Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Yahaya Ado Wasai (Bsc. Ed Chemistry A.B.U. Zaria, M Ed. (in view) from
the University of South Wale) is a dedicated person that is more interested in
primary science teaching, a current staff at SUBEB Kano.

AN OVERVIEW OF MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

AND THE URGE TO BY-PASS IN ACHIEVING SELF ACTUALIZATION;
ESPECIALLY TODAY’S YOUTH

Abstract
This study concludes on the overview of Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs and the urge to
by-pass in achieving self-actualization, especially today’s youth. The study was conducted to
contribute and make effective description of hierarchy need nowadays.

Introduction:-
As a beginning of this study this work will deal with an overview of Maslow’ Hierarchy
of needs and the urge to by-pass in achieving the last figure (self-actualization) especially by
today’s youth.

The Creation of Human Being:-

Human:- Human belonging to the species Homo sapiens or its closest relative However, human
beings as a creature have variety of needs,

Religion and science seem to be at loggerheads again. This time it is evolution that takes
centre stage - the creation of our species on Earth - and it appears aggressive atheism is desperate
to turn a theory into "fact".

Recently there have been impassioned debate on this area on two high-profile TV
programmes: one an Al Jazeera interview with atheist Richard Dawkins by Muslim political
commentator Mehdi Hasan and the other a BBC Big Questions debate over whether it is time for
all religions to accept evolution as fact. Many of my co-religionists are left bemused, if not
downright confused, by all this kerfuffle.

Why fight on two dissimilar subjects?

In its heyday, Islam brought about harmony between religion and science. With, among other
things, the demise of Islamic scholarship, science clashed with religion during the European
Renaissance. After this co-existence for many centuries, we are now entering an era of science
led by intolerant atheism.Is a confrontation between religion (I exclude "dogmatism" here) and
science necessary? Having a background in both science and religion, I do not think so. We do
not have to battle over things that are dissimilar in terms of reference and remit. Let me say why.

"We, as human beings, are not a mere physical entity but have 'moral
sensitivities' and a spiritual dimension."

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
1
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Science is about "how": it tries to find natural "facts" through ideas, theory, postulation,
experiment and empirical evidence. It is not meant to find "truth". Science is based on statistical
probabilities and experimental evidence; during this process of discovery, it is prone to errors.

A scientific approach cannot find for sure whether our universe was created or self-made, for
example. As our knowledge expands, many "established" scientific theories have been thrown
away. Scientific giants understood this and accepted the "new" knowledge with humility.

On the other hand, religion is about "why": it gives meaning to our life through a metaphysical
approach, searching for ultimate "truth". Religion's emphasis is on morality and behaviour.
Believers are asked to keep an open mind, observe, question, reflect, contemplate and then act. A
verse from the Quran (chapter 3, verse 190) is intuitive - "Surely in the creation of the heavens
and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs for people of
understanding".

Science explores and scientists differ. On the issue of human evolution even Darwin's supporters
could not agree, because some thought that "the mental capacities and the moral sensibilities of
humans could not be explained by natural selection". This is understandable. Our individual life
on Earth is infinitesimal compared to the age of our known universe; our personal sphere is also
minuscule compared to the expanse of the universe we are in. To pretend that we would be able
to know the "truth" of our life and about the universe would be sheer arrogance.

This does not mean we surrender to our "fate" and sit back; not at all. We, as human beings, are
not a mere physical entity but have "moral sensitivities" and a spiritual dimension. We are born
with an inquisitive, creative mind that is full of imagination and innovation. We see, hear and
observe things and ask questions. Do we get all the answers? No. We are not supposed to; if we
did all our uniqueness would disappear and we would end up being dull and stagnant. That is the
mystery of human life.

As an experimental physicist until my mid-30s, asking questions and throwing challenges were
part of my research. This did not deter me from getting closer to my (Muslim) faith. I have
always been fascinated by the life of many ancient scholars from China, Greece or India, who
were religious saints and scientists at the same time.

I am enthralled by many pre-Renaissance Muslim scientists and scholars like Al-Khwarizmi and
Ibn Sina, who were pioneers in science and at the same time devoutly religious and spiritual. I
am still amazed to see this tradition of harmony between science and religion in the personality
of scientific giants like Newton and Einstein. Their thirst for knowledge was matched by their
humility.

Belief in or denial of God is the main issue

Monotheistic religion is essentially about primary belief in one Living God; the rest follows from
this premise. In Islamic belief God has 99 "attributes" eg His Omniscience or Omnipotence. The
Abrahamic religions are adamant on monotheism. Yes, there is no way of experimentally
proving God's presence, but there are coherent evidences in support of this belief, such as :-

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
2
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

(a) All the Prophets who were known to be extremely honest and trustworthy in their life
informing us of God,

(b) Numerous signs (ayat, in Arabic) within and around us and in the cosmos testify His
presence. These arguments cannot just be brushed aside as irrational or non-progressive.

Dawkins on religion - 'I care about what's true'

The benefit of a resolute belief in God has a positive impact on life: it has created a myriad of
highly-motivated, spiritually-uplifted and self-regulated selfless individuals who have spent or
even sacrificed their life for the good of others. The belief in God and a sense of accountability
in the Hereafter is a catalyst to those actions.

Then there is the classical argument: imagine there is no God. Believers do not lose anything on
Earth. But imagine there is one, what happens to deniers in the Hereafter?

It is true that religion was and can be misused to foster division, hatred and cruelty; but history is
the evidence that most wars, destruction, ethnic cleansing and killings were the result of
manipulative politics or selfish use of religions, rather than the inherent faiths in and of
themselves.

The complexity of body, mind, soul and spirit

There is obviously a common ground between the two approaches, the spiritual and the
scientific. All living beings have phases or evolution in their life from birth to death. Without a
doubt there is biological evolution in the world of low-level living beings, including many
animals.

"The human mind may operate faster than light, but it cannot fully
understand the mysteries of our universe and our life."

Our "evolution" in a mother's womb, from a zygote into a fully-fledged baby, is mentioned in the
Quran - "And certainly We created man of an extract of clay, then We made him a small seed in
a firm resting-place, then We made the seed a clot, then We made the clot a lump, then We made
the lump bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, then We caused it to grow into another
creation, so blessed be Allah, the best of the creators" (chapter 23, verses 12-14).

So, religion is not irrational. It asks us to think very seriously about our place on this planet. Just
because we are physically similar with some primates, I believe we cannot conclude that humans
have evolved from them. Yes, gorillas and chimpanzees are biologically closest to humans and
their DNA sequences are very similar, but that does not necessarily "prove" that a highly
intelligent and spiritual man evolved from them. Even with very close DNA-similarity between
two twin siblings we see incredible differences between their personality, ability and creativity.

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
3
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The human mind may operate faster than light, but it cannot fully understand the mysteries of
our universe and our life. It is time we step back and try to comprehend the highly coherent and
intelligent universe and the "whole" of our existence. It is also time religious adherents practice
their critical autonomy to continuously enhance their knowledge and understanding of our
natural world. As for Muslims, I can only say that our belief and reason (aql, in Arabic) are
intertwined; we should be the first to use this gift of reasoning.

The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of
Natural History (NMNH) invites the public to explore the depths of our understanding of what
it means to be human in relation to the most reliable scientific research. The answers to the
question, “What Does It Mean To Be Human?” draw on a variety of sources: scientific
understandings of the biological origins and development of Homo sapiens, studies of social and
cultural evolution, and global and personal insights from contemporary experience.It is in
recognition of these broad factors that public engagement materials, events, and contributions to
the Human Origins web site are being developed by the Broader Social Impacts Committee
(BSIC) to support the exhibition in the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins.

Organized by the Museum’s Human Origins Initiative, the BSIC is a group of scholars and
practitioners from a wide range of religious and philosophical perspectives, many of whom also
have experience in the academic field of science and religion. This committee helps inform the
Smithsonian about the range of cultural perspectives the public brings to the exhibit, considers
ways the museum can encourage the public’s engagement with the science the exhibit presents,
and helps equip museum staff and volunteers to participate in a respectful conversation where
science intersects with cultural and religious interests. The committee recognizes the unique
opportunity the subject of human origins offers for the exploration of challenging cultural topics,
which in turn can inspire greater public interest in, and understanding of, science.

Thus, it is with input from the committee that the co-chairs have prepared this primer. It
provides a brief introduction to issues that arise at the crossroads of science and religion,
particularly in relation to the scientific accounts of evolution and human origins that are
presented in the exhibit. The primer is organized around two broad topics: science and religion
and evolution and creationism. A question and answer format is used to highlight common
concerns for each of these topics. Cultural divides in the United States over the acceptance of
evolution and scientific understandings of human origins make this interchange relevant. They
also offer an opportunity to inspire a positive relationship between science and religion.

Science and Religion

Visitors to the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins bring with them many assumptions about
science, about religion, and about their relationship. These assumptions may impact, positively
or negatively, their willingness and ability to engage the scientific presentation of human origins.
The questions below are offered as a guide to begin thinking about science and religion in the
context of the possible interactions of religious worldviews with a scientific account of human
evolution and origins.

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
4
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

1. What is science?

Science is a way to understand nature by developing explanations for the structures, processes
and history of nature that can be tested by observations in laboratories or in the field. Sometimes
such observations are direct, like measuring the chemical composition of a rock. Other times
these observations are indirect, like determining the presence of an exoplanet through the wobble
of its host star. An explanation of some aspect of nature that has been well supported by such
observations is a theory. Well-substantiated theories are the foundations of human
understanding of nature. The pursuit of such understanding is science.

2. What is religion?

Religion, or more appropriately religions, are cultural phenomena comprised of social

institutions, traditions of practice, literatures, sacred texts and stories, and sacred places that
identify and convey an understanding of ultimate meaning. Religions are very diverse. While it
is common for religions to identify the ultimate with a deity (like the western monotheisms –
Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or deities, not all do. There are non-theistic religions, like
Buddhism.

3. What is the difference between science and religion?

Although science does not provide proofs, it does provide explanations. Science depends on
deliberate, explicit and formal testing (in the natural world) of explanations for the way the world
is, for the processes that led to its present state, and for its possible future. When scientists see
that a proposed explanation has been well confirmed by repeated observations, it serves the
scientific community as a reliable theory. A theory in science is the highest form of scientific
explanation, not just a “mere opinion.” Strong theories, ones that have been well confirmed by
evidence from nature, are an essential goal of science. Well-supported theories guide future
efforts to solve other questions about the natural world.

Religions may draw upon scientific explanations of the world, in part, as a reliable way of
knowing what the world is like, about which they seek to discern its ultimate meaning.
However, “testing” of religious understandings of the world is incidental, implicit and informal
in the course of the life of the religious community in the world. Religious understanding draws
from both subjective insight and traditional authority. Therefore, some people view religion as
based on nothing more than personal opinion or “blind faith,” and so, as immune to rational
thought. However, this is an erroneous judgment. Virtually all of the historic religions include
traditions of rational reflection.

4. How are science and religion similar?

Science and religion both have historical traditions that exhibit development over time. Each has
places for individual insight and communal discernment. Analytic and synthetic reasoning can
be found exhibited in both. Science and religion have been and continue to be formative
elements shaping an increasingly global human society. Both science and religion have served
to jeopardize and contribute to the common human good.

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
5
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

5. How can science and religion be related?

Typical assumptions about this relationship fall into one of three forms: conflict, separation or
interaction.

A conflict approach assumes that science and religion are competitors for cultural authority.
Either science sets the standard for truth to which religion must adhere or be dismissed, or
religion sets the standard to which science must conform. For example, some atheists adopt this
approach and argue that science reduces religion to a merely natural phenomenon. Conversely,
some religious adherents, while claiming to accept science, will identify specific points at which
mainstream scientific findings must be distorted or abandoned for the sake of religious
convictions. Such an adversarial approach tends to rule out any constructive engagement
between science and religion.

Individuals who prefer a separation approach hold that science and religion use different
languages, ask different questions and have different objects of interest (e.g., nature for science
and God for religion). By highlighting the differences between science and religion, conflict is
avoided. While this approach allows a person to explore what science has learned about human
origins without fear of conflict with religious beliefs, it also encourages that the science be left,
so to speak, at the museum threshold so that it has no impact on other non-scientific explorations
of what it means to be human. A consequence of separation is that the science of human origins
can be viewed as irrelevant to what might be the deepest of human concerns.

It should be noted that it is true that science is practiced without reference to religion. God may
be an ultimate explanation, but God is not a scientific explanation. This approach to science is
called methodological naturalism. However, this method of isolating religious interests from
scientific research is not an example of the separation approach. Historically, this bracketing out
of religious questions in the practice of scientific inquiry was promoted by religious thinkers in
the 18th and 19th centuries as the most fruitful way to discover penultimate rather than ultimate
explanations of the structures and processes of nature.

A third possibility for the relationship between science and religion, one of interaction, at
minimum holds that dialogue between science and religion can be valuable, more that science
and religion can constructively benefit from engagement, and at maximum envisions a
convergence of scientific and religious perspectives. Generally, this view encourages an effort to
explore the significance of scientific understanding for religious understanding and vice versa.
With this approach science remains relevant beyond the museum for many people who might
otherwise ignore scientific findings.

Evolution and Creationism

The National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution has a responsibility due
to its charter to provide the public with an opportunity to explore for themselves the most recent
scientific understandings of the natural world, including human origins. However the question,
“What does it mean to be human?” is generally recognized as one that does not belong solely to
the realm of science. People are well aware that insights from the humanities, including the arts,
literature and religious traditions, have much to say on this topic as well. For some people an

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
6
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

evolutionary account of human origins may be greeted with skepticism because it challenges
their particular religious commitments. In contrast, other people find their religious perspectives
are deepened and enriched by an evolutionary understanding of human origins. Although the
questions below recognize this range of perspectives, many of the questions reflect expectations
that are especially characteristic of people from those religious communities that are skeptical
about the science of evolution. Ironically, people in these latter communities often value science
and seek scientific support for their particular religious commitments.

1. Do “creationists” necessarily oppose an evolutionary understanding of the history of

nature and the origins of species and humanity?

No. In principle all members of the three western monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)
are “creationists” in that they believe the order of nature exists because a reality beyond nature,
commonly called “God”, is the ultimate cause of all existence. In this sense of the word, many
creationists accept an evolutionary understanding of natural history. However, at least four types
of creationism can be identified, and each has a distinctive view of the evolutionary sciences and
human origins.

“Young-Earth” creationists hold that the sacred text provides an inerrant account of how the
universe, all life and humankind came into existence; namely, in six 24-hour days, some 6-
10,000 years ago. Human beings were created through a direct act of divine intervention in the
order of nature.

“Old-Earth” creationists hold that the sacred text is an infallible account of why the universe, all
life and humankind came into existence, but accepts that the “days” of creation are metaphorical
and could represent very long periods of time. While many aspects of nature may be the
consequence of direct acts of divine creation, at very least they hold that the very beginning of
the universe, the origin of life and the origin of humankind are the consequence of distinct acts of
divine intervention in the order of nature.

Theistic evolutionists also hold that the sacred text provides an infallible account of why the
universe, all life and humankind came into existence. However, they also hold that for the most
part, the diversity of nature from stars to planets to living organisms, including the human body,
is a consequence of the divine using processes of evolution to create indirectly. Still, for many
who hold this position, the very beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of
what is distinctive about humankind are the consequence of direct acts of divine intervention in
the order of nature.

Evolutionary theists hold that the sacred text, while giving witness to the ultimate divine source
of all of nature, in no way specifies the means of creation. Further, they hold that the witness of
creation itself is that the divine creates only indirectly through evolutionary processes without
any intervention in the order of nature.

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
7
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

2. What will be the exhibition’s message to the majority (in some polls 53%) of Americans
who do not accept evolution?

The exhibition’s main message is the same for all visitors; namely, that the scientific study of
human origins is an exciting and fruitful area of research that has provided us with a deeper
understanding of both our connection to all of life on Earth and the uniqueness of our species,
Homo sapiens. It is intended that those Americans who do not accept evolution will experience
in this exhibition an open invitation to engage the science presented, explore the supporting
materials, and participate in conversation with staff and volunteers without fear of ridicule or
antagonism. Though the viewpoints of those who do not accept the scientific explanation of
human origins are not affirmed in the exhibition, the personal importance of their perspectives is
appreciated. What the exhibition intends to create is an environment for an enriching and
respectful dialogue on human origins that currently can be found in no other venue.

3. Scientific theories change in the light of new discoveries. Why should we believe what
science has to say today about human origins when it may change tomorrow?

The perception that scientists completely change their mind with each new discovery is
mistaken. Although this has occurred occasionally in the history of science, it is relatively rare.
Unfortunately, media coverage of advances in scientific research often sensationalize the
“revolutionary” nature of new discoveries and are also likely to focus on the most controversial
interpretations of new findings. What is frequently missed is the broad consensus among
scientists in a field, like that of human origins research, which provides the basis for seeking new
discoveries. For example, it is broadly agreed that the various characteristics that distinguish our
species did not emerge all at once. Walking on two legs emerged before making stone tools, and
both of these occurred well before the biggest increase in human brain size. All of these came
before the origin of art and symbolic communication. Farming and the rise of civilizations
occurred much later still. There is broad scientific agreement even in the light of the most recent
fossil discoveries that these changes that define our species took place over a period of about 6
million years. Each visitor to the exhibition has the opportunity to explore both the latest findings
of laboratory and field research as well as consider how the scientific community is using these
to give a more complete account of human origins. Each visitor is also invited to consider how
this account might inform their deepest religious understanding of what it means to be human.

4. What is Intelligent Design and does the exhibit address it?

Advocates of Intelligent Design (ID) hold that there are features of the natural world for which
there are no natural explanations and that these features can be shown analytically to be the result
of a designing agent. Although ID advocates seldom specify who the designer is, the logic of
their argument requires that the designer be beyond nature, or supernatural. However, advocates
for ID have not been able to show that their claims are genuinely scientific. While the scientific
community welcomes new theoretical proposals, these must lead to active research programs that
deepen our understanding of nature and that can find confirmation in either laboratory or field
observations. Thus far, ID advocates have been unable to do either.

As an institution of informal public education, the exhibit cannot advocate a religious position.
As a matter of public record, a US Federal Court has ruled that ID is not science but instead is a

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
8
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

religious viewpoint (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005). For all of these reasons it
is inappropriate for ID to be included in a scientific presentation on human origins.

4. Still, some people believe that there is a scientific debate about evolution, and that
advocates of ID represent one side of this debate. They wonder, “Why isn’t the
Smithsonian presenting that side?” They see it as an issue of fairness and expect that ID
should be presented equally.

As noted above, the scientific community does not recognize ID as a scientific position.
Therefore, it is not one side of a scientific debate. At the same time, the exhibition does provide
the visitor with genuine examples of how the evidence for human evolution is interpreted
differently by different researchers, for example, in the construction of frameworks for
understanding how prehistoric species are related to one another. Here different interpretations
of the evolutionary data are presented. While there is lively debate about such alternatives and
data is actively sought to discriminate between them, there is no scientific debate about the basic
validity of the theory of evolution as the best scientific explanation for the expansion and
diversification of life on Earth, including human life.

5. Does the exhibition identify the gaps in the scientific understanding of the origin of
humans, gaps that can suggest that God played a role?

It is just such “gaps” in our understanding that fuel the scientific enterprise. It is the unresolved
questions about nature that mark the fertile areas for new research, propelling the sciences
forward -- including those related to human origin studies. Science, as a particular way of
knowing, restricts itself to offering natural explanations for the natural world. When scientists
find a gap in their understanding of nature, as scientists they cannot say, “Here is where God acts
in some miraculous manner.” Instead, scientists seek to look deeper into nature to discover there
the answers that fill the gaps.

It is worth noting that many religious persons take exception to a “God of the gaps” viewpoint, to
the idea that the action of God in creation is limited to those areas where there are gaps in human
understanding. Supporting materials being developed for the exhibition by the BSIC will help
visitors discover resources from various religious traditions that explore religious views on the
relation of God and nature.

6. How do people incorporate evolution into their religious worldview?

Religious traditions vary in their response to evolution. For example, Asian religious worldviews
do not assume an all-powerful creator God and often see the world religiously as interconnected
and dynamic. They tend, therefore, to engage scientific accounts of evolution with little
difficulty. However, for Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions, the affirmation of a creator God
in relation to the world has a central place. As noted in the discussion of various forms of
“creationism” above, many individuals in these monotheistic traditions accept, generally, that
God created the material world mostly by means of evolutionary processes. At the same time,
some of these persons are committed to the view that there are a few specific acts of divine
creative intervention: namely, at the very beginning of the universe, at the origin of life, and at
the origin of humankind. However, as previously noted, others in the monotheistic traditions

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
9
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

hold that God creates entirely by means of evolutionary processes without any intervention, even
in the case of humans.

At least for theistic evolutionists and evolutionary theists the scientific exhibition on evolution
and human origins stimulates the questions, “Where is God in the process?” and “What does it
mean to be created in God’s image?” To the extent that such questions provoke a constructive
engagement of scientific and religious ideas, they are an expression of an interaction approach to
science and religion. There are many though, who adopt a separation approach to science and
religion. For these individuals there is no need to raise religious questions in light of the science
of human origins.

DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS OF INDIVIDUALS:-

1. DevelopmentalStages of the Learner OBJECTIVES After completing this chapter, the

reader will be able to 1. Identify the physical, cognitive, Piaget Cognitive Stages of
Development - WebMD

The Piaget stages of development is a blueprint that describes the stages of normal
intellectual development, from infancy through adulthood. This includes thought,
hhhjudgment, and knowledge.

2. Piaget's 4 Stages of Cognitive Development Explained

Piaget's stage theory describes the cognitive development of children. Cognitive

development involves changes in cognitive process and abilities. In Piaget's view, early
cognitive development involves processes based upon actions and later progresses to
changes in mental operations.

3. Erikson's stages of psychosocial development - Wikipedia

Erikson's stages of psychosocial development, as articulated in the second half of the

20th century by Erik Erikson in collaboration with Joan Erikson, is a comprehensive
psychoanalytic theory that identifies a series of eight stages that a healthy developing
individual should pass through from infancy to late adulthood.

4. Ages & Stages Of Child Development | Birth - Teen

The Ages and Stages of Child Development Children go through distinct periods of
development as they grow from infants to young adults. During each of these stages,
multiple changes in the development of the brain are taking place.

5. Erikson's Stages of Development - Learning Theories

An eight stage theory of identity and psychosocial development. Erik Erikson, a German
psychoanalyst heavily influenced by Sigmund Freud, explored three aspects of identity:
the ego identity (self), personal identity (the personal idiosyncrasies that distinguish a

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
10
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

person from another, social/cultural identity (the collection of social roles a person might
play) [1].

6. Erik Erikson | Psychosocial Stages | Simply Psychology

During each stage, the person experiences a psychosocial crisis which could have a
positive or negative outcome for personality development. For Erikson (1963), these
crises are of a psychosocial nature because they involve psychological needs of the
individual (i.e. psycho) conflicting with the needs of society (i.e. social).

7. Stages of Development | Introduction to Psychology

As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, developmental psychologists often divide

our development into three areas: physical development, cognitive development, and
psychosocial development. Mirroring Erikson’s stages, lifespan development is divided
into different stages that are based on age.

8. Erik Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development

Erik Erikson’s Theory of Psychosocial Development emphasizes the sociocultural

determinants of development and presents them as eight stages of psychosocial conflicts
(often known as Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development) that all individuals
must overcome or resolve successfully in order to adjust well to the environment and
psychosocial characteristics of learners that influence.

Developmental disabilities begin anytime during the developmental period and usually
last throughout a person’s lifetime. Most developmental disabilities begin before a baby
is born, but some can happen after birth because of injury, infection, or other factors.

MASLOW'S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier

model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid.

Needs:-
Needs lower down in the hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals can attend to
needs higher up. From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological, safety,
love and belonging, esteem and self-actualization. (by Saul McLeod, updated 2018)

Deficiency needs vs growth needs

This five-stage model can be divided into deficiency needs and growth needs. The first four
levels are often referred to as deficiency needs (D-needs), and the top level is known as growth
or being needs (B-needs).

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
11
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Deficiency needs arise due to deprivation and are said to motivate people when they are unmet.
Also, the motivation to fulfill such needs will become stronger the longer the duration they are
denied. For example, the longer a person goes without food, the more hungry they will become.

Maslow (1943) initially stated that individuals must satisfy lower level deficit needs before
progressing on to meet higher level growth needs. However, he later clarified that satisfaction of
a needs is not an “all-or-none” phenomenon, admitting that his earlier statements may have given
“the false impression that a need must be satisfied 100 percent before the next need emerges”
(1987, p. 69).

When a deficit need has been 'more or less' satisfied it will go away, and our activities become
habitually directed towards meeting the next set of needs that we have yet to satisfy. These then
become our salient needs. However, growth needs continue to be felt and may even become
stronger once they have been engaged.

Growth needs do not stem from a lack of something, but rather from a desire to grow as a
person. Once these growth needs have been reasonably satisfied, one may be able to reach the
highest level called self-actualization.

Every person is capable and has the desire to move up the hierarchy toward a level of self-
actualization. Unfortunately, progress is often disrupted by a failure to meet lower level needs.
Life experiences, including divorce and loss of a job, may cause an individual to fluctuate
between levels of the hierarchy.

Therefore, not everyone will move through the hierarchy in a uni-directional manner but may
move back and forth between the different types of needs.

The original hierarchy of needs five-stage model includes:

Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some
needs take precedence over others. Our most basic need is for physical survival, and this will be
the first thing that motivates our behavior. Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what
motivates us, and so on.

1. Physiological needs - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g. air, food,
drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep.

If these needs are not satisfied the human body cannot function optimally. Maslow considered
physiological needs the most important as all the other needs become secondary until these needs
are met.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear.

3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, the
third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. The need for
interpersonal relationships motivates behavior

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
12
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Examples include friendship, intimacy, trust, and acceptance, receiving and giving affection and
love. Affiliating, being part of a group (family, friends, work).

4. Esteem needs - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity,
achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others
(e.g., status, prestige).

Maslow indicated that the need for respect or reputation is most important for children and
adolescents and precedes real self-esteem or dignity.

5. Self-actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal

growth and peak experiences. A desire “to become everything one is capable of
becoming”(Maslow, 1987, p. 64).

Maslow posited that human needs are arranged in a hierarchy:

"It is quite true that man lives by bread alone — when there is no bread. But what happens to
man’s desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?

At once other (and “higher”) needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers,
dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still “higher”) needs
emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into
a hierarchy of relative prepotency" (Maslow, 1943, p. 375).

Maslow continued to refine his theory based on the concept of a hierarchy of needs over several
decades (Maslow, 1943, 1962, 1987).

Regarding the structure of his hierarchy, Maslow (1987) proposed that the order in the hierarchy
“is not nearly as rigid” (p. 68) as he may have implied in his earlier description.

Maslow noted that the order of needs might be flexible based on external circumstances or
individual differences. For example, he notes that for some individuals, the need for self-esteem
is more important than the need for love. For others, the need for creative fulfillment may
supersede even the most basic needs.

Maslow (1987) also pointed out that most behavior is multi-motivated and noted that “any
behavior tends to be determined by several or all of the basic needs simultaneously rather than by
only one of them” (p. 71).

Hierarchy of needs summary

(a) Human beings are motivated by a hierarchy of needs.

(b) Needs are organized in a hierarchy of prepotency in which more basic needs must be more or
less met (rather than all or none) prior to higher needs.

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
13
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

(c) The order of needs is not rigid but instead may be flexible based on external circumstances or
individual differences.

(d) Most behavior is multi-motivated, that is, simultaneously determined by more than one basic
need.

The expanded hierarchy of needs

It is important to note that Maslow's (1943, 1954) five-stage model has been expanded to include
cognitive and aesthetic needs (Maslow, 1970a) and later transcendence needs (Maslow, 1970b).

Changes to the original five-stage model are highlighted and include a seven-stage model and an
eight-stage model; both developed during the 1960's and 1970s.

1. Biological and physiological needs - air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep, etc.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, etc.

3. Love and belongingness needs - friendship, intimacy, trust, and acceptance, receiving and
giving affection and love. Affiliating, being part of a group (family, friends, work).

4. Esteem needs - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity,
achievement, mastery, and independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others
(e.g., status, prestige).

5. Cognitive needs - knowledge and understanding, curiosity, exploration, need for meaning and
predictability.

6. Aesthetic needs - appreciation and search for beauty, balance, form, etc.

7. Self-actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal

growth and peak experiences.

8. Transcendence needs - A person is motivated by values which transcend beyond the personal
self (e.g., mystical experiences and certain experiences with nature, aesthetic experiences, sexual
experiences, service to others, the pursuit of science, religious faith, etc.).

Self-actualization

Instead of focusing on psychopathology and what goes wrong with people, Maslow (1943)
formulated a more positive account of human behavior which focused on what goes right. He
was interested in human potential, and how we fulfill that potential.

Psychologist Abraham Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that human motivation is based on people
seeking fulfillment and change through personal growth. Self-actualized people are those who
were fulfilled and doing all they were capable of.

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
14
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The growth of self-actualization (Maslow, 1962) refers to the need for personal growth and
discovery that is present throughout a person’s life. For Maslow, a person is always 'becoming'
and never remains static in these terms. In self-actualization, a person comes to find a meaning to
life that is important to them.

As each individual is unique, the motivation for self-actualization leads people in different
directions (Kenrick et al., 2010). For some people self-actualization can be achieved through
creating works of art or literature, for others through sport, in the classroom, or within a
corporate setting.

Maslow (1962) believed self-actualization could be measured through the concept of peak
experiences. This occurs when a person experiences the world totally for what it is, and there are
feelings of euphoria, joy, and wonder.

It is important to note that self-actualization is a continual process of becoming rather than a

perfect state one reaches of a 'happy ever after' (Hoffman, 1988).

Maslow offers the following description of self-actualization:

'It refers to the person’s desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency for him to become
actualized in what he is potentially.

The specific form that these needs will take will of course vary greatly from person to person. In
one individual it may take the form of the desire to be an ideal mother, in another it may be
expressed athletically, and in still another it may be expressed in painting pictures or in
inventions' (Maslow, 1943, p. 382–383).

Characteristics of self-actualized people

Although we are all, theoretically, capable of self-actualizing, most of us will not do so, or only
to a limited degree. Maslow (1970) estimated that only two percent of people would reach the
state of self-actualization. He was especially interested in the characteristics of people whom he
considered to have achieved their potential as individuals.

By studying 18 people he considered to be self-actualized (including Abraham Lincoln and

Albert Einstein) Maslow (1970) identified 15 characteristics of a self-actualized person.

Characteristics of self-actualizers:
1. They perceive reality efficiently and can tolerate uncertainty;
2. Accept themselves and others for what they are;
3. Spontaneous in thought and action;
4. Problem-centered (not self-centered);
5. Unusual sense of humor;
6. Able to look at life objectively;
7. Highly creative;
8. Resistant to enculturation, but not purposely unconventional;
9. Concerned for the welfare of humanity;

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
15
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

10. Capable of deep appreciation of basic life-experience;

11. Establish deep satisfying interpersonal relationships with a few people;
12. Peak experiences;
13. Need for privacy;
14. Democratic attitudes;
15. Strong moral/ethical standards.
Behavior leading to self-actualization:
(a) Experiencing life like a child, with full absorption and concentration;
(b) Trying new things instead of sticking to safe paths;
(c) Listening to your own feelings in evaluating experiences instead of the voice of tradition,
authority or the majority;
(d) Avoiding pretense ('game playing') and being honest;
(e) Being prepared to be unpopular if your views do not coincide with those of the majority;
(f) Taking responsibility and working hard;
(g) Trying to identify your defenses and having the courage to give them up.
The characteristics of self-actualizers and the behaviors leading to self-actualization are shown in
the list above. Although people achieve self-actualization in their own unique way, they tend to
share certain characteristics. However, self-actualization is a matter of degree, 'There are no
perfect human beings' (Maslow,1970a, p. 176).
It is not necessary to display all 15 characteristics to become self-actualized, and not only self-
actualized people will display them. Maslow did not equate self-actualization with perfection.
Self-actualization merely involves achieving one's potential. Thus, someone can be silly,
wasteful, vain and impolite, and still self-actualize. Less than two percent of the population
achieve self-actualization.
Educational applications

Maslow's (1962) hierarchy of needs theory has made a major contribution to teaching and
classroom management in schools. Rather than reducing behavior to a response in the
environment, Maslow (1970a) adopts a holistic approach to education and learning. Maslow
looks at the complete physical, emotional, social, and intellectual qualities of an individual and
how they impact on learning.

Applications of Maslow's hierarchy theory to the work of the classroom teacher are obvious.
Before a student's cognitive needs can be met, they must first fulfill their basic physiological
needs. For example, a tired and hungry student will find it difficult to focus on learning. Students
need to feel emotionally and physically safe and accepted within the classroom to progress and
reach their full potential.

Maslow suggests students must be shown that they are valued and respected in the classroom,
and the teacher should create a supportive environment. Students with a low self-esteem will not
progress academically at an optimum rate until their self-esteem is strengthened.

Maslow (1971, p. 195) argued that a humanistic educational approach would develop people
who are “stronger, healthier, and would take their own lives into their hands to a greater extent.
With increased personal responsibility for one’s personal life, and with a rational set of values to
guide one’s choosing, people would begin to actively change the society in which they lived”.

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
16
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Critical evaluation

The most significant limitation of Maslow's theory concerns his methodology. Maslow
formulated the characteristics of self-actualized individuals from undertaking a qualitative
method called biographical analysis.

He looked at the biographies and writings of 18 people he identified as being self-actualized.

From these sources, he developed a list of qualities that seemed characteristic of this specific
group of people, as opposed to humanity in general.

From a scientific perspective, there are numerous problems with this particular approach. First, it
could be argued that biographical analysis as a method is extremely subjective as it is based
entirely on the opinion of the researcher. Personal opinion is always prone to bias, which reduces
the validity of any data obtained. Therefore Maslow's operational definition of self-actualization
must not be blindly accepted as scientific fact.

Furthermore, Maslow's biographical analysis focused on a biased sample of self-actualized

individuals, prominently limited to highly educated white males (such as Thomas Jefferson,
Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, William James, Aldous Huxley, Beethoven).

Although Maslow (1970) did study self-actualized females, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and
Mother Teresa, they comprised a small proportion of his sample. This makes it difficult to
generalize his theory to females and individuals from lower social classes or different ethnicity.
Thus questioning the population validity of Maslow's findings.

Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to empirically test Maslow's concept of self-actualization in

a way that causal relationships can be established.

Another criticism concerns Maslow's assumption that the lower needs must be satisfied before a
person can achieve their potential and self-actualize. This is not always the case, and therefore
Maslow's hierarchy of needs in some aspects has been falsified.

Through examining cultures in which large numbers of people live in poverty (such as India), it
is clear that people are still capable of higher order needs such as love and belongingness.
However, this should not occur, as according to Maslow, people who have difficulty achieving
very basic physiological needs (such as food, shelter, etc.) are not capable of meeting higher
growth needs.

Also, many creative people, such as authors and artists (e.g., Rembrandt and Van Gogh) lived in
poverty throughout their lifetime, yet it could be argued that they achieved self-actualization.

Psychologists now conceptualize motivation as a pluralistic behavior, whereby needs can operate
on many levels simultaneously. A person may be motivated by higher growth needs at the same
time as lower level deficiency needs.

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
17
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Contemporary research by Tay and Diener (2011) has tested Maslow’s theory by analyzing the
data of 60,865 participants from 123 countries, representing every major region of the world.
The survey was conducted from 2005 to 2010.

Respondents answered questions about six needs that closely resemble those in Maslow's model:
basic needs (food, shelter); safety; social needs (love, support); respect; mastery; and autonomy.
They also rated their well-being across three discrete measures: life evaluation (a person's view
of his or her life as a whole), positive feelings (day-to-day instances of joy or pleasure), and
negative feelings (everyday experiences of sorrow, anger, or stress).

The results of the study support the view that universal human needs appear to exist regardless of
cultural differences. However, the ordering of the needs within the hierarchy was not correct.

"Although the most basic needs might get the most attention when you don't have them," Diener
explains, "you don't need to fulfill them in order to get benefits [from the others]." Even when
we are hungry, for instance, we can be happy with our friends. "They're like vitamins," Diener
says about how the needs work independently. "We need them all."

SHORTCUT

In general, a shortcut is a path that is shorter than the usual or formal path to something or a
method of operation that saves time over the regular operation. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,
most individuals are eager to attain the highest level (Self Actualization) without conscious
thought and considering the danger behind the process, meanwhile many incidents may occur
which may engage the person in trouble.

 Self Actualization

 Shortcut

 Esteem Need

 Love and Belonging

 Safety Needs

 Physiological needs

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
18
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

1. Physiological needs - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g. air, food,
drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep.

If these needs are not satisfied the human body cannot function optimally. Maslow considered
physiological needs the most important as all the other needs become secondary until these needs
are met.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear.

3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, the
third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. The need for
interpersonal relationships motivates behavior

Examples include friendship, intimacy, trust, and acceptance, receiving and giving affection and
love. Affiliating, being part of a group (family, friends, work).

4. Esteem needs - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity,
achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others
(e.g., status, prestige).

Maslow indicated that the need for respect or reputation is most important for children and
adolescents and precedes real self-esteem or dignity.

5. Shortcut needs – The path that is shorter than the usual or formal path to (save resources been
it material or time and human resources to shortly) achieve self-actualization or a method of
operation that saves time over the regular operation in order to save time and resources.

6. Self-actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal

growth and peak experiences. A desire “to become everything one is capable of becoming”

However,If the right shortcuts are taken, it’s a good thing. For example, you are trying to
achieve self-actualization level everyday on a particular route. One day, your mind tells you
about a shorter alternative route. If you take that route, you might save time and money. Using a
shortcut of this nature is perfectly fine and in fact, if you are not using it, you may be incurring a
cost.

Most shortcuts that people take are not the type that I mentioned above. They are options that
you are choosing when you know that choosing the “right” options will require more time,
energy, thinking and hard work. Alternatively, shortcuts are typically or more of the following:

 more entertaining
 easy
 too good to be true
 logically does not make sense
 the odds are not in our favor and we know it (by a wide margin)
 there are times when shortcuts seem to have worked (there are always exceptions)
 they promise uncommon returns

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
19
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

But wait. The above are not the reasons why many smart people take shortcuts. They are
intelligent enough to know that the odds are against them and rationally thinking (even a little)
they know that taking a shortcut won’t make much sense. But they do take them. One reason is
simply because the “perceived cost” and “risk” of taking a shortcut is less( remember: it’s
called a “shortcut” for a reason) and they can always move on if the shortcut does not payoff.
The thinking is simply that one could easily write-off the “investment” on taking the shortcut. In
other words, the “loss of taking a shortcut is minimum.” Besides, it’s not like they have to
announce to the world that they are taking a shortcut. If it does not work, nobody needs to know.
But if it works, they win big time – a HUGE return for a SMALL investment.

So, what’s the point.

The point is that it is easy to miss that the “real cost” of taking a shortcut is way higher
than the “perceived cost” of taking one.

When you engage in something, you have two benefits – one is direct and the other one is
indirect. The direct benefit is something that is very evident. You and everyone that is included
can see it – at least most of the times. The indirect benefit is your increased capacity for future
action – be it some or related. You will experience the benefit of indirect benefit over a period of
time. Sometimes you may not even realize it. You would have heard of the term “unconscious
competence” – the state where you are so competent that you don’t even realize that it is
“competence.” Gaining “unconscious competence” is typically an indirect benefit that you derive
after working for a long period of time.

Think about it. Everyone (including you) are born with limited capacity. Over the years, each
one gets different capacities to perform based on where they put their focus, attention and
practice. One becomes a singer, the other becomes an engineer. Yet another one becomes a
mountaineer. And one more person becomes a singer, engineer and a mountaineer – all in one.

But none of this “becoming” happens overnight. It takes time.

When you engage in “real” activity, you accomplish something but also increase your capacity to
perform. If you invest in the right activities, slowly and steadily, you become more valuable to
the marketplace. Over years, you continue this practice and the marketplace places a premium on
you.

On the other hand, take a shortcut and you lose twice. First, because rarely shortcuts succeed.
The odds are against the ones taking the shortcuts. Second, every investment in a shortcut
(before you take the shortcut fantasizing about the possible outcome if you succeed, during
taking the shortcut, after taking the shortcut thinking about how cool it would have been if it paid
off) robs of you of an opportunity to “build capacity for the future.”

In short:

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
20
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The “real cost” of a shortcut is the loss of an opportunity to become better for the future. If it is
too good to be true, it probably is.

References

Hoffman, E. (1988). The right to be human: A biography of Abraham Maslow.

Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L., Griskevicius, V., Becker, D. V., & Schaller, M.
(2010).Goal-Driven Cognition and Functional Behavior The Fundamental-
Motives Framework. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 63-67.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, , .
50(4), 370-96.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a Psychology of being. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand
Company.
Maslow, A. H. (1970a). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1970b). Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York:
Penguin. (Original work published 1966)
Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). Delhi, India: Pearson
Education.

M. A. Bari (2006) Journal of the Muslim Council of Britain 2006-10.

Tay, L., &Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354-356. doi:10.1037/a00
Wulff, D. M., & Maslow, A. H. (1965). Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences.
The Journal of Higher Education, 36(4), 235.
www.aljazira.com
www.ask.com
www.stage.com/Official-Site

www.webmd.com/children/piaget-stages-of-development

www.verywellmind.com/piagets-stages-of-cognitive development

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
21
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson's_stages

www.learning-theories.com/eriksons-stages

www.psychologynoteshq.com/erikerikson

Rajesh Setty (2010) www. Why many smart people take shortcuts and how you
can avoid that trap. 3rd May, 2010 Pp 1-3

Reviewed 6th August 2018 by Y.A Wasai from A.B.U. Zaria (F.C.E. Kano Campus)
22