Does drive theory offer a comprehensive account of motivation? A. No. Drive theory offers a satisfactory explanation of physiological motives but fails to account for psychologically-based motives. B. Yes. Drive theories of physiological motives have been empirically supported. C. Yes. Drive theory offers a satisfactory explanation of not only physiological motives, but also psychologically-based ones. D. No. Drive theory fails to account for many motives, including physiological ones.

A) No. Drive theory offers a satisfactory explanation of physiological motives but fails to account for psychologically-based motives

Explanation:

Drive theory explains partially why people behave, but some motivations go beyond its scope of explanation. Not only drives are psychological factors to motivate people.

Traditionally, it was taught that motivation was based on mechanisms that seek to relieve stress or satisfy inner needs. If applied to animals, explaining behaviors with strong biological facors like hunger or thirst it will turn very useful, but the criticism arises as human drives are not merely motivated by physiological needs. Think of how many times you were eating out of anxiety, not hunger.

As psychologists came to study behavior and motivations, they saw primary and secondary drives. The primary drives once studied (include all related to survival) then came with secondary drives.

These are defined by culture, taught, and have a high impact, like wishing social approval, money, etc.