It is interesting to ask why our time has lost the concept of life as an art. Modern man seems to believe that reading and writing are arts to be learned, that to become an architect, an engineer or a skilled worker warrants considerable study, but that living is something so simple, that no particular effort is required to learn how to do it. Just because everyone “lives” in some fashion, life is considered a matter in which everyone qualifies as an expert.
Erich Fromm, Man for Himself
The good life is a process, not a state of being. It is a direction, not a destination.
Carl Rogers
What are the choices in life that shape our happiness and well-being? The great Aristotle had a crucial insight: Wants are not the same as needs. He wrote that some individuals think that achieving happiness consists in accumulating wealth, others by experiencing pleasure, and others by holding power and influence.[1] Aristotle argued that since all human beings share a common humanity, these differences are differences in degree. As desires differ depending on factors such as temperament, disposition and experience, happiness cannot be the same for everybody.
Let’s look first at true “need”. Consider food. All humans need food for sustenance, but larger individuals may need more than smaller ones. The need for food exemplifies a desire that is “natural,” not acquired, and that is the same in all human beings, except in degree.
We might also say that we “desire” food, just as much as when we say that we want a new car, we are saying that we desire it. These two desires are obviously not of the same kind. Needs are inborn or innate desires which are common to us all because we all have the same human nature (see Idea 6). Humans need food to survive. We may want Indian food or Mexican food to satisfy our hunger, but that will depend on our personal preference.
Aristotle also explained that there are purely human needs; needs that we do not share with other animals. Unless humans can satisfy these unique needs, they will not be able to experience eudaimonia, the greatest possible degree of happiness. For example, in Idea 11 we saw that humans have a need for a stable, accurate, and internally consistent understanding of the world. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why conspiracy theories are prevalent in society.
Want is a different matter, all together. We often want things we do not really need. Some humans want fatty foods, tobacco, alcohol or other substances that are harmful to their health. These may appear good at the time we want them but may turn out to be bad at a later time (like conspiracy theories, which as we saw in Idea 11 are more like cotton candy than nutritious food); by contrast, the things we need are always good for us.
Aristotle makes a distinction between real and apparent goods. The things that are really good for us are the things that satisfy our natural needs. The things that only appear to be good for us, may not be; these are the things that satisfy our acquired wants. Apparent goods give us pleasure and satisfy our desires, like drinking wine or smoking a cigar. Enjoying apparent goods is an essential aspect of the good life but it is only when we acquire the real goods that we will be able to experience eudaimonia, which Aristotle considers the supreme good.
The best plan, therefore, and the one we ought to follow, is that which aims at every real good. In addition, we may also seek things we want but do not need (provided it does not interfere with our being able to satisfy our natural needs).[2]
More than two thousand years later these ideas still resonate. Wants and needs have become essential concepts in human psychology, and many of Aristotle’s insights have been proven right. While all animals have needs, humans are unique in that they have psychological needs on top of their physical needs. Our minds operate as a dual processor: the intuitive, or automatic, and the deliberative, or voluntary. Intuitive judgments are produced by what is known as System 1 operations, which are automatic, involuntary, and almost effortless.[3]
System 1 relies on heuristics, or rules of thumb, to make intuitive decisions. These are hardwired mental shortcuts that allow decisions or solutions to be reached more rapidly and in conditions of incomplete or uncertain information – often because they do not process all the available information. For example, if we see a rapidly approaching person swinging a bat, we’ll likely flee instead of trying to investigate what his or her intentions are.
In contrast, the deliberate activities of what is known as System 2 are controlled, voluntary, and effortful – they impose demands on limited attentional resources. The emergence of System 2 operations, a relatively recent event in human evolution, gave humans their amazing cognitive flexibility and ability to adapt to a multitude of environments. Human behavior is not completely hardwired or tied automatically to specific stimuli; humans are able to respond creatively to the infinity variations and unpredictable challenges presented to them by their complex social interactions. These enhanced capabilities, however, also generated new (higher-level) psychological needs and more vulnerability in humans; if something is needed (not merely wanted), then suffering will result when the need is thwarted.
Scientists realized long ago that human wants reveal basic motivations and desires that move people through life. We all have strong intuitions about the things that will make us happy, and we use those (System 1) intuitions to go after those things, whether it is more money, fame, or buying a fancy car. But a lot of those intuitions, science shows, are deeply misguided. Moreover, wanting something more does not necessarily mean that getting more of it provides more benefits. In fact, to do the right thing we often have to fight our intuitions, and our own culture, which is constantly telling us that we are not happy enough, that happiness could just be around the corner. To understand the relationship between human behavior and well-being, we need to understand peoples’ wants and needs, and why the two may differ.[4]
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
The scientific study of human needs was pioneered by the American humanist psychologist Abraham Maslow. Maslow viewed human motives as based on innate and universal pre-dispositions, subject to the influence of cultural and environmental factors. There are two key ideas at the core of his theory of motivation:
(1) There are multiple and fundamental motivational systems.
(2) These motives form a hierarchy in which some motives have priority over others. If a person is hungry or starving, for instance, the desire for food will trump all other goals and dominate the person’s thought process.
Maslow also assumed that an individual’s priorities shifted from lower to higher as the person matured. For example, infants are only concerned with physiological needs, such as hunger and thirst, and concerns about affection presumably emerge later in development. After a person accomplishes the goal of winning affection, he or she focuses increasingly on gaining esteem, and concerns about affection are presumed to fade into the background.
Maslow proposed that the goal at the top of the hierarchy is self-actualization – fulfilling one’s creative potential. This goal only becomes a priority after all other needs have been fulfilled. With this concept Maslow wanted to emphasize the more positive aspects of human nature. He also postulated the need for self-actualization as a uniquely human motivation: [5]
Even if all these needs are satisfied, we may still often (if not always) expect that a new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what he is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization.
Maslow’s description of self-actualization is reminiscent of the concept of eudaimonia, which Aristotle proposed to understand what is truly human. According to Maslow, the self-actualized person strives to excel in their own area of expertise (“what a man can be, he must be”); forms deep friendships; lacks prejudice; is an independent thinker; is self-accepting; and has a problem-solving orientation. He studied a group of people he described as self-actualized, including Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, William James, and Abraham Lincoln.
The most recognized image of Maslow’s motivation theory is a pyramid or triangle (Figure 2). Maslow never actually created this diagram to represent his hierarchy of needs; this iconic image, it seems, was created by a management consultant in the 60s, and quickly became popular in the field of organizational behavior.[6]
Figure 2: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow’s hierarchical model has had a huge influence on the field of psychology and has become part of our cultural zeitgeist. However, his theories have been criticized as value-laden and ethnocentric, reflecting Western values and ideals, excluding people from other cultures and societies. There is also not much empirical support for the ranking of needs Maslow described. Most behavioral scientists now view Maslow’s pyramid as a “quaint visual artifact without much contemporary theoretical importance.”[7]
Why fulfillment of needs is not straightforward
For all of Maslow’s theory’s shortcomings, he got it right that human needs are central to our understanding of human nature and behavior. For example, people from all cultures have a need to belong, a fundamental need for positive and lasting relationships. Most people, from babies to hardened criminals, share a similar craving for social acceptance. Social acceptance is reported in all cultures as pleasant, rewarding and is associated with many well-being indicators. On the flipside, social rejection is associated with an increase in anxiety, anger, sadness, depression, and jealousy. In fact, the pain of rejection is akin to physical pain.[8]
Research also shows that humans proactively search for opportunities to meet other people and fulfill their core need to “belong”. If they succeed, they are rewarded with positive feelings and emotions and pro-social behaviors will be reinforced. The fear of rejection acts as a powerful incentive to avoid behaviors that are shunned by our social group. We prefer behaviors that will bring admiration and recognition from peers. The need to belong most likely has its roots in evolution. For our ancestors to survive and reproduce it was essential that they establish social bonds. Simply, those that were rejected by the group had little probability of survival, as they were exposed to the attack by predators or by rival groups.
Psychological needs can give rise to urges to seek out experiences or incentives. The behaviors that then provide the desired experience will be reinforced.[9] For example, a person who feels lonely (missing belongingness) is more likely to reach out to another person compared to someone who is not lonely. If the result is good (belongingness is experienced), they may call that same person again the next time they feel lonely.
There are important differences between physical and psychological needs. For a start, it is easier to evaluate physical needs: we know right away when our bellies are full, when we quench our thirst or when we pull enough air into our lungs. It is not always clear, however, when complex psychological needs such as belonging, or a need for meaning and purpose have been fulfilled.
Let’s look at the need to belong in more detail. First, most people want positive regular social contact. Second, people want the stable framework of some ongoing relationships in which the individuals share a mutual concern for each other. Having either of these, without the other, provides only partial satisfaction of the need to belong. Furthermore, social acceptance is not an all or nothing proposition, but it occurs on a continuum that ranges from merely tolerating another person’s presence to actively pursuing someone as a relationship partner.[10]
Psychological needs (as motives) do not arise as a simple linear function of time of deprivation or time since last fulfillment. If we have breakfast in the morning, we know that we will be hungry by lunchtime (or even earlier if you are like me). It is not always clear, however, how our need to belong will be affected by the passage of time. Some may need daily interactions with their friends, while others are satisfied to see them every month. The waxing and waning of psychological motives is complex, depending on genetic dispositions as well as cultural factors.[11]
Physical needs are mostly about absences or deficiencies (the individual acts to reduce tension or discomfort), whereas psychological needs involve proactively seeking stimulation or positive states, as well as reacting to prior negative states. People appear to be able to tolerate lack of psychological need requirement than physical need requirements. As stated by the psychologist Ken Sheldon, “a person deprived of food will either solve the problem or become sick and die. A person deprived of a psychological need will merely feel unhappy, perhaps in time becoming helpless with respect to obtaining the need.”[12]
While there is still much to learn about intrinsic needs, they have shed light on why it can be difficult for humans to find fulfillment in modern life. First, what people do may not provide them with what they need. This may happen for several reasons. As we saw, humans use heuristics or rules of thumb to make decisions without being weighed down by complexity. These heuristics, however, are not infallible as they are designed to work on average, not every time. This is also the case for the motivation to fulfill our intrinsic needs.
For example, humans need vitamin C for the growth and repair of tissues in their body. Those lacking a regular intake of vitamin C are prone to catching illnesses and developing anemia, and in extreme cases, scurvy. In fact, vitamin C is so critical to all living creatures that almost all mammals can use their own cells to make it. For some reason humans lost their ability to synthesize vitamin C inside of their own bodies (gorillas and chimps lost it as well). Instead, humans developed food preferences that help them meet their need for vitamin C. Humans, for instance, tend to avoid unripe foods as they usually are much lower in vitamin C than ripe ones. Also, humans generally like foods with a high content of vitamin C such as citrus fruits and juices.
These preferences, however, are not foolproof; people vary greatly in their daily requirements. Some people need 10 times as much vitamin C as others; a person’s age and health status can dramatically change their need for vitamin C. Those who have stress-filled lives need a higher level of vitamin C intake. Studies have shown that when animals (who are able to produce their own vitamin C) are in stressful conditions their bodies produce a higher level of vitamin C to cope with stress. However, stressed humans do not change their diets to compensate for the higher need for vitamin C. If anything, our eating habits worsen in times of stress.[13]
Another key reason why people’s motives may not provide them with what they need is that they evolved to operate in ancestral environments that differ markedly from modern environments. Like any other animal, our drive for food is strong, honed by millions of years of evolution. Humans show a strong preference for foods with a high content of sugar and fat, as these nutrients provide the calories needed to keep our metabolism running. These foods were scarce in the ancient evolutionary environments, but now they have become abundant thanks to modern technology. People’s strong bias for fatty and sugary foods can keep them from getting a balanced diet, and thus the nutrients they need for healthy living. Indeed, this preference has made diabetes and obesity a scourge of the modern world (mainly in the West).
The mismatch between motives and fulfillment of needs is even more pronounced in the domain of psychological needs. It is common to find that a person’s choices are out of touch or discordant with their evolved psychological needs. Even if the person successfully achieves their personal goals and strivings, some needs may remain unmet. As we saw, an unfulfilled psychological need is usually manifested as unhappiness and malaise, which the person may misinterpret to keep doing more of the same.
In her classic book The Feminine Mystique, published in 1963, Betty Friedan talks about “the problem that has no name,” referring to the empty and meaningless lives of the housewives of the 1950s and 1960s, despite their sheltered and comfortable living. In a revealing passage, Friedan mentions her conversation with a highly-paid man who works in advertising and who is very successful at manipulating the emotions of American women to serve the needs of businesses: “Properly manipulated (‘if you are not afraid of that word,’ he said), American housewives can be given the sense of identity, purpose, creativity, the self-realization, even the sexual joy they lack – by the buying of things.”[14]
The man’s words may be damning but, in many cases, true. Consumerism is rampant in Western society. Most people, not only unfulfilled housewives, tend to buy more to compensate for worries and doubts about their self-worth, their ability to cope effectively with challenges, and their safety in a relatively unpredictable world. But material goods by themselves cannot fulfill our need for purpose and self-worth. In fact, the need for meaning and purpose cannot simply be reduced to needs for belonging, status, or mating. A person may have friends, high status and a mate but still suffer from a lack of meaning in life (see Box 15).
Box 15. Why is it hard to have meaningful lives in modern societies? Many people in our society suffer from a lack of meaning in life. Indeed, “meaninglessness” has become a serious problem in modern societies. For example, in a recent YouGov poll of more than 9,000 working Americans, one in five believe their job is meaningless, and just over half (55%) feel that their job is making a meaningful contribution to society.1 Meaninglessness is an invisible, intangible, underlying but well-hidden culprit behind many of our ailments: the addictions, suicides, and general unhappiness, the rates of which have been creeping up. What’s going on? Modern society, with all its means and comforts, should provide its members with many ways in which they can lead meaningful lives. And herein may lie one problem: Too many choices. Paradoxically, having more choices is not always better than having fewer choices. In fact, having more choices can result in lower, not higher, levels of well-being. Studies have shown that the current abundance of choice often leads to depression and feelings of loneliness. To be more precise, freedom of choice is good in general, but too much of it leaves people indecisive about what to do and why and becomes a kind of self-defeating tyranny.2 Worse, “we often find ourselves surrounded by things that have been deliberately engineered to be addictive, bred solely to consume as much of our time and vitality as possible. Our natural instincts get studied, cultivated, harvested, and eventually channeled toward things that create profit or power for others – that sometimes give us what we think we want, but leave us feeling emptier.”3 This is true, existentially but also literally. The food industry, for example, employs hundreds of scientists whose sole task is to get people hooked on junk food. They have found that the right combination of spice, salt, sugar and fat can make snacks highly addictive, just like drugs. The advertising industry has also become efficient in convincing people that eating junk food is cool and brings happiness. The result, alas, is higher levels of obesity and diabetes, not happiness. Similarly, there are many companies that are intent in getting people hooked to “existential junk food.” They are in fact competing for our most valuable but limited resource: our attention. The algorithms of search engines, social media and other platforms are designed to “hijack” our attention and direct it to buy, see or do something we supposedly need. The most successful influencers convince millions of followers that if they just pay attention to them, they’ll find happiness and fulfillment. But all these are more like cotton candy for the soul than nutritious food. We feel dissatisfied but we are convinced that we need to “consume” more of the same, falling into a nasty “meaninglessness” vicious cycle from which it is difficult to escape. There is not an easy way out of this predicament. We’re tempted by too many choices and options. The first step is to avoid “existential death ends” by distinguishing the “junk” from the “nourishing” and sustaining. One way we can do this is by following time-tested paths leading to a meaningful life, such as investing time in developing close, trusting relationships and pursuing goals that can have a positive impact in the world (see also Box 16). There are no roadmaps or blueprints, however, as each one of us is different. The quest for meaning is then more art than science, which I believe is what it makes fascinating and worth pursuing. 1. “One in five working Americans believes their job is meaningless,” by Jamie Ballard, YouGovAmerica, Aug 2, 2021. 2. Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom, American Psychologist, 55, 77-88. 3. The Origins of Modern Meaninglessness, LiveReal. https://www.livereal.com/meaninglessness-origins/. Retrieved Jan 2, 2023. 4. “The extraordinary science of addictive junk food,” by Michael Moss, The New York Times Magazine, February 20, 2013.
Another reason why people’s needs may go unfulfilled is that people may not be motivated to get what they do need. Using the example of the need for a daily intake of vitamin C, people may feel ill but not be aware that it is because of a deficiency in this vitamin. Humans need a sense of purpose and direction in their lives; when this is missing people become uncomfortable or upset, like Friedan’s unfulfilled housewives. In other words, the absence of purpose is not a stable condition. Indeed, meaning in life is a significant predictor of happiness, and loss of meaning in life is related to depression and suicide. Most humans have goals and aspirations and in this sense their lives have meaning, but this is a different case from everyone actively and consciously seeking meaning.[15]
People may also lose their motivation to fulfill certain needs. For example, people crave for mastery and control of their environments and a broad variety of behaviors reflect this (e.g., cleaning and organizing of their home is a way for (some) people to control their environment). We identify much better with circumstances or acts we have chosen than those assigned to us. We respond in negative terms whenever we are deprived of control; we try for instance to do what is forbidden or aggressing against the person who took away our control. However, research shows that chronic deprivation of control leads quickly to a condition known as learned helplessness, in which the organism gives up trying to control and fails to learn new contingencies.[16]
The hierarchy of needs revisited
Scientists are still trying to figure out why universal need requirements (such as need for meaning) do not necessarily evoke action, or appropriate action, to fulfill themselves. It is also not clear why chronic dissatisfaction may lead humans to desist in their efforts of control and become helpless. Why should some motives, if they are so important, go dormant within a person, or become focused in maladaptive directions? Why is that people may not know what they need or what to do to meet their needs?
In the last few years, nonetheless, scientists have made substantial progress in agreeing on what qualifies as a “true” need and what are the most important psychological needs. The psychologist Ken Sheldon and his associates compared ten needs to determine which are truly fundamental. Three of these needs, security, physical striving, and self-actualization (defined as the sense of long-term growth and that people are moving toward an ideal world or version of themselves) were drawn directly from Maslow’s theory. The study found that self-esteem (having a positive image of the self), competence (having a sense of control and mastery), autonomy (feeling that activities are self-chosen and self-endorsed), and relatedness (feeling a sense of closeness to some others) are among the most salient of the needs. Pleasure-stimulation, physical striving, self-actualization, popularity-influence, security, and money-luxury did not appear to be significant “true” needs.[17] (Aristotle would have considered them apparent, not real goods.)
Box 16: What does it Take to be an Optimal Human Being? Researchers are starting to get a clearer picture of the key characteristics of people who seem to be well-integrated, thriving human beings. The psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman offers some science-informed prescriptions that can help you in your journey toward health, growth, and happiness1. Here is a summary: 1. Strive to balance your basic needs: Humans across cultures have a need for autonomy, competence, relatedness, security, and self-esteem. The key is to balance these basic needs. Without balance, it will be hard to achieve optimal functioning. For instance, think of the workaholic who is high in autonomy, security, competence, and self-esteem, but has little social connection with others. Despite high achievement, this person will most likely be prone to feelings of alienation and loneliness. 2. Set, and make, efficient progress toward goals: On the path toward optimal functioning, you will want to set and pursue goals as effectively as possible. In order to have a sense of purpose, it is important that you feel as though your self is constantly in steady forward motion. But mindlessly setting and efficiently achieving goals will not, by itself, make you happy, healthy, or fulfilled. It is important that the goals that you set are "self-concordant". That is, are consistent with your identity, basic needs, personality, and talents. 3. Choose your goals and social roles wisely: Setting extrinsic goals (such as money, beauty and status) tends to make you less happy, whereas attaining intrinsic goals (such as intimacy, community, and personal growth) tends to lead to enhanced well-being. 4. Strive toward personality integration: Personality integration is the degree to which people’s goals are congruent with each other and with their basic needs. The goals need to be chosen freely and with intrinsic values such as growth, intimacy and community. The extent to which people's goals are integrated, that is, congruent with each other and with their basic needs, the more they felt as though their strivings originated from their own interests and choices, and the more they felt engaged in meaningful activities such as helping others or pondering the future. 5. Work toward modifying problematic aspects of yourself or your world: Not all our potentialities will help us make progress toward our self-concordant goals. Some aspects of our personality, like anxiety or disagreeableness, can downright get in the way of making progress toward becoming an optimal human. The advice is to bring out the character strengths and virtues that will best help you achieve your self-concordant goals. This may require learning self-regulation strategies and about your character strengths (see Idea 15). 6. Take responsibility for your goals and choices: It is important to take ownership of your self-concordant goals, as only you can alter yourself and your life, and follow-through on your initiatives. After deciding what you wish to adopt as your goal, embrace it with all your being, and consciously align your identity with the goal (although you may find that you need to revisit your goals, see next item). 7. Listen to your “organismic valuing process” and be prepared to change your goals if it seems necessary: The path toward becoming a fully functioning person requires increasing trust in your own ability to know what is important to you, and what is essential for you to live a more fulfilling life. All of us have experienced that “nagging sense that something isn’t right”, known as our organismic valuing process (OVP). Trust yourself to abandon a goal if it is no longer appropriate for your growth. Check in with your OVP when making choices about which goals to adopt. You, and you alone, have the power to revise your goals as a result of new information. When the self-concordant goals you've adopted become inappropriate to your evolving self, personality, or basic needs, make a change. 8. Transcend your self: Toward the end of his life, Maslow proposed a new need right above self-actualization: self-transcendence. According to Maslow, self-transcendence brings the individual what he termed “peak experiences” in which they transcend their own personal concerns and see from a higher perspective. These experiences often bring strong positive emotions like joy, peace, and a well-developed sense of awareness. Don’t just search for things that are useful to you but be useful to others. Maslow realized that many of his self-actualizers were not self-transcenders, and some of his self-transcenders weren’t self-actualizers. Becoming an optimal human can be facilitated by striving toward higher-level goals that allow you to serve something beyond yourself. In addition to personality integration, try integrating yourself into the larger social systems in which you are embedded. 1. “How to Be an Optimal Human: Science-informed suggestions to help you have greater health, growth, and happiness,” by Scott Barry Kaufman. Scientific American, Feb 7, 2016.
While some needs appear to be universal, their hierarchy or priority may depend on the culture and personality of the individual. Indeed, human needs seem to be culturally malleable in their content, their strength, and in the specific ways they are satisfied. For example, in collectivist countries like Japan, China and South Korea, the research shows that the most important need is “relatedness”. [18]
Culture itself is identified as a higher-level human need; people derive a sense of meaning from being embedded in cultural meaning systems such as art, religion, or scholarly pursuits. For example, research suggests that meaning in life is a crucial element of religious coping and psychological well-being that is used by people as a part of their meaning system to cope with life’s difficulties and challenges.[19]
Personality is also an interesting factor; those who are extrovert – a personality trait defined by high energy and the tendency to seek the company of others – may find it easier to meet their need for belonging than those who are introvert. For example, research has found that extroverts are more likely to associate pleasurable feelings with their current environment, and they are more likely to be leaders.[20] In summary, while all humans need certain basic experiences to be happy, actual fulfillment is mediated by cultural and personal factors.
In conclusion: Pursue those things that make life worth living
Research on human wants and needs is essential to understand why, despite having the freedom and the means to pursue their dreams and goals, people’s lives may be unhappy or unfulfilling. These ideas, we have seen, can be traced back to Aristotle and have been studied by thinkers such as Maslow and other humanistic psychologists. Modern research has placed these ideas on a solid empirical foundation, making it possible to achieve better understanding of what makes us truly human, and what makes our lives worth living. However, as we shall see next, knowing what is good for us is just the starting point in a long journey.
[1] See Aristotle’s Rhetoric, (A & D Publishing 1st ed., 2009, original dates back to around 350 BC) where he tells us what most people take happiness, in outline, to be. [2] Adler, M. J. (1975). Aristotle for Everybody. Collier Books. [3]Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow, Farrar, Straus & Giroux. [4] Sheldon, K. M. & Schuler, J. (2011). Wanting, having and needing: Integrating motive disposition theory and self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1106-1123. [5]Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, p. 382. [6] See, e.g., Kaufman, S. B. (2020). Transcend: The New Science of Self-Actualization, TarcherPerigee ed. [7] Kendrick, D. T. et al. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 292-214. p.292. [8]DeWall, C. N. & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 256-260. [9] Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirements perspectives on psychological needs: A two process model. Psychological Review, 118, 552-569. [10]DeWall, C. N. & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Social acceptance and rejection: The sweet and the bitter, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 256-260. [11] Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Integrating behavioral-motive and experiential-requirements perspectives on psychological needs: A two process model. Psychological Review, 118, 552-569. [12] Ibid, p.555. [13] See, e.g., Brody, S., et al. (2001). A randomized controlled trial of high dose ascorbic acid for reduction of blood pressure, cortisol, and subjective responses to psychological stress. Psychopharmacology 159(3):319–324 [14] Friedan, B. (1984). The Feminine Mystique. Dell Publishing (original published in 1963), p.204. [15] Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of Life. The Guilford Press. See also Wong, P.T.P., & Fry, P.S. (Eds.). (1998). The human quest for meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [16] Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D.T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 680-740). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 608-728. . [17] Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., Elliot, A. J. & Kim, Y. (2001) What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325-339. [18] Kesebir, S. T. et al. (2010). A theory of human needs should be human-centered, not animal-centered: Commentary on Kenrick et al. (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5 (3), 315-319.. [19]Krok, D. (2015). The Role of Meaning in Life Within the Relations of Religious Coping and Psychological Well-Being. Journal of Religion and Health. 54(6): 2292-2308. [20]“Why Extroverts Like Parties and Introverts Avoid Crowds,” by Tia Ghose. Science of People. Jun 13, 2013. Also, Ones, D. S. & Dilchert, S. (2009). How Special Are Executives? How Special Should Executive Selection Be? Observations and Recommendations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2 (2009). 163-170.
Comments