Expectancy-value theory argues that expectations for success and perceived task value are strong predictors of academic choices, learning, and achievement. More specifically, expectancies for success often precede value and are better predictors of achievement, while task values better predict academic choices (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patell, 2014).
This theory is well suited to both examine and explain numerous relationships involving different predictor variables and achievement outcomes. Its framework acknowledges the complex relationship between social factors (e.g., culture), cognitive processes (e.g., attributions), and motivational beliefs (e.g., goals, self schemas) that affects both expectancies and perceived value and thus achievement outcomes (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patell, 2014; Wigfield, Tonks, & Klauda, 2016). In this way, expectancy-value theory serves as a robust framework for examining a variety of predictors and outcomes.
On the other hand, the actual interaction between expectancies and values could be better explained. For example, Linnenbrink-Garcia and Patell (2014) note, “expectancies and values may not simply work to additively and independently predict academic outcomes” (p.92). The effect of one seems to be stronger when the other is high, but neither can compensate for when the other is low. If the relationship is not additive, is there another way of explaining the relationship that works better? Furthermore, expectancies are thought to precede value, but this is not always the case, particularly for females (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patell, 2014). The theory could better explain the interaction between expectancies and value to shed light on situational or cognitive factors that determine which one precedes the other.
I noticed the same tension about expectancy-value theory. The breaking down of constructs into parts, and breaking those parts into parts, has both power and serious limitations when it comes to understanding motivation. In theory, complex models that take into account interactions between many sub-constructs may explain a lot of variation from a statistical point of view. But what would such complex models tell us about practical steps to take in education? Moreover, I found it interesting that of the three paragraphs Linnenbrink-Garcia and Patall (2015) include about research involving expectancy-value theory, two centered on the highest level constructs (expectancies and values) and the third on subparts of a sub-construct (cost). This leaves me wondering if the complex models will be produced at all.
Hi Katie – I definitely agree with you regarding the trade-off of breaking down constructs into parts and those parts into smaller parts. I like your comment about the statistical point of view – it does make our lives easier in that sense. However, I always have practical implications in mind as I would want to know how these findings affect me as a teacher. As you say, the complexity makes it difficult to determine what to focus on for steps to take. I think researchers using these theories should keep that in mind and really think about what the goal of their research is – to contribute to theory and build a knowledge base or to affect change in the classroom. I don’t think one is necessarily better than the other, but it is important that researchers are aware of what they are striving for.
Hi Kimberly,
One thing that struck out to me was the idea of expectancy and value predicting outcomes differently depending on various factors (i.e. females versus males, context). You briefly mentioned the influence of culture on expectancy-value outcomes. This made me think about the variability in cultural differences on motivational outcomes. While Linnenbrink-Garcia and Patall (2014) state that researchers have often focused on identifying racial/ethnic differences on motivation outcomes, I am interested in understanding *how* people from different racial/ethnic backgrounds respond to motivation interventions (as motivation interventions are becoming increasingly important). For instance, are values *or* expectancies more (or less) important in a motivation intervention design depending on someone’s cultural background? I think this question is important considering that there are individual (and group) differences in responses to stimuli.
Hi Krystal – Good Point! Since identity is multi-faceted, one aspect of identity might become more salient in different context. For example, “woman” might be most salient in one context and “black” might be more salient in another. Then, of course, these interact. It would also be interested to know how different people respond to interventions as well *and* if their responses to the same intervention remained consistent in different settings.
Hi Kimberly, your critique of the ambiguous relationship between the two main constructs, expectancy and values, is one that resonates with my concerns about the limitations of E-V theory. E-V theory relies on a tenuous relationship between two poorly-defined and highly interpretive constructs– an individual’s values and an individual’s expectations of outcomes. It’s difficult to accurately gauge an individual’s task value on one dimension alone– there is a discrepancy between an individual’s professed task-valuation and actual task-valuation, especially when it comes to competing values. The utility of Value-Expectancy theory is so dependent on individual perceptions about effort, performance and the valuation of task outcomes are difficult to quantify so comparisons between different choices or people using the expectancy theory framework may not be accurate (Wabba, 1974).
On another note, there has been some research that modifies the original E-V model by distinguishing between the different types of tasks/goals and their outcomes on expected success. In other words, when we add another dimension to how “value” is defined– whether the individual values the task/goal as an opportunity to achieve or improve, rather than an important responsibility or a means of obtaining security– we may be able to gain greater clarity on the relationship between an individual’s value, expectations, and subsequent goal commitment.
“The authors propose that a promotion focus involves construal of achievement goals as aspirations whose attainment brings accomplishment. Commitment to these accomplishment goals is characterized by attempts to attain the highest expected utility. In contrast, a prevention focus involves construal of achievement goals as responsibilities whose attainment brings security. Commitment to these security goals is characterized by doing what is necessary. The different nature of commitment to accomplishment goals versus security goals is predicted to influence the interactive effect of goal expectancy and goal value on goal commitment, as evident in both task performance and decision making.”
Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy× value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(3), 447.
Wabba, M. A., & House, R. J. (1974). Expectancy theory in work and motivation: Some logical and methodological issues. Human Relations, 27(2), 121-147.
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)