Drive Theory Drive theory originated as a physiological theory; eventually, it was broadened to include psychological needs. Woodworth (1918) defined drives as internal forces that sought to maintain homeostatic body balance. When a person or animal is deprived of an essential element (e.g., food, air, water), this activates a drive that causes the person or animal to respond. The drive subsides when the element is obtained. Much of the research that tested predictions of drive theory was conducted with laboratory animals (Richter, 1927; Woodworth & Schlosberg, 1954). In these experiments, animals often were deprived of food or water for some time, and their behaviors to get food or water were assessed. For example, rats might be deprived of food for varying amounts of time and placed in a maze. The time that it took them to run to the end to receive food was measured. Not surprisingly, response strength (running speed) normally varied directly with the number of prior reinforcements and with longer deprivation up to 2 to 3 days, after which it dropped off because the animals became progressively weaker. Hull (1943) broadened the drive concept by postulating that physiological deficits were primary needs that instigated drives to reduce the needs. Drive (D) was the motivational force that energized and prompted people and animals into action. Behavior that obtained reinforcement to satisfy a need resulted in drive reduction. This process is as follows: Need → Drive → Behavior Motivation was the “initiation of learned, or habitual, patterns of movement or behavior” (Hull, 1943, p. 226). Hull believed that innate behaviors usually satisfied primary needs and that learning occurred only when innate behaviors proved ineffective. Learning represented one’s adaptation to the environment to ensure survival. Hull also postulated the existence of secondary reinforcers because much behavior was not oriented toward satisfying primary needs. Stimulus situations (e.g., work to earn money) acquired secondary reinforcing power by being paired with primary reinforcement (e.g., money buys food). Drive theory generated much research as a consequence of Hull’s writings (Weiner, 1992). As an explanation for motivated behavior, drive theory seems best applied to immediate physiological needs; for example, one lost in a desert is primarily concerned with finding food, water, and shelter. Drive theory is not an ideal explanation for much human motivation. Needs do not always trigger drives oriented toward need reduction. Students hastily finishing an overdue term paper may experience strong symptoms of hunger, yet they may not stop to eat because the desire to complete an important task outweighs a physiological need. Conversely, drives can exist in the absence of biological needs. A sex drive can lead to promiscuous behavior even though sex is not immediately needed for survival. Drive theory may explain some behaviors directed toward immediate goals, but many human behaviors reflect long-term goals, such as finding a job, obtaining a college degree, and sailing around the world. People are not in a continuously high drive state while pursuing these goals. They typically experience periods of high, average, and low motivation. High drive is not conducive to performance over lengthy periods and especially on complex tasks (Broadhurst, 1957; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). In short, drive theory does not offer an adequate explanation for academic motivation Pretask (motivational technique) Several variables influence students’ initial motivation for learning. Students enter tasks with various goals, such as to learn the material, perform well, finish first, and so on. Not all goals are academic. As Wentzel (1992, 1996) has shown, students have social goals that can integrate with their academic ones. During a group activity, Matt may want to learn the material but also become friends with Amy. Students enter with various expectations. As discussed in Chapter 4, expectations may involve capabilities for learning (self-efficacy) and perceptions of the consequences of learning (outcome expectations). Students differ in their values for learning; for example, how important it is to them. There are different types of values, as explained later. Students differ in their affects associated with learning. They may be excited, anxious, or feel no particular emotions. These affects may relate closely to students’ needs, which some theories postulate to be important. Finally, we expect that the social support in students’ lives will vary. Social support includes the types of assistance available at school from teachers and peers, as well as help and encouragement from parents and significant others in students’ lives. Learning often requires that others provide time, money, effort, transportation, and so forth. Reference: Schunk, D. H. (2016). Learning theories: An educational perspective (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.