Conclusions Future Research

1. Most Motivated Coding Percentages Least Motivated Coding Percentages Measuring Cost: The Forgotten Component of Expectancy-Value Theory Jessica K. Flake1,Kenn E. Barron2, & Chris Hullemann3 University of Connecticut, James Madison University, and University of Virginia Abstract Expectancy-Value Theory offers one of the most influential models for understanding motivation. However, one component of this theory, cost, has been largely ignored in empirical research. The current study addresses this shortcoming by reviewing what is currently known about cost and proposing a new scale to measure it. Scale development was an iterative process guided by Benson’s framework of construct validation. We used an in-depth theoretical and measurement review, a qualitative study, and expert feedback to create a scale to measure the breadth of cost. M=f(E*V)-C? • Purpose & Background • Ecclesand colleagues (Eccles et al., 1983) have provided abundant evidence that motivation matters for student performance and persistence (Eccles et al., 1983; Eccles et al., 1989; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) • Where E= students’ subjective judgments of their ability to succeed and V= level of importance placed on succeeding at a task • Cost (what one has to sacrifice) was described as a type of value that can thwart motivation • Cost has been theorized as an important component of EVT, but empirical work has neglected to study it (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010) • Study objectives: • a) conduct a comprehensive literature review of cost with an emphasis on its measurement b) write a new scale to measure it that employees an in-depth development process • Theoretical Framework for Scale Development: • In the substantive phase of Benson’s model (1998) of construct validation researchers thoroughly examine theory and previous research to define the construct to be measured. Once the substantive phase is complete researches can study the scale’s psychometric properties and relationship with other variables of interest. An iterative process was used to thoroughly execute Benson’s substantive phase. • Study Iterations: • Review of literature to construct theoretical scale structure • Qualitative study to support and supplement theoretical scale structure and aide in item writing • Mapping of draft items by expert panel to ensure theoretical breadth and clarity • Iteration 1- Review Summary and Theoretical Scale Structure • Previous research supports Eccles’ original components, but also different conceptualizations (positive costs and task unrelated costs) • Created a broad, theoretical scale structure by defining cost as separate from value and free of valence, thus cost is not defined in terms of value or as negative • Created a subcomponent to capture effort that is outside of the task of interest • This broad structure was used as a coding scheme to explore the qualitative data in Iteration 2 • Iteration 3- Expert Review • Procedures: • After writing the initial pool of items, six content experts participated in a backward translation of the items (Dawis, 1987; Smith & Kendall, 1963). This method requires experts to map items to the theorized scale structure and provide feedback about the content of items. • Results: • Discussion: • Most items (93%) had greater than majority agreement, with 63% at complete agreement • Experts mapped many of the items to numerous components and they commented that the Psychological/Emotional component was incomplete • Items with low agreement were deleted and items were added to include greater breadth of negative affect (Linnenbrink-Garcia, Rogat, & Koskey, 2011) • Items that were evaluated as a blend of numerous components were removed Effort-Related 58% Other 25% P/E 17% Loss of Valued Alternatives 44% Effort-Related 42% P/E 9% Other 5% M=f(E,V) • Iteration 2- Qualitative Study • Participants and Procedures • College-aged students (N=123) participated in one of 29 focus groups. Students generated answers independently then shared with the group: • Think of the college class in which you were the most motivated, list reasons why • Think of the college class in which you were the least motivated, list reasons why • Two independent raters coded responses for the theorized subcomponents of cost through two rounds of coding. Discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion, so that overall agreement reached 100%. • Results/Discussion: • 735 responses were coded across both the most and least motivated portions of the qualitative study • In the most motivated responses, increased effort or work required and psychological effects were positive (a reason they were motivated) • When least motivated, student responses regarding effort and psychological states were negatively appraisals (too much work, stress) • Based on these results we reserved the label of “cost” for negative appraisals---Effort spent on a task can be motivating for a student by providing challenge and reward, but when it becomes too much or adverse in some way (e.g., causing stress) cost is activated • The appearance of Loss of Valued Alternatives Cost solely in the least motivated portion provides more evidence for this our interpretation ---When least motivated students frequently described giving up desired activities because of heavy workloads, a negative appraisal • Students negatively appraised a class when too little work was required of them, we termed that Not Enough Cost-- This finding coincides with theories of arousal (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi’s Flow Theory) and the need for proper balance • Though the qualitative study did not support the Effort-unrelated subcomponent suggested by the behavioral economics literature, we retained it---the specific instructions of Iteration 2 to consider one class may have limited students in considering other, outside tasks • Iteration1-Literature Review • Review of Eccles’ model and measurement over time • Cost was measured with a few items in the early 80’s and not reported on after • Costand its relationship with student outcomes is largely unknown (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). • More recent work by educational psychologists provides evidence that cost is salient to students, separate from other types of value, and related to course taking behavior and intention (Chen & Liu, 2009; Chiang et al., 2011; Conley, 2012; Luttrell et al., 2010; Watkinson et al., 2005) • Review of related I/O Psychology literature • EV model of motivation is present and applies to work place motivation (Sheppard, 1993) • Sacrifices made for the job can hinder or positively challenge an employee, not all sacrifices are negative to motivation, some invigorate productivity (Van den Broeck, De Cuyper, & De Witte, 2010) • Contextualizing cost in Behavioral Economics (BE) theory • The energy an individual has to put into a given activity can be impacted by the energy they expend for other activities (Madden, 2000) • Measuring task-unrelated effort could be essential in determining overall cost • Conclusions • Future Research • The scale need to progress through the next phase of Benson’s model (1998); the structural phase • Exploratory, confirmatory, and reliability analyses are needed to provide validity evidence for the scale • Future research beyond psychometrics should investigate the scales’ relation with E and V components, as well as with student outcomes; Benson’s external phase American Educational Research Association, Motivation SIG 2013