Beyond Goal Commitment: How Expectancy Shapes Means Evaluation Jocelyn J. Bélanger and Birga M. Schumpe New York University Abu Dhabi Marc-André K. Lafrenière McGill University Mauro Giacomantonio and Ambra Brizi Sapienza University of Rome Arie W. Kruglanski University of Maryland This article examines how expectancy of goal achievement influences the perceived instrumentality of means to a focal goal, above and beyond the influence of goal commitment. Based on goal-systems theory (Kruglanski et al., 2002, 2013), the present research found that expectancy of goal achievement positively predicts the perceived instrumentality of multifinal means, which compound value by fulfilling several goals simultaneously, and negatively predicts perceived instrumentality of counterfinal means, which afford greater expectancy of attaining a given goal, but are detrimental to alternative goals. Study 1 found correlational and Study 2 experimental evidence of this phenomenon. Study 3 evinced that expectancy of goal achievement was associated with the number of multifinal and counterfinal means generated for goal pursuit. Study 4 found that expectancy predicted whether people select to engage in multifinal (vs. counterfinal) means. Lastly, Study 5 demonstrated that concern for desirability versus feasibility is the mediating process whereby expectancy influences perceived means instrumentality. Keywords: goal-systems theory, means instrumentality, multifinality, counterfinality Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000031.supp Goals are an important facet of human life. Whether they are geared toward avoiding pain or approaching pleasure, goals are desired end- points that structure and guide our existence by influencing our evaluations, emotions, and be- haviors (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Fishbach & Ferguson, 2007; Gollwitzer & Moskowitz, 1996; Higgins & Kruglanski, 2000). Once ig- nited, goals initiate a force that compels us toward action by mobilizing and directing at- tentional resources toward means aimed at at- taining these goals (Campbell & Pritchard, 1976; Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989; Kruglanski et al., 2012; Pinder, 1984). In this sense, goal activation is only the beginning of goal-striving and choosing the appropriate means is vital for successful goal pursuit. When it comes down to choosing means, conventional wisdom has it that goal commit- ment is associated with excessive forms of be- havior. This belief is captured in the popular saying “the end justifies the means,” which is commonly interpreted to say that if a goal is important enough, then any means taken to at- tain it is justifiable, even if they are detrimental to other goals. And indeed, there is evidence for this perspective. For instance, Köpetz and col- leagues (Köpetz, Faber, Fishbach, & Kruglan- ski, 2011; see also Köpetz, Collado, & Lejuez, Jocelyn J. Bélanger and Birga M. Schumpe, Department of Psychology, New York University Abu Dhabi; Marc- André K. Lafrenière, Department of Psychology, McGill University; Mauro Giacomantonio and Ambra Brizi, De- partment of Developmental and Social Psychology, Sapi- enza University of Rome; Arie W. Kruglanski, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Jocelyn J. Bélanger, New York University Abu Dhabi, A2 1109, P.O. Box 129188, Abu Dhabi, UAE. E-mail: jocelyn.belanger@nyu.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Motivation Science © 2016 American Psychological Association 2016, Vol. 2, No. 2, 67– 84 2333-8113/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000031 67