Outcome Expectancy in Social Cognitive Theory: The Role of Contingency in Agency and Motivation in Education

AN0170023169;tip01jun.23;2023Aug22.06:19;v2.2.500

Outcome expectancy in social cognitive theory: The role of contingency in agency and motivation in education 

Bandura proposed 2 constructs as central to agency and motivation: self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Considerable research has documented the central role that self-efficacy plays in motivation, self-regulation, and learning in educational settings. Outcome expectancy, however, has received less study. This article focuses on clarifying the role of outcome expectancy in contemporary theories of motivation and achievement in education and examining how outcome expectancy and related contingency beliefs like perceived instrumentality affect student motivation. Practical contingency-based approaches that educators at all levels can use to develop student outcome expectancies and ways to use outcome expectancies to motivate students are discussed.

Social Cognitive/Learning theories, especially Bandura's ([3]), have emphasized personal agency or control as key to persons' behavior and motivation. Weisz and Stipek ([40]) noted that two components are necessary for persons to perceive control or agency: competence and contingency. These can be thought of as the how and why of control/agency. Competence directs how one should go about achieving a desired result. One should choose the approach that one is most confident they can do successfully. Contingency, dictates why one would want to achieve the result. Achieving the result leads to attaining desired goals, rewards, or outcomes. One has agency or control when they are confident that they can do a behavior, like studying, that is contingently related to attaining a result, like a high grade, that leads to other desired outcomes like graduating and getting a job.

Bandura ([2], [3]) posited two specific constructs for competency and contingency. He conceptualized competency as self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the subjective probability of being able to successfully do an action that leads to a goal or outcome. Self-efficacy motivates us to choose those actions we are most confident will succeed. Self-efficacy has been studied extensively in educational settings and its importance for motivating students well established (Schunk & DiBenedetto, [23]). Bandura conceptualized contingency as outcome expectancy/expectations. Outcome expectancy is the subjective probability that an action will lead to some outcome. Outcome expectancy motivates us to pursue actions that are likely to attain goals and outcomes we value. As noted by Schunk and DiBenedetto ([24]), although outcome expectancies have been extensively studied in fields like career planning (e.g., Lent et al., [14]) and health (e.g., Jones et al., [13]; Shell et al., [32]), there has been little research on outcome expectancies in education. The goal of this article is to help clarify the role of outcome expectancy in contemporary theories of motivation and achievement in education and present contingency-based approaches that educators at all levels can use to help motivate students.

Theoretical formulation of outcome expectancies

The formulation of outcome expectancies arose from conceptualizations of reinforcement in behavioral theories such as B. F. Skinner (Ferster & Skinner, [6]) and Hull ([11]). Reinforcement "motivates" behavior as a function of how valuable the reinforcer is and the strength of the contingency between the behavior and reinforcer. B. F. Skinner's reinforcement history and Hull's habit strength both were based on the history of past contingencies; how frequently and regularly behavior led to reinforcement. But behavioral theories provided no explicit memory or cognitive mechanisms for these, especially for how these past contingencies could motivate future behavior.

Social cognitive/learning theories of Bandura ([3]) and Rotter ([21]) posited outcome expectancies as this cognitive mechanism. Theoretically, outcome expectancies are subjective probabilities about the strength of a contingency between behaviors and outcomes. This manifests as a belief that behavior will lead to some result such as if I study, I will get a good grade. This conceptualization of expectancy as a subjective probability about contingencies was also central to similar theories of motivation posited by Vroom ([38]) and Atkinson ([1]). In contemporary theories of motivation, Future Time Perspective (FTP; e.g., Husman & Lens, [12]) proposes a contingency-based mechanism similar to outcome expectancy. Perceived instrumentality (PI) or more broadly connectedness is conceptualized as a subjective probability of a current action leading to achieving an outcome or goal in the future (Shell & Husman, [28]; De Volder & Lens, [4]).

It is important to note that in these theories, outcome expectancies are based on subjective probabilities. As a person does a behavior, outcomes happen that occur with varying frequency, meaning there is a true contingency between the behavior and each possible outcome that would allow for calculating the actual probability of an outcome. Persons do not act on this true probability, however, for a variety of reasons. They may not have enough experience to have realized the actual outcome frequencies. They may be misinformed about what the contingencies are. They may not trust that the actual contingency is true. Persons act on what they believe the contingency to be. This subjectivity is important for educators. When educators attempt to motivate students using outcome expectancies, they need to be aware that students may not see or understand contingencies that may seem self-evident to teachers.

What is the contingency? Means-ends and outcome expectancies

Understanding outcome expectancies requires clarification of what the underlying contingencies mean. This was an issue even in behavioral theories. When a rat ran a maze did the reward reinforce the goal of reaching the end of the maze or the specific behaviors involved in running the maze? In some instances, this is not an issue. In B. F. Skinner's studies for example, (Ferster & Skinner, [6]), the actions of pressing a bar or pecking a disk in a Skinner Box are so simple that the behavior and goal are virtually identical. Similarly, in studies of outcome expectancies for alcohol consumption (e.g., Shell et al., [32]) the actual behavior involved in drinking (lifting a glass to your mouth) is so simple that reward is clearly linked to the global act of imbibing alcohol.

In his Social Learning Theory, Rotter ([21]) notes that outcome expectancies are hierarchically organized from specific expectancies for individual actions to the generalized belief that outcomes (reinforcement) are (internal) or are not (external) contingently related to behavior, which he called Locus of Control. Similarly, Future Time Perspective (FTP) theories propose a hierarchical organization from specific perceived instrumentality for individual behaviors to a general connectedness that future outcomes are or are not contingent on present behavior (Peteranetz et al., [19]). For example, in education, there could be outcome expectancies for studying; for a single course; for a domain such as math, science, or literacy; or for graduation from high school or college.

In addition to hierarchical organization, outcome expectancies form chains of successive contingencies. E. Skinner ([35]) and others (e.g., Shell & Husman, [29]) have noted that the contingency relationships in expectancies can be talked about both as means-ends expectancies that link specific actions to achieving a goal, such as studying leading to getting a good grade, and as outcome expectancies that link achieving a goal to subsequent reward or other outcomes. Means-ends expectancies answer the question of how to achieve a desired goal or outcome. Outcome expectancies answer the question of what does achieving that goal gets me. This is an artificial distinction, however. A goal of one activity can become the means to another goal. Students can have outcome expectancies that studying will lead to a good grade; that a good grade will lead to passing the course; that passing the course will lead to graduating; that graduating will lead to a good job; and so on. This chaining of outcome expectancies as both means and goals is central to the role that expectancies play in motivation in educational settings.

Internal vs external contingencies

If students are going to be motivated toward school and learning, they need to see that contingent chains of outcomes expectancies ultimately lead to outcomes that they value. There are outcomes that result directly from a behavior, such as food relieving hunger or the physical and cognitive effects of drinking alcohol. More relevant to school, there are direct outcomes from reading, like enjoyment or learning. Similarly, there are emotional satisfactions from solving a math or science problem. These are most often categorized under various formulations of intrinsic rewards. In Eccles and Wigfield's ([5]) expectancy-value theory these types of value are described as intrinsic or interest value. In Self-Determination theory (Ryan & Deci, [22]), pursuit of these intrinsic rewards is the highest level of self-determination and motivation. But, just like outcome expectancies, something can be valuable because it moves one closer to a valued goal, for example, getting a good grade can be important because it can lead to a scholarship. Eccles and Wigfield called this utility value. Self-Determination theory calls this identified or integrated regulation. This is often thought of as extrinsic reward, something valuable not for itself but for obtaining some other reward or outcome. But, this type of value is really about the contingency. Utility value attaches to a goal when that goal is contingently related to another goal. This means that these types of utility "values" are really part of outcome expectancy chains. They are means to an end as well as being an outcome themselves.

Shell and Husman ([29]) applied an internal–external distinction to outcome expectancies about college courses. They assessed outcome expectancies for attaining life goals separately for the importance of learning the course content and for the importance of achieving a high grade in the course. The 2 outcome expectancies were highly correlated (0.76); however, they were differentially correlated with other motivation and self-regulation constructs. Future Time Perspective Theory (Husman & Lens, [12]) makes a similar distinction between endogenous and exogenous perceived instrumentality (PI). Endogenous PI is the belief that mastering new information or skills is contingently related to achieving future life goals. Exogenous PI refers to the perception that obtaining an external reward or outcome is contingently related to obtaining subsequent future goals. Course grades are a common example of external rewards/outcomes that are perceived as exogenously instrumental. As with outcome expectancies (Shell & Husman, [29]), endogenous and exogenous PI are differentially correlated with other motivation and self-regulation constructs (Shell et al., [27], [34]). Peteranetz et al. ([19]) found that across a semester in college computer science courses changes in endogenous PI were more strongly affected by changes in career aspirations than exogenous PI. They proposed that if career aspirations changed, course content that was previously relevant might become less relevant to a new career. However, high achievement opens doors to many possible academic and career possibilities so exogenous PI or grade outcome expectancy may remain relevant even when career aspirations change.

Formation of outcome expectancies

An outcome expectancy is based on what has resulted in the past when we have taken actions to achieve goals, and therefore, what is likely to result if we take that action to achieve that goal again. But, students, especially in the lower grades, may have little direct experience with actions required for achieving a goal or for the outcomes that might follow. This is also true for self-efficacy. Students may have little past experience about whether their actions will work. One of Bandura's ([3]) most important contributions was his work leading to the formulation of vicarious experience. Bandura showed that one does not need to have directly experienced an outcome. One can learn competency and contingency from others.

Bandura outlined 2 vicarious learning mechanisms that are relevant to the development of outcome expectancies: verbal persuasion and observation of models. Because competency can be acquired directly from classroom instruction and other educational activities, students' actual success or failure in school tasks is the primary influence on their self-efficacy. Contingencies are different. Students do experience immediate contingencies in school; not studying produces a low grade, misbehaving produces a negative consequence. Students can experience immediate pleasure and satisfaction from learning new knowledge or mastering a skill. But school tasks are typically only tangential to outside-of-school life goals and students may not see these school tasks as instrumental to achieving these goals. This means that Bandura's vicarious learning mechanisms play a much larger role in helping students develop outcome expectancies (Schunk & DiBenedetto, [24]).

Shell and Flowerday ([26]) note that the majority of our expectancies and what we value result from what Vygotsky ([39]) called social construction. What we expect and value is learned from our significant others and our culture. This reinforces that expectancies and values are subjective rather than objective. So educators cannot assume that what the school or teacher thinks are valuable are what students' think is valuable including long-term life goals. Educators also cannot assume that students will see the same contingencies between school work and life goals that educators see. This potential disconnect is especially salient in classrooms with students from diverse cultures and backgrounds. As discussed by Shell and Flowerday, students' lived experiences may differ dramatically from the types of goals and outcomes that school is most contingently related to attaining. This means that teachers need to help students see outcome expectancies not only for outcomes relevant to their daily lives, but also for outcomes that students' might not be aware exist.

Research on outcome expectancies

There has been considerable research showing that related constructs such as Locus of Control and internal causal attributions are associated with academic motivation, self-regulation, and achievement (see Graham, [8]; Stipek & Weisz, [36]). Also, considerable research has established that utility value in Expectancy–Value theory is associated with school motivation and achievement (Eccles & Wigfield, [5]). Although there has been less research on outcome expectancies and perceived instrumentality in educational settings; outcome expectancy research has produced some important findings for educators.

The most extensive examination of outcome expectancies comes from a series of studies by Shell and colleagues. These studies examine outcome expectancies as part of a broader complex of motivational and self-regulatory variables. In all these studies, measures have involved both intrinsic and extrinsic measures of outcome expectancies. Shell and Husman ([29]) used measures of learning and grade outcome expectancies. Later studies (Flanigan et al., [7]; Nelson et al., [17]; Shell & Soh, [33]) used measures of endogenous and exogenous perceived instrumentality. For brevity, I will refer to all of these as learning or grade outcome expectancy. All of these studies identified five profiles of college students' motivated self-regulation. Two profiles reflect positive motivation and self-regulation. The Strategic Learning profile links high self-regulated strategy use, knowledge building and deep learning, and study effort to high self-efficacy, high learning and grade outcome expectancy, and effort causal attribution; high mastery and performance approach and low work avoidance goal orientations; and positive affect. The Knowledge Building profile links knowledge-building deep learning strategies, but not active self-regulation or study effort, to high self-efficacy, high outcome expectancy for learning but not grades, and causal attribution to interest and enjoyment; high mastery goal orientation; and positive affect. Three profiles reflect more negative self-regulatory approaches. The Apathetic profile links low strategy use, deep learning, and effort to low self-efficacy, low learning and grade outcome expectancy, and effort causal attribution; high work avoidance goal orientation; and low positive affect. The Surface Learning profile links active self-regulation and study effort but not personal knowledge building and deep learning, to low self-efficacy and low outcome expectancy for learning, high outcome expectancy for grades, and high effort causal attribution; low mastery goal orientation; and low positive and high negative affect. The Helpless profile links unsuccessful self-regulation to high learning and grade outcome expectancy but low self-efficacy and external causal attribution; high work avoidance goal orientation; and high negative affect and anxiety. Students adopting Strategic Learning and Knowledge Building profiles have higher achievement where this is measured by grades or tests. Similar profiles have been found in upper elementary classrooms using utility value as the proxy for outcome expectancy (Linnenbrink-Garcia, [15]).

There are two important findings for educators in these studies. First, the patterns of outcome expectancy identified in profiles help clarify findings by Shell and colleagues (Shell et al., [25], [30]) that outcome expectancies for reading and writing were curvilinearly related to achievement. In the profiles, high outcome expectancy is associated with high achieving Strategic and Knowledge Building profiles, but also with the low achieving Helpless profile. This would explain why increasing levels of outcome expectancy are not always related to higher motivation and achievement. What distinguishes the Helpless profile from the Strategic and Knowledge Building profiles is low self-efficacy for learning and failure of attempts to self-regulate and study effectively. This suggests, like Bandura ([3]) has argued, that outcome expectancies are not motivating in the absence of self-efficacy. Essentially, having an outcome expectancy that learning the course material or getting a high grade is contingently connected to future goals is not a positive motivator if you do not believe you can achieve either. As indicated in the profiles, this appears to lead to high anxiety and negative emotions. For educators, this means that attempts to increase student motivation by emphasizing outcome expectancies can be problematic if students also do not have the self-efficacy that they can in fact learn the course material and achieve adequate grades.

Second, the profiles indicate that there are different motivational and achievement consequences to learning and grade outcome expectancies (or endogenous and exogenous PI). The distinction between these reflects the difference between wanting to learn the course material to increase my own knowledge or competency, similar to mastery or learning goals in goal orientation theories, and only seeing the grade in the course as important, similar to performance goals in goal orientation theories (e.g., Urdan & Kaplan, [37]). Strategic Learners derive motivation from both learning and grade outcome expectancies, but Knowledge Builders only derive motivation from learning outcome expectancies. Although students adopting these two profiles typically perform at the same high level, Knowledge Builders can lose interest and motivation if they do not see the course content as being relevant to their goals. As a result, they may adopt the Apathetic profile. Strategic Learners can lose interest and relevance but still be motivated by their outcome expectancy for the contingency of grades to their other goals. Similarly, Surface Learners and the Apathetic see no importance in learning the course material, but Surface Learners see getting a grade as still important. Thus, they continue to be motivated by grade outcome expectancies to do enough to get the grade they think they need.

These patterns suggest a caveat to the focus of motivation theories on getting students to develop an intrinsic interest in the course content (e.g., Ryan & Deci, [22]). Research on the profiles has shown that there is a distinct difference between profile adoption in courses that are seen as directly relevant to student's career goals and courses that are not (Nelson et al., [17]; Shell & Soh, [33]). College students are required to take courses that are not directly part of their major field of study. These might be only tangentially related to their desired goals. Nelson et al. ([17]) found that even in required computer science courses that are highly relevant for engineering students, these students still may not see any personal outcome expectancy for learning the content. One can only imagine what relevance courses like history or English are seen as having. Similarly, it is not reasonable to expect that at any K-12 level, students are going to be personally invested in every subject or see learning them all as relevant to their future. Research on outcome expectancies, however, suggests that students can develop positive motivation even in these circumstances. Strategic Learners and Surface Learners both derive motivation from more extrinsic grade outcome expectancies. If they don't care about the course material at least they see getting a satisfactory grade as important. Educators can use this to motivate these students to learn even if they are not interested in the course itself. This may keep these students from becoming Apathetic.

Building students' positive outcome expectancy

As previously discussed, outcome expectancies are chained from immediate outcomes resulting from an action such as learning and emotional satisfaction or discomfort to long-term future outcomes. Most motivation from outcome expectancies in educational settings is due to this chaining to future life outcomes. These future outcomes and goals, however, are only motivating for school if students perceive that their school work can influence the attainment of those outcomes and goals.

There are 3 foundational strategies educators can use for getting students to develop outcome expectancies for important possible future goals. First, students need to know that the future goal exists, be it further education or a career. They need to know that there are many possible careers. The more possible careers and outcomes they know about, the greater the potential for developing outcome expectancies for them. Second, students need to see these future goals as something they could possibly achieve: what Markus and Nurius ([16]) have called a future possible self. Many students do not see the outcomes that school could produce, such as further post-secondary education and technical or professional careers, as possibilities for them. This is especially prevalent in minority and immigrant populations and among those in the lower socio-economic groups. It is not just economics that interferes with seeing these outcomes as possible. It can be a life situation that is sometimes by necessity so focused on immediate needs that the students can't see beyond their current environment to envision themselves in a better future place. They may also lack role models for possible careers and educational paths. Third, students need to develop outcome expectancies for these possible future goals. They need to overtly lay out the instrumental path from where they are now to these goals, including intermediate steps for taking the classes and other activities necessary to prepare themselves for each successive step. The connection between "right now" and the long-term future outcome is tenuous, but can be made concrete by establishing each successive step as the next short-term learning goal.

Establishing this outcome expectancy chaining can be done through Bandura's vicarious learning approaches. First, teachers can provide students with information about careers and other life possibilities. Ways to do this include specific career planning, exposing students to successful career models through guest speakers, and experiences such as field trips. These activities can be done virtually as well as in person providing expanded opportunities. Second, teachers need to help students see these career possibilities as viable for themselves. As noted by Shell and Flowerday ([26]), students come from a variety of social and cultural backgrounds. They need to be exposed to information, models, and experiences that reflect this diversity of gender and culture. They need to be supported and encouraged to explore possibilities from both within their social cultural setting and outside their experience. Again, the availability of virtual resources can expand access to and interaction with these sources. Finally, teachers need to be active in helping students understand and develop the contingent path to achieving their future goals. This includes not just showing students the steps but helping students to develop the self-efficacy and agency to believe they can preserver and ultimately succeed.

Research on outcome expectancy interventions in education is limited but there have been some promising approaches. Oyserman et al. ([18]) developed the Pathways for Youth project, a 9-week, after-school program for urban middle school students. Adult guides worked with students to complete 7 steps: (1) envisioning possible futures for themselves, (2) conceptualizing those futures as goals, (3) constructing a path for goal obtainment, (4) making explicit connections between present educational activities and the valued future goals, (5) discussing possible roadblocks and forks in the path, (6) brainstorming strategies for managing imagined future obstacles, and (7) interviewing successful adults from the community about their own strategies for reaching goals. This program helped students become more engaged in school and promoted better attendance. In a study of undergraduate engineering students, Puruhito et al. ([20]) found that students' endogenous PI for course material could be increased by 5-minute videos of former students advocating the utility of the course concepts. Shell et al. ([31]) found that an intervention providing middle-school students with accurate information about smokeless tobacco was effective in changing students outcome expectancies about smokeless tobacco and these changes were related to changes in students' intentions to use smokeless tobacco. Although limited, these studies suggest that providing specific information about outcomes and contingencies to future goals can be effective in changing outcome expectancies and subsequent motivation.

Future directions

Because outcome expectancies have not been extensively studied in educational settings, more research is needed to clarify mechanisms of how expectancies are learned, especially in different cultures and minority communities. As noted in recent papers (Eccles & Wigfield, [5]; Hattie et al., [9]; Schunk & DiBenedetto, [24]), there is a need for clarification of similarities and differences between outcome expectancies and related constructs like utility value, especially distinguishing contingency from value in theoretical formulations.

There are potential neurological foundations for outcome expectancy and value. The dopaminergic "reward system" in the brain computes the value of possible environmental rewards, the prediction error of whether the attained reward matches the expected reward, contingency information for reward signals, and salience of stimuli (see Hidi, [10]; Shell & Flowerday, [26]). These correspond closely to cognitive representations of outcome expectancy but research is needed to establish specific neurological connections for expectancies if they exist.

Finally, further research needs to be done in school settings to determine the best ways to help students develop outcome expectancies and the contingent instrumental paths from these to desired life goals. It is time for educators to unlock the untapped potential of outcome expectancies for fostering student motivation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional Resources

1. Stipek, D. (2001). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th Edition). Pearson.

This book provides a comprehensive review of theory and research in motivation. Stipek does an excellent job of translating this body of work into practical applications for teachers. The book is an excellent entry point for learning about the field of achievement motivation.

2. Shell, D. F., Brooks, D. W., Trainin, G., Wilson, K., Kauffman, D. F., & Herr, L. (2010). The Unified Learning Model: How motivational, cognitive, and neurobiological sciences inform best teaching practices. Springer.

This book provides a synthesis of research and theory on learning and motivation from neurological underpinnings to classroom applications. The book provides a readable entry to understanding how students learn and how motivation is involved in cognition and learning.

3. Peteranetz, M. S., Soh, L.-K., Shell, D. F., & Flanigan, A. E. (2021). Motivation and self-regulated learning in computer science: Lessons learned from a multi-year program of classroom research. IEEE Transactions on Education, 64, 317-326. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2021.3049721

This article brings together seven years of classroom research on motivation and self-regulation in college computer science courses. The studies reviewed examine most major contemporary approaches to motivation and self-regulation. Findings highlight the complex, counter-intuitive, and positive aspects of student motivation with lessons learned that apply across K-12 as well as college.

By Duane F. Shell

Reported by Author