Predictors of Coping With Expectation Violation: An Integrative Review

Abstract

The present review investigates factors that predict three processes that lead to persistence versus change of expectations after confrontation with expectation violations, based on the violated expectation (ViolEx) model and related models. We address four groups of predictors: (a) characteristics of the expectation, (b) characteristics of the expectation-violating event(s), (c) broader situational characteristics, and (d) personality characteristics. The bulk of studies conducted in this area looked at expectation change in the direction of the experienced violation (accommodation) as their central dependent variable. The strongest empirical support was found for accommodation being less likely and minimizing of the potential impact of the discrepant information (immunization) being more likely to occur (a) after the reality turns out to be worse rather than better than expected, (b) if disconfirming events are more ambiguous, and (c) if depressed rather than healthy people are confronted with better-than-expected events. Given the high heterogeneity between studies on assessed predictors, we recommend a more comprehensive and unifying approach that tests the relative impact and the interplay of the whole range of predictors across paradigms.

A Revised Framework for the Investigation of Expectation Update Versus Maintenance in the Context of Expectation Violations: The ViolEx 2.0 Model

“…In the following paragraphs, we will elaborate on these mechanisms with some examples. For a more comprehensive review, see Pinquart et al (2021b) .…”

“…To this point, the roles of personality traits in expectation-relevant cognitions and behaviors have been investigated in separate lines of research without exchange between the fields. Although it is theoretically plausible that broad meta-traits exist ( DeYoung, 2015 ) that predict accommodation or immunization tendencies across expectation types as well as external anticipatory reactions ( Hirsh et al, 2009 ), this has not been tested systematically yet ( Pinquart et al, 2021b ).…”

“…If immunization is not successful, assimilation attempts will be undertaken given that self-efficacy expectations are sufficiently strong. If assimilation strategies fail in avoiding further expectation violations – or are deemed non-effective in the first place – individuals will resort to accommodation ( Brandtstädter and Greve, 1994 ; Pinquart et al, 2021b ).…”

Expectation violations, expectation change, and expectation persistence: The scientific landscape as revealed by bibliometric network analyses

“…Gollwitzer et al, 2018;Rief et al, 2015). In addition, research indicates that expectation violations are of central relevance for many domains of psychology (Pinquart, Endres, et al, 2021;Pinquart, Rothers, et al, 2021), as they very often enable individuals to detect ongoing deviations from internally represented goals (Roese & Sherman, 2007), to adapt goal-directed behavior (Holroyd & Coles, 2002), and to regulate experience in line with situational characteristics (Clark, 2013;Panitz et al, 2021;Pinquart, Endres, et al, 2021), for instance, when actions fail to lead to expected outcomes (cf. Sambrook & Goslin, 2015).…”

“…For instance, rigid, negative expectations have been identified as one essential factor involved in the development and chronicity of mental disorders (Craske et al, 2014). However, the precise cognitive (Pinquart, Rothers, et al, 2021) and neural (D'Astolfo & Rief, 2017) mechanisms that underlie coping with expectation violations remain controversial. Research on coping with expectation violations has been conducted in several fields of psychology (e.g., general, social, or consumer psychology; Pinquart, Endres, et al, 2021) and with varying theoretical and empirical foci (e.g., neurophysiological processes: D'Astolfo & Rief, 2017; expectation persistence versus change: Panitz et al, 2021; coping with associated negative emotions: .…”