Years ago, as an undergraduate student, I was taught about Abraham Maslow’s pyramid-shaped “hierarchy of needs.” I thought it was kinda neat. But I wasn’t a full-fledged critical thinker yet, so it didn’t dawn on me to question how Maslow knew that esteem was a higher need than love — indeed, that it was a basic need at all — and that self-actualization was the highest human need. Did Maslow conduct research? What cross-cultural data did he consult? Or was the pyramid idea the result of Maslow looking into the crystal ball of his creative intuition?
Because psychologists began to realize that Moslow’s model had all the weight of Styrofoam, it ceased being included in many general psychology texts. Including the one I last used in the classroom.
Recently I read of a renovation to Maslow’s pyramid by a team of psychologists and published in Perspectives on Psychological Sciences [source]. Allow me to present “before” and “after” images.
Before -
After -
The article announcing the re-build begins like this:
If you have ever felt that your children are your life’s work, then you may in fact be recognizing a high-level psychological need. Caring for your children, feeding them, nurturing them, educating them and making sure they get off on the right foot in life – all of the things that make parenting successful – may actually be deep rooted psychological urges that we fulfill as part of being human. [emphases added]
Hmmm. While I do prefer the newer version, I’m not sure about the whole pyramid design with higher and lower relationships. And I do wonder what data informed the revision.
The announcement ends with these words -
“The pyramid of needs is a wonderful idea of Maslow’s,” Kenrick said. “He just got some of it wrong. Now people are talking about it again, which will help us get it right.”
I was left with this question: perhaps the whole pyramid idea is off-base, and thus if we stick to it we will never “get it right.” Maybe a “snowflake/constellation of needs,” or something else, might provide a better foundation from which to build our understanding.
If you ask me, remodeling a one-time popular but bogus structure is not a good way to progress. Raze that pyramid and start anew.
August 31st, 2010 at 8:13 pm
The Perspectives pyramid strikes me as a masculine model or, perhaps, the hunter/gatherer model. Modern women can have and raise children without retaining a mate. And women will sacrifice a relationship (not without extreme provocation, however) if the mate endangers or severely neglects the children. And an increasing number of singles and couples are choosing childlessness. And there is so much life left after children leave the nest, although parenting adult children is an even higher order psychological event than is parenting minor children, in my opinion. So, like you, I have a ton of questions about the methodology behind the new model. Maybe a Decision Tree model…if this, then this?
By the way, my copy of The Naked Bible showed up in the mail today. Looking forward to it.
September 1st, 2010 at 6:45 am
Nance -
Having “parenting” as the highest need strikes me akin to a politician claiming we need to do x y or z “for the children.” A crowd-pleaser. Sure, there may be some truth to the primacy of parenting. Some. I imagine we animals of many cultures and forms of behavior have more general drives, however. And their “arrangement” is likely more dynamic/plastic than a basic geometric shape.
Enjoy the book! Thanks for buying.