Editing Maslow's hierarchy of needs (section)

=== 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}}