Maslow

Maslow, Psychologia - Różne, po angielsku

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
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 huma n-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 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]
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 research
make it necessary to revise our customary notions about these needs, first, the
development of the concept of homeostasis, and second, the finding that appetites
(preferential choices among foods) are a fairly efficient indication of actual needs or
lacks in the body.
Homeostasis refers to the body's automatic efforts to maintain a constant, normal state of
the blood stream. Cannon (2) has described this process for (1) the water content of the
blood, (2) salt content, (3) sugar content, (4) protein content, (5) fat content, (6) calcium
content, (7) oxygen content, (8) constant hydrogen-ion level (acid-base balance) and (9)
constant temperature of the blood. Obviously this list can be extended to include other
minerals, the hormones, vitamins, etc.
Young in a recent article (
21
) has summa rized the work on appetite in its relation to body
needs. If the body lacks some chemical, the individual will tend to develop a specific
appetite or partial hunger for that food element.
Thus it seems impossible as well as useless to make any list of fundamental physiological
needs for they can come to almost any number one might wish, depending on the degree
of specificity of description. We can not identify all physiological needs as homeostatic.
That sexual desire, sleepiness, sheer activity and maternal behavior in animals, are
homeostatic, has not yet been demonstrated. Furthermore, this list would not include the
various sensory pleasures (tastes, smells, tickling, stroking) which are probably
physiological and which may become the goals of motivated behavior.
In a previous paper (
13
) it has been pointed out that these physiological drives or needs
are to be considered unusual rather than typical because they are isolable, and because
they are localizable somatically. That is to say, they are relatively independent of each
other, of other motivations [p. 373] and of the organism as a whole, and secondly, in
many cases, it is possible to demonstrate a localized, underlying somatic base for the
drive. This is true less generally than has been thought (exceptions are fatigue, sleepiness,
maternal responses) but it is still true in the classic instances of hunger, sex, and thirst.
It should be pointed out again that any of the physiological needs and the consummatory
behavior involved with them serve as channels for all sorts of other needs as well. That is
A THEORY OF HUMAN MOTIVATION
5
to say, the person who thinks he is hungry may actually be seeking more for comfort, or
dependence, than for vitamins or proteins. Conversely, it is possible to satisfy the hunger
need in part by other activities such as drinking water or smoking cigarettes. In other
words, relatively isolable as these physiological needs are, they are not completely so.
Undoubtedly these physiological needs are the most pre-potent of all needs. What this
means specifically is, that in the human being who is missing everything in life in an
extreme fashion, it is most likely that the major motivation would be the physiological
needs rather than any others. A person who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem
would most probably hunger for food more strongly than for anything else.
If all the needs are unsatisfied, and the organism is then dominated by the physiological
needs, all other needs may become simply non-existent or be pushed into the background.
It is then fair to characterize the whole organism by saying simply that it is hungry, for
consciousness is almost completely preempted by hunger. All capacities are put into the
service of hunger-satisfaction, and the organization of these capacities is almost entirely
determined by the one purpose of satisfying hunger. The receptors and effectors, the
intelligence, memory, habits, all may now be defined simply as hunger-gratifying tools.
Capacities that are not useful for this purpose lie dormant, or are pushed into the
background. The urge to write poetry, the desire to acquire an automobile, the interest in
American history, the desire for a new pair of shoes are, in the extreme case, forgotten or
become of sec-[p.374]ondary importance. For the man who is extremely and dangerously
hungry, no other interests exist but food. He dreams food, he remembers food, he thinks
about food, he emotes only about food, he perceives only food and he wants only food.
The more subtle determinants that ordinarily fuse with the physiological drives in
organizing even feeding, drinking or sexual behavior, may now be so completely
overwhelmed as to allow us to speak at this time (but only at this time) of pure hunger
drive and behavior, with the one unqualified aim of relief.
Another peculiar characteristic of the human organism when it is dominated by a certain
need is that the whole philosophy of the future tends also to change. For our chronically
and extremely hungry man, Utopia can be defined very simply as a place where there is
plenty of food. He tends to think that, if only he is guaranteed food for the rest of his life,
he will be perfectly happy and will never want anything more. Life itself tends to be
defined in terms of eating. Anything else will be defined as unimportant. Freedom, love,
community feeling, respect, philosophy, may all be waved aside as fripperies which are
useless since they fail to fill the stomach. Such a man may fairly be said to live by bread
alone.
It cannot possibly be denied that such things are true but their
generality
can be denied.
Emergency conditions are, almost by definition, rare in the normally functioning peaceful
society. That this truism can be forgotten is due mainly to two reasons. First, rats have
few motivations other than physiological ones, and since so much of the research upon
motivation has been made with these animals, it is easy to carry the rat-picture over to the
human being. Secondly, it is too often not realized that culture itself is an adaptive tool,
one of whose main functions is to make the physiological emergencies come less and less
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

zanotowane.pl

doc.pisz.pl

pdf.pisz.pl

mement.xlx.pl