Drive Theory Woodworth's Drive Theory Applied One

Drive Theory Woodworth's Drive Theory Applied One of the theories of human motivation that was developed in the first half of the twentieth century by psychologist Robert Woodworth is the drive theory, or more specifically the drive theory based on an assumption of basic homeostasis and the biological desire to maintain this homeostasis (Halvers 2011; Eysenck 2000). Simply put, this theory asserts that humans are driven to satisfy their biological needs and maintain homeostasis by taking care of basic needs like hunger, thirst, and other physical and physiological needs (Vigori 2011).

According to this theory, when these needs are not being met the lack of homeostasis triggers a response that creates a conscious impulse or motivation on the part of the individual, leading to conscious actions that attempt to satisfy the conscious desire and thus the subconscious need by restoring homeostasis (Halvers 2011).

One situation in which this theory of motivation can clearly be seen in operation occurred during a recent work shift, when a co-worker of mine had arrived just in time for her shift and confided in me that she hadn't had time to eat anything in eight hours. She asked our supervisor for an early break so she could eat something, but being denied this request she tried to sneak something while on the go.

Her motivation was brought on by a physical need to eat, which caused her mental focus to be distracted from her work tasks and responsibilities to be consumed instead with a drive to satisfy this hunger need, as proposed in Woodworth's theory (Vigori 2011). While normally a model employee, this co-worker's motivation for other concerns went out the window when she was confronted with this hunger. Not everything that occurred in this situation can be so easily explained by Woodworth's theory, however.

The co-worker was not eating openly, but rather was trying to sneak small tidbits of food between performing her work duties, at times when the supervisor couldn't see her. This cannot be fully explained by Woodworth's theory, as there was no physical need for this co-worker to be so furtive in her eating habits and therefore there was no initial disruption of homeostasis served by hiding the eating; simply eating openly and facing the consequences would seem to be the result of an absolute application of Woodworth's drive theory (Halvers 2011).

One could argue that by keeping her employment, the co-worker was earning money that supplied physical needs, but this is very far removed and depends on psychological and even conscious awareness and cognitive processing, not basic issues of physical homeostasis (Eysenck 2000). The supervisor's actions, in catching and reprimanding this co-worker, are also not explained by this theory. In another incident, a customer complained about the service provided by a different male co-worker.

This co-worker ended up raising his voice at the customer in the presence of the supervisor, and was ultimately fired for his aggressive behavior in this encounter. On one hand, there is definitely a physical reaction that led to motivation here; being threatened in any situation does create chemical changes in the body that disrupt homeostasis. In this view, the fear or threat that the co-worker was experiencing could have created the drive to defend himself, manifesting as a counter-attack on the customer (Halvers 2011).

This incident is not really adequately explained by Woodworth's theory, however, as it clearly involved a number of other issues and motivating factors. The customer had no physical need to complain, and in fact was being unreasonable -- something the supervisor acknowledged when openly discussing the incident with the rest of the staff later on -- so there was obviously something other than physical motivation going on for this person.

In addition, the co-worker that responded aggressively might have felt threatened, but they had shown a certain disrespect for the job and the supervisor on previous occasions which also seems to hint at something other than pure physical and homeostasis-seeking drives. Finally, the supervisor's decision to fire.