{"id":4390,"date":"2018-09-21T18:57:22","date_gmt":"2018-09-21T22:57:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/?p=4390"},"modified":"2018-09-21T19:04:58","modified_gmt":"2018-09-21T23:04:58","slug":"drive-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/motivation\/drive-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"Drive Theory"},"content":{"rendered":"

Drive theory<\/strong>: motivation of behaviour depends on a physiological need (i.e. hunger) that organism becomes aware of by specific stimuli (i.e. hunger pang), which directs the organism to search for appropriate objects to reduce the need<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
(i.e. food) o If organism cannot find immediate response to reduce need, motivation is channeled to general increase in activity \uf0e0 brings organism into contact w\/more objects that may satisfy the need<\/p>\n
\n
Responses leading to reduction of the need are learned and repeated when necessary o Thus, learning is dependent on the reduction of motivation (reduction of drive)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Early Formulations of Drive<\/h2>\n
\n
Freud in 1915: had idea that forces within the individual activate behaviour o Used word \u2018trieb\u2019 = \u201cmoving force\u201d = instinct = drive \u2013 this word was not used b\/c it was not known then, but it more accurately described what<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Freud meant o Thus, Freud was kind of the 1^{st<\/sup> Drive theorist<\/p>\n}
Freud\u2019s Moving Force<\/p>\n
\n
One of 1^{st<\/sup> theorists to use concept of energy to explain motivation<\/li>\n}
Used concept of psychic energy<\/strong>: never clearly defined but compared it to stimulation\/excitation of nervous system and hydraulic system of storage and flow of energy o This energy accumulated in personality structure called id, when there is a need<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
o These forces operate on the individual w\/constant pressure that cannot be escaped (unlike external pressure)<\/p>\n
\n
Freud was connecting moving force to changes in bodily functions<\/li>\n
We satisfy a need by channeling psychic energy into behaviours (i.e. eating apple when we are hungry) to reduce the need<\/li>\n
Increase in energy = aversive \uf0e0 nervous system works to reduce stimuli that affect it \uf0e0 reduction of stimuli = pleasurable o e. being hungry \uf0e0 increases psychic energy = unpleasurable; eating \uf0e0 reduces psychic energy = pleasurable – <\/strong>Moving forces have 4 characteristics:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
Pressure\/impetus<\/strong>: strength of force; stronger force = more motivated behaviour o e. longer time w\/no water \uf0e0 more pressure to drink<\/li>\n
Aim<\/strong>: satisfy need by reducing stimuli o Incomplete reduction of stimuli = partial satisfaction o e. drinking water (object) will reduce need and energy<\/li>\n
Object<\/strong>: means through which force is established; internal or external to individual o Object may change in the course of an individual\u2019s life<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
o We find ways of satisfying moving force as we learn new things; objects that satisfy can become limited through process of fixation<\/strong>: attachment of object to its moving force<\/p>\n
\n
Source<\/strong>: bodily processes that activate moving force; equivalent to need o e. need to drink water is the source of stimulation of the \u201cdrinking force\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
As we grow older, other liquids will satisfy our needs so that the object of the force changes from one beverage (water) to another, restricted object (i.e. coffee) o Thus, heavy coffee drinking results from a fixation of an object through which the drinking force is satisfied<\/li>\n
Freud proposed 2 main classes of moving force:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
The life force:<\/strong> includes reproductive\/sexual force and the life maintenance force o Eros<\/strong>: psychic energy that powers life force o Libido<\/strong>: energy that powers reproductive force\n
\n
Freud believed trauma during development lead to displacement of sexual energy onto inappropriate objects<\/li>\n
Displacement:<\/strong> channeling energy into behaviours not typically associated w\/particular force<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
The death force<\/strong>: motivated behaviour acts to bring stimulation to an optimal level, which was death o Thanatos<\/strong>: energy that powers death force\n
\n
Death force is not directly observable in behaviour, except in aggression o Aggression is the result of displacing the death force onto others<\/li>\n
Aggression represents a compromise satisfactory to both life and death forces; energy of death force is reduced by aggressive behaviour but individual\u2019s life is also maintained<\/li>\n
However, suicide is sometimes seen as direct expression of death force – <\/strong>Forces do not change, but their behavioural display might:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Reversal <\/strong>of force: active (or passive) aspect of the force\u2019s aim is altered o e. masochism: active aim of torture is reversed into passive aim of being tortured, although both lead to reduction of energy and satisfaction<\/li>\n
Turning round<\/strong> of force: change occurs in force\u2019s object o Both go together i.e. in masochism, masochistic person turns the object of assault away from others and onto self (turning round) as well as reversing aim from active to passive<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
o Reversal and turning are never complete as some active outward displays of the force can still be observed as would occur in the masochist who is sadistic in some situations<\/p>\n
\n
Repression<\/strong>: individual resists force to the point that it becomes unrecognized o We repress a moving force if activity related to it causes more pain than pleasure<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
o However, repression does not eliminate energy behind the moving force, sometimes this accumulated energy can even result in neurotic behaviour 4. Sublimation <\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
Thus, a lot of motivation is unconscious<\/li>\n
Due to mechanisms of repression and displacement, we cannot assume that a certain behaviour represents the motive it appears to represent<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Criticisms of the Freudian Model<\/p>\n
\n
Empirically weak: needs to be verified by research outside of clinical setting<\/li>\n
Unclear how Freud\u2019s theoretical terms relate to one another and to observable events<\/li>\n
Cannot predict behaviour (most damaging): can explain behaviour but cannot predict how certain experiences will affect future behaviour o e. repression of sexual energy can lead to many behaviours, from fetishes to scientific activities<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Drive<\/h2>\n
\n
Drive is usually associated w\/maintenance of homeostatic balance of organism at optimal level<\/li>\n
Theorists assumed drive state (instead of having need activating behaviour directly w\/out intervening process such as drive) b\/c:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
There are some needs that exist that do not activate behaviour i.e. reducing amount of oxygen desperately needs oxygen but leads to no discomfort<\/li>\n
There is sometimes activation of behaviour when there is no apparent need i.e. sexual drive is very strong but is no needed for survival<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
Thus, drive is an inferred construct: drive is usually activated by a need, but can sometimes be activated independent of need<\/li>\n
Drive theorists assume: (1) drive energizes behaviour and (2) behaviours that reduce need state also reduce drive state<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The Rise of the Drive Concept<\/p>\n
\n
Drive concept was easily accepted b\/c it came along just when instinct theories were being discredited<\/li>\n
Both drive and instinctive theories both were: (1) biologically based, (2) regarded as motivators of behaviour and (3) explained subjective aspects of motivated behaviour o Thus, in drive viewpoint, feelings of being hungry are b\/c of a hunger drive vs. a food-seeking instinct<\/li>\n
Advantage of drive concept over instinct concept: drive had readily identifiable physiological basis vs. instinct concept had problems w\/locating neural systems involved in instinctive behaviour<\/li>\n
In contrast to peripheral theories, drive concept assumed that more central brain structured monitored the state of the body, going nicely w\/physiological research showing hypothalamus involvement in motivated behaviour<\/li>\n
Ritcher\u2019s work gave strong support for drive theory b\/c it showed that organisms become more active when motivated o Experiment showed that increases in activity are correlated w\/estrous cycle in female rats and hungry animals are also more active\n
\n
His work made sense in evolutionary perspective too b\/c: organisms in state of need would be more likely to have that need satisfied if they were more active b\/c it would increase their chance of finding something to reduce that need<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Warden used Columbia obstruction box to measure strength of motives i.e. hunger o Procedure: (1) put animal in start compartment and (2) observe how many times it crossed electrified grid floor in order to reach goal section, where reward relative to motive was placed\n
\n
Thus, if rat as hungry, food was placed on other side of shock grid o Results: hunger motivation (measured by # of grid crossings) peaks at 3 days and then drops off vs. thirst motivation peaked early at 1 day and dropped off rapidly<\/li>\n
This findings make sense b\/c: (1) we can exist longer without food than water (so water motivation should lead to max. motivation faster than food deprivation) and (2) inanition<\/strong>: weakening of organism due to lack of food or water; weakening occurs sooner in water-deprived conditions, which explains rapid drop off<\/li>\n
Warden wanted to compare various motives to conclude that for example, thirst at its peak is more motivating than hunger at its peak, but difficulties:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
It is unclear how much of drive strength (measured by grid crossing) is due deprivation condition and how much is due to particular goal object chosen o i.e. choice of certain food used to assess hunger motivation would influence # of grid crossings\n
\n
Diff incentives were not studies, so you cannot assess the relative contribution of this factor in the grid-crossing data<\/li>\n
+ we do not know that the goal object used in diff motive conditions were equal; thus, more grid crossings may have occurred b\/c water \u201ctasted\u201d better than food vs. b.\/c diff strengths of drive were induced by water and food deprivation<\/li>\n
Thus, the # of items an animal crossed the electrified grid probably measured a drive state produced by deprivation conditions +the desirability called incentive value of the object chosen to reduce the need *** and above<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
Did not rule out effects of learning, which probably reduced the apparent drive strength o Grid crossings occurred more frequently early in the session, so that animals may have learned to stop crossing the hot floor rather than continuing to endure the painful stimulus to get something they needed<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
Problem in study of motivation: how to equate the deprivation incentive and learning (*** breakdown above into these 3) conditions of motives so that the strengths of various motives can be compared<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Woodworth\u2019s Drive Theory<\/p>\n
\n
Woodworth first coined term \u2018drive\u2019 in 1918 and first made distinction between mechanisms of behaviour and forces (drives) that activate those mechanisms<\/li>\n
Diff drives underlie diff behaviours i.e. hunger drive motivates food getting and thirst drive motivates drinking<\/li>\n
All behaviour (excluding reflexes) is motivated<\/li>\n
Needs activate drives and drives activate behaviour<\/li>\n
Drives are activated by needs that result from an organic state of deficiency or excess o e. of drive resulting from organic excess: when bladder is full and far from next rest on interstate<\/li>\n
Assumed that incentives can arouse drive (as happens when first few bites of food make us hungry)<\/li>\n
Drive has 3 characteristics:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
Intensity<\/strong>: drive has activation properties o Activation of behaviour by drive can vary from low levels (i.e. in dreaming) to high levels (i.e. in fear or anger)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
o High levels of drive are accompanied by emotion\u00a0\u00a0 o When drive exists, the organism becomes sensitized so that it responds to previously unnoticed stimuli (possibility favoured by Woodworth), or the presence of drive leas to a general activation of diffuse, random muscle activity<\/p>\n
\n
Direction<\/strong>: drives were approach or avoidance behaviour o Drive sensitizes the organism to the particular stimuli important for the motive and determines selectivity i.e. when hungry, we approach food but not sexual stimuli\n
\n
The fact that Woodworth preferred the idea of many diff types of drive, one for each motive made directionality more plausibly b\/c only the hunger drive motivated the organism to perform behaviours associated w\/food getting, for example<\/li>\n
Agreed w\/other theorists that specific directions taken by behaviours are learned; however, the tendency to approach or avoid was seen as characteristic of the drive state<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Persistence<\/strong>: drive continues behaviour until the diff between existing and preferred situations is reduces o Thus, drive keeps the person on task until conditions leading the to the drive state are eliminated\n
\n
Causes us the theorize the existence of motives b\/c the fact that behaviours persist implies that something is keeping it active, which is drive<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Hull\u2019s Drive Theory<\/p>\n
\n
Most influential<\/li>\n
Survival model for behaviour influenced by many theorists:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
Darwin\u2019s theory of evolution (biggest influence): assumed motivation develops to meet organic needs of organism b\/c such a system gives the animal an advantage in the struggle to survive<\/li>\n
Cannon\u2019s theory of homeostasis: organic needs were seen as giving rise to a drive that brings the body back into a state of balance by activating appropriate behaviours<\/li>\n
Watson\u2019s mechanistic approach: gave no importance to concepts such as purpose, expectancy or cognition<\/li>\n
Thorndike\u2019s law of effect: incorporated reinforcement <\/strong>(stimulus and response becomes stronger each time the pairing is followed by a satisfying state of affairs) into his behavioural system in 2 ways:<\/li>\n
Thorndike\u2019s habits<\/strong>: Hull\u2019s term for learning; become stronger as a function of how often the pairing of a stimulus and response is followed by reinforcement<\/li>\n
Hull believed reinforcement occurs when drive is reduced; thus, learning occurs b\/c motivational conditions of the organism change<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
Hull\u2019s behavioural system had 3 problems: (1) what constitutes drive and what are its characteristics, (2) what is the relationship between drive and learning in determining when behaviour occurs and (3) which non-motivational factors (i.e. learning) influence behaviour<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Reaction Potential, Habit Strength and Drive<\/p>\n
\n
Hull\u2019s formula to express how strength of a behaviour is related to learning and motivation: E = H x D o E: strength of behaviour o H: strength of learned response o D: strength of drive o If either drive or learning is 0 \uf0e0 no behaviour (b\/c of multiplication)<\/li>\n
Drive reduction model<\/strong> of learning: reinforcement occurs when drive is reduced o e. object like food is reinforcing b\/c it reduces motivational level of organism\n
\n
Thus, learning depends on adequate motivation o No drive = no response \uf0e0 cannot be reinforced<\/li>\n
Hull\u2019s concept of generalized drive<\/strong> is one of the diffs between his and Woodworth\u2019s theory<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Generalized Drive<\/p>\n
\n
Drive is a general pool<\/strong> of energy that can activate instinctive or learned behaviours (one generalized drive state, to which many diff motivating conditions can contribute) vs. Woodworth suggested: diff drives for each motive state<\/li>\n
e. an animal that is hungry and thirsty should have a higher drive level than one that is only hungry or only thirsty<\/li>\n
Thus, drive is sum of all need sources of organism acting at a given point in time o Sources of drive are plural (hunger, thirst, sex, etc.) and drive is singular and non-specific<\/li>\n
Now the Q is: what determines the response, of all the possible ones, that actually does occur?\n
\n
Answer: need states that trigger drive also activate receptor mechanisms that give rise to characteristic stimuli<\/li>\n
Thus, when we are hungry, drive is triggered and drive stimuli<\/strong> (symbol:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
S_{d<\/sub>) are felt i.e. stomach contraction<\/p>\n}
\n
Drive stimuli are thought to be identical to any other stimuli o They connect to responses followed by reinforcement o Thus, if we follow that empty feeling w\/opening the fridge door and getting an apple, the reduction in drive will lead to strengthening the<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\u201crefrigerator door-opening\u201d response o The next time we experience the S_{d<\/sub> associated w\/hunger, we will be more likely to open the refrigerator door again ]<\/p>\n}
\n
Thus, drive stimuli provide directionality to behaviour<\/li>\n
Organisms can discriminate the various S_{d<\/sub>\u2019s for hunger, thirst, sex, etc. and will respond to them by behaving in ways that have been reinforced in the past<\/li>\n}
Thus, generalized drive acts as force underlying behaviour, and drive stimuli serve as the steering mechanism<\/li>\n
Drive stimuli is important for the development of behaviour in 3 ways:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
Without drive, no drive reduction can occur; b\/c reinforcement (and thus learning) depends on the reduction of drive, no learning can occur without drive<\/li>\n
Drive is an energizer of behaviour; without drive, no behaviour will occur<\/li>\n
The drive stimuli that produce the directionality to behaviour depend on the existence of the drive state; no drive = no drive stimuli<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
Hull based his behavioural formula on the experiments of his 2 students William and Perin, who both taught groups of rats to press a bar in order to get a food reinforcement and the drive level during training for bath rat groups was an identical 23 hours of food deprivation; many groups were used in each experiment, each receiving diff amounts of training:<\/li>\n
After the groups were trained on the bar-press response, they were extinguished o Extinction<\/strong>: organism is allowed to make previously reinforced response, but the reinforcement no longer follows the response; measures strength of learned response: longer it takes to respond = stronger response<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
o William and Perin\u2019s experiments differed in extinction condition: Williams extinguished his rats under a hunger motivation of 22 hrs. vs. Persin extinguished his under a hunger motivation of only 3 hrs. o Results:<\/p>\n
\n
Increased # of training trials = increased # of bar presses in extinction<\/li>\n
# of responses by Williams\u2019s rats is much greater than by Perin\u2019s rats due to drive levels; stronger drive = stronger behaviour<\/li>\n
Curve shapes of Williams\u2019s and Perin\u2019s data are almost identical: you only need to multiply the formula for Perin\u2019s curve by the appropriate # (to indicate drive level or 22 hrs.); thus, reaction potential is determined by the multiplication of habit strength by drive<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
Perin conducted a second experiment using 4 groups of rats, all given 16 training trials while in a drive state of 23 hrs. of food deprivation\n
\n
Inn extinction the drive level was manipulated so that one group was extinguished after 1 hour of deprivation while other groups were extinguished after 3, 16 or 23 hrs. of deprivation<\/li>\n
Results: increased deprivation level (drive level) = increased strength of behaviour (measured by responses in extinction)<\/li>\n
Curve is not 0 when # of hours of hunger was 0 (occurrence of behaviour absence of hunger drive) v\/s other, irrelevant driver were activating the tested habit- evidence for Hull\u2019s belief that drive is a general pool of energy accumulated from many sources and capable of activating whatever habit is dominant in the situation<\/li>\n
Perlin and Williams studies indicated that habit strength and drive are independent of each ther but combine in multiplicative fashion to determine the performance of behaviour<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Incentive<\/p>\n
\n
Originally, Hull thought that factors such as quantity or quality of reinforcement influence the buildup of habit strength, but experiments show that the influence of reinforcement quantity and quality is on performance vs. learning o Thus we may perform strongly for a large vs. small reward, but we apparently do not learn any faster w\/these large rewards<\/li>\n
Incentive motivation<\/strong>: experiments made Hull conclude that characteristics of the goal object influence the organism\u2019s motivation and strength of behaviour in the same way as drive and response (multiplicative) o Accounted for by K; thus equation is: E = H x D x K<\/li>\n
Hull\u2019s early theory said that motivation was an internal energizer of behaviour o Later learned this was inadequate b\/c characteristics of the goal influence the performance of behaviour, and incentive motivation was his attempt to deal w\/this fact *** reword<\/li>\n
Although drives are tied to needs, incentives are learned through classical conditioning o Stimuli associated w\/reduction in drive will, on their next occurrence stimulate a fraction of the final goal response (chewing)<\/li>\n
He also realized that an explanation of reinforcement in terms of need reduction was inadequate b\/c sometimes motivated behaviour occurs even though no needs are reduced or before reinforcement has time to physically change the organism o Thus, Hull modified this by suggested that reinforcement occurs when drive stimuli are reduced<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
o i.e. eating food was now seen as reinforcing b\/c it reduced the drive stimuli (stomach contractions) associated w\/the hunger drive state, not b\/c it reduced drive<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Hull put in 2 diff constructs: (1) stimulus intensity dynamism (V) <\/strong>(not very important) and (2) inhibition<\/strong>, which has 2 types: (a) reactive <\/strong>and (b) conditioned<\/strong><\/p>\n
(done to account for extinction of learned behaviours)<\/p>\n
Summarizing Thoughts on Hull\u2019s Drive Theory<\/p>\n
\n
Main concept behaviour results from: (1) what has been learned, (2) current active drive level and (3) characteristics of the goal<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Problems with Drive Theory<\/p>\n
Need and Drive Reduction<\/p>\n
\n
Even though he altered his idea on reinforcement, his theory still assumed an intimate relationship between the existence of need states and drive states o Thus, research that demonstrated reinforced learning without reduction of needs was an argument against Hull\u2019s drive theory (which assumed need or drive reduction)<\/li>\n
Experiments by Sheffield showed that male rats learn a response that leads to initiation of a consummatory response even though no needs are reduced o The male rats learned to make a response in order to get the chance to mount (copulate with) receptive female rats\n
\n
Before the rats ardor could be consummated, the experimenters pulled the males away from the females<\/li>\n
Since ejaculation was not allowed, no drive was reduced and no need state changed<\/li>\n
Hull approach would have to say that this was not a reinforcing situation and thus the male rats should not have learned how to approach the receptive females<\/li>\n
However, Sheffield\u2019s rats were unaware of Hull\u2019s theory b\/c they learned how to approach females quite readily<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
In another experiment, Sheffield showed that hungry rats learn to make a response in order to get a sweet-tasting solution of saccharine water o Saccharine water has no caloric value, so no drive can said to be reduced o It was also shown that solutions of saccharine and dextrose (sugar) that elicit equal drinking rates are equivalent as rewards for behaviour<\/li>\n
Conclusion: Sheffield\u2019s work indicated that neither drive nor needs must be reduced in order for reinforcement to initiate learning o Instead he proposed drive induction theory of motivation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Drive Induction<\/p>\n
Sheffield proposed that animals will learn to make responses that lead to an increase in motivation vs. a reduction of it<\/p>\n
\n
Rewards were viewed as objects that increase the excitement of the organism o Thus, the stimulus properties of a goal object can be drive inducing o e. dangling carrot in front of hungry rabbit excites rabbit vs. relaxes it<\/li>\n
Consummatory response (i.e. chewing food) is important in reduction of drive o If goal stimuli associated w\/consummatory response do not lead directly to a consummatory response, excitement is generated\n
\n
Drive induction<\/strong>: this excitement from cues associated w\/the consummatory response<\/li>\n
e. placing rat pup under wire cage so that mother can se, smell and hear it but not retrieve it (the consummatory response) leads to very agitated behaviour from the mother rat<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
In more experimentally controlled situation, Sheffield showed the energizing effects of cues associated w\/the consummatory response of feeding o Rats were placed in individual activity cages (that measured amount of movement) inside a soundproofed cabinet in a soundproofed room\n
\n
Rats were fed once a day when their food was automatically dropped into the cage<\/li>\n
For the experimental group of animals, 5 min. before delivery of food, there was an environmental change: auditory and visual cues<\/li>\n
Control group of animals: environmental change was unrelated to food arrival<\/li>\n
Result: experimental animals were more active vs. control animals adapted to changing environmental condition unrelated to arrival of food<\/li>\n
Conclusion: cues associated w\/arrival of food and thus the consummatory response, can activate or induce motivation<\/li>\n
Conclusion: reinforcers can lead to learning without reduction of any drive and cues associated w\/reinforcement may also have the effect of increasing motivation when they are presented before the consummatory response can occur<\/li>\n
Thus, drive reduction theories of motivation such as Hull\u2019s cannot account for situations where behaviours occur even though no drives are reduced o They also cannot account for situations where drive is induced by factors other than need<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Caretaker experiments<\/strong>: name for Sheffield\u2019s experiments on activity changes due to environmental cues<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Drive as a General Activator<\/p>\n
\n
Second component of Hull\u2019s theory: assumption that drive is a general activator of behaviour and drive stimuli provide the steering mechanism for directing that activation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Thus, drives not relevant to the task at hand (i.e. sexual motivation in a hungry rat) should add to the general motivation level<\/p>\n
o However, results of studies provide no general indication that diff sources can be substituted for another<\/p>\n
\n
Ritcher and others showed that activity increased as deprivation time increased<\/li>\n
However, Sheffield and others showed that activity increased in hungry rats if environmental cues preceded the arrival of food<\/li>\n
A gradual increase in measured activity occurred over several days of testing o Thus: (1) activity increase is a learned vs. innate response to deprivation and<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
(2) activity increase results from external vs. internal stimuli assumed by Hull\u2019s theory<\/p>\n
\n
Additionally, Sheffield found that food deprivation lasting up to 72 hr. caused only a slight increase in activity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
o Thus, a large portion of activity observed in deprivation situations results from the association of external cues w\/food arrival vs. from some internal drive state<\/p>\n
\n
Results of testing activity increases depend on: (1) type of measuring device used (i.e. running wheel, stabilimeter, etc.) and (2) species studied<\/li>\n
Correlations between measures of activity are low, thus, measures are not easily comparable<\/li>\n
Lack of agreement across methods and species suggests: activity changed are not general responses to need states (and thus indicative of the presence f drive) that Hull proposed them to be<\/li>\n
Activity increase or decrease as a result of deprivation depends on need state studied, method of study and species study<\/li>\n
Since there is no clear relationship between needs and activity, drive state must be evaded<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Sexual Motivation as a Drive<\/p>\n
\n
Drive theory says that internal bodily changes are detected my monitoring systems that activate drive<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
o i.e. there appears to be mechanisms in the area of the hypothalamus that monitor changes in sex hormones<\/p>\n
\n
Freud said sex has drive properties o Said that sexual tension builds up in the id \uf0e0 creates uncomfortable state \uf0e0 can be relieved by libido<\/strong>: sexual behaviour or by reduction of sexual energy through displacement by the ego<\/li>\n
Other evidence says drive concept may make sense in regard to sexual behaviour o e. Beach and Jordan found that longer sexual deprivation in male rats = shorter latency for mounting and intromission\n
\n
Force of ejaculation and volume of ejaculation in human males increases w\/time since the last orgasm<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
2 findings above support sex drive concept<\/li>\n
Hormones and learning are partly responsible for triggering this drive-like state<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
Hypothalamus directs anterior pituitary to secrete gonadotropins<\/strong>: hormones<\/li>\n
Gonadotropins follicle stimulating hormone<\/strong> (FSH) and luteinizing hormone<\/strong> (LH) stimulate the gonads<\/strong> (testes<\/strong> in males, ovaries<\/strong> in females) to secrete gonadal hormones<\/strong><\/li>\n
3 gonadal hormones important for make and female sexual behaviour:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
Androgens<\/strong>: male sex hormones (made in females in smaller amounts) o Testosterone: <\/strong>major androgen; mostly made by testes in male (made in males and females in adrenal glands and by ovaries in females in smaller amounts); needed for sexual behaviour in males<\/li>\n
Estrogens: <\/strong>female sex hormones (made in males in smaller amounts) o Estradiol: <\/strong>major estrogens<\/li>\n
Progesterone: <\/strong>major estrogen made in females<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
Male sexual motivation is not completely controlled by hormonal levels and experience plays an important role<\/li>\n
Removal of ovaries in menopause (which reduces estrogen) has no effect on sexual motivation in females<\/li>\n
Estrogen and progesterone levels change lot during the menstrual cycle, but it has no effect on sexual interest o However, in rodents, increased estrogen and progesterone levels (during ovulation) increase sexual interest\n
\n
Thus animal and human research are not consistent<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
Androgen levels are important to sexual behaviour in men and women:\n
\n
In women: removal of adrenal glands (and thus androgens) = decreased sexual interest<\/li>\n
In men: may be the same<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Problems with the Sex Drive Concept<\/p>\n
\n
Sheffield\u2019s research shows that learning can occur without reduction in sex drive, which contradicts sex drive concept<\/li>\n
No clear evidence of sexual deprivation causing homeostatic imbalance o Thus, homeostasis cannot be applied to sexual motivation in the same way as it is applied to hunger<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
\n
This is not to say sex drive concept should be rejected; it may be able to make more sense if assumptions about how drive influences behaviour were modified<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Some Thoughts about Drive Theory\u2019s Problems<\/p>\n
\n
Drive reduction cannot be the only basis for reinforcement and drive does not account for much of the direction of behaviour as Hull thought<\/li>\n
There is no clear effect on how behaviours result from homeostatic imbalance<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Drive theory: motivation of behaviour depends on a physiological need (i.e. hunger) that organism becomes aware of by specific stimuli (i.e. hunger pang), which directs the organism to search… Continue Reading Drive Theory<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[110],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4390"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4390"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4390\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.amyork.ca\/academic\/zz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}