Vroom's expectancy models and work-related criteria: A meta-analysis.

Abstract

Wendelien Van Eerde University of Amsterdam Henk Thierry University of Tilburg This meta-analysis integrates the correlations of 77 studies on V. H. Vroom's (1964) original expectancy models and work-related criteria. Correlations referring to predic- tions with the models and the single components--valence, instrumentality, and expec- tancy-were included in relation to 5 types of criterion variables: performance, effort, intention, preference, and choice. Within-subjects correlations and between-subjects cor- relations were included separately. Overall, the average correlations were somewhat lower than reported in previous narrative reviews. In certain categories, moderators pertaining to the measurement of the concepts were analyzed with a hierarchical linear model, but these moderators did not explain heterogeneity. The results show a differentiated over- view: the use of the correlational material for the validity of expectancy theory is discussed. Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) has held a major position in the study of work motivation. Vroom's (1964) Valence - Instrumentality - Expectancy Model (VIE model), in particular, has been the subject of numerous empirical studies. It has served as a rich source for theo- retical innovations in domains such as organizational be- havior (Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980), leadership (House, 1971), and compensation (Lawler, 1971). Re- views on expectancy theory (Mitchell, 1974, 1982; Pritchard & Campbell, 1976; Schwab, Olian-Gottlieb, & Heneman, 1979; Wanous, Keon, & Latack, 1983) ad- dressed several conceptual and empirical problems and gave important suggestions for future research. Recent publications show a revived interest in ex- pectancy theory as it relates to training motivation (Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Salas, 1992), turnover (Summers & Hendrix, 1991 ), productivity loss in group performance (Shepperd, 1993), self-set goals (Tubbs, Boehne, & Dahl, 1993), goal commitment (Klein & Wright, 1994; Tubbs, 1993), and goal level (Mento, Wendelien Van Eerde, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Henk Thierry, Department of Human Resource Sciences, University of Til- burg, Tilburg, The Netherlands. We thank Joop Hox, Nathalie Allen, Bob Pritchard, Sabine Sonnentag, and Carsten de Dreu. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wendelien Van Eerde, Department of Psychology, Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, l018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to ao__eerde@ macmail.psy.uva.nl. Locke, & Klein, 1992 ). Also, some argue that expectancy theory should be combined with other motivation theo- ries (e.g., Kanfer, 1987; Kernan & Lord, 1990; Klein, 1989; Landy &Becker, 1990). Therefore, it is important to establish the validity of expectancy theory. Does 30 years of research support its main tenets? Is the theory still promising, though not firmly supported empiri- cally, such as earlier reviews seem to conclude? Is it useful to combine expectancy theory with other approaches, and, if so, how should this be done? Many different interpretations, operationalizations, application purposes, and methods of statistical analysis have been used. To make a comparison and combination of the results possible, we referred to Vroom's basic models and their components. The objective of this arti- cle is to analyze the literature on expectancy theory sys- tematically and to integrate the empirical results meta- analytically. We did so in order to establish the relation between expectancy theory and work-related criterion variables. Landy and Becker (1990) suggested that the key to im- proving the predictions of the expectancy model might lie in variables such as the number of outcomes, valence of outcomes, and the particular dependent variable cho- sen for study. Schwab et al. (1979) examined the rela- tionship between the VIE model and two criterion vari- ables, effort and performance. They included several moderators of this relationship in 32 between-subject studies in a statistical analysis. The current article pro- vides a partial update of their findings. In addition, stud- ies with components of the VIE model, that is, valence, instrumentality, expectancy, and