motivation a theory of human

www.all- about - psychology.com

Present s
A Th e or y of H u m a n M ot iva t ion
A. H. Maslow ( 1943)

( Originally published in Psychological Review 50, 370- 396)

I . I N TROD UCTI ON

I n a previous paper ( 13) various proposit ions were present ed which
would have t o be included in any t heory of hum an m ot ivat ion t hat
could lay claim t o being definit ive. These conclusions m ay be briefly
sum m arized as follows:

1. The int egrat ed wholeness of t he organism m ust be one of t he
foundat ion st ones of m ot ivat ion t heory.

2. The hunger drive ( or any ot her physiological drive) was rej ect ed as
a cent ering point or m odel for a definit ive t heory of m ot ivat ion. Any
drive t hat is som at ically based and localizable was shown t o be

at ypical rat her t han t ypical in hum an m ot ivat ion.

3. Such a t heory should st ress and cent er it self upon ult im at e or basic
goals rat her t han part ial or superficial ones, upon ends rat her t han
m eans t o t hese ends. Such a st ress would im ply a m ore cent ral place
for unconscious t han for conscious m ot ivat ions.

4. There are usually available various cult ural pat hs t o t he sam e goal.
Therefore

conscious,

specific,

local- cult ural

desires

are

not

as

fundam ent al in m ot ivat ion t heory as t he m ore basic, unconscious
goals.

5. Any m ot ivat ed behavior, eit her preparat ory or consum m at ory, m ust
be underst ood t o be a channel t hrough which m any basic needs m ay
be sim ult aneously expressed or sat isfied. Typically an act has m ore
t han one m ot ivat ion.

6. Pract ically all organism ic st at es are t o be underst ood as m ot ivat ed
and as m ot ivat ing.

7. Hum an needs arrange t hem selves in hierarchies of pre- pot ency.
That is t o say, t he appearance of one need usually rest s on t he prior
sat isfact ion of anot her, m ore pre- pot ent need. Man is a perpet ually
want ing anim al. Also no need or drive can be t reat ed as if it were
isolat ed or discret e; every drive is relat ed t o t he st at e of sat isfact ion or

dissat isfact ion of ot her drives.

8. List s of drives will get us nowhere for various t heoret ical and
pract ical reasons. Furt herm ore any classificat ion of m ot ivat ions m ust
deal wit h t he problem of levels of specificit y or generalizat ion t he
m ot ives t o be classified.

9. Classificat ions of m ot ivat ions m ust be based upon goals rat her t han
upon inst igat ing drives or m ot ivat ed behavior.

10. Mot ivat ion t heory should be hum an- cent ered rat her t han anim alcent ered.

11. The sit uat ion or t he field in which t he organism react s m ust be
t aken int o account but t he field alone can rarely serve as an exclusive
explanat ion

for

behavior.

Furt herm ore

t he

field

it self

m ust

be

int erpret ed in t erm s of t he organism . Field t heory cannot be a
subst it ut e for m ot ivat ion t heory.

12. Not only t he int egrat ion of t he organism m ust be t aken int o
account , but

also t he possibilit y of isolat ed, specific, part ial or

1

segm ent al react ions. I t has since becom e necessary t o add t o t hese
anot her affirm at ion.

13. Mot ivat ion t heory is not synonym ous wit h behavior t heory. The
m ot ivat ions are only one class of det erm inant s of behavior. While
behavior

is alm ost

always m ot ivat ed,

it

is also alm ost

always

biologically, cult urally and sit uat ionally det erm ined as well.

The present paper is an at t em pt t o form ulat e a posit ive t heory of
m ot ivat ion which will sat isfy t hese t heoret ical dem ands and at t he
sam e t im e conform t o t he known fact s, clinical and observat ional as
well as experim ent al. I t derives m ost direct ly, however, from clinical
experience. This t heory is, I t hink, in t he funct ionalist t radit ion of
Jam es and Dewey, and is fused wit h t he holism of Wert heim er ( 19) ,
Goldst ein ( 6) , and Gest alt Psychology, and wit h t he dynam icism of
Freud ( 4) and Adler ( 1) . This fusion or synt hesis m ay arbit rarily be
called a 'general- dynam ic' t heory.

I t is far easier t o perceive and t o crit icize t he aspect s in m ot ivat ion
t heory t han t o rem edy t hem . Most ly t his is because of t he very serious
lack of sound dat a in t his area. I conceive t his lack of sound fact s t o be
due prim arily t o t he absence of a valid t heory of m ot ivat ion. The
present t heory t hen m ust be considered t o be a suggest ed program or
fram ework for fut ure research and m ust st and or fall, not so m uch on
fact s available or evidence present ed, as upon researches t o be done,
researches suggest ed perhaps, by t he quest ions raised in t his paper.

2

I I . TH E BASI C N EED S

Th e 'ph ysiologica l' n e e ds. - - The needs t hat are usually t aken as
t he st art ing point for m ot ivat ion t heory are t he so- called physiological
drives. Two recent lines of research m ake it necessary t o revise our
cust om ary not ions about t hese needs, first , t he developm ent of t he
concept

of hom eost asis, and second, t he finding t hat

appet it es

( preferent ial choices am ong foods) are a fairly efficient indicat ion of
act ual needs or lacks in t he body.

Hom eost asis refers t o t he body's aut om at ic effort s t o m aint ain a
const ant , norm al st at e of t he blood st ream . Cannon ( 2) has described
t his process for ( 1) t he wat er cont ent of t he blood, ( 2) salt cont ent ,

( 3) sugar cont ent , ( 4) prot ein cont ent , ( 5) fat cont ent , ( 6) calcium
cont ent , ( 7) oxygen cont ent , ( 8) const ant hydrogen- ion level ( acidbase balance) and ( 9) const ant t em perat ure of t he blood. Obviously
t his list can be ext ended t o include ot her m inerals, t he horm ones,
vit am ins, et c.

Young in a recent art icle ( 21) has sum m arized t he work on appet it e in
it s relat ion t o body needs. I f t he body lacks som e chem ical, t he
individual will t end t o develop a specific appet it e or part ial hunger for
t hat food elem ent .

Thus it seem s im possible as well as useless t o m ake any list of
fundam ent al physiological needs for t hey can com e t o alm ost any
num ber one m ight wish, depending on t he degree of specificit y of
descript ion. We can not ident ify all physiological needs as hom eost at ic.
That sexual desire, sleepiness, sheer act ivit y and m at ernal behavior in

3

anim als,

are

hom eost at ic,

has

not

yet

been

dem onst rat ed.

Furt herm ore, t his list would not include t he various sensory pleasures
( t ast es, sm ells, t ickling, st roking) which are probably physiological and
which m ay becom e t he goals of m ot ivat ed behavior.

I n a previous paper

( 13)

it

has been point ed out

t hat

t hese

physiological drives or needs are t o be considered unusual rat her t han
t ypical because t hey are isolable, and because t hey are localizable
som at ically. That is t o say, t hey are relat ively independent of each
ot her, of ot her m ot ivat ions and of t he organism as a whole, and
secondly, in m any cases, it is possible t o dem onst rat e a localized,
underlying som at ic base for t he drive. This is t rue less generally t han
has been

t hought

( except ions are fat igue,

sleepiness,

m at ernal

responses) but it is st ill t rue in t he classic inst ances of hunger, sex,
and t hirst .

I t should be point ed out again t hat any of t he physiological needs and
t he consum m at ory behavior involved wit h t hem serve as channels for
all sort s of ot her needs as well. That is t o say, t he person who t hinks
he

is

hungry

m ay

act ually

be

seeking

m ore

for

com fort ,

or

dependence, t han for vit am ins or prot eins. Conversely, it is possible t o
sat isfy t he hunger need in part by ot her act ivit ies such as drinking
wat er or sm oking cigaret t es. I n ot her words, relat ively isolable as
t hese physiological needs are, t hey are not com plet ely so.

Undoubt edly t hese physiological needs are t he m ost pre- pot ent of all
needs. What t his m eans specifically is, t hat in t he hum an being who is
m issing everyt hing in life in an ext rem e fashion, it is m ost likely t hat
t he m aj or m ot ivat ion would be t he physiological needs rat her t han any

4

ot hers. A person who is lacking food, safet y, love, and est eem would
m ost probably hunger for food m ore st rongly t han for anyt hing else.

I f all t he needs are unsat isfied, and t he organism is t hen dom inat ed by
t he physiological needs, all ot her needs m ay becom e sim ply nonexist ent

or be pushed int o t he background. I t

is t hen fair t o

charact erize t he whole organism by saying sim ply t hat it is hungry, for
consciousness

is

alm ost

com plet ely

preem pt ed

by

hunger.

All

capacit ies are put int o t he service of hunger- sat isfact ion, and t he
organizat ion of t hese capacit ies is alm ost ent irely det erm ined by t he
one purpose of sat isfying hunger. The recept ors and effect ors, t he
int elligence, m em ory, habit s, all m ay now be defined sim ply as
hunger- grat ifying t ools. Capacit ies t hat are not useful for t his purpose
lie dorm ant , or are pushed int o t he background. The urge t o writ e
poet ry, t he desire t o acquire an aut om obile, t he int erest in Am erican
hist ory, t he desire for a new pair of shoes are, in t he ext rem e case,
forgot t en or becom e of secondary im port ance. For t he m an who is
ext rem ely and dangerously hungry, no ot her int erest s exist but food.
He dream s food, he rem em bers food, he t hinks about food, he em ot es
only about food, he perceives only food and he want s only food. The
m ore subt le det erm inant s t hat ordinarily fuse wit h t he physiological
drives in organizing even feeding, drinking or sexual behavior, m ay
now be so com plet ely overwhelm ed as t o allow us t o speak at t his t im e
( but only at t his t im e) of pure hunger drive and behavior, wit h t he one
unqualified aim of relief.

Anot her peculiar charact erist ic of t he hum an organism when it is
dom inat ed by a cert ain need is t hat t he whole philosophy of t he fut ure
t ends also t o change. For our chronically and ext rem ely hungry m an,

5

Ut opia can be defined very sim ply as a place where t here is plent y of
food. He t ends t o t hink t hat , if only he is guarant eed food for t he rest
of his life, he will be perfect ly happy and will never want anyt hing
m ore. Life it self t ends t o be defined in t erm s of eat ing. Anyt hing else
will be defined as unim port ant . Freedom , love, com m unit y feeling,
respect , philosophy, m ay all be waved aside as fripperies which are
useless since t hey fail t o fill t he st om ach. Such a m an m ay fairly be
said t o live by bread alone.

I t cannot possibly be denied t hat such t hings are t rue but t heir
generalit y can be denied. Em ergency condit ions are, alm ost by
definit ion, rare in t he norm ally funct ioning peaceful societ y. That t his
t ruism can be forgot t en is due m ainly t o t wo reasons. First , rat s have
few m ot ivat ions ot her t han physiological ones, and since so m uch of
t he research upon m ot ivat ion has been m ade wit h t hese anim als, it is
easy t o carry t he rat - pict ure over t o t he hum an being. Secondly, it is
t oo oft en not realized t hat cult ure it self is an adapt ive t ool, one of
whose m ain funct ions is t o m ake t he physiological em ergencies com e
less and less oft en. I n m ost of t he known societ ies, chronic ext rem e
hunger of t he em ergency t ype is rare, rat her t han com m on. I n any
case, t his is st ill t rue in t he Unit ed St at es. The average Am erican
cit izen is experiencing appet it e rat her t han hunger when he says " I am
hungry." He is apt t o experience sheer life- and- deat h hunger only by
accident and t hen only a few t im es t hrough his ent ire life.

Obviously a good way t o obscure t he 'higher' m ot ivat ions, and t o get a
lopsided view of hum an capacit ies and hum an nat ure, is t o m ake t he
organism ext rem ely and chronically hungry or t hirst y. Anyone who
at t em pt s t o m ake an em ergency pict ure int o a t ypical one, and who

6

will m easure all of m an's goals and desires by his behavior during
ext rem e physiological deprivat ion is cert ainly being blind t o m any
t hings. I t is quit e t rue t hat m an lives by bread alone - - when t here is
no bread. But what happens t o m an's desires when t here is plent y of
bread and when his belly is chronically filled?

At once ot her ( and 'higher') needs em erge and t hese, rat her t han
physiological hungers, dom inat e t he organism . And when t hese in t urn
are sat isfied, again new ( and st ill 'higher') needs em erge and so on.
This is what we m ean by saying t hat t he basic hum an needs are
organized int o a hierarchy of relat ive prepot ency.

One m ain im plicat ion of t his phrasing is t hat grat ificat ion becom es as
im port ant a concept as deprivat ion in m ot ivat ion t heory, for it releases
t he organism from t he dom inat ion of a relat ively m ore physiological
need, perm it t ing t hereby t he em ergence of ot her m ore social goals.
The

physiological

needs,

along

wit h

t heir

part ial

goals,

when

chronically grat ified cease t o exist as act ive det erm inant s or organizers
of behavior. They now exist only in a pot ent ial fashion in t he sense
t hat t hey m ay em erge again t o dom inat e t he organism if t hey are
t hwart ed. But a want t hat is sat isfied is no longer a want . The
organism is dom inat ed and it s behavior organized only by unsat isfied
needs. I f hunger is sat isfied, it becom es unim port ant in t he current
dynam ics of t he individual.

This st at em ent is som ewhat qualified by a hypot hesis t o be discussed
m ore fully lat er, nam ely t hat it is precisely t hose individuals in whom a
cert ain need has always been sat isfied who are best equipped t o
t olerat e deprivat ion of t hat need in t he fut ure, and t hat furt herm ore,

7

t hose who have been deprived in t he past will react different ly t o
current sat isfact ions t han t he one who has never been deprived.

Th e sa fe t y n e e ds. - - I f t he physiological needs are relat ively well
grat ified, t here t hen em erges a new set of needs, which we m ay
cat egorize roughly as t he safet y needs. All t hat has been said of t he
physiological needs is equally t rue, alt hough in lesser degree, of t hese
desires. The organism m ay equally well be wholly dom inat ed by t hem .
They m ay serve as t he alm ost exclusive organizers of behavior,
recruit ing all t he capacit ies of t he organism in t heir service, and we
m ay t hen fairly describe t he whole organism as a safet y- seeking
m echanism . Again we m ay say of t he recept ors, t he effect ors, of t he
int ellect and t he ot her capacit ies t hat t hey are prim arily safet y- seeking
t ools. Again, as in t he hungry m an, we find t hat t he dom inat ing goal is
a st rong det erm inant not only of his current world- out look and
philosophy but

also of his philosophy of t he fut ure. Pract ically

everyt hing looks less im port ant t han safet y, ( even som et im es t he
physiological needs which being sat isfied, are now underest im at ed) . A
m an, in t his st at e, if it is ext rem e enough and chronic enough, m ay be
charact erized as living alm ost for safet y alone.

Alt hough in t his paper we are int erest ed prim arily in t he needs of t he
adult , we can approach an underst anding of his safet y needs perhaps
m ore efficient ly by observat ion of infant s and children, in whom t hese
needs are m uch m ore sim ple and obvious. One reason for t he clearer
appearance of t he t hreat or danger react ion in infant s is t hat t hey do
not inhibit t his react ion at all, whereas adult s in our societ y have been
t aught t o inhibit it at all cost s. Thus even when adult s do feel t heir
safet y t o be t hreat ened we m ay not be able t o see t his on t he surface.

8

I nfant s will react in a t ot al fashion and as if t hey were endangered, if
t hey are dist urbed or dropped suddenly, st art led by loud noises,
flashing light , or ot her unusual sensory st im ulat ion, by rough handling,
by general loss of support in t he m ot her's arm s, or by inadequat e
support .[ 1]

I n infant s we can also see a m uch m ore direct react ion t o bodily
illnesses of various kinds. Som et im es t hese illnesses seem t o be
im m ediat ely and per se t hreat ening and seem t o m ake t he child feel
unsafe. For inst ance, vom it ing, colic or ot her sharp pains seem t o
m ake t he child look at t he whole world in a different way. At such a
m om ent of pain, it m ay be post ulat ed t hat , for t he child, t he
appearance of t he whole world suddenly changes from sunniness t o
darkness, so t o speak, and becom es a place in which anyt hing at all
m ight happen, in which previously st able t hings have suddenly becom e
unst able. Thus a child who because of som e bad food is t aken ill m ay,
for a day or t wo, develop fear, night m ares, and a need for prot ect ion
and reassurance never seen in him before his illness.

Anot her indicat ion of t he child's need for safet y is his preference for
som e kind of undisrupt ed rout ine or rhyt hm . He seem s t o want a
predict able, orderly world. For inst ance, inj ust ice, unfairness, or
inconsist ency in t he parent s seem s t o m ake a child feel anxious and
unsafe. This at t it ude m ay be not so m uch because of t he inj ust ice per
se or any part icular pains involved, but rat her because t his t reat m ent
t hreat ens

to

m ake

t he

world

look

unreliable,

or

unsafe,

or

unpredict able. Young children seem t o t hrive bet t er under a syst em
which has at least a skelet al out line of rigidit y, in which t here is a
schedule of a kind, som e sort of rout ine, som et hing t hat can be

9

count ed upon, not only for t he present but also far int o t he fut ure.
Perhaps one could express t his m ore accurat ely by saying t hat t he
child needs an organized world rat her t han an unorganized or
unst ruct ured one.

The cent ral role of t he parent s and t he norm al fam ily set up are
indisput able. Quarreling, physical assault , separat ion, divorce or deat h
wit hin t he fam ily m ay be part icularly t errifying. Also parent al out burst s
of rage or t hreat s of punishm ent direct ed t o t he child, calling him
nam es, speaking t o him harshly, shaking him , handling him roughly,
or act ual physical punishm ent som et im es elicit such t ot al panic and
t error in t he child t hat we m ust assum e m ore is involved t han t he
physical pain alone. While it is t rue t hat in som e children t his t error
m ay represent also a fear of loss of parent al love, it can also occur in
com plet ely rej ect ed children, who seem t o cling t o t he hat ing parent s
m ore for sheer safet y and prot ect ion t han because of hope of love.

Confront ing

t he

average

child

wit h

new,

unfam iliar,

st range,

unm anageable st im uli or sit uat ions will t oo frequent ly elicit t he danger
or t error react ion, as for exam ple, get t ing lost or even being separat ed
from t he parent s for a short t im e, being confront ed wit h new faces,
new sit uat ions or new t asks, t he sight of st range, unfam iliar or
uncont rollable obj ect s, illness or deat h. Part icularly at such t im es, t he
child's frant ic clinging t o his parent s is eloquent t est im ony t o t heir role
as prot ect ors ( quit e apart from t heir roles as food- givers and lovegivers) .

From t hese and sim ilar observat ions, we m ay generalize and say t hat
t he average child in our societ y generally prefers a safe, orderly,

10

predict able, organized world, which he can count , on, and in which
unexpect ed, unm anageable or ot her dangerous t hings do not happen,
and in which, in any case, he has all- powerful parent s who prot ect and
shield him from harm .

That t hese react ions m ay so easily be observed in children is in a way
a proof of t he fact t hat children in our societ y feel t oo unsafe ( or, in a
word,

are badly

brought

up) .

Children

who

are reared

in

an

unt hreat ening, loving fam ily do not ordinarily react as we have
described above ( 17) . I n such children t he danger react ions are apt t o
com e m ost ly t o obj ect s or sit uat ions t hat adult s t oo would consider
dangerous.[ 2]

The healt hy, norm al, fort unat e adult in our cult ure is largely sat isfied
in his safet y needs. The peaceful, sm oot hly running, 'good' societ y
ordinarily m akes it s m em bers feel safe enough from wild anim als,
ext rem es of t em perat ure, crim inals, assault and m urder, t yranny, et c.
Therefore, in a very real sense, he no longer has any safet y needs as
act ive m ot ivat ors. Just as a sat ed m an no longer feels hungry, a safe
m an no longer feels endangered. I f we wish t o see t hese needs
direct ly

and clearly

we m ust

t urn t o neurot ic or

near- neurot ic

individuals, and t o t he econom ic and social underdogs. I n bet ween
t hese ext rem es, we can perceive t he expressions of safet y needs only
in such phenom ena as, for inst ance, t he com m on preference for a j ob
wit h t enure and prot ect ion, t he desire for a savings account , and for
insurance of various kinds ( m edical, dent al, unem ploym ent , disabilit y,
old age) .

11

Ot her broader aspect s of t he at t em pt t o seek safet y and st abilit y in t he
world are seen in t he very com m on preference for fam iliar rat her t han
unfam iliar t hings, or for t he known rat her t han t he unknown. The
t endency t o have som e religion or world- philosophy t hat organizes t he
universe and t he m en in it int o som e sort of sat isfact orily coherent ,
m eaningful whole is also in part m ot ivat ed by safet y- seeking. Here t oo
we m ay list science and philosophy in general as part ially m ot ivat ed by
t he safet y needs ( we shall see lat er t hat t here are also ot her
m ot ivat ions t o scient ific, philosophical or religious endeavor) .

Ot herwise t he need for safet y is seen as an act ive and dom inant
m obilizer of t he organism 's resources only in em ergencies, e. g., war,
disease, nat ural cat ast rophes, crim e waves, societ al disorganizat ion,
neurosis, brain inj ury, chronically bad sit uat ion.

Som e neurot ic adult s in our societ y are, in m any ways, like t he unsafe
child in t heir desire for safet y, alt hough in t he form er it t akes on a
som ewhat special appearance. Their react ion is oft en t o unknown,
psychological dangers in a world t hat is perceived t o be host ile,
overwhelm ing and t hreat ening. Such a person behaves as if a great
cat ast rophe

were

alm ost

always im pending,

i.e.,

he

is usually

responding as if t o an em ergency. His safet y needs oft en find specific
expression in a search for a prot ect or, or a st ronger person on whom
he m ay depend, or perhaps, a Fuehrer.

The neurot ic individual m ay be described in a slight ly different way
wit h som e usefulness as a grown- up person who ret ains his childish
at t it udes t oward t he world. That is t o say, a neurot ic adult m ay be said
t o behave 'as if' he were act ually afraid of a spanking, or of his

12

m ot her's disapproval, or of being abandoned by his parent s, or having
his food t aken away from him . I t is as if his childish at t it udes of fear
and t hreat react ion t o a dangerous world had gone underground, and
unt ouched by t he growing up and learning processes, were now ready
t o be called out by any st im ulus t hat would m ake a child feel
endangered and t hreat ened.[ 3]

The neurosis in which t he search for safet y t akes it s dearest form is in
t he

com pulsive- obsessive

neurosis.

Com pulsive- obsessives

t ry

frant ically t o order and st abilize t he world so t hat no unm anageable,
unexpect ed or unfam iliar dangers will ever appear ( 14) ; t hey hedge
t hem selves about wit h all sort s of cerem onials, rules and form ulas so
t hat every possible cont ingency m ay be provided for and so t hat no
new cont ingencies m ay appear. They are m uch like t he brain inj ured
cases, described by Goldst ein ( 6) , who m anage t o m aint ain t heir
equilibrium by avoiding everyt hing unfam iliar and st range and by
ordering t heir rest rict ed world in such a neat , disciplined, orderly
fashion t hat everyt hing in t he world can be count ed upon. They t ry t o
arrange t he world so t hat anyt hing unexpect ed ( dangers) cannot
possibly occur. I f, t hrough no fault of t heir own, som et hing unexpect ed
does occur, t hey go int o a panic react ion as if t his unexpect ed
occurrence const it ut ed a grave danger. What we can see only as a
none- t oo- st rong preference in t he healt hy person, e. g., preference for
t he fam iliar, becom es a life- and- deat h necessit y in abnorm al cases.

Th e love n e e ds. - - I f bot h t he physiological and t he safet y needs are
fairly well grat ified, t hen t here will em erge t he love and affect ion and
belongingness needs, and t he whole cycle already described will repeat
it self wit h t his new cent er. Now t he person will feel keenly, as never

13

before, t he absence of friends, or a sw eet heart , or a wife, or children.
He will hunger for affect ionat e relat ions wit h people in general,
nam ely, for a place in his group, and he will st rive wit h great int ensit y
t o achieve t his goal. He will want t o at t ain such a place m ore t han
anyt hing else in t he world and m ay even forget t hat once, when he
was hungry, he sneered at love.

I n our societ y t he t hwart ing of t hese needs is t he m ost com m only
found

core

in

psychopat hology.

cases
Love

of
and

m aladj ust m ent
affect ion,

and

as well

m ore

as t heir

severe
possible

expression in sexualit y, are generally looked upon wit h am bivalence
and

are

cust om arily

hedged

about

wit h

m any

rest rict ions and

inhibit ions. Pract ically all t heorist s of psychopat hology have st ressed
t hwart ing of t he love needs as basic in t he pict ure of m aladj ust m ent .
Many clinical st udies have t herefore been m ade of t his need and we
know m ore about it perhaps t han any of t he ot her needs except t he
physiological ones ( 14) .

One t hing t hat m ust be st ressed at t his point is t hat love is not
synonym ous wit h sex. Sex m ay be st udied as a purely physiological
need. Ordinarily sexual behavior is m ult i- det erm ined, t hat is t o say,
det erm ined not only by sexual but also by ot her needs, chief am ong
which are t he love and affect ion needs. Also not t o be overlooked is
t he fact t hat t he love needs involve bot h giving and receiving love.[ 4]

Th e e st e e m

n e e ds. - -

All people in our societ y ( wit h a few

pat hological except ions) have a need or desire for a st able, firm ly
based, ( usually) high evaluat ion of t hem selves, for self- respect , or
self- est eem , and for t he est eem of ot hers. By firm ly based self-

14

est eem , we m ean t hat which is soundly based upon real capacit y,
achievem ent and respect from ot hers. These needs m ay be classified
int o t wo subsidiary set s. These are, first , t he desire for st rengt h, for
achievem ent , for adequacy, for confidence in t he face of t he world,
and for independence and freedom .[ 5] Secondly, we have what we
m ay call t he desire for reput at ion or prest ige ( defining it as respect or
est eem from ot her people) , recognit ion, at t ent ion, im port ance or
appreciat ion.[ 6] These needs have been relat ively st ressed by Alfred
Adler and his followers, and have been relat ively neglect ed by Freud
and t he psychoanalyst s. More and m ore t oday however t here is
appearing widespread appreciat ion of t heir cent ral im port ance.

Sat isfact ion

of

t he self- est eem

need

leads t o

feelings of

self-

confidence, wort h, st rengt h, capabilit y and adequacy of being useful
and necessary in t he world. But t hwart ing of t hese needs produces
feelings of inferiorit y, of weakness and of helplessness. These feelings
in t urn give rise t o eit her basic discouragem ent or else com pensat ory
or neurot ic t rends. An appreciat ion of t he necessit y of basic selfconfidence and an underst anding of how helpless people are wit hout it ,
can be easily gained from a st udy of severe t raum at ic neurosis ( 8) .[ 7]

Th e n e e d for se lf- a ct u a liza t ion. - - Even if all t hese needs are
sat isfied, we m ay st ill oft en ( if not always) expect t hat a new
discont ent and rest lessness will soon develop, unless t he individual is
doing what he is fit t ed for. A m usician m ust m ake m usic, an art ist
m ust paint , a poet m ust writ e, if he is t o be ult im at ely happy. What a
m an can be, he m ust be. This need we m ay call self- act ualizat ion.

15

This t erm , first coined by Kurt Goldst ein, is being used in t his paper in
a m uch m ore specific and lim it ed fashion. I t refers t o t he desire for
self- fulfillm ent , nam ely, t o t he t endency for him t o becom e act ualized
in what he is pot ent ially. This t endency m ight be phrased as t he desire
t o becom e m ore and m ore what one is, t o becom e everyt hing t hat one
is capable of becom ing.

The specific form t hat t hese needs will t ake will of course vary great ly
from person t o person. I n one individual it m ay t ake t he form of t he
desire t o be an ideal m ot her, in anot her it m ay be expressed
at hlet ically, and in st ill anot her it m ay be expressed in paint ing
pict ures or in invent ions. I t is not necessarily a creat ive urge alt hough
in people who have any capacit ies for creat ion it will t ake t his form .

The clear em ergence of t hese needs rest s upon prior sat isfact ion of t he
physiological, safet y, love and est eem needs. We shall call people who
are sat isfied in t hese needs, basically sat isfied people, and it is from
t hese t hat we m ay expect t he fullest ( and healt hiest ) creat iveness.[ 8]
Since, in our societ y, basically sat isfied people are t he except ion, we
do not know m uch about self- act ualizat ion, eit her experim ent ally or
clinically. I t rem ains a challenging problem for research.

Th e pr e con dit ion s for t h e ba sic n e e d sa t isfa ct ion s. - - There are
cert ain condit ions which are im m ediat e prerequisit es for t he basic
need sat isfact ions. Danger t o t hese is react ed t o alm ost as if it were a
direct danger t o t he basic needs t hem selves. Such condit ions as
freedom t o speak, freedom t o do what one wishes so long as no harm
is done t o ot hers,

freedom

t o express one's self,

freedom

to

invest igat e and seek for inform at ion, freedom t o defend one's self,

16

j ust ice, fairness, honest y, orderliness in t he group are exam ples of
such precondit ions for basic need sat isfact ions. Thwart ing in t hese
freedom s will be react ed t o wit h a t hreat or em ergency response.
These condit ions are not ends in t hem selves but t hey are alm ost so
since t hey are so closely relat ed t o t he basic needs, which are
apparent ly t he only ends in t hem selves. These condit ions are defended
because wit hout t hem t he basic sat isfact ions are quit e im possible, or
at least , very severely endangered.

I f we rem em ber t hat t he cognit ive capacit ies ( percept ual, int ellect ual,
learning) are a set of adj ust ive t ools, which have, am ong ot her
funct ions, t hat of sat isfact ion of our basic needs, t hen it is clear t hat
any danger t o t hem , any deprivat ion or blocking of t heir free use,
m ust also be indirect ly t hreat ening t o t he basic needs t hem selves.
Such a st at em ent is a part ial solut ion of t he general problem s of
curiosit y, t he search for knowledge, t rut h and wisdom , and t he everpersist ent urge t o solve t he cosm ic m yst eries.

We m ust t herefore int roduce anot her hypot hesis and speak of degrees
of closeness t o t he basic needs, for we have already point ed out t hat
any conscious desires ( part ial goals) are m ore or less im port ant as
t hey are m ore or less close t o t he basic needs. The sam e st at em ent
m ay be m ade for various behavior act s. An act is psychologically
im port ant if it cont ribut es direct ly t o sat isfact ion of basic needs. The
less direct ly it so cont ribut es, or t he weaker t his cont ribut ion is, t he
less im port ant t his act m ust be conceived t o be from t he point of view
of dynam ic psychology. A sim ilar st at em ent m ay be m ade for t he
various defense or coping m echanism s. Som e are very direct ly relat ed
t o t he prot ect ion or at t ainm ent of t he basic needs, ot hers are only

17

weakly and dist ant ly relat ed. I ndeed if we wished, we could speak of
m ore basic and less basic defense m echanism s, and t hen affirm t hat
danger t o t he m ore basic defenses is m ore t hreat ening t han danger t o
less basic defenses ( always rem em bering t hat t his is so only because
of t heir relat ionship t o t he basic needs) .

Th e de sir e s t o k n ow a n d t o u n de r st a n d. - - So far, we have
m ent ioned t he cognit ive needs only in passing. Acquiring knowledge
and syst em at izing t he universe have been considered as, in part ,
t echniques for t he achievem ent of basic safet y in t he world, or, for t he
int elligent m an, expressions of self- act ualizat ion. Also freedom of
inquiry and expression have been discussed as precondit ions of
sat isfact ions of t he basic needs. True t hough t hese form ulat ions m ay
be, t hey do not const it ut e definit ive answers t o t he quest ion as t o t he
m ot ivat ion role of curiosit y, learning, philosophizing, experim ent ing,
et c. They are, at best , no m ore t han part ial answers.

This quest ion is especially difficult because we know so lit t le about t he
fact s. Curiosit y, explorat ion, desire for t he fact s, desire t o know m ay
cert ainly be observed easily enough. The fact t hat t hey oft en are
pursued even at great cost t o t he individual's safet y is an earnest of
t he part ial charact er of our previous discussion. I n addit ion, t he writ er
m ust adm it t hat , t hough he has sufficient clinical evidence t o post ulat e
t he desire t o know as a very st rong drive in int elligent people, no dat a
are available for unint elligent people. I t m ay t hen be largely a funct ion
of relat ively high int elligence. Rat her t ent at ively, t hen, and largely in
t he hope of st im ulat ing discussion and research, we shall post ulat e a
basic desire t o know, t o be aware of realit y, t o get t he fact s, t o sat isfy
curiosit y, or as Wert heim er phrases it , t o see rat her t han t o be blind.

18

This post ulat ion, however, is not enough. Even aft er we know, we are
im pelled t o know m ore and m ore m inut ely and m icroscopically on t he
one hand, and on t he ot her, m ore and m ore ext ensively in t he
direct ion of a world philosophy, religion, et c. The fact s t hat we acquire,
if t hey are isolat ed or at om ist ic, inevit ably get t heorized about , and
eit her analyzed or organized or bot h. This process has been phrased
by som e as t he search for 'm eaning.' We shall t hen post ulat e a desire
t o underst and, t o syst em at ize, t o organize, t o analyze, t o look for
relat ions and m eanings.

Once t hese desires are accept ed for discussion, we see t hat t hey t oo
form t hem selves int o a sm all hierarchy in which t he desire t o know is
prepot ent over t he desire t o underst and. All t he charact erist ics of a
hierarchy of prepot ency t hat we have described above, seem t o hold
for t his one as well.

We m ust guard ourselves against t he t oo easy t endency t o separat e
t hese desires from t he basic needs we have discussed above, i.e., t o
m ake a sharp dichot om y bet ween 'cognit ive' and 'conat ive' needs. The
desire t o know and t o underst and are t hem selves conat ive, i.e., have a
st riving charact er, and are as m uch personalit y needs as t he 'basic
needs' we have already discussed ( 19) .

I I I . FURTH ER CH ARACTERI STI CS OF TH E BASI C N EED S

Th e de gr e e of fix it y of t he h ie r a r ch y of ba sic n e e ds. - - We have
spoken so far as if t his hierarchy were a fixed order but act ually it is
not nearly as rigid as we m ay have im plied. I t is t rue t hat m ost of t he
people wit h whom we have worked have seem ed t o have t hese basic

19

needs in about t he order t hat has been indicat ed. However, t here have
been a num ber of except ions.

( 1) There are som e people in whom , for inst ance, self- est eem seem s
t o be m ore im port ant t han love. This m ost com m on reversal in t he
hierarchy is usually due t o t he developm ent of t he not ion t hat t he
person who is m ost likely t o be loved is a st rong or powerful person,
one who inspires respect or fear, and who is self confident or
aggressive. Therefore such people who lack love and seek it , m ay t ry
hard t o put

on a front

of aggressive, confident

behavior. But

essent ially t hey seek high self- est eem and it s behavior expressions
m ore as a m eans- t o- an- end t han for it s own sake; t hey seek selfassert ion for t he sake of love rat her t han for self- est eem it self.

( 2) There are ot her, apparent ly innat ely creat ive people in whom t he
drive t o creat iveness seem s t o be m ore im port ant t han any ot her
count er- det erm inant . Their creat iveness m ight appear not as selfact ualizat ion released by basic sat isfact ion, but in spit e of lack of basic
sat isfact ion.

( 3) I n cert ain people t he level of aspirat ion m ay be perm anent ly
deadened or lowered. That is t o say, t he less pre- pot ent goals m ay
sim ply be lost , and m ay disappear forever, so t hat t he person who has
experienced life at a very low level, i. e., chronic unem ploym ent , m ay
cont inue t o be sat isfied for t he rest of his life if only he can get enough
food.

( 4) The so- called 'psychopat hic personalit y' is anot her exam ple of
perm anent loss of t he love needs. These are people who, according t o

20

t he best dat a available ( 9) , have been st arved for love in t he earliest
m ont hs of t heir lives and have sim ply lost forever t he desire and t he
abilit y t o give and t o receive affect ion ( as anim als lose sucking or
pecking reflexes t hat are not exercised soon enough aft er birt h) .

( 5) Anot her cause of reversal of t he hierarchy is t hat when a need has
been sat isfied for a long t im e, t his need m ay be underevaluat ed.
People who have never experienced chronic hunger are apt t o
underest im at e

it s

effect s

and

to

look

upon

food

as

a

rat her

unim port ant t hing. I f t hey are dom inat ed by a higher need, t his higher
need will seem t o be t he m ost im port ant of all. I t t hen becom es
possible, and indeed does act ually happen, t hat t hey m ay, for t he sake
of t his higher need, put t hem selves int o t he posit ion of being deprived
in a m ore basic need. We m ay expect t hat aft er a long- t im e
deprivat ion of t he m ore basic need t here will be a t endency t o
reevaluat e bot h needs so t hat t he m ore pre- pot ent need will act ually
becom e consciously prepot ent for t he individual who m ay have given it
up very light ly. Thus, a m an who has given up his j ob rat her t han lose
his self- respect , and who t hen st arves for six m ont hs or so, m ay be
willing t o t ake his j ob back even at t he price of losing his a selfrespect .

( 6) Anot her part ial explanat ion of apparent reversals is seen in t he fact
t hat we have been t alking about t he hierarchy of prepot ency in t erm s
of consciously felt want s or desires rat her t han of behavior. Looking at
behavior it self m ay give us t he wrong im pression. What we have
claim ed is t hat t he person will want t he m ore basic of t w o needs when
deprived in bot h. There is no necessary im plicat ion here t hat he will

21

act

upon

his desires.

Let

us say

again

t hat

t here are m any

det erm inant s of behavior ot her t han t he needs and desires.

( 7) Perhaps m ore im port ant t han all t hese except ions are t he ones
t hat involve ideals, high social st andards, high values and t he like.
Wit h such values people becom e m art yrs; t hey give up everyt hing for
t he sake of a part icular ideal, or value. These people m ay be
underst ood, at least in part , by reference t o one basic concept ( or
hypot hesis)

which

m ay

be called 'increased frust rat ion- t olerance

t hrough early grat ificat ion'. People who have been sat isfied in t heir
basic needs t hroughout t heir lives, part icularly in t heir earlier years,
seem t o develop except ional power t o wit hst and present or fut ure
t hwart ing of t hese needs sim ply because t hey have st rong, healt hy
charact er st ruct ure as a result of basic sat isfact ion. They are t he
'st rong' people who can easily weat her disagreem ent or opposit ion,
who can swim against t he st ream of public opinion and who can st and
up for t he t rut h at great personal cost . I t is j ust t he ones who have
loved and been well loved, and who have had m any deep friendships
who can hold out against hat red, rej ect ion or persecut ion.

I say all t his in spit e of t he fact t hat t here is a cert ain am ount of sheer
habit uat ion which is also involved in any full discussion of frust rat ion
t olerance. For inst ance, it is likely t hat t hose persons who have been
accust om ed t o relat ive st arvat ion for a long t im e, are part ially enabled
t hereby t o wit hst and food deprivat ion. What sort of balance m ust be
m ade bet ween t hese t wo t endencies, of habit uat ion on t he one hand,
and of past sat isfact ion breeding present frust rat ion t olerance on t he
ot her hand, rem ains t o be worked out by furt her research. Meanwhile
we m ay assum e t hat t hey are bot h operat ive, side by side, since t hey

22

do not cont radict each ot her, in respect t o t his phenom enon of
increased frust rat ion t olerance, it seem s probable t hat t he m ost
im port ant grat ificat ions com e in t he first t wo years of life. That is t o
say, people who have been m ade secure and st rong in t he earliest
years, t end t o rem ain secure and st rong t hereaft er in t he face of
what ever t hreat ens.

D e gr e e of r e la t ive sa t isfa ct ion. - - So far, our t heoret ical discussion
m ay have given t he im pression t hat t hese five set s of needs are
som ehow in a st ep- wise, all- or- none relat ionships t o each ot her. We
have spoken in such t erm s as t he following: " I f one need is sat isfied,
t hen

anot her

em erges."

This

st at em ent

m ight

give

t he

false

im pression t hat a need m ust be sat isfied 100 per cent before t he next
need em erges. I n act ual fact , m ost m em bers of our societ y who are
norm al, are part ially sat isfied in all t heir basic needs and part ially
unsat isfied in all t heir basic needs at t he sam e t im e. A m ore realist ic
descript ion

of

t he

hierarchy

would

be

in

t erm s

of

decreasing

percent ages of sat isfact ion as we go up t he hierarchy of prepot ency,
For inst ance, if I m ay assign arbit rary figures for t he sake of
illust rat ion, it is as if t he average cit izen is sat isfied perhaps 85 per
cent in his physiological needs, 70 per cent in his safet y needs, 50 per
cent in his love needs, 40 per cent in his self- est eem needs, and 10
per cent in his self- act ualizat ion needs.

As for t he concept of em ergence of a new need aft er sat isfact ion of t he
prepot ent

need,

t his

em ergence

is

not

a

sudden,

salt at ory

phenom enon but rat her a gradual em ergence by slow degrees from
not hingness. For inst ance, if prepot ent need A is sat isfied only 10 per
cent : t hen need B m ay not be visible at all. However, as t his need A

23

becom es sat isfied 25 per cent , need B m ay em erge 5 per cent , as
need A becom es sat isfied 75 per cent need B m ay em erge go per cent ,
and so on.

Un con sciou s ch a r a ct e r of n e e ds. - - These needs are neit her
necessarily conscious nor unconscious. On t he whole, however, in t he
average

person,

t hey

are

m ore oft en

unconscious rat her

t han

conscious. I t is not necessary at t his point t o overhaul t he t rem endous
m ass

of

evidence

which

indicat es

t he

crucial

im port ance

of

unconscious m ot ivat ion. I t would by now be expect ed, on a priori
grounds alone, t hat unconscious m ot ivat ions would on t he whole be
rat her m ore im port ant t han t he conscious m ot ivat ions. What we have
called t he basic needs are very oft en largely unconscious alt hough
t hey m ay, wit h suit able t echniques, and wit h sophist icat ed people
becom e conscious.

Cu lt u r a l spe cificit y a nd ge n e r a lit y of n e e ds. - - This classificat ion
of basic needs m akes som e at t em pt t o t ake account of t he relat ive
unit y behind t he superficial differences in specific desires from one
cult ure t o anot her. Cert ainly in any part icular cult ure an individual's
conscious m ot ivat ional cont ent will usually be ext rem ely different from
t he conscious m ot ivat ional cont ent of an individual in anot her societ y.
However, it is t he com m on experience of ant hropologist s t hat people,
even in different societ ies, are m uch m ore alike t han we would t hink
from our first cont act wit h t hem , and t hat as we know t hem bet t er we
seem t o find m ore and m ore of t his com m onness, We t hen recognize
t he m ost st art ling differences t o be superficial rat her t han basic, e. g.,
differences in st yle of hair- dress, clot hes, t ast es in food, et c. Our
classificat ion of basic needs is in part an at t em pt t o account for t his

24

unit y behind t he apparent diversit y from cult ure t o cult ure. No claim is
m ade t hat it is ult im at e or universal for all cult ures. The claim is m ade
only t hat it is relat ively m ore ult im at e, m ore universal, m ore basic,
t han t he superficial conscious desires from cult ure t o cult ure, and
m akes a som ewhat closer approach t o com m on- hum an charact erist ics,
Basic needs are m ore com m on- hum an t han superficial desires or
behaviors.

M u lt iple

m ot iva t ion s

of

be h a vior .

--

These

needs

m ust

be

underst ood not t o be exclusive or single det erm iners of cert ain kinds
of behavior. An exam ple m ay be found in any behavior t hat seem s t o
be physiologically m ot ivat ed, such as eat ing, or sexual play or t he like.
The clinical psychologist s have long since found t hat any behavior m ay
be a channel t hrough which flow various det erm inant s. Or t o say it in
anot her way, m ost behavior is m ult i- m ot ivat ed. Wit hin t he sphere of
m ot ivat ional det erm inant s any behavior t ends t o be det erm ined by
several or all of t he basic needs sim ult aneously rat her t han by only
one of t hem . The lat t er would be m ore an except ion t han t he form er.
Eat ing m ay be part ially for t he sake of filling t he st om ach, and part ially
for t he sake of com fort and am eliorat ion of ot her needs. One m ay
m ake love not only for pure sexual release, but also t o convince one's
self of one's m asculinit y, or t o m ake a conquest , t o feel powerful, or t o
win m ore basic affect ion. As an illust rat ion, I m ay point out t hat it
would be possible ( t heoret ically if not pract ically) t o analyze a single
act of an individual and see in it t he expression of his physiological
needs, his safet y needs, his love needs, his est eem needs and selfact ualizat ion. This cont rast s sharply wit h t he m ore naive brand of t rait
psychology in which one t rait or one m ot ive account s for a cert ain kind

25

of

act ,

i.e.,

an

aggressive

act

is t raced

solely

to

a

t rait

of

behavior

is

aggressiveness.

M u lt iple

de t e r m in a n t s

of

be h a vior .

--

Not

all

det erm ined by t he basic needs. We m ight even say t hat not all
behavior is m ot ivat ed. There are m any det erm inant s of behavior ot her
t han

m ot ives.[ 9]

For

inst ance,

one

ot her

im port ant

class

of

det erm inant s is t he so- called 'field' det erm inant s. Theoret ically, at
least , behavior m ay be det erm ined com plet ely by t he field, or even by
specific isolat ed ext ernal st im uli, as in associat ion of ideas, or cert ain
condit ioned reflexes. I f in response t o t he st im ulus word 't able' I
im m ediat ely perceive a m em ory im age of a t able, t his response
cert ainly has not hing t o do wit h m y basic needs.

Secondly, we m ay call at t ent ion again t o t he concept of 'degree of
closeness t o t he basic needs' or 'degree of m ot ivat ion.' Som e behavior
is highly m ot ivat ed; ot her behavior is only weakly m ot ivat ed. Som e is
not m ot ivat ed at all ( but all behavior is det erm ined) .

Anot her im port ant point [ 10] is t hat t here is a basic difference
bet ween expressive behavior and coping behavior ( funct ional st riving,
purposive goal seeking) . An expressive behavior does not t ry t o do
anyt hing; it is sim ply a reflect ion of t he personalit y. A st upid m an
behaves st upidly, not because he want s t o, or t ries t o, or is m ot ivat ed
t o, but sim ply because he is what he is. The sam e is t rue when I speak
in a bass voice rat her t han t enor or soprano. The random m ovem ent s
of a healt hy child, t he sm ile on t he face of a happy m an even when he
is alone, t he springiness of t he healt hy m an's walk, and t he erect ness
of his carriage are ot her exam ples of expressive, non- funct ional

26

behavior. Also t he st yle in which a m an carries out alm ost all his
behavior, m ot ivat ed as well as unm ot ivat ed, is oft en expressive.

We m ay t hen ask, is all behavior expressive or reflect ive of t he
charact er st ruct ure? The answer is 'No.