Originally developed by Clark Hull and then expanded upon by Ken Spence, the Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation was one of the first great efforts to explain how behaviors occur with individuals. In this theory, the reduction of drives is what creates motivation. It is much like how you feel thirsty after taking a long run. The reduction of fluids through sweat and consumption creates a need to have something to drink, so you make the decision to drink some water.
In current behavioral theory, the Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation is not considered to be the same dominant force as it was in the 1940s and the years immediately following. Yet there are still some influences from Hull’s theory and Spence’s after work that are in play today.
How the Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation Came About
Hull took ideas from a number of theories that were being promoted at the time, including components of Darwinism. He would then create the Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation around the idea of homeostasis.
Homeostasis is the idea that the human body will continually and actively work to maintain a certain level of biological equilibrium or balance. You have a specific body temperature as a warm-blooded mammal that helps you not be too cold, but also not be too hot. The body regulates this temperature without a conscious decision from you. If you get sick, then the temperature regulation allows for hotter temperatures to destroy invading germs.
And if you are out in the elements for too long, the outside cold can override the body’s internal temperature regulation to lower body temperature. Yet even then, through shivering, chattering, and other movement methods, the internal regulators of body temperature are continually trying to restore balance.
It is this concept which caused Hull to suggest that motivation could arise from factors that were very similar. There is a biological need to have a well-regulated body temperature. Hull theorized that all motivation could be a result of biological factors as well.
Any “drive” that an individual has would become a motivation that was developed through the reduction of needs. Even addiction could be included within this theory. As the amount of a drug or substance reduces within the body, there is a biological need to have more of it. Even though that need may be empowered by a psychological dependence on the substance, the motivation to continue with the addiction is a decision that is made through a powerful motivation.
Many of Our Decisions Are Based On Our Motivation
What happens when you wake up in the morning and it feels cold in your home? There’s a good chance that you’ll turn up the heat on your thermostat. You might also decide to delay getting up because you feel nice and warm underneath the covers on your bed. The reason why we make decisions like this is because we’re attempting to reduce the feelings of tension that arise when a drive has been effectively reduced in some way.
If you get hungry, then you’re going to find something to eat. When we can successfully restore biological functioning, then the decision becomes a learned behavior. We want to repeat the same thing over and over because we know it can meet our needs. This is how motivation develops. It’s also how addiction develops.
Say an individual goes down to their local pub because they feel emotionally terrible. They’re going through a divorce, their spouse has full custody of their kids, and today their boss just fired them. So they have a couple of drinks and the emotional pain begins to fade away. This motivates the individual to have a couple more drinks until the terrible emotions are forgotten. Although the feeling is temporary, the actions were successful.
This motivates the individual to return to the pub again the next day. And then the next day. Until there is a more powerful motivation that comes into play. Maybe the divorce proceedings get called off. Or maybe the individual finds a better-paying job. Without a stronger motivational factor, there is a good chance that a trip to the pub is in order.
What Happens If a Motivational Decision Cannot Be Fulfilled?
Using the example from the pub, let’s say our individual continues to remain lonely and unemployed. He’s been going to the pub every night for two weeks and coming home drunk every night. Tonight he wants to go to the pub again, but when he checks how much is in his checking account, there just isn’t enough money left for a night of drinking.
What happens now? In the Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation, this individual will still be motivated to meet his needs. There will be a substitution. Instead of going to the pub, a trip to buy a bottle of scotch at the local liquor store might fit into the budget instead. If there isn’t enough cash for that, a cheaper beverage might be chosen.
In the worst case scenario, this individual might be motivated to go begging for cash so they can meet the needs that are caused by their internal drive.
You could see this with a cold home as well. If you get up and turning up the thermostat doesn’t warm you up enough, you might decide to put on a sweater. You might decide to purchase a blanket you see while watching TV because that might meet your need. You could run down to the local store to purchase a space heater for immediate warmth.
Whenever we find a behavior that can reduce the drives that we have, then we will replicate that behavior time and time again. If that direct behavior cannot be replicated, then we will attempt to duplicate results with a substitute behavior instead.
What Does This Mean for Reinforcement and Conditioning?
If human behavior is caused by the need to reduce a drive, then the Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation would show that we are conditioned into certain choices because of the positive reinforcements that a drive reduction creates. You feel good because you got warm when you turned the thermostat up.
This also means that human behavior could potentially be influenced by using the same reinforcement and conditioning principles. When a living organism has their survival threatened in some way, they enter into a state of need where every other drive is ignored because the tension of the survival drive must be resolved. This means the behaviors of an individual could be artificially influenced if their survival drive was stimulated.
It is in this aspect that the Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation still has some sway within the scientific community. We see this influence between behavior and the tension of survival in many ways today.
We can often see it on Facebook and other social media sites. There are many people who felt that in the 2016 US Election, having Hillary Clinton elected would destroy their country. They may not have liked Donald Trump and perhaps wouldn’t have voted for him, but did so because the drive for survival outweighed any other drive.
And this drive influenced their behavior online. People who disagreed with the idea that Trump should be elected would be ignored, unfollowed, or unfriended. This is because a singular worldview was required in order for the survival drive to be reduced. Now that the election is over and the tension from a need to survive is lessened, other drives can be focused upon and those needs met, creating different behavioral responses.
The opposite is also true. Clinton supporters took to the streets to march after the election because their survival drive was suddenly reduced. Their behaviors were influenced by the same needs as the supporters of Trump were before the election took place. Until that drive can be reduced as well, the same pattern of ignoring, unfollowing, and unfriending will continue to take place.
Why Has the Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation Fallen Out of Favor?
The problem with Hull’s Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation is that it is fairly specific in design. There is a lack of generalization within the concepts of this idea. Yet his use of rigorous experimentation and the inclusion of other scientific methods to develop the theory have helped to expand the field of psychology in numerous ways.
The largest issue with this theory is that secondary reinforcements are not included. A secondary reinforcement does nothing to reduce a need. If you’re cold and you want to get warm, you need money to go buy a space heater. Money is a secondary reinforcement. It allows you to purchase the space heater, but you must turn on the space heater to become warm.
And sometimes we choose to engage in behaviors that do not reduce a drive, but increase it: like skydiving.
In order to fully understand behavior, we must take the full person into account, including their behaviors, attitudes, culture, and socioeconomic status. The Drive Reduction Theory of Motivation helped us to understand this concept for the first time.