Editing Expectancy theory (section)

==Current research==
===Management===
Victor Vroom's expectancy theory is one such [[management theory]] focused on motivation. According to Holdford and Lovelace-Elmore, Vroom asserts, "intensity of work effort depends on the perception that an individual's effort will result in a desired outcome".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Holdford |first1=DA |last2=Lovelace-Elmore |first2=B |title=Applying the principles of human motivation to pharmaceutical education |journal=Journal of Pharmacy Teaching |year=2001 |volume=8 |issue=4 |page=8 |doi=10.3109/J060v08n04_01 |doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 }}
</ref>

In order to enhance the performance-outcome tie, managers should use systems that tie rewards very closely to performance. Managers also need to ensure that the rewards provided are deserved and wanted by the recipients.<ref name="Montana, Patrick J 2008">{{cite book |last1=Montana |first1=Patrick J |last2=Charnov |first2=Bruce H |title=Management |edition=4th |year=2008 |publisher=Barron's Educational Series, Inc. |isbn=978-0-7641-3931-4}}</ref> In order to improve the effort-performance tie, managers should engage in training to improve their capabilities and improve their belief that added effort will in fact lead to better performance.<ref name="Montana, Patrick J 2008"/>
* Emphasizes [[Self|self-interest]] in the alignment of rewards with employee's wants.
* Emphasizes the connections among expected behaviors, rewards and organizational goals

Expectancy Theory, though well known in work motivation literature, is not as familiar to scholars or practitioners outside that field.

===Computer users===
Lori Baker-Eveleth and Robert Stone, [[University of Idaho]] in 2008 conducted an [[empirical]] study on 154 faculty members' reactions to the use of new software.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Baker-Eveleth |first1=L. |last2=Stone |first2=R.W.|year=2008 |title=Expectancy theory and behavioral intentions to use computer applications |journal=Interdisciplinary Journal of Information}}</ref> It was found that ease of system use affects both [[self-efficacy]] (self-confidence) and anticipated usefulness. These in turn influenced the decision, or anticipated decision, to use the software.

Self-efficacy and outcome expectancy impact a person's affect and behavior separately:
* Self-efficacy is the belief that a person possesses the skills and abilities to successfully accomplish something.
* Outcome expectancy is the belief that when a person accomplishes the task, a desired outcome is attained.

Self-efficacy has a direct impact on outcome expectancy and has a larger effect than outcome expectancy. Employees will accept [[technology]] if they believe the technology is a benefit to them. If an employee is mandated to use the technology, the employees will use it but may feel it is not useful. On the other hand, when an employee is not mandated, the employee may be influenced by these other factors (self-confidence and confidence in outcome) that it should be used.

The self-efficacy theory can be applied to predicting and perceiving an employee's belief for computer use.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bandura |first=A. |year=1986 |title=Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory |location=New Jersey |publisher=Prentice-Hall}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1=Bates | first1=Reid | last2=Khasawneh | first2=Samer | title=Self-efficacy and college students' perceptions and use of online learning systems | journal=Computers in Human Behavior | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=23 | issue=1 | year=2007 | issn=0747-5632 | doi=10.1016/j.chb.2004.04.004 | pages=175–191}}</ref> This theory associates an individual's cognitive state with effective behavioral outcomes.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Staples | first1=D. Sandy | last2=Hulland | first2=John S. | last3=Higgins | first3=Christopher A. | title=A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations | journal=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication | publisher=Oxford University Press | volume=3 | issue=4 | date=1 June 1998 | issn=1083-6101 | doi=10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00085.x |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Other constructs of the self-efficacy theory that impact attitudes and intentions to perform are:
* past experience or [[Skill|mastery]] with the task;
* vicarious experience performing the task;
* emotional or physiological arousal regarding the task;
* social persuasion to perform the task

===Models of teacher expectancy effects===
[[Jere Brophy]] and Thomas Good<ref>{{cite book|first1=Jere |last1=Brophy |first2=Thomas |last2=Good |year=1974 |title=Teacher-Student Relationships: Causes and Consequences |location=New York |publisher=Holt, Rinehart and Winston}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first1=Jere |last1=Brophy |first2=Thomas |last2=Good |year=1987 |title=Looking in classrooms |edition=4th |location=New York |publisher=Harper and Row}}</ref> provided a comprehensive model of how [[teacher]] expectations could influence children's achievement. Their model posits that teachers' expectations indirectly affect children's achievement: "teacher expectations could also affect student outcomes indirectly by leading to differential teacher treatment of students that would condition student attitudes, expectations, and behavior".<ref name="Brophy 1983">{{cite journal | last=Brophy | first=Jere E. | title=Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. | journal=Journal of Educational Psychology | publisher=American Psychological Association (APA) | volume=75 | issue=5 | year=1983 | issn=0022-0663 | doi=10.1037/0022-0663.75.5.631 | pages=631–661}}</ref>{{rp|639}} The model includes the following sequence. Teachers form differential expectations for students early in the school year. Based on these expectations, they behave differently toward different students, and as a result of these behaviors the students begin to understand what the teacher expects from them. If students accept the teachers' expectations and behavior toward them then they will be more likely to act in ways that confirm the teacher's initial expectations. This process will ultimately affect student achievement so that teachers' initial expectancies are confirmed.<ref name="Schunk, Dale H. 2012. pp. 96-97">{{cite book |last1=Schunk |first1=Dale H. |last2=Meece |first2=Judith L. |title=Student Perceptions in the Classroom |location=Mahwah |publisher=Routledge |year=2012 |pages=96–97}}</ref>

In discussing work related to this model, Brophy made several important observations about teacher expectation effects. First and foremost, he argued that most of the beliefs teachers hold about student are accurate, and so their expectations usually reflect students' actual performance levels. As a result, Brophy contended that [[self-fulfilling prophecy]] effects have relatively weak effects on student achievement, changing achievement 5% to 10%, although he did note that such effects usually are negative expectation effects rather than positive effects. Second, he pointed out that various situational and individual difference factors influence the extent to which teacher expectations will act as self-fulfilling prophecies. For instance, Brophy stated that expectancy effects may be larger in the early [[Elementary school|elementary]] grades, because teachers have more one-on-one interactions with students then, as they attempt to [[Socialization|socialize]] children into the student role. In the upper elementary grades more whole-class teaching methods are used, which may minimize expectation effects.<ref name="Brophy 1983"/> Some evidence supports this claim; expectancy effects in Rosenthal and Jacobson's study were strongest during the earlier grades.<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Rosenthal | first1=Robert | last2=Jacobson | first2=Lenore | title=Pygmalion in the classroom | journal=The Urban Review | publisher=Springer Science and Business Media LLC | volume=3 | issue=1 | year=1968 | issn=0042-0972 | doi=10.1007/bf02322211 | pages=16–20| s2cid=189835367 }}</ref> Raudenbush's [[meta-analysis]] of findings from different teacher expectancy studies in which expectancies were induced by giving teachers artificial information about children's intelligence showed that expectancy effects were stronger in [[First grade|grades 1]] and [[Second grade|2]] than in [[Third grade|grades 3]] through [[Sixth grade|Grade 6]], especially when the information was given to teachers during the first few weeks of school.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Raudenbush | first=Stephen W. | title=Magnitude of teacher expectancy effects on pupil IQ as a function of the credibility of expectancy induction: A synthesis of findings from 18 experiments. | journal=Journal of Educational Psychology | publisher=American Psychological Association | volume=76 | issue=1 | year=1984 | issn=0022-0663 | doi=10.1037/0022-0663.76.1.85 | pages=85–97}}</ref> These findings are particularly relevant because they show a form of the expectancy theory: how teachers have certain expectations of students, and how they treat the students differently because of those expectations.<ref name="Schunk, Dale H. 2012. pp. 96-97"/>