Drive

Abstract

Drive is a type of motivation: the internal state, arising from a physiological need such as dehydration, that energizes behavior toward what will meet the need. Water deprivation, for example, produces a drive to seek and consume water. This article covers the classic drive-reduction account of motivation and learning, the experiments of its era on manipulation, sweet taste and brain stimulation, drive theory of social facilitation, and the incentive and homeostatic accounts that followed, down to the hypothalamic neurons for hunger and thirst. The central question is how much of motivation drive explains: motivation-as-drive concepts were largely replaced by motivation-as-incentive concepts, yet aversive drive concepts still occasionally surface in reward neuroscience.

Keywords: drive, drive reduction, homeostasis

Drive was once the central concept of motivation. A historical review of motivation and emotion puts it plainly: motivation was once thought of in terms of aversive drives, and reward in terms of drive reduction (Berridge, 2018). The concept has since been contested, narrowed and, in neuroscience, partly revived, and what follows traces that course.

What Drive Is

Drive is defined by need. Woodworth's lectures on dynamic psychology already addressed drive and mechanism in abnormal and social behaviour (Woodworth, 1918). Homeostasis is a biological principle for regulation of essential physiological parameters within a set range, and behavioural responses to deviation from homeostasis are critical for survival, although the motivational processes engaged by physiological need states are incompletely understood (Betley et al., 2015). Cannon described the organization for physiological homeostasis in 1929 (Cannon, 1929). A review of motivation concepts in behavioral neuroscience lists the family the drive concept belongs to: homeostasis, setpoints and settling points, intervening variables, hydraulic drives, drive reduction, appetitive and consummatory behavior, drive centers and dedicated drive neurons, alongside incentive motivation and reward 'liking' versus 'wanting' (Berridge, 2004).

In the brain, the hypothalamus is closely associated with motivated behaviors required for survival and reproduction, and intense feeding, drinking, aggressive and sexual behaviors can be produced by a simple neuronal stimulus applied to discrete hypothalamic regions (Sternson, 2013). Small populations of neurons sufficient to evoke a complex motivated behavior may serve as entry points to circuits that energize and direct behavior to specific goals (Sternson, 2013).

Types of Drive

MeSH places drive within motivation and files three narrower descriptors beneath it: craving, hunger and thirst.

This is a classification for indexing literature, not a theory of how many drives there are. In hypothalamic research, arcuate nucleus circuits link energy state to the motivational drive, hunger (Andermann & Lowell, 2017), and thirst motivates animals to drink in order to maintain fluid balance (Zimmerman et al., 2016). Craving and desire have their own cognitive account: the elaborated intrusion theory holds that intrusive thoughts about appetitive targets are triggered automatically by external or physiological cues and that, when they elicit significant pleasure or relief, cognitive elaboration usually ensues, with sensory images among its especially important products; these desire images are momentarily rewarding but amplify awareness of somatic and emotional deficits (Kavanagh et al., 2005).

Drive-Reduction Theory

The classic statement of drive theory is Hull's Principles of Behavior, which set out a behavior theory (Hull, 1943). In the drive-reduction view, reward was thought of in terms of drive reduction (Berridge, 2018), so that a response is strengthened when it reduces a drive. Drives need not be innate: Miller's studies treated fear as an acquirable drive, with fear as motivation and fear reduction as reinforcement in the learning of new responses (Miller, 1948). Spence extended the account to emotion, proposing a theory of emotionally based drive (D) and its relation to performance in simple learning situations (Spence, 1958).

Challenges to Drive Reduction

Studies of the same period reported learning and reward that did not fit an account built on physiological need. One reported learning motivated by a manipulation drive (Harlow et al., 1950); another reported the reward value of a non-nutritive sweet taste (Sheffield & Roby, 1950); a third reported positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of the septal area and other regions of the rat brain (Olds & Milner, 1954). A review of curiosity and exploration later gathered the research on behavior directed at information and novelty (Berlyne, 1966).

The theoretical response was a shift from drives to incentives. Incentive motivation theories posit that motivation is directed toward affectively positive incentives, and that brain motivation systems modulate those incentive values (Berridge, 2018), a view set out in Toates's Motivational Systems (Toates, 1986). An earlier perceptual-motivational framework had proposed a motivational rather than reinforcing role for hedonic incentive stimuli, in which eliciting stimuli correlated with incentive stimuli acquire motivational properties (Bindra, 1978). A different reworking kept drive but identified it with arousal: Hebb proposed that arousal is synonymous with a general drive state, an energizer but not a guide, and that there will be an optimal level of arousal for effective behavior (Hebb, 1955). Motivation-as-drive concepts were largely replaced by motivation-as-incentive concepts (Berridge, 2018). One influential incentive account separated components of reward: after dopamine depletion of up to 99% in the nucleus accumbens and neostriatum, rats showed normal hedonic reaction patterns to sucrose and quinine, and the authors concluded that dopamine systems are necessary for 'wanting' incentives but not for 'liking' them or for learning new likes and dislikes (Berridge & Robinson, 1998). On this account incentive salience is a distinct component of motivation and reward (Berridge & Robinson, 1998).

Figure 1

Two Accounts of Why an Outcome Rewards

Drive and Social Facilitation

Drive theory also reached social psychology. Zajonc's analysis of social facilitation brought drive to the effects of the presence of others on performance (Zajonc, 1965). On this drive theory, the mere presence of others increases arousal and, thereby, the frequency of dominant responses, those with the greatest habit strength; an experiment designed to make it difficult for participants to attend directly to the audience found more dominant responses in the audience condition than alone (Platania & Moran, 2001). Zajonc's mere-presence account has rivals here too; distraction-conflict theory, one of them, was reviewed for its progress and problems (Baron, 1986). A meta-analysis of 241 studies involving nearly 24,000 participants found that the presence of others had small effects, accounting for .3% to 3% of the variance in the typical experiment (Bond & Titus, 1983). It concluded that the presence of others increases the speed of simple task performance and decreases the speed of complex task performance, heightens physiological arousal only if the individual is performing a complex task, and that social facilitation effects are surprisingly unrelated to the performer's evaluation apprehension (Bond & Titus, 1983). The facilitation of simple performance accuracy was slight and vulnerable to the file drawer problem of unreported null results (Bond & Titus, 1983). The topic is covered further under social facilitation.

Homeostasis, Incentives and the Brain

Aversive drive concepts still occasionally surface in reward neuroscience today (Berridge, 2018), and recent work on hypothalamic neurons is one place they do. Starvation-sensitive AGRP neurons exhibit properties consistent with a negative-valence teaching signal: mice avoided activation of AGRP neurons, AGRP neuron inhibition conditioned preference for flavours and places, and AGRP neuron activity rapidly reduced in response to food-related cues (Betley et al., 2015). The authors concluded that need-sensing neurons condition preference for cues associated with nutrient or water ingestion, learned through reduction of negative-valence signals during restoration of homeostasis (Betley et al., 2015).

That reading is contested. In another study, brief optogenetic stimulation of AgRP neurons before food was available promoted intense appetitive and consummatory behaviors that persisted for tens of minutes, mediated by a long-lasting potentiation of the rewarding properties of food, and AgRP neuron activity was positively reinforcing (Chen et al., 2016). A historical review concluded that this makes a pure drive-reduction theory of AgRP hunger less plausible (Berridge, 2018).

Thirst shows the same pattern. Water deprivation produces a drive to seek and consume water, and after optogenetic activation of dehydration-activated neurons in the median preoptic nucleus, mice drank water and pressed a lever for water at rates that scaled with stimulation frequency (Allen et al., 2017). The stimulation was aversive, instrumentally pausing it could reinforce lever-pressing, and the authors concluded that the activity of these neurons establishes a scalable, persistent and aversive internal state that dynamically controls thirst-motivated behavior (Allen et al., 2017). The historical review cautions that the aversiveness of such hypothalamic neuronal activation may in future turn out to be separable from its ability to trigger drinking (Berridge, 2018).

Drives also compete. Using hypothalamic AgRP neurons as an entry point, one study found that hunger significantly increases its capacity to suppress competing motivational systems, such as thirst, anxiety-related behavior, innate fear and social interactions, often only when food is accessible (Burnett et al., 2016).

Worked Example

The social facilitation effect sizes can be put on a familiar scale. A proportion of variance of .3% to 3% (Bond & Titus, 1983) corresponds to a correlation of about .05 to .17, the square roots of .003 and .03. With 241 studies involving nearly 24,000 participants, the average study had about 100 participants. An effect at the lower end of that range would be hard to detect in a single study of that size, one reason the meta-analysis matters.

Discussion

Three conclusions follow for cognitive psychology. First, drive is a historically central concept that survives in narrowed form. It named the energizing of behavior by need, and reward was once thought of in terms of drive reduction, but motivation-as-drive concepts were largely replaced by motivation-as-incentive concepts (Berridge, 2018).

Second, the incentive account divides reward into parts that drive theory treated as one. Dopamine depletion left hedonic reactions to sucrose and quinine intact, which the authors took to mean that dopamine is needed for 'wanting' incentives but not for 'liking' them (Berridge & Robinson, 1998).

Third, recent studies of hunger and thirst neuronal circuitry provide examples that drive-reduction ideas persist today (Berridge, 2018). Need-sensing AGRP neurons carry a negative-valence signal whose reduction conditions preference (Betley et al., 2015), and stimulating thirst neurons was aversive, with pausing the stimulation able to reinforce lever-pressing (Allen et al., 2017). These findings resemble drive reduction at the level of single cell types, but AgRP neuron activity has also been found to be positively reinforcing, through a potentiation of the rewarding properties of food rather than as an intrinsic reward (Chen et al., 2016), so they do not restore drive as the whole of motivation.

Current Directions

Three lines of work are active. Anticipation: thirst-promoting neurons in the subfornical organ respond to inputs from the oral cavity during eating and drinking and integrate them with information about the blood, so that they predict how ongoing consumption will alter fluid balance and adjust behaviour pre-emptively (Zimmerman et al., 2016). Computation: a normative theory of homeostatic reinforcement learning defines primary rewards as outcomes fulfilling physiological needs and proves mathematically that seeking rewards is equivalent to the objective of physiological stability (Keramati & Gutkin, 2014). Circuits: a review of appetite control describes progress on meal-related gut control, arcuate hypothalamic circuits linking energy state to hunger, and limbic and cognitive processes that bring about hunger-mediated increases in reward value, and notes the rapid regulation of homeostatic neurons by cues that predict future food consumption (Andermann & Lowell, 2017).

Common Misconceptions

“Drive theory is the current account of motivation.”

Motivation-as-drive concepts were largely replaced by motivation-as-incentive concepts, although aversive drive concepts still occasionally surface in reward neuroscience (Berridge, 2018).

“Thirst simply tracks the state of the blood.”

Most drinking is regulated too rapidly to be controlled by blood composition directly; thirst neurons in the subfornical organ anticipate homeostatic imbalances before they arise (Zimmerman et al., 2016).

“An audience always improves performance.”

In a meta-analysis of 241 studies, the presence of others increased the speed of simple task performance but decreased the speed of complex task performance and impaired complex performance accuracy (Bond & Titus, 1983).

Glossary

Acquired drive.

A drive that is learned rather than innate, as when fear serves as motivation and fear reduction as reinforcement.

AGRP neurons.

Starvation-sensitive hypothalamic neurons whose activation mice avoided in one study, consistent with a negative-valence signal, but lever-pressed to self-stimulate in another.

Arcuate nucleus.

A hypothalamic region whose circuits link energy state to the motivational drive, hunger.

Drive reduction.

The view, once dominant, that reward consists in reducing a drive.

Drive.

A motivational state arising from physiological need, such as the drive to seek and consume water that water deprivation produces.

Evaluation apprehension.

Concern about being judged by others, to which social facilitation effects proved surprisingly unrelated.

Homeostasis.

The regulation of essential physiological parameters within a set range.

Homeostatic reinforcement learning.

A normative theory that defines primary rewards as outcomes fulfilling physiological needs.

Incentive salience.

A proposed component of motivation and reward, 'wanting', separable from hedonic 'liking' and from reward learning.

Median preoptic nucleus.

A hypothalamic region whose dehydration-activated neurons, according to one study, establish an aversive internal state that controls thirst-motivated behavior.

Negative valence.

The aversive quality of a signal or state, shown when animals avoid it or work to end it.

Primary reward.

In homeostatic reinforcement learning, an outcome that fulfils a physiological need.

Setpoint.

A target value of a regulated physiological variable, one of the classic motivation concepts alongside homeostasis and drive reduction.

Social facilitation.

The effect of the presence of others on performance, which speeds simple tasks and slows complex ones.

Subfornical organ.

A brain region whose thirst-promoting neurons integrate oral and blood signals to anticipate fluid imbalance.

Key Researchers

Kent C. Berridge

. Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan; co-authored the incentive-salience account that separates 'wanting' from 'liking', and reviews of drive and incentive concepts. ORCID - Wikipedia - Faculty Page

Clark L. Hull

(1884-1952). Learning theorist at Yale University; author of Principles of Behavior, the classic statement of drive-reduction theory. Wikipedia - Wikidata

Scott M. Sternson

. Neuroscientist at the University of California, San Diego and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; reviewed hypothalamic survival circuits and co-authored the study of hunger and thirst neurons as negative-valence teaching signals. ORCID - Faculty Page

Robert B. Zajonc

(1923-2008). Social psychologist at the University of Michigan and Stanford University; brought drive theory to social facilitation. Wikipedia - Wikidata

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a drive in psychology?

A drive is a motivational state arising from physiological need; water deprivation, for example, produces a drive to seek and consume water (Allen et al., 2017).

What is drive-reduction theory?

It is the view in which reward was thought of in terms of drive reduction and motivation in terms of aversive drives (Berridge, 2018); its classic statement is Hull's Principles of Behavior (Hull, 1943).

Can a drive be learned?

Yes: Miller's studies treated fear as an acquirable drive, with fear as motivation and fear reduction as reinforcement in the learning of new responses (Miller, 1948).

Why was drive-reduction theory replaced?

A historical review describes motivation-as-drive concepts as largely replaced by motivation-as-incentive concepts (Berridge, 2018), and studies of the drive era reported reward from a non-nutritive sweet taste (Sheffield & Roby, 1950) and from electrical stimulation of the brain (Olds & Milner, 1954).

What is the difference between 'wanting' and 'liking'?

In the incentive-salience account, dopamine systems are necessary for 'wanting' incentives but not for 'liking' them or for learning new likes and dislikes (Berridge & Robinson, 1998).

How does drive theory explain social facilitation?

On Zajonc's drive theory, the mere presence of others increases arousal and, thereby, the frequency of dominant responses (Platania & Moran, 2001; Zajonc, 1965); a meta-analysis of 241 studies found that the presence of others speeded simple tasks and slowed complex ones (Bond & Titus, 1983).

Is drive reduction still studied in neuroscience?

Aversive drive concepts still occasionally surface in reward neuroscience (Berridge, 2018); hunger-sensing AGRP neurons, for example, carry a negative-valence signal whose reduction during restoration of homeostasis conditions preference (Betley et al., 2015), although another study found AgRP neuron activity to be positively reinforcing through a potentiation of the rewarding properties of food (Chen et al., 2016).

Do drives compete with one another?

One study found that hunger significantly increased its capacity to suppress competing motivational systems such as thirst, anxiety-related behavior, innate fear and social interactions, often only when food was accessible (Burnett et al., 2016).

References