A Theory of Human Motivation
A. H. Maslow (1943)
Originally Published in Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Posted August 2000
I. INTRODUCTION
In a previous paper (13) various propositions were prented which would have to be included in any theory of human motivation that could lay claim to being definitive. The conclusions may be briefly summarized as follows:
1. The integrated wholeness of the organism must be one of the foundation stones of motivation theory.
2. The hunger drive (or any other physiological drive) was rejected as a centering point or model for a definitive theory of motivation. Any drive that is somatically bad and localizable was shown to be atypical rather than typical in human motivation.
3. Such a theory should stress and center itlf upon ultimate or basic goals rather than partial or superficial ones, upon ends rather than means to the ends. Such a stress would imply a more central place for unconscious than for conscious motivations.
4. There are usually available various cultural paths to the same goal. Therefore conscious, specific, local-cultural desires are not as fundamental in motivation theory as the more basic, unconscious goals.
5. Any motivated behavior, either preparatory or consummatory, must be understood to be a channel through which many basic needs may be simultaneously expresd or satisfied. Typically an act has more than one motivation.
6. Practically all organismic states are to be understood as motivated and as motivating.
7. Human needs arrange themlves in hierarchies of pre-potency. That is to say, the appearance of one need usually rests on the prior satisfaction of another, more pre-potent need. Man is a perpetually wanting animal. Also no need or drive can be treated as if it were isolated or discrete; every drive is related to the state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other drives.
8. Lists of drives will get us nowhere for various theoretical and practical reasons. Furthermore any classification of motivations must deal with the problem of levels of specificity or generalization the motives to be classified.
9. Classifications of motivations must be bad upon goals rather than upon instigating drives or motivated behavior.
10. Motivation theory should be human-centered rather than animal-centered.
11. The situation or the field in which the organism reacts must be taken into account but the field alone can rarely rve as an exclusive explanation for behavior. Furthermore the
field itlf must be interpreted in terms of the organism. Field theory cannot be a substitute for motivation theory.
12. Not only the integration of the organism must be taken into account, but also the possibility of isolated, specific, partial or gmental reactions. It has since become necessary to add to the another affirmation.
13. Motivation theory is not synonymous with behavior theory. The motivations are only one class of determinants of behavior. While behavior is almost always motivated, it is also almost always biologically, culturally and situationally determined as well.
The prent paper is an attempt to formulate a positive theory of motivation which will satisfy the theoretical demands and at the same time conform to the known facts, clinical and obrvational as well as experimental. It derives most directly, however, from clinical experience. This theory is, I think, in the functionalist tradition of James and Dewey, and is fud with the holism of Wertheimer (19), Goldstein (6), and Gestalt Psychology, and with the dynamicism of Freud (4) and Adler (1). This fusion or synthesis
may arbitrarily be called a 'general-dynamic' theory.
It is far easier to perceive and to criticize the aspects in motivation theory than to remedy them. Mostly this is becau of the very rious lack of sound data in this area. I conceive this lack of sound facts to be due primarily to the abnce of a valid theory of motivation. The prent theory then must be considered to be a suggested program or framework for future rearch and must stand or fall, not so much on facts available or evidence prented, as upon rearches to be done, rearches suggested perhaps, by the questions raid in this paper.[p. 372]
II. THE BASIC NEEDS
The 'physiological' needs. -- The needs that are usually taken as the starting point for motivation theory are the so-called physiological drives. Two recent lines of rearch make it necessary to revi our customary notions about the needs, first, the development of the concept of homeostasis, and cond, the finding that appetites (preferential choices among foods) are a fairly efficient indication of actual needs or lacks
in the body.
