What is Expectancy Theory?
What is Expectancy Theory?
What is Expectancy Theory?
Thinking about why we do something is often a central part of all of our activities. Those include why we work, play, or form relationships with one another. This is the central aspect of motivation: knowing what will happen or occur as a result of our own actions.
These are central elements of expectancy theory. A theory which addresses how we approach the results of our behaviors and the underlying motivations for what and why we do what we do.
This article will define expectancy theory as well and describe its origins for understating human motivation and behavior. Motivation will also be covered as a facet of the educational process as well as expectancy theory’s origins in management as a way to better connect employee performance and rewards.
Ultimately this connection serves as a kind of feedback. Feedback that is connected between individual actions and what we get out of it. In games the result of this feedback is often in the form of progress, change, or some other stimulus that appeals to our intrinsic motivation.
These motivations consist of different components of expectancy theory and are highly individualized according to what we perceive we want from play and what we actually get. This connection between activities in games and the results of those activities affect our decision making process.
As a result, this process informs how instructors, educators, and designers can structure games and other learning experiences in order to better facilitate the learning process. The application of which can be included in serious games design, games-based learning, and educational game design.
What is expectancy theory?
Expectancy theory is a mental process that focuses on individualized choice and the process of choosing. Expectancy theory provides an overview that explains the process that individual people undergo when making choices. Those choices could include everyday life choices; educational choices; or gameful choices.
The choices that these individuals make is based on estimates on the expected results of these choices. We often choose what we want to wear during the day to be both comfortable and prepared for what is expected to come. A rainy day requires that we wear a rain jacket. A busy day often means that we’ll need a hearty breakfast.
Likewise, the potential to advance in a game affects and influences how we choose to proceed. Sometimes those choices results in pursuing one quest over another or choosing a specific scoring condition based on an array of choices.
At its most basic level, expectancy theory is based on a fair, articulated, and strong connection between our efforts and choices and how we perform as a result of those choices. This is often based on the assumption that individuals will make the decisions that maximize their own benefits. This dedication to self-interest is done in a way that also minimizes our dissatisfaction with potential the results.
We often see this in games as players pursuing options and strategies that help them and hinder other players. In addition, players make choices in games that provide the maximum benefit for them with the minimal amount of effort (min maxing).
Origins of expectancy theory
Expectancy theory has a storied origin and history. It was originally proposed by Victor Vroom in the Yale School of Management in 1964. As such, it was originally applied and used to understand employee motivation in a commercial context. Victor Vroom applied expectancy theory as a form of motivation and a way to understand how conscious choices made by individuals were based on the expected utility and reward of those decisions.
Expectancy theory was applied not as a way to understand motivation; but rather define the origin of motivation and how it manifests itself within individuals. The factors that affect this origin of motivation are varied. However, the applications of the theory in its original form and highlight how the intensity of work effort (input by employees) manifests itself in the expectant value (utility) of those decisions.
As such, expectancy theory is structured around three definitive and specific areas which include expectancy; instrumentality; and valence. These three areas will be reviewed in greater detail as well as discussed in its applications for games; education; and games-based learning.
Overall, expectancy theory defines that as the efforts and motivations of individuals rise, so too will their expectant reward for the activity.
Expectancy theory as motivation
Expectancy theory forms the heart and basis of defining individuals’ motivations. The theory proposes that individuals act in a certain way because they have selected a specific behavior over another based on the expected reward or outcome of that behavior. This means that individual employees, students, or players will select an action based on the desirability of the outcome.
The connection between action and outcome only forms the basic level connection for expectancy theory. Rather, at its core, the theory defines the cognitive process of how an individual processes, understands, and takes action based on different motivational elements. The outcome serves as one factor for how the individual choose to behave. In addition, individuals must also consider the tangible rewards and connections between activity and outcome prior to taking the next step.
In business contexts expectancy theory also relates to how consumers express and explain satisfaction after consuming a product or services. This level of satisfaction ties in neatly with the feedback loop of experiential learning as well as the core loop of games and games-based learning. This type of feedback reinforces players’ motivations for wanting to learn and/or play a game that is closely aligned with their own personalities and underlying motivations for seeking enjoyment through their own decisions and actions. These ramifications greatly influence how motivation affects and influences the educational process.
Motivation as an educational process
Motivation is an important part of the educational process. As such, students are mostly likely invested in an educational outcome so long as it aligns with what they expect their own outcome to be. Often in education this is the basis for extrinsic motivation for students as they desire related external outcomes such as a diploma or a certificate granted upon successful completion. However, student motivation doesn’t’ always need to be based on these extrinsic factors.
Rather, students can and will invest time and effort into an assignment or activity given their perception of their successful completion. This means that if students see an activity as something that they may fail at; then they are more hesitant to try and engage. This is problematic for games-based learning as the educational outcome of applied games is achieved through the repetitive nature of experiential learning and the application of different strategies in order to achieve a desired outcome.
However, this can be overcome by resetting the student mindset when addressing activity participation and assignment attempts. This can be done by providing students with the ability to “fail successfully” in sandbox scenarios where the results don’t impact or otherwise negatively affect an expected extrinsic outcome (such as a grade or a degree). Rather, games can be applied through simulations or serious games in order for students to attempt and try different strategies and order to pursue success.
Therefore application of expectancy theory here affects students in two ways. First it curbs students’ expectations for success by outlining that the game’s outcome is not meant to be an evaluation of their mastery. Rather, the game exists as a way for students to test and refine their skills. Secondly, this approach provides gives students the ability to train and develop their efficacy and practice with a particular skill set in preparation for an assessment that does matter (i.e. a test, quiz, project, or simulation).
Connections between performance and reward
Expectancy theory applied through games-based learning specifically ties the expected reward from an activity with a students’ performance. Thus, by the instructor setting a clear connection between an activity (game play) and a reward (non-judgment or non-evaluation); then there is less pressure on the student to exhibit mastery initially. Rather, that mastery can be further developed through future play; engagement; and solicitation with their peers.
The process in which this is revealed students is meant to provide transparency for the experiential learning process. Therefore, students can determine what is demanded of them and what they have to gain by participating. This structure is replicated in the employee and manager relationship outlined by Vroom in the original application of expectancy theory. In that application, employees were provided the ability to set their own targets and outline their own goals and results as a way to provide them agency in their work process.
By providing these employees agency with setting their own targets and expectations for the results of their labor they were able to form a deeper and closer connection between what was expected of them and what they were expected to receive. This closer development of the feedback loop is a structure which provides agency and connection between and stimulus and an expected output.
The same can be said for education and games-based learning. By providing students with the structure and the ability to choose how they practice; develop mastery; and are eventually evaluated they confirm (or disconfirm) the structure of the process and how they can best demonstrate their autonomy within it.
This autonomy is critical for games-based learning as players’ agency within the classroom and within the game translates to achievements gained outside the game’s magic circle and in the real world. Such achievements are most likely relevant to the classes’ learning outcomes: thus connecting student activity; assessments; and the achievement of educational goals.
Expectancy theory as feedback
Expectancy theory when applied in a management framework is all about the feedback that an employee will receive based on work provided. This is related to their direct performance and rewards deserved and warranted by that individual.
This means that employees’ intensity; dedication; and attention to work or the task to be evaluated is directly related to a definitive outcome and that outcome’s appeal to the individual. One of the most common scenarios for employees in this context is the promise of a commission or bonus paid out to employees that is tied to sales made; units produced; or other forms of quantifiable metrics.
The most appropriate and successful application of expectancy theory from managers in this context is to closely tied to activities with rewards and vice versa. Doing so ensures that employees know exactly what they will receive for successful completion. However, this is often not the case because few employees follow a specific and direct correlation between their work and the rewards associated with their performance.
Of course this varies depending on role and expectation where commissioned sales agents are incentivized to make more sales in order to earn greater commissions. However, salaried individuals, or those on set contracts have no set correlation between the output and quality of their work and their rewards and compensation.
Gamification addresses this in employee somewhat as changes to the work environment can have an impact on employee behavior. Gamification’s application of game-like elements in non-game settings can incentivize employees to increase production output through the implementation of leader boards which compare employees against one another. This appeals to individuals’ intrinsic sense of competition and comparison against one another. However, this is a form of motivation that does not appeal to all individuals.
Educators can use and apply expectancy theory through the use and connection of set results as a consequence of completing a task or activity. Such a connection makes it easier for students to receive some sort of feedback for attempts at activities which may positively influence their learning progress. This can be done by awarding points for student attempts at assignments with the addition of bonus points for adhering to the rubric and fulfilling the other learning outcomes of the activity.
Feedback as an educational process
Connecting students’ activities to actionable feedback is perhaps one of the most critical aspects for learning and development. It is an incredibly important consideration for assessing the effect and success of teaching and learning and improvement of student outcomes. That feedback can be provided via multiple ways but most commonly occurs between students and the instructor or students and one another.
Feedback provided to students in actionable formats that are clearly tied to activities taken within the learning environment are most successful at incentivizing student behaviors to perform certain tasks. This is important to consider when designing gamified learning environments where game-like elements are connected to learning outcomes and actions and activities have underlying educational outcomes in mind.
It is also especially important that students see that success is possible within an activity. This is important for them to engage with and apply the experiential learning loop through a process of iterative improvement given their continued engagement and activity.
Expectancy theory components
In order to apply expectancy theory in business, educational, and games-based scenarios, the following components must be introduced and included. They include expectancy, instrumentality, and valence. Each component represents different facets of how individuals connect and expect feedback based on each of their actions.
Instrumentality is perhaps the most important component. That is because instrumentally is the belief that a person will receive a desired outcome when a performance expectation is met. In business contexts this could include deal making and negotiations on performance bonuses or raises tied to specific outcomes. In education this could be feedback given through specific assignments that apply aspects of lessons put into practice. In games this represents the outcomes based on players taking specific actions and their known outcomes from said actions.
It’s important to prioritize instrumentality in this process as knowledge of the expected outcomes is necessary in order to clearly motivate and incentivize individuals to pursue and accomplish that outcome. Whenever the outcome is vague or unclear then instrumentality for individuals is likewise also low.
Valence is more subjective than instrumentality. Valence represents the unique value of the outcome to a particular individual. In business contexts salary or monetary incentives are almost universally accepted as form of feedback and compensation. However, employees may also seek more flexible hours; promotion; or political power as a result of their activities.
Likewise, in education, valence also affects how students may want to use or apply lessons learned in their own practice. Such is often the challenge of humanities professors who seek to tie learning outcomes from classics to modern needs and contemporary wants. Lastly, games provide players with agency to use the application of their feedback and rewards where they see fit. Currency often serves this need in games in order to provide players with the agency to use and “buy” items that could help them accomplish certain goals and objectives in games.
Finally, expectancy forms the core component of expectancy theory. Expectancy addresses the critical competencies of the individual in order to accomplish the tasks or duties set out for them. It is necessary to address and support these competencies; otherwise individuals don’t have the confidence to attempt responsibilities where the possibility of failure is at or near zero. Rather, business managers, educators, and game designers should prioritize how they provide a medium and venue for developing individuals’ competencies in order to effectively apply expectancy theory.
Expectancy theory and individual cognition
Expectancy theory has wide and broad appeal and application. However, it relies heavily on individuals’ interpretations and cognition. Such is the case with business contexts and applications as goal setting represents a critical part of setting and supporting the motivation of a particular individual.
Goals can be set an institution (business); unit (class); or at an individual level. It’s important that these goals be created with individuals in mind as effort committed to tasks needs to connect well and succinctly to their successful completion.
Individual employees, students, and players need to carefully evaluate the expected result from any activity and compare it against their perceived and actual outcome. Making sure that outcomes align with results and expectations are important to maintaining high engagement and satisfaction with the experience.
It’s also critical that outcomes based on individuals own abilities and performance tie closely with expected outcomes in order to ensure a certain degree of credibility. Otherwise, higher than expected rewards could be seen as compromise of fairness for favoritism. Conversely, negative behaviors or incongruent activities with expected outcomes, should earn negative consequences or penalties for said behavior.
Therefore, it’s important that educators enhance expectancy theory with their students by influencing perception of their own capabilities when it comes to learning. Often believing that one is capable (and actually being capable) is not as completely disparate as people think. This gap can often be addressed through discussions of students’ own perceptions towards their abilities and the effort necessary in order to prove their competence towards the task.
Expectancy theory and decision making
The different components of expectancy theory (expectancy, instrumentality, and valence) stratify the decision making process. It makes it so that decisions made by individuals are influenced by their perceived confidence; connection to outcomes; and perceived worth of the outcome.
This means that individuals make decisions in relation to these different factors. When it comes to work; people will make choices based on their expected rewards from that work. Likewise; instrumentality indicates the perceived reward for said work will depend on one’s performance. This relates to games where the outcome of performances directly ties into the kind of feedback received by players – whether positive or negative. This feedback is best affected by the amount of instrumentality perceived by individuals. If students and players feel that they are best suited to affect their outcome, then their instrumentality (and confidence) will be higher. Otherwise; it will be much lower.
This has applications to education, teaching, and learning as well. Students’ perceived self-efficacy has a direct impact on the kinds of activities they choose to participate in. High perception of self-efficacy indicates that they would be more likely to succeed in the class versus low self-efficacy. This translates over into games as well where great perception of competency translates into greater perception of success. However, games also allow players to try, test, and experiment through game play. Thus, providing them with an opportunity to improve their performance over time.
This means that games can be applied through games-based learning as a medium for both increasing students’ perceived competency and self-efficacy through game play. Games provide a sandbox and venue for students to play; test; and experiment in a way that reinforces and supports learning. Such a structure gives control to both the student and the educator to improve through this process.
Expectancy theory and games
Expectancy theory in games is applied via different approaches. Those include social, cognitive, and affective factors which influence players’ perceived abilities for success. In turn, these influence how often players will play, and their continued motivation to continue playing.
However, it is still critical for educators and instructors to measure how students are playing and engaging with games through games-based learning. Tracking, documenting, and analyzing data from this play is critical in understanding how best improve and iterate on the process of games-based learning in their own classrooms.
Gamification can also be applied and developed though both expectancy theory and process improvement. Such applications could have positive and influential affects on teaching and learning through psychological and affective changes in students.
One of the most common ways these are implemented in the classroom is for instructors to use games as a common context for students to apply lessons learned in a practical context. Therefore, it is important that players continue to keep playing in order to reap the greatest benefit from games-based learning. Such effects can be best gained through player progression that is gradual and scaled to students’ demonstrated competencies.
The structure of player progression can be implemented in many formats. One of the most common is used through many mobile games where acquisition of in-game wealth or currency paired with the accomplishment of game issued objectives (such as quests) provide players with a sense of accomplishment and perceived competency.
Expectancy theory and education
Expectancy theory works in business contexts and posses some close relationships with game design and motivation. But how can educators use expectancy theory for teaching and learning? One such way is concentrating on its applications for emphasizing a cognitive approach to learning. Specifically prioritizing intrinsic motivation for learners and the way that they approach learning and interactions with the content; their peers; the instructor; and the class.
Expectancy theory and motivation are intrinsically linked. In addition, expectancy theory and the promise of feedback are also connected. As such, the provision of feedback and the recognition of the learner as an active participant in learning are critical to recognize education as a formative and active process.
Therefore, it’s important that students understand, buy-into, and have agency in the learning process by knowing that the learning environment will support their growth and development. This can best be accomplished with games and their experiential learning cycle as it’s applied to feedback and mistake driven learning. However, it is also up to the instructor to emphasize the safety of this type of learning environment and promote the positive effects that this approach can have.
However, emphasizing students’ feedback and learning throughout isn’t enough. Instead, instructors should also prioritize the feedback process in experiential learning through active debriefing with students. The focus of this active debriefing is to provide a review of their experiences and how students can learn through iteration and active experimentation. Doing so ensures to the student that the environment in which they learn and perform is conducive to success so long as a good faith effort is made (through the magic circle of games) as well as through honest and active participation in academic activities.
Expectancy theory and games-based learning
Expectancy theory originally found its home in business applications and has clear connections to teaching and learning. Likewise games-based learning also utilizes expectancy theory to aid in teaching and learning. One such application is the ability to target and emphasize certain behaviors of students to promote learning. A way that this could be implemented is for a game to prioritize students attempting different strategies in a game that all lead to a successful outcome.
This forms a more holistic approach to teaching and learning with games-based learning as opposed to faster gamification based applications which prioritize the incentives to get people to participate rather than promote high quality instruction. Instead, instructors can use game-like elements of applied gamification to help students make meaningful and influential decisions through their course of study. In this way, gamification merely doesn’t target extrinsic motivation; but rather provides and illuminates different paths for students to succeed and achieve learning outcomes.
Expectancy theory works hand-in-hand with the “enjoyment process” of games and play that emphasize players desires to play and progress in a game. Doing so ensures that the best aspects of game design, gamification, and games-based learning are fully utilized by educators in order to help their students achieve.
However, it is important to realize that games-abed learning and serious games are merely additional tools at the disposal of educators and instructors. The use of serious games alone does not ensure learning. Rather, a comprehensive and more focused approach towards teaching and learning utilizes games as critical tools towards student development.
In the end, the lure of games and their hold of the population at large is a hard example to ignore. Instead, educators and serious games developers should look to emphasize the best aspects of games for their applications while simultaneously structure their learning and course content to help students align game outcomes with learning outcomes.
Takeaways
This article reviewed expectancy theory and its origins in business applications and employee success. Expectancy theory is based on principles of motivation and their application towards individual actions and activities. These motivational principles also apply to educational processes and how the performance of individual tasks are connected to some sort of feedback or rewards.
Feedback forms the hallmark of most experiential processes. As such, expectancy theory was examined as form of feedback through an educational process with specific focus placed on expectancy theory’s three main components. Those components were expectancy, instrumentality, and valence.
Expectancy theory deals most closely with individual cognition of their decision making process. Decision making makes up a large part of games, so this article drove deeper into how players make those decisions align with their expected rewards. Rewards come in different forms and concepts depending on venue and application. Therefore, this article reviewed rewards and individual feedback in games, education, and finally games-based learning.
This article was about expectancy theory. To learn more about gamification, check out the free course on Gamification Explained.
Dave Eng, EdD
Principal
References
Betz, J. (2010, June). Motivating Students to Learn More: A Case Study in Architectural Education. In 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 15-888). https://peer.asee.org/motivating-students-to-learn-more-a-case-study-in-architectural-education
Brouwer, R., & Conboy, K. (2017). A Theoretical Perspective on the Inner Workings of Gamification in the Workplace. In DDGD@ MindTrek (pp. 18-25). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1978/paper3.pdf
Caulfield, J. (2007). What motivates students to provide feedback to teachers about teaching and learning? An expectancy theory perspective. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning. https://epublications.marquette.edu/cps_fac/7/
Eduzarus Samples. (n.d.). The role of psychology in Game Design - free essay example. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://eduzaurus.com/free-essay-samples/the-role-of-psychology-in-game-design/
Eng, D. (2017) GAME ON! An interpretative phenomenological analysis of games-based learning in an undergraduate liberal arts environment. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (10264891) https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED576258
Eng, D. (2019, April 30). Gamified Learning Outcomes. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/4/30/gamified-learning-outcomes
Eng, D. (2019, August 06). Meaningful Choices. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/6/meaningful-choices
Eng, D. (2019, August 20). Play is Work. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/8/20/play-is-work
Eng, D. (2019, December 03). Core Loops. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/3/core-loops
Eng, D. (2019, December 10). Decision Space. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/12/10/decision-space
Eng, D. (2019, June 04). Formal Game Structures. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/04/formal-game-structures
Eng, D. (2019, June 18). Feedback Loops. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/6/18/feedback-loops-in-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2019, May 07). Serious Games. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/5/7/what-are-serious-games
Eng, D. (2019, November 12). Score Points. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/11/12/score-points
Eng, D. (2019, November 19). Achievements. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/11/19/achievements
Eng, D. (2019, October 15). Make More Mistakes. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/10/15/make-more-mistakes
Eng, D. (2019, October 29). Gaming with Motivation. Retrieved December 24, 2021R, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2019/10/29/gaming-with-motivation
Eng, D. (2020, April 09). What is a learning game? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/9/what-is-a-learning-game
Eng, D. (2020, April 30). What is Gamification? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/4/30/what-is-gamification
Eng, D. (2020, August 20). What is Player Agency? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/8/20/what-is-player-agency
Eng, D. (2020, December 3). Game Mechanics for Learning. Retrieved December 24, 2021 from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/12/3/game-mechanics-for-learning
Eng, D. (2020, July 9). What is the Magic Circle? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from http://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/7/9/what-is-the-magic-circle
Eng, D. (2020, March 26). What is Games-Based Learning? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/3/26/what-is-games-based-learning
Eng, D. (2020, May 14). What is a simulation? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/5/14/what-is-a-simulation
Eng, D. (2020, September 10). What is Intrinsic Motivation? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2020/9/10/what-is-intrinsic-motivation
Eng, D. (2021, April 6). What is Grokking? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/4/6/what-is-grokking
Eng, D. (2021, August 31). Designing learning games with players in mind. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/8/31/designing-learning-games-with-players-in-mind
Eng, D. (2021, September 28). Playing serious games. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/9/28/playing-serious-games
Expectancy-Value Theory. (n.d.). Educational psychology. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/edpsy/chapter/expectancy-value-theory/
Expectancy Theory. (n.d.). Expert Program Management. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/10/expectancy-theory/
Expectancy Theory. (n.d.). Introduction to business. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wm-introductiontobusiness/chapter/expectancy-theory/
Expectancy Theory. (n.d.). The Decision Lab. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/expectancy-theory/#section-1
Giant Bomb. (2021). Min-maxing (concept). Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.giantbomb.com/min-maxing/3015-128/
Grendel Games. (2021, October 08). How to improve engagement with leaderboards in gamification? Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://grendelgames.com/how-to-improve-engagement-with-leaderboards-in-gamification/
Grimard, C. M. (2018, March). Chicken dance anyone? A quick experiential exercise for teaching expectancy theory. In Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning: Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL conference (Vol. 45). https://journals.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/3158
Hancock, D. R. (1995). What teachers may do to influence student motivation: An application of expectancy theory. The Journal of General Education, 44(3), 171-179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27797259
Indeed Editorial Team. (2021, September 14). How to use the expectancy theory of motivation. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/expectancy-theory-of-motivation
Launders, R. N. (2015, July 05). Psychological theory, learning gamification. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://neoacademic.com/2015/01/15/psychological-theory-gamification-learning/
Ledford, G., & Lawler, E. (2015, March). Center for effective organizations using motivation theory ... Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://ceo.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-04-G15-04-651-Using_Motivation_Theory_to_Improve_Gamification.pdf
Montana, P. J., & Charnov, B. H. (2008). Management. New York. Barron's Educational Series. Inc. https://books.google.com/books/about/Management.html?id=lqVxipzMQkwC
Oliver, R. L. (1974). Expectancy theory predictions of salesmen's performance. Journal of marketing research, 11(3), 243-253. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3151139
Rachmatullah, A., Reichsman, F., Lord, T., Dorsey, C., Mott, B., Lester, J., & Wiebe, E. (2021). Modeling Secondary Students’ Genetics Learning in a Game-Based Environment: Integrating the Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation and Flow Theory. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-18. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10956-020-09896-8
Starks, K. (2014). Cognitive behavioral game design: a unified model for designing serious games. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 28. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00028/full
Swain, J., Kumlien, K., & Bond, A. (2020). An experiential exercise for teaching theories of work motivation: using a game to teach equity and expectancy theories. Organization Management Journal. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/OMJ-06-2019-0742/full/html
Tam, F. (2021, January 07). Understanding motivation in games – expectancy-value theory. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding-motivation-games-expectancy-value-theory-frankie-tam/
Unda, X., & Ramos, V. (2016). Expectancy theory applied to an educational context: A Longitudinal Study applied in postgraduate courses. Retrieved December 24, 2021, from https://library.iated.org/view/UNDA2016EXP
Westera, W. (2019). Why and how serious games can become far more effective: Accommodating productive learning experiences, learner motivation and the monitoring of learning gains. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 22(1), 59-69. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26558828
Winslet, K. (2021, May 31). How teachers use video games to motivate students. Florida News Times. https://floridanewstimes.com/how-teachers-use-video-games-to-motivate-students/274354/.
Cite this Article
Eng, D. (2021, December 28). What is Expectancy Theory?. Retrieved MONTH DATE, YEAR, from https://www.universityxp.com/blog/2021/12/28/what-is-expectancy-theory
Internal Ref: UXPST6NEM4QR