Hierarchical vs. Non-Nested Tests For Contrasting expectancy-Valence Models: Some Effects of Cognitive Characteristics.

This study tests the appropriateness of multiplicative versus additive expectancy-valence models for 82 undergraduate students. Participants are grouped according to the model that best explains their motivational force decisions to exert effort in a series of differing hypothetical college courses. Two statistical tests are used for grouping participants: the traditional hierarchical test for contrasting nested regression models, and a more complex test for contrasting non-nested regression models. Arguments are offered in favor of the non-nested test. Force decisions are obtained from a within-subjects analysis. The grouping tests are applied between subjects. Discriminant analyses are then used to determine if four cognitive characteristics affected the choice of model. These characteristics are tolerance for ambiguity (TA), scholastic aptitude in mathematics (SATM), facility in mathematics required in major curriculum (FMR), and cognitive complexity (CC). It is hypothesized that participants who have higher TA, SATM, FMR, and CC process expectancy valence information multiplicatively while those who have lower values of these cognitive characteristics, process the information additively. The hypothesis is supported for FMR. No effect on choice of models is found for TA, SATM, or CC, while controlling for FMR; but univariate tests show multipliers to have higher TA and SATM than adders. Some implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

[1]  M. H. Pesaran,et al.  On the general problem of model selection , 1974 .

[2]  Brent Bridgeman,et al.  Comparative Validity of the College Board Scholastic Aptitude Test-Mathematics and the Descriptive Tests of Mathematics Skills for Predicting Performance in College Mathematics Courses' , 1982 .

[3]  Donald P. Schwab,et al.  Evaluation of research on expectancy theory predictions of employee performance. , 1972 .

[4]  S. Budner.  Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. , 1962, Journal of personality.

[5]  Daniel J. O'Keefe,et al.  Construct differentiation and the relationship of attitudes and behavioral intentions , 1981 .

[6]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  Locus of Control: Supervision and Work Satisfaction , 1975 .

[7]  Ramon Henson.  Expectancy Beliefs, Ability, and Personality in Predicting Academic Performance , 1976 .

[8]  C. M. Schaninger,et al.  The Influence of Cognitive Personality Traits and Demographics on Consumer Information Acquisition , 1981 .

[9]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. , 1974 .

[10]  F. Heider.  ATTITUDES AND COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION , 1977 .

[11]  G. R. Oldham.  ORGANIZATIONAL CHOICE AND SOME CORRELATES OF INDIVIDUALS' EXPECTANCIES1 , 1976 .

[12]  Robert M. Kaplan,et al.  Nader's Raid on the Testing Industry: Is It in the Best Interest of the Consumer?. , 1982 .

[13]  Donald P. Schwab,et al.  Between-subjects expectancy theory research: A statistical review of studies predicting effort and performance. , 1979 .

[14]  H. Sypher,et al.  COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY MEASURES AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY TO COMMUNICATION , 1981 .

[15]  Martin G. Evans,et al.  Testing multiplicative models does not require ratio scales , 1979 .

[16]  Jacob Cohen.  Partialed products are interactions; partialed powers are curve components. , 1978 .

[17]  J. Gaito.  Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence of an old misconception. , 1980 .

[18]  M. Pesaran,et al.  Comparison of Local Power of Alternative Tests of Non-Nested Regression Models , 1982 .

[19]  Lawrence R. James,et al.  RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE AND A VIE MODEL FOR WORK MOTIVATION1 , 1977 .

[20]  K. Ferris.  PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY AS A MEDIATOR OF EXPECTANCY THEORY PREDICTIONS: SOME PRELIMINARY FINDINGS , 1978 .

[21]  Michael J. Stahl,et al.  Modeling effort decisions with behavioral decision theory: Toward an individual differences model of expectancy theory , 1981 .

[22]  J. S. Vannoy.  GENERALITY OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY-SIMPLICITY AS A PERSONALITY CONSTRUCT. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  J. Delia,et al.  Construct Comprehensiveness and Cognitive Complexity , 1978 .

[24]  W. H. Crockett.  Cognitive complexity and impression formation. , 1965, Progress in experimental personality research.

[25]  J. Dillard.  AN UPDATE ON THE APPLICABILITY OF AN OCCUPATIONAL GOAL‐EXPECTANCY MODEL IN PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS , 1981 .

[26]  Robert J. House,et al.  Expectancy Theory in Work and Motivation: Some Logical and Methodological Issues , 1974 .

[27]  Frank L. Schmidt,et al.  Implications of a measurement problem for expectancy theory research , 1973 .

[28]  Martin G. Evans,et al.  The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship , 1970 .

[29]  Sheldon Zedeck,et al.  An information processing model and approach to the study of motivation , 1977 .

[30]  W. H. Crockett,et al.  Cognitive complexity and the learning of balanced and unbalanced social structures. , 1969, Journal of personality.

[31]  William E. Gifford,et al.  Tests of expectancy theory predictions of effort: A simulation study comparing simple and complex models , 1979 .

[32]  D. Cox.  Tests of Separate Families of Hypotheses , 1961 .

[33]  W. H. Crockett,et al.  Social schemas, cognitive complexity, and the learning of social structures1 , 1973 .