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 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 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.