1. When Expecting the Worst is for the Best
Benefits of Pessimism at the Moment of Truth
Kate Sweeny, PhD
Department of Psychology

2. Acknowledgements James Shepperd Zlatan Krizan
Collaborator
University of Florida
Zlatan Krizan
Collaborator
Iowa State University
Sara Andrews, Mike Dooley, & Angelica Falkenstein
Current graduate students
University of California, Riverside
Chandra Reynolds
Collaborator
University of California, Riverside

4. Embracing negative thinking
Bracing for the worst
Meta-analysis:
71 samples, 3,451 Ps
(distant) – (proximal)
d = .40, 95% CI [.36, .45]
(Sweeny & Krizan, 2013)
(from Shepperd et al.,1996)

5. Overview Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Students awaiting a midterm grade
Law graduates awaiting bar exam results
Study 3
California voters awaiting election results

6. Study 1 Method 77 students in a psychology course
2 questionnaires (within-subject):
Moment of truth (pre): Grade estimate, negative affect
After news (post): Actual grade, negative affect
Questions:
Is pessimism costly at the moment of truth?
Multiple regression predicting affect (pre) from grade estimate, controlling for actual grade
Is pessimism beneficial following news?
Multiple regression predicting affect (post) from grade estimate, controlling for actual grade and affect (pre)
(Sweeny & Shepperd, 2010)

7. Study 1 Results Is pessimism costly at the moment of truth?
Conclusion: Pessimism has minimal cost at the moment of truth.
Is pessimism beneficial following news?
β = .40, p < .0001
Conclusion: Pessimism confers benefit once the news arrives.
(Sweeny & Shepperd, 2010)

8. Study 2 Method
230 law graduates taking the July 2013 California bar exam
10 questionnaires (within-subject):
Before exam: Trait and baseline measures
Waiting period (8 questionnaires): Outcome prediction, expectation strategies (bracing, optimism)
After news: “Denial”, unpleasant surprise (if failed); pleasant surprise (if passed)
Question: Does pessimism improve reactions to failure and success?
(Sweeny, Reynolds, Falkenstein, Andrews, & Dooley, under review)

9. Study 2 Results Multiple regressions predicting outcomes from…
Average outcome prediction (controlling for baseline prediction)
Average bracing (controlling for defensive pessimism)
Average optimism (controlling for dispositional optimism)
Gratitude = Better than I deserved
(Sweeny, Reynolds, Falkenstein, Andrews, & Dooley, under review)

10. Response to Failing (n = 33) Response to Passing (n = 184)
Study 2 Results
Response to Failing (n = 33)
Response to Passing (n = 184)
Denial β (95% CI)
Active Responding β (95% CI)
Unpleasant Surprise β (95% CI)
Pleasant Surprise β (95% CI)
Outcome prediction
.39* (.08, .70)
-.33* (-.66, -.01)
.25 (-.08, .58)
-.53* (-.73, -.32)
Bracing
-.24 (-.59, .11)
.39* (.03, .75)
-.14 (-.51, .23)
.49* (.36, .62)
Optimism
.28* (.07, .49)
-.03 (-.28, .22)
.27* (.04, .49)
-.04 (-.21, .14)

11. Study 3 Method 158 California voters
5 questionnaires (within-subject):
Baseline: Outcome preference, prediction
Prior to Election Day: Outcome prediction
After election: Voting behavior, disappointment
Question: Is a shift toward pessimism beneficial for responses to a disappointing election outcome?
Latent growth curve modeling predicting voting behavior and disappointment from slope of predictions
(Krizan & Sweeny, 2013)

12. Study 3 Results Is a shift toward pessimism beneficial?
Steeper slope = less disappointment
b = 2.94, SE = 1.27, p < .05
Conclusion: Supporters who maintained optimism were more disappointed when the Proposition failed.
BUT…
Steeper slope = less likely to vote (57% voted)
b = .92, SE = .44, p < .05
Conclusion: Maintaining optimism is motivating but emotionally costly if the news is bad.
(Krizan & Sweeny, 2013)

13. Summary A dose of pessimism at the moment of truth:
Carries little emotional cost in the moment (but may have motivational costs)
Buffers disappointment over failure
Enhances pleasure over success

14. Thank you!