A Theory of Human Motivation

A previous paper presented propositions for a theory of human motivation. Its conclusions can be summarized as:

1. Motivation theory must be based on the integrated wholeness of the organism.

2. The hunger drive (or any other physiological drive) was rejected as a centering point 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 center itself on ultimate or basic goals rather than partial or superficial ones, upon ends rather than means to these ends.

It should emphasize unconscious than 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, is a channel through which many basic needs may be simultaneously expressed or satisfied.

Typically, an act has more than one motivation.

6. Practically all organismic states are motivated.

7. Human needs arrange themselves in hierarchies of pre-potency.

The appearance of one need usually rests on the prior satisfaction of another need that is more pre-potent.

Man is a perpetually wanting animal. No need or drive is isolated. Every drive is related to the state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other drives.

8. It is useless to create a list of drives.

Any classification of motivations must deal with the problem of levels of specificity or generalization the motives to be classified.

9. Classifications of motivations must be based on goals rather than on instigating drives or motivated behavior.

10. Motivation theory should be human-centered rather than animal-centered.

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.

The field itself must be interpreted in terms of the organism. Field theory cannot be a substitute for motivation theory.

12. The integration of the organism, as well as the possibility of isolated, specific, partial or segmental reactions, must be taken into account

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.

Behavior is almost always motivated. But it is also almost always biologically, culturally and situationally determined as well.

This paper formulates a positive theory of motivation which will:

• satisfy these theoretical demands
• conform to the known clinical, observational, experimental facts

It derives most directly, however, from clinical experience.

This theory is 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.

It is far easier to criticize the aspects in motivation theory than to remedy them because of the very serious lack of sound data in this area.

This lack is due to the absence of a valid theory of motivation.*