The foundation of drive-reduction theory is the notion that reducing “drives” is the main driving force behind all human behaviour. Hunger, thirst, and the desire for warmth are examples of physiological or biological requirements that can cause a person to experience a state of arousal or discomfort known as a “drive.”
The hypothesis states that when a person’s drive is present, they will experience an uncomfortable tension that makes them act in a way that lessens that tension. They will look for methods to meet their biological requirements in order to ease the stress they experience. The foundation of drive-reduction theory is the idea of homeostasis, which holds that the body actively strives to preserve equilibrium or balance.
The drive-reduction theory was developed by
Behaviourist Clark Hull devised drive-reduction theory, and his colleague Kenneth Spence expanded on it.
Hull took influence from well-known scientists like Edward Thorndike, Ivan Pavlov, and John B. Watson and built his idea on previous theories pertaining to motivational notions. In the 1940s and 1950s, Hull’s theory gained popularity as a means of explaining motivation, behaviour, and learning. The principle of homeostasis, which holds that all living things strive to maintain the stability and balance of their internal physiological systems, served as the foundation for Hull’s thesis.
According to drive reduction theory, motivated behaviour aims to restore homeostasis and lower physiological arousal. Any internal force that forces an organism to look for particular stimuli or engage in particular behaviours in order to lower arousal is called a drive.
Drive reduction theory states that all motivated behaviour results from drives, which are essentially demands or desires brought on by an imbalance in homeostasis. The desire increases with the degree of arousal (Hull, 1952).
Kenneth Spence, a student of Hull, made significant contributions to Drive Reduction Theory as well. Spence highlighted the importance of motivation and disputed with Hull’s assertion that habit factors alone are the only cause of performance development. Additionally, he thought that while reinforcement might be a learning motivator, it does not always improve response learning. Later, this theory was dubbed the Hull-Spence hypothesis of learning and conditioning (Spence & Spence, 1966).
Furthermore, Spence proposed latent learning as an explanation for why learning does not always happen through prior knowledge. This occurs when an organism learns a behaviour but waits for a motivation or reward before exhibiting it.
A rat in a labyrinth, for instance, could at first wander at random, but after receiving a reward for locating the exit, it will exhibit the learnt behaviour of heading directly there (Spence & Spence, 1966). Because it clarifies why organisms don’t always behave in accordance with what they have learnt, the idea of latent learning is crucial. Additionally, it offers proof of the importance of motivation in learning. Drive-reduction theory used to be a popular theory in psychology, but as other ideas have emerged, it is now mostly disregarded. It is nonetheless helpful to understand how earlier academics attempted to explain human drive, even if this hypothesis is no longer generally accepted.
How is human behaviour explained by drive-reduction theory?
Drive-reduction theory claims that human behavior emerges from striving to lessen the drives we have. Primary and secondary drives are believed to exist.
Innate biological requirements like hunger and thirst are examples of primary drives. On the other hand, secondary drives—like money and social acceptance—are those that are acquired through conditioning or connection with a fundamental desire.
A person may go to the store, buy food, cook it, and then consume it in order to lessen the discomfort that fundamental urges like hunger are causing.
According to drive-reduction theory, all of these behaviours are caused by the drives. After their requirements are met, the person returns to homeostasis and loses the motivation to meet their needs.
What is behaviorism?
Hull subscribed to behaviourism, a widely accepted theory of motivation.
Simply put, behaviourism, also referred to as behavioural psychology, holds that interactions with your surroundings are how you learn.
Among the key concepts are:
Arousal
Part of what drives you to take action is your level of life arousal. You instinctively take action to return to your “optimal” level, whatever that may be, when your arousal levels fluctuate.
For instance, you may purchase a ticket to a place on your bucket list to experience adventure and arouse your senses if your arousal level is low. However, if you’re very aroused, you may attempt to get some time to yourself and read a nice book.
Homeostasis
The physiological equilibrium that results from meeting an organism’s internal demands is referred to as homeostasis.
To attain this equilibrium, an organism will control its internal environment, for example, by regulating blood sugar and body temperature or by staying hydrated. Maintaining a balanced mental state is another definition of homeostasis in psychology.
Conditioning and reinforcement
For better or worse, conditioning is the process of learning about the environment through reinforcement. Drive reduction theory states that conditioned responses are strengthened or reinforced as a result of their contribution to drive reduction. According, to drive-reduction theory, a person’s behaviour that helps them meet their unmet need is reinforced when their drive is reduced. The idea states that this kind of reinforcement makes it more likely that the individual would respond to that same drive in the future in the same way. For instance, preparing for a test in order to receive a perfect score (positive) or being bitten by a dog (negative).
Two sets of drives are at the heart of positive reinforcement:
primary motivations: hunger, thirst, and sex
secondary motivations: cash and social acceptance
Criticisms
Drive reduction theory’s lack of empirical backing and biologically deterministic perspective on behaviour have drawn criticism. At first, modern academics thought Hull’s mathematical method was too intricate and insufficient to adequately describe human motivation.
Hull’s hypothesis was largely abandoned in the 1970s because it was unable to account for a number of complex human behaviours, including violence, compassion, and cognitive processes. Furthermore, it was unable to take into consideration how incentive affects learning (Mills, 1978).It has been criticism for lacking generalisability and failing to take into consideration actions that do not lower drive
Author
