Understanding Expectancy-Value Theory

We all have beliefs and personal values that affect the way we do things. Think about the last time you had to take on a task you weren’t sure about. Maybe it was preparing for a work presentation, trying a new recipe or even as simple as reading this article. Chances are, you weighed two questions before diving in: Do I think I can actually pull this off? and Is this worth my time and effort? If the answer to both was “yes,” you likely felt motivated. If not, you may have postponed it, rushed through it, or even avoided it altogether.

Students approach their learning in the same way. When they walk into a classroom, they bring with them expectations about whether they will succeed and personal judgments about whether the course is valuable. These judgments become the psychological drivers behind whether a student eagerly participates in the course or simply goes through the motions.

Expectancy-Value Theory, developed by Eccles and Wigfield, provides a useful framework for understanding these variations in motivation. It suggests that motivation to engage in a task depends on two key factors: an individual’s expectation of success and the value they place on the task. In other words, motivation is shaped by both the belief “Can I do this?” and the judgment “Is this worth doing?” This combination helps explain why a student may invest significant effort into a reading project but avoid working on a math assignment.

The Core Components of Expectancy-Value Theory

As its name suggests, Expectancy-Value Theory rests on two central constructs: expectancy beliefs and task values. These constructs work together to explain why students choose certain tasks, invest varying levels of effort, and persist (or withdraw) when challenges emerge.

Expectancy Beliefs

Expectancy beliefs refer to individuals’ expectations for success in an upcoming task. Importantly, Eccles and Wigfield distinguish expectancy beliefs from more general self-concepts of ability. While self-concept reflects a broader perception of competence in a domain (e.g., “I’m good at math”), expectancy beliefs are tied to specific tasks within that domain (e.g., “I think I will do well on tomorrow’s algebra test”).

These beliefs are influenced by:

• Past performance history: Repeated success reinforces high expectancy, while repeated failure erodes it.
• Social comparisons: Students often gauge their competence relative to peers, which can either strengthen or weaken expectancy beliefs.
• Feedback and socialisers: Parents, teachers, and peers shape students’ confidence through encouragement, criticism, or even subtle cues.

One detail worth noting is that expectancy beliefs are highly predictive of short-term engagement, thus whether a student will attempt or avoid a specific task. However, they are not sufficient alone to explain long-term investment across learning trajectories, which is where the value a student places on the task comes in.

Task Values

Task values capture the reasons a student might consider a task important, meaningful, or worthwhile. Eccles and Wigfield break this down into four components:

1. Intrinsic Value (Interest Value): The inherent enjoyment or satisfaction derived from engaging in the task. For example, an engineering student who loves experimenting with circuits may spend hours tinkering without external prompts. Intrinsic value has been shown to correlate strongly with sustained engagement, especially in exploratory or creative activities.
2. Utility Value: The perceived usefulness of a task for achieving future goals. A student may not find algebra enjoyable, but will still commit effort if they believe it is essential for their desired career path. Utility value often becomes more salient with age, as students begin to link academic tasks to broader life aspirations.
3. Attainment Value: The personal importance of performing well, often tied to identity, self-image, or role expectations. A student who sees themselves as “a strong reader” may attach high value to excelling in language arts, as doing so reinforces a core part of their identity. Attainment value can be particularly influential in driving persistence when intrinsic enjoyment is low.
4. Cost: The perceived negative aspects of engaging in the task, including effort, time demands, and opportunity costs (e.g., missing out on social activities). Cost operates as a counterweight to the other value components, meaning even high utility or intrinsic value can be undermined if the perceived cost is too great.

Relationship Between Expectancy and Value

• A student may believe they can succeed (high expectancy) but see no point in the task (low value). Result: minimal effort.
• A student may see great importance in the task (high value) but expect failure (low expectancy). Result: avoidance or disengagement.
• Motivation peaks when both expectancy and value are high, creating the conditions for strong effort, persistence, and achievement.

Strengthening Expectancy Beliefs

Students who doubt their ability often disengage before they even begin. Building expectancy beliefs requires careful attention to both competence and perception. Breaking complex tasks into smaller, achievable steps allows students to experience repeated success, which builds confidence over time. Successful experiences are the strongest predictor of future expectancy beliefs.

Feedback should emphasise strategies and effort (“You found a useful way to solve that problem”) rather than fixed traits (“You’re smart”). This promotes the belief that success is controllable and attainable.

Constant peer ranking can also undermine expectancy beliefs. Shifting the focus from relative standing to individual progress helps students interpret their performance more constructively.

Enhancing Task Values

As stated before, if expectancy answers “Can I do this?”, task values answer “Why should I do this?” Helping students connect with the value of tasks is equally important. Each of the 4 dimensions of task value we've discussed can be supported in specific ways:

Intrinsic Value: Teachers can increase interest by offering choice, presenting tasks in engaging formats, and connecting learning to real-world phenomena. For example, teaching physics through everyday examples (simple machines, smartphones) often sparks greater curiosity.

Utility Value: Making explicit connections between tasks and students’ future goals enhances utility. This can involve career talks, mentorship, or showing how skills transfer to contexts beyond school. Even simple practices, such as explaining why algebra is relevant to a career in finance, can increase persistence.

Attainment Value: Reinforcing the link between tasks and students’ identities can deepen commitment. For instance, encouraging a student who identifies as “a problem-solver” to approach math challenges as opportunities to affirm that role.

Managing Cost: Educators can reduce perceived costs by adjusting workload, providing resources for time management, or teaching stress-regulation strategies. Even reframing failure as part of the learning process can lower the psychological cost of trying.

Balancing Expectancy and Value

An important nuance to remember is that interventions often need to address both expectancy and value simultaneously. Take, for instance, a student who finds a science project exciting (high value) but doubts their ability to complete it (low expectancy). Simply increasing their interest will not lead to sustained engagement unless confidence is also addressed. Conversely, a student confident in their ability but dismissive of the task’s relevance needs stronger connections to utility or attainment value.

In other words, motivation interventions are most effective when they target the weaker link in the expectancy-value chain.

References

Eccles, 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.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’ achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295213003

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

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

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). Routledge.