Abstract
Kenrick et al.’s (2010) renovation of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has united strong findings
from different perspectives of psychology, into a solid theoretical contribution towards needs
theory. Although in doing so, they opened the discussion of the new hierarchy pertaining to most
mammals rather than uniquely humans. A case to capture unique human motivation was
discussed, without negating the advances of the evolutionary perspective on the topic, including
the needs for meaning, as well as a suggesting that uncertainty be considered as an intrinsic
motivational force in the same lines as the other needs in the hierarchy.
So why then do we do the things we do?
Perhaps the most widely known of the content theories of motivation is Abraham
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Uhl-Bien, Schermerhorn, & Osborn, 2014). Some of the appeal of
his theory is that it provides both a theory of human motives and a theory of motivation that
relates these needs to general behavior (Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). Like all content theories of
motivation, Maslow’s focuses primarily on individual needs, and identifies five levels or
dimensions. His concept of “hierarchy,” which contends that higher level needs, like esteem and
social needs, do not become more important until lower level needs, such as physiological and
safety needs, are satisfied, has received mixed support (Hall & Nougaim, 1968; Lawler & Suttle,
1972). In effect, whereas some propositions have been rejected completely, others have received
mixed and questionable support at best. Furthermore, factor analyses have not shown these five
dimensions of needs to be independent nor separable (Wahba & Bridyvell, 1976). Some of the
reasons for the mixed results have been explained by Maslow’s chosen research methodology,
his humanistic approach to psychology as well as formulating his theoretical framework from his
clinical practice.
Despite the lack of consistent evidence, Maslow’s model has continued to generate ideas
and research on the field of psychology, including social psychology, developmental psychology,
personality, and organizational behavior. In addition, his hierarchy of needs is widely cited in
textbooks and there have been numerous attempts to reorganize, and improve upon his works.
Most notably, Alderfer’s ERG theory (1969), in such attempt to modify and improve the model,
adopted a three-level classification system and abandoned the hierarchical rigidity of his
predecessor’s. However, even if it dealt with many of the deficiencies of Maslow’s model, it has
generated very little empirical review as a needs theory (Dipboye, Smith & Howell, 2013).
More recently, however, Kenrick et al. (2010) have used recent findings from other
disciplines, particularly evolutionary psychology, to restructure Maslow’s theory in mainly three
ways: at the evolutionary functional level; at the developmental level; and at the proximate
inputs level. First, at the functional level of analysis, the researchers found many of Maslow
ideas had good support. At the same time, they suggested that theory was faulty in grouping
functionally distinct needs into single, broad dimensions. They contended that mating-related
needs were better placed separately than in broader categories, and in doing so, they replaced
self-actualization from the top of the hierarchy. Next, at the developmental level, the three new
reproduction-focused goals of mate acquisition, mate retention and parental care, were expected
to develop later in life, while other motivational systems or motives operating alongside. Finally,
in terms of proximate inputs, Kenrick and colleagues concluded that the renovated pyramid must
have flexibility, due to conclusive findings on goal activation (Kenrick et al., 2010).
In essence, by basing human needs on solid empirical foundation of evolutionary
psychology, and having united different levels of analyses by showing they complement rather
than compete with each other, Kenrick et al. made a strong theoretical collaboration to needs
theory. However, like Kesebir, Graham, and Oishi (2010), have pointed out, the new framework
is no longer anthropocentric but animalcentric in nature (Kesebir, Graham & Oishi, 2010). They
argued that Maslow purposely intended to deviate from the earlier empirically sound theories
that focused on hunger and sex drives, like McDougall’s (1921) instinct theory, in that they
failed to capture part of the human motivation. In that sense, a case needs to be made on what
makes for a human centered needs theory.
A man’s search for meaning
Motivation has been described by psychologists in terms of behavioral characteristics. It
has been explained in terms of acting forces within the individual that account for a certain
direction, level and persistence of effort (Uhl-Bien, Schermerhorn, & Osborn, 2014). In his time,
Maslow gave an explanation of what some of these forces, or motives, could be in order to
understand behavior, but unlike others before him, excluding Murray (1938), he tried to capture
what was really human about human beings. As such, he included and postulated the growth
need of self-actualization as an uniquely human characteristic.
One could argue that theories of self-actualization, including Maslow’s, may suffer from
vagueness, looseness in concept, language and lack of evidence (Cofer and Apply, 1964). At the
same time, recent research has revealed the need for meaning to be a possible candidate for the
ultimate human need (Baumeister, 1991). In his empirically driven thesis, Baumeister (1991)
makes a case in what makes a meaningful life: having a purpose, having feelings of efficacy,
viewing one’s actions as having value and feeling like one has positive-self-worth. In addition,
having meaning in life has been shown as a significant predictor of happiness, while loss of
meaning has been linked to depression and suicide (Kesebir, Grham, Oishi, 2010). Furthermore,
meaning could be found in almost any endeavor, not just adaptive systems such as mating or
relationships but in occupation, leisure activities or in serving the community.
It is possible that neither self-actualization nor meaning belong at the top of the
hierarchy of needs proposed by Maslow, Kenrick et al, or Alderfer. Rather, they account for
intrinsic forces that are not more important or less important than the others, but optional. In the
same manner human beings can be impulsive and driven by instincts, human beings can also be
driven to contribute beyond themselves even if there is no apparent extrinsic reward for their
behavior. Such consideration, in which the needs for meaning are optional, and thus, not present
in a hierarchy, makes a more compelling humanistic approach while not dismissing the multidisciplinary advances in needs theory. It is also a more flexible framework, allowing for culture
variation that was not present on previous models.
It is still interesting to note, however, that even Maslow began to doubt self-actualization
at the top of the hierarchy. According to Koltko-Rivera (2006), Maslow began to doubt its place
when he witnessed peak performance experiences in his patients. Though, he never got to
publish the hierarchy revision he made in 1969, he made a case that even for those, who he
considered healthy, self-actualized individuals, were motivated by something else, selftranscendence.
Maslow here noted that some individuals have gone beyond even self-actualization as a salient motivation.
Such individuals arrive at the top of Maslow's new hierarchy of motivation with a strong motive toward
self-transcendence. That is, such individuals seek a benefit beyond the purely personal and seek communion
with the transcendent, perhaps through mystical or transpersonal experiences; they come to identify with
something greater than the purely individual self, often engaging in service to others (Koltko-Rivera, 2006).
In this context, motives for self-transcendence and self-actualization, could be interpreted
as the need to grow with the purpose of contributing beyond one self, from which meaning in life
could possibly be extracted from, given that all four factors in Baumeister’s model are met, for
example. Such concept could conceivably be more in line with the human condition than other
models. As strong as the multi-level theoretical collaboration from Kenrick et al. is, the
explanation can hardly capture the intrinsic qualities of human, not mammal, nature.
A special case: the possibility of a need for uncertainty
In his book, The Open and The Closed Mind (1960), Rokeach showed an impressive
amount of studies that showcased differences in several domains- such as perception, religious
dogma, problem solving- between open-minded people and the closed-minded. (4) The book
described the open-minded as individuals with cognitive belief systems oriented towards new
beliefs and information, whereas the closed-minded had belief systems that favored familiar or
predictable information. Similarly, other studies have also indicated that outcome uncertainty in
games led to greater enjoyment, moderated by self-efficacy and suspense.
In similar fashion, as Smith, James, Varnum & Oyserman (2014) noted, college students
are faced with an increasingly uncertain world, in which finding a good, fulfilling and
meaningful job after they graduate, becomes more difficult each year. In spite of such
uncertainty, college enrollment has not diminished. (Snyder & Dillow). In their study, they
found a motivating aspect of uncertainty- in that, not knowing exactly what will happen can
make a more valued outcome. Students that experienced more uncertainty about their
environment, spent less hours playing games and putting in better effort, when it was coupled
with self-belief that they could accomplish their goals. Based on these and similar findings, can
uncertainty be an intrinsic universal need in the same lines as safety or status? And if so, where
would it fit in the Maslow’s pyramid of needs?
Although a more extensive research focus is warranted, a possible answer to these
questions may be found in the proximity level of analysis in Kenrick et al. presented. In their
argument for required theoretical flexibility regarding which motivational system is active at any
given time, they discussed an assessment of trade-offs. In essence, the activation of particular
motivation system, like a self-protection or safety goal in avoiding threatening situations, may
entail a specific behavioral benefit as well as potential costs, as in halting consumption of caloric
resources. Such system, they insist, is likely to become active as particular cues from the
environment are present, (Kenrick et al., 2010). Thus, in contrast to self-protection, if a need for
uncertainty were to exist, it could provide benefits in terms of stimulation, and potential costs in
terms of exposing one-self to threatening situations. As a consequence of this apparent
relationship to safety needs, uncertainty could be placed along the lower needs of the pyramid,
rather than grouped with higher, growth needs of the hierarchy.
Conclusion
Uniquely human needs, like self-actualization, or the need for meaning, do not
necessarily contradict findings in the field of an evolutionary perspective in psychology. In
addition, meaning in life has been found as a significant predictor of happiness, and it is possible
that it does not have to be more important or less important than the rest of needs in the
hierarchy, but rather, it could be an uniquely human drive related to fulfillment. Even Maslow
found there could be other motivations after self-actualization was achieved, thus contesting its
place of importance.
Furthermore, studies related to uncertainty as a motivational factor were mentioned in
order to bring light to the possibility of inclusion in the hierarchy of needs. Some studies found
that uncertainty, coupled with self-efficacy, could have a high degree of motivational value. If in
fact, uncertainty needs could be categorized and supported, it would probably fall within the
lower levels of the hierarchy. With the enduring and universally known Maslow’s framework of
needs, future research should explore different exclusive human motives in order to capture what
makes us do what we do.
Works Cited
Cofer, C. N., & Appley, M. H. (1964). Motivation: theory and research. New York: Wiley
Dipboye, R. L., Smith, Carlla S. & Howell, William C. (2013). The Science and Application of Work and
Organizational Psychology. Online textbook.
Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. E. (1968). An examination of Maslow’s need hierarchy in an
organizational setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 12-35.
Kenrick, D.T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S.L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs:
Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 292–
314.
Kesebir, S., Graham, J. & Oishi, S. (2010). A theory of human needs should be human-centered, not
animal-centered: Commentary on Kenrick et al. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 5, 315-319.
Lawler, E. E. III, & Suttle, J. L. (1972). A causal Correlational test of the need hierarchy concept.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 265-287.
Uhl-Bien, M., Schermerhorn, J., & Osborn, R. (2014). Organizational Behavior. 13th ed. New York: Wiley.
Wahba, M. A., & Birdwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the
need hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 212-240.