Why Elusive Expectancy × Value Interactions May Be Critical for Theory and Intervention: A Simulated Power Analysis.

IF 3.3 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Michael W Asher, Cameron A Hecht, Judith M Harackiewicz, John J Curtin, Cora Parrisius, Benjamin Nagengast
{"title":"Why Elusive Expectancy × Value Interactions May Be Critical for Theory and Intervention: A Simulated Power Analysis.","authors":"Michael W Asher, Cameron A Hecht, Judith M Harackiewicz, John J Curtin, Cora Parrisius, Benjamin Nagengast","doi":"10.1037/mot0000394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>According to expectancy-value theories of motivation, individuals choose to pursue tasks that they expect to succeed at and find personally valuable. Historically, researchers have often suggested that these two factors interact to motivate behavior. However, expectancy × value interactions are rarely observed in empirical research and, when detected, they are often small in magnitude. Does this mean they can safely be ignored in models of motivation? In this paper we conduct two power analyses with simulated data to argue that expectancy × value interactions are likely far more important than a straightforward interpretation of effect sizes would suggest, and that downplaying them risks oversimplifying theory and recommendations for intervention. Specifically, Study 1 demonstrates that a realistic combination of three constraints (measurement error, skew, and correlation) can negatively bias expectancy × value interaction estimates by more than 50%. Study 2 shows that these interactions can create meaningful variability in motivation interventions and may contribute to a better understanding of treatment heterogeneity.</p>","PeriodicalId":36439,"journal":{"name":"Motivation Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12383242/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Motivation Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000394","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to expectancy-value theories of motivation, individuals choose to pursue tasks that they expect to succeed at and find personally valuable. Historically, researchers have often suggested that these two factors interact to motivate behavior. However, expectancy × value interactions are rarely observed in empirical research and, when detected, they are often small in magnitude. Does this mean they can safely be ignored in models of motivation? In this paper we conduct two power analyses with simulated data to argue that expectancy × value interactions are likely far more important than a straightforward interpretation of effect sizes would suggest, and that downplaying them risks oversimplifying theory and recommendations for intervention. Specifically, Study 1 demonstrates that a realistic combination of three constraints (measurement error, skew, and correlation) can negatively bias expectancy × value interaction estimates by more than 50%. Study 2 shows that these interactions can create meaningful variability in motivation interventions and may contribute to a better understanding of treatment heterogeneity.

为什么难以捉摸的期望x价值相互作用可能是理论和干预的关键:模拟功率分析。
根据动机的期望价值理论,个人选择追求他们期望成功并发现个人价值的任务。历史上,研究人员经常认为这两个因素相互作用来激发行为。然而,在实证研究中很少观察到期望与价值的相互作用,即使检测到,它们的幅度也往往很小。这是否意味着它们可以安全地在动机模型中被忽略?在本文中,我们对模拟数据进行了两次功率分析,以证明期望x值相互作用可能比直接解释效应大小所暗示的重要得多,并且低估它们可能会过度简化理论和干预建议。具体而言,研究1表明,三个约束(测量误差、偏态和相关性)的实际组合可以使期望x值相互作用估计负偏差超过50%。研究2表明,这些相互作用可以在动机干预中产生有意义的变异性,并可能有助于更好地理解治疗异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Motivation Science
Motivation Science Environmental Science-Environmental Engineering
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.00%
发文量
41
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信