546 v. AFFECTI vE PROCESSES
additional resources they might bring to bear 
or alternative approaches to the problem. 
For such possibilities to influence expectan -
cies, their consequences must be evaluated, 
perhaps as behavioral scenarios (S. Taylor & 
Pham, 1996), leading to conclusions that af -
fect the expectancy (e.g., “If I try approach -
ing it this way instead of that way, it should 
work better”; “This is the only thing I can 
see to do, and it will just make everything 
worse”). It seems likely that mental simu -
lation engages the same mechanism as cre -
ates the sense of affect and confidence dur -
ing action. Playing through a scenario with 
a positive outcome yields faster perceived 
progress, and a more optimistic assessment. 
If the scenario is negative and hopeless, it 
implies further loss of progress, and further 
doubt.
Efforts and Giving Up
Whatever their source, expectancies influ -
ence subsequent behavior. If expectations for 
the desired outcome are favorable enough, 
the person renews effort. If doubts are strong 
enough, the result is an impetus to disengage 
from further effort, and even from the goal 
itself. Sometimes the disengagement is overt. 
Sometimes it is mental—  off-task thinking, 
daydreaming, wishful thinking, and so on. 
Often mental disengagement cannot be sus -
tained, as situational cues force one to re -
confront the obstacle and consequently the 
self- regulatory challenge. In such cases, the 
result is repetitive negative rumination, fo -
cusing on self-doubt and perceptions of in -
adequacy.
These two classes of responses to adver -
sity (effort vs. disengagement) form a di -
chotomy. One class involves continued com -
parisons between present state and goal and 
efforts at movement forward. The other in -
volves avoidance of comparisons, and quit -
ting (Gendolla, Wright, & Richter, 2012; 
Klinger, 1975; Richter, Gendolla, & Wright, 
2016; Wortman & Brehm, 1975). Behaviors 
ultimately flow to one or the other of these 
two. The theme of divergence in responses 
as a function of expectancies is an important 
one, applying to a surprisingly broad range 
of literatures (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Gen -
dolla et al., 2012; Richter et al., 2016).Expectancies Vary in  Specificity
The fact that goals vary in specificity—  from 
very general to very concrete and specific— 
suggests that people may have a comparable 
range of variations in expectancies (Armor 
& Taylor, 1998; Carver & Scheier, 1998). 
You can be confident or doubtful about 
having an interesting life, about not bor -
ing other people, about being able to speak 
clearly in public, or about buttoning your 
shirt correctly.
Which of these expectancies matter? 
Probably all of them. It is often assumed 
that behavior is predicted best when the 
specificity of the expectancy matches that 
of the behavior. Sometimes it is argued 
that prediction is best when taking into ac -
count several levels of specificity. But many 
outcomes in life have multiple causes, and 
people often face situations they have never 
experienced before. It may be that in this 
kind of circumstance, generalized expecta -
tions are particularly important (Scheier & 
Carver, 1985).
The same principles that apply to a fo -
cused sense of confidence also apply to gen -
eralized confidence: optimism versus pes -
simism. When we talk about optimism and 
pessimism, the sense of confidence is just 
more diffuse and broader in scope. Thus, 
when facing a challenge (any type of chal -
lenge), optimists should tend to be confident 
and persistent, assuming that the adversity 
can be handled in one way or another. Pessi -
mists should be more doubtful and hesitant, 
more ready to anticipate disaster. We return 
to this point later on.
Sometimes when people give up trying to 
reach a goal, they quit, and that is the end 
of it. Sometimes, however, something else 
happens. Sometimes when things are going 
poorly, expectancies of success are dim and 
people want to quit, but they do not quit al -
together. Rather, they swap the out-of-reach 
goal for a less demanding one, in a kind of 
limited disengagement. This limited disen -
gagement has an important positive conse -
quence: It lets people remain engaged in the 
general domain they had wanted to quit (or 
felt the need to quit). By scaling back (giving 
up in a small way), they keep trying to move 
ahead (thus not  giving up, in a larger way).