EXPECTANCY-VALUE THEORY:
RETROSPECTIVE AND
PROSPECTIVE
Allan Wigfield and Jenna Cambria
OVERVIEW
Expectancy-value theory is prominent in different areas in psychology, and
a number of educational and developmental psychologists who study the
development of achievement motivation have utilized this theory in their
work (see Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2006; Weiner, 1992; Wigfield &
Eccles, 1992; Wigfield, Tonks, & Klauda, 2009 for overviews). In this
chapter, we discuss current expectancy-value theoretical models of achievement motivation and review research based on these models. Much of this
research has focused on the development of children’s expectancies and
values, and how expectancies and values relate to performance, choice of
different activities, and emotions. We discuss the major findings from each
of these areas of research. We also provide suggestions for future research
based in this theory for the next decade. We focus our review and
suggestions for future research primarily on elementary and secondary
school students, but include some relevant work done with college students.
The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement
Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Volume 16A, 35–70
Copyright r 2010 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0749-7423/doi:10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A005
35
36
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
MODERN EXPECTANCY-VALUE MODELS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL AND EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY
Modern expectancy-value theories (e.g., Eccles, 1987, 1993, 2005; Eccles
(Parsons) et al., 1983; Feather, 1982, 1988; Pekrun, 1993, 2000, 2006;
Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000, 2002) are based on seminal work by theorists
such as Lewin (1938) and Tolman (1932) who defined the expectancy and
value constructs, and also on Atkinson’s (1957, 1964) expectancy-value
model of achievement motivation (see Wigfield & Eccles, 1992; Wigfield
et al., 2009, for discussion of the history of this theory). Current theories
differ from the earlier work in several ways. First, both the expectancy and
value components are defined in richer ways, and are linked to a broader
array of psychological, social, and cultural determinants. Second, these
models have been tested in real-world achievement situations rather than
with the laboratory tasks often used to test Atkinson’s theory.
The Eccles et al. Expectancy-Value Model
Eccles and her colleagues’ expectancy – value model proposes that these two
constructs are the most immediate or direct predictors of achievement
performance and choice, and are themselves influenced by a variety of
psychological, social, contextual, and cultural influences (e.g., Eccles, 1987,
1993, 2005; Eccles (Parsons) et al., 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Meece,
Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000,
2002). In their research, Eccles and her colleagues have focused on how
expectancies, values, and their determinants influence choice, persistence,
and performance. They also have examined the developmental course of
children’s expectancies and values and how they are influenced by different
educational contexts. They initially developed the model to help explain
gender differences in mathematics expectancies and values and how these
influenced boys’ and girls’ choices of mathematics courses and majors.
They broadened the model to other activity areas, most notably sport and
physical skill activities (e.g., Eccles & Harold, 1991).
Fig. 1 depicts the model. Moving from right to left in the model,
expectancies and values are hypothesized to influence performance and
task choice directly. Expectancies and values themselves are influenced by
task-specific beliefs such as perceptions of competence, perceptions of the
1. Gender role
stereotypes
2. Cultural stereotypes
of subject matter
and occupational
characteristics
Child's Perception of...
1. Socializer's beliefs,
expectations, and
attitudes
2. Gender roles
3. Activity stereotypes
Socializers' Beliefs and
Behaviors
Differential Aptitudes
of Child
Self-schemata
Short-term goals
Long-term goals
Ideal self
Self-concept of
one's abilities
6. Perceptions of
task demands
Expectancies for Success
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Achievement-Related
Choices and performance
Child's Interpretations of
Experience
1. Causal attributions
2. Locus of control
Previous
Achievement-Related
Experiences
Child's Goals and
General Self-Schemata
Child's Affective
Memories
Subjective Task Value
Importance
Interest
Utility
Cost
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
Cultural Milieu
Fig. 1. Eccles and Colleagues’ Expectancy-Value Model of Performance and Choice.
37
38
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
difficulty of different tasks, and individuals’ goals and self-schema, along
with their affective memories for different achievement-related events.
These beliefs, goals, and affective memories are influenced by individuals’
perceptions of other peoples’ attitudes and expectations for them, and
by their own interpretations of their previous achievement outcomes.
Children’s perceptions and interpretations are influenced by a broad array
of social, contextual, and cultural factors. These include socializers’
(especially parents and teachers) beliefs and behaviors, children’s specific
achievement experiences and aptitudes, and the cultural milieu in which
they live (see Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006, for
discussion of the socialization of children’s expectancies and values).
DEFINING THE EXPECTANCY, VALUE, AND
ABILITY BELIEF CONSTRUCTS IN THIS MODEL
Eccles and colleagues broadened Atkinson’s (1957) original definitions of
both the expectancy and value constructs. They defined expectancies for
success as children’s beliefs about how well they will do on an upcoming
task currently or further into the future (e.g., How well do you think you
will do in math next year?). They distinguished conceptually expectancies
for success from the individual’s beliefs about competence or ability. These
latter beliefs refer to children’s evaluations of their current competence or
ability, both in terms of their assessments of their own ability and also
how they think they compare to other students. Ability-related beliefs are
prominent in many achievement motivation theories (see Schunk & Pajares,
2009; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, for distinctions among these constructs).
The construct of self-efficacy is one primary example. Perceptions of ability
in the Eccles et al. model can be distinguished from self-efficacy in the
following ways. In Eccles’ work ability beliefs are most often measured at
the domain-specific level (although they could be measured at greater or
lesser levels of specificity), and students are asked to think about their ability
relative to other students, and to other activities that they do. Self-efficacy is
defined as beliefs about capabilities to accomplish a certain task, and
measures of it generally ask how confident the individual is that he or
she can do the task (Bandura, 1977, 1997; see also Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
The comparative aspects thus are not included, and so self-efficacy is one’s
judgment about one’s own ability to accomplish a task without regard for
whether others can do it.
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
39
In the literature, values have both broad and task-specific definitions (see
Higgins, 2007; Rohan, 2000; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, for review of some of
these definitions). Broader values have to do with individuals’ sense of what
are appropriate things to do, desirable end states of activities, and desirable
behaviors to produce those positive end states (see Rokeach, 1973, 1979).
Eccles and her colleagues focus on task-specific values in that they define
values with respect to the qualities of different tasks and how those qualities
influence the individual’s desire to do the task; hence the term task value
(Eccles, 2005; Eccles (Parsons) et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). This
definition is similar to Higgins’, stressing the motivational aspects of task
value. Further, these values are subjective because they are students’ own
beliefs about the activity and thus there is variation among students in them.
Eccles (Parsons) et al. (1983) proposed four major components of
achievement task values: attainment value or importance, intrinsic value,
utility value or usefulness of the task, and cost (see Eccles (Parsons) et al.,
1983 and Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, for more detailed discussion of these
components). Building on Battle’s (1965, 1966) work, Eccles (Parsons) et al.
defined attainment value as the importance of doing well on a given task.
Attainment value incorporates identity issues; tasks are important when
individuals view them as central to their own sense of themselves, or allow
them to express or confirm important aspects of self. This component of
value has some conceptual similarities with the identified regulation and
integrated regulation components of motivation in Deci and Ryan’s (Ryan &
Deci, 2000, 2009) Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which concern
engaging in activities because they are important to individuals for attaining
their goals and are consistent with students’ identities.
Intrinsic or interest value is the enjoyment one gains from doing the task.
This component is similar in certain respects to notions of intrinsic
motivation and interest (see Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Schiefele, 2009) in that when children intrinsically value an activity they
often become deeply engaged in it and can persist at it for a long time.
However, it is important to note that in this theoretical model, it is the task
that produces the enjoyment.
Utility value or usefulness refers to how a task fits into an individual’s
future plans, for instance, taking a math class to fulfill a requirement for
a science degree. In certain respects utility value is similar to extrinsic
motivation, and more specifically, to the SDT construct of identified
regulation because when doing an activity out of utility value, the activity is
a means to an end rather than an end in itself (see Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2009).
However, the activity also can reflect some important goals that the person
40
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
holds deeply, such as attaining a certain occupation. In this sense, utility
value also connects to personal goals and sense of self, and so has some ties
to intrinsic motivation or integrated regulation, the most autonomous form
of regulation in the SDT model.
Cost refers to what the individual has to give up to do a task (e.g., Do I do
my math homework or call my friend?), as well as the anticipated effort one
will need to put into task completion. Is working this hard to get an A in
math worth it? Eccles (Parsons) et al. (1983) emphasized that cost is
especially important for choice. Choices are influenced by both negative and
positive task characteristics, and all choices are assumed to have costs
associated with them because one choice often eliminates other options. For
instance, choosing to major in history means that one cannot major in
another field that also may have some value to the individual. Despite the
theoretical importance of cost to choice, to date, cost has been the least
studied of the different components of subjective values.
Pekrun’s Control-Value Model
Pekrun (1993, 2000, 2006, 2009) developed a model of achievement
motivation based in the expectancy-value tradition. He calls his theory a
control-value theory, using the construct of ‘‘control’’ to capture different
kinds of beliefs having to do with individuals’ appraisals of different
possible cause–effect relationships between actions and outcomes in
achievement settings. Indeed, the notion of appraisal is fundamental to his
work; he argues that individuals’ appraisals of their actions, the likelihood
that the action will produce certain outcomes, and the appraisal of the
values of both actions and outcomes are fundamental determinants of
motivation. He also has been quite interested in linkages between control
beliefs, value, and motivation.
Pekrun (1993, 2000, 2006, 2009) distinguished three kinds of expectancy
beliefs that comprise the main control beliefs in his model. Situationoutcome expectancies are expectancies that a situation will produce an
outcome; thus the individual’s own action is not essential when these
linkages operate. Action-outcome expectancies refer to individuals’ beliefs
about the consequences of their own actions. Action-control expectancies
concern individuals’ beliefs about whether they can do a certain action,
which are conceptually similar to Bandura’s (1997) self-efficacy construct;
Pekrun prefers the term action control because it deals directly with
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
41
individuals’ beliefs about whether they can successfully control their actions,
and also ties to the literature on volition.
Pekrun (1993, 2000, 2006, 2009) also distinguished different kinds of
achievement values, or value cognitions, to use his term. He differentiates
between the value of outcomes and the value of actions, and further
separates intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of each. Intrinsic values of outcomes
concern the intrinsic enjoyment of an outcome, whereas extrinsic outcome
values reflect the instrumentality of an outcome. In the same vein, intrinsic
values of action have to do with the inherent value of the action to the
individual, whereas extrinsic action values have to do with actions that
lead to an instrumental outcome (e.g., studying to get a good grade on a test
in order to maximize one’s chances of getting into graduate school).
One important aspect of this model is Pekrun’s (1993) specification of how
individuals’ appraisals of different activities leads to motivation to undertake
an action or not, and also to their performance. The process starts with an
appraisal of the value of a given outcome; if it is valued, then the individual
forms situation-outcome expectancies, action-outcome expectancies, and
action-control expectancies. If the situation totally determines an outcome
the other expectancies do not function; however, if it does not then both
action-outcome and action-control expectancies determine motivation,
particularly if the action is valued. Ultimately, the individual’s motivation
is determined by the complex interplay of these appraisals. Pekrun reviews
empirical evidence from his longitudinal work showing that different
kinds of expectancy and value cognitions relate positively to one another.
Expectancies and intrinsic values predict adolescents’ academic effort
and also their grades. Further, Pekrun presents some evidence that the
motivation variables and achievement relate reciprocally over time.
Much of Pekrun’s recent work focuses on relations of motivation and
emotion (e.g., Pekrun, 2006, 2009; see also Schutz & Pekrun, 2007). Pekrun
distinguishes three general kinds of emotions. Anticipatory (or prospective)
emotions are those that occur before an individual undertakes an achievement activity, and Pekrun argues that these are influenced by individuals’
expectancies and values for the activity. For instance, if the individual
expects to do well at the activity and values it, then she will experience
emotions such as hope and joy. If not, anxiety and hopelessness will be
experienced. Concurrent emotions are experienced as the individual does
different activities, and Pekrun stated that enjoyment and boredom are
two fundamental emotions that occur as an activity is ongoing. Finally,
retrospective emotions occur as individuals reflect on an activity. These
emotions include joy, pride, sadness, or shame, and again are based in the
42
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
individual’s appraisal of the activity and its value to him or her. We review
below some specific findings with respect to these different emotions.
The two models just reviewed are similar in a number of ways. Important
differences between them are that in Pekrun’s (2000, 2006) model the
expectancy construct is more elaborated. There also is a clearer distinction
of action and outcome in this model. Eccles and her colleagues discuss
a wider variety of components of task value. They also include a more
elaborate set of antecedents of both expectancies and values.
MAJOR RESEARCH FINDINGS ON
EXPECTANCIES AND VALUES
Researchers have done extensive work on children and adolescents’
expectancies and values. We focus on three main research areas: change
over time in students’ expectancies and values; their relations to one
another; and their relations to performance, choice, and emotions.
Development of Expectancy-Related Beliefs and Values
One important developmental question is how distinct the expectancy
and value constructs are in children of different ages. Eccles and Wigfield
(1995) and Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, and Blumenfeld (1993) factor analyzed
children’s responses to questionnaire measures of each construct. The major
findings from these analyses were: (1) children’s expectancy-related beliefs
and values formed distinct factors in children as young as 6; (2) within a
given domain (e.g., reading, math, sports) children’s beliefs about their
current competence, expectancies for success, and perceived performance
load on the same factor, suggesting that these components comprise a single
concept for children aged 6–18; (3) within a given domain the components
of achievement values identified by Eccles and her colleagues can be
distinguished factorially in children in fifth grade and beyond; and (4) across
activity domains competence-related beliefs form distinct factors in
children as young as 6, indicating that children differentiate across domains
with respect to these beliefs (e.g., expectancy-related beliefs in math are
factorially distinct from expectancy-related beliefs in reading). The same
is true of achievement values; the value children attach to reading factors
separately from the value they attach to math.
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
43
A second important developmental question is how the level of children’s
expectancy-related beliefs and values change across age. The general pattern
is that children’s competence beliefs for different tasks decline across the
elementary school years and through the high school years (see Dweck &
Elliott, 1983; Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989;
Wigfield et al., 2006, for review). Many young children are quite optimistic
about their competencies in different areas, and this optimism changes to
greater realism and (sometimes) pessimism for many children. Researchers
in the US have examined change over the entire elementary and secondary
school years in children’s competence beliefs for math, language arts, and
sport (Fredricks & Eccles, 2002; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield,
2002), and Watt (2004) looked at change across middle and senior high
school in Australia. Jacobs et al. found that children’s perceptions in each
area were strongly positive early on. However, the overall pattern of change
was a decline in each domain. There were some differences across domains
with respect to when the strongest changes occurred, particularly in language
arts and math. In language arts, the strongest declines occurred during
elementary school and then little change was observed after that. In sports,
the change accelerated during the high school years. The decline in math
competence beliefs was steady over time. Fredricks and Eccles and Watt also
found declines over time in competence beliefs and values, although the
specific trends were somewhat different across these studies. This is most
likely due to the somewhat different ways in which the constructs were
measured in each study and (potentially) cultural differences in the samples
(see further discussion below in the section on gender differences).
Two caveats about these findings should be mentioned. First, most of the
research just described is normative, describing mean-level change across
groups of children. Researchers have shown that these patterns do vary for
children achieving at different levels (Harter, Whitesell, & Kowalski, 1992;
Wigfield, Eccles, Mac Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). Second, it also has
been shown that some preschool children react negatively to failure (see
Dweck, 2002; Stipek, Recchia, & McClintic, 1992). Children reacting negatively
to failure early on may be more likely to be pessimistic about their abilities
even in the early elementary school years (Burhans & Dweck, 1995). Thus not
all young children are optimistic about their abilities in different areas.
Factors Influencing the Development of Expectancy-Related Beliefs and Values
What explains these changes in children’s competence beliefs and values?
Researchers have considered this question more fully with respect to the
development of children’s competence beliefs, and have discussed two main
44
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
kinds of influences. First are children’s own experiences of mastery and
failure with different tasks, the kinds of feedback children get from
parents about their accomplishments, and how children interpret and come
to understand this information about their performance. Bandura (1997),
Dweck (2002), and Wigfield et al. (2009) provide further discussion of these
influences.
The second influence is the kinds of experiences children have in the
home and school environments (see Wigfield et al., 2006; Wigfield, Eccles, &
Rodriguez, 1998). Parents provide children with many different kinds of
evaluative feedback and often provide them with a set of opportunities to
participate in different activities. This feedback and activity involvement
influences children’s developing sense of what they are good at and what
they value. In school, children are evaluated more systematically, formally,
and frequently than they are at home, and these evaluations become
more prevalent and important as children go through school. These
evaluations in different areas lead children to develop distinct ideas about
their competencies in these areas, and also to have a better understanding
of their strengths and weaknesses in each area. The ways in which these
evaluations are done can have either positive or negative effects on
children’s competence beliefs and motivation. For example, the strong push
for high-stakes testing in school can weaken the competence beliefs and
motivation of students doing poorly on such tests (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Children also have more frequent opportunities in school to engage in more
social comparison activities because they spend so much time with same-age
peers and receive information about how others are doing (Ruble, 1983;
Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2002). Such information begins to influence children’s
sense of their own competence, with the effects noticeable at least as early as
ages six or seven. More broadly, the contextual organization of classrooms
and schools with respect to reward structures, kinds of achievement tasks
and outcomes emphasized, and opportunities for decision making and
collaboration can influence the development of students’ expectancies and
values (see Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Wigfield et al., 1998).
Less has been written about how these and other factors influence
the development of children’s achievement values, although work on the
development of children’s interests is relevant to the development of
children’s intrinsic value (see Schiefele, 2009; Wigfield et al., 2006, for review
of the work on the development of interest). Children’s own experiences
with different activities can influence how much they like or are interested in
different activities; for instance, some children will find reading fascinating,
and others will find it boring. Parents and teachers provide children with
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
45
feedback about the importance and usefulness of different activities (e.g.,
doing well in school is important; you need to learn math so you can become
a scientist), which can influence children’s own valuing of them (Wigfield
et al., 2006). Parents and teachers also may be more enthusiastic about
children’s participation in some activities rather than others, which could
influence how children value them. Children also likely compare their
interest in different activities to those of their peers, and these kinds of
value-related social comparisons may influence children’s own valuing of
the activity. More broadly, cultural norms and ideas about what is
appropriate for different children to do can influence the value children
place on different activities (see Eccles, 2005). For instance, there are gender
stereotypes about which activities are more appropriate for boys and girls.
Wigfield (1994) and Wigfield et al. (2009) discussed developmental
trajectories of the different components of task value, postulating that
interest may be the first to emerge, followed by importance and utility value.
Importance ties to individual’s sense of self, which develops quickly during
the elementary school years. Utility has to do with the perceived usefulness
of different activities, and ideas about this take shape across the school
years. Higgins (2007) provides a discussion of sources of influence on adults’
task values (see Wigfield et al., 2009, for a developmental analysis of these
sources).
Relations of Expectancy-Related Beliefs and Values
How do the expectancy-related beliefs and values relate to one another over
time? Wigfield et al. (1997) studied change across the elementary school
years in children’s expectancy-related beliefs and values in several domains
(measuring the usefulness and interest components of value). In contrast
to Atkinson’s (1957, 1964) view that expectancies and values are inversely
related, in this study at all grade levels and in all domains relations among
the constructs were positive. The positive relations increased in strength
across age. For instance, at first grade children’s competence beliefs and
values in math and reading had a median correlation of .23. By sixth grade
the median correlation of these variables in these domains was .53. Thus
children’s task values, expectancy, and competence beliefs increasingly are
positively related, suggesting that children come to value what they are
good at. Indeed, Wigfield et al. (see also Wigfield & Eccles, 1992) explained
the differences between their work and Atkinson’s by stating that in realworld achievement situations individuals value the tasks at which they think
46
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
they have a good chance of doing well. Similarly, Harter (2006) has argued
that being competent at activities one thinks are important is an important
positive predictor of self-esteem. When one lacks competence at activities
deemed important then self-esteem can suffer.
A further interesting question from a developmental perspective is
whether competence-related beliefs or achievement values have causal
priority. That is, do children come to value activities at which they are
competent, or do children learn to be competent at things they value?
Bandura (1997) argued that efficacy beliefs are the prior causal factor;
children learn to enjoy those activities at which they are competent. Jacobs
et al. (2002) reported data that supports this claim in their longitudinal
study of first through 12th grade children. They found, first, that children
were more likely to value math, sports, and language arts activities
when they believed they were competent at those activities. Further, change
in competence beliefs predicted strongly the developmental trajectory in
children’s subjective task values, accounting for over 40% of the variance
in these trajectories. Thus change in children’s values was based strongly in
how their competence beliefs changed.
Marsh and his colleagues examined relations of self-concept of ability and
achievement and found that they are reciprocally related (e.g., Marsh &
Yeung, 1997, 1998). Marsh, Köller, Trautwein, Lüdtke, and Baumert (2005)
extended this work by including a measure of interest along with
achievement, to examine reciprocal relations across all three variables in
the domain of math. The interest measure asked how much students enjoy
math, how important it was for them to be good at math, and if they would
do math in their spare time. The major findings of this work were that math
self-concept and achievement related reciprocally over time, and math
interest and achievement (while correlated) did not relate reciprocally.
Math self-concept and interest did relate reciprocally, but there was stronger
evidence for the prediction of math interest from math self-concept than
the reverse, findings that are similar to those of Jacobs et al. (2002). Thus,
it appears that competence beliefs may be what drives children’s values and
interests, at least for the kinds of achievement-related activities these
researchers studied.
Expectancies, Values, Performance, and Choice
There is clear evidence from a variety of longitudinal and cross-sectional
studies in different domains that individuals’ expectancies for success and
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
47
achievement values predict their achievement outcomes, including their
performance, persistence, and choices of which activities to do (e.g., Bong,
2001; Eccles, 1993; Eccles (Parsons) et al., 1983; Denissen, Zarrett, & Eccles,
2007; Durik, Vida, & Eccles, 2006; Marsh et al., 2005; Meece et al., 1990;
Pekrun, 1993, 2009; Simpkins, Davis-Kean, & Eccles, 2006; Xiang,
McBride, & Bruene, 2004). Students’ expectancies for success and beliefs
about ability are among the strongest psychological predictors of
performance, even when the effects of previous performance are controlled.
These relations become reciprocal as children get older (Marsh & Yeung,
1997, 1998). Students’ subjective task values predict both intentions and
actual decisions to persist at different activities, such as taking mathematics
and English courses and engaging in sports activities. Because, as just
discussed, expectancies and values themselves are positively related, it is
important to note that each has indirect as well as direct effects on
performance and choice. That is, children’s task values indirectly influence
their performance through their relationship with children’s expectancies for
success, and children’s expectancies influence their choice of activities
through their relationships with task value.
The relations of expectancies, values, and performance are evident in
children as young as first grade, although they strengthen across age (Eccles,
1984; Eccles (Parsons) et al., 1983; Eccles & Harold, 1991; Meece et al.,
1990; Wigfield, 1997). These relations of expectancies, values, and choice
extend over time; Durik et al. (2006) reported that the importance children
gave to reading in fourth grade related significantly to the number of
English classes they took in high school. Also, children’s interest in reading
measured in fourth grade indirectly predicted (through interest measured in
10th grade) high school leisure time reading, career aspirations, and course
selections. In another longitudinal study looking at relations of performance, ability beliefs and values, and choice, Simpkins et al. (2006) found
that children’s participation in math and science activities in late elementary
school related to their subsequent expectancies and values in these areas,
which in turn predicted the number of math and science courses they took
through high school. Interestingly, in this study it was children’s abilityrelated beliefs in high schools that predicted choice more strongly than did
students’ values; Simpkins et al. speculated that this may have occurred
because students know the importance of such courses for college entrance,
and are more likely to take them when they expect to do well in them. These
findings suggest that there may be developmental and/or situational
differences in how ability beliefs, expectancies, and values relate to choice;
this is an important topic for future research.
48
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
Battle and Wigfield (2003), in one of the few studies to include the cost
component of achievement values, found that attainment and utility value
were positive predictors of college students’ intentions to enter graduate
school, but the perceived psychological cost of graduate school attendance
was a negative predictor. Thus, when students value something they also
report they are more likely to engage in the activity. When the activity is
seen as having too great a cost, they will be less likely to engage in it.
Expectancies, Values, and Emotions
As previous authors have noted (Schutz & DeCuir, 2002; Schutz &
Lanehart, 2002; Pekrun, 2006, 2009), there is a growing need to understand
the associations between emotions and achievement motivation. Recently,
there have been studies revealing associations between emotions and selfregulation (see Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002; Schutz & Davis, 2000;
Turner & Husman, 2008), attributions (Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006;
Weiner, 2000), and goal orientations (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Turner,
Meyer, Schweinle, 2003) and expectancies and values (Frenzel, Pekrun, &
Goetz, 2007). As discussed earlier, Pekrun (1992, 2009), in his control-value
theory of motivation, stated that students’ expectancies and values can
have emotional consequences. When students expect to do well, value the
activity, and perform well, positive emotions occur. When they have lower
expectancies and perform poorly, they can become anxious about the
activity, and experience other negative emotions.
Work by Turner and Schallert (2001), Frenzel et al. (2007), and Pekrun
(1992, 2000) examined associations between emotions, expectancies, and
values. Turner and Schallert (2001) evaluated expectancies and values as
predictors of shame following test feedback in an undergraduate psychopharmacology course, specifically whether expectancies and values predicted
shame reactions after feedback. The expectancy block of variables was
comprised of perception of academic ability, certainty of academic ability,
and self-efficacy. These variables together positively predicted shame
reactions, but did not individually predict. The values block of variables
was made up of importance of academic ability, extrinsic goals, intrinsic
goals, and task value. This block of variables together positively predicted
shame reactions and individually only intrinsic and extrinsic goals predicted
shame reactions (both positively). Turner and Schallert also found that
expectancies negatively predicted shame, and task value did not explain
additional variance in shame when added into the regression. These findings
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
49
are slightly complicated by the expectancies and value scales that were
formed. The composite value variable included intrinsic and extrinsic goal
items, which are not generally found in task-value scales. In addition, the
expectancy measurement seems to more accurately measure efficacy since it
described current ability beliefs as opposed to future beliefs. Nevertheless,
this study showed the complex associations between motivation and
academic emotions.
Frenzel et al. (2007) extended Turner and Schallert (2001) by evaluating
additional motivations and gender differences in the associations of
expectancies, values, and emotions. Frenzel et al. examined the association
between gender, emotions, competence beliefs, and values for math in a
large sample of fifth and sixth grade students. They found that females had
lower competence beliefs, domain values, and equal achievement values as
males, and that gender differences in emotions were mediated by these
beliefs and values. Initially, the associations between gender and emotions
were significant, with males rating themselves more highly on enjoyment
and pride and females on anxiety, hopelessness, and shame. However,
when competence beliefs, domain values, and achievement values were
entered into the regression all the non-mediational betas became nonsignificant (except for enjoyment). Frenzel et al. (2007) also investigated
gender as a potential moderator of the associations between mathematics
grade, competence beliefs, domain value, and achievement value. Gender
moderated the positive association between competence beliefs (favoring
girls) and domain value (favoring boys) and the associations (all negative)
between predictors (i.e., competence beliefs and values) and hopelessness
were all larger in magnitude for females. The associations between domain
and achievement values and pride were higher for boys. Another interesting
point is that the association between prior achievement and pride was
nonsignificant for females. An interesting extension would be to examine
how these associations and gender interactions might change developmentally from fifth and sixth grade as studied here through high school.
Of all the academic emotions, test anxiety has received the most attention
(Schutz & DeCuir, 2002; Schutz & Lanehart, 2002). In a study of the
relations between test anxiety, achievement, and expectancies, Pekrun (1992)
found that effort-control expectancy was negatively associated with test
anxiety and subjective valence (importance) of failure was positively
moderately correlated with expectancy of failure in a large study done in
Germany. In addition, in fifth through eighth grade students’ achievement
was associated with lower test anxiety, and failure expectancies were
associated with higher test anxiety (Pekrun, 2006). He also commented that
50
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
achievement and anxiety did not have a direct association, which offers
evidence that they may be mediated by expectancies.
Pekrun (2009) described the current state of empirical evidence on
academic emotions. He reported that test anxiety is consistently positively
correlated with failure expectancies and that failure expectancies, valuing
achievement, and effort-control expectancies are antecedents of test anxiety
in younger students as well as university students (cf. Pekrun, Goetz, Perry,
Kramer, & Hochstadt, 2004). Based on these studies, it is clear that there are
associations between expectancies, values, and emotions. Further, these
associations between these variables are altered when feedback and gender
are considered. Additional work might consider how these associations may
change in different domains.
PROSPECTIVE: NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
There are numerous important topics for future research on children’s
expectancies and values that build on the research reviewed in this chapter.
We focus on several areas that we believe are key: (1) extending the
achievement value construct; (2) considering links of achievement values to
future instrumentality of education; (3) studying expectancies and values in
diverse groups of children and adolescents from different cultures; and
(4) attending to the role of context. We also make some measurement and
other methodological recommendations.
Extending the Achievement Values Construct
We believe there are at least three important ways that work on achievement
task values should be extended. First, as we noted in the section above
on definitions, researchers studying achievement values have looked at
both broader values about the kinds of action that are desirable both on
their own and to reach certain goals (e.g., Rokeach, 1973, 1979), and the
components of task-specific values focused on in expectancy-value models in
the achievement motivation field. Rokeach distinguished between terminal
values (things such as wisdom, freedom, equality, and happiness) or desired
end states, and instrumental values (things such as honesty, responsibility,
and independence), which are ways to attain the terminal values. It would
be interesting to examine connections between Rokeach’s broader human
values and achievement task values as a way to see how individuals’
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
51
approaches to different tasks relate to their broader values. To our
knowledge the only researcher who studied these connections was Feather
(1982, 1988). Feather found that college students’ instrumental values as
defined by Rokeach predicted the value they attached to different college
courses in math and English, and that the task-specific values predicted
choice of college major. These relations should be examined developmentally to begin to determine when students begin to define their core
instrumental and terminal values, and how these impact their task-specific
values. One intriguing possibility is that children’s interests and task values
may partly determine their broader core values; children’s more generalized
values might emerge from their specific experiences with different activities
rather than the reverse. Researchers could use the existing measures of these
constructs to study these relations in children and adolescents, although the
measures of broader values developed by Rokeach and Feather likely would
have to be adapted for use with young children.
A second area for future research on achievement values is to ask whether
there are other components of task value beyond the intrinsic, importance,
and utility components that have been the focus of most of the research.
Or do these three components capture achievement values fully, at least
with respect to predicting relevant achievement outcomes? Here are some
additional possibilities. Some tasks or activities may be valued because
they are exciting or stimulating or perhaps even risky; stimulation and risk are
related to interest value but perhaps extend beyond it. Risk taking has been
described as characterizing the adolescent developmental phase (Arnett, 1992;
Feldstein & Miller, 2006), and so this possible aspect of value might be salient
then. Excitement, stimulation, and risk most likely characterize nonacademic
activities, but perhaps some academic activities (an explosive science
experiment; a daring novel) could be characterized in these ways too.
One group of Rokeach’s (1973, 1979) terminal values includes inner
harmony, peacefulness, and beauty; perhaps there are certain tasks or
activities that promote these kinds of feelings and contribute to an overall
sense of calm and well-being. Gaskins (1999) proposed that motivation
theories do not deal adequately with how motivation can lead to
psychological states such as contentment and inner harmony; in our view
SDT perhaps comes closest with its strong focus on well-being. Expectancyvalue theory could be extended in this direction by assessing whether some
tasks or activities that individuals do contribute to these kinds of feelings, or
terminal values to use Rokeach’s term. From the particular perspective
of achievement motivation such additional components of value would be
most relevant if they related clearly to children’s performance on different
52
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
activities or choice of them. Such linkages could be assessed if measures
tapping these other possible aspects of value were developed.
In addition to exploring possible new components of task value, we also
believe the cost aspect of value deserves further exploration. Battle and
Wigfield’s (2003) study with college students showed that cost related
negatively to importance and utility value attached to graduate school, and
also to intentions to enroll in graduate school. These findings suggest that
when individuals believe the cost of an activity is too high they are less likely
to pursue it. It would be interesting to extend this work to elementary and
secondary school students. Young children often engage in many different
academic and nonacademic activities. As they get older each activity
potentially gets more time intensive, and children (and their parents,
coaches, and teachers) get a clearer sense of which activities children enjoy
and are capable of performing, and which are not. As their schedules get
more intense they likely consider whether the time spent on a less enjoyable
activity continues to be worth it. During early adolescence and adolescence
these demands get more intense. Adolescents likely consider cost in at
least two ways, within a given activity set (which of these sports activities
can I continue to do given time constraints) and across activities (how do
I balance time spent on school, social activities with friends, and other
nonacademic activities). Relations of cost, the other aspects of task value,
and perceived competence and expectancies likely play important roles
in these decisions. Thus further considerations of cost would give us a
fuller picture of children and adolescents’ decisions about which activities
to pursue and which to give up. We suggest that researchers examining
children’s expectancies and values include existing measures of cost into
their studies, and explore its relations with other motivational beliefs and
values, and various outcomes.
Researchers interested in studying potential additional aspects of
students’ values could start by interviewing students about why they engage
in different tasks, and then develop survey measures of them. These
components are potentially interesting in their own right, but it also would
be informative to see if they predict performance and choice in studies that
include measures of the other aspects of task value.
The Long-Term Value of Tasks and Activities
Greene, Miller, and their colleagues and Husman, Lens, and their colleagues
have discussed another important motivational construct that relates to
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
53
achievement values, the instrumentality of an activity or set of activities
(Greene, Miller, Crowson, Duke, & Aikey, 2004; Husman, Derryberry,
Crowson, & Lomax, 2004; Husman & Lens, 1999; Miller & Brickman, 2004;
Miller, DeBacker, & Greene, 1999). Instrumentality refers to students’
perceptions that tasks they are doing will help them attain future goals. This
construct builds on earlier work on the role of the future in motivation by
expectancy-value theorists such as Raynor (1982). It also relates to the
utility and importance value constructs in Eccles, Wigfield, and colleagues’
expectancy-value model. However, Husman et al. noted that much of the
work in the motivation field focuses on motivation for immediate tasks and
activities, and that even extant measures of utility value focus primarily
on immediate usefulness rather than long-term usefulness. Students’ current
motivation obviously is important for their engagement in learning, but
students also know that a major purpose of education is to prepare them for
the future. Therefore, if students believe that current educational activities
are useful to them in the long run, they are more likely to be motivated to
achieve (see also Maehr, 1974 for discussion of the related construct of
continuing motivation).
There are a number of important findings from these researchers’ studies
of high school and college students’ perceived instrumentality. One
important issue is how distinct instrumentality is from task values. In their
factor analytic work both Husman et al. (2004) and Miller et al. (1999)
found that instrumentality can be distinguished empirically from items
measuring task value and intrinsic motivation, although scales for each of
these constructs relate positively to one another (it is important to note that
the measures of instrumentality and task values used by these researchers
are not identical). These studies provide evidence that the future-oriented
instrumentality construct indeed is distinct from the value of current tasks.
With respect to relations of instrumentality to other constructs, Husman
and Lens (1999) found that students who see the instrumentality of their
educational activities to their future success are more positively motivated,
self-regulated, and achieve higher GPAs. Greene et al. (2004) found that
high school students who viewed the activities they do in class as motivating
and believed that teachers support their autonomy had higher self-efficacy,
which in turn predicted their instrumentality and reported use of cognitive
strategies. Thus students’ sense of the instrumentality of their educational
experiences relates to how motivating they see their current activities,
illustrating the important connection of current and future motivation.
Self-efficacy and strategy use were direct predictors of achievement;
instrumentality was an indirect predictor. These latter findings relate to
54
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
Eccles, Wigfield, and colleagues’ work reviewed earlier showing that abilityrelated beliefs directly predict achievement, whereas values are indirect
predictors. Instrumentality also predicted students’ mastery and performance approach goals (see Greene, DeBacker, Ravindran, & Krows, 1999,
for further research on relations of task values and goals).
Recently, Husman and Shell (2008) developed a measure of students’
perspective on the future that includes different dimensions of this
perspective. These include extension, or how far ahead into the future the
student thinks; connectedness, or how much students see their current
activities linked to future possibilities; speed, or students’ sense of how fast
time is passing, and valence, which refers to the importance of future
goals relative to present ones. Their confirmatory factor analyses provided
support for these dimensions of future time perspective.
It is clear from this work that instrumentality is important to students’
achievement and relates to a variety of other motivation-related beliefs,
values, and goals. Miller and Brickman (2004) proposed a model of futureoriented motivation and self-regulation, based in social cognitive models
of self-regulation such as that of Bandura (1986) and work on future
goals such as that of Markus and Nurius (1986). There are two parts of the
model, one dealing with future regulation and one dealing with proximal
regulation. Miller and Brickman also proposed connections between the
future and proximal parts of the model; for instance, they discussed
connections between individuals’ future goals and the proximal goals they
have for completing current tasks, arguing that when individuals have future
goals they are more motivated to pursue proximal goals. They also discussed
how individuals’ valuing of achievement connects to their future goals,
which in turn connect to the perceived instrumentality of the tasks they
are doing in school. Miller and Brickman posited that individuals’ beliefs
about their ability also relate to their valued future goals. Perceived
instrumentality relates to how the current tasks are valued, and also to task
engagement, self-regulation, and performance. This model thus connects
general educational values, future goals, the instrumentality of current
tasks, ability beliefs, and the value of current tasks. A number of the links
in the model are similar to those presented in Eccles and Wigfield’s and
Pekrun’s expectancy-value models reviewed earlier. Two important differences in these models are the clearer specifications of links of values and
goals in the Miller and Brickman model, and the clearer connections of
present and future motivation (Miller & Greene, personal communication,
August 14, 2009). Expectancy-value researchers interested in choice of
activities and long-term relations of expectancies and values to performance
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
55
and choice should consider including measures of instrumentality in their
studies as well, to explore further links between current and future aspects
of motivation.
Another important direction for research looking at instrumentality,
achievement values, performance, and choice is to examine developmentally
when children begin to have a clear sense of the instrumentality of different
activities, when these beliefs are distinguishable from the components of
task value, and how they relate to choice and performance in children of
different ages. As noted earlier in Eccles and colleagues’ work with younger
children, it appears that utility and importance factor together (Eccles et al.,
1993). During the early school years children do not have a clear sense
of how different tasks could be useful to them. Children’s sense of the
instrumentality of different activities likely develops during later elementary
school and through middle school. Dimensions such as the extensivity of
their future time perspective likely are limited at least until high school.
Looking at the developmental relations among these constructs using the
measures now available in the literature, and their relations to expectancy
beliefs, performance, and choice, is an important direction for future
research in the expectancy-value tradition.
Gender, Ethnic, and Cultural Differences in Expectancies and Values
Researchers studying children’s expectancies and values have long been
interested in group differences, with a particular focus on gender differences
in expectancies and values (see Wigfield & Eccles, 2002; Wigfield et al., 2006,
for detailed review). This work shows that boys’ and girls’ expectancies and
values tend to follow gender stereotypic patterns, with boys having more
positive expectancies and values in domains such as math and sports,
and girls in reading/English and music (Eccles, 1984; Eccles et al., 1993).
However, recent studies of gender differences in expectancies and values
have revealed a somewhat different picture. Jacobs et al. (2002) did not find
significant gender differences in value of math, though gender differences in
competence beliefs in math (favoring boys) and English (favoring girls) were
found, along with gender differences in English value (favoring girls) and
sport value and competence beliefs favoring boys. Fredricks and Eccles
(2002) hypothesized that gender differences in competence beliefs and
values in math and sport would increase over time because of the gender
stereotypic nature of these activity domains, but found instead that math
56
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
competence beliefs and sports interest and intrinsic value converged for boys
and girls.
Watt (2004) examined gender differential trajectories in the associations
between talent perceptions, intrinsic value, utility value, success expectancies, perceptions of difficulty, and effort required in math and English in
7th–11th grade Australian students. She found that males generally rated
themselves more highly on math talent, expectancies, and values than
did females for math, and females generally followed similar patterns for
English (except math utility value, English expectancies for success and
talent perceptions which were not significantly different).
Watt (2004) commented that the differences between her findings and
those of Fredricks and Eccles (2002) and Jacobs et al. (2002) may be due to
differences in measurement. Watt measured talent perceptions as ability,
which is less influenced by achievement experiences than competence beliefs
(the measure used by Fredricks & Eccles, 2002). In addition, differences
in results concerned with values may be due to the different types of values
that were assessed. Jacobs et al. (2002) assessed a combined task values
that contained items from all three aspects of value defined by Wigfield
and Eccles (2000). Fredricks and Eccles (2002) measured interest and
importance, and Watt measured intrinsic and utility value. These conflicting
findings from the studies done in different cultural contexts, and the
gender differences in US children’s beliefs and values, demonstrate the
complexity in the development on different types of task values. For these
and other reasons is it important to continue to evaluate gender differences
in achievement motivation.
Researchers also have been interested in ethnic differences in expectancies
and values, and related motivation constructs, as well as interactions of
gender and ethnicity (see Graham, 1994; Graham & Taylor, 2002; Meece,
Glienke, & Burg, 2006; Guthrie, Rueda, Gambrell, & Morrison, 2009;
Wigfield et al., 2006, for review). Some of this work shows that African
American children have more positive competence beliefs than do European
American children, but that these beliefs do not relate as strongly to
achievement for the African American children (see Graham, 1994).
Graham, Taylor, and Hudley have found interesting interactions of
ethnicity and gender, using a peer nomination measure asking who students
admire in their school that they describe as a way to measure task value
(Graham, Taylor, & Hudley, 1998; Taylor & Graham, 2007). They found
that African American, European American, and Hispanic American
females chose students who were fashionable, athletic, and high achievers
as ones they admired, as did European American boys. African American
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
57
and Hispanic American males nominated classmates that were fashionable
and athletic, but were not high achievers. This work shows why it is
important to consider gender and ethnicity together, as there are different
patterns for boys and girls in different ethnic groups with respect to valuesrelated beliefs. Additional research is needed to explore these patterns
further.
Other researchers have examined broader issues tied to ethnicity that can
impact children’s expectancies and values. In a qualitative study, Sanders
(1997) interviewed 28 African American middle school students about their
perceptions of racial barriers for success and found that there were three
categories of boundary: denial of racism and barriers, moderate awareness
of them, and high awareness of them. These perceptions were positively
associated with academic achievement, particularly for the high awareness
group. This group viewed racism as a challenge and an opportunity to
work harder. Taylor and Graham (2007) found a positive relation between
perception of racial barriers and nomination of low achievers as admired or
valued for African American boys in middle school, but not for female
middle school students or elementary school students. This association was
not found in the Hispanic American portion of the sample. This study may
offer insight into the development of the association between perception of
racial barriers and values. Future work might use similar protocols in order
to continue to evaluate perceptions of gender and ethnicity boundaries
simultaneously and associations with values and expectancies for success.
Researchers increasingly are interested in cross-cultural differences in
expectancies and values and other motivation-related constructs. Wigfield
et al. (2009) reviewed studies that assessed expectancy-related beliefs and
values in students from various countries in order to evaluate the relations
and developmental associations of the key constructs in expectancyvalue theory. In terms of competence beliefs they noted that researchers
find similar decreases in competence beliefs in students in Hong Kong.
Generally, students in western societies have higher mean levels of
competence beliefs than do students in Asian countries in various subject
areas, even though the Asian students’ achievement often is higher. There
are fewer cross-cultural studies of task values; extant research indicates that
the different components of values can be identified in Korean students
(Bong, 2001). Less is known about relations of task value to performance
and choice of activities. Clearly more work is needed to elucidate similarities
and differences in expectancies and values across cultures, and their
relations to performance and choice, to provide information about the
relevance of this theory cross-culturally.
58
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
When discussing these cultural differences it is imperative to assess the
fidelity of the instruments cross-culturally as well as potential interpretation
differences of participants in different countries. For example, Stevenson
and Stigler (1992) discussed the potential differences in the measurement of
utility value in Eastern cultures in which value of teachers may play a more
significant role when responding to items. Similar points may apply to
measures of expectancies and competence beliefs.
Methodological Issues
There are a number of well-validated self-report measures of expectancies,
values, and related constructs in the literature that have provided the
foundation of our knowledge in this area and can continue to be used in
future research (see Wigfield & Cambria, 2010, for review). There are many
reasons why student self-report is a good way to measure motivation; if one
is interested in measuring individuals’ beliefs then self-report needs to be
used. These measures can be plagued by social desirability, however. For
instance, it can be difficult for children to state on a questionnaire that school
is not important to them. Further, self-report measures can be problematic in
developmental studies with young children. Researchers have made strides in
developing appropriate measures for young children and ways of administering them to help children answer them well (e.g., Eccles et al., 1993;
Marsh, Ellis, & Craven, 2002), but care still must be taken in their use.
Karabenick et al. (2007) described their program of work focused on
studying the cognitive processes used by respondents as they complete
surveys. The purpose of this work is to help researchers understand how
individuals respond to self-report items and thereby improve the validity of
these measures by developing items that are understood by participants
in ways compatible with researchers’ intentions in developing the items.
Part of this work involves cognitive pretesting of items to be used on
surveys. Karabenick et al. provide examples from motivation research
of how respondents understand different measures used frequently in work
on motivation. It may be especially important to do this kind of work with
young children, in order to understand more clearly how they interpret
different items and the constructs they measure.
An important issue to consider is the problem of shared method variance
in response to self-report measures when researchers rely solely on them;
this problem can result in inflated correlations among the variables. We
urge researchers to include other kinds of measures along with participant
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
59
self-report measures, to get a more complete picture of students’
expectancies and values, their interrelations, and relations to outcomes.
Studies reviewed earlier include other measures such as different performance measures, decisions about what activities to continue, and so on that
broaden the work beyond student self-report. Other possibilities include
having teacher or parent ratings of children’s motivation; researchers have
used such measures successfully and they have been shown to relate to
various achievement outcomes (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2004). Having multiple
informants and multiple kinds of measures adds complexity to a study, but
has many benefits as well. Another alternative is to use ‘‘indirect’’ self-report
measures such as those used by Graham and her colleagues (Graham &
Taylor, 2002; Taylor & Graham, 2007) to measure task value; such
measures have the potential of avoiding some of the concerns about social
desirability of the direct measures.
Another issue concerns the kinds of statistical analyses to use when doing
studies that include multiple related measures of motivation, performance,
and other outcome variables. Many of the studies discussed earlier used
traditional variable-centered approaches such as hierarchical regression
analyses or multivariate repeated measures ANOVAS to look at predictive
relations among variables and change over time, factor analyses to look at
the dimensionality of different constructs, and correlational analyses and
structural equation modeling to look at relations among them. Recently,
researchers doing studies that include multiple related measures have been
using other kinds of analytic techniques and approaches that may prove to
be especially beneficial for this kind of work. Shell and Husman (2008) used
canonical correlation to look at relations of a set of motivation variables to
a set of self-regulation variables. This analytic technique allows researchers to
look at latent linear combination of variables and provides information about
which correlations among the set of variables are meaningful to interpret.
Another useful analytic technique is HLM, which allows the researcher
to look at variation both within and between classes. Tsai, Kunter, Lüdtke,
Trautwein, and Ryan (2008) used this analytic technique to examine
how different contextual and personal factors related to situated interest.
Finally, there is increasing interest in using person rather than variablecentered approaches when studying motivation. Peck, Roeser, Zarrett, and
Eccles (2008) and Roeser and Peck (2003) discuss these kinds of approaches.
Pastor, Barron, Miller, and Davis (2007) provide a review and critique of
different person-centered approaches and describe the advantages of latent
class or profile analysis for researchers who measure a variety of motivation
constructs and examine their relations to different outcomes.
60
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
We have focused throughout this chapter on developmental issues.
Researchers have used successfully both cross-sectional and longitudinal
studies to look at relations among expectancies and values and their
development. We believe some of the most interesting questions about how
these relations change over time, which construct may take causal
precedence, and how they relate to performance and choice require
longitudinal designs. New longitudinal studies would be build on the
important work of Fredricks and Eccles (2002), Jacobs et al. (2002), Marsh
et al. (2005), and Watt (2004).
Expectancy-Value Theory and Context
Motivation researchers increasingly are interested in how children’s
motivation is affected by the different educational contexts that they
experience (e.g., Hickey, 1997, 2008; Hickey & Granade, 2004; Nolen, 2007;
Nolen & Ward, 2008; Perry et al., 2006; Turner et al., 2002; Turner &
Patrick, 2008; Urdan, 1999). These (and other) researchers make the
essential point that children’s motivation is not a stable individual
characteristic that operates similarly in different settings. Instead, children’s
motivation is situated in and strongly influenced by what occurs in
classrooms: the kinds of tasks and activities they experience in different
subject areas, how teachers organize and structure these activities and the
classroom environment more generally, students’ relations and interactions
with other students, to give just a few examples. Nolen and Ward (2008)
separated situated and sociocultural approaches to motivation into three
broad categories (sociocultural, person in context, situative), and provide
an informative discussion of the similarities and differences in these
approaches. One important difference across these approaches is whether
the context is seen as influencing the individual (according to Nolen and
Ward researchers taking sociocultural and person in context approaches
take this view) or whether the individual is part and parcel of the social
context rather than just influence by it (researchers taking a situative view).
Over the last 25 years researchers have learned much about how different
classroom contexts, structures, and activities influence students’ motivation
(see Ames, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Perry et al., 2006; and Stipek,
1996, for review), and this work has led to a better understanding of how
teachers can organize their classrooms to promote motivation. Such work
has generated a set of principles having to do with fostering positive
motivations in classrooms These principles have to do with the kinds of
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
61
tasks and activities to provide, the goal structure to emphasize, the
importance of active learning opportunities, and others, However,
researchers focusing on situative and contextual influences also note that
the variation in children’s motivation across different situations means that
there are limits to these general principles and that children’s motivation
reflects a complex interplay of the individual and the contexts they
experience (e.g., Hickey & Granade, 2004). Indeed, Hickey and McCaslin
(2001) discussed how situated views emphasize the ways in which specific
motivational practices (e.g., the provision of incentives) impact the ways
students negotiate shared meaning in different educational contexts, which
will influence how those practices operate in the different context. Thus
such practices may not necessarily operate similarly in different classroom
contexts (see also Nolen & Ward, 2008).
Expectancy-value theorists have considered contextual influences on
children’s motivation in a number of ways. As noted earlier, Eccles, Wigfield,
and colleagues’ model includes a variety of social, cultural, and contextual
influences on children’s expectancies and values (see Eccles, 1993; Eccles &
Midgley, 1989; Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield et al., 1998). These include
cultural views and stereotypes about what are appropriate activities for
different children to do; socializers’ beliefs and provisions of opportunities in
different areas; and classroom characteristics, activities, and structures. All of
these influences are dynamic and situation bound. Further, as discussed
earlier measures of children’s expectancies and values are situated at least to
the domain-specific level, and could be made more specific. In these and other
ways context and situation are an integral part of expectancy-value theory,
and researchers adopting this view have examined how a variety of
contextual and situation factors influence children’s expectancies and values
in reciprocal ways (see Eccles et al., 1998; Wigfield et al., 1998, for review).
Having said that, there are potential and actual points of disagreement
between some theorists focusing on context and situation and expectancyvalue theorists on the nature of motivation and its influences on learning.
This debate centers around assumptions of the nature of knowledge,
learning, motivation, and where they reside (see Hickey, 2008; Hickey &
Granade, 2004; Nolen & Ward, 2008). Sociocultural and situative theories
of learning and motivation are based in part Vygotsky’s (1978) work, and a
major premise of his work is not just that contexts influence individuals, but
that knowledge and learning actually are part of the context, not necessarily
an individual phenomenon; this is the approach researchers categorized by
Nolen and Ward (2008) as adopting a situative approach take. Individuals’
motivation thus reflects their engagement with the community of learners in
62
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
their classrooms, and meaningful engagement is not possible by a given
individual if the whole community is not engaged. This ‘‘distributed’’ view
of knowledge and motivation rests on different assumptions about the
nature of motivation than the assumptions made by social cognitive
theorists about the importance of individual beliefs, beliefs, values, goals,
and other motivation-related constructs residing in the individual that are
seen as determinants of motivation. Such beliefs, values, and goals may
become less relevant if motivation is part and parcel of the context rather
than the individual (see Hickey, 2008). Our own position is that individuals’
ability-related beliefs and values (among other individual characteristics)
remain important influences on students’ achievement, choices, and
engagement in different activities. Contexts and situations can moderate
these influences in important ways, but the individuals’ perceptions of these
influences and their self-beliefs and values remain key to understanding their
motivation.
These different kinds of assumption have implications not only for how
motivation and engagement are characterized, but also how it is studied.
The traditional self-report measures utilized in much research based in social
cognitive models of motivation may not be responsive enough to situations
to capture fully their influence, or perhaps more important, capture how
engagement exists in the interactions of the individual and context rather
than just the individual. Hickey and Granade (2004) and Turner and Patrick
(2008) discussed some alternative methodologies to capture situated
motivation (see also Ainley & Hidi, 2002), and Hickey and Granade noted
the importance of doing research that includes measures coming from both
social cognitive and sociocultural perspectives as a way to begin to test some
of the different assumptions and predictions coming from these different
perspectives. Nolen and Ward (2008) discussed how in situative and other
sociocultural approaches to motivation considering the context or community as a unit of analysis (rather than the individual) is crucial, as is
researchers’ participation in the community. Use of these different kinds
of methodologies and analysis approaches will provide further insight into
students’ motivation, how it is influenced by context, and the interplay of
the context and individual, that will help the field continue to move forward.
CONCLUSION
Expectancy-value theory has been a vibrant theoretical perspective on
motivation, and as we hope is clear from this chapter, researchers continue
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
63
to uncover new and interesting things about students’ expectancies and
values, and their relations to a variety of outcomes. Over the next ten years
we anticipate important new findings about how expectancies and values
relate to various motivational, behavioral, and emotional outcomes; vary
in different groups of children; and are influenced (and influence) different
contexts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Much of the research by Eccles, Wigfield, and their colleagues on the
development of children’s expectancies and values discussed in this chapter
was supported by Grant HD-17553 from the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (NICHD), and also by Grant MH-31724
from the National Institute for Mental Health, HD-17296 from NICHD,
Grant BNS-8510504 from the National Science Foundation, and grants
from the Spencer Foundation. We would like to thank Stuart Karabenick,
Barbara A. Greene, Raymond B. Miller, and Reinhard Pekrun for helpful
comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.
REFERENCES
Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2002). Dynamic measures for studying interest and learning. In:
P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds), Advances in motivation and achievement: New
directions in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 43–76). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Arnett, J. (1992). Reckless behavior in adolescence: A developmental perspective. Developmental Review, 12, 339–373.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological
Review, 64, 359–372.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Battle, A., & Wigfield, A. (2003). College women’s value orientations toward family, career,
and graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 56–75.
Battle, E. (1965). Motivational determinants of academic task persistence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 209–218.
64
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
Battle, E. (1966). Motivational determinants of academic competence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 4, 534–642.
Bong, M. (2001). Role of self-efficacy and task value in predicting college students’ course
enrollments and intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 553–570.
Burhans, K. K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of contingent
worth. Child Development, 66, 1719–1738.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the
worse it gets. In: J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of
psychological factors on education (pp. 61–87). San Diego: Academic Press.
Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and I know
I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and
interest. Child Development, 78, 430–447.
Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability beliefs as predictors
of high school literacy choices: A developmental analysis. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98, 382–393.
Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In: A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles
(Eds), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 57–88). San Diego: Academic Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In: P. H. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. IV, pp. 643–691). New York: Wiley.
Eccles, J. S. (1984). Sex differences in achievement patterns. In: T. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (Vol. 32, pp. 97–132). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 11, 135–172.
Eccles, J. S. (1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children’s interests, selfperceptions, and activity choice. In: J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation,
1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 145–208). Lincoln, NB: University
of Nebraska Press.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task values and the Eccles et al. model of achievement related
choices. In: A. J. Elliott & C. S. Dweck (Eds), Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 105–121). New York: Guilford.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1991). Gender differences in sport involvement: Applying the
Eccles’ expectancy-value model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 3, 7–35.
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate
classrooms for early adolescents. In: R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds), Research on motivation
in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139–181). New York: Academic Press.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the achiever: The structure of adolescents’
academic achievement related-beliefs and self-perceptions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 215–225.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age and gender differences in
children’s self- and task perceptions during elementary school. Child Development, 64,
830–847.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In: W. Damon
(Series Ed.), N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. III,
pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.
Eccles (Parsons), J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., &
Midgley, C. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In: J. T. Spence (Ed.),
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
65
Achievement and achievement motivation (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W. H.
Freeman.
Feather, N. T. (1982). Expectancy-value approaches: Present status and future directions. In:
N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology
(pp. 395–420). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role of personal
values within expectancy-value framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
381–391.
Feldstein, S. W., & Miller, R. (2006). Substance use and risk-taking among adolescents. Journal
of Mental Health, 15, 633–643.
Fredricks, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood
through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male sex-typed domains. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 519–533.
Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2007). Girls and mathematics – a ‘‘hopeless’’ issue?
A control-value approach to gender differences in emotions towards mathematics.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22, 497–514.
Gaskins, R. W. (1999). ‘‘Adding legs to a snake’’: A reanalysis of motivation and the pursuit
of happiness from a Zen Buddhist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
204–214.
Graham, S. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational Research, 64,
55–117.
Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2002). Ethnicity, gender, and the development of achievement
values. In: A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds), Development of achievement motivation
(pp. 121–146). San Diego: Academic Press.
Graham, S., Taylor, A. Z., & Hudley, C. (1998). Exploring achievement values among ethnic
minority early adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 606–620.
Greene, B. A., DeBacker, T. K., Ravindran, B., & Krows, A. J. (1999). Goals, values and beliefs
as predictors of achievement and effort in high school mathematics classrooms. Sex
Roles, 40, 421–458.
Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. C., & Aikey, K. L. (2004). Predicting
high school students’ cognitive engagement and achievement: Contributions of
classroom perceptions and motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29,
462–482.
Guthrie, J. T., Rueda, R., Gambrell, L. B., & Morrison, D. A. (2009). Roles of engagement,
valuing, and identification in reading development of students from diverse backgrounds. In: L. Morrow, R. S. Rueda & D. Lapp (Eds), Handbook of research on literacy
and diversity. New York: Guilford Press.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M., Scafiddi,
N. T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension through concept-oriented
reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 105–122.
Harter, S. (2006). The self. In: W. Damon (Series Ed.), N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 505–570). New York: Wiley.
Harter, S., Whitesell, N. R., & Kowalski, P. (1992). Individual differences in the effects of
educational transitions on young adolescents’ perceptions of competence and motivational orientation. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 809–835.
Hickey, D. T. (1997). Motivation and contemporary socio-constructivist instructional
perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 32, 175–193.
66
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
Hickey, D. T. (2008). Sociocultural theories of motivation. In: E. M. Anderman &
L. Anderman (Eds), Psychology of classroom learning. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson
Gale Publishers.
Hickey, D. T., & Granade, J. B. (2004). The influence of sociocultural theory on our theories
of engagement and motivation. In: D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds), Big theories
revisited: Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (Vol. 4,
pp. 223–247). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hickey, D. T., & McCaslin, M. (2001). Comparative and sociocultural analyses of context and
motivation. In: S. Volet & S. Jarvela (Eds), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical
and methodological implications (pp. 33–56). Amsterdam: Pergamon/Elsevier.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
Higgins, E. T. (2007). Value. In: A. W. Kruglanski & E. Tory Higgins (Eds), Handbook of social
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 454–472). New York: Guilford.
Husman, J., Derryberry, W. P., Crowson, H. M., & Lomax, R. (2004). Instrumentality, task
value, and intrinsic motivation: Making sense of their independent interdependence.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 63–76.
Husman, J., & Lens, W. (1999). The role of the future in students’ motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 34, 113–125.
Husman, J., & Shell, D. F. (2008). Beliefs and perceptions about the future: A measurement of
future time perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 166–175.
Jacobs, J., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Ontogeny of children’s
self-beliefs: Gender and domain differences across grades one through 12. Child
Development, 73, 509–527.
Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Amon, B. V., Blazevski, J., Bonney, C. R.,
De Groot, E., Gilbert, M. C., Musu, L., Kempler, T. M., & Kelly, K. L. (2007).
Cognitive processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what
they mean? Educational Psychologist, 42, 139–151.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An
asymmetrical bidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37, 69–78.
Maehr, M. L. (1974). Continuing motivation: Analysis of a seldom considered educational
outcome. Review of Educational Research, 46, 443–462.
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 91, 954–969.
Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L. A., & Craven, R. G. (2002). How do preschool children feel about
themselves? Unraveling measurement and multidimensional self-concept structure.
Developmental Psychology, 38, 376–393.
Marsh, H. W., Köller, O., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic selfconcept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of
causal ordering. Child Development, 76, 397–416.
Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Causal effects of academic self-concept on academic
achievement: Structural equation models of longitudinal data. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 41–54.
Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998). Longitudinal structural equation models of academic self
concept and achievement: Gender differences in the development of math and English
constructs. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 705–738.
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
67
Meece, J., Glienke, B., & Burg, S. (2006). Gender and motivation. Journal of School Psychology,
44, 351–373.
Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its
consequences for young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performances in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 60–70.
Miller, R. B., & Brickman, S. A. (2004). A model of future oriented motivation and selfregulation. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 9–33.
Miller, R. B., DeBacker, T. K., & Greene, B. A. (1999). Perceived instrumentality
and academics: The link to task valuing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24,
250–260.
Nolen, S. B. (2007). Young children’s motivation to read and write: Development in social
contexts. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 219–270.
Nolen, S. B., & Ward, C. J. (2008). Sociocultural and situative approaches to studying
motivation. In: M. L. Maehr, S. Karabenick & T. Urdan (Eds), Advances in motivation
and achievement: Social psychological perspectives (Vol. 15, pp. 425–461). Bingley, UK:
Emerald Publishing Group.
Pastor, D. A., Barron, K. E., Miller, B. J., & Davis, S. L. (2007). A latent profile analysis of
college students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
32, 8–47.
Peck, S. C., Roeser, R. W., Zarrett, N., & Eccles, J. S. (2008). Exploring the roles of extracurricular
activity quantity and quality in the educational resilience of vulnerable adolescents:
Variable and pattern-centered approaches. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 135–155.
Pekrun, R. (1992). Expectancy-value theory of anxiety: Overview and implications. In:
D. G. Forgays, T. Sosnowski & K. Wrzesniewski (Eds), Anxiety: Recent developments in
self-appraisal, psychophysiological and health research (pp. 23–41). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents’ academic motivation: A longitudinal expectancy-value
approach. In: P. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds), Advances in motivation and achievement
(Vol. 8, pp. 139–189). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pekrun, R. (2000). A social-cognitive, control-value theory of achievement emotions. In:
J. Heckhausen (Ed.), Motivational psychology of human development (pp. 143–163).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions,
corollaries, and implications for education and practice. Educational Psychology Review,
18, 315–341.
Pekrun, R. (2009). Emotions at school. In: K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds), Handbook of
motivation in school (pp. 575–605). New York: Routledge Taylor Francis Group.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, K., & Hochstadt, M. (2004). Beyond test anxiety:
Development and validation of the Test Emotions Questionnaire (TEQ). Anxiety, Stress
and Coping, 17, 287–316.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Positive emotions in education. In:
E. Frydenberg (Ed.), Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions, and challenges (pp. 149–174).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Perry, N. E., Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2006). Classrooms as contexts for motivating
learning. In: P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds), Handbook of educational psychology
(2nd ed., pp. 327–348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Raynor, J. O. (1982). Future orientation, self-evaluation, and achievement motivation: Use of an
expectancy X value theory of personality functioning and change. In: N. T. Feather (Ed.),
68
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 97–124). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. C. (2003). Patterns and pathways of educational achievement across
adolescence: A holistic developmental perspective. New Directions for Child & Adolescent
Development, 103, 39–62.
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 4, 255–277.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rokeach, M. (1979). From individual to institutional values: With special reference to the
values of science. In: M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values: Individual and
societal (pp. 47–70). New York: Free Press.
Ruble, D. (1983). The development of social comparison processes and their role in achievementrelated self-socialization. In: E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble & W. W. Hartup (Eds), Social
cognition and social development: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 134–157). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation,
learning, and well-being. In: K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds), Handbook of motivation
in school. New York: Taylor Francis.
Sanders, M. G. (1997). Overcoming obstacles: Academic achievement as a response to racism
and discrimination. Journal of Negro Education, 66, 83–93.
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In: K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds),
Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 197–222). New York: Routledge Taylor Francis
Group.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In: K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds),
Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 35–54). New York: Routledge Taylor Francis
Group.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schutz, P. A., & Davis, H. (2000). Emotion and self-regulation during test taking. Educational
Psychologist, 35, 243–256.
Schutz, P. A., & DeCuir, J. (2002). Inquiry on emotions in education. Educational Psychologist,
37, 125–134.
Schutz, P. A., & Lanehart, S. L. (Eds). (2002). Emotion in education. Educational Psychologist,
3, 67–68.
Schutz, P. A., & Pekrun, R. R. (2007). Emotions in education. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Shell, D. F., & Husman, J. (2008). Control, motivation, affect, and strategic self-regulation in
the college classroom: A multidimensional phenomenon. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 443–459.
Simpkins, S. D., Davis-Kean, P. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Math and science motivation:
A longitudinal examination of the links between choice and beliefs. Developmental
Psychology, 42, 70–83.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2002). Internal and external frames of reference for academic
self-concept. Educational Psychologist, 37(4), 233–244.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what
we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
Expectancy-Value Theory: Retrospective and Prospective
69
Stipek, D. J. (1996). Motivation and instruction. In: R. C. Calfee & D. C. Berliner (Eds),
Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Stipek, D. J., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s assessment of
intellectual competence. Child Development, 60, 521–538.
Stipek, D. J., Recchia, S., & McClintic, S. M. (1992). Self-evaluation in young children.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(2, Serial No. 226).
Taylor, A. Z., & Graham, S. (2007). An examination of the relationship between achievement
values and perceptions of barriers among low-SES African American and Latino
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 52–64.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
Tsai, Y.-M., Kunter, K., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). What makes lessons
interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 460–472.
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., & Schweinle, A. (2003). The importance of emotion in theories
of motivation: Empirical, methodological, and theoretical considerations from a goal
theory perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 375–393.
Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. A., & Kang, J. (2002). The
classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance strategies in mathematics:
A multi-method study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106.
Turner, J. C., & Patrick, H. (2008). How does motivation develop and why does it change?
Reframing motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 119–131.
Turner, J. E., & Husman, J. (2008). Emotional and cognitive self-regulation following academic
shame. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20, 138–173.
Turner, J. E., & Schallert, D. L. (2001). Expectancy-value relationships of shame reactions and
shame resiliency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 320–329.
Urdan, T. C. (Ed.) (1999). The role of context: Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 11).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watt, H. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions.
Child Development, 75, 1556–1574.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1–14.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78.
Wigfield, A. (1997, April). Predicting children’s grades from their ability beliefs and
subjective task values: Developmental and domain differences. Paper presented at
the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington,
DC.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30, 1–35.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical
analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.
70
ALLAN WIGFIELD AND JENNA CAMBRIA
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of motivation. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for
success, and achievement values from childhood through adolescence. In: A. Wigfield &
J. S. Eccles (Eds), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions at
early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific self-perceptions and general
self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27,
552–565.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., & Rodriguez, D. (1998). The development of children’s motivation in
school contexts. In: A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds), Review of research in education
(Vol. 23, pp. 73–118). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development
of achievement motivation. In: N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3,
pp. 933–1002). New York: Wiley.
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A., Freedman-Doan, C., &
Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Changes in children’s competence beliefs and subjective task
values across the elementary school years: A three-year study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 451–469.
Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In: K. R. Wentzel &
A. Wigfield (Eds), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 55–76). New York: Routledge
Taylor Francis Group.
Xiang, P., McBride, R. E., & Bruene, A. (2004). Fourth graders’ motivation in an elementary
physical education running program. Elementary School Journal, 104, 253–266.