Theories of Motivation
Motivation is a central concept in psychology that refers to the driving forces behind behavior, and there are several major theories that attempt to explain why individuals act and behave in certain ways.
instinct theory of motivation
Instincts are innate, biologically determined patterns of behavior shaped by evolution to aid survival and reproduction. They can be simple, like an infant’s sucking reflex, or complex, like social bonding behaviors in primates.
William James (1842–1910) proposed that behavior is primarily determined by these innate instincts. According to instinct theory, organisms respond automatically to environmental stimuli without conscious deliberation—a bird builds a nest when spring arrives; a predator hunts prey.
While instinct theory provides a useful framework for understanding certain behaviors, it has largely been replaced by more comprehensive theories that account for learning, social factors, and cognition. However, the concept of instinct remains important in ethology and evolutionary psychology, where researchers investigate the evolutionary origins and adaptive functions of behavior.
Drive Theory
Another early theory proposed that maintaining homeostasis—a balanced, optimal internal state—is central to motivation. A control center in the brain receives input from receptors, then directs the body to correct any imbalance.
drive theory of motivation
According to drive theory, deviations from homeostasis create physiological needs that produce psychological drive states, directing behavior to meet the need and restore balance.
For example, if you haven’t eaten in a while, your blood sugar drops. This creates a physiological need and a corresponding drive state (hunger) that motivates you to seek food. Eating eliminates the hunger and restores blood sugar to normal levels.
Drive theory also emphasizes the role of habits—patterns of behavior we regularly engage in. Once a behavior successfully reduces a drive, we’re more likely to repeat that behavior when facing the same drive in the future (Graham & Weiner, 1996).
Extensions of drive theory take into account levels of arousal as potential motivators. Just as drive theory aims to return the body to homeostasis, arousal theory aims to find the optimal level of arousal.
Incentive Theory
While drive theory focuses on internal states that push us toward action, incentive theory emphasizes external stimuli that pull us toward goals. Building on drive theories, incentive theories emerged in the 1940s and 1950s, proposing that behavior is motivated by the anticipation of rewards such as money, recognition, or pleasure (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2003).
From this perspective, motivation originates from the reward itself—the force of an incentive is directly related to the anticipated value of the reward. This helps explain why people sometimes pursue goals even without an internal deficit: you might eat dessert after a full meal simply because it looks appealing, or work overtime for a bonus you don’t strictly need.
Incentive theory also highlights that the same reward motivates different people to different degrees, depending on how much they value it. Someone who already has wealth might be more motivated by recognition than money, while someone struggling financially might prioritize income above all else.
Both drive (push) and incentive (pull) forces work together to shape behavior, though their relative importance varies across situations.
Arousal Theory and the Yerkes-Dodson Law
Extensions of drive theory consider arousal levels as motivators. Jarousal theory of motivation and the Yerkes-Dodson law
arousal theory
Just as drive theory aims to return the body to homeostasis, arousal theory suggests we seek an optimal level of mental and physical alertness.
If we’re underaroused, we become bored and seek stimulation. If we’re overaroused, we engage in behaviors to reduce arousal (Berlyne, 1960). Most students experience this pattern: by semester’s end, they feel overwhelmed and yearn for summer break—but after a few weeks of rest, boredom sets in and they’re ready to return to school.
What level of arousal leads to best performance?
Research shows that moderate arousal is generally optimal; very high or very low arousal tends to impair performance (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Think about taking an exam: if you’re too relaxed (bored, apathetic), you won’t perform well. But extreme anxiety can be paralyzing and equally harmful.
However, optimal arousal is more complex than simply “moderate is best.” The Yerkes-Dodson law holds that the ideal arousal level depends on task complexity:
- Simple or well-practiced tasks benefit from higher arousal
- Complex or unfamiliar tasks are performed better with lower arousal
Self-Efficacy and Motivation
self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in their own capability to complete a task, which may include a previous successful completion of the exact task or a similar task.
Albert Bandura (1994) theorized that self-efficacy plays a pivotal role in motivating behavior. According to Bandura, motivation derives from our expectations about the consequences of our behaviors—and ultimately, our appreciation of our own capacity to engage in a given behavior determines what we do and what goals we set.
If you genuinely believe you can achieve at the highest level, you’re more likely to take on challenging tasks and persist through setbacks rather than giving up.
Social Motives
Several theorists have focused on understanding social motives (McAdams & Constantian, 1983; McClelland & Liberman, 1949; Murray et al., 1938). Among the key motives they describe:
- Need for achievement — drives accomplishment and performance
- Need for affiliation — encourages positive interactions with others
- Need for intimacy — motivates us to seek deep, meaningful relationships
Henry Murray et al. (1938) categorized these needs into domains: achievement and recognition fall under ambition; dominance and aggression relate to human power; and play belongs to interpersonal affection.