Developmental Psychology Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1981, Vol. 17, No. 6, 809-815 0012-1649/81/1706-0809S00.75

Age Differences in Motivation Related to

Maslow's Need Hierarchy
Barbara L. Goebel and Delores R. Brown
Illinois State University

Changes in motivation related to age differences and their relationship to Mas-

low's hierarchy of needs were investigated with 111 subjects, ages 9 years to 80
years (58 females, 53 males), divided into five age groups (children, adolescents,
young adults, middle-aged adults, old adults). Using the Life Motivation Scale,
subjects ranked statements representing Maslow's five needs on 11. life compo-
nents. Analyses of variance (Age X Sex) yielded significant developmental dif-
ferences for four needs but limited support for Maslow's theory as a develop-
mental model. Findings suggest further research is needed to make a valuable
contribution toward a more comprehensive theory of motivational development.

The purpose of this study was to investi-
gate changes in motivation related to age
differences, and their relationship to Mas-
low's hierarchy of needs (1943, 1963, 1968,
1970, 1971). Theories of development exist
in most major areas of psychology including
personality, cognition, learning, social, vo-
cational, and moral. Many of these theories
incorporate into the developmental sequence
an implied or stated hierarchy such as
Freud's psychosexual stages (see Hall, 1954),
Erikson's (1968) psychosocial stages, Pia-
get's (1953) periods of cognitive develop-
ment, Gagne's (1974) learning prerequisites,
Super's vocational life stages (Super &
Bonn, 1970), Havighurst's (1972) social de-
velopmental tasks, and Kohlberg's (1969)
levels of moral development. Despite obvious
differences among these theorists, there
seems to be consensus on the meaning of
development as a series of progressive
changes that individuals characteristically
show as they progress in time through the
human life cycle.
On the other hand, a survey of the liter-
ature dealing with motivation reveals that
the definitions of motivation are varied and
that there has been little progress toward a
comprehensive theory of motivation; that no
significant attempt has been made to explain
motivation as a developmental process. Even
Requests for reprints should be sent to Barbara L.
Goebel, Department of Psychology, Illinois State Uni-
versity, Normal, Illinois 61761.
among developmentalists, only Buhler (1967)
has included a hierarchy of motives as part
of her theory of the course of human life.
Motivational theories have been con-
cerned primarily with specific situations, lev-
els of specific motives, tension reduction,
homeostatic balance, or situational-social
behavioral causes. There has been a ten-
dency to view motives as constant through
life, with changes in behavior resulting pri-
marily from past experiences. In a number
of theories, only one or two major motives
have been credited with accounting for all
behavior. For some time there has been in-
creasing recognition of the need for a more
comprehensive theory of motivation.
Maslow's hierarchical system of basic
needs represents an attempt to find the dy-
namic principles that tie together and inter-
relate all the separate behavioral episodes
and make sense of development through the
lifetime and across cultures. Maslow's con-
cern was with the integrated wholeness of
the organism as a basis for motivational the-
ory. He rejected physiological drives as a
centering point of a definitive theory of mo-
tivation because he believed somatically
based drives to be atypical of human moti-
vation. He referred to his approach as a
health and growth psychology and believed
human motivational goals to be cross-cul-
turally common to all human beings.
The needs form a hierarcy of prepotency,
with lower needs dominating behavior. The
appearance of a higher need usually rests on

809
810 BARBARA L. GOEBEL AND DELORES R. BROWN
the prior fulfillment of another, more pre-
potent need to a satisfactory level. He felt
that behavior is multidetermined, that mo-
tivations are only one class of determinants
of behavior, and that only unsatisfied needs
dominate behavior. Need emergence, in
Maslow's view, was "not a sudden saltatory
phenomenon but rather a gradual emergence
by slow degrees from nothingness," and ac-
cording to this concept,
when a need is fairly well satisfied, the next prepotent
("higher") need emerges, in turn to dominate the con-
scious life and to serve as the center of organization of
behavior . . . most members of our society who are
normal are partially satisfied in all their basic needs and
partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at the same
time. A more realistic description of the hierarchy would
be in terms of decreasing percentages of satisfaction as
we go up the hierarchy of prepotency. (Maslow, 1943,
p. 113)
The need hierarchy includes: (a) physio-
logical needs for food, water, oxygen, and
so forth; (b) safety and security needs to
avoid pain, threats, fear, and dangers; (c)
love and belongingness needs to be wanted
and loved by friends and family; (d) self-
esteem needs for self-respect, achievement,
attention, and appreciation; and (e) self-ac-
tualization needs to do what one can, realize
one's full potential, create, learn.
Although Maslow did not realize the hi-
erarchy to developmental stages, the se-
quence of emergence seems related to a num-
ber of commonly accepted developmental
concepts including the idea that a sense of
security develops as a consequence of phys-
ical needs being adequately met; that one
must feel that the world is a reasonably se-
cure place in order to learn to love; that a
foundation of love underlies the view of self
as worthy; and that positive feelings about
self are prerequisite to complete develop-
ment (self-actualization).
Maslow's theory has been researched by
many disciplines including anthropology
(Montagu, 1970), political science (Bay,
1968), education (Romig & Cleland, 1972),
psychology (Lollar, 1974; Schwartz & Gains,
1974), and the fields of management and
organizational behavior (Chernik & Phelan,
1974; Hall & Nougaim, 1968; Huizinga,
1970; Wahba & Bridwell, 1976). But in spite
of the fact that Maslow's theory seems to
have a heuristic developmental sequence,
there seems to have been little or no attempt
to investigate the applicability of his theory
to developmental psychology.
This study utilized a broad range of ages
to determine if there are developmental dif-
ferences in motivations and if these differ-
ences follow Maslow's hierarchy.
Method
Instrument
Although a number of measures of Maslow's need
hierarchy have been used in research, most of these in-
struments either deal exclusively with one component,
such as the business-industrial-management areas
(Huizinga, 1970), the military training area (Trexler
& Schub, 1971), education (Gnagey, Note 1); or they
do not measure all of the five basic needs (Lollar, 1974).
Further, these instruments have been designed primarily
for use with restricted age populations. It was, therefore,
necessary to develop a new instrument suitable for ad-
ministration to a broad range of developmental levels
that would measure all five basic needs in a compre-
hensive way.
With these requirements in mind, the Life Motivation
Scale (LMS) was developed. The LMS is based on a
scale originally designed to study differences in need
levels across a wide age range of working and non-
working professionally trained women (Brown, Note 2).
It uses a series of five statements, including descriptive
terms from Maslow's writings, to represent the five need
levels (physiological, safety, love, esteem, and self-ac-
tualization) for each of 11 life components (friends, free
time, money, child rearing, family, activities, domicile,
job, school, government, and health). These life com-
ponents were selected as being age-equivalent (common
directly or indirectly to individuals at all age levels and
important across age levels) for the developmental
stages being investigated and as representing a com-
prehensive cross-section of the composition of daily life.
Order of statements representing needs was randomly
varied across the 11 life components. For each com-
ponent, subjects were asked to rank the five statements
from most important (4 points) to least important (0
points). For example, the following five statements were
ranked to assess relative importance of motivations with
regard to activities (the needs represented are defined
in parentheses for the reader, and the words reflecting
Maslow's description of the needs are in italics):
1. I like doing things which make other people look
up to me. (Esteem)
2. I like doing things with my friends and family.
(Love)
3. I like doing things which fill my physical needs.
(Physiological)
4. I like doing things which let me develop my talents
or interests. (Self-actualization)
5. I like doing things which are planned ahead. (Se-
curity)
 AGE DIFFERENCES IN MOTIVATION
Most Important
2nd Most Important
— 3rd Most Important
4th Most Important
Least Important
Total need scores were obtained by summing the 11
component need scores, yielding a possible range of 0-
44 on each need. The appropriateness of the language
for the younger subjects was reviewed by a fifth-grade
teacher.
Reliability
An average test-retest reliability coefficient of +.67
was obtained by administering the LMS to 43 college
sophomores with a 3-week interval between testings. In
order to determine the internal consistency of the LMS,
need scores on each of the 11 components were corre-
lated with the appropriate need total score. With the
exception of one item (need = esteem/component =
job), all correlations were in the moderate positive range
and significant (p < .001), suggesting that across a
broad range of life components, the items used measured
the five needs consistently.
Validity
Maslow's theory, as pointed out by Cofer and Appley
(1964, p. 692), suffers from vagueness of concept and
looseness in language and because of the nature of the
theory, defies empirical testing. He did not attempt to
provide standard definitions of constructs or to discuss
guides for empirical verification of this theory. Conse-
quently, validation of the constructs as conceptualized
by Maslow represents a somewhat formidable guessing
game. On the assumption that a direct, simple approach
would be best, in this study the constructs were oper-
ationally defined as standard dictionary meanings of the
descriptive terms used by Maslow in his writings. To
optimize face validity the LMS incorporated these terms
directly into the questionnaire statements.
Sample
The Caucasian sample included 111 subjects with an
age span of 9-80 years, including 58 females and 53
males divided into five age groups: children (12 females,
10 males; age range 9-11 years; M age = 9.14 years);
adolescents (11 females, 10 males; 15-16 years; M
age = 15.09 years); young adults (14 females, 10 males;
21-44 years; M age = 31.29 years); middle-aged adults
(11 females, 11 males; 45-64 years; M age = 54.45
years); old adults (10 females, 12 males; 65-80 years;
M age = 71.18 years). These age ranges were selected
as generally representative of developmental stages pro-
posed by theorists such as Havighurst (1972), Erikson
(1968), and Buhler (1967).
The children and adolescents were from the 4th and
10th grades of the same school system. Data were col-
lected in the classroom, and all students present on the
collection day were included in the sample. The young
adults and middle-aged adults were business and in-
dustrial employees or members of a local League of
Women Voters. The old'adults were noninstitutional-
811
ized, socially active members of the same community
and included people attending the "Peace Meal Nutri-
tion Program" and members of a couple's social club.
Socioeconomic status of subjects within each age group
ranged from lower-class to upper-middle class. The re-
fusal rate ranged from 32% for older adults, 17% for
young adults, to 0% for the other three groups.
Procedure
The LMS was administered to the 111 subjects in
groups where possible and otherwise individually. Sub-
jects were told that this was a study of how people make
choices.
Statistical Analysis
Numerical values were assigned to the rankings on
the LMS, with most important rankings receiving a
score of 4 and least important a 0 score. For each need
these scores were summed across the 11 life components,
resulting in five need total scores, each having a possible
numerical value range from 0 to 44.
In order to determine if motivational needs varied
with differences in age or sex, five two-way analyses of
variance (ANOVAS) were computed with Maslow's basic
needs as dependent variables and age and sex as inde-
pendent variables. Student-Newman-Keuls tests of sig-
nificance (p < .05) were computed where appropriate.
Emergence was operationally defined as statistically sig-
nificant increases in need scores between adjacent age
groups and demergence as statistically significant de-
creases between adjacent age groups.
Results
Results yielded age differences on four
needs and some evidence of emergence ac-
cording to the hierarchy. Table 1 gives a
summary of the results obtained from the
five ANOVAS.
The criterion used in this study to define
a need as emergent was an obtained statis-
tically significant increase in scores between
two adjacent age groups. Student-Newman-
Keuls tests of the significant findings given
in Table 1 revealed that children had higher
physical need scores (p < .05) than all other
ages, indicating demergence of physical needs
after childhood. The data for the sexes com-
bined suggest emergence of love needs over
the period from childhood to young adult-
hood. However, there were sex differences.
Female children had lower love scores
(p < .05) than all other females; adolescent
males scored lower than any other group and
differed significantly from young adult males
(p < .05), the highest scoring male group.
Esteem need scores peaked at adolescence,
812 BARBARA L. GOEBEL AND DELORES R. BROWN

#
and the scores of these subjects were higher
#
* (p < .05) than those of young adults, sug-
r^ (N T}-
^o
^ o\ r- gesting demergence. Children scored lower
than all other age groups on self-actualiza-
1 tion (p < .05); young adults, with the highest
'c3 Co — O <N r-~
a
0 ^
•A <j Q^ ON
^(- P-, r^i ro
fN
scores, differed significantly from old adults
(p < .05). The findings indicate emergence
13 OO OO —' ^O
in O O\ — of self-actualization needs over the period
^
CO
CO
0*0^0^0
oo —• — —
ON *—• ^- p
from childhood to young adulthood.
Although there were no significant results
for the ANOVA with security as the depen-
k, Tf O 00
OO O <^"t
dent variable, there was a trend (p < .087)
toward age differences, with older people
indicating greater security needs. On the
E
i>
S OO 00 (N
^° <n
O
analysis for esteem, there was a strong trend
S O ^O (N II

a ^ toward an interaction between age and sex

S (p < .057), with adolescent males scoring
P- O CN —
i/"i O O\ f*l
to fN ^ ON t" high and young adult males low.
fN(
TJ-
^
<N r-
[**•
ii Means and standard deviations for Mas-
(N^ X

en low's need hierarchy by age group for fe-

* # # X males, males, and total group appear in Ta-
k,
<N NO Tt
oij ble 2.
<
<u
ON m oo t-*
\p p NO r^
II
Discussion
2 ^
1 These results give statistically significant
rf
r- p t^ ^ II
evidence of age differences in motivation for
^ P*~ \C "*f
ON ^ NO O a all needs except security but only limited
CO
(N Tf OO
(N*
support to Maslow's hierarchy as a devel-
Jo
t. o
opmental sequence. The operational defini-
*^s
ON O *n
0 — Tt
"o tion of emergent as a statistically significant
<b r-i
<J
t^
CO
increase between two adjacent developmen-
Cj c/5 tal periods, however, failed to corroborate
'«? -^ "So Maslow's sequence for security, reversed the
'C CO ^ ON ^ f*l C

^ o < O -- oo ON M emergence order of love and esteem needs,

1 en
Tf —.
2
O yielded only partial affirmation for self-ac-
C3
.^
ON \O m ^
00 ON TT OO
-^
tualization needs, and resulted in demergent
jj

.g CO
^
M ^J Tf ~-" U
rather than emergent verification for the
5 ^-T —
C development of physical and esteem needs.
# 8 Although Maslow did not propose age-re-
[^ # u lated changes in motivation, his theory con-
veys the implication that longitudinal studies
11
ON O "~
0<

a
^ would reveal individual progression through
OO ON NO i/~) 1>
|3 CO the sequence. Since these cross-sectional
'S,
.C
M ro ro In C1
' data show clear age-related differences in
O *
o D-
si motivation, the relative lack of support for
<"*"! ON tn (N D
?
J r~- ^ oo *o GC ™" Maslow's sequential hierarchy raises serious
j\ Tt — in' r-'
a CO oo ^t \o Q v questions concerning its adequacy as a de-
s: $ velopmental theory of motivation.
"•5, Speculation as to possible explanations for
X
ii
•3
H
w •^ P this suggests that a major problem may lie
"S X u.
»; v in Maslow's definition (or lack of definition)
«•» 1 of need emergence. He seemed to assume
^
^ rj\ 4" [i]
•^ *
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Maslow's Need Hierarchy by Age Group for Females, Males, and Total Sample

Physical Security Love Esteem Self-actualization

Age group N M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Children
F 12 24.08 6.93 19.33 5.96 28.92 6.05 18.33 5.16 19.33 4.77
M 10 20.80 5.49 20.30 2.71 30.60 5.56 16.50 5.84 21.90 5.95
22 o
T 22.59 6.40 19.77 4.69 29.68 5.76 17.50 5.42 20.50 5.37 m
Adolescents •n
F 11 14.00 5.22 18.45 3.45 36.27 4.88 17.91 6.16 23.36 6.20 •n
M 10 14.50 5.62 19.90 4.51 27.60 8.53 20.90 6.10 27.10 7.08
T 21 14.24 5.28 19.14 3.95 32.14 8.02 19.33 6.1-7 25.14 6.74 tn
Young adults O
tn
F 14 14.21 3.87 19.14 5.07 33.21 4.19 14.79 4.90 28.64 6.10 Cfl
M
T
10 14.90
14.50
5.74
4.63
19.40 4.74 35.60
34.21
4.17 12.00 4.27 28.30 6.90 2
24 19.25 4.83 4.26 13.63 4.76 28.50 6.30
Middle-aged adults 1
F 11 13.45 5.63 19.82 3.82 35.27 4.82 13.45 6.06 28.00 3.61 <
M 11 12.82 5.02 20.36 3.80 31.00 5.64 18.00 4.67 27.82 6.10
H
T 22 13.14 5.21 20.09 3.73 33.14 5.57 15.73 5.77 27.91 4.89
O
Old adults
F 10 12.70 4.11 23.50 3.31 36.00 4.24 16.80 3.82 21.00 6.29
M 12 16.58 7.97 21.67 4.94 31.83 3.49 14.17 4.99 25.75 8.75
T 22 14.82 6.67 22.50 4.28 33.73 4.31 15.36 4.59 23.59 7.93
All females 58 15.81 6.64 19.93 4.69 33.78 5.45 16.21 5.43 24.28 6.53
All males 53 15.89 6.48 20.38 4.15 31.34 6.00 16.26 5.85 26.19 7.18
Total sample 111 15.85 6.54 20.14 4.42 32.61 5.82 16.23 5.61 25.19 6.89

Note. F = female, M = male, T = total.

814 BARBARA L. GOEBEL AND DELORES R. BROWN
that when a need emerged it came to dom-
inance over other needs at that point in the
individual's development. The question is,
from a developmental perspective does this
represent a functional definition of emer-
gence? In this study, at all ages the love need
has the highest expressed level relative to the
other four needs and according to Maslow
represents the dominant need, indicating no
developmental changes in motivation from
ages 9-80. However, it seems probable that
some needs may be more consistently pow-
erful or weak motivators across ages and that
developmental differences therefore cannot
be identified by comparisons of absolute
need levels within individual developmental
stages; that instead the rise and fall of a
particular need's expressed importance across
age levels may serve as a better develop-
mental barometer. The results of this study
suggest that Maslow's emphasis on inter-
need dominance may not be as developmen-
tally useful as a focus on intra-need age
changes.
The sequence of the hierarchy is also
brought into question by the results. The
data revealed that esteem needs peak at ad-
olescence and decrease at later stages of de-
velopment, whereas love needs continue to
rise into young adulthood. Maslow recog-
nized the occurrence of reversals within the
hierarchy and noted the esteem-love reversal
to be the most common in the United States.
However, the order of emergence obtained
in this study seems to agree with a cur-
rently prevalent developmental notion, based
on Erikson's (1968) theorized progression
through identification to intimacy, that there
is a need to define self prior to integrating
self with others. This developmental se-
quence of motives seems to explain the ad-
olescent's demonstrated tendency toward
egocentricity and relatively superficial inter-
personal relationships as compared with
those of the young adult. Instead of repre-
senting a reversal, as viewed by Maslow,
perhaps the more typical developmental se-
quence is esteem followed by love.
In contradiction to the growth implica-
tions of Maslow's hierarchy, this study found
that in later adulthood there is a slight de-
crease in need for self-actualization and a
slight increase in the influence of physical
and security needs. These findings reflect
trends similar to those theorized by devel-
opmentalists such as Buhler (1967), who
suggests that there is regression in need sat-
isfaction during old age, and Havighurst
(1972), who suggests that the developmental
tasks of old age are more oriented toward
maintenance than expansion. This raises a
question as to the ability of a growth model
to explain life-span motivational develop-
ment.
On the other hand, because in Maslow's
theory a decline in a dominant need usually
implies the rise of a new motivational de-
terminant of behavior, it is possible that the
hierarchy represents in effect a truncated
developmental sequence that does not pro-
vide for the possible emergence to domi-
nance of a new, higher-order growth motive
during later adulthood. During recent years,
as attention to the area of geropsychology
has increased, ideas of theorists such as Er-
ikson, Kohlberg, and Piaget regarding per-
sonality, moral, and cognitive development
have been expanded to include recognition
of further growth potential during old age.
It seems logical that this potential for growth
also exists in motivation.
The applicability of any theory tends to
be limited to specific times and cultures, and
this may have contributed to the fact that
although age differences in motivation were
obtained in this study, they did not strongly
substantiate Maslow's hierarchy. In spite of
Maslow's assumption of uniform, cross-cul-
tural motivational patterns, there is a need
for cross-cultural studies to determine how
motivational development is modified by cul-
ture.
In addition, several aspects of the study's
design possibly reduced support for the mo-
tivational sequence. The youngest subjects
included were 9-year-olds, and it is possible
that some of the needs emerge at earlier
developmental periods. It is also possible
that the arbitrary age groupings used in this
study, although justifiable enough on theo-
retical grounds, may not coincide precisely
with age-related changes in motivation. Fur-
ther, the magnitude of the need means sug-
gests that social desirability may have influ-
enced the expression of motivation, with love
and self-actualization assessed as "desir-
 AGE DIFFERENCES IN MOTIVATION
able" and security and esteem as "undesir-
able." And finally, in the absence of a cross-
sequential design, it is impossible to distin-
guish age differences in motivation from co-
hort effects.
It is, however, encouraging to note that
the motivational changes found in this study
are similar to age sequential changes pro-
posed by major developmental theorists and
this lends support to the developmental na-
ture of motivations and verifies the impor-
tance of further research directed toward
formulating a more viable theory of moti-
vational development.
Reference Notes
1. Gnagey, W. J. Changes in student motivational
structure during adolescence. Paper presented to the
meeting of the American Educational Research As-
sociation, Toronto, Canada, March 1978.
2. Brown, D. R. Motivational differences in working
and non-working career trained women. Unpub-
lished manuscript, 1976. (Available from Barbara
L. Goebel, Department of Psychology, Illinois State
University, Normal, 111. 61761).
References
Bay, C. Needs, wants, and political legitimacy. Cana-
dian Journal of Science, 1968, /, 241-260.
Buhler, C. Human life goals in the humanistic per-
spective. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1967,
6, 1-17.
Chernik, C. A., & Phelan, J. G. Attitudes of women in
management. International Journal of School Psy-
chiatry, 1974, 20, 94-96.
Cofer, C. N., & Appley, M. H. Motivation: Theory and
research. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Erikson, E. H. Identity, youth, and crisis. New York:
Norton, 1968.
Gagne, R. M. Essentials of learning for instruction.
Hinsdale, 111.: Dryden Press, 1974.
Hall, C. S. A primer of Freudian psychology. New
York: World, 1954.
815
Hall, D. T., & Nougaim, K. E. An examination of
Maslow's need hierarchy in an organization setting.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1968, 3, 12-35.
Havighurst, R. J. Developmental tasks and education.
New York: McKay, 1972.
Huizinga, G. Maslow's need hierarchy in the work sit-
uation. Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters, 1970.
Kohlberg, L. Stage and sequence: The cognitive-devel-
opmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin
(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and re-
search. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.
Lollar, D. An operationalization and validation of Mas-
low's need hierarchy. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 1974, 34, 639-651.
Maslow, A. A theory of human motivation. Psycholog-
ical Review, 1943, 50, 370-396.
Maslow, A. Some basic propositions of growth and self-
actualization psychology. Understanding human mo-
tivation, Cleveland, Ohio: Howard Allen, 1963.
Maslow, A. Toward a psychology of being. New York:
Van Nostrand, 1968.
Maslow, A. Religions, values, and peak experience.
New York: Viking Press, 1970.
Maslow, A. The farther reaches of human nature. New
York: Viking Press, 1971.
Montagu, A. The direction of human development (rev.
ed.). New York: Hawthorne Books, 1970.
Piaget, J. The origins of intelligence in the child. New
York: Harcourt, Brace, 1953.
Romig, D., & Cleland, C. Educational applications of
humanistic psychology. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 1972, 10, 289-298.
Schwartz, M. M., & Gains, L. S. Self-actualization and
the human tendency for varied experience. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 1974, 38, 423-427.
Super, D. E. & Bohn, M. J., Jr. Occupational psy-
chology, Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1970.
Trexler, J. T., & Schub, A. J. Personality dynamics in
a military training command and its relationship to
Maslow's motivation hierarchy. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 1971, I , 245-253.
Wahba, M. A., & Bridwell, L. G. Maslow reconsidered:
A review of research on the need hierarchy theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1976, 15, 212-240.
Received November 24, 1980