ArticleMotivation science2025
Why Elusive Expectancy × Value Interactions May Be Critical for Theory and Intervention: A Simulated Power Analysis.
Article in Motivation science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trait emotion regulation similarity and well-being.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Why Elusive Expectancy × Value Interactions May Be Critical for Theory and Intervention: A Simulated Power Analysis.Motivation science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
According to expectancy-value theories of motivation, individuals choose to pursue tasks that they expect to succeed at and find personally valuable. Historically, researchers have often suggested that these two factors interact to motivate behavior. However, expectancy × value interactions are rarely observed in empirical research and, when detected, they are often small in magnitude. Does this mean they can safely be ignored in models of motivation? In this paper we conduct two power analyses with simulated data to argue that expectancy × value interactions are likely far more important than a straightforward interpretation of effect sizes would suggest, and that downplaying them risks oversimplifying theory and recommendations for intervention. Specifically, Study 1 demonstrates that a realistic combination of three constraints (measurement error, skew, and correlation) can negatively bias expectancy × value interaction estimates by more than 50%. Study 2 shows that these interactions can create meaningful variability in motivation interventions and may contribute to a better understanding of treatment heterogeneity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.