Drive reduction thosry is a theory of learning in which the goal of motivated behavior is a reduction of a drive state. The theory assumes that all motivated behavior arises from drives, stemming from a disruption in homeostasis, and that responses that lead to reduction of those drives tend to be reinforced or strengthened.
For example, hunger creates a drive to eat. Actions that reduce the tension or satisfy the need are reinforced, making it more likely that the individual will engage in the behavior again when faced with the same need or tension in the future.
What is the main idea of drive theory?
Drive-reduction theory is based on the idea that the primary motivation behind all human behavior is to reduce ‘drives.’
A ‘drive’ is a state of arousal or discomfort that is triggered by a person’s physiological or biological needs, such as hunger, thirst, and the need for warmth.
According to the theory, when a person’s drive emerges, they will be in an unpleasant state of tension which causes them to behave in such a way that this tension is reduced.
To reduce the tension they feel, they will seek out ways to satisfy their biological needs.
Drive-reduction theory is based on the concept of homeostasis, which is the idea that the body actively works to maintain a state of balance or equilibrium.
According to the theory, as soon as there is an unmet need within the body, a person starts behaving in a manner that allows them to address this need, reduce the drive, and achieve a state of balance.
Who developed the drive-reduction theory?
Drive-reduction theory was created by behaviorist Clark Hull and was developed further by his collaborator Kenneth Spence.
Hull based his theory on the earlier theories that relate to the concepts of motivation, taking inspiration from prominent scientists such as John B. Watson, Ivan Pavlov, and Edward Thorndike.
Hull’s theory became popular during the 1940s and 1950 as a way to explain behavior, learning, and motivation.
Hull based his theory on the concept of homeostasis, which is the idea that all organisms seek to keep their internal physiologic systems stable and balanced.
Drive reduction theory proposes that the goal of motivated behavior is to reduce physiological arousal and return to homeostasis.
A drive is any internal factor that compels an organism to seek out certain stimuli or perform certain behaviors to reduce arousal.
According to drive reduction theory, all motivated behavior arises from drives, basically needs or wants stemming from a disruption in homeostasis (a state of equilibrium). The higher the level of arousal, the greater the drive (Hull, 1952).
Hull’s student, Kenneth Spence, also contributed greatly to Drive Reduction Theory. Spence disagreed with Hull’s assumption that performance improvement comes only due to habit factors and emphasized the role of motivation.
He also believed that reinforcement can serve as a motivator for learning but that it does not necessarily enhance the learning of a response. This idea was later known as the Hull-Spence hypothesis of conditioning and learning (Spence & Spence, 1966).
Additionally, Spence posited that learning does not always occur by what has been learned, which he explained through latent learning. This is when an organism learns something but does not display the behavior until there is a reason or incentive.
For example, a rat in a maze might initially explore randomly, but after being rewarded for finding the exit, it will display the learned behavior of going straight to the exit (Spence & Spence, 1966).
This concept of latent learning is an important one because it helps to explain why organisms do not always perform according to what they have learned. It also provides evidence for the role of motivation in learning.
While drive-reduction theory was once a dominant theory in psychology, it is largely ignored today with the development of newer theories.
Although it is no longer a widely accepted theory, it is still useful to understand how earlier researchers sought to explain human motivation.
How does drive-reduction theory explain human behavior?
Drive-reduction theory suggests that human behavior results from wanting to reduce the drives we have. It is thought that there are primary and secondary drives.
Primary drives are innate biological needs such as being hungry or thirsty. Whereas secondary drives are those learned through conditioning or association with a primary drive, such as money and social acceptance.
To minimize the discomfort that is being caused by primary drives such as hunger, someone may go to the shop, purchase food, cook it, and then eat it.
The drives cause all these behaviors, according to drive-reduction theory. After the individual’s needs are fulfilled, they reach homeostasis once again, and the drive to fulfill their needs is reduced.
What is behaviorism?
Behaviorism, also known as behavioral psychology, is the belief that environmental stimuli shape human actions.
Drive-reduction theory is founded on behaviorist principles to explain behavior. The key concepts of behaviorism include arousal, homeostasis, conditioning, and reinforcement.
Arousal
Arousal in psychology is a state of physiological activation or a cortical response associated with sensory stimulation. Behaviorists believe that we are motivated by arousal.
As arousal levels change, we are said to naturally change our behavior to get back to our ‘optimal’ level of arousal.
If arousal is too low, then we may do something to stimulate ourselves. Whereas, if arousal is too high, we may try to reduce stimulation by relaxing or choosing to be alone.
Homeostasis
Homeostasis is a term that refers to the physiological balance which is achieved when an organism’s internal needs have been met.
An organism will regulate its internal environment to achieve this balance, such as by adjusting body temperature and blood sugar levels or achieving hydration.
In psychology, homeostasis can also refer to keeping your mental state balanced.
Conditioning and reinforcement
Conditioning means learning about the world through reinforcement. Hull explained human behavior in terms of conditioningand reinforcement.
According to drive reduction theory, conditioned responses are reinforced or strengthened because they contribute to drive reduction.
In drive-reduction theory, the reduction of the drive functions as a reinforcement of the behavior that helped the person satisfy their unfulfilled need.
According to the theory, such reinforcement increases the likelihood that the person will behave in the same manner in the future to address that particular drive.
Stimuli associated with reducing arousal become associated with pleasure and act as reinforcers. For example, if someone has a very high urge to eat when hungry, they might eat a snack to satisfy their appetite and reduce their hunger drive.
Eventually, that person may begin to associate the feeling of eating a snack (the experience of drive reduction) with the stimulus that induces that behavior (the sight or smell of snacks), which leads to reward-driven learning and strengthens the association between those stimuli (Hull, 1952).
Drive-reduction theory, therefore, works on the same stimulus-response relationship that is associated with the conditioning form of learning.
Mathematical Model
Hull created a mathematical ‘formula’ to explain his theory of human behavior, which is as follows:
sEr = V x D x K x J x sHr – sIr – Ir – sOr – sLr
sEr: Excitatory potential, or the likelihood that an organism will produce a response (r) to a stimulus (s).
V: Stimulus intensity dynamism, meaning some stimuli will have greater influence than others.
D: Drive strength, determined by the amount of biological deprivation.
K: Incentive motivation, or the size or magnitude of the goal.
J: The delay before the organism is allowed to seek reinforcement.
sHr: Habit strength, established by the amount of previous conditioning.
sIr: Conditioned inhibition caused by previous lack of reinforcement.
Ir: Reactive inhibition or fatigue.
sOr: Random error.
sLr: Reaction threshold, or the smallest amount of reinforcement that will produce learning.
Hull was criticized for having an overly complex formula. It may be easier to consider the drive-reduction theory in 2 simpler parts:
Internal stimulus + response = drive reduction
Drive reduction = repetition
Critical evaluation of drive-reduction theory
While drive-reduction theory was well-received in the 1940s and 1950s as an explanation for motivation, it is not as popular now.
Drive reduction theory has been criticized for its lack of empirical support and its biologically deterministic view of behavior. Contemporary scholars initially viewed Hull’s mathematical approach as overly complex and unable to explain human motivation fully.
The 1970s mostly abandoned Hull’s theory, as it could not explain many complex human behaviors, such as aggression, altruism, and cognitive processes. In addition, it could not account for the role of motivation in learning (Mills, 1978).
As soon as the 1950s, researchers realized that Hull’s equation did not always provide valid results, even if altered. Researchers eventually concluded that no simple system could be responsible for the complexity of the behaviors of animals and humans (Mills, 1978).
It has been criticized for not being generalizable and for being unable to account for behaviors that do not reduce drive. Some main criticisms of drive-reduction theory include the following:
It ignores the role of secondary reinforcers
Drive reduction theory has also been criticized for its emphasis on basic needs over higher-level ones. Practically, this means that individuals with different basic needs may differ in their motivations to engage in certain behaviors.
For example, an athlete might be motivated by the need for relaxation and may find running to be intrinsically rewarding, while another individual might be motivated by the need for social interaction and may instead find going to the gym to be intrinsically rewarding (Mills, 1978).
The issue with Hull’s theory is that it fails to explain how drive can also be reinforced by secondary drives.
For instance, money and social acceptance are secondary drives that are not needed to fulfill our primary biological needs, but money can be used to buy food to survive on and meet our primary needs.
Why do we overindulge?
Drive-reduction theory does not explain why we may overindulge in our primary needs even when they are fulfilled.
For instance, eating a three-course meal having another slice of pizza when already full, or continuing to drink when not particularly thirsty.
What about thrill-seeking behaviors?
Drive-reduction theory has been criticized for not explaining why humans engage in thrill-seeking behaviors.
For example, someone may leave the comfort of their home to go hike up a mountain or bungee jump.
These behaviors go against drive-reduction theory’s general ideas, as people will purposely seek out behaviors that will take them away from meeting their biological needs or make them uncomfortable.
Other behaviors that cannot fully be explained by drive-reduction theory and can be explained by other factors include:
Watching scary movies where people purposely make themselves uncomfortable.
Camping which takes someone away from their comfortable home.
Fasting behaviors where someone will purposely not fulfill their primary need.
Extreme workouts which are purposely uncomfortable.
Being aroused is not always positive
Drive-reduction theory is unable to explain why humans fail under high arousal. While excitement or feeling nervous can help someone, there is a point where the anxiety becomes too much and actually prevents someone from performing to a high standard.
For instance, someone may become so anxious about completing an examination that they falter under pressure and do not perform as well as they could do.
Drive Reduction vs. Drive-induction Theory
Drive induction theory is another approach to understanding motivation that is often considered as an alternative or response to drive reduction theory.
Unlike Hull’s theory, drive-induction theory does not assume that all behaviors are motivated by the need to reduce a physiological state of arousal. Instead, it suggests that the innate need for novelty and challenge may drive some behaviors.
For example, an individual might engage in risky or challenging activities like mountain climbing because they find it intrinsically rewarding, regardless of whether or not they experience arousal reduction following these activities.
Drive reduction and drive induction theories provide valuable insights into how motivation influences behavior; however, they take different approaches to explain this phenomenon.
How has drive-reduction theory impacted our idea of motivation?
Despite its limitations, drive reduction theory was an important contribution to understanding behavior. It helped to establish the role of conditioning in learning and provided evidence for the importance of motivation in determining behavior.
Additionally, Hull’s mathematical approach laid the foundation for subsequent research on reinforcement theory.
While it is not favored in psychology today, drive-reduction theory still influenced other psychologists at the time and helped to contribute to later research.
In general, drive reduction theory provides an important framework for understanding how biological needs influence behavior, especially regarding hunger and tiredness. It highlights rewards and deprivation’s role in motivating behavior and shows how motivation can affect our performance and overall well-being.
Say that someone eats very little for breakfast and then decides to go for a run. This person’s body will be experiencing a “deprivation of drive,” or a lower level of hunger, which in turn increases their motivation to exercise and may also increase their performance while they are running.
Alternatively, if someone eats a large breakfast and then sits down to watch TV all day, they will experience less hunger due to the positive reward (of watching TV) that reduces their motivation for engaging in physical activity.
The drive reduction theory could also explain why people feel tired or lethargic after a long day at work. For example, if someone has been working hard and gets little to no positive reinforcement throughout the day (such as praise or recognition), they will likely experience a feeling of exhaustion, which in turn lowers their motivation to keep going.
Alternatively, if someone is given frequent breaks during their busy day and feels valued by their boss, they are more likely to find the energy needed to continue working effectively.
Many motivational theories that emerged during the 1950s and 1960s were either based on Hull’s original theory or were focused on providing alternatives to drive-reduction theory.
An example of another motivation theory that emerged as an alternative to drive-reduction theory is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Maslow’s famous hierarchy explains that while humans are motivated to meet their basic physiological needs, they are also motivated to meet their psychological needs of love, belonging, and self-esteem.
Once these have been achieved, the theory states that humans then strive to reach the self-fulfillment needs of self-actualization.
Maslow’s theory of motivation thus expands on drive-reduction theory to explain why humans are motivated past their basic needs.
A study from 1956 found that while drive reduction does indeed play a role in motivation, rewards seemed to do more than reduce drives and that incentives have a similar effect to drive reduction (Seward, 1956).
This research paved the way for incentive theory which states that sometimes humans are motivated to do things because of rewards.
FAQs
How do we form habits according to DRT?
Incentives or rewards can play a big role when creating a habit or behavior. If the reward is instantly given after an action is performed and is repeatedly given in a consistent manner, this will result in the development of a habit.
How does DRT relate to sports?
Drive-reduction theory suggests that the more an athlete is aroused, the better their performance will be.
This means that a very high arousal level would result in a higher performance. However, this only applies when the athlete is highly skilled in their sport.
Experienced athletes tend to perform better under pressure due to their superior skills. If the athletic skill of an athlete is not well-learned, performance is likely to deteriorate under pressure.
Often, a beginner’s skill level decreases if they are completing a sport using new skills. This does, however explain why experienced athletes perform better under pressure. A beginner’s skill level often
How can DRT be applied to education?
The principles of drive-reduction theory could be applied to education if one considers the need to satisfy curiosity as the drive needed to motivate learners.
Hull reduced the art of learning to mere habit formation and its reinforcement.
The theory attached sufficient importance to the needs, drives, incentives, reinforcement, and adequate motivation for achieving satisfactory results in the process of teaching and learning.
How does DRT explain eating behavior?
According to drive-reduction theory, organisms seek food when they experience the drive of hunger.
Any behavior that reduces the drive is likely to be repeated by both humans and animals, so this is why they continue to eat.
The reduction of the drive by eating serves as a positive reinforcement (i.e., a reward) for the behavior that caused such drive reduction.
References
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hull, C. L. (1952). A behavior system; an introduction to behavior theory concerning the individual organism.
Pavlov, I. P. (1897). The work of the digestive glands. London: Griffin.
Mills, J. A. (1978). Hull’s theory of learning: II. A criticism of the theory and its relationship to the history of psychological thought.
Montgomery, K. C. (1954). The role of the exploratory drive in learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47(1), 60.
Seward, J. P. (1956). Drive, incentive, and reinforcement. Psychological Review, 63 (3), 195.
Spence, J. T., & Spence, K. W. (1966). The motivational components of manifest anxiety: Drive and drive stimuli. Anxiety and behavior, 291326.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-178.
Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism (revised edition). University of Chicago Press.
