Skip to content

9990 · 4.1.2

Cognitive theories — practice questions

Practice and worked examples for 9990 Cognitive theories. Short previews only — attempt the full question in MarkScheme against the official scheme.

Worked example 1

Sales staff at a retail chain are told to 'sell more' but see colleagues who miss targets still receive bonuses because they are friends with the manager. Effort has fallen. Analyse using expectancy and equity theories.

Show solution outline

Vroom — instrumentality collapsed: Staff no longer believe performance → reward because bonuses appear unrelated to sales figures. Even high expectancy (they can sell) and valence (they want the bonus) cannot sustain motivation when instrumentality ≈ 0.

Adams — negative inequity: High performers perceive their input/output ratio as worse than the referent colleague's — more effort for the same or less reward. Responses may include reduced effort, complaints, or seeking fairer employment.

Goal-setting fix: Replace vague targets with specific, challenging but achievable weekly goals plus transparent feedback (Locke & Latham).

Evaluation: Cognitive theories give precise predictions for this scenario but assume rational comparison — emotions, loyalty, or fear of redundancy may keep some staff working despite inequity. They complement Herzberg (fair process as a hygiene factor) rather than replace need theories.

Worked example 2

A software developer, Sam, is offered a £5,000 bonus for delivering a complex project ahead of schedule. Sam is confident in their skills and believes there is a 70% chance that working overtime will lead to early delivery. However, the company has a history of delaying bonus payments, so Sam estimates only a 30% chance of actually receiving the bonus if the project is delivered early. Sam desperately needs the money for a house deposit, so rates the value of the bonus as 10 out of 10. Calculate Sam's motivational force using Vroom's Expectancy Theory.

Show solution outline

Step 1: Identify the components and their values.

  • Expectancy (E): Sam's belief that effort (working overtime) will lead to performance (early delivery). E = 0.70 (or 70%).
  • Instrumentality (I): Sam's belief that performance (early delivery) will lead to the outcome (receiving the bonus). I = 0.30 (or 30%).
  • Valence (V): The value Sam places on the outcome (the £5,000 bonus). V = 10 (on a scale of 1-10).

Step 2: Apply Vroom's formula.

  • Motivational Force (MF) = Expectancy × Instrumentality × Valence
  • MF = E × I × V

Step 3: Calculate the motivational force.

  • MF = 0.70 × 0.30 × 10
  • MF = 0.21 × 10
  • MF = 2.1

Step 4: Interpret the result.

  • Sam's motivational force is 2.1 out of a possible 10 (1.0 x 1.0 x 10). This is a very low score. Despite the high valence of the reward and reasonable expectancy, the extremely low instrumentality (lack of trust in the reward system) severely undermines Sam's motivation to exert extra effort. To improve motivation, management must focus on rebuilding trust and strengthening the perceived link between performance and reward.