Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation: How Perceived Racial Prejudice Can Influence Ability Beliefs, Expectancy Beliefs and Subject Task Value of Métis Post-Secondary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore how the threat of prejudice can interfere with a learner’s ability beliefs, expectancies of success and subjective task value 165 Métis post-secondary students were asked to consider themselves applying for a job with a non-Indigenous employer. Participants were grouped into high and low Métis identifiers and then placed into one of three groups: (1) Employer-prejudiced, (2) Employer non-prejudiced, and (3) Employer’s attitudes about Indigenous peoples unknown. A 2x3 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the relationship between Métis identity (high/low) and five concepts: (1) expectations about being hired, (2) value placed on being hired, (3) learners’ beliefs about the mock employer’s integrity, (4) the extent to which learner’s held negative over-generalized negative beliefs about non-Indigenous people, and (5) actual task performance. Although there were no interaction effects a number of main effects are reported. While students with a stronger sense of Métis identity reported more overall optimism about being hired that those learners with a weaker sense of Métis identity, they nevertheless reported less motivation to perform an assigned task to the best of their respective abilities. Students in the prejudiced condition reported lower expectations about being hired and less motivation to perform the assigned task to the best of their ability. Students in the prejudiced condition also reported stronger negative generalized beliefs about both the mock employer and non-Indigenous people in general. Although the students in the prejudiced condition reported less motivation to exert high effort on the assigned task, their actual performance on the task was not related to whether or not the hypothetical employer was described as prejudiced, non-prejudiced, or neither about Indigenous peoples. Future studies should explore how one’s sense of Métis identity and other minority group identity can influence reactions to a threatening academic environment and suppress academic motivation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".