Expectancy, Value and Psychological Distance: A New Look at Goal Gradients

Abstract

Goal gradients refer to the increase in motivation as a function of goal proximity. We propose that motivation does not always increase closer to the goal, and that in order to predict the shape and steepness of goal gradients one needs to look at how distance affects the two components of motivation-expectancy and value. Furthermore, we distinguish between four aspects of expectancy (probability, difficulty, sufficiency, necessity) and two types of value (value related to high level construal, value related to low level construal), each of which has a unique distance-related dynamics. It is proposed that motivational gradients are determined by the effect that distance has on each of these components. our study demonstrated gradients of motivation, sufficiency and necessity, but not difficulty. We discuss whether avoidance gradients would be necessarily steeper than approach gradients, as is postulated by Miller's (1944) conflict models. We also suggest that in some situations (e.g., when gradients reflect necessity) gradients would be moderated by regulatory focus (e.g., would be steeper in a prevention focus than in a promotion focus, Higgins, 1998).It is accepted as a maxim in psychology that goals loom larger as one gets closer to them in time. Students study harder for an exam as it gets closer, rats pull harder the closer they get to the reinforcement (Brown, 1948), people that escape a fire first run faster than later on. The notion that motivation increases with goal proximity dates back to Miller (1944Miller ( , 1959 and is based on Hull's (1943) theory of motivation. In this theory, motivation is the product of habit and drive, where drive is equivalent to the extent of need (e.g., hunger, pain) and habit is the strength of association between action and outcome. Gradients (i.e., changes in motivation 516 liberMan and fÖrSter over distance to the goal) stem from changes over distance in habit, drive or both. Lewin (1935Lewin ( , 1951 also assumed that motivation increases closer to a goal. He conceptualized desired (and avoided) end states as forces that operate on individuals, and assumed that like physical forces (e.g. gravitation), forces exerted by desired and avoided goals are inversely related to distance. Supporting goal gradients, enhanced motivation closer to the goal has been observed in several studies, with both animals and humans (But is it always the case? Do people always feel increasingly enthusiastic as they approach a goal? Do we always feel more motivated as we get closer to writing a paper? Do students experience increased motivation when they sit down to do their homework? In the present paper we would like to look at goal gradients from the perspective of expectancy-value theories of motivation and suggest that motivation does not always increase closer to the goal. Rather, the effect of distance on motivation depends on its effects on expectancy and value, which are complex and multifaceted. We present an experiment, in which we measure motivation, expectancy and value at differe...

Three sources of motivation

“…Two main factors can influence outcome-focused motivation: the attractiveness of the outcome (i.e., value), and the extent to which people expect to reach the outcome (i.e., expectancy; Biner, 1987;Brehm & Self, 1989;Liberman & Förster, 2008;Locke & Latham, 1990;Miller et al, 1960;Mitchell, 1982;Vroom, 1964 T A B L E 1 A Summary of the sources of motivation rewards attractive (e.g., free flights to Hawaii) and believes she will be able to accumulate enough miles to obtain these rewards (expectancy). Researchers have generally operationalized the value component of the model in terms of desirability (attractiveness, interestingness) or importance (worthiness).…”

Doing It the Hard Way: How Low Control Drives Preferences for High-Effort Products and Services

“…When individuals recognize a discrepancy between their current and ideal states, they assess their likelihood of reducing the discrepancy (Bandura 1977;Lazarus 1966) and determine whether or not it makes sense to pursue their goals (Carver and Scheier 2001). Various factors can lead people to disengage from goal pursuit, including perceptions that they are too far from the goal (e.g., Huang et al 2012;Kivetz, Urminsky, and Zheng 2006;Liberman and Förster 2008), that their rate of progress is too slow, or that the ultimate likelihood of achieving the goal seems too low (e.g., Huang and Zhang 2011;Hull 1932). Individuals feeling a lack of control over their outcomes should readily face such discouraging perceptions, whether in a laboratory setting where there are no clear signs of progress on an unsolvable puzzle, or in real life where they see no signs of improvement in their academic achievements, health, or income.…”

How to motivate yourself and others? Intended and unintended consequences

“…In a commitment representation, people ponder whether a goal is worth pursuing and they infer from observing themselves pursuing that goal that, indeed, the goal is important or enjoyable (hence valuable) and expectancy of attainment is high (Emmons, 1989;Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974;Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, & Sears, 1944;Liberman & Fö rster, 2008). Thus people infer commitment based on engagement (Arkes & Ayton, 1999;Bem, 1972;Cialdini, Trost, & Newsom, 1995;Higgins, 2006).…”