Dr: Majde Ali Ayalawwad
Abstract:
Background:
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs theory, originally presented in his 1943 paper entitled “A Theory of Human Motivation,” remains one of the most recognized and influential theories in psychology and management. Essentially, Maslow’s (1943) theory suggests that human motivation is guided through a hierarchical progression of innate needs, from basic physiological needs to the top category, beyond physiological, called self-actualization. The goal of this study is to critically review Maslow’s research and support, providing insight into the key concepts of his theory, where his theory has grown historically, how it is still relevant more than 75 years after initially published, and some of the key criticisms and empirical research that has challenged it.
Methods:
This review investigates the historical and contemporary literature related to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. That body of literature includes Maslow’s writings, interpretations, and elaborations made by others, studies testing the theory, critiques from multiple psychological second and cross-cultural perspectives (including critiques related to and uses from very recent literature from 2015-present), and critical analyses of the status of motivation science modern-day as a whole. The review evaluates relevant aspects of the theory’s conceptual strengths and shortfalls, its use in applied settings such as management and education, and its standing as a motivational theory in contemporary motivational science.
Results:
The study describes five fundamental levels of Maslow’s hierarchy: Physiological needs (e.g., food, water, shelter), Safety needs (e.g., safety, security, stability, and order), Love and Belongingness needs (e.g., affection, relationships, group membership), Esteem needs (e.g., self-respect, achievement and recognition), and Self-Actualization needs (e.g., desire to become more self-aware, realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, peak experiences). Some limitations of the theory are presented including absences in the rigid hierarchy of needs, it is virtually impossible to empirically test self-actualization, and potential cultural biases. Contemporary interpretations of Maslow’s theory often eliminate hierarchical layers (level 1 through level 5) and suggest a more complex and overlapping intersectionality of needs.
Conclusion:
The research indicates that even though Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has faced considerable empirical and theoretical objections, it continues to provide an important framework for understanding human motivation and will continue to influence multiple disciplines. Its strength is its holistic consideration of human needs and the importance of growth and self-actualization. The limitations of Maslow’s theory, particularly its hierarchical and universalist assumptions, highlight the need for a more context-driven and nuanced application of his insights to our contemporary understanding of motivation. In the future, researchers should continue to explore the interrelated nature of human needs in diverse contexts of culture and situation.