Editing Maslow's hierarchy of needs (section)

== Criticism ==
=== Blackfoot influence ===
Maslow's early (1938) anthropological research included a fieldtrip to the Blackfoot people ([[Siksika Nation]]) in southern Alberta, Canada. Based on his observations of their peaceful and cooperative way of life (in contrast to American society), Maslow concluded that human destructiveness and aggression is largely culturally determined and “most probably a secondary, reactive consequence of thwarting of or threat to the basic human needs”.{{sfn|Maslow|1954}} However, claims have been made that Maslow had failed to acknowledge the influence of the Blackfoot philosophy in developing the hierarchy of needs.<ref>Coon, D. (2006) Abraham H. Maslow: Reconnaissance for Eupsychia. In D.A. Dewsbury, L.T. Benjamin Jr. and M. Wertheimer (Eds). Portraits of Pioneers in Psychology, Vol. 6 (pp. 255–273). Washington, D.C. & Mahwah, N.J.: American Psychological Association and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</ref><ref>Brown, S (2014) ''Transformation beyond greed: Native self-actualization''. Sidney Stone Brown.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Original Influences {{!}}| website = Psychology Today |last = Taylor |first = Steve |format = Blog | date = March 22, 2019 |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201903/original-influences |url-status=live |archive-url=http://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20230313095915/https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out%2Dof%2Dthe%2Ddarkness/201903/original%2Dinfluences |archive-date=March 13, 2023 |access-date=August 21, 2021 |language=en}}</ref>

According to [[Scott Barry Kaufman|Kaufman]], while acknowledging that Maslow learned much from the Blackfoot people, “there is nothing in these writings to suggest he borrowed or stole ideas for his hierarchy of needs”.{{sfn|Kaufman|2019}} Without wishing to discredit Maslow, Blackfoot elders and scholars have argued that Maslow did not really understand the Blackfoot philosophy. "It is not that Maslow got the hierarchy wrong or upside down, it is rather that he did not understand the circular nature in which all beings in Siksika society are interconnected and integrated. They surround each other and needs are met through these connections".<ref>Bear Chief - Oom Kapisi, E.R. Choate, P. and Lindstrom, G. (2022) [https://anzswjournal.nz/anzsw/article/view/959 Reconsidering Maslow and the hierarchy of needs from a First Nations’ perspective]. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 34(2), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol34iss2id959.</ref>

=== Self-actualizing people ===
Maslow studied people such as [[Albert Einstein]], [[Jane Addams]], [[Eleanor Roosevelt]], and [[Baruch Spinoza]], rather than [[mentally ill]] or [[neurosis|neurotic]] people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mittelman |first1=Willard |title=Maslow's Study of Self-Actualization: A Reinterpretation |journal=Journal of Humanistic Psychology |date=1991 |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=114–135 |doi=10.1177/0022167891311010|s2cid=144849415 }}</ref>{{sfn|Maslow|1954|p=200}}

=== Ranking ===
==== Global ranking ====
In a 1976 review of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, little evidence was found for the specific ranking of needs that Maslow described or for the existence of a definite hierarchy at all.<ref name=":2">{{cite journal | last1 = Wahba | first1 = M. A. | last2 = Bridwell | first2 = L. G. | year = 1976 | title = Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory | journal = Organizational Behavior and Human Performance | volume = 15 | issue = 2| pages = 212–240 | doi = 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90038-6 }}</ref> This refutation was claimed to be supported by the majority of longitudinal data and cross-sectional studies at the time, with the limited support for Maslow's hierarchy criticized due to poor measurement criteria and selection of [[Treatment and control groups|control groups]].<ref name=":2" />

In 1984, the order in which the hierarchy is arranged was criticized as being ethnocentric by [[Geert Hofstede]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hofstede | first1 = G. | year = 1984 | title = The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept | url = http://myweb.usf.edu/~jdorio/Articles/The%20cultural%20relativity%20of%20the%20quality%20of%20life%20concept.pdf | journal = Academy of Management Review | volume = 9 | issue = 3 | pages = 389–398 | doi = 10.5465/amr.1984.4279653 | url-status=dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141112000247/http://myweb.usf.edu/~jdorio/Articles/The%20cultural%20relativity%20of%20the%20quality%20of%20life%20concept.pdf | archive-date = November 12, 2014 }}</ref> In turn, Hofstede's work was criticized by others.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Hofstede – Culturally questionable?|url=https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/370/|date=June 28, 2007|journal=Faculty of Commerce – Papers (Archive)|last1=Jones|first1=M.|access-date=May 22, 2020|archive-date=August 3, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200803191326/https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/370/|url-status=live}}</ref> Maslow's hierarchy of needs was argued as failing to illustrate and expand upon the difference between the social and intellectual needs of those raised in [[Individualism|individualistic]] societies and those raised in [[Collectivism and individualism|collectivist]] societies. The needs and drives of those in individualistic societies tend to be more self-centered than those in collectivist societies, focusing on the improvement of the self, with self-actualization being the apex of self-improvement. In collectivist societies, the needs of acceptance and community will outweigh the needs for freedom and individuality.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Cianci | first1 = R. | last2 = Gambrel | first2 = P. A. | year = 2003 | title = Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist culture | journal = Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship | volume = 8 | issue = 2| pages = 143–161 }}</ref>

Criticisms towards the theory have also been expressed on the lack of consideration towards individualism and collectivism in the context of spirituality.<ref name=":5" />

==== Sex ranking ====
The position and value of sex within Maslow's hierarchy have been a source of criticism. Maslow's hierarchy places sex in the physiological needs category, alongside food and breathing.  Some critics argue that this placement of sex neglects the emotional, familial, and evolutionary implications of sex within the community, although others point out that this critique could apply to all of the basic needs. However, Maslow himself acknowledged that the satisfaction of sexual desire was likely linked to other social motives as well. Furthermore, it is recognized that physiological needs such as sex and hunger can be related to higher-order motivations.{{sfn|Kenrick|Griskevicius|Neuberg|Schaller|2010}}

=== Cultural and individual variations ===
Although recent research appears to validate the existence of universal human needs, as well as shared ordering of the way in which people seek and satisfy needs, the exact hierarchy proposed by Maslow is called into question.<ref name=":3">{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/08/maslow-20-a-new-and-improved-recipe-for-happiness/243486/#.TkvKIRv8USE.facebook|title=Maslow 2.0: A new and improved recipe for happiness|last=Villarica|first=H.|date=August 17, 2011|website=The Atlantic|access-date=March 9, 2017|archive-date=November 21, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111121055055/http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/08/maslow-20-a-new-and-improved-recipe-for-happiness/243486/#.TkvKIRv8USE.facebook|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{cite journal|last1=Tay|first1=L.|last2=Diener|first2=E.|year=2011|title=Needs and subjective well-being around the world|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|volume=101|issue=2|pages=354–365|doi=10.1037/a0023779|pmid=21688922}}</ref> The most common criticism is the expectation that different individuals, with similar backgrounds and at similar junctures in their respective lives, when faced with the same situation, would end up taking the same decision. Instead of that, a common observation is that humans are driven by a unique set of motivations, and their behavior cannot be reliably predicted based on the Maslowian principles.

The classification of the higher-order (self-esteem and self-actualization) and lower-order (physiological, safety, and love) needs is not universal and may vary across cultures due to individual differences and availability of resources in the region or geopolitical entity/country.

In a 1997 study,<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Tang | first1 = T. L. | last2 = West | first2 = W. B. | year = 1997 | title = The importance of human needs during peacetime, retrospective peacetime, and the Persian Gulf War | journal = International Journal of Stress Management | publisher=American Psychological Association on behalf of the International Stress Management Association |volume = 4 | issue = 1| pages = 47–62 |doi=10.1007/BF02766072| s2cid = 68311297 }}</ref> [[exploratory factor analysis]] (EFA) of a thirteen-item scale showed there were two particularly important levels of needs in the US during the peacetime of 1993 to 1994: survival (physiological and safety) and psychological (love, self-esteem, and self-actualization). In 1991, a retrospective peacetime measure was established and collected during the Persian Gulf War, and US citizens were asked to recall the importance of needs from the previous year. Once again, only two levels of needs were identified; therefore, people have the ability and competence to recall and estimate the importance of needs. For citizens in the Middle East (Egypt and Saudi Arabia), three levels of needs regarding importance and satisfaction surfaced during the 1990 retrospective peacetime. These three levels were completely different from those of US citizens.

Changes regarding the importance and satisfaction of needs from the retrospective peacetime to wartime due to stress varied significantly across cultures (the US vs. the Middle East). For the US citizens, there was only one level of needs, since all needs were considered equally important. With regards to satisfaction of needs during the war, in the US there were three levels: physiological needs, safety needs, and psychological needs (social, self-esteem, and self-actualization). During the war, the satisfaction of physiological needs and safety needs were separated into two independent needs, while during peacetime, they were combined as one. For the people of the Middle East, the satisfaction of needs changed from three levels to two during wartime.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Tang|first1=T. L.|last2=Ibrahim|first2=A. H.|year=1998|title=Importance of human needs during retrospective peacetime and the Persian Gulf War: Mid-eastern employees|journal=International Journal of Stress Management |  publisher=American Psychological Association on behalf of the International Stress Management Association | volume=5|issue=1|pages=25–37|doi=10.1023/A:1022902803386<!-- journal sold, no longer updated --> |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022902803386|s2cid=141983215|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Tang | first1 = T. L. | last2 = Ibrahim | first2 = A. H. | last3 = West | first3 = W. B. | year = 2002 | title = Effects of war-related stress on the satisfaction of human needs: The United States and the Middle East | journal = International Journal of Management Theory and Practices | volume = 3 | issue = 1| pages = 35–53 }}</ref>

A study of the ordering of needs in Asia found differences between the ordering of lower and higher order needs. For instance, community (related to belongingness and considered a lower order need in Maslow's hierarchy) was found to be the highest order need across Asia, followed closely by self-acceptance and growth.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Monnot | first1 = M. J. | last2 = Beehr| first2 = T. A. | year = 2022| title = The Good Life Versus the "Goods Life": An Investigation of Goal Contents Theory and Employee Subjective Well-Being Across Asian Countries | journal = Journal of Happiness Studies | volume = 23| issue = 3 | pages = Dec 15, 1244 | doi = 10.1007/s10902-021-00447-5 | s2cid = 239678199 }}</ref>

A 1981 study looked at how Maslow's hierarchy might vary across age groups.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Goebel | first1 = B. L. | last2 = Brown | first2 = D. R. | year = 1981 | title = Age differences in motivation related to Maslow's need hierarchy | journal = Developmental Psychology | volume = 17 | issue = 6| pages = 809–815 | doi = 10.1037/0012-1649.17.6.809 }}</ref> A survey asked participants of varying ages to rate a set number of statements from most important to least important. The researchers found that children had higher physical need scores than the other groups, the love need emerged from childhood to young adulthood, the esteem need was highest among the adolescent group, young adults had the highest self-actualization level, and old age had the highest level of security, it was needed across all levels comparably. The authors argued that this suggested Maslow's hierarchy may be limited as a theory for developmental sequence since the sequence of the love need and the self-esteem need should be reversed according to age.

The hierarchy of needs has been criticized from an Islamic point of view. The authors conclude that integrating the model into Islamic contexts requires a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the centrality of spirituality in human needs. They also say that the Islamic approach emphasizes balancing material and spiritual needs in all life situations, challenging Maslow's hierarchy for oversimplifying their interaction.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Bouzenita |first1=Anke Iman |last2=Boulanouar |first2=Aisha Wood |date=2016 |title=Maslow's hierarchy of needs: An Islamic critique |journal=Intellectual Discourse |volume=24}}</ref>