Similarities
Just as the inverted-U theory, the drive theory seeks to explain and understand what motivates performance in human beings. The inverted-U theory pegs performance to emotional arousal (McMorris et al, 2015) . The U within the theory is reflective of the inverted parabola shape in the graph formed when emotional arousal is compared with performance. By definition, the drive theory pegs performance to a drive, which is prevalent with humans and keeps on growing. Among the primary similarities within the two theories is that they look at performance from an internal perspective. This is premised on a concept that how hard or even smart an individual performs is mainly pegged on what is going on within the individual, than what is ongoing in the environment. Both emotional arousal and drive are internal concepts. Secondly, according to the two theories, there is a direct proportionality at the beginning. According to the inverted-U theory, emotional arousal at the beginning is directly proportional to performance. Similarly, within the drive theory, at the beginning, drive is directly proportional to performance (May, 2015) . Therefore, at the advent of activity, both theories have a diagonally rising graph curve.
Differences
Whereas there are some similarities between the drive and inverted-U theories, they are exponentially exceeded by the differences. The first material difference lies in what motivates performance. According to the drive theory, performance is motivated by a primal desire to achieve something. This may be an ab initio desire such as those present in a newborn child, mainly premised on survival (May, 2015) . Other primal desires such as the need to excel will continually grow with age. The motivation for performance under this theory will, therefore, keep on growing until the object of the primal desire is achieved. This means that motivation to perform can keep growing perpetually. On the other hand, the inverted-U theory pegs growth on the unquantifiable factor of emotional arousal (McMorris et al, 2015) . It is the increase of this arousal, caused by unspecified factors that increase performance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The second difference lies in the fact that unlike drive, which as aforesaid continues to enhance performance as it grows, too much emotion can be detrimental to performance as under the inverted-U theory (Liu & Zhou, 2015) . This is because at some point, emotional arousal leads to plateauing if the motivation to perform and then the plummeting of the same. Therefore, while a direct proportionality exists towards performance throughout the drive theory, within the inverted-U theory, an inverse proportionality takes over after some time with more arousal leading to poorer motivation to perform (McMorris et al, 2015) . Finally, drive is more of a permanent thing and exists until its subject is achieved. This makes motivation to perform under the drive theory to have an element of permanence. On the other hand, emotions have a limited timeframe and will end soon after they commence. This makes motivation to perform under drive theory have an element of permanence while under the inverted-U theory, the motivation to perform is brief but potentially recurring.
What the Drive Theory Adds to the Inverted-U Theory
The inverted-U theory has been seen to be quite accurate but exponentially shallow. Emotional arousal for a start is a very general term that can have an array of different interpretations (McMorris et al, 2015) . The drive theory provides possible answers and clarification for the source of the emotional arousal to wit primal drive. In this regard, therefore, the drive theory can be seemed not be a parallel theory to the inverted-U theory but rather supplementary to it. Further, there is a major deficiency in the inverted-U theory that can be seemed to be filled by the drive theory, more so from the perspective of a particular activity. This is premised on how experience and expertise play a part towards performance itself within the inverted-U theory. When the drive theory is combined, this can lead to the concept that the declining part of motivation and by extension performance may not happen with increased expertise and experience (May, 2015) . In this regard, the drive theory can be seemed to cure a limitation within the inverted-U theory.
Application within a Sport Skill
The game of soccer, also known as football is currently one of the greatest sporting activities on earth. It has been developed into a trillion dollar industry which has also developed a secondary billion-dollar betting industry. Among the fundamental sports skills within this game relates to how to take a penalty shoot. The penalty shoot entails a kick that anyone with elementary ability to kick a ball and a little strength can make as it is made only a few feet from a wide goalmouth. However, circumstances under which it is made has on several occasions made it an impossible kick, even for the best footballers in the world. The penalty kick can be used both to analyze the drive theory and also to indicate how this theory contributes towards the inverted-U theory.
From an analytical perspective, how well a penalty is taken is mainly determined by how desirous a player is of achieving a score. It is a careful balance between power, technic, competence and an ability to keep emotions in check (Liu & Zhou, 2015) . Balancing all this will require a powerful drive, leading to motivation and hence performance. The drive, in this instance, would be the competitive spirit in humans that propels them to desire to excel. Further, a penalty shootout has in many instances created the difference between victory and defeat in some very important games. It is, therefore, a highly emotional activity where emotions rise to their zenith. Under the inverted-U theory, therefore, performance during a penalty would be at a nadir , due to the super high emotional arousal (McMorris et al, 2015) . However, great players are able to make a perfect penalty shoot in spite of the high emotions due to the competence and experience.
References
Liu, S., & Zhou, W. (2015). The Effect of Anxiety State on the Visual Search Efficiency of Athletes. Open Journal of Social Sciences , 3 (06), 80-85.
May, U. (2015). The third step in drive theory: On the genesis of Beyond the pleasure principle. Psychoanalysis and History , 17 (2), 205-272
McMorris, T., Hale, B. J., Corbett, J., Robertson, K., & Hodgson, C. I. (2015). Does acute exercise affect the performance of whole-body, psychomotor skills in an inverted-U fashion? A meta-analytic investigation. Physiology & Behavior , 141 , 180-189
