Identifying Specific Factors Underlying Attitudes Toward Change: Using Multiple Methods to Compare Expectancy‐Value Theory to Reasons Theory¹

Abstract

This study used multiple methods to compare expectancy-value theory (EVT) to reasons theory for identifying specific factors underlying attitudes toward a planned organizational change. Reasons theory utilizes an accessible reason construct within a decision-making framework. Study 1 used the correlational method to statistically identify the strength of specific factors underlying attitudes according to each theory. The value and accessible reason factors demonstrated the strongest associations with attitudes toward change. The strength of specific factors was then manipulated experimentally according to each construct to examine the impact on potential change in Study 2. The interventions developed from expectancy and accessible reason factors were evaluated most positively by individuals in the target organization, with accessible reasons having the strongest effect. Unexpectedly, interventions based on the value and expectancy x value factors had less efficacy in Study 2. Implications for applied research are discussed.Social scientists are often interested in identifying specific factors underlying important criteria, such as attitudes, intentions, and behavior (

Comparing Attribute Importance and Reason Methods for Understanding Behavior: An Application to Internet Job Searching

“…As empirical support for the above arguments, a recent study demonstrated that the specific factors measured with concepts in reasons theory explained an additional 13 per cent of the variance in attitudes toward an organisational change initiative over and above that explained by specific factors measured with the expectancy‐value method (Westaby, 2002). Moreover, while the reasons theory approach was able to identify several variables influencing attitudes (e.g.…”

“…The response-related method was used in this study. This method has participants endorse those reasons that explain their anticipated behavior (Westaby, 2002). This method first had participants respond to a measure assessing their anticipated behavior or behavioral expectation, which is conceptually similar to the intention construct (Warshaw & Davis, 1985): You will post your résumé on the internet in the next three months .…”

Anti-Consumption as the Study of Reasons against

“…Likewise, an anticonsumer of meat (vegetarian) may avoid meat owing to concerns about animal welfare, but it is unlikely that those who consume meat do so because they want animals to be killed (Richetin, Conner, and Perugini 2011). In line with this idea, social psychological research draws a distinction between ''reasons for'' and ''reasons against'' performing a behavior (e.g., Westaby 2002Westaby , 2005aWestaby , 2005bWestaby and Fisbein 1996;Westaby, Fishbein, and Aherin 1997;Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010). This dichotomous differentiation of motivational forces (Roe, Busemeyer, and Townsend 2001) is assumed with slight variations (such as pros versus cons, costs versus benefits) in various models of social cognition (see Westaby 2005b) and related dimensions have been supported in several empirical settings (e.g., Janis and Mann 1977;Marcus, Rakowski, and Rossi 1992;Novick and Cheng 2004).…”

“…While Lee et al's (2011) position on the differences between anti-consumption and consumer resistance seem legitimate, their paper stops short of highlighting any attribute unique to anti-consumption that makes it, as a topic, distinct and therefore valuable; especially when held alongside a plethora of similar areas, such as nonconsumption; symbolic, ethical, environmental, and alternative consumption; or even consumer resistance. Therefore, in this article, we attempt to clarify the domain of anti-consumption by drawing upon, and applying the analytical distinction between ''reasons for'' and ''reasons against'' (Westaby 2002(Westaby , 2005a(Westaby , 2005bWestaby and Fishbein 1996;Westaby, Fishbein, and Aherin 1997;Westaby, Probst, and Lee 2010) to the four main clusters of theoretical and empirical interest that scholars often convolute with anti-consumption: environmental consumption, ethical consumption, consumer resistance, and symbolic consumption. Concurrently, following emerging developments in these fields (cf.…”

Knowledge Sharability in Cross-Organizational Collaboration: An Exploratory Field Study

“…Expectancy Value Theories (EVT) of motivation [34] and theories that build upon them may provide a useful theoretical foundation for understanding perceptions of knowledge sharability and its relationship to the actual knowledge sharing. In expectancy value theories, an expectancy is defined as a projection of the likely outcomes of a contemplated action, and a value is a perception of the degree to which the projected outcomes would be instrumental or detrimental to one's interests [28]; [32]; [34]. These theories posit that motivation for a contemplated action is a function of expectancy value.…”