Psychologyandcognitivesciencea.H.Maslowatheoryofhumanmotivation

A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION

A Theory of Human Motivation
By A. H. Maslow

Get any book for free on: www.Abika.com

Get any book for free on: www.Abika.com

1

2

A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION

Classics in the History of Psychology
An internet resource developed by
Christopher D. Green (http://www.yorku.ca/dept/psych/classics/author.htm)
York University, Toronto, Ontario
ISSN1492-3713

A Theory of Human Motivation
A. H. Maslow (1943)
Originally Published in Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Posted August 2000

[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 andcenter 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 asthe 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

Get any book for free on: www.Abika.com

A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION

simultaneously expressed or satisfied. Typically an act has more than one
motivation.
6. Practically all organismic states are to be understood asmotivated 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 dissatisfactionof 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. Motivationtheory 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 theorganism 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...