See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352181667

A Critical Review of Maslow’s Theory of Spirituality

Article  in  Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health · June 2021

DOI: 10.1080/19349637.2021.1932694

CITATIONS READS

3 970

3 authors, including:

Eleonora Papaleontiou Louca Saeed Esmailnia

European University Cyprus University of Science and Research
48 PUBLICATIONS   61 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

YOUNG CHILDREN'S SELF-REGGULATION View project

YOUNG CHILDREN'S THEORY OF MIND View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eleonora Papaleontiou Louca on 08 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wspi20

A Critical Review of Maslow’s Theory of Spirituality

Eleonora Louca, Saeed Esmailnia & Niki Thoma

To cite this article: Eleonora Louca, Saeed Esmailnia & Niki Thoma (2021): A Critical
Review of Maslow’s Theory of Spirituality, Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, DOI:
10.1080/19349637.2021.1932694

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2021.1932694

Published online: 06 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wspi20
JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH
https://doi.org/10.1080/19349637.2021.1932694

A Critical Review of Maslow’s Theory of Spirituality

a
Eleonora Papaleontiou–Louca , Saeed Esmailniab, and Niki Thomac
a
Psychology, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus; bPsychology Department, University of
Science and Research, Tehran, Iran; cEducational Psychologist, ex. faculty of Social Sciences, European
University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Maslow’s theory might be one of the most powerful perspec­ Maslow; spirituality; self-
tives on humans’ growth. It suggests that people have a strong centered; transcendence;
desire to realize their full potential, reach their self-actualization criticism
and find meaning in life. In spite of its attractive nature, the
theory has also received much criticism. One of the main objec­
tions focuses on its emphasis on “self”, which might be inter­
preted as an individualistic perspective of life. Maslow’s later
addition of the “Transcendence” level seems more compatible
with the notion of “spirituality” since people seem, now, to be
able to overcome “self” and commit themselves to a higher
goal.

The Μeaning of Spirituality

In the history of science, humans and scientists have tried to understand the
existence of humans from different angles. One of the aspects that has
attracted the attention of scientists and psychologists is related to spirituality.
Attention to spirituality in solving life problems and the value and meaning of
human life have been considered essential phenomena in the context of
human existence. Maslow considers it the highest need in the hierarchy of
human needs. Gardner (1993, chap. 4) names it alternatively as “existential
intelligence”. The diversity of the concept of “Spirituality” has led to various
definitions and terms related to it, among scientists. In general, “Spiritual
Intelligence” transcends physical realities, encompasses the realm of transcen­
dence of life, and answers existential questions such as: “What is the world?”
Why is it made like this? Who are we? Where do we come from? What are we
made of? What is the meaning of life? Why do we die? Is there life after death?
Although evidence has shown that religion and spirituality are strongly
associated to each other as well as with mental health and psychological fitness
(Chamberlain & Zika, 1992; Hill & Pargament, 2003) they aren’t synonymous
(Phelps & Hassed, 2012; West, 2000). “Religion” typically involves certain
customs, rituals and traditions and beliefs to (a) certain God(s). On the
other hand, “Spirituality” refers to an individual investigation for a life of

CONTACT Eleonora Louca eleonorapaplouca@gmail.com Psychology, European University Cyprus, 13A

Patriarchi Grigoriou, Nicosia 2414, Cyprus
© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 E. P. LOUCA ET AL.

meaning and purpose. It involves communication to the world and to the

other people. Zohar and Marshall (2000) mentioned spirituality is understood
to be holistic. It is a ‘dynamic wholeness of self in which the self is at one with
itself and with the whole of creation (Zohar & Marshall, 2000). Spirituality is
ontological- it belongs to every human being. It is more accurate to call
ourselves spiritual beings who have a human life than human beings who
have a spiritual life (Groome, 1998).
Some experts refer to it as “Spiritual Intelligence”. Zohar (quoted by
Skrzypińska, 2020) introduced the term “Spiritual Intelligence” (SI or SQ) in
1997, and since that time researchers have been seeking to clarify the concept.
Vaughan (2002) believes that “Spiritual Intelligence” is one of the multiple
intelligences that can grow and develop independently. “Spiritual Intelligence”
can be nurtured through effort, probe, and practice. Elkins and Cavendish
(2004) stated that the field of “Spiritual Intelligence” causes people to be more
amenable and compassionate to find solutions, better endure the hardships of
life, and give dynamism and movement to their lives. Emmons (2000) claimed
that “Spiritual Intelligence” consists of several components: capacity to trans­
cend the physical and material, ability to experience heightened states of
consciousness, ability to sanctify everyday experience, and ability to utilize
spiritual resources to solve problems. King (2008) viewed SI as a set of adaptive
mental capacities based on non-material and supreme aspects of reality,
specifically those which are related to the nature of one’s existence, personal
meaning and heightened states of consciousness.
In the modern era, disinterest, emphasis is on pleasure, rootlessness, heart­
break, bewilderment, corruption, despair and pessimism have become wide­
spread among societies. Maslow believes that the root of all these anomalies is
the decline of traditional values and the fading of spirituality. The way out of
this nihilistic crisis is to create a value system. Based on this theory, science
should not be neutral and indifferent to the analysis of values; rather, it should
include our value experiences (Maslow, 1970a).

Spirituality in Maslow’s work

Abraham Harold Maslow (1908–1970) was born in Brooklyn, New York, U.S.
A. He taught Psychology at universities and as a university professor he
became in 1969 Resident Fellow at the W. Price Laughlin Charitable
Foundation in Menlo Park, California. Maslow opened a new path in
Psychology theories, with the hierarchy of human needs and with the dimen­
sion of human spirituality. He questioned the field of Psychology as being
narrow and his work was a catalyst in widening it leaving behind Behaviorism
(as “exclusively mechanistic, positivistic and desperately attempting to be
value-free”) and Psychoanalytic Psychology, with the stress on the uncon­
scious and the sick part of us (Maslow, 1964, p. 22). Maslow gives an optimistic
 JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH 3

picture of human personality and needs, in fact, he demands a redefinition of

the science of Psychology, away from Behavioral Science or Psychoanalysis. He
enriched Philosophy of Psychology, opened the “Third Force” (Humanistic
Psychology), and initiated the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, its first issue
coming out in 1961. He also established another branch of Psychology,
Transpersonal Psychology.
Maslow is considered as one of the pioneering thinkers and one of the
founders of “humanistic psychology”, which is also called “third force psy­
chology”. He calls psychoanalysis the “second force” and behaviorism the “first
force psychology.” He argued that the school of psychoanalysis was danger­
ously close to the philosophy of denial of values and the philosophies of
nihilism, and that the movement of behaviorism denied the legitimacy of
values and meanings as an important and interesting subject in psychology.
Not only do they not have answers to the basic questions of human existence,
but they also deny the questions themselves and do not fundamentally address
the questions of human existence (Maslow, 1964). The humanist movement,
however, especially in Maslow’s views, has confronted their views and pro­
vided a definition that can incorporate many of the characteristics of spiritual
experience (Schneider, James, Bugental, & Pierson, 2001).
Maslow considered spirituality as one of the most important elements
of his humanistic approach. In his theory, spiritual life is seen as a core
component of our human essence and of our humanness (Maslow, 1969,
p. 122). As a defining characteristic of human nature and the basic
component of our biological life (Maslow, 1971), spiritual life constitutes
the most essential element in humanity. Since spiritual life is instinct like,
it can be heard through the “impulse voices” arising from within. Maslow
finds “two sets of forces pulling at the individual, not just one”: pressures
toward health and self-actualization and regressive pressure backwards in
the direction of weaknesses and sickness (Maslow, 1969). He believed that
humans need a framework of values, a philosophy for life, spirituality with
which to understand life; almost in the same sense that they need sun­
light, calcium or love. This can be called “cognitive need for understand­
ing” (Maslow, 1968). He also argues that humanistic psychologists may
consider someone who does not care about these spiritual/religious issues
to be abnormal (Maslow, 1970b). Maslow considers the deprivation of
these “diseases” or “defects” of human beings “metapathology”, which is
the frustration and anxiety that arises from an inability to fulfil one’s
“metaneeds” and prevents people who aim at self-actualization from
expressing, using and fulfilling their potential (Maslow, 1971). He con­
sidered spirituality to be a human and universal phenomenon that is not
exclusive to any religion or religious group (Fuller, 1994a). Maslow con­
sidered spiritual experiences to be an important element of mental health
(Wulff, 1991).
4 E. P. LOUCA ET AL.

His book “Motivation and Personality”, (published in 1954 and edited in

1970 and in 1987) became widely known. Here, he analyzed his theory of
needs. He proposed this theory, in his paper “A theory of Human Motivation”
where he described a “suggested program or framework for future research,
which must stand or fall, not so much on facts available or evidence presented,
as upon research to be done, research suggested, perhaps, by the questions of
this paper” (Maslow, 1943, p. 372). He proposed a hierarchy: The hierarchy,
which we can picture as a two-dimensional pyramid, has the five general needs
depicted in such a way that the more basic (physiological) needs are at the
bottom and the higher ones at the top of the pyramid. Each of the needs must
more or less be satisfied, according to Maslow, in order for a person to move
on to the higher level or need. The five levels of needs are:
At the bottom of the pyramid, we find the physiological needs, some basic
for life needs as are needs for food and water, rest, clothing, general health.
Next as we go up is safety, including needs as protection, emotional stability,
protection of health, financial security.
Third as we go up is the “sense of belonging” and “love” need, love
including giving and receiving affection. Related to the satisfaction of this
need Maslow stresses the destructive consequences of uprooting a child from
a family, a neighborhood, from a familiar group etc.
Fourth is the esteem needs: Need for a stable high appreciation of the self,
for self-respect and esteem of others. Needs for strength, achievement, ade­
quacy, mastery, confidence in the world, independence and freedom.
Fifth and highest level of needs (highest at the time of the Motivation and
Personality book, 1954) is the need for self-actualization. There is a discontent
and restlessness if one is not doing what he or she individually is fitted for.
“What humans can be, they must be. The more satisfied, the healthier we are”
(Maslow, 1954, p. 10).
Maslow studied and emphasized these higher needs all along his career. The
need for self-actualization is the top of the needs he proposed in “Motivation
and Personality”. According to this a self-actualizer has explored what he or
she wants to become and is capable of becoming. “He must be true to his own
nature” (Maslow, 1954, p. 46).
Maslow carried out a study of self-actualizers. He studied a number of
students, later adults, using criteria from the characteristics of self-
actualizers, but he also used acquaintances, family, historical and public
figures. He said that he used empirical criteria, healthiness, being “fully
human”, (Maslow, 1959, p. 126) having “the highest excellence which we
value”. Asking what is normal is what we value. Normality for Maslow is
“the highest excellence of which we are capable” (Maslow, 1954, p. 279).
Concerning the studies of self-actualizers, he confessed later (Maslow, 1964,
preface) that the criteria on which he based the profile of “self-actualizers” and
the selection of his participants were on “pilot research, bits of evidence,
 JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH 5

personal observations, theoretical deductions and on sheer hunch”! (Maslow,

1968, Preface).
Nevertheless, he found a number of characteristics that self-actualizers had
in his study: They were fulfilling themselves and were doing the best they were
capable of doing, were safe and unanxious, accepted, loved and loving, respect-
worthy and respected, had worked their philosophical religious or axiological
bearings, had perception of the fake, honesty, acceptance of human nature (no
crippling guilt, great shame or extreme anxiety), had spontaneity, problem
centering, solitude (could be comfortable alone), autonomy (including resis­
tance to culture and environment), had appreciation of goods of life, had peak
experiences, human kinship, humility, interpersonal relationships, ethics,
knowing of means and ends, humor, creativity, resistance to enculturation,
desire to help people and mankind and resolution of dichotomies (mainly
polarities) (Maslow, 1954, p. 149ff).
Later, Maslow added transcendence as a step further, a higher need to which
a growth-oriented, self-actualizer may proceed. “It is just this person, in whom
ego strength is at its height, who most easily forgets or transcends the ego,
becomes unselfish, self-forgetting, egoless. The person in that situation is
object-oriented, impersonal, unmotivated, detached” (Maslow, 1968, p. 72).
It is a step that Koltko-Rivera (2006) equates with a sixth level of human needs
in Maslow’s hierarchy.
Maslow is optimistic with human personality: he gives a spiritual picture of
humans: “Man has a higher and transcendent nature, and this is part of
human’s essence, i.e., his biological nature as a member of a species which
has evolved” (Maslow, 1964, p. 13). He disagrees with organized religions, as
he does not consider them as guardians of spiritual life, spiritual values which
we would want to pass to the children at school (Maslow, 1964, Preface). In
organized religions, he states, the mystic experiences, the illumination, the
great awakening along with the charismatic seer who started the whole thing,
are forgotten, lost or transformed into their opposites. According to his view
“the churches finally become the major enemies of the religious experience
and the religious experiencer” (Maslow, 1964, Preface).
Furthermore, he proposes that science and religion have been too narrowly
conceived . . . and separated from each other . . . they have been seen to be two
mutually exclusive worlds. This separation permitted nineteenth-century
science to become too exclusively mechanistic, too positivistic, too reductio­
nistic, too desperately attempting to be value-free. Such an attitude dooms
science to be nothing more than technology, amoral and non-ethical (as the
Nazi doctors taught us) (Maslow, 1964, p. 23). Discussing “means and ends” as
priorities in science he emphasizes that it is not the means (processes, meth­
ods) that are or should be our main interest (as lots of psychological work in
various centers is), but the end, which we will produce (Maslow, 1954, p. 21).
6 E. P. LOUCA ET AL.

Maslow put forward that the teaching of spiritual, ethical and moral values
has a basic and essential place in education. Such values should be the goals of
education and the other social institutions (Maslow, 1964, chapter 8.) and “the
final and unavoidable conclusion is that educational, like all our social institu­
tions, must be concerned with final values, and this in turn is just about the
same as speaking of what has been called “spiritual values” or “higher values”
(Maslow, 1964, p. 59).
In general, we see the positive picture of humans in his writings: We each
have nature, which is partly unique, partly species-wide, it is unchanging. The
needs are a-moral, not evil, neutral, pre-moral, partially good. Destructiveness,
cruelty, malice etc. are not intrinsic needs, emotion and capabilities. Human
nature is not really as bad as it has been thought to be. Since nature is good, it
is better to encourage it. If we suppress human nature it gets sick. It is not
strong, it is weak and delicate and can be overthrown by habit, cultural
pressure and wrong attitudes toward it. If it is suppressed, it persists under­
ground pressing for self-actualization (Maslow, 1968, p. 14).
In later stages of need development, he tells us, there is a higher motivation,
for higher need growth, which has a goal and a value in itself (Maslow, 1968).
He kept writing on human’s need for the sacred and of God as goodness
(Maslow, 1979, p. 524), quoted by Fuller, 1994a. “The search for the exotic, the
strange, the unusual, the uncommon, has often taken the form of pilgrimages,
of turning away from the world, the “journey to the East”, to another country or
to a different religion .The great lesson from the true mystics . . . – that the
sacred is in the ordinary, that it is to be found in one’s daily life, in one’s
neighbors, friends and family, in one’s backyard, and that travel may be a flight
from confronting the sacred- this lesson can be easily lost. To be looking
elsewhere for miracles is to me a sure sign of ignorance that everything is
miraculous (Maslow, 1964, Preface).
So, Maslow believed that humans are by nature spiritual beings, something
he stresses throughout his books. He introduced the concept of
“Transpersonal Psychology” and stressed the importance of the transpersonal
to humans.
Transcendence according to Maslow can be described as “the highest and
most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relat­
ing, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human
beings in general, to other species, to nature and to cosmos” (Maslow, 1971,
p. 269).
Maslow emphasized what he called “peak experiences”. One of his books
has the title “Religions, Values and Peak experiences”. He called mystical,
ecstatic and spiritual states “peak experiences”, where there tends to be a loss,
even though transient, of fear, anxiety, inhibition, of defense and control, of
perplexity, confusion, conflict, of delay and restraint (Maslow, 1964, p. 71).
Maslow includes these experiences into the very core of spirituality
 JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH 7

characteristics of people. He thinks that we tend to hide our tendency to have

such moments of heightened consciousness, but that is wrong: peak experi­
ences are human from our construction and they reveal our spiritual nature.
“Also, this kind of study leads us to another, very plausible, hypothesis, that: to
the extent that all mystical and peak experiences are the same in their essence
and have always been the same, all religions are the same in their essence and
have always been the same” (Maslow, 1964, p. 31), a hypothesis that has been
criticized for its comparativist nature.
Maslow differentiated between self-actualizers who are healthy but with
little or no experiences of transcending (non-peakers) and those for whom
transcending experiencing is important and even central. People of the first
type live for the here and now and the immediate needs, they are more “doers”
rather than meditators and contemplators. The transcenders (or peakers) are
living at the level of being (of becoming, of growing), of ends, of intrinsic
values, they have peak experiences with illuminations or insights or cognitions
which changed their view of the world and themselves (Maslow, 1971, pp.
270–271).The transcenders have some differences from the non transcenders,
of which we give some: They speak the language of being (of becoming, of
growing), the language of poets, of mystics, of seers, of profoundly religious
men, of men who live at the platonic-idea or spinozistic level, under the
aspects of eternity, they see sacredness in all things, they have values of
being, e.g. perfection, truth, beauty, goodness, unity, they transcend the ego,
the self, the identity.
Finally, Maslow considers these peak experiences to lead to Knowledge and
to better development (Maslow, 1964, Preface). He also had the belief that such
experiences alone “might prevent suicide” and many varieties of slow self-
destruction”, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, violence, (Maslow,
1964, p. 80).
Though Maslow’s theory seemed to have a great impact on the psychological
world, it has also received, as all theories, enough criticism, the main aspects of
which are analyzed below:

Criticism of Maslow’s Theory – Discussion

Maslow’s work (1954) “Motivation and Personality” has become one of the
most famous theories in human motivation and his hierarchy of needs is
considered as a milestone in psychology: Instead of focusing on abnormal
behavior and development, he focuses on the development of healthy indivi­
duals (Cherry, 2010). One of the phrases that is constantly repeated by Maslow
is: “The study of lame, immature, incomplete and unhealthy growth people,
can only produce the psychology of Cripple Psychology” (Maslow, 1970b,
p. 180). Moreover, Maslow’s theory of “the hierarchy of needs”, is one of the
8 E. P. LOUCA ET AL.

most influential theories of motivation, widely used to stimulate human

motivation.
Despite its optimistic nature, Maslow’s theory, seems (Acevedo, 2018) to
share the materialistic, naturalistic, and deterministic assumptions of indivi­
dualism and obliterate moral responsibility. So, for several researchers it also
seems to overlook the spiritual aspect in human’s development . uprooting the
basis for human dignity, its perfectibility by virtue, and the common good
(Seligman, 2011, p. 90; see also, Garrison, 2001, p. 98, 100; Guillén, Ferrero, &
Hoffman, 2015; Harter, 2006; Maritain, 1947/1972; Reader, 2006, p. 345). Far
from Aristotelian–Thomistic human psychology as the metaphysical study of
the rational soul, its properties and relation with the body, those “psychologi­
cal” theories disregard that which is distinctly human (Acevedo, 2018, p. 753).
In fact, Maslow’s theory has been also widely criticized by most scholars.
One of the basic critics has been that “Highly self-actualizing people are
focused on their own development and achievements: They are focused on
“the self.”
Indeed, several scholars have addressed their concerns in contemporary
European American psychology related to the centrality of individuality and
the great emphasis on autonomous self in Maslow’s theory (e.g., Arnett, 2008;
Christopher & Hickinbottom, 2008; Sampson, 1988; all cited by Compton,
2018).
This frequent reference to the “self” in self-actualization has led to the
criticism that Maslow’s theory promotes a very self-focused process of perso­
nal growth. Replying to this criticism, Maslow said that (self-actualizing
persons) are people trying to develop to the full of their potential and it is
expected that the self in self-actualization will have an individualistic nature . . .
(Maslow, 1954). On the other hand, he said that highly self-actualizing people
do possess attitudes and behaviors that are centered on others and on huma­
nitarian concerns. In fact, he includes prosocial construct of social interest and
feeling as one of the 15 features of highly self-actualizing people. Some other
personality characteristics include interpersonal relations, such as tolerance
for self and others, a democratic character structure, and a dedication and
service to others (Maslow, 1987).
It seems, though, that the term “self-actualization” does not reflect actual
Maslow’s beliefs; this term for him refers to focusing on becoming the best
person that one can possibly strive for in the service of both the self and others
(Maslow, 1954). Quite often, when people are at the level of selfactualization,
much of what they accomplish in general may benefit others, or “the greater
good” . . . So, the self only finds its actualization in giving itself to some higher
goal outside oneself, in altruism and spirituality (Garcia-Romeu, 2010).
Besides, during his later years, Maslow explored a further dimension of
needs, while criticizing his own vision on self-actualization (Maslow, 1954).
 JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH 9

More specifically, in his preface to the second edition of his book “Toward
a Psychology of Being”, Maslow (1968, p. iv) introduced the idea of transper­
sonal psychology and added another level to his pyramid (above the need of
self-actualization):

I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology, a preparation

for a still “higher” Fourth Psychology, transpersonal, transhuman, centered in
the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness,
identity, self-actualization, and the like . . . We need something “bigger than
we are” to be awed by and to commit ourselves to.

Besides, later in his life, Maslow (1971) developed Theory Z in which he

would retrace his steps just a bit and said that not all highly self-actualizing
people had transpersonal experiences. He suggested there were “ . . . two kinds
(or better, degrees) of self-actualizing people . . . ” (p. 270). He described these
two types as “peakers” and “nonpeakers” referring to their history of having or
not having peak experiences. In other words, he differentiated between self-
actualizers who are healthy but with little or no experiences of transcending
(non-peakers) and those for whom transcending experiencing is important
and even central (peakers).
People of the first type live for the here and now and the immediate needs,
they are more “doers” rather than meditators and contemplators. The trans­
cenders (or peakers) are living at the level of being (of becoming, of growing),
of ends, of intrinsic values, they have peak experiences with illuminations or
insights or cognitions which changed their view of the world and themselves
(Maslow, 1971, pp. 270–271) The transcenders have some differences from the
non transcenders, of which we give some: They speak the language of being (of
becoming, of growing), the language of poets, of mystics, of seers, of pro­
foundly religious men, of men who live at the platonic-idea or spinozistic level,
under the aspects of eternity, they see sacredness in all things, they have values
of being, e.g. perfection, truth, beauty, goodness, unity, they transcend the ego,
the self, the identity.
Among other qualities, peakers were more likely to “see the sacredness in all
things,” they were “more holistic,” more drawn to “mystery and awe,” and
there was “more and easier transcendence of the ego, the Self, the identity”
(Maslow (1971, pp. 273, 278). One curious impression mentioned by Maslow
was that peakers were less happy than non-peaking self-actualizers. He attrib­
uted this to a greater tendency of peakers to feel “cosmic-sadness or
B-sadness” over the failures of humanity to progress beyond the self-
centered, mundane concerns and fears that rule most lives (Maslow, 1971).
In other words, “Peaker’s” are people who have genuine, private, personal and
transcendent religious experiences and often easily acquire, accept and benefit
from them. On the other hand, “Non-peakers” are people who have never had
10 E. P. LOUCA ET AL.

such experiences or those who reject or suppress them and therefore cannot
use them for personal growth or personal satisfaction.
The term “‘Transcendence’ refers to the very highest and most inclusive or
holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather
than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to
other species, to nature, and to the Cosmos” It is pertinent to state that as each
of the needs becomes considerably fulfilled, the next stage becomes dominant
(Robbins, 2009). However, a need must not be completely satisfied before the
next level becomes compelling.
Koltko-Rivera (2006, p. 302) refers to this later version of Maslow’s hier­
archy of needs model, which adds “self-transcendence as a motivational step
beyond self-actualization” and explains that the author re-considers his theory
integrating spirituality as a basic notion in it, together with a more multi­
cultural approach. More specifically, Koltko-Rivera describes this revision by
Maslow (1971, pp.306–307) as following:
The later model places the highest form of human development at
a transpersonal level, where the self/ego and its needs are transcended. This
represents a monumental shift in the conceptualization of human personality
and its development. . . . At the level of self-transcendence, the individual’s
own needs are put aside, to a great extent, in favor of service to others and to
some higher force or cause conceived as being outside the personal self
(Bouzenita & Boulanouar, 2016, p. 66).
According to Koltko-Rivera, the misconception aroused by the fact that
“there is no mention of self-transcendence motive distinct from self-
actualization in almost any textbook of Maslow’s theory” (p.307). Reasons
for this relate to Maslow having not publicized the amended theory himself (p.
308), the difficulty to access the material (p.308), and inherent reasons relating
to the structure of psychology and its unwillingness to give credit to spiri­
tuality in peoples’ lives and “stigmatize serious researchers of religion” (p.
309). (Bouzenita & Boulanouar, 2016).
Another relevant criticism of Malow’s theory points to an elitist cultural
relativism and ethnocentrism in self-actualization theory, as this seems to fit
better the Western-individualistic societies rather than the Eastern-
collectivistic ones. These critics rightly point out that Maslow, based his theory
on individuality and autonomy that are basic values at the European/
American, androcentric, self-directed individualistic culture. It seems that, in
fact, Maslow’s basic theory was clearly grounded in a Western perspective that
views wellbeing in terms of a self-focused, inner directed, autonomous, indi­
vidual (Compton, 2018, p. 12).
Similarly, the order in which the hierarchy of needs is arranged has been
criticized as being ethnocentric (Hofstede, 1984). Maslow’s hierarchy seemed
to fail illustrating and expanding upon the difference between the social and
intellectual needs of those raised in individualistic societies and those raised in
 JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH 11

collectivist societies. The needs and drives of those in individualistic societies

tend to be more self-centered than those in collectivist societies, focusing on
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 (Cianci & Gambrel,
2003 cited by Osemeke & Adegboyega, 2018). Hofstede (1984) agrees that the
hierarchy was steeped in ethnocentricity and based upon a Western ideology,
claiming that:
the Hierarchy of Needs alone does not account for differences in the cultural
needs of societies and their unique social and intellectual needs. Hofstede
(1984) uses the example of collectivist and individualistic societies to illustrate
his assertion, stating that the needs of individualistic societies reflect the needs
for self-actualization and self-fulfillment, whereas a collectivist society is
focused upon the community and acceptance and belonging within this
structure (King-Hill, 2015, p. 3).
Wahba and Bridwell (1976) carried out an in-depth review of the
“Hierarchy of Needs” which concluded that the evidence for the hierarchical
order of the needs proposed by Maslow is rare. Whilst acknowledging that
people do have needs to be met, the existence of a rigid order of needs for every
individual is questioned.
Other criticisms of the “Hierarchy of Needs” make reference to it as being
too simplistic and does not account for societal needs in particular circum­
stances, such as recession and war (Cianci & Gambrel, 2003) or that the
ranking of needs does not appear to vary across age-groups (Tay & Diener,
2011), that the methodology has problems and the sample is unrepresentative
(as Maslow used the top 1% achievers of college populations and referred to
well-known academics and high achievers, such as Einstein) making it impos­
sible to generalize his findings to the wider population (Mittleman, 1991 cited
by King-Hill, 2015).
Moreover, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has met severe criticism from
researchers arguing that the hierarchy does not always reflect reality: That is,
Maslow’s assumption that the lower needs must be satisfied before a person
can achieve their potential and self-actualize seems to be falsified, as this is not
always the case.
Indeed, as humans we often create or fight in spite of not getting our needs
fulfilled. For example, soldiers might be creative despite lack of security, so as
financially pure artists, socially isolated scientists, hungry children who are still
playing, and so on. Therefore, needs cannot be ordered in such a hierarchy
(Aggernæs cited by Ventegodt, Andersen, & Merrick, 2003).
Through examining cultures in which large numbers of people live in
poverty, it is clear that people are still capable of higher order needs such as
love and sense of belonging. However, this should not occur, as according to
12 E. P. LOUCA ET AL.

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. In the same line, the artist who sacrifices
physical comfort to achieve virtuosity, the zealous missionary who strives to
assist the famished, and the mystic who undergoes physical and emotional
distress for the sake of spiritual perfection come to mind. An adequate
description and assessment of these properly human acts goes beyond
a strictly instinctual, empirical, or voluntaristic account (Acevedo, 2018,
p. 751).
Similarly, in a study published in 2011, researchers from the University of
Illinois set out to put the hierarchy to the test. What they discovered is that
while fulfillment of the needs is basic and is strongly correlated with happiness,
people from cultures all over the world reported that selfactualization and
social needs were important even when many of the most basic needs were
unfulfilled (Cherry, 2010).
Contemporary research, also, 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 all 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 and regardless Maslow’s ordering of the
needs (McLeod, 2018).
“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.” Therefore, 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 (McLeod, 2018).
In a way, it seems that both of the above views are right. Though in
everyday- life we are always striving to actualize ourselves no matter what,
during hard times we try to modify ourselves and often change the priorities in
our needs, skipping many of them and pursuing a different goal in life. This
adaptation through modification of our needs and worldview seems highly
advantageous for our survival. Later in life, when our life conditions become
better, we can come back to our routine, heal our imbalances and spiritual
 JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH 13

wounds and follow the “normal” procedure in satisfying our needs. This can
gradually lead to what Maslow called personal growth (Ventegodt et al., 2003).
Despite the popularity of Maslow’s Hierarchy, several theorists continue to
believe that there is not much recent data to support it (Fowler, 2014). And
although Maslow does refer to some kind of spirituality, the secular materialist
Western academic scholarship could hardly take it up seriously. In fact, the
marginalization of religion or spirituality in Western social sciences is inherent
in their underlying epistemological bias (Habib, 1993) and seems to oppose
Western academic scholarship, its “rational science” and the “objectivity of
research”. Besides, Maslow’s locus of “spirituality” has not been pursued in
academic scholarship (Habib, 1993) due to the epistemological bias in Western
academic scholarship which considers religion or spirituality as “unscientific”.
Mukherji and Sengupta (2004) ascribes this to a deep ethnocentrism that not
only goes unnoticed, but it also leads to a replication of the same ideas and
inherently holding the same biases. Although secularization might anticipate -
to some extent- this phenomenon, the commitment to the Western view,
together with an inherent bias in Maslow’s original theory, persists. This
means that any reformulation of Maslow’s model with the same premises
cannot be successful, because the foundations remain more or less the same
(Bouzenita & Boulanouar, 2016).
A final comment refers to Maslow’s values, as “intrinsic” and “ultimate” (i.e.
wholeness, perfection, completion, justice, aliveness, richness, simplicity,
beauty, goodness, uniqueness, effortlessness, playfulness, truth, self-
sufficiency) (Maslow, 1962/1968, p. 83, 1971/1976, p. 9, pp.42–43, 121–142,
1964/1970, Appendix). However, these values might neither be all intrinsically
good, morally equivalent, nor equally praiseworthy. For instance, playfulness
is not as morally significant as justice, aliveness as goodness, effortlessness as
truth. For virtue, “it matters not only what a man does, but also how he does
it”; that is, doing it “from right choice and not merely from impulse or
passion” (Aquinas, 1920, IaIIae, 57 a. 5). Right choice requires “due end and
something suitably ordained to that due end.” (Acevedo, 2018).
Of course, freedom is a necessary condition for moral responsibility and
good will, virtue, human rights, and the common good and a real prerequisite
to any spiritual development’. Since, whereas the needy, egocentric self is
enslaving, the virtuous person is free even when confronting dire
circumstances.
The Hierarchy of Needs theory emphasizes the voluntary freedom of the
spontaneous, uninhibited self and encourages autonomous individuals to
make themselves free from norms (Vitz, 1996), but it might also consider
the end to which these free actions lead.
The virtuous life flourishes insofar human nature aims to an end beyond
itself. Human essence and existence, intellect and rational appetite, true free­
dom and moral responsibility, human dignity, the good life, and the common
14 E. P. LOUCA ET AL.

good cannot be adequately defined and lived-in isolation from those meta­
physical and anthropological realities (Acevedo, 2018).
Concluding, we can hardly deny the fact that Maslow’s theory is one of the
most powerful perspectives on humans’ potential growth. It suggests that
people have a strong desire to realize their full potential, reach a level of self-
actualization and find meaning in life (Mawere, Mubaya, Reisen, & Stam,
2016). Besides, the theory helps people to understand what motivates them
and what they can do in order to be happy.
In spite its attractive nature, the theory seems to be culturally influenced and it
is more applicable in the western individualistic societies, rather than the collecti­
vist ones (Gambrel & Cianci, 2003), as it puts much emphasis on the notion of
“self”, while a collectivist culture might emphasize more the need of belonging.
This emphasis on “self” might also sometimes contradict the notion of
“spirituality”, though Maslow’s later revision of the “Theory of Human
Needs” and the addition of the “Transcendence” level seems more compatible
with the notion of “spirituality”, as people do not seem so self-centered any­
more, but overcome “self” to commit themselves to a bigger, higher and
ultimate goal. As Ackerman (2020) points out, one of ‘self-transcendence’s
four characteristics consists in:

“A shift in focus from the self to others – this shift from selfishness and egoism to
consideration of the needs of others is a marker of self-transcendence and is the most
salient
and important feature”.

Implications for Further Research – Conclusion

Maslow’s theory seems to have gained a global fame, though he might not
consider enough its application and consequences on different cultural and
social settings.
Nevertheless, we should not ignore his significant offer toward humans’
trajectory of achieving the peak of spirituality. Spiritual human needs, of course,
do not fit in a linear framework, since humans are complex, powerful and willful
beings, that are developed through the dynamic interchange of genetic and
environmental factors; and their spiritual development is definitely influenced
by this complex relationship, which is unique in each person, group and culture.
It is, therefore, suggested that scholars and theoreticians in various scientific
fields such as psychology, education, management, sociology, economy and
behavior studies, in which Maslow’s thoughts have penetrated, investigate the
application of this theory – especially the notions of self-actualization and
spirituality-, taking more into consideration the individual and group features,
such as age, sex and cultural diversity.
Happiness, Self-Actualization and especially “Spirituality”, clearly do not just
rely on the satisfaction of primary needs; otherwise, we won’t be able to interpret
 JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH 15

how poor people or countries, are often much happier than developed ones. It
seems that “Spirituality” goes even beyond than the satisfaction of most of our
emotional, cognitive, esthetic and esteem needs. It rather, depends on some more
inner human qualities and reaches the deepest part of our human existence.
What is important to keep from Maslow’s theory, is the need for finding
meaning and purpose in life, the need for feeling and being beneficial, the need
for hope, for understanding, for kindness, for support and insight, the need for
connecting with others and developing loving relationships, the need for the
sacred and finally the need of believing and relating to something bigger and
higher than us, i.e., to God.

ORCID
Eleonora Papaleontiou–Louca http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9300-6150

References
Acevedo, A. (2018). A personalistic appraisal of Maslow’s needs theory of motivation: From
“Humanistic” psychology to integral humanism. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(4), 741–763.
doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2970-0
Ackerman, C. E. (2020). What is self-transcendence? Definition and 6 examples. Positive
Psychology. https://positivepsychology.com/self-transcendence/
Aquinas, S. T. (1920). The Summa Theologiæ (Second and Revised ed.). Literally translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition Copyright.
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less
American. American Psychologist, 63, 7, 602–614
Bouzenita, A. I., & Boulanouar, A. W. (2016). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: An Islamic critique.
Intellectual Discourse, 24(1), 59–81.
Chamberlain, K., & Zika, S. (1992). Religiosity, meaning in life, and psychological wellbeing. In
J. F. Schumaker (Ed.), Religion and mental health (pp. 138–148). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cherry, K. (2010). Hierarchy of needs: The Five Levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. http://
About.com/hierarchy-needs.htm
ChrisChristopher J.C. & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive Psychology, Ethnocentrism, and the
Disguised Ideology of Individualism. Theory & Psychology,18(5), 563–589. doi:10.1177/
0959354308093396
Cianci, R., & Gambrel, P. A. (2003). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist
culture. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8, 143–161.
Compton, W. C. (2018). Self-Actualization myths: What did Maslow really say? Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 1–18. http://journals.sagepub.com
Elkins, M., & Cavendish, R. (2004). Developing a plan for pediatric spiritual care. Holistic
Nursing Practice, 18(4), 179–186. doi:10.1097/00004650-200407000-00002
Emmons, R. A. (2000). Spirituality and intelligence: Problems and prospects. International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(1), 57–64. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1001_6
Fowler, S. (2014). Why motivating people doesn’t work . . . And what does: The new science of
leading. Energizing, and Engaging, Oakland, CA, U.S.: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN:
978-1-62656-182-3.
16 E. P. LOUCA ET AL.

Fuller, A. R. (1994a). Psychology and religion: Eight points of view. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman
and Littlefield Publishers.
Fuller, S. W. (1994b). The dictionary of Modern American philosophers. vol. 1,2,3 &4. eds.
J. Shook and R. Hull.
Gambrel, P., & Cianci, R. (2003). ‘Maslow’s hierarchy of needs’: Does it apply in a collectivist
culture. Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 143.
Garcia-Romeu, A. (2010). Self-transcendence as a measurable transpersonal construct. Journal
of Transpersonal Psychology, 42(1), 26–47.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Garrison, A. (2001). Restoring the human in humanistic psychology. The Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 41(4), 91–104. doi:10.1177/0022167801414006
Groome, T. (1998). Educating for life: A spiritual vision for every teacher and parent. Crossroad.
Guillén, M., Ferrero, I., & Hoffman, W. M. (2015). The neglected ethical and spiritual motivations
in the workplace’. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), 803–816. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1985-7
Habib, R. (1993). Modernising vs westernizing the social sciences: The case of psychology. In
A. M. Elmessiri (Ed.), Epistemological bias in the physical and social sciences (pp. 126–144).
IIIT.
Harter, S. (2006). The self. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of
child psychology, 3, social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 505–570). New Jersey;
Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of
religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American
Psychologist, 58(1), 64–74. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.64
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences and international differences in work-related values.
London:Sage.
King, D. B. (2008). Rethinking claims of ‘Spiritual Intelligence’: A definition, model, and measure
(Master’s thesis). Trent University.
King-Hill, S. (2015). Critical analysis of Maslow’s hierarchy of need. The STeP Journal (Student
Teacher Perspectives), 2(4), 54–57.
Koltko-Rivera, M. (2006). Rediscovering the later version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: Self-
transcendence and opportunities for theory, research, and unification. Review of General
Psychology, 10(4), 302–317. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.4.302
Maritain, J. (1947/1972). The person and the common good. New York: University of Notre
Dame.
Maslow, A. (1962). Toward a Psychology of Being. D Van Nostrand. 10.1037/10793-000
Maslow, A. (1964). Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York: Ohio State University
Press.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: D Van Nostrand Company.
Maslow, A. (1969). The farther reaches of human nature. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 1
(1), 1–9.
Maslow, A. (1970a). Motivation and personality (Rev ed.). Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. (1970b). Religions, values, and peak experiences. Penguin Books.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Viking Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
doi:10.1037/h0054346
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality (Revised ed.). Harper and Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1959). New knowledge in human values. Harper and Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, 1(1), 1–9.
 JOURNAL OF SPIRITUALITY IN MENTAL HEALTH 17

Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). Harper & Row.
Maslow A.H. Humanistic Education VS. Professional Education: Further Comments. Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, 19(3), 17–25. doi:10.1177/002216787901900307
Mawere, M., Mubaya, T., Reisen, M., & Stam, G. (2016). Maslow’s theory of human motivation
and deep roots in individualism: Interrogating Maslow’s applicability in Africa. In
M. Mawere & A. Nhemachena Eds., Theory, knowledge, development and politics: What
role for the academy in the sustainability of Africa? Langaa RPCIG. https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/302516151_Maslow%27s_Theory_of_Human_Motivation_and_its_Deep_
Roots_in_Individualism_Interrogating_Maslow%27s_Applicability_in_Africa
McLeod, S. A. (2018). Maslow’s hierarchy of needshttps://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html.
Mukherji, P. N., & Sengupta, C. (2004). Indigeneity and universality in social science. Sage.
Osemeke, M., & Adegboyega, S. (2018). Critical review and comparism between Maslow.
Herzberg and McClelland ‘ s theory of needs. Funai Journal οf Accounting, 1(1), 161–173.
Federal University Business αnd Finance.
Phelps, K., & Hassed, C. (2012). Spirituality. In General practice: The integrative approach series
(1st ed.). Elsevier.
Reader, S. (2006). Does a basic needs approach need capabilities? Journal of Political
Philosophy, 14(3), 337–350. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00259.x
Robbins, J. (2009). Is the trans- in transnational the trans- in transcendent? On otherness and
moral transformation in the age of globalization. In T. J. Csordas (Ed.), Transnational
transcendence: Essays on religion and globalization (pp. 55- 71). University of California Press.
Sampson, E. E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual
and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43, 15–22
Schneider, K. J., James, F. T., Bugental, J., & Pierson, F. (2001). The handbook of humanistic
psychology: Leading edges in theory, research, and practice. Sage.
Seligman, M. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring well being for public policy.
International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(1). doi:10.5502/ijw.v1i1.15
Skrzypińska, K. (2020). Does ‘Spiritual Intelligence’ (SI) exist? A theoretical investigation of
a tool useful for finding the meaning of life. Journal of Religion and Health. 60 (2), 500–516.
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 354–365. doi:10.1037/a0023779
Vaughan, F. (2002). What is ‘spiritual intelligence’? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(2),
16–33. doi:10.1177/0022167802422003
Ventegodt, S. N. J., Andersen, J., & Merrick. (2003). Quality of life theory III. Maslow revisited.
Scientific World Journal, 3, 1050–1057. Article ID 723673. doi:10.1100/tsw.2003.84
Vitz, P. C. (1996). Back to human dignity: From modern to postmodern psychology. The
Intercollegiate Review, 31(2), 15–23.
Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. (1976). Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need
hierarchy theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15(2), 212–240.
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(76)90038-6
West, W. (2000). Psychotherapy & spirituality: Crossing the line between therapy and religious
(pp. 24–25). Sage.
Wulff, M. D. (1991). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary views. John Wiley & Sons
Inc.
Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2000). ‘Spiritual Intelligence’: The ultimate intelligence. Bloomsbury
Publishing.

View publication stats