发帖
雷达卡
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.
京公网安备 11010802022788号
