Submission Deadline-31st May 2024
May 2024 Issue : Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now
Submission Open
Special Issue of Education: Publication Fee: 30$ USD Submit Now

Investigating the Applicability of Maslow’s Theory of Hierarchy of Needs on Selected Filipino Teachers

Investigating the Applicability of Maslow’s Theory of Hierarchy of Needs on Selected Filipino Teachers

Dr. Frederick Edward T. Fabella

FEU Roosevelt, Cainta, Rizal, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.71053

Received: 11 September 2023; Accepted: 21 September 2023; Published: 20 October 2023

ABSTRACT

This research attempted to confirm the applicability of the Theory on Hierarchy of Needs by Abraham Maslow on thirty (30) Filipino teachers who volunteered to be the respondents of the study. The Maslow and the Motivation Hierarchy: Measuring Satisfaction of the Needs, a 72-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire that measures the five dimensions of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, namely Physiological needs satisfaction, Safety needs satisfaction, Love needs satisfaction, Esteem needs satisfaction and Self-actualization needs satisfaction was administered on the respondents. Based on the findings, the respondents’ physiological needs are somewhat satisfied, their safety needs are somewhat satisfied, their love needs are completely satisfied and their esteem needs are completely satisfied. In addition, the respondents somewhat agree that their self-actualization needs are satisfied. The married respondents have significantly higher physiological needs satisfaction. When the respondents’ levels of needs satisfaction are ranked, love needs rank first followed by esteem needs, then by safety, next is physiological and last is self-actualization. Comparing the needs satisfaction of the respondents, significant differences were found between physiological and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, physiological and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, safety and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, safety and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, love and self-actualization needs satisfaction wherein in love has a higher mean and esteem and self-actualization needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean. Based on the foregoing, it would appear that Maslow’s proposition that the five dimensions of needs satisfaction decrease according the sequence of his theory’s hierarchy, is not the case for the respondents of the study. Furthermore, significant positive relationships were established between all possible pair-combinations of the respondents’ five dimensions of needs satisfaction. This implies that all these dimensions significantly influence each other in a positive direction.

Keywords: Abraham Maslow, Motivation, Hierarchy of Needs

INTRODUCTION

Abraham Maslow’s fame derives from his effort to develop a positive theory of motivation that would meet the prevailing theoretical requirements of his time while simultaneously remaining consistent with experimental, clinical and observational data1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a psychological theory of motivation that includes a five-tier model of human needs that is frequently represented as levels within a pyramid. Physiological needs, safety, love and belonging needs, esteem, and self-actualization are the different levels of this hierarchy and those at the bottom must be met before people can attend to the needs further up2.

During the height of COVID-19, a study was conducted to explore how the pandemic affected the satisfaction of people’s needs. Many countries declared nationwide lockdowns, which even forced the closing of the outpatient wings of large hospitals. As a consequence, patients with other mild to severe ailments were encouraged to seek teleconsultation services so they could identify the right doctor for their particular conditions. Only when those patients’ fundamental requirements, such as access to food, medications, and the internet, had been satisfied, were these other demands met3.

One article that analyzed the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown states that nearly all of Maslow’s needs were adversely affected. Restriction of access to food, increased unemployment, limited access to family and friends and self-worth was questioned due to an uncertain future4.

But as the pandemic’s global impact declines and things slowly return to normal, the applicability of Maslow’s theory may once again be reviewed. In one study, 186 college students were conveniently selected from two colleges in Metro Manila and asked to recall a satisfying incident. The next step was for them to describe how they felt the event met their specific needs. The findings showed that the respondents’ most fulfilling experiences were when their higher-level needs—self-esteem and self-actualization—were more prominent5.

With respect to the world of employment, a study was conducted to identify the underlying needs of the working population in the Philippines. Using a mixed method sequential exploratory study, four categories of needs—job-related, career-related, organization-related, and family-related—were identified through interviews and a survey of 302 employees. Based on this study, family is a factor that is not mentioned in Western ideas of work motivation. Employee involvement was highly associated with the significance and existence of each of these four characteristics6.

Applying Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to workplace settings suggests that managers have a duty to first ensure that the deficient needs are satisfied. This often refers to a secure workplace and fair pay. It also entails establishing an environment where workers can reach their maximum potential. Theoretically, failing to do so would increase employee annoyance, which might worsen performance and reduce work satisfaction7.

Another article asserts that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can still be useful in today’s society if it is seen as a guide for balancing our numerous demands rather than as a rigid hierarchy. The study further states that everyone has different priorities and reasons for placing some needs above others8.

In attempting to predict a country’s Quality of Life, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory is used. Some confirmation was achieved utilizing a new and larger database. Results demonstrated remarkable agreement with several of Maslow’s predictions, including his sequence of need achievement. However, his theory of growth, according to which nations must reduce growth in one sector in order to boost growth in another, was refuted9.

But according to one study, Maslow’s original hierarchy of requirements won’t apply to a collectivist culture like China. It was discovered that belonging is a fundamental need. Self-esteem is disregarded and self-actualization is attained through addressing societal development needs10.

Because the Philippines is regarded as a collectivist society, whether or not Maslow’s theory is applicable to Filipinos remains a subject of some debate. In addition, the Filipino character appears to be undergoing a constant state of flux. Filipino identity, distortion and dysfunctionality, multidimensional ambivalence, dissonance, false justification and misuse, cynicism, and a reduction in moral courage are among the problems mentioned in one study on Filipino values. The study further claims that the pre-colonial, colonial, and postcolonial normative paradigms are continually competing and clashing inside the Filipino values system. Filipino values and norms are distorted, conflicted, and dysfunctional, unable to offer useful normative standards. A badly damaged social conscience is the effect of this11.

Filipino teachers were among the hardest hit professions during the pandemic12. Despite this, many still pursue careers in education. A study was conducted involving 31 young Filipino teachers (aged 21 to 30). They were asked to write narratives explaining their motivation for teaching. The stories were carefully examined to identify themes and key points. Ultimately, ten key themes emerged to summarize the motivations for young instructors’ involvement in the classroom. According to the young Filipino educators, their teaching aims include bringing about positive change, preparing students for life, inspiring others, promoting values, transforming lives, teaching out of passion, raising the bar for educational excellence, resolving social issues, imparting knowledge and skills and enabling others’ dreams13.

Another study looked into the motivations of Filipino preservice teachers to enroll in teacher education and connected these motivations to demographic traits. Eight reasons for entering the teaching profession were identified by a factor analysis of the replies from Philippine teacher education institutions. These reasons are idealistic, migratory, developmental, employment security and stability, supremacy, liberating, altruistic, and perpetual14.

In view of the foregoing, this study explored the applicability of Maslow’s Theory of Motivation on Filipino teachers and whether or not his assertion that the hierarchy principle may be typically observed empirically in terms of rising percentages of non-satisfaction as one moves up the hierarchy1 is true.

Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions:

1. What are the respondents’ levels of satisfaction with respect to

  • Physiological needs;
  • Safety needs;
  • Love needs;
  • Esteem needs; and
  • Self-actualization?

2. Is there a significant difference among the respondents’ levels of satisfaction with respect to

  • Physiological needs;
  • Safety needs;
  • Love needs;
  • Esteem needs; and
  • Self-actualization?

3. Are there significant relationships between the respondents’ levels of satisfaction with respect to

  • Physiological needs;
  • Safety needs;
  • Love needs;
  • Esteem needs; and
  • Self-actualization?

4. Do the respondents’ levels of needs satisfaction decrease according to the sequence of the hierarchy as proposed by Maslow’s Theory?

METHODOLOGY

Thirty (30) Filipino teachers volunteered to be the respondents of this study. Six (6) of them were males while twenty-three (23) were females. Their ages ranged between 24 to 50 with a mean age of 33. Thirteen (13) worked in private schools while seventeen (17) were employed in government schools. Fourteen (14) were single while sixteen (16) were married. They were asked to answer the Maslow and the Motivation Hierarchy: Measuring Satisfaction of the Needs instrument, a 72-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire that measures the five dimensions of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, namely Physiological needs satisfaction (15 items), Safety needs satisfaction (15 items), Love needs satisfaction (15 items), Esteem needs satisfaction (15 items) and Self-actualization needs satisfaction (12 items). The measures were developed based on their construct and content validity, which were examined using confirmatory factor analysis and the known-groups technique of validity evaluation. The scales were also evaluated for their ability to predict outcomes; specifically, they were compared to the theoretical hierarchy and each need was found to be a statistical predictor of the need that was directly above it15.

RESULTS

The following are the data gathered and the statistical treatments applied, which are presented in tabular form.

Table 1: Scale of Interpretation for Item Weighted Means of Responses to Physiological, Safety, Love and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Weighted mean range Verbal Interpretation
1.000 – 1.800 Completely unsatisfied
1.801 – 2.600 Somewhat unsatisfied
2.601 – 3.400 Neither unsatisfied nor satisfied
3.401 – 4.200 Somewhat satisfied
4.201 – 5.000 Completely satisfied

Table 2: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Physiological Needs Satisfaction

Item Item Weighted Mean

Single N=14

Item Weighted Mean

Married N=16

Item Weighted Mean

Combined N=30

Combined Item Weighted Mean

Verbal Interpretation

1. the quality of the food I eat every day 4.714 4.500 4.600 Completely satisfied
2. the amount of food that I eat every day 4.786 4.625 4.700 Completely satisfied
3. the quality of the water I drink every day 4.715 4.875 4.800 Completely satisfied
4. the amount of water that I drink every day 4.429 4.688 4.567 Completely satisfied
5. the amount of heating I have when the weather is cold 4.286 4.625 4.467 Completely satisfied
6. the amount of cooling I have when the weather is hot 4.143 4.625 4.400 Completely satisfied
7. the quality of the air I breathe every day 4.286 4.688 4.500 Completely satisfied
8. the amount of sex I am having 3.500 4.313 3.933 Somewhat satisfied
9. the quality of sex I am having 3.571 4.438 4.033 Somewhat satisfied
10. every aspect of my physical health 3.714 4.313 4.033 Somewhat satisfied
11. the amount of sleep I get to feel thoroughly relaxed 3.357 4.000 3.700 Somewhat satisfied
12. the quality of sleep I get to feel fully refreshed 3.571 3.938 3.767 Somewhat satisfied
13. the amount of exercise I get to keep me healthy 3.143 3.500 3.333 Neither unsatisfied nor satisfied
14. the type of exercise I get to keep my body toned 3.143 3.500 3.333 Neither unsatisfied nor satisfied
15. my overall physical strength 3.571 4.125 3.867 Somewhat satisfied
Total Item Weighted Means 3.929 4.317 4.136 Somewhat satisfied

Table 3: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Safety Needs Satisfaction

Item Item Weighted Mean

Single N=14

Item Weighted Mean

Married N=16

Item Weighted Mean

Combined N=30

Combined Item Weighted Mean

Verbal Interpretation

16. the quality of the house/apartment I am living in 4.571 4.688 4.633 Completely satisfied
17. the space available for me in my house/apartment 4.357 4.688 4.533 Completely satisfied
18. How secure I am in my house/apartment 4.714 4.688 4.700 Completely satisfied
19. How safe I am from being physically attacked 4.643 4.563 4.600 Completely satisfied
20. the safety of my neighborhood 4.286 4.438 4.367 Completely satisfied
21. How safe I am from catching any diseases 3.929 4.375 4.167 Completely satisfied
22. How secure I am from disasters 4.000 4.375 4.200 Somewhat satisfied
23. How protected I am from dangers in the environment 4.214 4.500 4.367 Completely satisfied
24. the protection that the police provide for me 3.714 4.188 3.967 Somewhat satisfied
25. the protection that the law provides for me 3.571 4.250 3.933 Somewhat satisfied
26. How safe I am from destructive terrorist acts 4.143 4.188 4.167 Somewhat satisfied
27. How safe I am from acts of war 4.071 4.188 4.133 Somewhat satisfied
28. My financial security 3.571 4.063 3.833 Somewhat satisfied
29. My ability to get money whenever I need it 3.429 4.000 3.733 Somewhat satisfied
30. the money I reserved for me to have a secure retirement 3.071 3.938 3.533 Somewhat satisfied
Total Item Weighted Means 4.019 4.342 4.191 Somewhat satisfied

Table 4: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Love Needs Satisfaction

Item Item Weighted Mean

Single N=14

Item Weighted Mean

Married N=16

Item Weighted Mean

Combined N=30

Combined Item Weighted Mean

Verbal Interpretation

31. the amount of rapport I share with the people I know 4.357 4.500 4.433 Completely satisfied
32. the quality of the relationships I have with my friends 4.500 4.625 4.567 Completely satisfied
33. the love I receive from my spouse/partner 4.143 4.688 4.433 Completely satisfied
34. the intimacy I share with my immediate family 4.357 4.563 4.467 Completely satisfied
35. the camaraderie I share with my colleagues 4.357 4.250 4.300 Completely satisfied
36. how much I am welcomed in my community 4.286 4.438 4.367 Completely satisfied
37. the warmth I share with my relatives 3.857 4.438 4.167 Somewhat satisfied
38. the emotional support I receive from my friends 4.571 4.375 4.467 Completely satisfied
39. the feeling of togetherness I have with my family 4.143 4.750 4.467 Completely satisfied
40. how much I am cared for by my spouse/partner 4.071 4.688 4.400 Completely satisfied
41. the happiness I share with my companions 4.500 4.688 4.600 Completely satisfied
42. the sympathy I receive from my confidants 4.643 4.500 4.567 Completely satisfied
43. the enjoyment I share with associates 4.429 4.438 4.433 Completely satisfied
44. the affection shown to me by my friends 4.500 4.250 4.367 Completely satisfied
45. the closeness I feel with my associates 4.286 4.313 4.300 Completely satisfied
Total Item Weighted Means 4.333 4.500 4.422 Completely satisfied

Table 5: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Item Item Weighted Mean

Single N=14

Item Weighted Mean

Married N=16

Item Weighted Mean

Combined N=30

Combined Item Weighted Mean

Verbal Interpretation

46. the admiration given to me by others 4.357 4.250 4.300 Completely satisfied
47. the honor that many people give me 4.286 4.250 4.267 Completely satisfied
48. how much other people respect me as a person 4.286 4.375 4.333 Completely satisfied
49. the prestige I have in the eyes of other people 4.143 4.438 4.300 Completely satisfied
50. how highly other people think of me 4.214 4.313 4.267 Completely satisfied
51. the high esteem that other people have for me 4.286 4.438 4.367 Completely satisfied
52. the recognition I receive from various people 4.357 4.313 4.333 Completely satisfied
53. the high regard that other people have for me 4.286 4.313 4.300 Completely satisfied
54. How much I like the person that I am 4.500 4.500 4.500 Completely satisfied
55. How sure I am of myself 4.214 4.625 4.433 Completely satisfied
56. How much respect I have for myself 4.571 4.625 4.600 Completely satisfied
57. All the good qualities I have as a person 4.214 4.563 4.400 Completely satisfied
58. My sense of self-worth 4.571 4.625 4.600 Completely satisfied
59. the amount of esteem I have for myself 4.357 4.625 4.500 Completely satisfied
60. How positive I feel about myself as a person 4.429 4.625 4.533 Completely satisfied
Total Item Weighted Means 4.338 4.458 4.402 Completely satisfied

 

Table 6: Scale of Interpretation for Item Weighted Means of Responses to Self-Actualization

Weighted mean range Verbal Interpretation
1.000 – 1.800 Strongly disagree
1.801 – 2.600 Somewhat disagree
2.601 – 3.400 Neither disagree nor agree
3.401 – 4.200 Somewhat agree
4.201 – 5.000 Strongly agree

Table 7: Respondents’ Item Weighted Means for Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Item Item Weighted Mean

Single N=14

Item Weighted Mean

Married N=16

Item Weighted Mean

Combined N=30

Combined Item Weighted Mean

Verbal Interpretation

61. I am totally comfortable with all facets of my personality. 4.143 4.313 4.233 Strongly agree
62. I feel that I am completely self-fulfilled. 3.643 4.250 3.967 Somewhat agree
63. I am now being the person I always wanted to be. 3.786 3.938 3.867 Somewhat agree
64. I am finally realizing all of my innermost desires. 4.000 4.125 4.067 Somewhat agree
65. I indulge myself as much as I want. 3.643 4.125 3.900 Somewhat agree
66. I am now enjoying everything I ever wanted from my life. 3.571 4.188 3.900 Somewhat agree
67. I completely accept all aspects of myself. 4.214 4.250 4.233 Strongly agree
68. my actions are always according to my own values. 4.429 4.375 4.400 Strongly agree
69. I am living my life the way I want. 3.714 4.063 3.900 Somewhat agree
70. I do the things I like to do whenever I want. 3.500 3.938 3.733 Somewhat agree
71. I am actually living up to all my capabilities. 3.929 4.125 4.033 Somewhat agree
72. I am living my life to the fullest. 3.571 4.313 3.967 Somewhat agree
Total Item Weighted Means 3.845 4.167 4.017 Somewhat agree

Table 8: Ranking of Needs Satisfaction

Ranking of the Need Satisfaction by Single Respondents

N=14 Total item weighted mean (rank)

Ranking of the Need Satisfaction by Married Respondents

N=16 Total item weighted mean (rank)

Ranking of the Need Satisfaction by all Respondents Combined

N=30 Total item weighted mean (rank)

Physiological 3.929 (4) 4.317 (4) 4.136 (4)
Safety 4.019 (3) 4.342 (3) 4.191 (3)
Love 4.333 (2) 4.500 (1) 4.422 (1)
Esteem 4.338 (1) 4.458 (2) 4.402 (2)
Self-Actualization 3.845 (5) 4.167 (5) 4.017 (5)

Table 9: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Physiological Needs Satisfaction

Welch’s T-test computation
Group Single Married
Mean 3.92857142857 4.31666666675
SD 0.43083245655 0.47919685895
SEM 0.11514481739 0.11979921474
N 14 16

t = 2.3356

df = 27

standard error of difference = 0.166

P value and statistical significance:

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0272

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.38809523818

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.72903389642 to -0.04715657994

Table 10: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Safety Needs Satisfaction

Welch’s T-test computation
Group Single Married
Mean 4.01904761907 4.34166666669
SD 0.53743841394 0.47383385126
SEM 0.14363645796 0.11845846281
N 14 16

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 1.7328

df = 26

standard error of difference = 0.186

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0950

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not quite statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.32261904762

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.70532200471 to 0.06008390947

Table 11: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Love Needs Satisfaction

Welch’s T-test computation
Group Single Married
Mean 4.33333333336 4.50000000000
SD 0.44912069839 0.47077556173
SEM 0.12003255562 0.11769389043
N 14 16

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 0.9914

df = 27

standard error of difference = 0.168

The two-tailed P value equals 0.3303

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant. Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.1666666666495% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.51159203477 to 0.17825870148

Table 12: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Welch’s T-test computation
Group Single Married
Mean 4.33809523807 4.45833333325
SD 0.56172158179 0.41231056257
SEM 0.15012640756 0.10307764064
N 14 16

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 0.6603

df = 23

standard error of difference = 0.182

The two-tailed P value equals 0.5156

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.12023809518

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.49695498898 to 0.25647879862

Table 13: Comparison of Single and Married Responses to Self-Actualization

Welch’s T-test computation
Group Single Married
Mean 3.84523809536 4.16666666669
SD 0.73150788450 0.39086797999
SEM 0.19550370568 0.09771699500
N 14 16

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 1.4706

df = 19

standard error of difference = 0.219

The two-tailed P value equals 0.1578

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Single minus Married equals -0.32142857133

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.77888886280 to 0.13603172014

 

Table 14: Analysis of Variance between Responses to All Five Needs Satisfaction

Summary of Data
Treatments
Physiological Safety Love Esteem Self

Actualization

Total
N 30 30 30 30 30 150
∑X 124.0667 125.7333 132.6667 132.0667 120.5 635.0333
Mean 4.1356 4.1911 4.4222 4.4022 4.0167 4.234
∑X2 520.0667 534.8622 592.8356 588.1467 494.0278 2729.9389
S.D. 0.4907 0.5219 0.4607 0.4828 0.5878 0.5277
Result Details
Source SS df MS
Between-treatments 3.6747 4 0.9187 F = 9.21182
Within-treatments 37.8153 145 0.2608
Error 11.5684 116 0.0997
The F-ratio value is 9.21182. The p-value is < .00001. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 15: Comparison of Responses to Physiological and Safety Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Physiological Safety
Mean 4.13555560 4.19111113
SD 0.49067422 0.52192787
SEM 0.08958445 0.09529056
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 0.6574

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.085

The two-tailed P value equals 0.5161

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Physiological minus Safety equals -0.05555553

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.22840611 to 0.11729505

Table 16: Comparison of Responses to Physiological and Love Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Physiological Love
Mean 4.13555560 4.42222223
SD 0.49067422 0.46066192
SEM 0.08958445 0.08410497
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 5.7047

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.050

The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Physiological minus Love equals -0.28666663

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.38944147 to -0.18389180

Table 17: Comparison of Responses to Physiological and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Physiological Esteem
Mean 4.13555560 4.40222217
SD 0.49067422 0.48280255
SEM 0.08958445 0.08814728
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 3.3668

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.079

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0022

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be very statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Physiological minus Esteem equals -0.26666657

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.42865743 to -0.10467570

Table 18: Comparison of Responses to Physiological Needs and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Physiological Self-Actualization
Mean 4.13555560 4.01666673
SD 0.49067422 0.58779083
SEM 0.08958445 0.10731543
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 1.3669

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.087

The two-tailed P value equals 0.1822

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Physiological minus Self Actualization equals 0.11888887

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.05899871 to 0.29677645

Table 19: Comparison of Responses to Safety and Love Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Safety Love
Mean 4.19111113 4.42222223
SD 0.52192787 0.46066192
SEM 0.09529056 0.08410497
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 2.6913

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.086

P value and statistical significance:

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0117

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Safety minus Love equals -0.23111110

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.40673952 to -0.05548268

Table 20: Comparison of Responses to Safety and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Safety Esteem
Mean 4.19111113 4.40222217
SD 0.52192787 0.48280255
SEM 0.09529056 0.08814728
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 2.2560

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.094

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0318

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Safety minus Esteem equals -0.21111103

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.40250043 to -0.01972164

Table 21: Comparison of Responses to Safety Needs and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Safety Self-Actualization
Mean 4.19111113 4.01666673
SD 0.52192787 0.58779083
SEM 0.09529056 0.10731543
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 1.8006

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.097

The two-tailed P value equals 0.0822

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not quite statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Safety minus Self Actualization equals 0.17444440

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.02370210 to 0.37259090

Table 22: Comparison of Responses to Love and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Love Esteem
Mean 4.42222223 4.40222217
SD 0.46066192 0.48280255
SEM 0.08410497 0.08814728
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 0.3172

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.063

The two-tailed P value equals 0.7534

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Love minus Esteem equals 0.02000007

95% confidence interval of this difference: From -0.10896285 to 0.14896298

Table 23: Comparison of Responses to Love Needs and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Love Self-Actualization
Mean 4.42222223 4.01666673
SD 0.46066192 0.58779083
SEM 0.08410497 0.10731543
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 4.9312

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.082

The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Love minus Self Actualization equals 0.40555550

95% confidence interval of this difference: From 0.23734925 to 0.57376175

Table 24: Comparison of Responses to Esteem Needs and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Paired T-test computation
Group Esteem Self-Actualization
Mean 4.40222217 4.01666673
SD 0.48280255 0.58779083
SEM 0.08814728 0.10731543
N 30 30

Intermediate values used in calculations:

t = 4.7026

df = 29

standard error of difference = 0.082

The two-tailed P value is less than 0.0001

By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be extremely statistically significant.

Confidence interval:

The mean of Esteem minus Self Actualization equals 0.38555543

95% confidence interval of this difference: From 0.21787084 to 0.55324003

Table 25: Summary of Significant Differences between Respondents’ Needs Satisfaction

Physiological Safety Love Esteem Self-Actualization
Physiological Not applicable None Extremely statistically significant Very statistically significant None
Love has higher mean Esteem has higher mean
Love Extremely statistically significant Statistically significant Not applicable None Extremely statistically significant
Love has higher mean Love has higher mean Love has higher mean
Self-Actualization None None Extremely statistically significant Extremely statistically significant Not applicable
Love has higher mean Esteem has higher mean
Safety None Not applicable Statistically significant Statistically significant None
Love has higher mean Esteem has higher mean
Esteem Very statistically significant Statistically significant None Not applicable Extremely statistically significant
Esteem has higher mean Esteem has higher mean Esteem has higher mean

Table 26: Relationship between Responses to Physiological and Safety Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 124.067

Mean = 4.136

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6.982

Y Values

∑ = 125.733

Mean = 4.191

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 7.9

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 4.334

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 4.334 / √((6.982)(7.9)) = 0.5836

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.5836

The P-Value is .000711. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 27: Relationship between Responses to Physiological and Love Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 124.067

Mean = 4.136

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6.982

Y Values

∑ = 132.667

Mean = 4.422

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 6.154

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 5.47

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 5.47 / √((6.982)(6.154)) = 0.8344

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.8344

The P-Value is < .00001. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 28: Relationship between Responses to Physiological Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 124.067

Mean = 4.136

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6.982

Y Values

∑ = 132.067

Mean = 4.402

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 6.76

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 4.142

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 4.142 / √((6.982)(6.76)) = 0.6029

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.6029

The P-Value is .000422. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 29: Relationship between Responses to Physiological and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 124.067

Mean = 4.136

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6.982

Y Values

∑ = 120.5

Mean = 4.017

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 10.019

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 5.21

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 5.21 / √((6.982)(10.019)) = 0.6229

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.6229

The P-Value is .000237. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 30: Relationship between Responses to Safety and Love Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 125.733

Mean = 4.191

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 7.9

Y Values

∑ = 132.667

Mean = 4.422

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 6.154

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 3.819

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 3.819 / √((7.9)(6.154)) = 0.5478

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.5478

The P-Value is .001727. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 31: Relationship between Responses to Safety and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 125.733

Mean = 4.191

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 7.9

Y Values

∑ = 132.067

Mean = 4.402

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 6.76

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 3.521

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 3.521 / √((7.9)(6.76)) = 0.4818

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.4818

The P-Value is .00702. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 32: Relationship between Responses to Safety and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 125.733

Mean = 4.191

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 7.9

Y Values

∑ = 120.5

Mean = 4.017

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 10.019

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 4.877

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 4.877 / √((7.9)(10.019)) = 0.5481

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.5481

The P-Value is .001715. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 33: Relationship between Responses to Love and Esteem Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 132.667

Mean = 4.422

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6.154

Y Values

∑ = 132.067

Mean = 4.402

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 6.76

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 4.727

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 4.727 / √((6.154)(6.76)) = 0.7329

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.7329

The P-Value is < .00001. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 34: Relationship between Responses to Love and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 132.667

Mean = 4.422

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6.154

Y Values

∑ = 120.5

Mean = 4.017

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 10.019

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 5.144

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 5.144 / √((6.154)(10.019)) = 0.6551

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.6551

The P-Value is .000085. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 35: Relationship between Responses to Esteem and Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction

Pearson r computation
X Values

∑ = 132.067

Mean = 4.402

∑(X – Mx)2 = SSx = 6.76

Y Values

∑ = 120.5

Mean = 4.017

∑(Y – My)2 = SSy = 10.019

X and Y Combined

N = 30

∑(X – Mx)(Y – My) = 5.466

R Calculation

r = ∑((X – My)(Y – Mx)) / √((SSx)(SSy))

r = 5.466 / √((6.76)(10.019)) = 0.6641

Meta Numerics (cross-check)

r = 0.6641

The P-Value is .000063. The result is significant at p < .05.

Table 36: Summary of Significant Relationships between Respondents’ Needs Satisfaction

Physiological Safety Love Esteem Self-Actualization
Physiological Not applicable r = 0.5836
The P-Value is .000711
Significant
r = 0.8344
The P-Value is < .00001
Significant
r = 0.6029
The P-Value is .000422
Significant
r = 0.6229
The P-Value is .000237
Significant
Safety r = 0.5836
The P-Value is .000711
Significant
Not applicable r = 0.5478
The P-Value is .001727
Significant
r = 0.4818
The P-Value is .00702
Significant
r = 0.5481
The P-Value is .001715
Significant
Love r = 0.8344
The P-Value is < .00001
Significant
r = 0.5478
The P-Value is .001727
Significant
Not applicable r = 0.7329
The P-Value is < .00001
Significant
r = 0.6551
The P-Value is .000085
Significant
Esteem r = 0.6029
The P-Value is .000422
Significant
r = 0.4818
The P-Value is .00702
Significant
r = 0.7329
The P-Value is < .00001
Significant
Not applicable r = 0.6641
The P-Value is .000063
Significant
Self-Actualization r = 0.6229
The P-Value is .000237
Significant
r = 0.5481
The P-Value is .001715
Significant
r = 0.6551
The P-Value is .000085
Significant
r = 0.6641
The P-Value is .000063
Significant
Not applicable

Table 37. Ranking of significant relationships between dimensions

Rank in terms of strength of the relationship Paired Dimensions Computed r value
1 Physiological and Love 0.8344
2 Love and Esteem 0.7329
3 Esteem and Self-Actualization 0.6641
4 Love and Self-Actualization 0.6551
5 Physiological and Self-Actualization 0.6229
6 Physiological and Esteem 0.6029
7 Physiological and Safety 0.5836
8 Safety and Self-Actualization 0.5481
9 Safety and Love 0.5478
10 Safety and Esteem 0.4818

DISCUSSION

Tables 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 present the item weighted means for each of the five dimensions of needs satisfaction as well as their total item weighted means and their verbal interpretations. Physiological Needs Satisfaction responses are presented in Table 2. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.136 was obtained, which has a verbal interpretation of somewhat satisfied. Table 3 presents the responses to Safety Needs Satisfaction. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.191 was computed, which has a verbal interpretation of somewhat satisfied. The responses to Love Needs Satisfaction are shown in Table 4. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.422 was obtained, which has a verbal interpretation of completely satisfied. Table 5 presents the responses to Esteem Needs Satisfaction. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.402 was computed, which has a verbal interpretation of completely satisfied. The responses to Self-Actualization Needs Satisfaction are shown in Table 7. A combined total item weighted mean of 4.017 was obtained, which has a verbal interpretation of somewhat agree.

In Table 8, the ranking of the five needs satisfaction is presented for both single respondents, married respondents and for all respondents based on the total item weighted means. It is noteworthy that for single respondents, the dimension with the highest degree of satisfaction is Esteem, while for married respondents, the dimension with the highest degree is love. When combined, the dimension with the highest degree of satisfaction is love needs.

Tables 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 present the comparison of the degrees of satisfaction for the five dimensions between the single and married respondents using Welch’s t-tests. Although the total item weighted means for the married respondents are higher than that of the single respondents in all five dimensions, a significant difference was found only in the physiological needs satisfaction. And because the mean is higher for the married respondents, it can be inferred that physiological needs satisfaction is significantly higher for married respondents than for single respondents.

The analysis of variance computation of the five dimensions of Physiological needs satisfaction, Safety needs satisfaction, Love needs satisfaction, Esteem needs satisfaction and Self-actualization needs satisfaction of the respondents are presented in Table 14. The F-ratio of 9.21182 was obtained and with a p-value less than .00001, this implies that there is a significant difference among the five dimensions.

Tables 18 to 24 present the paired t-test computations between all dimensions of needs satisfaction of the respondents. The results of the paired t-tests are summarized in Table 25. No significant difference was found between the respondents’ physiological and self-actualization needs satisfaction, physiological and safety needs satisfaction, safety and self-actualization needs satisfaction, love and esteem needs satisfaction and safety and self-actualization needs satisfaction. However, significant differences were found between physiological and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, physiological and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, safety and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, safety and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, love and self-actualization needs satisfaction wherein in love has a higher mean and esteem and self-actualization needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean.

Tables 26 to 35 present the Pearson-r computations between all dimensions of the respondents’ needs satisfaction. The results of the correlation computations are summarized in Table 36. Significant positive relationships were established between all possible pair-combinations of dimensions of needs satisfaction.

Table 37 presents the ranking of positive relationship strength between dimensions of needs satisfaction of the respondents based on the computed Pearson r values. The dimensions with the strongest positive relationship is between physiological and love (1), followed by love and esteem (2), esteem and self-actualization (3), love and self-actualization (4), physiological and self-actualization (5), physiological and esteem (6), physiological and safety (7), safety and self-actualization (8), safety and love (9) and safety and esteem (10).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this study, the respondents’ physiological needs are somewhat satisfied, their safety needs are somewhat satisfied, their love needs are completely satisfied and their esteem needs are completely satisfied. In addition, the respondents somewhat agree that their self-actualization needs are satisfied.

The married respondents have significantly higher physiological needs satisfaction.

When the respondents’ needs satisfaction are ranked, love needs rank first followed by esteem needs, then by safety, next is physiological and last is self-actualization.

Comparing the needs satisfaction of the respondents, significant differences were found between physiological and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, physiological and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, safety and love needs satisfaction wherein love has a higher mean, safety and esteem needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean, love and self-actualization needs satisfaction wherein in love has a higher mean and esteem and self-actualization needs satisfaction in which esteem has a higher mean.

Based on the foregoing findings, it would appear that Maslow’s proposition that the five dimensions of needs satisfaction decrease according the sequence of his theory’s hierarchy, is not the case for the respondents of the study.

Significant positive relationships were established between all possible pair-combinations of the respondents’ five dimensions of needs satisfaction. This implies that all these dimensions significantly influence each other in a positive direction.

Similar researches are recommended on larger samples and with respondents from other professions.

ETHICAL DECLARATION

The researcher declares that this study strictly adhered to the ethics of research. Informed consent was obtained, freedom to withdraw at any time from the study was made known to the participants, their identities were anonymized, the participants were not exposed to any physical, psychological or social harm and the results were used for research purposes only. The researcher further ensured steps to prevent bias in the interpretation of the data. Lastly, there was no conflict of interest in the conduct of the study.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to the respondents of this study and to the author of the Maslow and the Motivation Hierarchy: Measuring Satisfaction of the Needs instrument.

REFERENCES

  1. Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 1943;50(4):370–96. doi:10.1037/h0054346
  2. Mcleod S. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
  3. Shoib S, Amanda TW, Menon V, Ransing R, Kar SK, Ojeahere MI, et al. Is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs applicable during the COVID-19 pandemic? Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2022 Jan 18;44(1):98–100. doi:10.1177/02537176211060435
  4. Ryan, B. J., Coppola, D., Canyon, D. V, et al. (2020). COVID-19 community stabilization and sustainability framework: An Integration of the Maslow hierarchy of needs and social determinants of health. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2020.109
  5. Santamaria JGO. Motivating the future workforce of Philippine Organizations [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://pmr.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pmr/article/view/208
  6. Ilagan, J. R. A., Hechanova, R. M., Co, T. A. C. and Pleyto, V. J. Z. “Bakit Ka Kumakayod?” Developing a Filipino Needs Theory of Motivation. Ateneo de Manila University. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 2014, 47(1), 117-143
  7. Singh T, Behera MP. Application of the maslow’s hierarchy of need theory: Impacts and implications on employee’s career stages. Training and Development Journal. 2016;7(2):43. doi:10.5958/2231-069x.2016.00007.x
  8. Ahmad Dar S, Sakthivel DrP. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is still relevant in the 21st Century. Journal of Learning and Educational Policy. 2022;(25):1–9. doi:10.55529/jlep25.1.9
  9. Hagerty, M.R. Testing Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: National Quality-of-Life Across Time. Social Indicators Research 46, 249–271 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006921107298
  10. Gambrel P, Cianci R. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: Does It Apply In A Collectivist Culture [Internet]. 2003 [cited 2023 Sept 10]. Available from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/ae442f92052554df14618b5bd9104141/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
  11. Benitez, J. L. (2022). An Inquiry into the Problems Concerning Filipino Values and Norms. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 10(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.32871/rmrj2210.01.03
  12. Sevillano S. Teachers uphold quality education amid challenges [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1185242
  13. Rogayan DV. Why young Filipino teachers teach? [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://po.pnuresearchportal.org/ejournal/index.php/apherj/article/view/1028
  14. Hao, Arleen B.; de Guzman, Allan B. Why go into teaching? Understanding Filipino preservice teachers’ reasons for entering teacher education. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy. 2007, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p115-135. 21p.
  15. Taormina RJ, Gao JH. Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction of the needs. The American Journal of Psychology. 2013;126(2):155–77. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0155

Article Statistics

Track views and downloads to measure the impact and reach of your article.

1

PDF Downloads

[views]

Metrics

PlumX

Altmetrics

Paper Submission Deadline

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.

    Subscribe to Our Newsletter

    Sign up for our newsletter, to get updates regarding the Call for Paper, Papers & Research.


    Track Your Paper

    Enter the following details to get the information about your paper