Is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs a Valid Model of Motivation? a Valid Model of Motivation? For Assignment or Dissertation Help, Please Contact: Muhammad Sajid Saeed +44 141 4161015 Email: [email protected]m Skype ID: tosajidsaeed 0
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs a ValidIs Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs a Valid Model of Motivation?Model of Motivation?
For Assignment or Dissertation Help, Please Contact:
constructed an economic model of consumer behavior by using Maslow's hierarchy of needs
theory. This model is designed to track consumers' expenditure patterns as the satisfaction of
their needs progresses.
Maslow's theory has shaped marketing research and consumer research theory and practice
associated with consumer motivation (Pincus, 2004). One of the key insights of Maslow's theory
is that satisfied needs do not motivate. Therefore, by focusing on the similarity of unmet needs,
the need-based segmentation approach opens up more opportunities in marketing and brand
management.
3.2 Maslow's theory in Psychotherapy
Maslow's theory has tremendous impact in the field of psychotherapy. Before Maslow,
psychology was mainly dominated by Freud's psychoanalysis and Skinner's behaviorism.
7
Psychology used to be concerned with abnormalities of mental health. It can be generalized that
counseling clients used to be treated like animals by psychoanalysts, and like machines by
behaviorists, but Maslow wanted to treat people like people. He was more concerned with the
positive constitution of mental health and human potentials. Maslow (1954:180) commented
that: “it becomes more and more clear that the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and
unhealthy specimens can yield only a crippled psychology and a crippled philosophy.” With
Maslow's theory being the foundation, counselors take the approach of assessing an individual's
needs from a positive viewpoint, helping the client to remove obstacles and eventually regain the
path toward self-actualization. Thus, it enables the client to move toward a healthier
psychological state.
What is more interesting is that Maslow even advocated the use of psychotherapy to achieve
self-actualization (Lowry, 1979:459). Self-reflection counseling creates opportunities for
organizational learning. It benefits an organization in a way that leads people in organization to
share their experiences, beliefs about work and gain their valuable insights to the organization
(Chiaramonte & Mills, 1993). There has been great interest in applying psychotherapy to
organizations since Maslow (Kets de Vries, 1978).
3.4 Maslow's theory in healthcare industry
In medical settings, Maslow's theory provides a set of theoretical guidelines for understanding
the concerns of people suffering from physical illness, disabilities, or other life problems. This
useful framework has been incorporated into the healthcare industry. One important approach to
nursing theory is the “need” approach, which is developed based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs
theory (Meleis, 1991). Maslow's theory is helpful for care providers to see the “big picture” of a
given patient's situation. By being able to identify what the patient's needs are, caregivers can
better assist the patient meet his or her physiological and psychological needs.
Maslow's theory has also been adopted to support health care strategy (Bardwell, 2004). One of
the strategies involves the changes of healthcare facilities. It is stated that the bottom levels of
hierarchy of needs are associated with creating a comfortable and secure environment for patient
care and the upper levels of the hierarchy of needs is related to achieving maximum potential for 8
facilitating staff performance and job satisfaction through design or adaptation of the physical
environment.
3.5 Maslow's theory in social science
In social science, research has been done to extend Maslow's theory which addresses the
motivations of the individual to that of groups of people (Laas, 2006). Laas (2006) pointed out
that people in a community, culture or a nation experiencing similar environmental and cultural
conditions might collectively experience need fulfillment or frustration. Thus, a collective action
may be taken by this group of people to respond to their collective need situation. The
researcher gave examples of democratic uprising in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and
China. In the above countries where the democratic uprising took place, people have
experienced basic need fulfillment. Their love and belongingness needs are also relatively
fulfilled in the company of each other. The younger generation demonstrates healthier levels of
self-esteem. The researcher noted that participants of the democratic uprisings placed a greater
value on a higher need (self-actualization), at least temporarily, because the need was continually
being frustrated”. Therefore, this study concludes that pursuit and gratification of higher needs
can have desirable civic and social consequences (Laas, 2006).
Shermer (2004) developed a “bio-cultural evolutionary pyramid” to explain the origins and
evolution of morality, in which Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been used as a theoretical base
of human needs.
Quality-of-life theory, developed on the basis of Maslow's theory, postulates that the greater the
hierarchical level of need satisfaction is, the greater the quality-of-life that society will have. It
addresses the measure of quality of life and the optimality of institutional structures (Sirgy,
1986).
9
4. Theories derived from Maslow
4.1 Motivation-Hygiene Theory
The Motivation-Hygiene Theory developed by Frederick Herzberg has been used as an
alternative to Maslow’s Theory for studying job satisfaction. He concluded that job satisfaction
and dissatisfaction must be separated into two different continua and are determined by two
different sets of factors. Factors found to affect job satisfaction (recognition, achievement, work
itself, advancement, and responsibility) are called “motivation factors.” Factors found to affect
job dissatisfaction (salary, company policies, technical competence, interpersonal relations and
working conditions) called “hygiene factors” are related to the environment of the job (Brenner,
Carmack, & Weinstein, 1971).
4.2 Wilber
Ken Wilber’s theory is very similar to Maslow’s. Instead of a one-way linear trend of ascent
from lower to higher levels, his theory acknowledges an ascent as well as a descent. Ascent is
about rising to what we are capable of which Maslow termed self-actualization and descent is
about using the insight gained as a new way of life. If this theory is applied to Maslow’s levels,
we find an interesting new slant on deficiency and abundance motivation (Rowan, 1999).
One of Maslow’s ideas was that our motivation was deficiency oriented, being about the
satisfaction of needs, but that some of our motivation was abundance oriented, going beyond
needs altogether. Rowan states that values are of two kinds – deficiency or abundance, which
leads to two kinds of motivation.
If we apply Wilber’s theory we see that self-actualization is not the end of the experience. A
person may develop beyond the level of needing to get esteem from other people, but then enter
a new organization and may have to go back to that level for a while, until we have learned the
ropes again. Rowan suggests that when we go back to an earlier level, though, we do not enter it
in the same way in which we entered it before. We come in from the top instead of the bottom
and instead of ascent we now experience descent (Rowan, 1999).
10
5. Empirical Studies on Maslow's theory
5.1 Studies that show some support for Maslow’s Hierarchy
Maslow’s theory has proven appealing and has been widely adopted. This may be due to its
simplicity, rationality, and applicability to behavior (Porat, 1977). One of the criticisms of his
theory is that most applications of the needs hierarchy have been normative rather than empirical
(Chung, 1969). This has led to several empirical studies that attempted to scientifically test the
validity of the theory.
5.1.1 Porter
Porter attempted to operationalize Maslow’s model by setting out “autonomy” as a separate need
as opposed to Maslow who subsumed this need under self-actualization, and to test the concept
by comparing individuals at various levels in the organizational hierarchy (Gibson & Teasley,
1973). Porter used a questionnaire to measure the need categories (Lyon, Ivancevich, &
Donnelly, 1971). He suggested that the needs can be classified as security, social, esteem,
autonomy, and self-actualization. Porter’s security and social categories are similar to the safety
and affection classifications of Maslow. His findings were mixed, with the only substantial
evidence suggesting that concern for Maslow’s higher needs was inversely related to the
manger’s position in the organization. Lower-ranking mangers exhibited greater concern over
these needs than did top-level managers (Gibson & Teasley, 1973).
Porter and Mitchell later expanded the research and included military personnel. The results
showed personnel were generally less satisfied at each rank than were their counterparts in
business. However, their research found that the relationship between hierarchial position and
need satisfaction in Porter’s earlier study existed as well in the military sample (Gibson &
Teasley, 1973).
5.1.2 Alderfer
Alderfer developed a comparable hierarchy with his ERG (existence, relatedness, growth)
theory. His theory modified Maslow’s by suggesting a revision consisting of three hierarchial
11
needs instead of the original five (Porat, 1977). ERG theory also does not arrange needs in a
strictly ordered hierarchy and includes satisfying higher needs with lower-level desires or
behavior (Gibson & Teasley, 1973).
Alderfer tested Maslow’s hierarchy of needs against ERG theory. He found the ERG model to be
more accurate than the hierarchy of needs model. The data did not support Maslow’s frustration
hypothesis, i.e., a satisfied need is not a motivator, nor his ordered hierarchy (Gibson & Teasley,
1973). However, it must be noted that Alderfer was testing against his own theory so there is
definitely bias.
Based on this limited amount of research, there seems to be little empirical justification for
adopting it to explain organizational behavior (Gibson & Teasley, 1973). However, the various
measures previously used to test Maslow’s theory, such as the Need Satisfaction Questionnaire
and the Existence, Relatedness, and Growth (ERG) hierarchy, have limitations such as a lack of
comprehensiveness or absence of adequate validation (Reiss & Havercamp, 2005). An
instrument that is well suited for testing Maslow’s theory was developed by Reiss and
Havercamp (2005).
5.1.3 Reiss and Havercamp
The Reiss Profile of Fundamental Goals and Motivational Sensitivities is a comprehensive
standardized measure of motivation. It is a 120-item self-report instrument that is scored into the
15 empirically derived motives listed in the table below. Reiss and Havercamp combined data
from previous studies with the Reiss Profile to take a look at the question of how motivation
varies, if at all, during the adult years. They expected to show that lower motives are stronger in
younger than older adults, whereas the reverse would hold true for higher motives (Reiss &
Havercamp, 2005).
12
Table 1: Definitions of 15 Motives Assessed by the Reiss Profile
Motive Definition
Independence
Power
Honor
Family
Vengeance
Order
Romance
Idealism
Status
Acceptance
Social Contact
Tranquility
Eating
Curiosity
Exercise
The desire for self-reliance/individuation (joy of freedom).
The desire for influence (joy of efficacy).
The desire for moral character (joy of loyalty).
The desire to spend time with one’s family (joy of love).
The desire to get even (joy of vindication).
The desire to organize (joy of stability).
The desire for sex (joy of lust).
The desire to improve society (joy of compassion).
The desire for respect based on high birth, wealth, or fame (joy of
self-importance/superior social standing).
The desire for approval (joy of self-confidence).
The desire to socialize (joy of having fun).
The desire to be safe (joy of relaxation).
The desire for food (joy of satiation).
The desire for knowledge (joy of wonder).
The desire for physical strength (joy of fitness).
Reiss and Havercamp recruited 1,749 people to participate in the study. They were from 29
different places throughout the United States and Ontario. The participants rated how important a
particular motive was to their life (Reiss & Havercamp, 2005).
The results showed that higher motives were stronger in older versus younger adults. These
results are consistent with Maslow’s prediction that maturity is associated with declining interest
in lower motives (Reiss & Havercamp, 2005).
The Reiss Profile can potentially be used to explore Maslow’s most basic ideas with the same
13
degree of rigor of scientific analysis as exists in many other areas of psychological research
(Reiss & Havercamp, 2005).
5.1.4 Ghiselli and Johnson
Ghiselli and Johnson (1970) at the University of California, Berkeley, developed a questionnaire
designed to measure need satisfaction based upon Maslow’s 5 need dimensions. They reasoned
that the structure of an organization might affect the degree of relationship between the extent to
which mangers’ needs are satisfied by their jobs and the extent to which they achieve success in
them. They were interested in the structure that Worthy termed flat versus tall. A flat
organization is one with few levels of management, whereas a tall organization is one with many
levels (Ghiselli & Johnson, 1970).
Ghiselli hypothesized that in flat organizations superior managers are more likely to rise in
higher positions than they are in tall organizations. This suggests that there might be a better
differentiation of superior and inferior mangers in flat organizations (Ghiselli & Johnson, 1970).
They carried out an investigation to examine this hypothesis.
The questionnaire Ghiselli and Johnson used to measure need satisfaction was a slightly
shortened version of that developed by Porter, following the notions of Maslow. It provided
indices of the degree of satisfaction for the need for security, social needs, the need for esteem,
the need for autonomy, and the need for self-actualization (Ghiselli & Johnson, 1970).
It was administered to 413 managers in a wide variety of business and industrial establishments.
Results indicated that for managers in tall organizations there was little relationship between the
degree of need satisfaction and success for all five needs, while in flat organizations, a positive
relationship existed for the higher order needs. In flat organizations, the relationship between
satisfaction and success is negligible for lower order needs, but the relationship grew stronger
with higher order needs (Ghiselli & Johnson, 1970).
The findings of this study support the hypothesis Ghiselli advanced earlier and provide some
confirmation that Worthy’s position that flat organizations are superior to tall ones in
14
encouraging individuality. The satisfaction of those needs which are of an individualistic sort,
the need for autonomy and self-actualization, are more highly related to managerial success in
flat than in tall organizations, whereas those needs which pertain to protection and reassurance,
such as the need for security, are no more related to the success of mangers in the one or the
other type of organization (Ghiselli & Johnson, 1970).
5.1.5 Guttman Scale Test
Another test developed for Maslow’s theory is the Guttman Scale Test. It tests the order of needs
suggested by Maslow. The scale was developed in Israel by testing managers and professionals
employed in an industrial organization who responded to a Porter type questionnaire. The job
context was defined as the universe; then 10 items of this universe were categorized into five
needs. Next, responses were recoded and dichotomized. The Guttman scale tested Maslow’s
theory and provided that the needs are scalable, regarding the universe of the job context. The
scale does offer evidence that some kind of hierarchy exists. However, it is concerned with only
one aspect of the theory, the order (Porat, 1977).
5.2 Studies that did not support Maslow’s Theory
Hall and Nougian tested Maslow’s theory in a five-year longitudinal study of management
trainees at AT&T. They tested Maslow’s hypothesis that the strength of any particular need
would be correlated with the satisfaction of a lower-level need, since a satisfied need would no
longer be a motivator. This was tested both statically and longitudinally over the five-year
period. The results were contrary to Maslow’s hypothesis. They showed that the strength of a
particular need had its highest correlation with the satisfaction of the very same need (with the
exception of affiliation). “Thus, while individuals might differ with regard to the strength of a
particular need, a relatively high level of satisfaction of that need did not exclude it as a
motivator as had been hypothesized (Gibson & Teasley, 1973)”.
15
6. Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory across cultures
Besides the seeming lack of empirical support, Maslow's theory has also been criticized for
ignoring the sociological context. As a matter of fact, Maslow did not ignore the fact that human
beings are influenced and shaped to a great extent by their particular cultures. He, himself
acknowledged (1968, P.4), “... inner nature is not strong and overpowering and unmistakable like
the instincts of animals. It is weak and delicate and subtle and easily overcome by habit, cultural
pressure, and wrong attitudes toward it.” Research results on the utility and applicability of
Maslow's theory in cross cultural settings are not conclusive.
Some argue that Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory is restricted by national and cultural
boundaries, since the theory was developed in U.S., an individualist culture, and was reflective
of a mainly male-oriented view of human behavior (Hofstede, 1983. Nevis, 1983. Cullen, 1997).
Raymond (2003) speculated that the application of Maslow's theory is problematic outside of the
setting of the United States. Sanford (1970) compared need importance and satisfaction in the
Untied States and Latin American countries. He found Latin American workers appear to regard
their dignity and worth, or assumed esteem needs, as the highest level of need. Several other
empirical studies also show cultural influence on ranking the order of need satisfaction and
importance among managerial personnel across different cultures and nations (Topichak &
Kuhn, 1971. Al-Meer, 1996. Blunt & Jones, 1986).
Nevis (1983) developed a Chinese version of hierarchy of needs. The pattern shows
belongingness being the lowest order need and eliminated the self-esteem need. However, this
pattern is developed based on the Chinese cultural background during Mao's age. He reasoned
that “in Mao's China, it was paramount to accept basic social goals imposed as a result of the
Cultural Revolution. Only upon accepting basic social goals and behaving as a good citizen
could one then share in welfare provided in Chinese society to satisfy physiological needs”
(Nevis, 1983. p 85). Apparently, this conclusion has totally ignored tremendous social and
cultural changes in China since the country opened up in the early 80s. With more foreign
companies entering the Chinese market, the transcending of western culture and the different
stages of economic development in China, the perception of needs among Chinese people is
16
surely not the same as it was decades ago. Therefore, Nevis' version of “Chinese hierarchy of
needs” is not logically convincing enough to disprove Maslow's theory.
Raymond's study (2003) of Korean culture shows Korean “blue collar” workers ' needs pattern as
belongingness, esteem, basic (physiological), safety, and self-actualization in an ascending order.
Nevertheless, the study also postulates other infra-cultural factors may also attribute to possible
variations of the above hierarchical orders.
Another cross cultural study found some support of the existence of Maslow's hierarchical
relationship in needs. From a study of 69 South African mine workers, Barling (1976) identified
the existence of Maslow's hierarchical relationship in the lower order needs.
In general, cross-cultural studies demonstrate similar human needs. Different rank ordering and
definitions of needs do not completely invalidate Maslow's motivation model in more
collectively oriented cultures. Maslow's theory can be modified to better reflect people's
attitudes and values from different cultures.
7. Summary and Conclusion
Our findings are that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a valid model, but some modification might
be warranted. It is a simple but powerful concept concerned with understanding, developing and
utilizing human potential. Even though it is not a one- size-fits-all model, it still can be very
effectively used, with appropriate interpretation and thought, for stimulating learning, growth
and development in individuals, working teams, organizations and society. It should not be
generalized across fields or cultures. Over-simplified or rigid application of Maslow's theory is
not recommended.
Maslow’s theory focuses on motivation and values as driving forces in human behavior and can
be used to influence motivation, keeping in mind, that some people are exceptions to his
hierarchy.
17
References
Al-Meer, A.R. 1996. A comparison of the Need Importance Structure Between Saudis and Westerners. Journal of Management Development, Vol. 15, 5:56-64
Bardwell, P.L. 2004. A Challenging Road Toward a Rewarding Destination. Frontiers of Health Services Management, Vol. 21, 1:27.
Barling, J.I. 1976. An Empirical Test of the Career Stages Alternative to Maslow's Need Hierarchy Concept in One Industrial Setting. South African Journal of Psychology. 6.
Benson, S.G. & Dundis, S. P. 2003. Understanding and Motivating Health Care Employees: Integrating Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Training and Technology. Journal of nursing management, 11:315-320.
Black, F & William, R. 1971, Psychology at Work. Great Britain: Penguin books.
Blunt P & Jones M. 1986. Managerial Motivation in Kenya and Malawi: a Cross - cultural Comparison. The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 42, 1:165-175.
Brenner, Vincent C., Carmack, Claude W., and Weinstein, Mark G., An Empirical Test of the Motivation-Hygiene Theory. Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 9, 2:359-366.
Chiaramonte, P. and Mills, A. J. 1993. Counseling Self Reflection as an Instrument in Organizational Learning. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, Vol. 21, 2:145-155.
Chung, Kae H., Northern Illinois University, 1969. A Markov Chain Model of Human Needs: An Extension of Maslow’s Need Theory. The Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 12, No. 2. (Jun., 1969), p. 223-234
Cullen, D. 1992. Maslow, Monkeys and Motivation Theory. Organization, Vol. 4, 3:355-373.
Dye, Mills and Weatherbee (2005). Maslow: Man Interrupted: Reading Management Theory in Context. Management Decision, Vol. 43. 10:375-95.
Eckerman, A. C. 1968. A New Look at Need Theory – An Extension of Maslow's Hierarchy. Training and Development Journal.
Gambrel, Patrick A & Cianci, R. 2003. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: Does it Apply in
18
Collectivist Culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8, 2:143-162.
Ghiselli, Edwin E. & Johnson, Douglas A. 1970. Need Satisfaction, Managerial Success, and Organizational Structure. Personnel Psychology, 23:569-576.
Gibson, Frank K. & Teasley, Clyde E., University of Georgia. The Humanistic Model of Organizational Motivation: A Review of Research Support. Public Administration Review, Vol.33, No. 1. (Jan. – Feb., 1973), p. 89-96.
Gibson, J. L. , Ivancevich, J.M., & Donnelly Jr., J. H. 1994, Organizations. Boston, MA: Irwin.
Hall, M.H. 1968. A Conversation With Abraham Maslow. Psychology Today, 37.
Hall, D.T. & Nougaim, K. E. 1968, An Examination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy in an Organizational Setting. Organizational Behavior (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Herzberg, F. 1966, Work and the Nature of Man. Cleveland, OH: World.
Hergenhahn, B.R. 2005, An Introduction to the History of Psychology (5 th ed.) , Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
Heylighen, F. 1992. A Cognitive-Systematic Reconstruction of Maslow's Theory of Self- Actualization. Behavioral Science, Vol. 37, 1: 39-59.
Hjelle, L.A. & Zeigler, D.J., 1976, Personality Theory: Basic Assumption , Research and Applications, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hoffman 1988, The Right to be Human: A Biography of Abraham Maslow. Los Angeles: Tarcher.
Kets de Vires. 1978. The Midcareer Conundrum. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 7 2:45-62.
Kickul, J., Lester, S.W. and Belgio, E. 2004, Attitudinal and Behavioral Outcomes of Psychological Contract Breach: A Cross Cultural Comparison of the United States and Hong Kong Chinese. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 4, 2:229.
Kotler, P , Lilien, G.L. & Moorthy, K.S. 1991, Marketing Management Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control (7 th ed.). Eaglewood cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19
Kuo, Y. F. and Chen, L.S. 2004. Individual Demographic Differences and Job satisfaction Among Information Technology Personnel: An Empirical Study in Taiwan. International Journal of Management, Vol. 21. 2:221.
Husted, S. W., Varble, D. L., & Lowry, J. R.1989; Principles of Modern Marketing. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Laas, I. 2006. Self-actualization and Society: A New Application For An Old Theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology.
Larry Hjelle & Daniel Ziegler, 1976, Personality Theories (3 rd ed.) . New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Lawler, E.E & Porter, L. W. 1967. The Effect of Performance On Job Satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 7,1:20-28.
Lawler, E.E. & Suttle, J.L. 1972. A Causal Correlation Test of the Need Hierarchy Concept. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7:265-287.
Lawler, E.E. 1973, Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Lowry, R. J. 1979, The Journals of A.H. Maslow, Vol. I and II, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.
Maslow, A.H. 1968, Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. 20
Maslow, A.H. 1970, Motivation and Personality (2nd ed). New York: Harper and Row.
Maslow, A.H. 1971, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Viking.
McCarth, J.E. & Perreault, D.W.1984, Basic Marketing. Homewood, IL: Richard D.
McGregor, D. 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Meleis, A.I. 1991, Theoretical Nursing: Development and Progress, 2 nd edition . Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co.
Nevis, E.G. 1983. Cultural Assumptions and Productivity: The United States and China. Sloan Management Review, Vol 24, 3:17-29.
Porat, Ben. 1977. Guttman Scale Test for Maslow Need Hierarchy. The Journal of Psychology, 1977, 97, 85-92.
Raymond, M.A., Mittelstaedt, J.D. and Hopkins, C.D. 2003. When is a Hierarchy Not a Hierarchy? Factors associated with different perceptions of needs, with implications for standardization – adaptation decisions in Korea. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, 4:12-26.
Reiss, Steven and Havercamp, Susan M. 2005. Motivation in Developmental Context: A New Method for Studying Self-Actualization. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 45, 1:41-53.
Roberts, T.B. 1982. Comment on Mathes's article. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol 22, 4:97-98.
Rowan, John. 1999. Ascent and Descent in Maslow’s Theory. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol. 39, 3:125-133.
Sanford, A.C. 1970. A cross cultural study of industrial motivation. Southern quarterly, 8:146-161.
Seeley, E. 1992. Human needs and consumer economics: the implications of Maslow's theory of motivation for consumer expenditure patterns. Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 21, 4.
Shermer, M. 2004, The science of good and evil. New York: Times Books.
21
Shoura, M.M. & Singh, A. 1998. Motivation parameters for engineering managers using Maslow's theory. Journal of management in engineering, Vol. 15, 5.
Sirgy, M. J. 1986. A quality-of-life theory derived from Maslow's developmental perspective: 'quality' is related to progressive satisfaction of a hierarchy of needs, lower order and higher. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 45, 3.
Soper, B , Milford, G.& Rosenthal, G . 1995. Belief when evidence does not support theory. Psychology and marketing.
Stanton W. J. & Futrell, C. 1987, Fundamentals of marketing. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
Wahba, M.A., & , Bridwell, L.G. 1976, Maslow reconsidered: a review of research on the need hierarchy theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 15:212-241.
Wilber, K. 1995. Sex, ecology, spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.