A New Theory of Human Behavior and Motivation

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No.
10
Publication Date: October 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.810.11088.
Kopsov, I. (2021). A New Theory of Human Behavior and Motivation. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(10). 345-364.
A New Theory of Human Behavior and Motivation

Igor Kopsov
ABSTRACT
We introduce a novel and comprehensive theory of human behavior and
motivation, which incorporates within it both the laws of biology and core aspects
of the social sciences. In continuation of the governing postulates of natural sciences
we formulate the principle of preservation as the primary law of psychology;
provide precise criteria for the definition of basic human needs and uncover their
origin; explore the relation between body and mind; and show correlations
between individual and social perspectives of life. Subsequently, we integrate these
concepts into a unified model of human behavior. We reevaluate the place of
psychology within the overall domain of social science and postulate the key role of
psychological drives in formation of social processes both in the current and
historical perspectives. The paper signifies a step towards establishment of a
common paradigm of psychology.
Keywords: human behavior, process of human behavior, basic needs, definition of basic
needs, law of psychology, law of preservation, preservation of mind, paradigm of
psychology, body and mind, culture, society and individual
A NEW THEORY OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND MOTIVATION

In earlier papers our focus was on developing models of psychological phenomena, including
models of subjective well-being, human needs, unified psychology, and an algorithm of human
behavior (Kopsov, 2019a, 2019b, 2021b). All these notions contain a degree of theoretical
conceptualizing; however, we emphasized their flexible, impartial nature, by which we mean
that they are not constrained or strictly affiliated with any one particular theory. For instance,
the proposed model of needs can accommodate any classification system of needs (e.g., Maslow,
1970b; McClelland, 1988; Reiss, 2004) and the proposed algorithm of human behavior can
incorporate different perspectives of psychology (biological, psychodynamic, behavioral,
cognitive, etc.). Our emphasis on constructing models (rather than pure theoretical
conceptualizations) is rooted in our belief that “the aim of psychology should be to move away
from narration and towards measurement”, and that “measurement requires the establishment
of models – of behavior, human needs, emotions, etc.” (Kopsov, 2020b).
In this paper we depart from our hitherto “impartial” conceptualizations and introduce a novel
and comprehensive theory of human behavior and motivation, though the premise of this
theory still originates from the previously referenced models, which form an integral part of
the theses presented in this paper. The primary idea behind our proposition is that motivation
(i.e. reasons for acting) and behavior (i.e. an act itself) are not unique attributes of humans and
animals, but rather general phenomena relevant for all levels of complexity of nature, which we
describe as i) matter, ii) life, and iii) mind. We hypothesize that motivation originates from the
fundamental laws of the universe, from which all other laws that govern matter, life, and mind,
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 10, October-2021
originate. Through this prism, basic human needs can be described as being derived from the
governing principles of nature, as opposed to just the “intuitive thinking” behind extant
concepts of motivation. The proposed approach allows us to reexamine the relationship
between the physical “body” and the psychological “mind”, as well as between “mind” and the
sociological “society”.
The Process of Human Behavior

Behavioral models have been conceptualized within different branches of physiology,
psychology, and the social sciences, with varying degrees of concretization. Developed in the
early 20th century, the pioneering theory of animal and human behavior was the S-R (Stimulus
– Response) model (Pavlov, 2010; Thorndike, 1898). The model establishes a causal
dependency between action and an internal or external stimulus, whilst the organism itself is
considered to remain passive and its response predetermined. To account for the active role of
the individual, the S-O-R (Stimulus-Organism-Response) concept was proposed (Woodworth,
1918), in which the organism plays an essential role in defining its response. However, further
analytical elaboration of the “organism” component proved to be challenging for psychology
scholars. Despite numerous enhancements and modifications (e.g., Boyd, 1987; Galperin, 1976;
Luthans & Davis, 1979) initiated predominantly within other branches of science, the S-O-R
model found itself discredited within the field of psychology, largely because it became equated
to simplistic “if. . .then” processing. There is a popular and (in some circles) dominant opinion
that human reasoning fundamentally contrasts to purely algorithmic or analytical processing
systems because it is “largely guided by motivation and emotion” (Henriques, 2011). This view,
or rather misconception, originates from the lack of knowledge and understanding in dominant
psychological thought of risk analysis, perception control, and other methods describing
processes with multiple possible outcomes, and allowing to capture the ambiguity of human
behavior.
To prove this point, we present an original and extended S-O-R model of human behavior,
defining the path from stimulus to response as steps of a behavioral act (Kopsov, 2021a). In
doing so we demonstrate how human behavior can be described by a process diagram, that
more precisely reflects the complexity, uniqueness, and uncertainty of outcomes of a behavioral
act.
Humans are immersed in a vast array of stimuli originating from physical, physiological,
psychological, and social signals. Prior to further processing, signals must be detected (this is
the first phase of the behavioral cycle). Not all signals are detected; many are missed or not
recognized due to the limitations of the sensory system. Upon detection, a signal must be
assessed with regards to its significance to human existence; not all signals are relevant in the
context of life, for example, availability of oxygen has no significance for an individual under
“normal” life circumstances, despite it being one of the key preconditions to human existence.
The fact that an assessment occurs implies that a comparison against a set of “criteria” must
take place. We refer to and represent such “criteria” as human needs. In the long-term needs
may establish stable patterns, but in momentary perspectives they form a highly volatile
congregation of distinct needs, wants, and desires – all of which are highly affected by extrinsic
(outside environment) and intrinsic (internal physiological and psychological state)
circumstances. If it is ascertained by an individual that a signal is relevant to the satisfaction of
a specific need, it translates into a stimuli of a behavioral act and the next step of the behavioral
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 346
process can commence, which is to devise a plan of action. This requires the existence of
relevant knowledge and skills, that allows one to contemplate a course of action. Hence, the
behavioral model includes what we refer to as an experience database, which represents a
repository of all the knowledge and skills of an individual. It also contains practical lessons
learned, and a consolidation of attitudes, norms, and cultural predispositions of that individual.
The experience database is dynamic – it is continuously updated and altered throughout one’s
life. When a plan has been derived, it does not however imply that actual commitment to an
action has been made. The plan must initially be assessed from a risk perspective; an individual
rates the likelihood of potential gains and losses of an action against the criticality of a given
need. If a goal can be achieved through different ways, multiple iterations between the risk
analysis and planning stages may be required before a forward-path is determined by the
individual. If the potential gains are assessed as substantial, possible failures manageable, and
the estimated energy expenditure acceptable, the individual proceeds to action execution
(based on the predetermined plan). On the other hand if risk criteria are not met a potential
action is abandoned.
This outlined model of the behavioral act represents the following sequence: signal(S)-
detect(D)-assess(A)-plan(P)-risk analysis(R)-act(A), and can be illustrated as a process
diagram, shown in Figure 1 (Kopsov, 2021a). Needs and the experience database are not
separate steps of the behavioral cycle, nevertheless they play a pivotal role. Hence, we define
the behavioral model as S-D-A(N)-P(E)-R-A. In this sequence needs (N) and experience (E) are
included in brackets as they do not form part of the sequence itself, but rather provide input at
the assessment and planning stages.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 347

Signals: Phases
Physiological signals from inside, of Algorithm Evolvement:
Psychological signals from inside,
Physical signals from outside, CATEGORY OF NATURE
Social signals from outside. Class of science
Ys-d
Proceed with
ongoing activities MATTER
Detect Physical sciences
Yd-a
The need cannot Catalogue of needs:

be satisfied Need No.1 LIFE
Appraise Need No.2 Biology
Need No.3
etc.
The need can

Ya-p
be satisfied
Plan Experience
MIND /
СULTURE
The risk is Assess Psychology/
too high Perform options Social sciences
risk
analysis
Ya-s Ya-e Ya-n
The risk is
Yra-a
acceptable
Add to the experience
Impact of the action
catalogue (Feedback) Adjust needs
on signals
Act (Feedback)
Figure 1. The process diagram of human behavior and phases of its evolvement (Kopsov,
2020b).
The model also includes auxiliary components, i.e. transfer functions (denoted by the Y symbol
in Figure 1) and feedback loops. Transfer functions are necessitated by the fact that each phase
of the behavioral sequence operates using unique principles, and to facilitate the exchange of
information between the phases, they require a “translator”. Within the model this role is
played by transfer functions, which translate outputs of one system to the inputs of another.
In accordance with the model, actions are initiated and then executed, due to and based on,
signals, dominant needs, and the experience database. In turn, the outcomes of actions affect
future signals, add updates to the experience database, and redefine the catalogue of needs,

which triggered the actions in the first place. Consequently, the model includes several feedback
loops: 1) plan – risk analysis – life experience – plan; 2) life experience – action – life experience;
3) needs – action – needs; 4) signal – action – signal. Feedback loops exemplify the reverse effect
of the act, on the parameters that triggered or influenced it. Feedback loops continuously
generate new updates, which create the dynamism of human cognitive and emotional states.
Individuals always exist in a state of unbalance, which requires continuous effort and
adjustments to counter, which in turn allow for the preservation and continuity of human
existence. The behavioral algorithm represents a dialectical model of human development and
incorporates non-linear interactive dynamism between individuals and the environment.
An essential feature of the derived model is its ability to address not only intrinsic acts of human
behavior, but also providing a model for future orientated aspirations (Kopsov 2019a). The
latter represents future anticipated so-called deferred needs. In case of deferred needs, the act
stage of the behavioral sequence is absent, and the forecasted behavioral sequence ends at the
risk analysis stage. Hence, human aspirations are defined as the S-D-A(N)-P(E)-R
sequence/model.
The Origin of Human Behavior

We regard the phenomenon of behavior as a general attribute of matter, life, and mind, rather
than as a unique feature of animals and humans (Henriques, 2011; Kopsov, 2020b). From this
vantage point, chemical reactions between substances, biological processes, and social
interactions, all constitute acts of behavior. Accordingly, we have previously derived models of
functionality of physical objects and living organisms in line with the methodology previously
applied to the description of the process of human behavior as depicted in Figure 1. The
outcome was a series of behavioral models which represent different dimensions of complexity
of reality (i.e. matter (inanimate matter), life (animate life), and mind (mental phenomena)).
We conceive that human behavior results from an evolutionary progression of evolvement of
behavioral phenomena, which initially concern the “functioning of matter”, then develop to the
“functioning of organisms”, and subsequently develop to the “functioning of minds”. We
propose that behavior of inanimate matter is described by the S-D-A model, i.e. signal(S)-
detect(D)-act(A). According to this model, functionality of inanimate matter is fully
characterized by its properties, which are represented by the detect (D) component of the
behavioral model; it stipulates the type and strength of signals that affect the existence of
inanimate matter. The behavior of animate life is defined by the S-D-A(N)-A model, i.e.
signal(S)-detect(D)-assess(A)(need (N))-act(A), and accounts for the influence of needs. For
animate life, such as plants, the detect (D) component is also present; however the primary
element of the behavioral process is the assessment (A) phase, which correlates signals to
needs and defines an organism’s response to stimuli. Subsequently, human behavior is defined
by the S-D-A(N)-P(E)-R-A model, which includes the planning (P) and risk analysis (R) stages
and represents the most advanced form of a behavioral process, supervening the principles of
functionality of inanimate matter and animate organisms.
We stipulate that each level of complexity is associated with a specific dominant element of
behavioral process (Figure 1). For inanimate matter, the governing parameter of the behavioral
process is the detect (D) phase which exemplifies material properties of the substance. For
animate life the key phase is the assessment (A) of signals against predefined needs. This phase
embodies the ability of living organisms to generate an array of complex pre-defined responses
to a variety of environmental impacts. Lastly, behavior of mind is dominated by the planning

(P) and risk analysis (R) phases, which epitomize mental phenomena.
The Law of Preservation as a Principal Law of Behavior

The model of human behavior (as well as the theory of its evolvement) points towards a
tripartite nature of humans comprising the domains of matter, body, and mind. It is plausible
to suppose that human needs have similar arrangement that reflect the three aspects of human
behavior, incorporating the functionalities of inanimate objects, biological organisms, and the
mind. In the following sections we evaluate the needs associated with these domains, and in
doing so, identify the core basic needs, i.e. the fundamental needs to which all other needs can
be ascribed. We will also examine their origin and consider whether they may all be attributed
to a common law of nature or set of laws.
As a congregation of physical substances humans are unequivocally part of the physical world
and are subject to material forces and their effects (such as the act of falling due to the effects
of forces of gravity). The materials our bodies consist of are subject to all laws governing the
existence of inanimate mater, main ones being the laws of conservation of mass and energy,
which are essential postulates within the overall doctrine of the universe. Nevertheless, these
laws play only a marginal role in forming the human psyche, and their impact is more evident
in how they affect physiological functions.
The basic principles that govern the existence of living organisms were first formulated by
“naturalist” scholars in the late 18th and 19th centuries. In An Essay on the Principle of Population,
Malthus (1798) coined the notion of "struggle for existence", which itself originated from the
hypothesis that living organisms exist in numbers which are far superior than can actually
survive and reproduce. This excess of organisms is required to ensure the prosperity of a group,
which (when necessary) is achieved at the expense of any one individual in the group. In the
consequently conceived theory of natural selection developed by Darwin (1859) and Wallace
(1858), the key tasks of any organism are defined as its self-preservation and reproduction; in
combination these two drives translate into the principle of preservation of organisms and their
groups. The general laws of natural history and biology are similarly applicable to humans, at
least in their capacity as biological beings. Humans therefore comply with the principle of
organismic preservation that is manifested through the laws of self-preservation and
reproduction.
We hypothesize that the domain of the mind must also be governed by the law of preservation,
but – if there is such a law of preservation of the mind – unlike with matter and body, it is not
fully transparent how it is exemplified, though we will attempt to shed light on this subject. The
mind concerns the mental aspect of existence and exemplifies mental images of the world,
encapsulating conscious, subconscious, imaginative, intelligent, judgmental, perceptional, and
linguistic perspectives. In a broader view, the definition of the mind also includes personal
skills, capabilities, memories, views, and cognitive interactions with the world. The common
attribute of all characteristics of the mind may be described as cognitive information; therefore
at its very essence, the sole function of the mind is to process cognitive information, which is
also the key enabler of social processes. In a civilizational context, the exchange of information
enables education and empowerment of individuals, the exchange of knowledge and opinions
between members of society, and the preservation of norms (whether social, economic,
scientific, or ethical), regulations, and traditions. Building on analogies with matter and life, we
put forward the notion that the law of preservation of the mind is exemplified by preservation
and reproduction of cognitive information, which is achieved through its dissemination and
absorption.
In line with Malthus’ (1798) proposition that organisms exist in numbers far greater than can
successfully reproduce, which results in the so-called "struggle for existence", we advance the
premise that humans also produce far more cognitive information than can ever be exchanged
and accumulated between and by these organisms. This results in what we refer to as the
"struggle for informational distribution". An excess of cognitive information is required to
ensure informational prosperity of both any single individuals and of groups, as its shortage
would result in inferior knowledge and skills. As Darwin (1859) and Wallace (1858) developed
the theory of “natural selection”, we put forward the notion of “informational selection” –
according to which the fundamental functions of organisms’ mental existence are preservation
and reproduction of cognitive information, which are enabled through its dissemination and
absorption. When combined these drives exemplify the principle of preservation of the mind
when relating to organisms and their groups.
Figure 2. The law of preservation and basic human needs
In summary, we advance the theory that the most fundamental law of nature is the law of
preservation, which ultimately governs the existence of the universe, and from which all other
laws originate. Its genesis is unknown, but it appears to be enabled by (or within) the universal
algorithm (Figure 1) of functioning (e.g., which governs all “behavior”) which evolved though
the phases that correspond to the emergence of the domains of matter, life, and mind. In each
phase of evolutionary development, the law of preservation manifests itself through an
increasingly specific formulation; first the preservation of matter, then the preservation of life,
and finally the preservation of the mind (Figure 2a). These three laws of preservation fuse
together the principles of existence of separate domains of human life.

THE FOUR BASIC NEEDS

Earlier we noted that the domain of matter, though affecting human behavior, has minimal
impact on the human psyche, and that the human psyche is predominantly governed by the
domains of life and mind. The law of preservation of living organisms translates into the laws
of self-preservation and reproduction; whilst the law of preservation of mind is exemplified by
dissemination and absorption of cognitive information. Consequently, we hypothesize that the
principles of preservation of life and mind translate into the following four basic human needs:
(1) self-preservation; (2) reproduction; (3) absorption of information; and (4) dissemination of
information (Figure 2b). The former two needs predominantly define the functioning of the
body, whilst the latter two needs predominantly define the functioning of the mind. Absorption
and dissemination of cognitive information can be also seen as its preservation and
reproduction.
Despite their different origins, the four basic needs are intrinsically interlinked. Let us take
exchange of information as an example; it is not simply only a cognitive function – it also plays
a vital role in reproduction, as it involves the exchange of genetically encoded information.
Similarly, human reproduction also contains a very significant cognitive component, which is
exemplified by the substantive learning and development process children go through in their
formative years. Many more such examples can be provided, such as cognitive information
absorption enhancing self-preservation (e.g., learning skills which enable one’s continued
survival), which in turn facilitates information dissemination, and so forth and so on. Thus, the
basic needs can be analyzed separately, however they always remain interconnected due to the
fusion of body and mind. Nevertheless, the four basic needs remain very distinct from one
another as they originate from different distinct laws that govern different domains of human
nature. The schematics of their interactions, which can be either contesting or symbiotic, are
illustrated with arrows in Figure 2b.
In addition to the multiplex interrelations between basic needs, the human psyche is also
affected by existential conflicts between the mind and the body, and between the individual and
society at large. Consequently, individuals exist within an ever-changing inner state and fluid
extrinsic circumstances, resulting in the highly complex character of the human psyche. The
contradictory and dynamic nature of human motivation is illustrated by the ring model of
human needs (Kopsov, 2019b), in which each distinct need is illustrated as a ring within a circle,
which itself represents the combined state of all needs. It allows to analyze the dynamics of
human needs in momentary, ontogenetic, or evolutionary perspectives. In the momentary
perspective all distinct needs compete for an individual’s “attention” within the ever-changing
setting an individual finds itself in, as distinct needs appear, disappear, are satisfied, or negated
(e.g., hunger results in the emergence of a need for sustenance, whilst its subsequent
satisfaction diminishes it once again, although only for a period of time). This highly fluid state
is depicted by the dynamic ring model (Figure 3b) which is well-suited for modeling of “distinct
needs”, i.e. transiently experienced components of human psyche, including wants, desires,
wishes. The more dominant a distinct need is, the larger its associated ring, and the closer it is
positioned to the exterior of the circle of needs. As a need gets satisfied its dominance decays
and the diameter of the corresponding ring reduces.

Figure 3. A ring model of human needs
Ontogenetic and evolutionary perspectives of human needs are better depicted by the general
ring model (Figure 3a), within which there is a dedicated ring allocated to each basic need; the
size of a ring corresponds to the dominancy or “relative weight” of a need. A novelty of this
model is that it enables the introduction of quantitative methods to trace evolvement of needs,
both within the context of a life span and within evolutionary progression.
The four basic needs are not just “intuitively suggested” through observations of human
activity, but methodologically derived from widely accepted or newly hypothesized laws of
preservation of organisms and the mind, therefore, it is not by accident that they are well suited
for quantitative assessment, as they can plausibly be correlated and matched with measurable
parameters. Examples include: levels of adrenaline or metabolism as a measurable parameters
of the need for self-preservation; levels of testosterone as a measurable parameter of the need
for reproduction; kilobits of information received as a measurable parameter for the need for
information absorption, and kilobits of information shared as a measurable parameter of the
need for information dissimilation. The breadth of such possible measurable parameters is so
vast that they can be precisely selected to suit the evaluation of very specific factors of human
life or psyche. Most extant taxonomies of needs (e.g., Maslow, 1943; McClelland, 1988) are
unsuitable for quantification, as it is impossible to conceive a measurable parameter (apart
from the unreliable and unstandardized method of self-assessment) associated with them, as

there are no systems in existence that would allow to grade such things as needs for love,
power, social belonging etc.
The four proposed basic needs correlate to an extent with traditional “layman” classifications
of needs as well as terminology used by extant theories of motivation. In this regard, the class
of basic needs defined as self-preservation needs equates to a combination of physiological
needs (with the exception of sex) and safety needs; the class of reproduction basic needs
includes sex, child rearing, and intrasexual dominance; the class of absorption of information
basic needs manifests itself through learning, acquisition of skills, social belonging, imitation,
and conformity with social norms and traditions; the class of dissemination of information basic
needs correlates with aspirations for respect, ego, status, child mental upbringing, mastery, and
competency, as these are characteristics and abilities which allow individuals to command
attention and spread their own views. Moreover, many traditionally defined needs (e.g., needs
for belonging, self-actualization etc.) represent narrative – rather than analytical –descriptions
of the “inner-self”, as a majority of these are multi-componential and relate to more than just a
single basic need.
Additionally, there are certain commonly recognized basic needs which fall outside our
proposed taxonomy of the four basic needs, such as the need for friendship (Maslow, 1943).
According to our classification of motives, friendship does not represent a basic need but is
rather a social instrument for self-preservation as well as absorption and dissemination of
cognitive information.
A verification criterion, that can be used to distinguish basic needs from other needs, is if a basic
need is not collectively satisfied it results in the extinction of a species within one generation.
The four basic needs fully satisfy this criterion, as an inability to fulfil any of them would result
in the termination of existence of a being or its direct descendants. Conversely, desires for
esteem, love, self-actualization do not fit this verification criterion, even though they are evident
in the realms of desires and wishes and their satisfaction affects subjective well-being and
quality of life. Based on this, a basic need can be defined as a need upon which survival of the
species is conditional. Unlike prevailing theories of motivation, which represent either intuitive
or mental constructs, the postulated taxonomy of needs is closely integrated with concepts of
biology and social science.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIND AND BODY

Humans incorporate all domains of complexity (i.e. matter, body, and mind). As relating to the
human psyche, physical aspects of existence, whilst impacting behavior, play a rather trivial
role due to their transient character. Therefore the human psyche is predominantly
conditioned by the functioning of body and mind. The functioning of the body is governed by
laws of self-preservation and reproduction, and the functioning of mind is governed by
principles of acquisition and dissemination of cognitive information. Hence, body and mind are
two adjoined but autonomous attributes of human exitance.
The mind emerges because of the evolutionary development of the body. Within this
development, the mind becomes so distinguishable that it can be thought of or viewed as
extrinsic to the body itself. Nevertheless, it is rooted within the body, affected by the body, and
to a large extent controls the body’s well-being. However, this cohabitation is not entirely
amicable. The mind acts in a supervening manner on the body, and at times negates it, by
advancing its own priorities at the expense of bodily preservation and reproduction. This is
typified by behaviors such as suicide, childfree living, unforced extreme risk taking, which cater
for inclinations of the mind but neglect biological needs for self-preservation and reproduction.
Generally, humankind is becoming increasingly mind-orientated (at times at the expense of
bodily well-being), as cognitive information exchange and acquisition become dominant
drivers of economic, political, and (to an extent) ethical developments.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY

The social sciences are largely influenced by anthropocentrism and cognitive biases, which
historically originated from religious doctrines. The result of these biases is an exaggeration of
the uniqueness of human nature and misinterpretation of interactions between the social,
biological, and cognitive sides of existence. Moreover, humans view the surrounding world
from a vantage point where bodily, social, and cognitive perspectives are intricately interlinked,
both supplementing and contrasting each other. This complicates rationalization of the world
and leads to a false interpretation of reality.
In our previous work (Kopsov, 2021a) we demonstrated that in the generally perceived
progression of evolvement of the levels of complexity of nature, i.e. matter-life-mind-culture,
the latter transition cannot be validated. The homogeneity of processes of individual and group
behavior leads to the proposition that the human mind/psyche and culture domains belong to
the same level of complexity of nature. This notion challenges the commonly held perception
that society/culture is a standalone category of reality supervening the mind.
There are additional arguments supporting this point of view, as it can be reasoned that the
functioning of mind and culture are conjoined, whereby one cannot exist without the other. The
mind cannot sustain its existence outside of the social domain, which may appear
counterintuitive, as individuals can technically survive outside society, but this could only ever
be feasible for only a single generation. The mind can maintain a short-term isolated existence
but will go extinct without social interactions (including sexual reproduction or child rearing).
Hence, it must be concluded that mind does not exist without society, and society cannot exist
without mind. This correlates with conclusions presented in earlier sections where we
postulated that socialization in the form of exchange of cognitive information is a basic need of
humans, i.e. critical for survival.
This way of thinking is not constrained to a particular taxonomy of domains of nature. An

alternative to the matter-life-mind-culture representation of levels of nature would be the
following categorization: subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organic structures, multi-
celled organisms, consciousness, and society. This classification also explicitly distinguishes
between consciousness and society. In fact, all known classifications of the primary domains of
nature contain a divide between mind and consciousness on one side, and culture, society, and
civilization on the other. We maintain that such distinctions incorrect, and that mind and
culture are completely integrated concepts, as they cannot exist without each other, and their
functionality is governed by the same algorithms. Thus, they represent a united form.
Conversely, matter can and does exist without life (biological organisms), and life can exist
without mind, and they function in accordance with the distinctive behavioral algorithms.

Many authors argue that the phenomenon of behavior is not a unique attribute of humans or
animals but also a generic feature of functionality of inanimate matter and animate life
(Hawking, 1988; Henriques, 2011; Whitehead, 1985). Likewise, we consider that society is not
a unique attribute of animalia or humanity but rather a general form of existence of all forms of
nature. In this way material substance represents a community of atoms. On the biological level
individual living organisms establish their own communities, i.e. congregation of organisms.
Similarly, individual minds form cultures when aggregated. In the cosmogenic context, the
social phenomenon evolves through a progression from material substance to a community of
organisms, and then to cultural formations. Humankind is a combination of two social
phenomena: congregation of organisms and congregation of minds.
Figure 4. Levels of complexity and congregations
This approach (as illustrated in Figure 4) represents the domains of nature not as a linear
progression of matter-life-mind-culture, but as a two-dimensional matrix of individual
elements (atom, organism, mind) and their aggregations (substances, communities of
organism, culture). From the vantage point of the universality of the congregation phenomenon,
analyzing society separately from the human mind and psyche equates to studying material
substances whilst ignoring their atomic composition. Even though such an approach is still
plausible, and may even carry some advantages, disregarding atomic properties of materials
would remain a grave error given the current state of knowledge. Analogously, for social
sciences to become a truly comprehensive research field it must integrate studies of psyche.
The continued concealment of the interconnections between mind and society prevents the
unraveling of the psychological drivers of social phenomena. We believe that the role of
psychology in analyses of social processes is grossly undervalued. Human psychology does not
just contribute, but fundamentally defines, such momentous and complex social phenomena, as
ethical doctrines, generational conflicts, civilizational confrontations, and social revolutions.
From this point of view moral and ethical confrontations determine which mental pictures are

formed and furthered by social groups in the overall process of preservation of mind. The
rationality for this is the generic nature of information acquisition and dissemination processes
originating from the law of preservation of mind. We are confident that further study into the
competition for cognitive informational domination, as well as cognitive informational
collaboration, will spearhead new knowledge on psychological drivers behind social processes,
both in current and historical perspectives.
We perceive individuals as having a dual nature comprising body and mind. Accordingly,
society is a form of existence of human bodies and minds, and plays a dual role by organizing
lives of organisms as well as integration of minds. Provision for the continued existence of
biological organisms and functioning of minds are primary, yet segregated undertakings of each
and every social group. Furthermore, as the body and the mind exist both through collaboration
and mutual enmity, groups exhibit similar complimentary and confrontational aspects related
to these two sides of human nature. Groups generate tensions between individuals, as well as
between society and individuals. However, interactions are not necessarily confrontational or
competitive; depending on circumstance, individuals may choose to support each other, and
similarly individuals and society may foster mutual prosperity. In that regard, moral notions
(for instance altruism or dispensing care for another) are not purely ethical or moral concepts
but demonstrations of the law of preservation in social settings.
TOWARDS A PARADIGM OF PSYCHOLOGY

Our earlier devised model of unified psychology (Kopsov, 2021b) was aimed at uniting divided
perspectives of psychology. It offered a framework to accommodate contending psychological
theories, whilst maintaining their individual integrities. Whereas the hypothesis presented in
this paper maintains this integrational potential, its comprehensive character distinguishes it
as a full theory of mind and behavior, incorporating the following concepts:
• a newly formulated principal law of psychology,
• a universal algorithm of behavior,
• a theory of the origin of the behavioral algorithm,
• a model of unified psychology,
• a model of subjective well-being,
• a ring model of needs,
• a definition of basic needs,
• a concept of relation between body and mind, and
• a concept of relation between individual and society
Taken together the above concepts define a structured and comprehensive theory of
psychology, which describes human motivation and behavior within the context of the general
laws of nature. The theory is integrated with other branches of science and, in essence,
represents a novel paradigm of psychology. Furthermore, it is not constrained to the field of
psychology, but provides a broader perspective of the cosmogenesis. In this regard it capitalises
on Henriques’ (2003, 2011) proposition that all categories of nature are characterized by
shared fundamental phenomena such as information processing and behavior. We elaborate on
this, that these fundamental phenomena also comprise a governing law of preservation and a
separate congregate class. Hence, for each category of nature, a set of common fundamental
characteristics includes behavior (and with it an associated governing function of the

behavioral algorithm (ref. Figure 1)), a governing law, a governing information processing type,
and a congregation class, as presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Fundamental characteristics of categories of nature.
Fundamental characteristics of categories of nature
Governing
Governing
Category Basic Governing information Congregatio
behavioral
of nature component law processing n class
function
type
Conservation
Anatomic
Matter Atom of mass & Detection Substance
arrangement
energy
Congregatio
Preservation Genetic
Life Organism Assessment n of
of organisms encoding
organisms
Preservation
Individual Planning and Neuronal
Mind of cognitive Culture
mind Risk analysis processing
information
For the matter category, the governing function of behavior is the detection of signals exhibited
through material properties; the principal law of existence is the law of conservation of mass
and energy; information is preserved through atomic arrangements; congregation is embodied
by material substances. For living organisms, behavior is governed by the function of
assessment of signals against predefined needs; the principal law of existence is the law of
preservation of organisms; the governing type of information processing is genetic encoding;
and congregation is represented by communities of organisms. For the mind, behavior is
primarily affected by planning and risk analysis activities; the principal law of existence is the
law of preservation of cognitive information, which in turn is enabled by neuronal processing;
congregation is represented by culture. It should be précised that the fundamental
characteristics presented in Table 1 are governing rather than exclusive.
We hypothesize (see also Kopsov, 2020b) that evolvement of categories of nature is an

evolutionary process transpiring through enhancement of fundamental characteristics and
enabled by the following transformations:
• addition of a new category to the law of preservation,
• enhancement of behavioral process (Figure 1) by addition of new steps and
feedback loops,
• increase of future-orientation of behavior,
• addition of a new information processing methods, and
• enhancement of structure of congregation.
We consider the law of preservation as the principal law of nature, which in case of the domain
of mind, translates into the law of preservation of cognitive information. However, preservation
of information has a broader perspective, as all laws of preservation can be defined in terms of
preservation of information. The laws of conservation of mass and energy define preservation
of the atomic arrangement, which in itself represents a record of information. The laws of
biological self-preservation and reproduction equate to the preservation of genetic encoding of

DNA. In accordance with this line of though, in a cosmogenic context the information
phenomenon emerges at the moment of the advent of the universe and then evolves through a
multi-phased progression from atomic to genetic and then to neuronal systems. The placement
of information handling at the core of the human psyche allows to integrate psychology into the
field of science of information processing.
CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER THEORIES

According to Ilyn (2002) there are more than 50 theories of motivation, and the number of
which continues to expand (Dover, 2016; Feist et al., 2013). Despite all of these being defined
by their authors as motivational theories, they often address very different aspects of human
behavior, such that their assembly under one umbrella term is only superficial. On closer
examination they represent either models of instigation of human needs, taxonomies of human
needs, or models of human behavior.
Numerous theories of motivation are dedicated to the taxonomy of needs. The most publicly
renowned scholar of human needs, Maslow (1943), initially contemplated a five-level system
comprising needs of a physiological nature, such as safety, belonging, love, esteem, and self-
actualization. He subsequently extended it to seven levels by adding cognitive and aesthetic
needs (Maslow, 1970a), and then to eight levels by including transcendence needs (Maslow,
1970b). Alderfer (1969) compressed Maslow’ classification to the three so-called ERG needs -
existence, relatedness, and growth. Similarly, McClelland (1988) advanced three key driving
motivators, but defined these as needs for achievement, affiliation, and power. Reiss (2004)
expanded the list to 16 basic desires. That was still less than the earlier system by Murray
(1938) which consisted of primary needs based upon biological demands and 22 psychological
needs, which were not fundamental for basic survival, but essential for psychological well-
being. There are many more theories attempting to classify human needs but none have gained
general acceptance, and they all share common deficiencies: (1) they are all intuitive, mostly
aimed at composing systems suiting the observed pattern of human behavior and expressed in
layman terminology; (2) they fail to distinguish for needs which are vital for survival of
individuals and the human species in general; and (3) they mostly fail to capitalize on the body
of knowledge generated within natural sciences. The proposed theory of motivation in this
paper rectifies these drawbacks as we introduce a systematic definition of the basic needs (ref.
Figure 2) and closely link psychological needs to perspectives of biology and information
processing.
Another group of motivational theories focuses on the mechanisms that trigger actions for
need-attainment, rather than on classification of needs. Research on this subject was pioneered
by Lewin (1935, 1936), who devised the concept of the field of psychological force and
proposed a psychological equation of behavior. Multiple authors followed in his footsteps by
creating even more elaborate versions of behavioral equations. For example, Vroom (1964)
proposed the Expectancy theory and Steel & Konig (2006) derived the Temporal motivation
theory, all providing sets of parameters affecting instigation of actions. None of the proposed
models are universally accepted, nevertheless, they represent a plausible move towards the
introduction of quantifiable methods in psychological studies, and correlate closely with our
ring model of needs (Figure 3).

Another perspective of motivation is provided by the behavioral theories pioneered by Pavlov

(2010), Watson (1924), and Skinner (1938) and later expanded by proponents of various
schools of psychology. These are the most comprehensive theories attempting to define not
only drives, but also uncover the means for implementation of motivation, often in the context
of an extrinsic environment as well as an inner transient state. These theories utilize the S-O-R
(Stimulus-Organism-Response) model (Woodworth, 1918). As discussed earlier in this paper,
theorization of the “O”-organism component was proven to be rather challenging in academic
circles. However, this approach flourished in applied applications, such as theories of
management, warfare, and decision-making. A number of enhanced models were proposed,
amongst others, the S-O-B-A (Stimulus-Organism- Behavior-Accomplishment) and S-O-B-C
(Situation-Organism-Behavior-Consequences) models (Luthans & Davis, 1979), Galperin’s
(1976) M-C-P-CA concept (Model-Clarify-Plan-Control Action), and the more empirically-
focused OODA loop (Boyd, 2018/1987), which defines a decision cycle as consisting of four
primary steps, Observe-Orient-Decide-Act. We have previously reviewed these concepts
(Kopsov, 2021b), identified their shortcomings, and put forward that the propositioned S-D-
A(N)-P(E)-R system provides a unified and comprehensive model of human behavior.
There are also multiple hybrid theories, which combine elements of need theories and
particular components of behavioral models. For example, in the Self-determination theory,
Deci and Ryan (2008) integrate elements of theories of needs with the stimulus component of
behavioral model, or the theory of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) which effectively embodies a
specific method for the enhancement of subjective well-being by balancing needs and skills.
These types of theories, whilst not systematic, provide an intriguing viewpoint on certain
features of human behavior. Most hybrid theories represent a specific combination of the
components that are included in the S-D-A(N)-P(E)-R model.
A standalone and rather original concept of self-organization and active inference is presented
through the Free Energy Principle (FEP) introduced by Friston (Friston et al., 2006), who also
argue that FEP unites multiple extant brain theories. As FEP accounts for action, perception,
and learning, it may provide a perspective on the unified psychology as well (Friston, 2010).
FEP is based on statistical modeling, and as such is rather distant from more conventional
motivational and behavioral theories. Nevertheless, the primary components of the FEP
behavioral model, detection of signals, analysis of signals, accumulation of experience, and
corrective adjustments, match with those defined in our behavioral process model. These
correlations require further evaluation.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2008), a scientific theory - to qualify as
such - must have the following key attributes: (1) a comprehensive explanation of some aspect
of nature; (2) it must be supported by a vast body of evidence; and (3) it must contain
predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. Regarding
these criteria our hypothesis requires greater supporting evidence and detailing to qualify as a
scientific theory, consequently the following steps can be envisaged for it to advance as such:
• Development of a methodology for quantitative analysis of basic needs,
• Determination of the composition of basic needs. If basic needs equate to first tier
needs, the next step would be to establish second tier needs which define

transient experiences. In case of self-preservation needs, classification of second

tier needs is evident, as these would be needs for food, oxygen, vitamins, etc. In
case of needs of the mind, their definition remains obscure, as commonly used
notions such as the phenomena of love, shame, pride require an unambiguous
explanation and scientific validation,
• Further study on how cognitive information distribution translates into social
processes,
• Study of the psychological basis for ethical, political, and social movements and
doctrines.
Some features of the human psyche are not covered by our theory and require further
examination, including the “irrational aspects” of human nature, e.g., the subconscious,
emotions, intuition, and instincts. The primary reason for this is the lack of clarity on the origin
of these phenomena. Nevertheless, even though the domain of the subconscious mind is not
explicitly addressed in our theory it does not invalidate our conclusions. We consider that the
concepts presented in this paper are equally valid for both conscious and unconscious
processes, as conscious perception is neither a precondition nor a criterion for the postulated
laws and models. We do, however, believe that the study of the subconscious mind would
generate interesting and novel knowledge on the subject matter.
It should be noted that scientific discourse concerning distinct ontological levels of organization
of living systems is far from complete (Kirchhoff & Froese, 2017), and multiple points of view
exist on the subject. Some philosophical and neuroscientific schools of thought argue for a
universal character (i.e. applicable to both living and non-living systems) of attributes such as
perception, experience, and freedom of choice (Friston et al., 2006; Whitehead, 1958).
According to these arguments even material things have some measure of freedom or creativity
(however infinitesimal) which allow them to be at least partly self-directed. Recent research
(Volkov et al., 2009) indicates that certain species of plants possess short-term memory, which
itself is a feature of intelligence. It is therefore possible that the aforementioned levels of
complexity (as well as the defined behavioral process algorithms) are in reality more nuanced.
Such conceivable adjustments would not negate the main postulates of our proposed theory,
but nevertheless, may lead to an acceptance of the existence of some rudimentary features of
intelligence and active perception on the lower levels of complexity of nature. In such instance,
while maintaining the fundamental framework of derived postulates, it would be more
appropriate to relate to the “dominant” or “prevailing” behavioral processes, rather than
unequivocal features of defined behavioral algorithms.
CONCLUSION
We propose that the fundamental law of nature is the law of preservation, which governs the
existence of the universe, and from which all other laws originate. Whilst the genesis of the law
of preservation is unknown, it is hypothesized that for each category of nature (matter, life, and
mind) the law of preservation manifests itself through ever more specific formulations, such as
preservation of matter, preservation of life, and preservation of mind. These three laws of
preservation define the key principles of existence of the separate domains of human life.

Human identity is predominantly governed by the laws of life and mind. Within the domain of
the psyche these laws translate into basic needs, which we classify as needs upon whose
successful satisfaction the survival of a species is conditional. Consequently, the law of
preservation of life translates into the basic needs of self-preservation and reproduction. The
law of preservation of mind translates into the basic needs of absorption of information and
dissemination of information. These four basic needs both complement and contrast one
another.
It is hypothesized that the laws of preservation are enabled through the generic universal
algorithm of behavior, and which have evolved from behavior of matter to behavior of
organisms, and then to behavior of mind. The latter represents the most complex version of the
behavioral process defined by the sequence signal(S)-detect(D)-assess(A)-plan(P)-risk
analysis(R)-act(A). This behavioral process model allows to unify extant theories of individual
and group behavior.
Mind and body are each governed by their own separate sets of laws. Nevertheless, the mind is
accommodated within the confines of the body, and to a large extent controls the body’s well-
being. Regarding its functional purpose, the mind is extrinsic to, and supervenes, the body and
at times may advance its “own priorities” at the expense of bodily preservation and
reproduction. This is typified by such behaviors as suicide, childfree living, unforced extreme
risk taking etc.
Similarly to humans having a dual nature (typified by the body and mind) the same is true of
society, which represents a community of human organisms and minds. A community of minds
defines a culture, which we view not as a unique category, but as a form of the universal
phenomenon of congregation, which is evident for all categories of nature, including matter and
life. Accordingly, atoms congregate into substances, organisms into communities of organisms,
and minds into culture. Following this line of thinking, culture and mind cannot be segregated.
This proposition leads to a reevaluation of the role played by psychological factors in defining
social processes, as we posit that the human psyche plays a governing role in forming ethical
doctrines, generational conflicts, civilizational confrontations, and social revolutions etc.
The proposed postulates convert into a comprehensive theory of human motivation and
behavior developed in the context of the general laws of nature. The theory is integrated with
multiple branches of science and, at its essence, represents a novel paradigm of psychology.
References
Alderfer, C.P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance. 4 (2): 142–75.
Boyd, J.R. (2018/1987). A discourse on winning and losing. Ed. Hammond G.T. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air
University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row. ISBN 0-06-
092043-2
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: Murray.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and
health. Canadian Psychology. 49 (3): 182–185. doi:10.1037/a0012801.

Dover, M.A. (2016). Human Needs. Oxford Bibliography Online. doi: 10.1093/OBO/ 97801953 89678-0067.
Feist, J., Feist, G., Roberts, T.A. (2013). Theories of Personality (8th International Edition). McGraw-Hill.
Friston, K.J. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews, Neuroscience, 11(2):127-
38.
Friston, K., Kilner, J., Harrison, L. (2006). A free energy principle for the brain", Journal of Physiology-Paris.
Elsevier BV. 100 (1–3): 70–87. doi:10.1016/j.jphysparis.2006.10.001.
Galperin, P.J. (1976). Introduction to psychology, Moscow, Russian ed.
Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 978-0-553-38016-3
Henriques, G. (2003). The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology. Review of
General Psychology, 7(2):150-182.
Henriques, G. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. New York: Springer.
Ilyn, E.P. (2002). Motivation and motives. St. Petersburg: Peter, Russian ed.
Kirchhoff, M., & Froese, T. (2017). Where there is life there is mind: In support of a strong life-mind continuity
thesis. Entropy, 19(4), e19040169-1-e19040169-18.
Kopsov, I. (2019a). A New Model of Subjective Well-Being. The Open Psychology Journal, 12(1):102-115.
Kopsov, I. (2019b). A New Model of Human Needs. London Journal of Research in Science: Natural and Formal,
Volume 19, Issue 6, Compilation 1, 17-28.
Kopsov, I. (2020a). It’s Time for Psychology to become a (Great) Science. Curr Res Psychol Behav Sci., 1(3): 1011.
Kopsov, I. (2020b). On the Origin of Human Behavior. Sage Submissions. Preprint.
https://doi.org/10.31124/advance.12151791.v1
Kopsov, I. (2021a). Comparison of Algorithms of Individual and Group Behavior. Advances in Social Sciences
Research Journal 8(2):487-510 DOI: 10.14738/assrj.82.9750.
Kopsov, I. (2021bd). A new model of unified psychology. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal 8(3):363-
384 DOI: 10.14738/assrj.83.9884
Lewin, K (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. N. Y.—London, McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Luthans, F., Davis, T. (1979). Behavioral self-management—The missing link in managerial effectiveness.
Organizational Dynamics, 8(1):42-60.
Malthus, T.R. (1798).An Essay on the Principle of Population As It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with
Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Goodwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers (1 ed.). London: J.
Johnson.(anonymous publication)
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review. 50 (4): 370–96.
Maslow, A. H. (1970a). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Maslow, A. H. (1970b). Religions, values, and peak experiences. New York: Penguin. (Original work published
1966)
McClelland, D. (1988). Human Motivation. Cambridge University Press.
National Academy of Sciences. Science, Evolution, and Creationism 2008.
Pavlov, I. (2010). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Annals
of neurosciences, 17(3):136–141.
Reiss, S. (2004). The 16 strivings for God. Zygon, 39, 303-320.
Skinner, B. F. 1938. The Behavior of Organisms. New York: Appleton -Century- Crofts.

Steel, P., Konig, C. J. (2006).Integrating Theories of Motivation. Academy of Management Review. 31 (4): 889–913.
CiteSeerX 10.1.1.196.3227. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.22527462.
Thorndike, E. (1898). Animal Intelligence: An Experimental Study of the Associative Processes in Animals.
Psychological Review, 5(5):551-553.
Volkov, A. G.; Carrell, H.; Baldwin, A.; Markin, V. S. (2009). Electrical memory in Venus flytrap.
Bioelectrochemistry. 75 (2): 142–147. doi:10.1016/j.bioelechem.2009.03.005. PMID 19356999.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wallace, A.R. (1858). On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type .Journal of the
Proceedings of the Linnean Society: Zoology . Vol 3, No. 9, pages 53-62.
Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc
Whitehead, A.N. (1958). The Function of Reason. Boston: Beacon Press
Whitehead, A.N. (1985) Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect, New York: Fordham University Press.

A New Theory of Human Behavior and Motivation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A New Theory of Human Behavior and Motivation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A New Theory of Human Behavior and Motivation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No.

A New Theory of Human Behavior and Motivation

A NEW THEORY OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND MOTIVATION

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

The Process of Human Behavior

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 347

The need cannot Catalogue of needs:

The need can

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 348

The Origin of Human Behavior

to a variety of environmental impacts. Lastly, behavior of mind is dominated by the planning

The Law of Preservation as a Principal Law of Behavior

Figure 2. The law of preservation and basic human needs

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 351

THE FOUR BASIC NEEDS

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 352

Figure 3. A ring model of human needs

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 353

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIND AND BODY

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY

This way of thinking is not constrained to a particular taxonomy of domains of nature. An

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 355

Figure 4. Levels of complexity and congregations

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 356

TOWARDS A PARADIGM OF PSYCHOLOGY

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 357

Table 1. Fundamental characteristics of categories of nature.

Fundamental characteristics of categories of nature

We hypothesize (see also Kopsov, 2020b) that evolvement of categories of nature is an

biological self-preservation and reproduction equate to the preservation of genetic encoding of

CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER THEORIES

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 359

Another perspective of motivation is provided by the behavioral theories pioneered by Pavlov

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 360

transient experiences. In case of self-preservation needs, classification of second

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 361

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 362

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.810.11088 363

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom 364

You might also like