Expectancy-value Theory

Expectancy of success
• May be a stronger predictor of success than past performance

Task value
• (Perception as) important, useful, enjoyable
• Enhanced by favourable experiences
• Most important in choosing whether to learn something Overview of motivation theories

Social Influences

Cogni!ve Processes
• Percep!ons of environment
• A#ribu!ons for past events

Mo!va!onal Beliefs Mo!va!onal Beliefs

• Affec!ve • Goals
memories • Self-concept
• Perceived task
difficulty

Task Value Expectancy for

• Importance Success
• Interest
• Cost
• U!lity

Observable Behaviours
• Choice
• Engagement, effort, persistence
• Achievement, performance

Figure 1 Expectancy-value theory. This is a simplified version of Wigfield and Eccles’s theory; it does not contain all of the
details of their theory and blurs some subtle but potentially important distinctions. The key constructs of task value and
expectancy of success are influenced by motivational beliefs, which are in turn determined by social influences that are
perceived and interpreted by learner cognitive processes
 Attribution Theory

What do you attribute the cause of a behaviour to?

3 ‘dimensions’ of causes (attributions):
— ‘Locus’: Internal versus external causes
— Controllability: Do you have control or not?
— Stability: stable or unstable causes?
ok & A R Artino Jr
These attributions influence emotions, which then drive motivation…

Outcome nega#ve Outcome posi#ve
Frustrated Event and Outcome Happy

Outcome unexpected, important, or nega#ve

Seek Explana"on ("Scien"st")

Shaped by personal and
environmental condi!ons

Perceived Causes
Ability, effort, luck, task difficulty, mood, health,
other people, etc.

Causal Dimensions
Locus x Stability x Controllability
Internal / external Stable / unstable Controllable yes/no

Expectancy for Success

Affect / Emo"on Affect / Emo"on
Affect / Emo"on
Pride, self esteem Shame, guilt
Hopefulness

Observable Behaviours
• Choice
• Engagement, effort, persistence
• Achievement, performance

Attribution theory. This is a simplified version of Weiner’s theory; it does not contain all of the d
nd blurs some subtle but potentially important distinctions. The process begins with an event; if th
or positive, it will often directly elicit emotions (happiness or frustration) without any further act
s that are unexpected, negative or perceived as important will often awaken the inquisitive ‘na€ıve
dentify a causal explanation. The individual will interpret the outcome in light of personal and e
 Social-Cognitive Theory

Interactions between personal, behavioural and environmental:
— Products and producers of our environment
— Importance of self-regulation

Self-efficacy beliefs – ‘what I can do’
— Domain, task and context-specific
— Reinforced by success, enthusiasm and positive emotions Overview of motivation theo
— Verbal persuasion has limited influence

Pre-task
Self-Efficacy
• Past experiences
• Ap"tude
• Social support

Self-Efficacy for
Learning

Task Engagement Sources that Shape

Factors Self-Efficacy
• Purpose Efficacy Ac"vated • Mastery
• Difficulty Processes experience
• Strategy (during task) • Similar model
• Instruc"on • Cogni"on • Credible
• Feedback • Mo"va"on persuasion
• Model • Affect • Favourable
characteris"cs • Selec"on physiological
• Goals response and
• Rewards emo"ons
Self-Efficacy Cues
(during, a#er task)
• Performance
(outcomes,
pa$erns)
• A$ribu"ons
• Model
characteris"cs
• Feedback and
persuasion
• Physiological
response

e 3 Social-cognitive model of motivated learning. This is adapted from Schunk’s model of motivated learning; it
porates additional concepts from Bandura and other authors. Learners begin a learning task with pre-existing self
cy determined by past experiences, aptitudes and social supports. Learners can perform the task themselves or wa
(e.g. instructor or peer models) perform the task. During the task, self-efficacy, together with other personal and
onal factors, influences cognitive engagement, motivation to learn, emotional response and task selection. During
 Goal Orientation Theory

Mastery goals
— About new knowledge or skills – intrinsic value
— Stimulates interest and deep learning

Performance-approach goals
— About doing better than others
— Associated with better grades

Performance-avoidance goals:
— About avoiding failure or looking stupid
— Associated with poor outcomes

‘Self-Theories’
Implicit ‘theories’ we hold about ourselves (about our intelligence, personality, abilities etc…)
• Entity mindset: linked to performance goals
• Incremental mindset: linked to mastery goals
D A Cook & A R Artino Jr
• These mindsets aren’t black and white, and are domain and situation specific
• They change with age, and are teachable / reinforceable

En!ty Self-theory Incremental Self-theory

Implicit theories (En!ty Mindset) (Incremental Mindset)
learners have • Intelligence/ability is • Intelligence/ability is
about their own sta!c, gene!c changeable, learned
abili!es • Success comes from • Success comes from
talent effort
• Preserva!on a"tude • Growth a"tude

Performance Goals Mastery Goals

Goals learners • Look smart, avoid • Get smarter, master
unconsciously set failure new task
in achievement • Measure current • Measure occasion- /
tasks and future ability task-specific ability
• Need for effort = • Need for effort =
low ability hard task

Impact Impact
Outcomes • Failure seen as lack • Failure seen as
(a%ribu!ons, of ability opportunity to learn
a"tudes, and • Challenge = risk • Challenge = growth
ac!ons) (→ avoid challenge) (→ seek challenge)
• Helplessness • Mastery
• Withhold effort • Exert extra effort

Figure 4 Goal orientation theory and implicit theories of intelligence. This is a simplified illustration of Dweck’s theory; it
does not contain all of the details of her theory and blurs some subtle but potentially important distinctions. Learners tend
toward one of two implicit self-theories or mindsets regarding their ability. Those with an entity mindset view ability as
fixed, and because low performance or difficult learning would threaten their self-concept they unconsciously pursue
Self-Determination Theory

Intrinsic motivation
— You enjoy it; You’re interested by it; Develops a particular skill

Extrinsic motivation
— External rewards (money, good grades…); Avoid negative consequences (including
punishment); Competition
— External rewards decrease intrinsic motivation
D A Cook & A R Artino Jr

Extrinsic Intrinsic
Amo!va!on
Mo!va!on Mo!va!on

External Introjected Iden!fied Integrated Intrinsic

Non-Regula!on
Regula!on Regula!on Regula!on Regula!on Regula!on

Impersonal External Somewhat Somewhat Internal Internal

Apathy, External External Internal Values fully Pure interest,
no inten!on demands Compulsion, Consciously assimilated into curiosity,
(going through (reward, con!ngent self- valued goals self challenge,
the mo!ons) punishment) esteem, guilt enjoyment

Internalisa!on and Integra!on

RELATEDNESS COMPETENCE AUTONOMY

Enhanced by Enhanced by Enhanced by
• Respect, caring • Op!mal challenge • Choice
• Inclusive environment • Posi!ve performance • Explana!on / ra!onale
Basic • Security feedback • Acknowledgement of
Psychosocial feelings
Needs Undermined by Undermined by Undermined by
• Compe!!on • Excessive challenge • Tangible rewards
• Cri!cism • Nega!ve performance • Threats, deadlines
• Cliques, tradi!ons feedback • Imposed goals, control

Figure 5 Self-determination theory. This is adapted from Ryan and Deci’s theory. Self-determination theory hypothesises

three main motivation types: amotivation (lack of motivation), extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation, and six
‘regulatory styles’ (dark-background boxes). Intrinsic motivation (intrinsic regulation) is entirely internal, emerging from
pure personal interest, curiosity or enjoyment of the task. At the other extreme, amotivation (non-regulation) results in
inaction or action without real intent. In the middle is extrinsic motivation, with four regulatory styles that vary from
external regulation (actions motivated purely by anticipated favourable or unfavourable consequences) to integrated
regulation (in which external values and goals have become fully integrated into one’s self-image). The transition from
external to integrated regulation requires that values and goals become internalised (personally important) and integrated
(fully assimilated into one’s sense of self). Internalisation and integration are promoted (or inhibited) by fulfillment (or
non-fulfillment) of three basic psychosocial needs: relatedness, competence and autonomy

performance vary greatly. The motivation of a medi-
cal student who does his homework for fear of pun-
ishment is very different from motivation to learn
prompted by a sincere desire to provide patients
with optimal care. Deci and Ryan proposed that
these qualitative differences arise because of differ-
ences in the degree to which external forces have
been internalised and integrated (assimilated into
the individual’s sense of self). A second sub-theory,
organismic integration theory, explains these differ-
to act or only going through the motions) and extrin-
sic motivation in between (actions prompted by an
external force or regulation). Extrinsic motivation is
divided, in turn, into four levels that vary in the
degree to which the external regulation has been
internalised (taking in a value or regulation) and
integrated (further transformation of that regulation
into their own self).44,45 The lowest level is external
regulation: acting only to earn rewards or avoid pun-
ishment. Next is introjected regulation: acting to avoid