Exploring the framework

How many human needs?

I have applied evolutionary information systems thinking to identify human needs related to the functional requirements of three information transmission channels (genetic, behavioural and symbolic). This has resulted in the identification of a minimum of 12 functional needs (3 medium needs, 3 input needs, 3 encoding needs and 3 output needs) plus another 2 needs (sex [an additional genetic input need] and rest [a cross-channel encoding need]).

In addition, I have identified a set of filtering needs. Whilst these are not essential to the operation of each channel they are important in relation to error correction. My theoretical model includes six filtering needs - 1 input filtering and 1 output filtering for each channel. However, it is not clear whether it would be possible to consistently differentiate between input and output filtering needs in practice (particularly in the behavioural and symbolic channels).

Counting the needs

The total number of identifiable needs may vary depending on how accurately they are differentiated and measured.

12 (or 13 or 14) = 12 functional needs (+ rest and/or sex)
15 (or 16 or 17) = 12 (or 13 or 14) functional needs + 3 filtering needs
16 (or 17 or 18) = 12 (or 13 or 14) functional needs + 2 genetic filtering needs + 1 undifferentiated behavioural filtering need + 1 undifferentiated symbolic filtering need
18 (or 19 or 20) = 12 (or 13 or 14) functional needs + 6 filtering needs

Selected literature

Reiss, S., & Havercamp, S. M. (1998). Toward a comprehensive assessment of fundamental motivation: Factor structure of the Reiss Profiles. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.10.2.97

Desmet, P., & Fokkinga, S. (2020). Beyond Maslow’s pyramid: Introducing a typology of thirteen fundamental needs for human-centered design. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 4(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti4030038

Aunger, R., & Curtis, V. (2013). The anatomy of motivation: An evolutionary-ecological approach. Biological Theory, 8(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-013-0101-7

G=Genetic; B=Behavioural; S=Symbolic; X=Cross channel

M=Medium; I=Input; IF=Input filtering; E=Encoding; OF=Output filtering; O=Output

Evolutionary development

Horizontal development (left-to-right, genetic-to-symbolic) represents the chronological order in which the information channels, and associated needs, emerged during the evolution of humans, although certain needs may initially have evolved earlier with enhancements to previous channels that were eventually subsumed into a new information channel. This corresponds approximately to Maslow’s original hierarchical organisation in which physiological-reproductive needs proceed to social-behavioural needs and on to more abstract-cognitive needs. This represents the development of needs on a multi-generational timescale rather than an individual lifespan.

Once operational, each goal system can be triggered by appropriate environmental cues, meaning that individuals will focus their energies on whichever needs are most salient to their current circumstances. As the various elements of each information channel come ‘online’ as a result of physical and cognitive development, they remain accessible and can be activated by appropriate environmental changes.

Individual development

Vertical development (bottom-to-top, medium-to-output) represents a functional hierarchy in which ‘higher’ needs within each channel are linked to functions which follow on sequentially in the transmission process from the ‘lower’ functions. The vertical arrangement of needs within each channel also represents a developmental hierarchy, loosely related to the physical and cognitive development of the individual. Input and encoding needs are activated earlier in the lifecycle than output needs which require the development of faculties such as reproductive capacity, independent mobility and linguistic ability. During individual development the three information channels do not activate in order of evolutionary emergence. Reproductive maturity occurs after the development of independent mobility and language acquisition. This means that the behavioural and symbolic channels have the potential to become at least partially operational before the genetic channel within an individual’s lifespan.

This is consistent with Socioemotional Selectivity Theory, in which younger people favour knowledge-related motivational goals (linked to future agency) whereas older people selectively prioritise meaningful socio-emotional goals (linked to present communion).

Selected literature

Gopnik, A. (2020). Childhood as a solution to explore–exploit tensions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1803), 20190502. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0502

Löckenhoff, C. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2004). Socioemotional selectivity theory, aging, and health: the increasingly delicate balance between regulating emotions and making tough choices. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1395–1424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00301.x

Needs and emotions

Because the needs at each level across the three information channels are linked to similar functions within the information transmission process it should be possible to identify characteristics linking the needs at each vertical level. So, for example, the input need for sustenance in the genetic channel should have some similarities to the input needs of stimulation and predictability in the behavioural and symbolic channels. It may even be the case that needs at equivalent levels in different channels make use of similar neurological mechanisms to monitor and evaluate need satisfaction levels and to drive goal-directed, regulatory behaviours linked to those needs.

Emotions play a feedback role in the regulation of human behaviour and cognition. A feedback process monitors the output of an information channel for both quantity and quality of information flow in order to introduce compensatory changes to the input. It is likely that affective states along with conscious evaluation play some role in assessing both the flow of information and the effective functioning of the various mechanisms that make up an information channel. Certain emotions, such as disgust, pride, frustration and bewilderment, may let us know the extent to which specific needs are being met and, therefore, whether specific mechanisms associated with each information channel are functioning properly. More general emotional indicators such as happiness and sadness may be linked to successful functioning of the information channels as a whole.

The input needs of sustenance, sex, stimulation and predictability are oriented towards the individual’s environment. Emotions linked to these needs, such as hunger, boredom and curiosity, are likely to drive individuals into their environments in order to gather the various types of information relevant to each channel. These, along with the encoding needs of health, self-governance, meaning and rest are likely to be activated early in an individual’s lifespan. Input and encoding needs are primarily focused on the development or fulfilment of the self in relation to one's environmental context.

The output needs of nurturing, influence and authenticity are oriented towards other people, especially subsequent generations. They could be described as generativity needs (focused on the development or fulfilment of others) and are likely to become increasingly salient later in life. This model indicates the existence of different types of generativity which relate closely to the forms of generativity identified by Kotre (1996): biological and parental generativity (linked to the genetic channel), technical generativity (linked to the behavioural channel) and cultural generativity (linked to the symbolic channel). The need to pass on information to the next generation is linked to emotions of yearning and, if unfulfilled, regret. This identification of influence and authenticity as primarily generative needs focused on promoting the adaptive fitness of others is in contrast with how these terms are often conceptualised.

The medium needs of security, interaction and reciprocity are concerned with ensuring that the underlying mechanisms of transmission in each channel are preserved and maintained. The emotions linked to these needs drive us to avoid situations that might involve physical harm, social isolation or betrayal.

Selected literature

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033

Frijda, N. H. (2016). The evolutionary emergence of what we call “emotions". Cognition and Emotion, 30(4), 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1145106

Larsen, J. T., & McGraw, A. P. (2014). The case for mixed emotions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(6), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12108

Panksepp, J. (2011). The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: Do animals have affective lives? Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(9), 1791–1804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.08.003

FitzGibbon, L., Lau, J. K. L., & Murayama, K. (2020). The seductive lure of curiosity: Information as a motivationally salient reward. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.05.014

Kotre, J. N. (1996). Outliving the self: How we live on in future generations. W.W. Norton.

Eisenberger, N. I., Jarcho, J. M., Lieberman, M. D., & Naliboff, B. D. (2006). An experimental study of shared sensitivity to physical pain and social rejection. Pain, 126(1–3), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.06.024

MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.202

Self-esteem

In this model, esteem has not been identified as a single universal need. Instead it comprises the various filtering needs of each channel. In this construction self-esteem is a (2 x 3) composite construct that has a number of potentially distinguishable components or facets.

Input- and output-related self-esteem

The first implication of this composite model of self-esteem is that self-esteem has input- and output-related components that may be distinguishable.

Input-related esteem (linked to input filtering needs of attention, mastery and confirmation) are related to an individual's ability to extract adaptive information from their environment.
Output-related esteem (linked to output filtering needs of attraction, performance and affirmation) are related to an individual's ability to transmit adaptive information to others.

Input and output oriented self-esteem may correspond to the concepts of Basic self-esteem, related to one's evaluations of oneself, and Earned self-esteem, related to other people's perceptions of your value (Forsman & Johnson, 1996; Johnson & Keltikangas-Järvinen, 1997).

Whether input self-esteem or output self-esteem contributes more to overall self-esteem might depend on whether the cultural environment in which the individual operates places more value on agency (input) or communion (output).

Channel-related self-esteem

It may also be possible to differentiate the contributions made to global self-esteem from the three information channels.

Genetic channel self-esteem.
Attention esteem is a self-evaluation based on one’s ability to obtain support from care providers.
Attraction esteem is a self-evaluation based on one’s ability to be considered desirable by an appropriate sexual partner.
Both of these types of esteem are, therefore, strongly linked to physical appearance and vitality but also to parental and romantic relationships.
Behavioural channel self-esteem.
Mastery esteem is a self-evaluation based on one’s ability to learn new behaviours successfully.
Performance esteem is a self-evaluation based on one’s ability to demonstrate the attainment of desirable goals in order to have others copy your adaptive behaviours .
In this channel, self-esteem relates to an evaluation of one's ability to successful adopt and transmit adaptive behaviours. There is a strong competence or social success element to esteem in this channel.
Symbolic channel self-esteem.
Confirmation esteem is a self-evaluation based on the perception that one’s understanding of the world is accurate and reliable.
Affirmation esteem is a self-evaluation based on the perception that one’s own perspective and sense of meaning is understood and accepted by other people.
Both of these are linked to validation of one’s understanding of the world, oneself and others.

Selected literature

De Ruiter, N. M. P., Van Geert, P. L. C., & Kunnen, E. S. (2017). Explaining the “how” of self-esteem development: The self-organizing self-esteem model. Review of General Psychology, 21(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000099

Fleming, J. S., & Courtney, B. E. (1984). The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchical facet model for revised measurement scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(2), 404.

Fleming, J. S., & Watts, W. A. (1980). The dimensionality of self-esteem: Some results of a college sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 921.

Forsman, L., & Johnson, M. (1996). Dimensionality and validity of two scales measuring different aspects of self-esteem. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 37(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1996.tb00635.x

Gebauer, J. E., Wagner, J., Sedikides, C., & Neberich, W. (2013). Agency-communion and self-esteem relations are moderated by culture, religiosity, age, and sex: evidence for the “self-centrality breeds self-enhancement” principle. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00807.x

Johnson, M., & Keltikangas-Järvinen, L. (1997). On the dynamics of self-esteem: Empirical validation of Basic self-esteem and Earning self-esteem. Stockholm University.

Klavina, E., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2012). Facets of self-esteem at an implicit level? Investigation of implicit–explicit correlations and development of four IATs. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(5), 693–698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.028

Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2003_1

Comparison to other needs frameworks

Comparison to other models of human needs.pdf

Selected literature

Aunger, R., & Curtis, V. (2013). The anatomy of motivation: An evolutionary-ecological approach. Biological Theory, 8(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-013-0101-7

Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369469

Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology, 8(3), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.3.179

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse