Douglas Kenrick and his colleagues have offered to modify Maslow's theory of a pyramid (hierarchy of needs). In a response to this idea, I stated that Kenrick and his colleagues did not cite the research that evaluated Maslow's theory (mostly unfavorably); Jackson's decades of psychometric research on human needs; and my own research on human needs, which included a study testing Maslow's theory and suggested that hierarchies, if they exist, are specific to the individual and not the species. I questioned the scientific basis of Kendrick's et al. analysis, the absence of construct validity for the categories of motives, the absence of measures, and the absence of data.
Kenrick replied that I misunderstand that there are different levels of causation. My work on human needs is at Level 1, he is at Level 2, and that is why he did not cite me. Presumably, that is also why he did not cite Jackson and the research evaluating Maslow's theory.
As a former philosophy major, I understand the concept of "different levels of analysis." In philosophy there is science and then there is metaphysics. In theology there is the physical world and then there is the spiritual world. The concept of different levels of analysis is older than the hills of Athens.
Kenrick is inconsistent in his application of different levels of analysis. He says that my analysis is Level 1 and that his is level 2. Yet his analysis modifies and replaces Maslow, but Maslow and I are at the same level, which is level 1. If my work is irrelevant to his Kenrick's Level 2 analysis, so is Maslow's. Indeed, if we were to go through his citation list I think we would we would find little evidence that he is citing works at Level 2 while not citing Level 1. Further, how can Maslow's theory be at the same level as his work while the research evaluating Maslow's theory is at a different level and, thus, not relevant for citation.
To put this in context, my colleagues and I have asked more than 30,000 people what motivates them. We have factored their responses into 16 human needs (or what I call basic desires). We have confirmed the factor structure with samples from two cultures. We constructed a scale of the 16 motives, called the Reiss Motivation Profile, correlated the results with widely used measures such as the Big 5, and we correlated the results to behavioral outcomes such as choice of college major, television viewing habits, and religion. We published papers showing how the 16 basic desires play out in religion, schools, athletics, business, disabilities, and relationships. We showed that different people have widely varying hierarchies or priorities. We published a paper testing Maslow's theory. We also published books addressing theoretical issues of what a need is, why it doesn't satiate, and how needs give rise to personality traits. I published the "Dictionary of Normal Personality Traits" providing a empirically testable explanation of what motivates each and every personality trait in a Thesaurus. I also published a list of scientific principle of human needs. I commented on evolutionary issues, such as how money changes things for humans because it permits us to pass on dominance to the next generation, something animals cannot do.
Kenrick says he didn't cite my work, not because he was unaware of it, even though it is published in APA and other quality journals, but rather because my work is at Level 1 and he is at Level 2. I am unconvinced that he has given us a valid reason for ignoring my work and the work of many others, especially Jackson.
