A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Counseling Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Journal
of
Counseling
Psychology
1990, Vol.
37, No.
1,57-64
Copyright
1990
by the
American
Psychological
Association,
Inc.
0022-0167/90/$00.75
Utility
of
Expectancy Theory
in
Predicting
Occupational Choices
in
College Students
Linda
Brooks
School
of
Education
University
of
North
Carolina-Chapel
Hill
Nancy
E.
Betz
Ohio
State
University
Introductory
psychology
students
responded
to
measures
of
Expectancy
and
Valence with
respect
to 6
male-dominated
and 6
female-dominated
careers.
Likelihood
of
choosing
each
of the 12
occupations
was
used
as an
indicator
offeree
of
behavior
in
Vroom's
(1964)
expectancy
model.
Results
indicated
that
the
Expectancy
x
Valence
interaction
for an
occupation
accounted
for
from
12% to
41%
of the
variance
in
tendency
to
choose
that
occupation,
although
expectancy
alone
was as
good
a
predictor
as the
product.
Gender
differences were marked
and
consistent
across
expectancy,
valence,
and
likelihood
of
choosing
each
occupation,
varying
in
accordance
with
the
traditionality
of the
occupation.
Limitations
of the
study
and
implications
for
both
further
research and for
career
counseling
are
discussed.
Vroom's
(1964)
expectancy model
of
motivation
has
been
described
as
"perhaps
the
most widely accepted theory
of
work
and
motivation among
today's
industrial
and
organi-
zational psychologists"
(Wabba
&
House,
1974,
p.
121).
De-
spite research that shows that
the
model predicts career
pref-
erence reasonably well (see reviews
by
Mitchell
&
Beach,
1976;
Wanous, Keon,
&
Latack,
1983), counseling psychol-
ogists have
all but
ignored Vroom's theory. This
is
unfortu-
nate, because
the
model
is
parsimonious
and
focuses
on
variables that
are
amenable
to
career interventions (Brooks,
1988).
Furthermore,
it
meets
the
criticism
of
some (e.g., Laws,
1978)
that models
of
career preference
and
choice tend
to
neglect
the
motivational component
of
career decision mak-
ing.
Vroom's
(1964)
expectancy theory distinguishes between
occupational preference
and
occupational choice.
The
pre-
ferred
occupation
is the one
that
the
person views
as
having
the
most positive valence
or
attractiveness.
The
chosen
oc-
cupation
is the one
toward which there
is the
most positive
force
and is
viewed
as a
function
of
both
the
attractiveness
or
valence
of the
occupation
and the
expectancy
for
attainment
of
the
occupation. Thus, persons will
be
motivated
to
consider
choosing
an
occupation only
if
they
are
both attracted
to the
occupation
and
believe they will
be
able
to
attain
the
occu-
pation.
Vroom
(1964)
formulated
two
predictive models,
one for
the use
with preference
and the
other
for
ghoice.
These
can
be
more clearly seen
in the the
following algebraic formulas.
The
first
depicts
the
occupational preference (valence) model:
(i)
where
Vj
=
occupational valence,
the
attractiveness
of
occu-
pation
j;
ljk
= the
perceived instrumentality
of
occupation
j
for
attainment
of
outcome
k
(e.g., engineering will bring high
Correspondence
concerning
this
article
should
be
addressed
to
Nancy
E.
Betz,
Department
of
Psychology,
Ohio
State
University,
137
Townshend
Hall,
Columbus,
Ohio
43210.
income);
and Vk =
outcome valence,
or the
desirability
of
outcome
k
(e.g., high income
is a
valued outcome).
The
second formula shows
the
occupational choice (ex-
pectancy)
model:
Ft
= I
7-1
(2)
where
F, =
force
on the
person
to
perform
act i
(i.e., choose
an
occupation);
Ea
=
subjective probability
or
expectancy
that
act
/
will lead
to
outcomey
(e.g.,
if I
major
in
engineering,
I
will
be
able
to
complete
the
training required);
and
Vj
=
occupational valence,
or the
attractiveness
of the
occupation
(e.g.,
engineering will provide rewards that
are
desirable).
According
to
Vroom's
(1964)
model, then, there
are two
components
to the
motivation
to
choose
an
occupation:
an
expectancy dimension
and a
valence dimension. Because
these
two
dimensions
vary
independently, both must
be
pres-
ent at
high levels
for
behavior
to
occur.
For
example,
one
person
may
feel
strongly toward
and
thus state
a
preference
(occupational valence)
for
becoming
a
university professor
because
it is
perceived
to be
instrumental
for
working
in a
stimulating environment,
an
outcome that
is
highly desirable
(outcome
valence).
The
same person
may
fail
to
choose that
occupation, however, because
of low
expectancies about
the
probability
of
completing
the
necessary education. Con-
versely,
another person
may
possess high expectancies about
attainment (e.g.,
the
person believes that
she or he has the
necessary
ability
to
complete
the
education)
but
views
the
outcomes associated with
the
role
of a
professor
as
undesirable
(e.g.,
low
income
and
demanding students).
The
theory pre-
dicts that
the
person with high expectancies
but low
outcome
valence,
like
the
person with
low
expectancies
but
high val-
ence,
will
be
unlikely
to
choose
the
occupation
of
university
professor.
Vroom
(1964)
uses
the
term
valence
in two
different
ways:
first,
in
a
more limited sense
as the
desirability
of a
given
outcome
for a
person (outcome valence, e.g.,
the
importance
of
job
security) and, second,
in the
broader sense
of the
overall
attractiveness
of a
given option (occupational valence,
or
57
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
