You should really stop using Maslow’s pyramid of needs
That’s got to be one of the most shared charts in the world. Often the first introduction to psychology concepts, I present the Pyramid of Needs from the famous Maslow. We see it used and adapted in tons of fields, from management to marketing or even design but you must know that this visualization is worthless.
I‘m not the only one telling you so, the whole scientific community discarded his research.
Concept summary
In the ’70s, Maslow worked on the field of motivation. In his book Motivation and Personality, he defined five groups of basic needs: physiological needs, security, belonging, esteem and fulfillment. According to Maslow, this categorization is universal and is part of a hierarchy: when one group of needs is satisfied, another will gradually take over.
What is the issue here ?
To begin with, there is absolutely no sound scientific protocol behind the research of our dear Abraham Maslow. The concept came to him by observing the people he knew and admired! It also implies that these observations are incredibly centered around his way of life, his culture and his own personality.
Everyone knows a person who is willing to sacrifice the stability and security of his environment in order to pursue his goals. Is he crazy? Out of frame? On what basis would he be considered “abnormal”?
And what about collectivist societies where the need to belong has a fundamental impact on people’s lives and takes precedence over the need for freedom and individuality. Numerous studies have demonstrated the lack of foundation for this hierarchization from a geographical, cultural and even age-related point of view!
A myth that serves as a reference
“It may not be ideal, but it gives us a good basis to start a reflection” is something I heard once when I was discussing this topic. Sorry but no. This model will create a thought structure that will distort your entire perception of the individual in front of you, whether it is a user, a customer or an employee. People then build on this model to come up with horrors like this:
According to this author (who is in marketing and not UX, obviously) in order for the user to have a positive experience with a product or service, it must satisfy different levels of priority. From here I can hear the sigh of all those who have already worked on a product.
How many devs spent months on the bottom three tiers to see that their application was of no interest to anyone? Conversely, how many startups took off despite half-finished products because their value proposition mattered to their users?
UX is not a scale of smileys, it is the totality of emotions felt by a person, at one moment, during an interaction. If you could hack something as complex as satisfaction or need using such a simplistic model, the world would be incredibly boring.
So, what should we base our reflection on ?
In psychology, you don’t want to rely on a pattern. What defines a person depends on so many factors, evolves so quickly that relying on any one model will only do you more harm than good. In UX and design in general we prefer to use research systems to find out what motivates and influences a person in the context we are interested in.
You can’t apply the same model of thinking to a French, Lebanese or Korean but you can apply a methodology to find out what constitutes their vision of the world. This is the basic principle of design thinking.
Thanks for reading ! If you want to hear more from me, feel free to follow me on Twitter. Come say hi !
