Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


8/13


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-


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


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.


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.


13/13

Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom

Documents

Transcript of Critica Teoria Asteptarilor Vroom