescription stimulantsUsers (N=81), Nonusers (N=201)

Covariates

Used for all analysesGenderAcademic Satiation ScaleSensation Seeking

Results- Direct effects

Outcome Measure

Goal disruption Mean (SD)

Goal gain Mean (SD)

F, df, p η2


.699 (.731)2.01(2.1)

.402 (.653)1.49(1.9)

F(1,201)= 8.101, p=.005

.04


.614 (.692)1.85(1.9)

.388 (.615)1.47(1.85)

F(1,201)= 4.866, p=.029

.024

Intentions to use drug in ad

.726 (.691)2.07(1.9)

.538 (.684)1.71(1.9)

F(1,201)=2.942, p=.08

.015

Nonusers

N = 201 (N = 106, Goal disruption) (N = 95,Goal gain )

F(4, 201) = 2.740, p < .05; Pillai’s Trace = .041; partial η2 = .04

Results- MediationNonusers

β= -.183, t(201) =-2.846, p=.005

β= .230, t(201) =3.309, p=.001

β= -.147, t(201) =-2.311, p=.022

β= -.156, t(201) =-2.420, p=.016

*Bootstrapping 1,000 confirmed, 95% CI (Hayes,2012)


β= -.144, t(201) =-2.206, p=.029

β= .378, t(201) =5.621, p<.001

β= -.085, t(201) =-1.380, p=.169

β= -.156, t(201) =-2.420, p=.016



β= -.081, t(201) =-1.198, p=.233

β= .229, t(201) =3.110, p=.002

β= -.117, t(201) =-1.715, p=.088

β= -.156, t(201) =-2.420, p=.016


Results- Direct effects

Outcome Measure

Goal disruption Mean (SD)

Goal gain Mean (SD)

F, df, p η2


1.454 (.678)4.28(2.0)

1.180 (.781)3.25(2.2)

F(1,81)= 3.967, p=.05

.05


1.388 (.726)4.01(2.1)

1.077 (.805)2.94(2.2)

F(1,81)= 3.404, p=.069

.043

Intentions to use drug in ad

1.000 (.746)2.72(2.1)

1.000 (.738)2.72(2.1)

F(1,81)=.318, p=.574

.004

Users

N = 81 (N = 38, Goal disruption) (N = 43,Goal gain )

F(4,81) = 2.004, p =.121; Pillai’s Trace = .075; partial η2 = .075

Results- MediationUsers

β= -.055, t(81) =-.529, p=.599

β= .492, t(81) =4.429, p<.001

β= -.217, t(81) =-1.992, p=.05

β= -.329, t(81) =-3.263, p=.002


β= -.204, t(81) =-1.845, p=.069

β= .460, t(81) =3.992, p<.001

β= -.053, t(81) =-.491, p=.625

β= -.329, t(81) =-3.263, p=.002


β= .169, t(81) =1.459, p=.149

β= .322, t(81) =2.598, p=.011

β= .064, t(81) =.564, p=.574

β= -.329, t(81) =-3.263, p=.002

Discussion

When college students that have not used prescription stimulants experience a negative goal violation (failing a test), they are more likely to report intentions to use the drug and similar drugs in the future.

This process is mediated by willingness to take risks for the desired goal

Discussion

Support for GDT

Negative goal violation leads students to engage in risk taking behaviors, such as drug use, in order to reach their desired goal

Insight into motivations of initiation of prescription stimulant use

Goal Disruption Theory: Practical Application, Study 2

OutlineGoal Disruption Theory

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs

Current Study

Results

Discussion

Future Directions

Prescription drug advertising

“Any promotional effort by a pharmaceutical company to present prescription drug information to the general public in the lay media” (Wilkes, Bell, & Kravitz, 2000, p. 112)

Growing every year$55 million spent in 1991; $4 billion in 2005 400% increase

Fastest growing category in advertising

FDA only reviewed 32% of ads in 2004Down from 64% in 1999

(Donohue, Cevasco, & Rosenthal, 2007; Wilkes, Bell, & Kravitz, 2000; Shah, Holmes, & Desselle, 2003)

Pros and cons

Proliferation DTC ads led to debate in scientific, policy, & drug manufacturing circles

Supporters(drug

companies)

Detractors(physicians

& researchers)

Improve patient-doctor relations

No improved communication

Increase knowledge

No improved health outcomes

Increase awareness

Biased, incomplete info

(Gilbody, Wilson, & Wyatt, 2005; Stange, 2007)

Literature

Ads appeal to consumers, not medical professionals

Most common appeal: claims of effectiveness

86% of ads use rational arguments for drug use

Viewing of DTC ads not reliably associated with any health benefits

Relevance and reliability of ads drive their effect

(Bell et al., 1999; Bradley & Zito, 2007; Hoffman & Wilkes, 1999; West et al., 2004; Wilkes et al., 2007; Woloshin et al., 2007; Young, 2002)

Present studyLiterature is full of commentary, descriptive, & cross-sectional research; theoretically-driven, experimental hard to find

This study will use Goal Disruption Theory (GDT; Siegel, 2004;

2011; Siegel, 2012; Siegel, Crano, Alvaro et al., 2012) to elucidate a persuasive path pharmaceutical companies may use to manipulate consumers

GDT: goal status expectation violation psychological disequilibrium goal adaptation

Goal Adaptation: activation of means-ends beliefs, activation of means-end paths, narrowing of mental field, purposive behavior with goal of returning to equilibrium

Present studyMain idea: Viewed through a GDT lens, consumers can be manipulated to ignore side effects associated with a pharmaceutical drug via the following steps:

1) Violate an individual’s goal status expectations such that it leads to goal disruption

2) Immediately provide a certain path for relieving the disequilibrium in the form of a pharmaceutical drug.

3) Provide a means for obtaining the pharmaceutical drug (i.e., “ask your doctor”)

4) Inform the potential consumer of the side effects (as legally required) but only after taking steps 1,2, and 3

Focus on explaining why—intentionally or not—DTC drug ads are effective

NOT meant to make claims about current practices

Hypotheses

H1: Participants who are presented with the side effects at the beginning (vs. the end) of the ad will display more intentions to use the drug

H2: Participants who are presented with side effects at the beginning of the ad (vs. the end) will have more positive attitudes toward the advertisement

Sample

mTurk, $1.00 compensation

N = 105

46.8% female; 51.1% male

81.2% white

African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Multi-Race all < 5%

Method

2 (timing of side effect information: before/ after benefits) x 1 (Goal status: Disruption) between-subjects factorial design

Pretest

Randomly assigned to view 1 of 2 short ads:1. Goal disruption/side effects before benefits

2. Goal disruption/side effects after benefits

(Note: all ads indicated that the drug was 93% effective)

Pretest

Stability of self (5 items; a = 0.90)E.g., “My opinions about myself tend to change a good deal”; “Some days I have a very good opinion of myself; other days I have a very poor opinion of myself”

Mistrust of DTC advertising (2 items; a = 0.81)E.g., “Most prescription drug ads are deceptive”; “I disapprove of prescription drug advertising”

Other constructs measured, not included in the present analyses

Posttest

Intentions to use the drug (6 items; a = 0.92)E.g., “I intend to learn more about this drug”; “I intend on using this drug”

Attitudes toward the advertisement (4 items; a= 0.78)

E.g., “This ad was convincing”; “This ad was pleasant”

Also included other measures not used in the present analyses

Results – H1

MANOVA used to assess experimental effects

Significant main effect for placement of side effects on intentions to use the drug (F = 3.91, p < .05, h2 = .04)

Participants who were presented with the side effects at the end of the ad display greater intentions to use

the drug.

Results – H1DV: Behavioral intentions

Disruption1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

BeginningEnd

Side Effects Presented:

Results – H2

Significant main effect for placement of side effects on attitude toward the advertisement (F = 6.93, p < .01, h2 = .06)

Participants who were presented with the side effects at the end of the ad rated the

advertisement as more favorable.

Results – H2DV: Attitudes toward the ad

Disruption2

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4

4.4

4.8

BeginningEnd


Discussion

When people experience goal disruption, and they are presented with a potential solution to the disruption (i.e., a drug), they focus on its benefits and ignore the harms…

But only when side effects are presented at the end of the ad, after the benefits of

the drug

Implications

In the context of GDT, these data provide further evidence of the processes at work

Goal disruptions (and the psychological disequilibrium that can result) cause people to focus energy on regaining equilibrium—in this case, intending to use the drug, evaluating it positively

Due to this constricted focus, people view subsequent stimuli and potential future actions through a filter

This filter increases increases intentions to behave in purposive, goal-driven ways

Implications

Which, in the context of prescription drug ads means…

That decisions regarding prescription drugs may not be logical

Rather, they are dependent on the viewers’ level of goal satiation

When consumers are disrupted, they may ignore side effects and only focus on benefits

Do drug companies implicitly know this? Do they manipulate these things intentionally?

Future directions

Finalizing data analysis on two follow-up studies:Manipulate percentage that the drug is effective (e.g., 93% vs. 7%)

Use existing Cymbalta ad; manipulate when side effects are presented (e.g., before or after benefits)

A replication of the present study with industry standard drug ad

Readying data collection on two follow-up studies:

Manipulate the images that are shown while side effects vs. benefits are listed

Replicate the present findings in the context of a different drug

Goal disruption: The case of prescription drug ads

OutlineGoal Disruption Theory

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs

Current Study

Results

Discussion

Future Directions

Prescription drug advertising

“Any promotional effort by a pharmaceutical company to present prescription drug information to the general public in the lay media” (Wilkes, Bell, & Kravitz, 2000, p. 112)

Growing every year$55 million spent in 1991; $4 billion in 2005 400% increase

Fastest growing category in advertising

FDA only reviewed 32% of ads in 2004Down from 64% in 1999

(Donohue, Cevasco, & Rosenthal, 2007; Wilkes, Bell, & Kravitz, 2000; Shah, Holmes, & Desselle, 2003)

Pros and cons

Proliferation DTC ads led to debate in scientific, policy, & drug manufacturing circles

Supporters(drug

companies)

Detractors(physicians

& researchers)

Improve patient-doctor relations

No improved communication

Increase knowledge

No improved health outcomes

Increase awareness

Biased, incomplete info

(Gilbody, Wilson, & Wyatt, 2005; Stange, 2007)

Literature

Ads appeal to consumers, not medical professionals

Most common appeal: claims of effectiveness

86% of ads use rational arguments for drug use

Viewing of DTC ads not reliably associated with any health benefits

Relevance and reliability of ads drive their effect

(Bell et al., 1999; Bradley & Zito, 2007; Hoffman & Wilkes, 1999; West et al., 2004; Wilkes et al., 2007; Woloshin et al., 2007; Young, 2002)

Present studyLiterature is full of commentary, descriptive, & cross-sectional research; theoretically-driven, experimental hard to find

This study will use Goal Disruption Theory (GDT; Siegel, 2004; 2011; Siegel, 2012; Siegel, Crano, Alvaro et al., 2012) to elucidate a persuasive path pharmaceutical companies may use to manipulate consumers

GDT: goal status expectation violation psychological disequilibrium goal adaptation

Goal Adaptation: activation of means-ends beliefs, activation of means-end paths, narrowing of mental field, purposive behavior with goal of returning to equilibrium

Present studyMain idea: Viewed through a GDT lens, consumers can be manipulated to ignore side effects associated with a pharmaceutical drug via the following steps:

1) Violate an individual’s goal status expectations such that it leads to goal disruption

2) Immediately provide a certain path for relieving the disequilibrium in the form of a pharmaceutical drug.

3) Provide a means for obtaining the pharmaceutical drug (i.e., “ask your doctor”)

4) Inform the potential consumer of the side effects (as legally required) but only after taking steps 1,2, and 3

Focus on explaining why DTC drug ads are effective—NOT meant to make claims about current practices

Hypotheses

H1: Participants who are presented with the side effects at the beginning (vs. the end) of the ad will display more intentions to use the drug

H2: Participants who are presented with side effects at the beginning of the ad (vs. the end) will have more positive attitudes toward the advertisement

Sample

mTurk, $1.00 compensation

N = 105

46.8% female; 51.1% male

81.2% white

African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Multi-Race all < 5%

Method

2 (timing of side effect information: before/ after benefits) x 1 (Goal status: Disruption) between-subjects factorial design

Pretest

Randomly assigned to view 1 of 2 short ads:1. Goal disruption/side effects before benefits

2. Goal disruption/side effects after benefits

(Note: all ads indicated that the drug was 93% effective)

Pretest

Stability of self (5 items; a = 0.90)E.g., “My opinions about myself tend to change a good deal”; “Some days I have a very good opinion of myself; other days I have a very poor opinion of myself”

Mistrust of DTC advertising (2 items; a = 0.81)E.g., “Most prescription drug ads are deceptive”; “I disapprove of prescription drug advertising”

Other constructs measured, not included in the present analyses

Posttest

Intentions to use the drug (6 items; a = 0.92)E.g., “I intend to learn more about this drug”; “I intend on using this drug”

Attitudes toward the advertisement (4 items; a= 0.78)

E.g., “This ad was convincing”; “This ad was pleasant”

Also included other measures not used in the present analyses

Results – H1

MANOVA used to assess experimental effects

Significant main effect for placement of side effects on intentions to use the drug (MBeg = 1.99, MEnd = 2.50; F = 3.91, p < .05, h2 = .04)

Participants who were presented with the side effects at the end of the ad display greater intentions to use the

drug.

Results – H1DV: Behavioral intentions

Disruption1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

BeginningEnd


Results – H2

Significant main effect for placement of side effects on attitude toward the advertisement (MBeg = 3.60, MEnd = 4.24; F = 6.93, p < .01, h2 = .06)

Participants who were presented with the side effects at the end of the ad rated the

advertisement as more favorable.

Results – H2

Disruption2

2.4

2.8

3.2

3.6

4

4.4

4.8

BeginningEnd


DV: Attitudes toward the ad

Discussion

When people experience goal disruption, and they are presented with a potential solution to the disruption (e.g., a drug), they focus on its benefits and ignore the harms…

But only when side effects are presented at the end of the ad, after the benefits of

the drug

Implications

In the context of GDT, these data provide further evidence of the processes at work

Goal disruptions (and the psychological disequilibrium that can result) cause people to focus energy on regaining equilibrium—in this case, intending to use the drug, evaluating it positively

Due to this constricted focus, people view subsequent stimuli and potential future actions through a filter

This filter increases increases intentions to behave in purposive, goal-driven ways

Implications

Which, in the context of prescription drug ads means…

That decisions regarding prescription drugs may not be logical

Rather, they are dependent on the viewers’ level of goal satiation

When consumers are disrupted, they may ignore side effects and only focus on benefits

Do drug companies implicitly know this? Do they manipulate these things intentionally?

Future directions

Finalizing data analysis on two follow-up studies:Manipulate percentage that the drug is effective (e.g., 93% vs. 7%)

Use existing Cymbalta ad; manipulate when side effects are presented (e.g., before or after benefits)

A replication of the present study with industry standard drug ad

Readying data collection on two follow-up studies:

Manipulate the images that are shown while side effects vs. benefits are listed

Replicate the present findings in the context of a different drug

Goal Disruption Theory:Future Directions

Study 2

Knowledge

Loneliness

Adaptation Process

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Constriction

Socio-personal

Sensitivity

ParticipantsN = 183

Gender: 57% Female

Ethnicity: 77% Caucasian, 5% Hispanic, 6% Asian, 6% African-American

Single (not in an emotionally committed romantic relationship)

Adults (age M = 32)

mTurk respondents - $.60

Study 2

Measures

Perceived knowledge (6-item; α =.87)

When it comes to finding a romantic partner, I am knowledgeable

I know how to find my soul mate

Psychological Disequilibrium (5-item; α =.95)

I feel psychologically off-balance

I am mentally uneasy

Loneliness (UCLA Loneliness scale, 8 items ;α =.89)

There is no one I can turn to

I lack companionship

Measures

Need for Romance (Abridged 4-item; α =.74)

I need to find a romantic partner as soon as possible

I have been very persistent in looking for a romantic partner

Socio-Personal Sensitivity (5-item; α =.93)

I wonder why people treat me the way they do

I worry about other people talking about me

Constriction (5-item; α =.96)

I keep thinking the same thing over and over

No matter what I do, I keep thinking about the same thing

Correlations:

Knowledge

Loneliness

Need for

Romance

Psych Disequi

lib

Socio Per

Sensitivity

Constriction

Knowledge 1 -.478** -.246** -.381** -.309** -.224**

Loneliness 1 .554** .660** .591** .591**

Need for Romance 1 .355** .450** .401**

Psych Disequilibrium

1 .471** .705**

Socio PersonalSensitivity

1 .496**

Constriction 1

Results

Results

Knowledge

Loneliness

Need for

Romance


B SE(B) 1 Gender

Age .325*** -.059

-.306***

2 GenderAge

.402** -.065 -.302***

Knowledge .238**

3 GenderAge

.617*** -.020 -.255***

-.052-.026

.161

.006

Knowledge .023 .022 .066Loneliness .540*** 546 .069

Final Model : (F 4,182) = 29.661; p < .001Note: **p < .001, p*** < .0001

-.478***

.238** / .023

-.474***

Results

Knowledge

Loneliness

Constriction


B SE(B) 1 Gender

Age .249** -.129

-.186*

2 GenderAge

.343** -.134 -.182*

Knowledge .235**

3 GenderAge

.618*** -.084 -.130*

-.249-.015

.180

.007Knowledge .052 .056 .072Loneliness .594*** .672 .077

Final Model : (F 4,182) = 37,239; p < .001Note: **p < .001, p*** < .0001

.235** / .052

-.478***

-.474***

Results

Knowledge

Loneliness

Socio Personal

Sensitivity


B SE(B) 1 Gender

Age .136*** .037

-.375***

2 GenderAge

.225** .030 -.370***

Knowledge -.299***

3 GenderAge

.453*** .077 -.322***

.236-.043

.197

.008

Knowledge -.033 -.041 .079Loneliness .552*** .727 .084

Final Model : (F 4,182) = 60.016 p < .001Note: **p < .001, p*** < .0001

-.299*** / -.033

-.478***

-.474***

Results

Knowledge

Psychological

Disequilibrium Need

for Romanc

e


B SE(B) 1 Gender

Age .105*** -.059

-.306***

2 GenderAge

.162** -.065 -.302***

Knowledge .238**

3 GenderAge

.241*** -.038 -.300***

-.101-.030

.178

.007

Knowledge -.118 -.113 .068Psych Disequel .307*** .238 .055


-.381***

.238** / .023

.300***

Results

Knowledge

Psychological

Disequilibrium

Constriction


B SE(B) 1 Gender

Age .062** -.129

-.186*

2 GenderAge

.117* -.134 -.182*

Knowledge -.235**

3 GenderAge

.538*** -.073 -.177**

-.216-.020

.155

.006

Knowledge .042 .045 .059Psych Disequilib . 708*** .612 .048


-.381***

.238** / .023

.300***

Results

Knowledge

Psychological

Disequilibrium


B SE(B) 1 Gender

Age .136*** -.037

-.375***

2 GenderAge

.225*** .030 -.370***

Knowledge -.299***

3 GenderAge

.376*** -.067 -.367***

-229-.049

.210

.008

Knowledge -.134* -.167 .081Psych Disequilib . 423*** .427 .065


-.381***

-.299*** / -.134*

.300*** Socio

Personal Sensitivity

Conclusions Manipulation of goal expectations

Validity of scales for the model The impact of perceived knowledge

Future Research - How can we help individuals in

heightened drive state - Investigate further how individuals in

heightened drive state behave – persuasiveness, cognitive processing, etc.

Romantic Disruption

goal disruption theory: a tolmanian framework

Documents

goal violations

goal fluidity5 focus

goal adaptationthe mind

specific goalobject

causes of behavior

good opinion

poor opinion

different opinion