critica teoria asteptarilor vroom
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
1/13
A Test of TwoPostulates
Underlying
xpectancy Theory^
FREDERICK A. STARKE
University of Manitoba
ORLANDO BEHLING
Ohio State University
The descriptive accuracy of two of the axioms under
lying expectancy theory independence and transitivity
is examined. It was found that many individuals did not
make work effort decisions in a manner consistent with
these normative postulates. The implications for the
predictive accuracy of expectancy theory are discussed.
In recent years, a great deal of effort has been directed at gaining an
improved understanding of the processes through which individuals come
to expend varying levels of effort in on-the-job situations. A predictable out-
come of this emphasis has been the proliferation of motivation theories,
some of which (7, 14) simply identify important variables while others
( 1 , 23) propose various interactions among the defined variables. Campbell,
Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (3) label the former as content theories and
the latter as process theories.
Within the process group, expectancy theory recently has been dominant.
Vro om s (2 3 ) definitive statem ent of expectancy theory proposes th at in-
dividual effort expenditures are a function of the desirabilities of certain
outcom es and the individual s estimate tha t these desired ou tcomes can b e
attained. Specifically, there are three im porta nt variables in V room s pro -
posal: instrumentality, valence (two types), and expectancy.
Instrumentality is the subjective belief by an individual that certain
outcomes lead to the attainment of other outcomes. It is thus an outcome-
outcome measure and ranges from 1 (belief that a second outcome is
attainable without the first outcome) through 0 (belief that there is no
relationship between the first outcome and a second outcom e) to + 1
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
2/13
704 cademy of Management Journal December
(belief that the outcome in question is necessary and sufficient for achieve-
ment of a second outcome).
Tw o types of valence exist in V room s form ulation. Th e valence of
possible outcomes (such as status and recognition, which are usually
positively valent, and working long hours, which is usually negatively val-
en t) is labelled Vki the valence of ac tual job perform ance is labelled Vj. T he
valence of job perform ance is hypothesized to be the result of a mu ltiplicative
interac tion between (a ) the individual s subjective perce ption tha t certain
job activities will facilitate achievement of desired outcomes and (b) those
outcom es viewed as desirable by the individua l. Specifically, th e interaction
is as follows:
J^
where Vj = the valence of perform ance level j
Ijk = the instrumen tality of outco m e j for the attainme nt
of outcome k
Vk = the valence of outco m e k
n = the num ber of outcomes
Expectancy is defined as a momentary belief of an individual that an act
on his part will be followed by a given outcome. The value of the ex-
pectancy associated with any action-outcome pair may range from 0 (no
relationship perceived) to + 1 (comp lete certainty that the performance of
the act will result in the outcome). Vroom hypothesizes that expectancy
com bines multiplicatively with the valence of job performance as follows:
where Fi = the force (m otiv atio n) to perform act i
Eij = the strength of the expectancy that outcome j will
follow from act i
Vj = the valence of outco m e j
n = the num ber of outcomes
The individual cognitively analyzes the alternatives open to him and per
forms the act with the greatest positive or smallest negative force.
Other researchers have elaborated and extended the basic Vroom model
Of these elaborations and extensions, five models are most widely known
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
3/13
1975 Volume 18, Number 4 705
Recently, a number of writers (2, 15, 16, 24) have questioned many of
the features and assumptions inherent in Vroom's basic expectancy model.
Criticisms of the theory range from concerns about the manner in which
the variables are conceptualized to questions abou t the descriptive accuracy
of the assumptions underlying expectancy theory. The research described
here pursues the line of questioning the descriptive accuracy of the norma-
tive postulates underlying expectancy theory.
Both Vroom's original expectancy statement and the elaborations and
refinements proposed by others place heavy emphasis on the expectancy
core,
i.e., the hypothesized 2(Ei]Vj) relationship which purportedly
predicts effort. This central core is actually a work motivation variant of
the subjective expected utihty (SEU) theory of decision making (20) and
the likelihood th at it can be achieved before coming to a level-of-effort
decision. The mathematical similarity between SEU theory and expectancy
theory is evident when the formal statement of each is presented:
SEU Theory Expectancy Theory
I
(P.U ) Exp ectedlevelofeffort= I
= the prob ^bn ity of ^^^ ^ ^ ^ = the probab ility that act
outcom e i occurring
'
^ '
'^' ^^
' ^'^^ ' ^^
U. = the subjectively per- ^^ ^ * ^^ ^'^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
ceived utihty of
outcome i
Vroom himself recognized the similarity of the basic expectancy core
and SEU theory by stati ng : Th e concept of force as used here is similar to
Luce's (1 3 ) subjective expected utility (2 3 , p. 1 8 ). Fu rther support for
he contention that the central core of expectancy theory is similar to the
asic SEU formulation is provided by Wahba and House (24) who trace
he roots of expectancy theory and its relation to SEU theory.
Subjective expec ted utih ty theory has a well defined set of axiom s und erly-
xpectancy theoi7 is an SEU-type proposal, the axioms underlying SEU
expectancy theorists have accepted these assump tions virtually without
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
4/13
706
Academy
o
Management Journal
Decembe
Independence
Thereis norelationship between the valenceof anout
come and the individual's estimateofthe likelihood that it will follow
from working atacertain level of effort, i.e., rEjj.vj= .00.
Transitivity
Preference o rdering s of 2(E ijV j) and of Vk's are transitive.
a. Given S(E , ,Vj) ,> 2(E ,jV ])2, and 2(E,jVj)2> 2(EuV j)3, then
where> is read as having greater motivational force tha n.
b ivenVji>Vj2, and Vj2>Vj3, then Vji>Vj3,
where> is read as preferred to .
This research useda design which overcomes a number of objection
raised regarding previous studies
of
expectancy theory. W hile the perfec
method remains elusive, the following criticisms
of
past studies a re largel
met by this resea rch:
1.
Lack of Longitudinal Data
Onlyafew studies (1 0, 12, 2 1 , 22 ) hav
examined the same subjects over time.Inaddition, no studies (longitud ina
or otherwise) have explicitly tested the descriptive accuracyof the postu
lates underlying expectancy theo ry.
2.
Deficiencies in Presenting Second Level O utcomes
Anumberofre
searchers (4, 15, 19) have criticized past studiesofexpectancy theoryfo
(a) faihng to present subjects with both positive and negative second leve
outcomes (Vk's), and b) not assuring that
each
subject is presented wit
his most valent outcomes. In the research reported here,
unique
lists involv
ing the four most desired and two least desired outcomes were generated for
each subject. This approach allowed greater variability in subject responses
and minimized the possibility that common questionnaires
for all
subject
would mask relationships that would be apparent on an individual basis.
3.
Confusing Importanc e with Desirability
Anumberof studies hav
departed from Vroom's (23) definition of valence (desirability of outcome
or satisfaction anticipated from their attainment) and instead have opera
tionally defined it in terms of its importance to the subjects. As Dachler and
Mobley 4) note, thishasneither a theoretical nor an empirical basis
Therefore, in this study , subjects w ere asked to subjectively assessth
amount of satisfaction they would feel if the relevant outcome were attained
4. Failure
to
Use Subjects from Multiple Organizations Pritchard and
Sanders (19 ) argue thatitis advantag eou s to draw subjects from differen
organizations since this increases variability
in
subject responses and con
stitutes an excellent testofthe predictive accuracyof the basic expectanc
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
5/13
1975 Volume IS, Number 4 707
METHOD
The subjects were 54 lower and middle level managers taking a manage-
ment development course at a Canadian university. Questionnaires de-
signed to operationalize the basic expectancy variables were administered
seven times over a three month period as follows:
nstrumentality
Subjects were asked to indicate on seven point summated scales the
relationship they perceived between successful completion of the course
and the attainment of both positively and negatively valent outcomes, with
3 stated as I will definitely (vale nt outco m e inserted ) even if I do
not
successfully com plete this cou rse and + 3 stated as I will definitely (valen t
outcome inserted) if I successfully complete this course.
Each subject was initially presented with a list of 17 outcomes that have
ost valent (four positive and two negative) outcomes. Each individual's
choice pattern was recorded and a
unique
questionnaire was generated for
irabihty, not importance, is assessed. Accordingly, valence was operation-
lized on seven poin t summ ated scales, with 3 stated as Th is o utcom e
uld displease me greatly if it oc cu rred , and
3
stated as I would be
pleased if this outco me oc curred . Test-retest reliabilities were
coef
Each subject was asked to indicate his or her subjective perception that
etc.) would lead to successful completion of the course. The subjects
asked to indicate their perceptions in a chances in 10 format which
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
6/13
8
cademy of Management Journal Decembe
S
R
p
E
o
fc 2i 0
0 aCfc)
S
e
N
S
R
p
o
r
S
e
N
.0 aifc
W
e
S
e
N
Ao^
C
m
m
e
o
r
S
o
o
1
4
0
1
5
0
0
0
1
t
i-~
5
0
o
o
oo
1
o
1
t~
2
8
1
1
5
0
o
o
8
1
0
0
=
n
T j
1
8
8
8
0
1
-n
o
1
f
oo
1
1
5
0
8
CTv
CTV
1
5
0
o
in
o
1
r)
5
0
00
m
1
o
m
o
o
1
1
5
0
o
r-
00
1
r-)
5
0
o
CT\
1
5
0
r-
1
VO
o
o
8
1
1
5
0
o
>n
00
1
m
5
0
m
OO
1
>
8
o
in
r-l
r-l
1
o
8
1
1
5
0
o
r)
oo
1
VO
5
0
o
o
T
oc
1
0
0
o
o
o
OC
1
o
o
8
1
5
0
o
r)
00
1
0
0
8
VO
1
m
5
0
o
o
m
o
o
8
0
5
0
o
>n
r-
1
r-
o
in
0
0
o
8
1
VO
5
0
?i
1
rj
o
m
7
5
00
S
o
o
0
1
>n
0
0
o
o
in
1
'''-
5
0
o
in
00
00
1
tn
8
o
o
o
m
1
0
0
o
in
'~-
1
5
0
8
fO
1
5
0
8
o
VO
1
VO
o
o
o
8
o
VO
1
0
0
8
o
r.
0
0
o
0
0
1
n
0
0
n
VO
r)
o
o
o
o
in
S
8
o
o
o
8
8
1
8
o
m
CTv
rt
O
m
t
CTv
1
0
0
o
o
1
6
ro
0
0
o
8
o
5
0
m
o
O
O
o
8
8
0
0
0
0
o
in
r)
VO
0
0
8
m
CTv
5
0
m
o
VO
o
o
o
CT v
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
7/13
1975 Volume 18 Number 4 7 9
Effort
A self-report (seven point scale ranging from 3 to -|-3) of effort
expended by each subject on a week by week basis was used. Subjects were
asked to indicate the amount of time they had spent during the preceding
week on class-related activities such as reading the text, taking class notes,
etc.
As the internal a nd test-retest reliabilities indica te, the difficulties often
encountered in using survey techniques to test expectancy theory as noted
by DeLeo and Pritchard (5) did not arise in this study. Correlation analysis
was used to assess the extent to which actual individual decision patterns
conformed to the transitivity and independence postulates.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The discussion of results is divided into two parts, one relating to the
transitivity postulate and the other to the independence postulate.
The data generated to test the transitivity postulate are presented in
Table 1. (Due to space limitations, data are presented only for selected
subjects whose responses are illustrative of the variations noted.) In order
to determ ine whethe r a consistent ord er of effort p references existed for
the respon dents, it was necessary to com pare the com puted effort, gen-
by the formu la EijS(IjkVk), and actu al effort, generated by sum-
mated individual self-report responses to questions concerning their effort.
The computed effort is shown in an ordered array from largest negative to
ccurred is also noted. The self-report measure of effort is then compared
negative to largest positive) to observe the extent of agreem ent between
It is clear from an inspection of Table 1 that none of the individuals
Week
6
7
Computed
Effort
- 4 4 . 0 0
- 3 4 . 5 0
Self-Reported
Effort
0.00
0.00
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
8/13
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
9/13
975 Volume 18 Number 4 7
defensible. In the present study, the consistency of valence preferences was
assessed in two ways. First, each respon dent was given a paired com parison
questionnaire containing his six most valent (positive and negative) out-
comes and asked to make a choice between each pair. A total of 13 in-
transitivities were noted in this sample
N=54).
Second, a subsample of
29 respondents was given a paired comparison questionnaire containing
only positively valent outcomes. It was felt that significantly more intran-
sitivities would result since respondents would have a more difficult time
distinguishing between o utcomes becau se they were all favorable and there-
fore were no t noticeably different. In the subsa mp le, a total of 15 intransitivi-
ties were noted, approximately double the rate observed in the entire
sample. These findings suggest that individuals experience much greater
difficulty in dealing with similar outcomes than they do with dissimiliar
ones.
The overall rate of intransitivities in this study, however, was con-
siderably lower than that reported by Sheridan et al. This is probably
explained by the number of outcomes respondents were asked to consider
in each study 18 in the Sheridan et al. study and 6 in the present research.
It seems likely that more intransitivities will occur as the number of choice
dimensions increases.
Independence Postulate
The data generated to test the descriptive accuracy of the independence
postulate are presented in Table 2. In order to determine the extent to which
the independence postulate is an accurate representation of individual be-
havior, the covariation between individual preferences for various outcomes
and the expectancy that these could be attained was analyzed. Table 2
indicates the relationship found between bo th types of valence (Vj s and
Vk s) and expectancy. Since the Vj comp onen t is a sum, only one figure is
gen erated for each person, w hile there are six Vk s because the re ar e six
second level outcomes. The expectancy (Eij) component is the sum of the
four specific behaviors noted above divided by 4. (To be conceptually
precise, the only correlation which explicitly tests the independence postu-
late is that between Eij and Vj; however, the correlations between Eij and
the individual Vk s are also includ ed.)
An inspection of the data contained in Table 2 indicates a fairly general
distribution of significant correlations between both types of valence and
expectancy. Although at an intuitive level this is detrimental to expectancy
theory, it is more important to come to some conclusions about individual
cases. When this is done, it becomes apparent that some individuals do not
violate the postulate at all; others show multiple violations. Of the 54 re-
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
10/13
712
Academy ofManagement Journal
ecembe
TABLE 2
Correlations Between Both Types of Valence and Expectancy
Re-
spond-
en t
b^
02
03
04
05
07
08
09
f\
1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
52
53
54
V,
- . 3 4
.00
.00
.42
.57
.00
,60
.38
.89
.19
- . 8 9
.76
.33
.5 ,
.27
.58
.47
.96
.88
.85
.34
- . 3 5
.85
.08
.25
- . 7 5
.35
.32
- . 5 1
- . 1 7
- . 5 5
.55
- . 2 5
Correlations Between Valence Vt)
V,
- . 5 1
.56
.05
.40
.15
- . 7 3
.30
.89
.00
- . 4 2
.99
.04
.40
- . 5 6
.14
,62
.88
- . 7 0
.64
- . 0 2
.62
.00
- . 5 4
.68
- . 3 7
- . 4 0
.44
- . 3 4
- . 3 5
- . 4 9
- . 8 3
.39
- . 6 8
- . 2 6
- . 3 4
and E xpectancy
En)
.29
.48
,14
- . 1 8
- . 0 6
- . 1 3
- . 3 8
.12
.00
.13
.79
.24
.64
- . 2 2
.78
.51
.84
.67
.41
.52
- . 0 1
.37
- . 5 0
.25
.25
.72
.03
- . 0 5
- . 4 3
- . 4 8
.26
,14
.63
V,
- . 6 7
- . 4 4
- . 5 2
- . 2 3
.64
.50
.25
- . 1 3
.27
- . 2 5
.93
.34
- . 0 5
,47
- . 0 2
.27
.73
,55
.1 1
- . 1 8
.3 7
.4 4
,2 6
.2 6
.4 0
.6 3
- . 2 9
.17
.77
.73
.21
- . 1 7
.22
- . 3 8
.57
.84
.10
.25
- . 4 0
.03
.19
- , 3 8
.99
,47
- . 1 1
- . 4 9
- . 2 7
.14
,35
- . 3 3
.58
- . 6 5
- , 6 5
.34
.41
.06
- , 5 1
.36
.77
.63
- . 4 8
- . 2 6
.64
.04
- . 2 1
,22
e
- , 5 2
.28
.54
- . 1 9
- . 2 7
- . 7 0
- . 6 8
- . 1 6
- . 6 4
- . 8 0
.21
.41
.17
- . 6 3
- . 6 5
- . 3 0
- . 5 0
.00
.03
- . 4 0
.38
.55
.75
.68
- . 0 7
.12
,22
Correlations
Between Valence
V,) and
Expectancy
En
v
.90
.83
- , 6 8
.23
.25
.27
.71
.47
.11
- . 4 2
- . 5 5
- . 8 9
,71
- . 5 8
.10
.86
.64
- . 4 5
- . 8 5
,24
.61
.72
- . 0 8
.18
.24
- . 3 0
.81
- . 4 4
- , 6 7
.02
- . 2 8
- . 2 8
.69
.31
- . 3 2
- . 5 5
,17
.27
- . 8 7
- . 5 7
- . 2 0
- . 5 8
- . 2 9
.73
- . 2 9
- . 5 0
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
11/13
975
Volume 18 Number 4
7 3
One major difficulty exists when analyzing data relating to the independ-
ence postulate. Specifically, some subjectsNumbers 5, 10, 42, 43, and
44 exh ibited no variation over the seven time periods for one or both of the
variables of interest. The blank spaces in the matrices indica te this difficulty,
noting that a correlation coefficient in cases of this type is not conceptually
meaningful. When all cases of this type are removed from the analysis, 200
correlations remain. Of these, 43 are statistically significant. This, in com-
bination with the many coefficients that exceed .40 (but are not statistically
significant), throws considerable doubt on the descriptive accuracy of the
independence postulate as it relates to expectancy theory.
CONCLUSION
The research strategy of testing the postulates underlying expectancy
theory rather th an testing the theory itself
is,
at this writing, in an exploratory
stage. The evidence generated in this study indicates that numerous in-
dividuals do not exhibit behavior pattern s that are consistent with two of the
normative postulates of expectancy theory.
With respect to the transitivity postulate, none of the subjects exhibited
effort preference patterns consistent with the basic expectancy model. It is
possible tha t the significance of this finding is overstated (since the criterion
of agreement was very strict), yet an examination of the data contained in
Table 1 leads to the conclusion that few systematic changes in effort oc-
curred as proposed in expectancy theory. When the difficulty of the calcula-
tions assumed in expectancy theory is taken into consideration, these in-
consistencies are not surprising. It seems highly unlikely that individuals will
routinely spend the time required to mak e decisions in a systematic fashion.
Ra ther , they likely will engage in a process which only roughly approxim ates
an SEU-type analysis, with time and cognitive constraints deterring maxi-
mizing behavior in most routine decisions.
In further research testing of the transitivity postulate, it will be im-
portant to examine the effect of different numbers of second level outcomes
and the imp act this has on determining what an accep table level of in-
transitivity is.
Many of the same general observations can be made about the in-
depen dence postulate. A t this point, the two major questions are : (a )
In a given sample, how many ind ividuals can exhibit a lack of independ ence
between Vj and Eij before the independence postulate is clearly violated
and (b) How do individual differences mediate the rate of nonindependent
responses? Answers to these questions undoubtedly will be forthcoming as
research progresses in the area of testing postulates.
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
12/13
714
Academy of Management Journal
Decembe
by Vroom (23) cannot be an accurate description of the processes involved
in level-of-work effort decisions.
R F R N S
1. Adam s, J. S. Tow ard an Understanding of Inequ ity, Journal of Abnormal Socia
Psychology
Vol. 67 (1963), 422-426.
2. Behling, Orland o, and F. Starke. The Postulates of Expectancy Theo ry,
Academy of
Management Journal
Vol. 16 (1973), 373-388.
3. Cam pbell, J. P., M. D . Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, K, E. Weick.
Managerial Behavior
Performance and Effectiveness (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).
4. Dach ler, H, Peter, and William H. M obley. Construct Validation of an Instrumen tality
Expectancy-Task-Goal Model of Work Motivation: Some Theoretical Boundary
Conditions,
Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph
Vol. 58 (1973), 397-418,
5. DeL eo, Phillip J., and Robert Pritchard. An Exam ination of Some M ethodologica
Problems in Testing Expectancy-Valence Models with Survey Techniques, Organiza
tional Behavior and Human Performance.
Vol. 12 (1974), 143-148,
6. Gra en, G. Instrumen tality Theory of Wo rk Motivation: Some Expe rimental Results
and Suggested Modifications,'
Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph
Vol. 53
(1969), 1-25.
7. Herzberg , F. , B. M ausner, and B. Snyderm an. The Motivation to Work (New York
Wiley, 1959).
8. Hou se, R. A Path-G oal Contingency Theory of Lead ership (Unpublished paper, 1971)
9. House, Robert J., H. Jack Shapiro, and Mahmoud Wahba, Expectancy Theory as a
Predictor of Work Behavior and Attitude: A Re-evaluation of Empirical Evidence,
Decision Sciences Vol. 5 (1974), 54-77,
10. Law ler, E. E. A Correlational-Ca usal Analysis of the Relationship Between Expectancy
Attitudes and Job Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology Vol, 52 (1968), 462-
468.
11.
Lawler, E, E.
Pay and Organization Effectiveness: A Psychological View
(New York
McGraw-Hill, 1971).
12. Lawler, E. E., and L, Suttle. Expectancy Theo ry and Job Behavior, Oragnizational
Behavior and Human Performance Vol, 9 (1973), 460-482.
13.
Luce, R. D. Psychological Studies of Risky Decision M aking, in G. Strother (Ed.)
Social Science Approaches to Business Behavior (Homewood,
111,:
Irwin, 1962), pp, 141
161.
14. Maslow, A. H. A Theory of Hum an Motivation, Psychological Review Vol. 50 (1943)
370-396,
15.
M itchell, T. Instrumentality Theories: Conceptual and M ethodological Problem s
(Technical Report 71-19, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, 1971)
16. Mitchell, Terren ce R. Expectancy M odels of Job Satisfaction, Occupational Preference
and Effort, Psychological Bulletin Vol, 81 (1974), 1053-1077.
17. M itchell, T. R., and A, Biglan. Instrumen tality Theories: Cu rrent Uses in Psychology,
Psychological Bulletin
Vol. 76 (1971), 432-454.
18. Porter, L. W., and Lawler, E. E.
Managerial Attitudes and Performance
(Homewood
111.:Irwin, 1968).
19. Pritchard , R. D,, and M. S, Sanders. The Influence of Valence, Instrumen tality, and
Expectancy on Effort and Performance,
Journal of Applied Psychology
Vol, 57 (1973),
55-60.
20 . Savage, L.
The Foundations of Statistics
(New York: W iley, 1954),
21.
Sheridan, John E,, Max D. Richards, and John Slocum. The Descriptive Pow er of
Vroom's Expectance Model of Motivation, Proceedings Academy of Management
1973,pp. 414-420.
-
8/9/2019 Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom
13/13