Since 1943, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has been one of the most recognisable frameworks in psychology. Anyone who has ever explored human behaviour, whether through the Level 3 Award in Education and Training (AET), the Level 4 Certificate in Education and Training (CET), leadership and management programmes or nursing courses, has come across that iconic pyramid. It appears everywhere; in textbooks, training rooms and lesson plans, shaping how we talk about motivation and - for teachers and trainers - the learner experience.
For decades, Maslow’s structured layering of human needs has offered an accessible way of thinking about why people behave the way they do. It’s simple, memorable and widely taught. Yet as with all classic theories, new research invites us to revisit some of these familiar ideas with fresh eyes.
Where Maslow was ahead of his time
Maslow challenged the behaviourist view that humans were guided solely by basic drives. He suggested that motivation arises from several systems operating at the same time, each serving its own purpose: safety, affection, belonging, competence, creativity. Modern neuroscience and evolutionary psychology support much of this. We are not just survival-driven. We want meaning! We want relationships! We want to contribute and to feel valued!
He also correctly recognised that motivations change across development. A toddler is concerned with basic needs like milk and a biscuit. A child becomes socially curious, wanting to make friends. A teenager seeks belonging and esteem. As we grow, our motivational landscape becomes more layered.
But even this influential framework left unanswered questions.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, 1943, 1954
What Maslow missed: enter Kenrick et al!
More recent work by Kenrick, Griskevicius, Neuberg and Schaller (2010 – so more recent but not that recent!) revisits Maslow’s model using insights from evolutionary psychology, developmental science and neuroscience. Their updated structure proposes something Maslow barely touched: the central role of reproductive and relational motivations.
According to Kenrick et al., Maslow placed sexual motivation too low in the hierarchy and overlooked key human drives such as:
• forming long-term bonds
• maintaining relationships
• caring for offspring
From this perspective, these motivations are not secondary but fundamental to our species! They shape decision-making, emotional life and long-term behaviour far more than Maslow originally proposed.
Their revised model also emphasises that motives do not neatly replace one another: they overlap and interact. They rise or recede depending on age, environment and context.
Whether you agree with this shift is an interesting discussion in itself – and one that we have had many times in the classroom with level 3 AET and level 4 CET students.
Kendrick et al's Hierarchy of Needs, 2010
Some questions to consider
• If human behaviour is deeply social, should relational and parenting motives sit higher than self-actualisation?
• Are creative or “self-actualising” behaviours ever completely separate from our social or relational goals?
• Is it realistic to imagine human needs stacked in stages or is motivation more fluid and overlapping?
• Does a hierarchy capture the complexity of human development or might we need a different shape entirely?
• How does each model help us understand the people we work with or teach?
• And how does the revised hierarchy account for people who do not have children or do not want children? Are their motivations categorised differently or does the model risk making reproduction more central than many modern lives reflect?
There may not be a single right answer, but the questions alone can sharpen our understanding.
Does Maslow's pyramid still stack up?
In Kenrick et al.’s updated model, motivations aren’t arranged in a straight ladder. Instead of “complete one level, then move to the next”, as the very first Maslow’s Hierarchy was reported, they argue for a framework where motivations operate simultaneously and interact across the lifespan.
Creativity, for example, doesn’t float above the pyramid. It often links to broader social motives such as status, belonging or partner attraction. For some readers, that feels intuitive. For others, it may feel reductive. It’s only a theory so it’s all up for debate!
Why teachers should care
For teachers and trainers on the AET, CET or similar programmes, understanding these differing perspectives can be incredibly useful. Learners never enter a classroom with just one need activated. They bring a combination of:
• emotional needs
• social concerns
• developmental changes
• personal goals
• environmental pressures
Recognising this complexity helps us design learning that feels relevant, supportive and motivating.
Perhaps the most important lesson here is not which hierarchy is “right”, but how flexible we can be in understanding our students’ motivations.
Where this learning can take you
If revisiting Maslow and exploring Kenrick et al.’s reinterpretation has sparked your curiosity, you might enjoy going even deeper into theories of behaviour, learning and motivation through one of our courses at The EMG. Programmes like the Level 3 Award in Education and Training (AET) and the Level 4 Certificate in Education and Training (CET) explore these concepts in a practical, grounded way that helps future teachers support real learners in real classrooms.
Share this post: