Increase formal training in theory development and treat theories as tools rather than group commitments¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (4 for) · 1 study (1 theoretical), q1 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 4 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The article recommends that educational psychologists "undergo more formal training in theory and theory development" and engage in lively discussion of the theories themselves rather than only testing them. It argues the field over-invests in applying and testing existing theories and under-invests in articulating new ones, offers limited incentives for young scholars (few theoretical outlets), and warns that theories treated as group commitments—Mischel's toothbrush analogy—may discourage early-career scholars from challenging or proposing theories.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Field atmosphere open to productively challenging or criticizing existing theories
• More outlets and incentives for theoretical papers

Constraints¶

• The article notes the lack of strong theory is not specific to motivation research but discussions of theory occur less frequently in educational psychology than other areas

Target Learners¶

• educational psychology researchers, especially early-career scholars

Target Learning Goals¶

• developing well-specified theories of motivation

Claims¶

• The constellation of dominant motivation theories in educational psychology has changed very little over recent decades [+W]
• Empirical tests of motivation theories tend to be simple, obvious tests of statistical relationships between constructs and their antecedents and outcomes, making supporting evidence easy to obtain [+W]
• The meaning of theoretical arrows (causal vs predictive, timescale, functional form, magnitude) is unclear, and cross-lagged effect signs can change with assessment intervals [+W]
• Motivation theories underspecify causal mechanisms, so empirical findings on mediation cannot refute or challenge them [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Use formal computational modelling to specify dynamic causal processes in motivation theories

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Murayama, K., & von Keyserlingk, L. (2025). A critical analysis of the current motivation theories in educational psychology: Why the same theories continue to dominate. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2025.2473894