Professional Documents
Culture Documents
An Empirical Test of A New Theory of Human Needs: Department O) Administrative Sciences, Yale University
An Empirical Test of A New Theory of Human Needs: Department O) Administrative Sciences, Yale University
1The writer would like to thank Thomas M. Lodhal, Martin G. Evans, Benjamin
Schneider, J. l~ichard l=[ackman, Douglas T. Hall, and Chris Argyrls for their
thoughtful and helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper and the
Graduate School of Business and Public Administration at Cornell for financial
support for the study. Appreciation is also expressed to the management, staff,
and employees from the organization where the study was conducted for their
very high degree of cooperation.
142
A N E W THEORY OF H U M A N NEEDS 143
tion of growth needs comes from a person engaging problems which call
upon him to utilize his capacities fully and may include requiring him
to develop additional capacities. A person experiences a greater sense
of wholeness and fullness as a human being by satisfying growth needs.
Thus satisfaction of growth needs depends on a person finding the oppor-
tunities to be what he is most fully and to become what he can.
The business of categorizing or developing lists of human needs and
motives is not a new activity. Henry Murray's (1938) list is reasonably
well known, and it is longer than Maslow's set. Langer (1937) and
Sehein (1965) have also suggested three category sets which bear
considerable similarity to the one proposed in E.R.G. theory. In ad-
dition to definitional differences of varying degrees, these concepts differ
in purpose from those utilized in ~laslow's or E.R.G. theory. Classifi-
cation is not the same as explanation and prediction, but some cate-
gorization (or variable definition) is necessary in order to formulate
a theory.
This threefold categorization of human needs represents the first
way E.R.G. theory departs from Maslow's scheme. It is one way to deal
with the problems posed by the overlapping nature of his safety and
esteem categories. In this new framework, those aspects of safety needs
which deal with physical or material desires belong to the existence
category while those aspects which have to do with interpersonal pro-
cesses fit the relatedness ca£egory. The same kind of point applies to
esteem needs. Those aspects of esteem which depend upon reactions from
others fit the relatedness category, while those which represent autono-
mous self-fulfilling activity belong to growth needs. The different cate-
gorization allows one to refer to the new framework as E. R. G. theory.
By itself the change in the way needs are characterized implies dif-
ferent predictions about how satisfaction is related to strength of desire.
In the case of relatedness needs, the change in categoriza£ion speaks
to a problem with Maslow's theory that he himself noted (1943, p. 308) :
"There are some people in whom, for instance, self-esteem seems to be
more important than love. This most common reversal in the hierarchy
is usually due to the development of the notion that the person who is
most likely to be loved is a strong or powerful p e r s o n . . . " By recognizing
that part of self-esteem which depends on regard from others as part
of relatedness needs, the issue of whether love desires precede or follow
desires for the esteem of others vanishes.
MAJOR PROPOSITIONS AND EXPLANATORY CONCEPTS
IN E.R.G. THEORY
Seven major propositions in E.R.G. theory provide a basis from which
empirically testable hypotheses can be logically derived. The form of
148 CLAYTON P. ALDERFER
~R
(P4) ~ rs
G ~ (P7) gs
ence needs are the most concrete. Their presence or absence is the easiest
for the person to verify due to the fact that their objectives can be re-
duced to material substances or states. Relatedness needs are less con-
crete than existence needs. Their presence or absence depends on the state
of relationships between two or more people. To verify the state of re-
latedness needs depends on the consensual validation of the people in-
volved in the relationship. Finally, growth needs are the least concrete.
Ultimately their specific objectives depend on the uniqueness of ea.eh
person..At the most precise level, the actual state of growth of a person
can be known only to the person, and it can be known to him only when
he is not deluding himself. The continuum from more to less concreteness
is also a. continuum from more to less verifiability and from less to more
potential uncertainty for the person.
The sense in which frustration regression is employed in E.R.G. theory
concerns the tendency of persons to desire more concrete ends as a conse-
quence of being unable to obtain more differentiated, less concrete ends.
Thus a person is thought to desire existence needs when relatedness needs
are not satisfied because he is using them as an easier, more concrete way
of establishing his connectedness with other people. He seeks relatedness
needs when he is unsatisfied with his growth because he is searching for
opportunities for more clarity and support in the quest to stretch, develop,
and expand himself. Thus propositions 2 and 5 are based on the idea that
when a person is not satisfied in attaining less concrete, more uncertain
ends, he "regresses" to needs which are somewhat more concrete and less
uncertain as to their attainment.
It is in this sense that a person may use the size of his pay check as an
indicator of the esteem in which he is held by his boss, colleagues, or
organization. According to E.R.G. theory one would expect him to do this
less, the more open, trusting, and mutually respectful his relationship was
with those significant others. Given the increasing amount of data show-
ing the lack of relatedness-need satisfaction in organizational life, it is not
at all surprising to find that persons rely on pay to assess the esteem by
which they are held.
If propositions 2 and 5 follow from a frustration-regression mechanism,
the explanation behind propositions 3 and 6 might be termed satisfaction
progression. These propositions are intended to be in the same spirit as
.1VIaslow's original hierarchy, except that the impact of relatedness satis-
faction on growth desires does not presume satisfaction of existence
needs. Satisfaction-progression reasoning is based on the premise that as
a person fulfills the more concrete aspects of his desires, more of his
energy becomes available to deal with the less concrete, more personal,
and more uncertain aspects of living. As he is able to fulfill existence
152 CLAYTON P. ALDERFER
ties to grow both on the same dimensions where he has already grown
and in new arenas in his life.
their data seemed to run contrary to the point of view that a satisfied
need is not a motivator. E.R.G. theory also departs from that view for
the reasons implied by the Hall-Nougaim (1968) study. The departure
is shown in proposition 7 which states that growth needs are desired the
more they are satisfied. In Maslow's (1943) original statement he did
not discuss the consequences of satisfaction of self-actualization needs.
However, in a later statement (1962, p. 31) he did say: "Growth is
instead a continued, more or less steady upward or forward development.
The more one gets, the more one wants, so that this kind of wanting is
endless and can never be attained or satisfied." Thus E.R.G. theory
departs from Maslow's earlier statement but is in esseatial agreement
with his later position.
Maslow's basic hypothesis i s tha~ a certain degree of satisfaction of
lower-level needs is a prerequisite for t h e appearance of higher-order
needs. Operating within the context of that hypothesis, threefold cate-
gorization implies some different predictions that the fivefold system.
Since in E.R.G. theory, safety needs in part belong with existence needs
and in par~ with relatedness needs, it was necessary to make temporary
use of two new concepts to state the different predictions. Let these be
termed safety-existence needs and safety-relatedness needs. Then, ac-
cording to E.R.G. theory:
of esteem needs. These terms follow from the P o r t e r (1962) and Beer (1966)
operational definitions of Maslow needs used in this study. Respect from co-
workers and respect from superiors are operational indicators of relatedness needs
in E.R.G. theory.
:158 CLAYTON P. ALDERFER
METHOD
SUBJECTS
Approximately 110 persons employed in ~ bank located in a city in
upstate New York served as subjects for this study. They represented
A NEW THEORY OF HUMAN NEEDS 159
all job levels in the organization below vice president. With the exception
of those people who were absent during the study, they represented all
the employees in the organization.
PROCEDURE
OPERATIONALDEFINITIONS
Maslow's work has been predominantly a contribution to the theo-
retical literature. As a result there is no established paradigm or set of
operational definitions for testing the theory. To this writer's knowledge
there are three instances in the published literature where writers have
attempted to develop operational definitions for Maslow's concepts. Porter
(1962, 1963) and Beer (1966) developed questionnaire measures of needs
from the five-category system, and Hall and Nougaim (1968) used an
interview coding method. Neither Porter nor Beer has actually reported
tests of Maslow's theory; they have used their measures for different
purposes. Hall and Nougaim, however, did attempt tests of Maslow's
theory. In their longitudinal study they employed both static and dy-
namic analyses. They correlated need-satisfaction in one year with need
intensity of that year, and they correlated change in need satisfaction
between two years with change in need intensity between the same two
years.
The present writer has used both interview and questionnaire meth-
ods to test E.R.G. theory (Alderfer, 1966). Convergent and discriminant
validation of these measures has been reported (Alderfer, 1967). To date,
the methodological approach has been eorre/ations between measures of
need satisfaction and desire at a given point in time. This approach does
160 CLAYTON P. ALDERFER
not allow for firmly establishing causal direction. Both longitudinal and
experimental methods could be profitably employed in future studies.
T h e present study utilized static correlations from questionnaires to
test between the theories. Satisfaction measures were based on six-point
L i k e r b s c a l e items, while the need intensity measures were ratings of
"desire." T h e Porter (1962, 1963) and Beer (1966) studies measured
need intensity b y " i m p o r t a n c e " ratings or rankings. I n the interview-
questionnaire validity study it was found t h a t while importance and
desire ratings were highly correlated for existence and growth needs, t h e y
were not for relatedness needs (Alderfer, 1967). T h e desire items used in
this study were based on desire ratings and are shown in T a b l e 1. T h e
satisfaction items are shown in T a b l e 2.
I t e m content for the operational indicators of Maslow belongingness
TABLE 1
D~smE I~EMS
Instruction:
Tell how much more of the following factors you would like to have in your job.
1 means No More
2 means Slightly More
3 means Somewhat More
4 means Much More
5 means Very Much More
Existence Needs
Pay:
I. Good pay for m y work
2. Frequent raises in pay
Fringe Benefits:
1. A complete fringe benefit program
2. Frequent improvements in fringe benefits
Relatedness Needs
Respect from co-workers:
1. Cooperative relations with my co-workers
2. Respect from my co-workers
3. Openness and honesty with my co-workers
Respect from superiors:
1. Respect from my boss
2. Openness and honesty between my boss and me
3. Mutual trust between my boss and me
Belongingness (love) Needs
1. The opportunity to be helpful to my co-workers
2. The opportunity to develop close friendships at work
Status (esteem) Needs
1. The status my job gives me
2. The feeling that my job is regarded as important.
A NEW THEORY OF HUMAN NEEDS 161
and status needs were taken directly from scales developed by Porter
(1962, 1963) and Beer (1966). This was done in order to reduce the pos-
sibility of bias because this writer held an alternative point of view. The
items were presented in the same format as the E.R.G. items, however,
which meant that their format was different from that employed by either
Porter or Beer.
RESULTS
The data in Table 2 indicate that for the group as a whole pay satisfac-
tion is moderate at best. An item of interest is ##5, which states that pay
is adequate to provide for the basic things in life. The mean response to
this item is 3.19, or approximately mildly agree on t h e attitude scale.
Sixty-five percent of the respondents indicated that much or more agree-
ment with the item. On the othe r hand, there are the responses to item 3,
which states that the person does not make enough money to live com-
fortably. The mean response to this item is 3.37, or approximately mildly
agree on the attitude scale. Forty-nine percent of the respondents indi-
cated that much or more agreement with the item. These responses are
consistent with the fact that the organization was in the process of
examining its wage and salary schedule.
The data on fringe benefits, however, shows a different picture. Item 2,
which states that the fringe benefits provide nearly all the security the
person wants, has a mean response of 2.40, or approximately agree on the
attitude scale. Eighty-six percent of the respondents showed mild agree-
ment or more with this item. These answers are consistent with the fact
that the organization had recently revised its benefit program.
Also from the data in Table 2 one can see that, overall, belongingness
needs seem to be reasonably well satisfied. Ninety percent of the re-
spondents showed some agreement that they had developed close friend-
ships at work. Eighty-eight percent showed some agreement that they
had opportunities to help their co-workers. The mean response for both
of the belongingness items was nearest to agree on the scales.
The level of satisfaction of lower level needs bears only on the tests
of Maslow hypotheses. In this study, these tests refer only to the out-
comes of hypotheses 1-3. From the data given above one could reason-
ably conclude that the needs for security (in the form of fringe benefits)
and for belongingness were reasonably well satisfied in this organization.
The need for pay was less well satisfied. It is not altogether clear tha~
either pay or fringe benefits are adequate operational concepts for physio-
logical and safety needs. It might be argued that fringe benefits are a
162 CLAYTON P. ALDERFER
, TABLE 2
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF NEED SATISFACTION ITEMSa
• (n = 110)
TABLE 2 (Contin~,ed)
TABLE 3
CORRELATIONS TESTING HYPOTHESES 1-3
(n = 110)
Desire for:
TABLE 4
CORRELATIONS TESTING HYPOTHESES 4--7
Desire for:
TABLE 5
CORRELATIONS FOR TESTING HYPOTHESES 8--15
(n = 110)
Desires for:
SOME ~/~ETHODICALNOTES
TABLE 6
CORRELATIONS FOR TESTING HYPOTHESES 16--21
(n = 110)
Desires for:
Desires for:
could provide support for the Maslow Hypotheses 2 and 3 due to re-
sponse bias alone. The data show no support at all for Hypothesis 2
and very weak support for Hypothesis 3. The summed satisfaction and
desire scales correlate .074 for belongingness needs and -.094 for esteem
needs. If these scales are used as the most valid test of the hypotheses,
then one can say that essentially no support was found for these
hypotheses. When so little support was found for the hypotheses where
response bias was loaded in favor of finding the relationships, then
one can be more confident that when significant relationships were
found, they were not due to response bias.
Another methodological point concerns the relative reliability of the
E.R.G. versus the Maslow satisfaction and desire scales. Perhaps the
E.R.G. relatedness predictions came out better than the analogous
Maslow predictions because the scales measuring them were better. The
correlation between the Maslow belongingness-satisfaction items was
.377 and between the Maslow status satisfaction items was .500. For
the Maslow desire scales, the respective inter-item correlations were
.400 and .511. For the respect from peers and respect from superiors
scales, the median inter-item correlations for the satisfaction scales
were .422 and .294, respectively. For the E.R.G. desire scales, the
median inter-item correlations were .605 for respect from peers and
.749 for respect from superiors. Spearman-Brown estimates of internal
consistency of the scales, based on the using of the median inter-item
correlations and number of items in the Spearman-Brown formula,
showed that the E.R.G. satisfaction scales had slightly higher relia-
bilities (.79'8 and .645 versus .548 and .667) than the Maslow scales.
The E.R.G. desire scales had substantially better reliabilities than the
Maslow desire scales (.819 and .861 versus .571 and .676). Therefore,
one should question whether the poorer support given to Hypotheses
1-3, as compared to that for Hypotheses 4-7, was because poorer
measures were used to test them.
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF SUPPORT FoR HYPOTHESES
Fraction
of items
significant
Masl0w-theory belongingness and status predictions at ~.05
DISCUSSION
E.R.G. theory was proposed to deal with the problem of how need-
satisfaction was related to need strength. In order to be a viable alter-
native to current conceptual schemes, the new theory should provide
greater conceptual clarity and show more empirical validity. These
comparisons may be made in two ways: (1) with the simple frustration
hypothesis which implies that any frustrated need will increase in
strength but implies no connection between needs of different types,
and (2) with Maslow's hierarchical theory of motivation which includes
five categories of needs and includes the major assumption that the
categories are arranged in an order of prepotency such that a certain
degree o f satisfaction o f lower-level needs is required for higher-order
needs to increase in strength.
The strong support given to hypotheses 4, 5, 16, 17, 20, and 21 for
example, suggest that the simple frustration hypothesis alone is not
adequate to account for the relationship between satisfaction and de-
sires. Each of these hypotheses represented a situation where the degree
of satisfaction of one need was related to the strength of desire for a
di#erent need. In the case of hypotheses 4 and 5, the different desire
came from the same overall need category, namely relatedness needs.
But in the case of hypotheses 16, 17, 20, and 21 the different needs be-
longed to other general need categories. For hypotheses 16 and 17,
lower satisfaction of growth needs was related to higher desires for
relatedness needs. For Hypotheses 20 and 21, lower satisfaction of
relatedness needs was related to higher desires for existence needs. The
strong support for hypotheses 6 and 7 was consistent with the simple
frustration hypothesis. However, since these and other hypotheses
follow from proposition 4, one might suggest that the E.R.G. formulation
accounts for the phenomena predicted by the simple frustration and
more.
The outcomes on hypotheses 16, 17, 20, and 21 also provide a basis
for favoring E.R.G. theory over Maslow's hierarchical theory. These
results support hypotheses generated by E.R.G. theory that were not
part of Maslow's theory. They show a place where that theory was
incomplete and where E.R.G. theory was not. It should be recognized,
however, that two other hypotheses, 18 and 19, were not supported by
the empirical results.
Both of these hypotheses show that it was satisfaction with respect
from co-workers that did not show a relationship to existence desires.
In contrast, satisfaction with respect from superiors did show the pre-
dicted relationship to both desires for pay and fringe benefits. If this
pattern of results is replicated, it suggests that E.R.G. may have to be
172 CLAYTON P. ALDERFER
ARGYRIS,.C.Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: Wiley, 1964.
ARGYRIS, C. Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Homewood,
Illinois: Irwin-Dorsey, 1962.
BARKER, R. G., DEMR0, T., AND LEV~IN, K. Frustration and regression, In R. G.
Barker et al. (Eds.), Child behavior and development. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1943. Pp. 441-458.
BARNES, L. B. Organizational systems and engineering groups. Boston: Harvard
Graduate School of Business, 1960.
BEER, M. Leadership, employee needs, and motivation. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio
State University Division of Research, 1966.
CLARX, J. B. Motivation in work groups: a tentative view. Human organization,
1960-61, 13, 198-208.
CONANT, J. B. On understanding science. New Haven : Yale, 1947.
DUNNETTE, M. D. The motives of industrial managers. Organizational behavior
and human performance, 1967, 2, 176-182.
ERIKSON, E. Childhood and society. New York: Norton, 1950.
FREUD, S. Therapy and technique. New York: Collier Books, 1963.
HALL, D. T., AND NOUGAI~, K. E. An examination of Maslow's need hierarchy in
an organizational setting. Organizational behavior and human performance,
1968, 3, 12-35.
HARRISON,R. A conceptual framework for laboratory training, Mimeo, 1966.
HARVEY, 0. J., HUNT, D. E., AND SCHRODER~H. M. Conceptual systems and per-
sonality organization. New York : Wiley, 1961.
JACQUES, E. Equitable payment. New York: Wiley, 1961.
LANGER, W. C. Psychology and human living. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1937.
LAWLER, E. E., AND PORTER, L. W. Perceptions regarding management compensation.
Industrial relations, 1963, 3, 41-49.
LAWSON, ~:~., AND MARX, M. H. Frustration: theory and experiment. Genetic
psychology monographs, 1958, 57, 393-464
LEWIN, KURT. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row, 1951.
LEWIN, KURT, DEMB0, T., FESTINGER, L., AND SEARS, P. Level of aspiration. In
J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders. New York:
Ronald Press, 1944. Pp. 333-378.
MASLOW,A. H. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1954.
MASLOW, A. H. A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 1943, 50,
370-396.
MASLOW, A. H. Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van-
Nostrand, 1962.
MURRAY, H. A. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press,
1938.
PORTER, L. W. Job attitudes in management: I. perceived deficiencies in need
fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of applied psychology, 1962,
46, 375-384.
PORTER, L. W. Job attitudes in management: II. perceived importance of needs
as a function of job level. Journal o/applied psychology, 1963, 47, 141-148.
ROSENZWEIO, SAUL. An outline of frustration theory. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.),
Personality and the behavior disorders. New York: Ronald Press, 1944. Pp.
379-388.
A NEW THEORY OF H U M A N NEEDS 175