Publications

As noted in the title, goal disruption theory is best referred to as a theoretical start-up. A couple of pieces have been published, but the studies experimentally assessing the key model components are currently under review. 
The very initial theorizing about the framework was put forth as part of my dissertation (Siegel, 2004), which was the first time I dove into the work of Tolman and his conceptualization of disruption. 
Siegel, J. T. (2004). The imaginary audience, the personal fable, and a rival hypothesis: An alternative explanation for behavior typical of adolescence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.’
After years of reading, theorizing, and working with very dedicated graduate students, a couple of initial studies were conducted. Two articles (Lewandowski, Rosenberg, Parks, & Siegel, 2011; Siegel, 2011) and one chapter (Siegel et al., 2012), all using cross-sectional data were published while the theory was being developed. 
Lewandowski, J., Rosenberg, B. D., Parks, M. J., & Siegel, J. T. (2011). The effect of informal social support: Face-to-       face versus computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1806-1814.
Siegel, J. (2011). Dying for romance: Risk taking as purposive behavior. Psychology, Health, &  Medicine, iFirst, 1-8.
Siegel, J.T., Crano, W.D., Alvaro, E.A., Lac, A, Rast, D. & Kettering, V. (2012). Dying to be popular: Why do  
       adolescents go to extremes? In M. A. Hogg & Blaylock, D. (Eds.), Extremism and the psychology of uncertainty.
        Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell. 
Initial development of the framework continued until the end of 2011. Once again, my graduate students were instrumental in helping me bring together decades of work in many disparate literatures. At that time, the theory was given a name and experiments assessing the framework began. I was offered an opportunity to write a chapter for a book on organ donation, a topic to which I have also devoted much pontificating. I realized that the goal disruption theory could offer insight into how people respond when they are diagnosed with renal failure and when other goal expectancy violations occur (e.g., no one coming forward to be a living donor). This chapter (Siegel, 2013) represents the most formal presentation of the theory to date. It is applied to the realm of living donation, but the framework is put forth in its entirety. Recently, a manuscript was accepted for publication that also offers an explanation of GDT (Rosenberg, Lewandowski, & Siegel, 2015). The data are cross-sectional, and only one piece of the theory is examined, but the majority of the framework is presented in the article.

Within the past few years, the theory, and our experiments accessing the theory, took a giant leap forward. We conducted three experiments that show purposive harm endurance increases as a result of an unexpected goal violation (Siegel & Navarro, under review), and four experiments that show the unique influence of an unexpected goal violation compared to an expected goal frustration (Siegel & Navarro, under review). We conducted three experiments assessing the applied utility of theory and revealed that unexpected goal violations lead students to be more willing to use prescription stimulants (Lyrintzis & Siegel, under review). We also conducted a follow-up (Rosenberg & Siegel, in press), which showed that a few sentences about unexpected violations placed in a prescription drug ad increased participants’ psychological disequilibrium, which led them to be more willing to hurt themselves for the drug, and that led to more favorable evaluations of the drug and the ad. Another paper (Navarro & Siegel, in preparation) revealed that unexpected goal violations are perceived as more threatening and make people feel more vulnerable than those experiencing an expected frustration. Another paper, also close to submission (Siegel & Lyrintzis, in preparation), offers additional evidence of the unique influence of unexpected violations, compared to expected frustrations, on psychological disequilibrium. 
Rosenberg, B. D., Lewandowski, J. A., & Siegel, J. T. (2015). Goal disruption theory, military personnel, and the 
       creation of merged profiles: A mixed-method investigation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9, 51-69.
Siegel, J. T. (2013). Illuminating the psychological processes associated with renal failure diagnosis and 
        living donation considerations: An application of Goal Disruption Theory. In Lauri, M. (Ed.), Organ Donation 
        and Transplantation – An Interdisciplinary Approach.
Rosenberg, B. D. & Siegel, J. T. (in press) The effect of inconsistency appeals on the influence of
       direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements: An application of goal disruption theory. Journal of        
​       Health Communication.
Lyrintzis, E. A. & Siegel, J. T. (n.d.).  Academic failure, purposive harm, and prescription stimulants: An 
      experimental illustration of goal disruption theory. Manuscript under review.
Siegel, J. T. & Lyrintzis, E. A. (n.d.). Development and validation of a brief measure of psychological 
       disequilibrium. Manuscript in preparation.
Siegel, J. T. & Navarro, M. A. (n. d.). Purposive harm endurance and experimental assessment. Manuscript in preperation.
Siegel, J. T. & Navarro, M. A. (n. d.). Unexpected goal violations as a unique form of frustration: An 
       empirical assessment of goal disruption theory. Manuscript in preperation.