An experiential exercise for teaching theories of work motivation: using a game to teach equity and expectancy theories

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to provide an experiential exercise for management and leadership educators to use in the course of their teaching duties.

Design/methodology/approach

The approach of this classroom teaching method uses an experiential exercise to teach Adams’ equity theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory.

Findings

This experiential exercise has proven useful in teaching two major theories of motivation and is often cited as one of the more memorable classes students experience.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is an original experiential exercise for teaching the equity and expectancy theories of motivation.

Citation

Swain, J., Kumlien, K. and Bond, A. (2020), "An experiential exercise for teaching theories of work motivation: using a game to teach equity and expectancy theories", Organization Management Journal , Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 119-132. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-06-2019-0742

Theories of work motivation are central to the field of management and are covered in many introductory management, leadership, human resource management and organizational behavior courses (Benson & Dresdow, 2019; Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004; Swain, Bogardus, & Lin, 2019). Understanding the concept of work motivation helps undergraduate students prepare for leading and managing others. Teaching these concepts in the classroom allows students to experiment and share ideas with others in a lower-stakes environment than if they were in an actual place of work with other employees. But teaching students theories of work motivation is not easy. First, there are dozens of theories ranging from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, to self-determination theory, to goal setting theory, to Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory (a.k.a. two-factor theory), to job characteristics theory, just to name a few (Anderson, 2007; Holbrook & Chappell, 2019; Latham & Pinder, 2005; Locke & Latham, 1990). Second, students tend to evaluate the explanatory power of different motivational theories based on how they relate to their work and life experiences (Anderson, 2007). This tendency to view motivation theories through the lens of personal experience poses a challenge for undergraduate level students who have limited work exposure; they often lack the context to make sense of the various motivational theories (Mills, 2017). Therefore, to provide a common experience through which students can understand theories of work motivation, we developed an experiential activity. Specifically, we use an in-class basketball exercise. This experiential approach not only provides a common context for students to reference in applying theories of work motivation, but also incorporates elements of fun and competition, which have been shown to help engage students more fully (Helms & Haynes, 1990; Azriel, Erthal, & Starr, 2005).

While there are numerous theories of work motivation (Latham & Pinder, 2005), like others, we have found focusing on too many of these theories during one class overwhelms students and causes them to question academics’ understanding of the topic (Anderson, 2007; Holbrook & Chappell, 2019). However, focusing on too few theories also limits students’ education and understanding of why multiple theories of motivation exist. We find that acknowledging the existence of multiple theories is advisable, and we suggest instructors emphasize the complexity of motivation, but that they do not try to force students to learn or apply the details of a large number of theories of motivation in a single class period. Therefore, our exercise focuses on two basic theories of work motivation – Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and Adams’ Equity Theory. We chose to focus on these two theories because they are among the most influential theories of work motivation (Anderson, 2007; Holbrook & Chappell, 2019; Miner, 2003) and among the most frequently included in management and organizational behavior courses and textbooks (Miner, 2003; Miner, 2005).

Theoretical foundation

Both expectancy and equity theories of motivation have been identified as important frameworks for teaching and understanding motivation, and both emphasize the cognitive approach to motivation (Miner, 2003; Stecher & Rosse, 2007).

Adams’ equity theory centers on the perception of fairness (Adams, 1963). When people feel they have been fairly treated, they are more likely to be motivated. When they feel they have not been fairly treated, their motivation will suffer. These perceptions of equity are derived from an assessment of personal input and outputs – or what people put into a task compared to what they receive as a result (Adams, 1963; Kanfer & Ryan, 2018). Inputs can include things like time, effort, loyalty, enthusiasm and personal sacrifice. Outputs can include but are not limited to, thing likes salary, praise, rewards, recognition, job security, etc. But the theory is more complex than simply the assessment of personal inputs weighed against outputs. Adams’ equity theory also incorporates the concept of perceived equity (Adams, 1963; Kanfer & Ryan, 2018). People compare their inputs and outputs to others. If they feel that another person is putting in the same level of effort, but getting more outputs as a result, that person’s motivation may suffer (Kanfer, 1990; Kanfer & Ryan, 2018; Stecher & Rosse, 2007). This theory can be summarized using a visual equation that highlights how perceived equity can impact motivation (Appendix 1). This same visual equation can help students understand how leaders can influence motivation in their subordinates; how leaders can impact equity. For example, if inequity exists, leaders may require subordinates to reduce personal inputs, or they may adjust the outcomes. They might also counsel their subordinates to change their comparison points (e.g. a low-level worker should not compare herself to a senior VP with 12+ years of experience).

Vroom’s expectancy theory involves a multiplicative relationship between three concepts: expectancy, instrumentality and valence (Vroom, 1964; Kanfer & Cornwell, 2018; Kanfer & Ryan, 2018). Expectancy is the belief that one’s behavior and effort will result in the attainment of the desired performance outcome. Instrumentality is the belief that one will receive a certain reward outcome if he/she is successful in meeting the performance outcome that their effort was directed toward. Valence is the value that an individual places on the reward outcome that was specified to be given based on meeting the required performance outcome. A low level of belief in the ability to achieve an outcome (expectancy), low trust or belief that meeting the performance objective will result in the stated outcome (instrumentality) or low value in the reward outcome itself (valence) will result in low motivation (Kanfer & Ryan, 2018; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Vroom, 1964). Appendix 1 contains a visual representation of Vroom’s expectancy theory. Leaders can consider the following questions when applying Vroom’s theory to diagnose a subordinate with low motivation and to drive appropriate actions:

• Expectancy: Is the individual properly trained and do they possess the necessary resources to effectively do the job?

• Instrumentality: Does the individual trust that they’ll receive what they were promised if they do what they were asked?

• Valence: Does the individual value the reward they were promised (Kanfer & Ryan, 2018)?

Experiential exercise

Overview

In this exercise, we use a mini basketball game in class to teach students about both Adams’ equity theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory. Using the game in class ensures students have a common context through which to apply and understand these two theories of work motivation. As noted by Stecher & Rosse (2007), both theories offer compatible frameworks for understanding work motivation, yet they are most often taught as distinct non-related theories. We find that teaching these two theories using the same experiential exercise helps students understand the complexities of motivation. Specifically, this exercise helps students understand how multiple theories can explain motivation issues for the same situation.

Learning objectives

At the end of the exercise, students should be able to:

• understand the complexity of motivation and its impact on performance;

• explain differences in an individual’s motivation and behavior as a function of common psychological forces experienced by people; and

• apply knowledge of work motivation theories to address issues of motivation.

Target audience.

This exercise is designed for undergraduate students in introductory courses in leadership, management, human resource management or organizational behavior – wherever theories of work motivation are covered. This approach has been used for over a decade teaching college juniors and seniors in a leadership course. While the approach has not been used to teach graduate students, there is no reason to believe it would not be an effective means for teaching those enrolled in an MBA program.

Class size.

The exercise has been used in classes ranging from 15 to 36 students. As participation by multiple students positively impacts the class, it is recommended the exercise be used for smaller classes. Time could become a factor in larger classes. Furthermore, space could prove a limiting factor in larger classes as some room is needed to set up the game.

Supplies needed.

Instructors should collect the following supplies before conducting this class.

• mini basketball hoop and mini basketball (a trash can and wadded up paper can work if you do not have access to a small hoop and ball);

• means for keeping time (stopwatch, wristwatch or wall clock with a second hand);

• painter’s tape or note cards to annotate shot positions on the floor in the classroom;

• one bag of miniature candy bars; and

• slides of equity and expectancy theory to assist in de-brief (Appendix 1).

Time.

This exercise as described can be completed in a single 75-min class session. If less time is available, we recommend instructors teach only one of the theories as outlined in this article (conduct only one of the two rounds of the game), covering the other theory during another class period.

A general breakdown of the class period follows:

• a brief overview of work motivation by the instructor (via short lecture or through soliciting input from students to gauge the level of preparation) (10 min);

• the first round of the game (10 min);

• de-brief and application of equity theory (10 min);

• the second round of the game (10 min);

• de-brief and application of expectancy theory (10 min);

• small group discussion on the future application of theories (15 min); and

• structured de-brief of group discussions (10 min).

Student preparation before class.

It is recommended that instructors assign students readings focused on work motivation in advance of the class. A large number of organizational behavior or management textbooks contain chapters on this topic. At a minimum, the assigned reading should cover equity and expectancy theories.

Instructor preparation and classroom setup.

Instructors should set up the classroom with supplies they obtained before beginning class. A visual example of the classroom setup for Rounds 1 and 2 of the exercise can be found in Appendix 2. The mini-basketball hoop should be located in front of the classroom where all the students can see it. Depending on the size/shape of the classroom, the shooting positions for Rounds 1 and 2 of the exercise can be placed in any location. The shooting position for Round 1 should be a moderately difficult shot, perhaps two to three steps away from the basket. Mark the position with tape or a notecard.

Round 2 requires three different shooting positions. Each position should be marked with tape or a notecard. The first position is the “easy” shot. It should be very close to the basket (1-2 steps in front of the basket). The purpose of this first position is to create the opportunity for a shot that the average person would have lots of confidence in making (high expectancy). The second position should be further away (six to eight steps away from the basket) and potentially behind a row of desks for some added difficulty. The purpose of this second position is to create a shot of medium level difficulty where students are not completely confident (lower expectancy) that they will be able to make it. The third position should be the hardest shot that you can create while still leaving a very small possibility of the shot being made (lowest expectancy). It is recommended you make the student stand outside of a doorway so that they have to shoot a strange trajectory. If your classroom space is not big enough to support making a shot position that is far away from the basket, you can instead add difficulty by requiring the student to wear a blindfold or to shoot backwards. For the positions needed for Round 2 of the exercise, instructors should test the positions and ensure the three different locations are of varying difficulty and that the third position is an extremely difficult (almost impossible) shot to make.

Running the exercise

Introduction to motivational theories (10 min)

Given the number of motivational theories that exist in the academic world, we find it helpful to acknowledge this initially with students to highlight the overall complexity of the topic. In this introduction, instructors can briefly highlight the variety of motivational theories that exist (e.g. expectancy, equity, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, self-determination theory, goal setting theory, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory, job characteristics theory, etc.). This can be done in any number of ways – asking students to list and/or briefly describe the various theories covered in their assigned reading, etc. Teachers should tailor this introduction based on their specific situation (e.g. the content of assigned reading, length of class, etc.). After talking through the variety of theories that exist, it is important to highlight to students that these theories should be viewed more as a conceptual toolbox for them to use in different situations as opposed to viewing all of these theories as a group of non-congruent viewpoints all competing to be the truest (Anderson, 2007).

After a brief review of the assigned reading(s), instructors can tell students that they are going to play a game to apply what they have learned.

Round 1 of the game (10 min)

Ask all of the students to stand up and tell them to stretch out, limber up, and get prepared for a mini-basketball competition. During this session, the instructor will provide students with an exciting and competitive experience to which they can apply the concepts of Adams’ Equity Theory.

Divide students into four even teams. Have students move around and sit with their team as a group. Explain that Team 1 will compete against Team 2 in a basketball shootout. Establish an incentive of your choice – candy often works well. Show this incentive to the students. Now call Team 1 and Team 2 up to the front of the class and instruct them that:

[…] you can take as many shots as you want at the hoop in 60 seconds, but everybody in your team needs to shoot at least once. The team that ends up with the most baskets made will win. Team 1, you will go first.

Use a stopwatch or watch with a second hand to keep time and instruct members of the opposing team to keep score.

Once Team 1 completes their turn, record their score and call Team 2 forward. Before allowing Team 2 to start their turn, move the shooting spot three paces further away from the basket (move the tape or notecard back three paces).

You will likely experience negative feedback from Team 2 after moving the basket. Common responses include, “this isn’t fair.” Pay close attention to the complaints that they use, these are often very useful to bring up during the discussion portion of the exercise. You might respond lightheartedly with “life isn’t fair” or “what, are you scared?” Allow Team 2 to complete their turn, paying close attention to their affect and comments. If done correctly, Team 2 should lose to Team 1. Congratulate Team 1 on their excellent performance and give each member of Team 1 their prize (a small candy bar works well) and have both Teams 1 and 2 return to their seats.

Now call Team 3 forward. Instruct them that will have 60 s to shoot from the same spot that Team 2 shot from. Keep time and have a member from Team 4 count the baskets. When time is up, record the score. Now call Team 4 forward. Have them shoot from the same spot Team 3 did. Start the clock. However, do not stop the team from shooting after 60 s. Let them continue to shoot for an additional 30 s – or longer – until you hear the members of Teams 1, 2 and 3 start questioning how much time Team 4 is getting to shoot. Record the number of shots made. Team 4 should beat Team 3. Congratulate team 4. Do NOT give Team 4 any candy for winning. Have Teams 3 and 4 return to their seats.

Round 1 de-brief and application of equity theory (10 min)

This is where the instructor begins to apply Adams’ equity theory to the scenario. Ask students if anyone is feeling unsatisfied or unmotivated. You should have several hands go up. If not, remind them of the negative comments you heard during the game – calling on students by name if necessary. Now start to inquire as to why people said what they did.

At this point, the instructor should put up the slide with Adams’ equity theory on it (Appendix 1) and ask students to explain what happened using the equation on the slide. The class should point out several areas where “the equation does not balance.” For example, the inputs for Team 1 were less than the input for Team 2. Team 2 had a harder shot and, therefore, had to provide more inputs (work harder). Students should also point out that the outputs were not even. Team 4 beat Team 3 (just as Team 1 beat Team 2), but Team 4 did not receive the same outcome/reward. Less clear is the factor of Team 4 having more time than Team 3. Ask students how this factor impacts motivation using equity theory.

Pass out candy to all members of the class – to reduce feelings of inequity. Keep three pieces of candy for Round 2.

Round 2 of the game (10 min)

Now tell the class that you are going to ask for three volunteers. Inform the class that if they volunteer and are selected, they have a choice to make – they must choose one of three shooting/prize positions.

Shooting Position #1. Tell the students that if they choose shooting position #1, they get to shoot from the closest spot (and show them where it is). Let them know that they can take three practice shots and that for making a basket, they will receive a piece of candy.

Shooting Position #2. Tell students if they choose this option, they get to shoot from the spot of moderate difficulty and show them where it is. Let them know they get one practice shot and that their prize for making the basket is something of medium desirability – perhaps lunch paid for by the instructor at a local moderately priced restaurant of the student’s choice.

Shooting Position #3. Tell students that if they choose this option, they get to shoot from the most difficult spot and show them where it is. Tell them that they do not get any practice shots from this location. Promise an extremely desirable reward (high valence) and also something that the students may question whether you have the power to give it to them (low instrumentality). A great example is offering them the ability to get out of having to do a major course requirement such as a capstone project or thesis paper. You could also offer something like getting to park in the Dean’s parking spot for the rest of the semester. The creativity behind choosing this third reward is that you want to find the balance of a reward that is extremely high in desirability, but also something that in hindsight students should realize was probably outside of your ability to deliver on that reward (low instrumentality). By creating a reward that is somewhat unrealistic for shooting position #3, the instructor will allow for a follow-on discussion about the power of instrumentality in Vroom’s expectancy theory. If a student questions whether or not they will receive the reward by meeting the performance outcome (making the shot), then their instrumentality will be lower which may alter the position they select to shoot from.

Now that all three shooting positions have been described, pick three volunteers at random and have them come to the front of the room. Ask the first student what option she would like to choose and have her take the shot. Repeat for the second and third students (students can all shoot from the same spot if they desire). After the final volunteer chooses the shooting position and takes the shot, have students return to their seats and prepare for the de-brief.

Round 2 de-brief and application of expectancy theory (10 min).

After the volunteers have returned to their seats, the instructor can display the Vroom’s expectancy theory slide (Appendix 1) to begin shaping the class conversation in terms of Vroom’s expectancy theory.

Start by asking the students to identify what the individual behavior, performance outcome and reward outcome were in this exercise. They should be able to list the following:

• Individual behavior = the physical act of shooting the basketball;

• Performance outcome = making the basketball in the hoop; and

• Reward outcome = the prize received based on making the shot from the shooting position the student chose.

Next, ask the students to break down each of the three options in terms of expectancy, instrumentality and valence. The following should come out in the discussion:

Shooting Position #1.

• Expectancy – Shooting position #1 has the highest expectancy of all three positions. Self-efficacy is increased through multiple practice shots and the close distance makes the shot seem achievable.

• Instrumentality – Shooting position #1 should have a high level of instrumentality. Students know you have the candy bar and that you delivered on what you promised during round 1. Therefore, it is likely they trust and believe they will receive the reward candy bar for achieving the performance outcome of making the shot.

• Valence – Shooting position #1 likely has the lowest valence of all three positions in terms of overall value. However, valence could run from low to high depending on individual preference. The candy bar may have lower valence if students do not like the particular candy bar.

Shooting Position #2.

• Expectancy – Lower than shooting position #1 because the shot is more difficult, and the student only gets one practice shot. However, the expectancy of shooting position #2 is still greater than shooting position #3 because the shot is easier and the student still receives a practice shot which raises the student’s confidence in their ability to achieve the performance outcome of making the shot.

• Instrumentality – Lower than shooting position #1, but higher than shooting position #3. There might be some trust issues related to whether the students will receive the lunch. As the student does not immediately get the reward of the free lunch by achieving the performance outcome of making the shot, the instrumentality may be low. The instrumentality should still be higher than shooting position #3 because the student should have more trust that the instructor will buy them lunch as compared to not having to write the final paper for the class.

• Valence – Should be higher than position 1 since lunch is more expensive than just a candy bar. However, individual preferences again may vary depending on if the students have free time in their schedule or if they would even like to have lunch with their professor.

Shooting Position #3.

• Expectancy – The lowest of all three positions as there is no practice shot and the difficulty of the shot is so high that students do not really believe that they will be able to make the shot.

• Instrumentality – Should be the lowest of all three positions as the reward may seem so great that some students will doubt if the instructor will follow through on giving the reward, or if they even have the power to give out the reward. But this may not be rated by students as low initially.

• Valence – The highest of all three positions. The reward of not having to write a final paper, or some other exclusive reward (parking in the Dean’s parking spot) should be viewed as extremely appealing to most students given the high value they place on their time in a busy college schedule.

After going through each of the shooting positions, have the non-participating students in the classroom evaluate the multiplicative factors for each shooting position and ask them if it makes sense why each student chose to shoot from where they did.

Small group discussion on the future application of theories (15 min)

After students have had a chance to run through both games as well as the de-brief for each exercise, it is now time to turn the discussion toward an application of both theories to future leadership situations. Break students back out into the teams they were on for the Adams’ equity theory portion of the class. Instruct the groups they will have 15 min to talk amongst themselves to brainstorm examples of personal experiences or potential future scenarios where they can apply Adams’ equity theory and Vroom’s expectancy theory. Examples that often come up range from peers on group projects receiving the same reward/recognition even though they contributed less, gender discrepancies in pay or promotion, poor incentive systems, etc.

Structured de-brief of group discussion (10 min)

Spend the last 10 min of this class asking each group of the teams to share an example they discussed within their small group. Ensure that you press the students to use the correct terminology when talking about their examples through the lens of either Adams’ equity theory or Vroom’s expectancy theory and ask them how they might positively impact motivation in the scenario they discussed.

Potential challenges.

Challenge: The instructor does not properly manage time for a thorough debrief of each exercise

Solution: One of the biggest risks of this exercise is that if an instructor does not keep a close watch on time, then there will not be ample time for a rich discussion of the actual exercises and their application to the theories. We recommend that when an instructor is teaching this lesson for the first time that they print out the detailed timeline listed above and add in time hacks for reach section based on individual lesson start and stop times. For example, if the class starts at 09:00, the instructor should print out the following note card for their reference:

• 09:30-09:40. A brief overview of work motivation theories;

• 09:40-09:50. The first round of the game (Adams’ equity theory);

• 09:50-10:00. De-brief round one exercise and apply Adams’ equity theory;

• 10:00-10:10. The second round of the game (Vroom’s expectancy theory);

• 10:10-10:20. De-brief round two exercise and apply Vroom-s expectancy theory;

• 10:20-10:35. Small group discussion on the future application of theories; and

• 10:35-10:45. Structured de-brief of group discussions.

Challenge: A student manages to make the impossible shot

Solution: In the event that a student does make the nearly impossible shot from shooting position #3 (this did happen in one instance and it turned into a viral Instagram video with over 20,000 views) then the instructor needs to be prepared to not follow through on the reward. Instead, the instructor should discuss the concept of instrumentality and how the trust between a leader and their direct reports is essential to ensuring positive motivation in the workplace. This is why it is important that the reward for shooting position #3 is somewhat unbelievable in the first place because it will allow for a great discussion on instrumentality and the belief that achieving a performance outcome will lead to a given reward. The instructor can begin by polling the students to see how many of them completely believed that the reward for shooting position #3 was realistic and attainable. Through this discussion, the instructor can highlight what happens to motivation when managers create extremely difficult goals (low expectancy) with extremely valuable rewards (high valence) to try and motivate their workers. This also provides a strong example to the students of what happens to trust when a leader fails to follow through on a promised reward and how that will impact instrumentality and thus motivation in the future.

Challenge: Students may not have real-life examples to discuss in their groups.

Solution. If group discussion is lagging, the teacher can suggest situations that students may have experienced or direct them to use the internet to find examples and to discuss those instances.

Conclusion

This experiential exercise has proven useful over the past 10 years in providing an introductory look at the complexity of workplace theories of motivation. In semester-end student feedback, this class has been mentioned numerous times as one of the most impactful lessons of the course. Multiple students have commented on the effectiveness of the hands-on exercise in creating a memorable point of reference that makes it easier to retain class learning concepts. In fact, the most recent end of course feedback over one-third of students cited this lesson as the most memorable of the 30-lesson course. Additionally, the in-class exercise provides a common context for students with varying experiences to engage with and allows for the introduction and application of two of the major theories of motivation. Furthermore, the fun, competitive format generates interest and excitement. Note, we have also used miniature golf instead of basketball to teach each theory – having students putt with different equipment, from different distances, and for different prizes. For a brief overview on the setup using mini-golf, please see Appendix 3. We encourage faculty to have fun with the exercise – it is not just for the students!

Figures

Figure A1.

Adams’ equity theory

Figure A2.

Vroom’s expectancy theory

Figure A3.

Setup for Round #1 – Adams’ equity theory

Figure A4.

Setup for Round #2 – Vroom’s expectancy theory

Figure A5.

Setup for Vroom’s expectancy theory using mini-golf

Appendix 1. Sample slides for use in de-briefing

Appendix 2. Sample classroom setups for rounds 1 and 2

Appendix 3. Instructions for use of mini-golf instead of basketball

If the classroom does not allow for the setup of the three different shooting positions for the basketball exercise, then it is easy to replace the basketball exercise with a mini-golf option. Below is a brief highlight of the differences in classroom setup for the golf exercise.

Supplies needed

• putter, golf ball and plastic solo cup;

• means for keeping time (stopwatch, wristwatch or wall clock with a second hand);

• painter’s tape or note cards to annotate shot positions on the floor in the classroom; and

• bag of miniature candy bars.

Round 1 Exercise (Adams’ equity theory)

There are no major changes needed for this round. Simply follow the same instructions for Round 1 of the basketball exercise, except instead of basketball shots replace that with made putts into the solo cup. This will still allow for the same comparison and perceived inequities amongst the four teams that will create a rich discussion on Adams’ equity theory.

Round 2 Exercise (Vroom’s expectancy theory)

Again, there are no major changes needed for this round, other than just replacing the concept of a made basketball shot with a made putt. Below is an example of the three putting positions and how you can still create a similar scenario to the basketball exercise in terms of expectancy, instrumentality and valence for each putting position.

Putting Position #1: Create a short two-foot putt that is fairly easy to make. Allow the student to have three practice putts. This creates an option with high expectancy (an easy putt with practice shots), high instrumentality (the student believes that if they make the putt, they will receive the candy) and low valence (candy is not as valuable as lunch or getting out of writing a final paper).

Putting Position #2: Create a six-foot putt that is not straight on but instead is at a slight angle to the cup so that it is more difficult to make. Allow the student to have only one practice putt. This creates an option with a medium level of expectancy (a slightly more difficult putt), a medium level of instrumentality (the student has to trust that you will actually buy them lunch at some point in the future) and a medium level of valence (the lunch is greater than the candy bar, but most likely not as valuable as not writing the final paper).

Putting Position #3: Create the longest most difficult putt that your classroom will allow. Additionally, tell the students they will receive no practice putts and they will have to putt with the handle end of the putter. This creates an option with a very low level of expectancy (students will have a very low level of belief that they can make the putt given both the distance and the fact that they have to putt with the handle), a low level of instrumentality (again the reward should be so valuable that some students will doubt the reality of actually receiving the reward) and a very high level of valence (the reward should be extremely desirable).