High Expectations, Low Outcomes: Exploring Coping Mechanisms and Psychological Adaptation

Notice

This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.

Year : 2025 | Volume : 02 | 02 | Page :
    By

    Madhvi Prasad,

  1. Assistant Professor, Amrita Darshanam ICSS, Amrita School of Engineering, Amrita Vishwa vidyapeetham, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Abstract

This review paper explores the psychological impact of high expectations and low outcomes, focusing on coping mechanisms to manage the resulting emotional and mental challenges. The anticipation of a guaranteed future often elevates self-esteem and brings a state of emotional ecstasy. When individuals perceive the future in alignment with their personal terms and conditions, they experience heightened happiness and acceptance of life. This sense of assurance often influences risk-taking capacity, leading individuals to be less calculative and strategic in their decision-making processes. A study by Damen (2019) found that when outcomes are certain and not delayed, the tendency to take risks is higher. While both genders exhibit interest in future expectations, differences arise in how they handle outcomes. Setting high expectations for a goal is a positive psychological indicator of commitment. However, the adverse effects of unmet expectations must be studied to address the psychological distress they cause. Individuals must recognize that expectations do not always translate into desired results, and mental preparedness is essential for managing setbacks. A lack of such preparedness can lead to severe psychological consequences, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal tendencies. This study examines coping strategies for managing the psychological impact of unmet expectations in various high-stakes scenarios, such as academic performance, relationships, and career goals. Coping mechanisms are influenced by situational factors, environmental conditions, and available support systems. By analyzing these variables, the study aims to provide practical strategies for resilience-building. A key focus of this study is the concept of multiple expectation sources—a framework that encourages individuals to diversify their goals and aspirations. By generating multiple pathways for success, individuals can mitigate the psychological burden of a single failed expectation. This approach brings adaptability, it ensures that setbacks in one domain do not lead to complete emotional breakdowns. Overall, this research contributes to understanding the psychological resilience needed in high-risk, high-expectation environments. It offers insights into preventative measures for emotional distress, physical burnout, and mental exhaustion. By equipping individuals with strategic decision-making skills, clarity of thought and backup planning methods, this study aims to promote long-term psychological well-being and adaptive coping strategies.

Keywords: Trauma, Coping Mechanisms, Expectations, Resilience, Psychological adaptations, Self-esteem, Risk analysis, Gender perspectives

How to cite this article:
Madhvi Prasad. High Expectations, Low Outcomes: Exploring Coping Mechanisms and Psychological Adaptation. International Journal of Trends in Humanities. 2025; 02(02):-.
How to cite this URL:
Madhvi Prasad. High Expectations, Low Outcomes: Exploring Coping Mechanisms and Psychological Adaptation. International Journal of Trends in Humanities. 2025; 02(02):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijth/article=2025/view=215812


References

  1. Bailey, C. (2021). Exploring Lived Experience. Digital Education and Learning, 89–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78694-6_3
  2. Bergson, H. (2022). Creative Evolution. Taylor & Francis Group.
  3. Crisson, J. E., Seta, J. J., & Seta, C. E. (1995). The Influence of Expectations on Task Performance in Audience and Solitary Settings. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1703_5
  4. de Lange, F. P., Heilbron, M., & Kok, P. (2018). How Do Expectations Shape Perception? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(9), 764–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.06.002
  5. Damen, T. G. E. (2019). Sense of Agency as a predictor of risk-taking. Acta Psychologica, 197, 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.04.015
  6. Feenberg, A. (2007). BETWEEN REASON AND EXPERIENCE. DANISH YEARBOOK of PHILOSOPHY, 42(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1163/24689300_0420102
  7. Geen, R. G. (1989). Alternative conceptions of social facilitation. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 15–51). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  8. Hubbard, B. M. (1998). Conscious Evolution: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential.
  9. Millgram, Y., Sheppes, G., Kalokerinos, E. K., Kuppens, P., & Tamir, M. (2019). Do the ends dictate the means in emotion regulation? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(1), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000477
  10. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What Women and Men Should Be, Shouldn’t be, Are Allowed to be, and don’t Have to Be: the Contents of Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
  11. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash toward Agentic Women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239
  12. Schwarzer, R., & Taubert, S. (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and striving toward personal growth: Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions, and challenges (pp. 19–35). Oxford University Press.
  13. Sharron, A. (1985). The Mainstream of Consciousness: An Interactions Analysis of a Phenomenological Concept. Symbolic Interaction, 8(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1985.8.1.47
  14. Ślebarska, K., & Soucek, R. (2020). Change of organizational newcomers’ unmet expectations: Does proactive coping matter? PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0243234. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243234
  15. Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping Resources, Coping Processes, and Mental Health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3(1), 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091520
  16. Hoffman, H. G., Richards, T. L., Coda, B., Bills, A. R., Blough, D., Richards, A. L., & Sharar, S. R. (2004). Modulation of thermal pain-related brain activity with virtual reality: evidence from fMRI. NeuroReport, 15(8), 1245–1248. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000127826.73576.91
  17. Kasl, E., & Yorks, L. (2015). Do I Really Know You? Do You Really Know Me? Empathy Amid Diversity in Differing Learning Contexts. Adult Education Quarterly, 66(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615606965
  18. Licorish, R. F. (1912). M. BERGSON’S ” CREATIVE EVOLUTION ” THE NERVOUS SYSTEM IN ORGANIC EVOLUTION. The Lancet, 179(4615), 391–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(00)78380-2
  19. Kung, G., Smith, D. W., & McIntyre, R. (1988). Husserl and Intentionality: A Study of Mind, Meaning and Language. Noûs, 22(1), 158. https://doi.org/10.2307/2215565
  20. van Manen, M. (2018). Rebuttal Rejoinder: Present IPA For What It Is—Interpretative Psychological Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 28(12), 1959–1968. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318795474
Ahead of Print Subscription Review Article
Volume 02
02
Received 09/06/2025
Accepted 09/06/2025
Published 01/07/2025
Publication Time 22 Days
301

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics