• Home
  • What is a Goal Disruption?
  • Model of the Theory
  • Goal Disruption Resources
  • Disruption Lab
  • Publications
  • Presentations
  • References
Goal Disruption Theory: A Theoretical Startup

State of the Goal

      Goal disruption theory makes a distinction between abstract and concrete goals, such that extremely abstract goals, like a self-identity goal (i.e., to be a scholar), cannot ever be fully achieved (Fujita and MacGregor, 2012; Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982). A distinction is also made between long-term and short-term goals with the main distinction lying in when one expects to have attained goal-relevant rewards—if the goal is more long-term and abstract, a violation may be less likely to cause a disruption because the person is not expecting immediate attainment.  Individuals "should select these goals for themselves that target outcomes that satisfy their needs or motives; moreover, when these outcomes have features that suggest a strong incentive value, this should further strengthen a persons readiness to commit to the goal in question” (Gollwitzer, Kappes, & Oettingen, 2012, p. 118). When the incentive value of goal attainment is higher, there is increased willingness to strive for a goal when confronted with difficulty (Brehm & Self, 1989; Liberman & Forster, 2012; Wright, 1996). Wicklund & Gollwitzer (1982) found that commitment to one’s goal is a determinant of whether efforts toward it are increased in the face of failure.  If one is only weakly committed to a goal, disengagement is more likely when encountering a shortcoming or violation. 
         Different reference points of one’s distance to the goal (glass half full v. glass half empty) provide different consequences for action (e.g., Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Carver & Scheir, 1999; Fishbach, Zhang, & Koo, 2009). Individuals place higher value on a near future reward than on a distant future reward, even if the distant future reward may be larger (e.g., Ainslie & Haslam, 1992; Fishbach & Trope, 2001; Loewenstein & Elster, 1992; Mischel, 1974; Read et al., 1999).  So, the closer one believes that they are to a goal, the more valued the goal will be, but as temporal distance increases, the probability of attainment decreases and uncertainty increases (Liberman & Forster, 2012), lowering the value and feasibility of the goal.

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.