All behaviour is claimed to be driven by avoiding pain and seeking pleasure, so change requires re-associating the two.
The claim is old, and so is the objection to it. Because the pleasure sought can be specified after the behaviour is observed, no action can count against the theory, which makes it a way of describing behaviour rather than a testable explanation. The practical technique of deliberately associating cost with an unwanted behaviour is separable and has some support.
In practice
- A person who quits by making the habit vivid and unpleasant has used a technique the theory does not need.
- An explanation that fits every observation equally well has not selected among them.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation offered is hedonic: all motivation reduces to approach and avoidance, so changing behaviour means changing which outcome is associated with which feeling.
- In its favour
- The practical technique built on it, deliberately associating a habit with immediate consequences, overlaps with operant conditioning, which is well established.
- Against it
- As a general theory it cannot be tested, since the pleasure sought can be named after the behaviour is observed, and the evidence offered for it is testimonial and selected on success.
- Standing
- Testimonial evidence selected on success, with no comparison group. A restatement of psychological hedonism, which cannot be tested as a general theory of motivation: any behaviour can be redescribed as pursuing some pleasure or avoiding some pain after the fact.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Psychology & Behavior
- Essay
- Moralists, aphorists and the self-help tradition