Comparison between Social Cognitive Theory and Expectancy Value Theory

In the last class, we debated about the direct predictor of behaviors such as activity choices and career decisions. The main disagreement was to what extent subjective value can predict behaviors. Although there are probably a lot of theoretical lens to look at this question, we talked about social cognitive theory and the other famous one, expectancy-value theory (EVT). 

Based on my knowledge, Eccle and her colleagues believes that subjective task value plays as a direct predictor of behaviors, whereas expectation of success plays as a mediator. Expectation of success can also directly predict behavior. So the commonality is that self-concept of ability/expectation of success directly predict behaviors. Below is the graphical representation of EVT from a chapter written by Eccle (2005). 

Another middle ground I create for these two theories is to specify the behavior type. I intuitively see approach behaviors and avoidance behaviors here. Say, I tend to not to do things that I am not good at it. This is like avoidance behaviors such as giving up, dropping out, etc. On the other hand, when I do something, I am at least experiencing some degree of success. For some activities I value a lot, I fully engage whereas for some other I don't see much value, I minimally engage. Here is what Eccle said,

These results suggest that although expectations for success and personal efficacy do predict occupational choice, they are not the only predictors. The evidence suggests that positive expectations are a necessary but not sufficient predictor of occupational choice. Believing that one can succeed at an occupation is critical to one’s decision to enter that occupational field. But, as predicted by the Eccles et al. model of task choice, which particular occupation one selects also appears to depend on the value one attaches to various occupational characteristics. These findings support the hypothesis that individuals select the occupation that fits best with their hierarchy of occupationally-relevant values (Eccle, 2009, p.84)

Therefore, people can have different quality of motivation when they are motivated to do it (e.g., high expectation+low value, high expectation+high value). However, if there is no confident of being success, people are hard to be motivated. I personally see value plays a role in shaping the quality of motivation rather than a necessary predictor (Eccle probably won't agree). Value can grows along with one's successful experience.

However, there are three obvious divergences I've seen so far after our discussion in the last class. First, social cognitive theory uses self-efficacy as behavior predictor rather than expectation of success. I agree with social cognitive theory at this point because I see the theoretical challenge for EVT. Eccle and colleagues reported that it is hard to empirically distinguish self-concept of ability and expectation of success. EVT's explanation of expectation of success is very complex involving locus of control, which makes the predictor distal.

Second divergence is that the methodology. Social cognitive theory uses microanalysis whereas EVT uses structural/path analysis. I hope we can have more time discussing about microanalysis so that we can see how theory shape method and how method can shape our explanation of observation.

Last but not least, the two theory leads to totally different intervention in education. A direct practical intervention approach from social cognitive theory is to building self-efficacy. On the other hand, EVT would focus on value change. I personally think to change one's value is very hard, however, to scaffold students to have successful experience is more feasible.

References

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: Guilford.

Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44, 78 – 89.