Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Examining Individuals’ Strivings for Value, Control, and Truth Effectiveness: Implications for Educational Psychology Research

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is grounded on a recent conceptualization of human motivation that encompasses strivings for value, control, and truth effectiveness. The article elucidates the key aspects that form the basis for a multidimensional self-system perspective comprising motivational orientations mapping these three types of effectiveness strivings. In addition, the paper highlights the importance of examining these strivings in motivation research. Moreover, the article delineates how employing this systemic approach to study motivation in conjunction with expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory leads to new insights, provides enhanced explanatory power, and delineates important directions for productive future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • An, D., & Carr, M. (2017). Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achievement: recommendations for alternative approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: the limited benefits of self-worth strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisson, B. M., Dicke, A.-L., Gaspard, H., Hafner, I., Flunger, B., Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2017). Short intervention, sustained effects: promoting students’ math competence beliefs, effort, and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1048–1078. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervone, D., Mor, N., Orom, H., Shadel, W. G., & Scott, W. D. (2011). Self-efficacy beliefs and the architecture of personality: on knowledge, appraisal, and self-regulation. In K. Vohs & R. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 461–484). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Covington, M. (2009). Self-worth theory: retrospection and prospects. In K. A. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 141–169). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durik, A. M., Shechter, O. G., Noh, M., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). What if I can’t? Success expectancies moderate the effects of utility value information on situational interest and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9419-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review, 124(6), 689–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., Higgins, E. T., & Grant-Pillow, H. (2003). Self-systems give unique meaning to self-variables. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 239–252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: the MASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eitam, B., & Higgins, E. T. (2014). What’s in a goal? The role of motivational relevance in cognition and action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(02), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13002008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation during goal pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, L. R., Markman, A. B., Maddox, W. T., & Baldwin, G. C. (2009). Stereotype threat reinterpreted as regulatory mismatch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, L. R., Markman, A. B., & Maddox, W. T. (2012). End-of-semester syndrome: how situational regulatory fit affects test performance over an academic semester. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.693427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.). (2013). Structural equation modeling: a second course (2nd ed.). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., & Priniski, S. J. (2018). Improving student outcomes in higher education: the science of targeted intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 409–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harring, J. R., & Hodis, F. A. (2016). Mixture modeling: applications in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 51(3-4), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model. Science of Learning, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113(3), 439–460. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2008). Culture and personality: variability across universal motives as the missing link. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 608–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00075.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2012a). Accessibility theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75–96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2012b). Beyond pleasure and pain: how motivation works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2013). Truth motivation. In K. D. Markman, T. Proulx, & M. J. Lindberg (Eds.), The Psychology of meaning (pp. 91–114). doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/14040-005.

  • Higgins, E. T. (2015). Control and truth working together: the agentic experience of ‘going in the right direction. In P. Haggard & B. Eitam (Eds.), The sense of agency (pp. 327–344). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2015). Goal pursuit functions: working together. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 843–889). doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/14341-027.

  • Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: locomotion and assessment as distinct orientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293–344). New York, NY: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Re-thinking culture and personality: how self-regulatory universals create cross-cultural differences. In R. Sorrentino & A. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition across cultures (pp. 161–190). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Franks, B., Pavarini, D., Sehnert, S., & Manley, K. (2013). Expressed likelihood as motivator: creating value through engaging what’s real. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A. (2018). Underpinnings of expectancies of success in mathematics: an analysis of general, school-related, and domain-specific motivation antecedents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A., & Hodis, G. M. (2015). Expectancy, value, promotion, and prevention: an integrative account of regulatory fit vs. non-fit with student satisfaction with communicating with teachers. Annals of the International Communication Association, 39(1), 339–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A., & Hodis, G. M. (2017). Assessing motivation of secondary school students: an analysis of promotion and prevention orientations as measured by the regulatory focus questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916658385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A., Hattie, J. A. C., & Hodis, G. M. (2017). Investigating student motivation at the confluence of multiple effectiveness strivings: a study of promotion, prevention, locomotion, assessment, and their interrelationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., & Ruan, B. (2016). The Pandora effect: the power and peril of curiosity. Psychological Science, 27(5), 659–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616631733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009, December 4). Promoting interest and performance in high school science classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., Kosovich, J. J., Barron, K. E., & Daniel, D. B. (2017). Making connections: replicating and extending the utility value intervention in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: it is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: what’s the purpose? Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9087-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y.-e., Brady, A. C., & Wolters, C. A. (2018). Development and validation of the brief regulation of motivation scale. Learning and Individual Differences. Advance online publication. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.12.010.

  • Koletzko, S. H., Herrmann, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2015). Unconflicted goal striving: goal ambivalence as mediator between goal self-concordance and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 140–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214559711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2016). Experience of time by people on the go: a theory of the locomotion—temporality interface. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(2), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315581120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauermann, F., Tsai, Y.-M., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Math-related career aspirations and choices within Eccles et al.’s expectancy-value theory of achievement-related behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 1540–1559. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2013). High value with low perceived competence as an amplifier of self-worth threat. In D. M. McInerney, H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & F. Guay (Eds.), Theory driving research: new wave perspectives on self-processes and human development (pp. 205–231). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Bong, M., & Kim, S. (2014). Interaction between task values and self-efficacy on maladaptive achievement strategy use. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 34(5), 538–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lisjak, M., Molden, D. C., & Lee, A. Y. (2012). Primed interference: the cognitive and behavioral costs of an incongruity between chronic and primed motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 889–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., Sadler, P., Fyman, K., & Tuck, S. (2004). To do or not to do: using positive or negative role models to harness motivation. Social Cognition, 22(4), 422–450. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.4.422.38297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddox, W. T., Baldwin, G. C., & Markman, A. B. (2006). A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning. Memory and Cognition, 34(7), 1377–1397. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: toward a theory of personal investment. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 115–144). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauro, R., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2009). The perfect mix: regulatory complementarity and the speed-accuracy balance in group performance. Psychological Science, 20(6), 681–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02363.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, G. J., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miele, D. B., & Scholer, A. A. (2016). Self-regulation of motivation. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 363–384). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miele, D. B., & Scholer, A. A. (2018). The role of metamotivational monitoring in motivation regulation. Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1371601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miele, D. B., Molden, D. C., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Motivated comprehension regulation: vigilant versus eager metacognitive control. Memory & Cognition, 37(6), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molden, D. C. (2012). Motivated strategies for judgment: how preferences for particular judgment process can affect judgment outcomes. Social and Personality Compass, 6(2), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00424.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molden, D. C., & Miele, D. B. (2008). The origins and influences of promotion-focused and prevention-focused achievement motivations. In M. Maehr, S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: social psychological perspectives (Vol. 15, pp. 81–118). Binley, Wales: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Molden, D. C., & Rosenzweig, E. Q. (2016). The origins and educational implications of promotion-focused and prevention-focused achievement motivations. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 477–503). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orehek, E., Mauro, R., Kruglanski, A. W., & van der Bles, A. M. (2012). Prioritizing association strength versus value: the influence of self-regulatory modes on means evaluation in single goal and multigoal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: effects of ‘locomotion’ and ‘assessment’ on intrinsic and extrinsic task motivation. European Journal of Personality, 20(5), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierro, A., Presaghi, F., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2009). Regulatory mode preferences for autonomy supporting versus controlling instructional styles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185409X412444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). On the psychology of time in action: regulatory mode orientations and procrastination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(6), 1317–1331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Locomotion and the preference for multi-tasking: implications for well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9300-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). Making learning personally meaningful: a new framework for relevance research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reber, R., & Greifeneder, R. (2017). Processing fluency in education: how metacognitive feelings shape learning, belief formation, and affect. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1258173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Righetti, F., Finkenauer, C., & Rusbult, C. (2011). The benefits of interpersonal regulatory fit for individual goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 720–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Miele, D. B. (2016). Do you have an opportunity or an obligation to score well? The influence of regulatory focus on academic test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering motivation, learning, and well-being in schools. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 96–119). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). Conflict and control at different levels of self-regulation. In R. Hassin, K. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self-control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 312–334). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2012a). Commitment to change from locomotion motivation during deliberation. Motivation and Emotion, 36(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9239-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2012b). Too much of a good thing? Trade-offs in promotion and prevention focus. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 65–84). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwinger, M., & Otterpohl, N. (2017). Which one works best? Considering the relative importance of motivational regulation strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sehnert, S., Franks, B., Yap, A. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2014). Scarcity, engagement, and value. Motivation and Emotion, 38(6), 823–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9442-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy × value effects: regulatory focus as a determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., Osin, E. N., Gordeeva, T. O., Suchkov, D. D., & Sychev, O. A. (2017). Evaluating the dimensionality of self-determination theory’s relative autonomy continuum. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(9), 1215–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217711915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Ludtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern expectancy–value theory: a latent interaction modeling study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, L. A. (2017). Foundational tests of the need-support model: a framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216684132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieth, A. Z., Strauman, T. J., Kolden, J. J., Woods, T. E., Michels, J. L., & Klein, M. H. (2003). Self-system therapy (SST): a theory-based psychotherapy for depression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2016). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 55–74). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zusho, A. (2017). Toward an integrated model of student learning in the college classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 29(2), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9408-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work of the author was supported by a Fast Start Marsden Grant from Marsden Fund Council, from government funding, administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand (contract VUW1210). The author would like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, 15 Waiteata Road, Building C, Room 324, Kelburn, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand

    Flaviu A. Hodis

Authors
  1. Flaviu A. Hodis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flaviu A. Hodis.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(DOC 61.5 kb)

Appendices

Appendix A. A Brief Overview of Expectancy-Value Theory

Expectancy-value theory (EVT; Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000) posits that engagement in behaviors that support school achievement (e.g., devoting effort to learning, persisting when encountering difficulties or experiencing failure) is influenced by (a) expectancy of success beliefs (i.e., by how successful one believes she/he will be in the given learning domain (activity) and (b) value beliefs (i.e., how much individuals value engagement in a task and/or being successful at it) (Eccles 2005; Wigfield et al. 2016).

In the EVT, values are defined with regard to the enticing characteristics of tasks and encompass the reasons supporting individuals’ desire to engage in a given activity (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield et al. 2016). Importantly, the expectancy-value paradigm focuses on values that are task specific (Wigfield et al. 2016). The EVT distinguishes four components of subjective task values: utility value, intrinsic (interest) value, attainment value (importance), and the cost of engaging with the task (Eccles 2005).

The utility value (usefulness) construct reflects how a given task is aligned to (matches) a person’s future plans (Wigfield et al. 2016), that is, how it supports one’s long- and/or short-term goals and/or rewards (Eccles 2005). Intrinsic value, which is conceptually related to intrinsic motivation and interest, reflects how much an individual enjoys to engage in a task (Wigfield et al. 2016). Attainment value reflects the extent to which a task is viewed as pivotal for an individual’s concept of self or as enabling a person to “express or confirm important aspects of self” (Wigfield et al. 2016, p. 57). Cost encompasses the aspects that an individual has to give up in order to engage in a task, the (anticipated) time, effort, and energy required to do/complete the task, and the potential negative consequences that task failure may have on a person’s sense of self (Eccles 2005). As we discussed in the “Advancing Understanding of the Mechanisms Involved in Negative Interaction Effects of Expectancy and Value” section, the EVT posits a positive association of expectancy and value beliefs. Generally, perceptions of cost are negatively related to the other value components.

Appendix B. A Brief Overview of Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory (SDT) consists of six mini theories: (1) cognitive evaluation theory, (2) organismic integration theory, (3) causality orientation theory, (4) basic psychological needs theory, (5) goal content theory, and (6) relationship motivation theory. Ryan and Deci (2017) have recently provided in-depth discussions of these six mini theories; these discussions present the focus of each theory, underline its key propositions, and overview research that has been informed by the given theory.

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is at the core of SDT. According to SDT, engagement in an activity is intrinsically motivated when the activity is undertaken for the inherent satisfaction of doing it (Ryan and Deci 2017). In this case, individuals engage in an activity simply because they like doing the activity and not for any outcome(s) that may derive from activity engagement or completion. In contrast, when individuals are extrinsically motivated to engage in an activity, they do so because the activity has an instrumental value to them (i.e., they are motivated by the outcome(s) that could be attained by engaging in the activity or by completing it) (Ryan and Deci 2017).

Autonomous motivation and controlled motivation are other important concepts in SDT. When a behavior is autonomously motivated, the individual engages in it wholeheartedly, has a sense of volition, and experiences the behavior “as emanating from, and an expression of, one’s self” (Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 14; emphasis in original). In contrast, when the motivation to engage in a behavior is controlled, the person feels that internal and/or external pressure compel her to do so. As a result, the behavior is perceived as lacking fit with the person’s self-conceptualization (Ryan and Deci 2017).

Following, we overview briefly some key tenets of organismic integration theory (OIT) and basic psychological needs theory (BPNT); these theories are the most relevant to the topic of this paper. OIT focuses on the processes of internalization and integration. Internalization is “the process of taking in values, beliefs, or behavioral regulations from external sources and transforming them into one’s own” (Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 182). “Integrated regulation entails that one brings a value or regulation into congruence with the other aspect of one’s self” (Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 188). A pivotal proposition of OIT is that extrinsic motivations to engage in a behavior could have different degrees of autonomy, depending on the extent to which the target behavior has been internalized (Ryan and Deci 2016). Following, we discuss the four different types of extrinsic motivation proposed by OIT.

When an individual’s behavior is externally regulated, this person engages in the behavior to attain external rewards or to avoid punishments (Ryan and Deci 2017). As a consequence, external regulation has very low levels of autonomy (Ryan and Deci 2016). “Introjection is a type of internalization that involves taking in or adopting a regulation or value, yet doing so in a way that it is only a partial and incomplete transformation or assimilation” (Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 185; emphasis in original). Similar to external regulation, introjected regulation revolves around a controlling element, namely, that one has to do something in order to attain rewards and/or avoid punishments. Importantly, in introjected regulation, the controlling element is internal and the rewards (punishments) are feelings of pride (guilt, shame, or anxiety) (Ryan and Deci 2016, 2017).

When the regulation of a behavior is identified, people have understood and accepted the value of engaging in the behavior. In addition, when people act in ways that are congruent with values that have been identified, they have a sense of volition and perceive their behaviors as self-endorsed (Ryan and Deci 2016). As a consequence, identified self-regulation is considered a more autonomous form of self-regulation than introjected regulation (Ryan and Deci 2017). Finally, when the regulation of a behavior is integrated, the person has both identified the value of the behavior and has brought this identified value in consonance with other key components of her/his sense of self (Ryan and Deci 2017). Given these characteristics, integrated regulation is the most autonomous of all extrinsic forms of motivation (Ryan and Deci 2016).

Basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) proposes that individuals have three basic needs, namely, for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The key tenets of BPNT are that (i) support for (thwarting of) basic needs promotes (undermines) health and well-being and (ii) internalization and integration of values, behaviors, and regulations is positively related to the support for, and the satisfaction of, basic psychological needs and negatively associated with their frustration (Ryan and Deci 2017). Following, we overview briefly each of the three needs. Autonomy reflects individuals’ need to feel that they engage in behaviors voluntarily and wholeheartedly. As a consequence, when the basic need for autonomy is met, people regard their behaviors as self-endorsed and consistent with their values/interests (Ryan and Deci 2017). Competence encompasses individuals’ need to feel effective in their environments and in major domains of their lives (e.g., as parents, at work). Relatedness reflects people’s need to feel connected to and instrumental for social groups and organizations they value. In addition, relatedness concerns the need to care for, be cared for, and be involved with others (Ryan and Deci 2017).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hodis, F.A. Examining Individuals’ Strivings for Value, Control, and Truth Effectiveness: Implications for Educational Psychology Research. Educ Psychol Rev 30, 1001–1030 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9439-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9439-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation