Maslow and the Good Person

Abstract

The article reviews progress made in psychology toward defining the parameters of what Maslow called the “Good Person.” The article concludes that considerable empirical support has been found for the character traits Maslow associated with self-actualization. That is, the fundamental description of the “Good Person” has not changed significantly since Maslow’s original work with two exceptions. One, there is now considerable research on self-transcendence and transpersonal states. Two, cross-cultural research has shown that Maslow’s description of self-actualizing people was more dependent on social, historical, and cultural norms that he was aware of. These lines of research significantly expand Maslow’s thinking about the parameters of the “Good Person.”

In his article, “Toward a Humanistic Biology,” Maslow (1971) articulated two “truly Big Problems of our time.” One of those problems was to define the “Good Person” because we “must have better human beings” (p. 18). For Maslow, the broad parameters that described the Good Person were “the self-evolving person,” “the fully illuminated or awakened or perspicuous [person],” “the fully human person,” and the “self-actualizing person” (p. 18). That is, the Good Person that Maslow was calling for was someone who exhibited exceptional, or even optimal, mental health and well-being. It has been over 50 years since Maslow wrote the article, so it is appropriate to ask how far psychology has progressed in the search for the Good Person.

Since Maslow’s writings on highly self-actualizing people, there has been some notable research that addresses the nature of exceptional well-being. Research has included the later stages of Loevinger’s (1976) theory of ego development, the quiet ego (Wayment & Bauer, 2008), and wisdom (Bangen et al., 2013). Research has also supported the importance of certain characteristics Maslow assigned to his exemplars of self-actualization. Examples include the importance of callings or having a mission in life (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), authenticity (Wood et al., 2008), generativity (McAdams & de St. Aubin, 1998), and excellence (Ericsson, 1996). Although noteworthy and important, these studies usually investigate qualities that Maslow already assigned to his highly self-actualizing people. That is, they do not dramatically move Maslow’s original theory noticeably closer to a newer and expanded understanding of the Good Person.

Recent empirical work in positive psychology has found that a number of constructs Maslow associated with self-actualizing people are, in fact, significant predictors of well-being (see Compton & Hoffman, 2020; Kaufman, 2021). Notable among these predictors are autonomy and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2000), curiosity (Kashdan, 2009), the ability to love (Fredrickson, 2013), humanitarian values (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and vitality (Ryan & Deci, 2008). However, the dependent variables in these studies have been various permutations of well-being, not self-actualization. Nevertheless, global measures of well-being should have reasonable overlap with self-actualization. Research on the construct of flow has been extensive and describes quite well the experience of moment-to-moment awareness and absorption that Maslow frequently observed in his exemplars of self-actualization (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Nonetheless, although the construct of flow describes elements of the phenomenological experience of Maslow’s exemplars, it does not expand the definition of the Good Person significantly beyond what Maslow originally proposed. A number of researchers have also provided interesting and valuable modifications to Maslow’s original theory. This work has covered reinterpretations or clarifications of Maslow’s theory (e.g., Hanley & Abell, 2002; Hoffman, 2017; Mittelman, 1991; Seeman, 1988) and alterations to the hierarchy of needs (e.g., Kaufman, 2021; Yang, 2003). Once again, however, none of these have significantly altered Maslow’s fundamental descriptions of character traits he associated with highly self-actualizing people. In summary, considerable progress has been made in finding empirical support for constructs Maslow originally associated with highly self-actualizing people, although those relationships are generally with well-being rather than self-actualization. One might ask whether anything significantly new has been added to what Maslow originally described in his exemplars of self-actualization.

In 1971, Maslow expanded the territory he originally created for self-actualization to include a sixth need of transcendence. The new need was based on his prior work with peak experiences, and he originally thought it applied only to the highly self-actualizing people he called “peakers” who tended to have peak experiences. With the creation of transpersonal psychology and his essay on Theory Z, Maslow allowed a more spiritual dimension to enter into his ideas about self-actualization (Maslow, 1971). In line with this development, recent research on mindfulness, self-transcendence, and the therapeutic use of psychedelics has been expanding rapidly (Jungaberle et al., 2018; Koltko-Rivera, 2006; Roberts, 2013; Shapiro & Carlson, 2009). In addition, there is a growing interest in yoga, tai chi chuan, Daoism, and Buddhist psychology (e.g., Wallace & Shapiro, 2006). Together, these research endeavors have expanded the boundaries of what psychology considers acceptable dimensions of well-being. Generally, this newer image for well-being has included constructs such as selflessness, unitive awareness, peak experiences, and episodes of self-transcendence, wonder, awe, Being-love (or B-love as Maslow described it), and related sublime states of awareness. This research also suggests the advantages of self-transcendent experiences may be available to most people and not just “peakers” (Amada & Shane, 2022).

Recent studies have also investigated the role of social, cultural, and historical forces on conceptualizations of well-being. Maslow had always recognized the impact these forces could have on the opportunities for self-actualization. Maslow (1971) even proposed a society called “eupsychia” that would foster self-actualization (see Hoffman, 2022). Recent cross-cultural research has supported Maslow’s idea that societies where the lower needs (D-needs) tend to be met will also be more likely to support the higher needs for self-development (Tay & Diener, 2011). On the other hand, research has also shown that Maslow’s descriptions of highly self-actualizing people were more dependent on social, historical, and cultural norms and ideals than Maslow was aware of and are in need of further exploration (e.g., Daniels, 1988; Wilson, 1997; Yang, 2003).

So at this point in time, how far has psychology come in expanding the parameters and predictors of the Good Person? Certainly, the ideal of the Good Person has expanded to include elements of self-transcendence, spirituality, peak experiences, and resacralization that were elaborated on by Maslow (1954, 1971). However, Maslow’s original conceptualization of self-actualization needs to be modified to recognize the influence of social, cultural, and historical factors on the concept of self-actualization. Given these caveats, however, if the ideal of the Good Person is clearly and honestly situated in the modern Western worldview, then Maslow’s construct of self-actualization is still a gold standard for models of exceptional personality development. In addition, for many people that ideal can now include aspects of self-transcendence and transpersonal development.