Black's (1965) evaluation of the literature on the combination of drive and incentive is criticized on two grounds. (1) In order to reconcile to the existing data his arguments for an additive relationship he must shift his theoretical assumptions from one argument to the next; unfortunately he never makes this shift explicit; (2) he ignores available data which are contrary to his view that D and K combine additively. An operational analysis of the available research reveals that the additive relationship holds unambiguously only when non-zero levels of food incentive are combined with the TD operation. When a liquid incentive is used and/or when other methods of manipulating drive are used, the evidence is unsystematic and the results are conflicting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlackR. W.On the combination of drive and incentive motivation. Psychological Review, 1965, 72, 310–317.
2.
BrushF. R.GoodrichK. P.TeghtsoonianR.EismanE. H.Running speed as a function of deprivation condition and concentration of sucrose incentive. Psychological Reports, 1961, 9, 627–634.
3.
DyalJ. A.Brightness and spatial discriminations based on perceived incentive magnitude. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1960, 53, 346–350. (a).
4.
DyalJ. A.Response strength as a function of magnitude of perceived incentive. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1960, 10, 35–38 (b).
5.
EhrenfreundD.BadiaP.Response strength as a function of drive level and pre- and postshift incentive magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 63, 468–471.
6.
HulickaI. M.Additive versus multiplicative combination of drive and incentive. Psychological Reports, 1960, 6, 403–409. (a).
7.
HulickaI. M.Combination of drive and incentive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 12, 185–189. (b).
8.
HullC. L.A behavior system. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1952.
9.
KintschW.Runway performance as a function of drive strength and magnitude of reinforcement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1962, 55, 882–887.
10.
LoganF. A.Incentive. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1960.
11.
MoltzH.Latent extinction and the fractional anticipatory goal response mechanism. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 229–241.
12.
ReynoldsB.MarxM. H.HendersonR.Resistance to extinction as a function of drive-reward interaction. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1952, 45, 36–42.
13.
ReynoldsW. F.PavlikW. B.Running speed as a function of deprivation period and reward magnitude. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1960, 53, 615–618.
14.
SewardJ. P.ProctorD. M.Performance as a function of drive, reward, and habit strength. American Journal of Psychology, 1960, 73, 448–453.
15.
SewardJ. P.SheaR. A.DavenportR. H.Further evidence for the interaction of drive and reward. American Journal of Psychology, 1960, 73, 370–379.
16.
SewardJ. P.SheaR. A.ElkindD.Evidence for the interaction of drive and reward. American Journal of Psychology, 1958, 71, 404–407.
17.
SnyderH. L.Saccharine concentration and deprivation as determinants of instrumental and consummatory response strengths. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 63, 610–615.
18.
SpenceK. W.Behavior theory and conditioning. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1956.
19.
StablerJ. R.Performance in instrumental conditioning as a joint function of time of deprivation and sucrose concentration. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 63, 248–253.
20.
WeissR. F.Deprivation and reward magnitude effects on speed throughout the goal gradient. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 60, 384–390.
21.
YarczowerM.FreygoldK.BlumN.Effect of amount, percentage of reinforcement and deprivation condition on runway time. Psychological Reports, 1962, 11, 406.
22.
YoungP. T.Motivation and emotion. New York: Wiley, 1961.
23.
YoungP. T.MadsenC. H.Jr.Individual isohedons in sucrose-saccharine gustatory areas. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1963, 56, 903–909.
