Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40881818›Full record

ArticleMotivation science2025

Why Elusive Expectancy × Value Interactions May Be Critical for Theory and Intervention: A Simulated Power Analysis.

Michael W Asher, Cameron A Hecht, Judith M Harackiewicz, John J Curtin, Cora Parrisius, Benjamin Nagengast

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael W AsherHuman Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.ORCID 0000-0002-1006-8813
Cameron A HechtDepartment of Psychology, University of Rochester.ORCID 0000-0003-4842-6003
Judith M HarackiewiczDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.ORCID 0000-0003-4748-1174
John J CurtinDepartment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Cora ParrisiusHector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1277-6028
Benjamin NagengastHector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9868-8322

Funding

Broadening Participation in the Biomedical Sciences with Utility Value InterventionsR35GM141556 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI HARACKIEWICZ, JUDITH M. · 2021 to 2025
$2.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM141556
6 · The paper itself

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

expectancy value theoryintervention sciencemotivationstatistical analysis

Identifiers

PMID40881818
PMCPMC12383242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.