Theory Of Human Motivation

A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION 1

A Theory of Human Motivation

By A. H. Maslow

A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION 2

A Theory of Human Motivation

A. H. Maslow (1943)

Originally Published in Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.

[p. 370] I. INTRODUCTION

In a previous paper (13) various propositions were presented which would have to be

included in any theory of human motivation that could lay claim to being definitive.

These 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 based and localizable was shown to be atypical rather

than typical in human motivation.

3. Such a theory should stress and center itself upon ultimate or basic

goals rather than partial or superficial ones, upon ends rather than means

to these 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

A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION 3

simultaneously expressed 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 themselves 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 [p. 371] must deal

with the problem of levels of specificity or generalization the motives to

be classified.

9. Classifications of motivations must be based upon goals rather than

upon instigating drives or motivated behavior.

10. Motivation theory should be human-centered rather than animalcentered.

11. The situation or the field in which the organism reacts must be taken

into account but the field alone can rarely serve as an exclusive

explanation for behavior. Furthermore the field itself 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 segmental reactions.

It has since become necessary to add to these 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 present paper is an attempt to formulate a positive theory of motivation which will

satisfy these theoretical demands and at the same time conform to the known facts,

clinical and observational 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 fused 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.

A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION 4

It is far easier to perceive and to criticize the aspects in motivation theory than to remedy

them. Mostly this is because of the very serious lack of sound data in this area. I conceive

this lack of sound facts to be due primarily to the absence of a valid theory of motivation.

The present theory then must be considered to be a suggested program or framework for

future research and must stand or fall, not so much on facts available or evidence

presented, as upon researches to be done, researches suggested perhaps, by the questions

raised in this paper.[p. 372]

...