Maslow (1908 - 1970) Hierarchy of needs. 5 or 7 levels? Useful or useless?
Abraham Maslow, the American
psychologist, claimed that living beings prioritise needs. In his paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, published in
1943, he took a rather simplistic view of developmental psychology based on an
examination of successful people. The hierarchical theory was fully realised in his 1954 book
Motivation and personality where he
stripped learning and training back to a hierarchy of basic human
needs and desires, in an attempt to understand what motivates people to learn.
Hierarchy of needs
Hierarchy of needs
He
created a hierarchy of needs, with five layers:
Deficit or D-needs
The
first four are all ‘deficit’ or ‘D-needs’. If they are not present, you’ll feel
their absence and yearn for them. When each is satisfied you reach a state of
homeostasis where the yearning stops. All of these are survival needs and
mostly genetic.
Self-actualisation
The
last, self-actualisation, does not involve homeostasis, but once felt is always
there. Maslow saw this as applying to a tiny number of people, whose basic four
levels are satisfied leaving them free to look beyond their deficit needs. He
used a qualitative technique called ‘biographical analysis’ where he looked at
high achievers and found that they enjoyed solitude, close relationships with a
few rather than many, autonomy and resist social norms. Spontaneity, simplicity
and respect for others were other characteristics.
Changed from 5
to 7 levels of needs
What is rarely known is that Maslow in 1970 changed his
original model, developed in the 1950s, from 5 to 7 levels of needs. He added
'Know and Understand' and 'Aesthetic'. This upgraded model was largely ignored,
as the earlier model had become so embedded in teacher and trainer training
courses.
Criticism
Although hugely influential, his work was
never tested experimentally and his ‘biographical analysis’ was armchair
research. The self-actualisation theory is now regarded as of no real
relevance. Another problem is his slapdash use of evidence. Self-actualised
people are selected by him then used as evidence for self-actualisation. As
there is no control group, this is simply circular. An even weaker aspect of
the theory is its strict hierarchy. It is not at all clear that the higher
needs cannot be fulfilled until the lower needs are satisfied. There are many
counter-examples and indeed, creativity can atrophy and die on the back of
success. In short, subsequent research has
shown that his hierarchy is crude, as needs are pursued non-hierarchically, often in parallel.
His hierarchy is often hauled
into teacher training programmes, without any real understanding of why and
whether the theory is indeed correct beyond some simple truisms. Indeed, apart
from being fossilised as a component in bad teacher-training and train the
trainer courses it is hard to see how it has any real relevance to what
teachers, trainers, lecturers or instructors actually do when they teach.
Conclusion
Maslow has been almost omnipresent in
education and training. However, it is not clear that his theory has had any
real effect in real education and training. This is an entry from Maslow's own
journal in 1962, 'My motivation theory was published 20 years ago, & in
all that time nobody repeated it, or tested it, or really analyzed it or
criticized it. They just used it, swallowed it whole with only the most minor
modifications'. He was right. It
isn’t a hierarchy, wasn’t tested and as
a theory of human nature it is simplistic and banal. It seems to live on,
perhaps because of the colourful triangle that looks great as a PowerPoint
slide!
Bibliography
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation
and personality. New York: Harper.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther
reaches of human nature. New York: The Viking Press.
Maslow, A., & Lowery, R.
(Ed.). (1998). Toward a psychology of being (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley
& Sons.
Wahba, A;
Bridgewell, L (1976). "Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the
need hierarchy theory". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(15): 212–240.




4 Comments:
I think perhaps Maslow's greatest contribution was rather than looking at psychology as strictly the study of the mentally ill, his theory was based upon healthy persons. And being one of the first humanistic ones, it has its share of flaws.
I have always looked at his needs theory as a good rule of thumb - it generally works but breaks down in the details. Sort of like Newton's law of physics that fell apart once we were able to drill down to the atomic level.
In addition, the pyramid was added by others, see the first comment in "What Maslow Missed" - http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/03/29/what-maslow-missed/
Got to say, though: that first description of the 'self-actualisation' crew sounds scarily familiar...
Maslow’s deficiency needs (which happen to correlate perfectly with the dopamine-induced survival needs we share with chimpanzees) are extremely useful.
In fact, they can be used to demonstrate why you took the time to add this post to your blog. I.e. to trigger dopamine by attempting to win peer approval and/or elevate your esteem.
Charles
Now that's about as stupid a causal argument as I've heard in a long time. I've added your post to show how easily reductionists can be duped into thinking they understand human nature because they know the name of a hormone. I don't need a simplistic coloured pyramid, nor peer approval from someone obsessed by a noun, to win peer approval.
Post a Comment
<< Home