The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No.

1, June 2014 7
The British Psychological Society ISSN: 17481104
T
HE CONCEPT of basic human needs is
widespread in psychology and
psychotherapy. There seems to be an
overlapping consensus that basic needs are
crucial to human beings, to human well-
being, to mental health and to motivation
systems yet there are few models that have
widespread acceptance as the model despite
a rich and diverse background with vast
quantities of theoretical and empirical
research over more than a century. This
research has at times focused on human
drives, needs, physiological and psycho-
logical needs and emotional needs as
different, related, overlapping or inter-
changeable concepts. Maslows model is, of
course, the most famous and the one most
likely to be encountered in popular litera-
ture (1943). It is a simple model and at first
glance, particularly to the layman, seems to
make sense. This does not hold up to closer
scrutiny or scientific research (Wachter,
2003).
The history of basic human needs,
however, stretches further back than Maslow
Freud, of course, formulated what was to
become the pleasure principle as a key driver
of the id (1911). It was thereafter Adler who
proposed, counter to Freud, that self-esteem
and overcoming inferiority as core to human
beings (Bagby, 1923). Overcoming inferi-
ority is notably still present in the mass of
popular literature targeted at building self-
esteem and confidence for which coaching
is a tool often used. Indeed building self-
esteem was noted as number one reason for
entering into a coaching relationship in the
International Coach Federations 2009
Global Client Study. A collection of basic
human needs was first proposed by Murray
in the 1930s (1938). He proposed a list of 20
needs many of these seem to be correct but
the danger of any model with 20 items is that
it lacks coherency and further human needs
can be justifiably added or taken away. It is
also unlikely that these 20 needs will be
consistent or present in all human beings
(the popularity of Maslows model lies in its
simplicity and ease of interpretation by not
having 20 needs).
In the 1960s and 1970s Alderfer further
expanded Maslows theory of motivation and
formulated the ERG theory (1969) placing
the following three broad categories:
Original Paper
The case for basic human needs in
coaching: A neuroscientific perspective
The SCOAP Coach Theory
Andy Habermacher, Argang Ghadiri & Theo Peters
While writing our book Neuroleadership which explored the field of neuroleadership (combining neuroscience
with leadership) we came across the work of Klaus Grawe. His work in neuropsychotherapy and the
Consistency Theory he proposed we found to be particularly interesting and saw it as model that can be
applied in all systems within which human beings operate. Since writing Neuroleadership and applying the
models we proposed in the business world we have come to the conclusion that indeed this is a very relevant
but also practical model that can be applied to leadership scenarios. Moreover, and understandably given
its roots in neuropsychotherapy, this we see can be applied with great impact in coaching contexts. We hence
propose a model of basic human needs as an integrated coaching framework (SCOAP Coach Theory).
Keywords: Coaching; coaching psychology; coaching framework; basic needs; motivation; neuropsychotherapy.
existence, relatedness, and growth as the
core human needs. This is again appealing
though it seems obvious that many people
fail to push for growth. Similarly Deci and
Ryan formulated the most recent and rigor-
ously researched model namely that of Self-
Determination Theory (1985) with three
core needs of competence, relatedness and
autonomy. Deci and Ryans work aimed to
synthesise many of the components of other
models including drives and organismic
behaviours with intrinsic and extrinsic
variables.
It seems evident that needs and drives
can explain in different ways a large part of
what is happening in the human psyche
(without any overarching agreement on
which precise needs and drives). It is also
clear to us in the coaching profession that
these needs and desires can be crucial to the
health and motivation and level of fulfilment
of each coachee and their respective views of
success and fulfilment.
In addition to the scientific models
mentioned above popular models have
appeared in recent years and many
psychology sites list a variety of basic needs
or human emotional needs. More famously
in the popular coaching field Anthony
Robbins, the legendary popular coach, has
listed six human needs. These are: certainty;
uncertainty/variety; significance; connec-
tion/love; growth; contribution (Robbins,
2014). You will notice that the first Certainty
and the second Uncertainty contradict each
other therefore meaning they are not
human basic needs present in all human
beings.
Yet, none of these models explain or
connect human functioning at all levels:
a system level, a motivational level, an
optimal performance level and a mental
health level. Self-Determination Theory
almost fulfils most of these criteria and is
very well researched but it primarily deals
with intrinsic motivation and as the name
suggests components of self-determination.
This is precisely why we see the work of Klaus
Grawe (Professor of Psychology at Zurich
University) and his Consistency Theory
(2007) as so important though little known
in the English speaking world. His most
recent work, before his untimely death in
2005, aimed to consolidate neurobiology
with therapy and in this work he put forward
a solid and well-researched case for his
Consistency Theory. This combined the
system level of human beings with need
fulfilment (and need violation) and respec-
tive human motivational systems. This is the
work we found so compelling and which we
related to business, leadership and organisa-
tional theory in Neuroleadership (Ghadiri,
Habermacher & Peters, 2012) and for which
we have since seen as a solid model for
coaching this is unsurprising as the roots
lie in neuropsychotherapy.
Neuroscience of basic needs
Neuroscience has reached new heights in
popularity as we write this paper. It is likely to
continue the research has mushroomed, as
have popular reports in newspapers and
magazines. There is no doubt that neuro-
science can and will also shed new light onto
current psychological theories.
Klaus Grawe was one of the first in the
field of psychotherapy to truly connect
neuroscience to therapy and wrote the first
book on Neuropsychotherapy in 2004 in
German and published in 2007 in English.
This was a detailed look at neuroscience and
therapy and the first rigorous attempt to
consolidate therapy with the science of the
brain. This in the meantime has become
more widespread. Klaus Grawe was also Pres-
ident of the Society for Psychotherapy
Research 1995/96. He was particularly
known for his criticism of the psychoanalysis
field noting that the techniques and
methods of therapy should reflect empirical
research.
Klaus Grawe reported, particularly, on
the work of Seymour Epstein who on writing
on Cognitive Experiential Theory (Epstein &
Weiner, 2003) postulated that humans have a
limited number of broad basic needs and
proposed four: self-esteem, orientation and
8 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014
Andy Habermacher, Argang Ghadiri & Theo Peters
control, attachment and pleasure. Epstein
observed that these four emotional needs
are always present in human beings and
their fulfilment or violation will lead to an
increase or decrease in human well-being.
Moreover motivation to fulfil or protect
them will depend on how these needs are
anchored and the socialisation process of
each individual. This also incidentally neatly
explains some of the core theories of the
great names in psychology and therapy:
Freud and the Pleasure Principle (1911),
Adler and the Inferiority Complex (Bagby,
1923), Bowlby and Attachment Theory
(1970) and, amongst others, Bandura and
Self-Efficacy and Control (1997). Epsteins
formulation of basic human needs tied in
with Grawes work on schema theory and in
Neuropsychotherapy Grawe gave a more
detailed analysis of the neurobiology of
mental disorders, therapy and the basic
needs from a neurobiological perspective.
Grawe (2007) put these needs right at the
centre of his work noting that their viola-
tion or enduring non-fulfilment leads to
impairments in mental health (p.167).
Our work and further analysis with these
basic human needs has further led us to
expand these needs from four to five needs:
the need of Control and Orientation we see
as two separate needs. Control is the action:
freedom and autonomy and influence self-
efficacy in short. Orientation, on the other
hand, is how an individual understands and
builds a picture of the world or a concep-
tion of reality as Epstein put it. For these five
needs we use the acronym SCOAP.
Allow us to give a brief overview of the
human basic needs we propose, SCOAP, and
their representation in the brain and neuro-
biological systems:
Self-esteem: is the feeling of self-worth
and value. This has been considered a key
need by a long, long list of authors and
researchers. This is also, ironically, probably
the hardest to research at a biological level as
the concept of self-esteem is so all encom-
passing. Nevertheless recent research has
investigated neural representation of self-
esteem (Eisenberger et al., 2011) and more
specifically, for example, that social rejection
activates pain centres in the brain (Eisen-
berger & Lieberman, 2004; Kross et al.,
2011).
Control: feeling of freedom and
autonomy and the ability to control the
world around us. Control also depends
strongly on orientation and is tightly linked
to the adrenaline system in the brain
(Grawe, 2007).
Orientation: feeling of understanding
and creating a consistent and coherent
picture of the world and an individuals posi-
tion in this either in terms of the world in
general or an individual context, such as a
business or family. It is clear in mental health
that mental illness is often accompanied by
distorted orientations of the world and
reality.
Attachment: feelings of bonding to
others. This has been well researched since
first proposed by Bowlby in the 1950s
(Bowlby, Ainsworth & Bretherton, 1992;
Bowlby, 1951, 1970). Attachment is first and
foremost attachment to primary caregivers
but recent research into the neural corre-
lates show how important the oxytocin
system is (and other opiates) and how this
drives attachment feeling (Young et al.,
2001) not to mention the ability to trust.
This has also been measured in the field of
economic decision making (Baumgartner et
al., 2008; Kri & Kiss, 2011; Kosfeld et al.,
2005).
Pleasure: feeling of reward and positivity.
This stretches back to Freuds pleasure prin-
ciple but it does not take much thought to
see that pleasure is a core component of our
life either in elation but also in deeper satis-
faction and feelings of reward. Indeed the
good/bad evaluation stretches across all our
senses (for example, the sense of smell and
good smells vs. bad smells). Pleasure relates
closely to the dopamine system and other
opiates (Arias-Carrin et al., 2010; Schultz,
2002; Wise & Rompre, 1989).
There would be little resistance to the
suggestion that human well-being is related
The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014 9
The case for basic human needs in coaching
directly to fulfilment of these basic needs.
That this is so clearly anchored in neuro-
biology may come as a surprise to some. That
violation of basic needs can cause disruption
is also widely accepted there is a vast body
of research into impacts of childhood
trauma (which can be considered as severe
basic need violation) in psychology. This has
now also been supported by a mass of
research in neurobiology namely in the
development of neurons in animal studies.
For example, it has been shown that rat pups
separated from their mother (violation of
basic need for attachment) develop neurons
that are shrunken in size and the extent of
their connections and even cell death
(Zhang et al., 2002). This maternal separa-
tion also extends to the neurobiological
functioning of the mother (Aguggia, Suarez
& Rivarola, 2013; Boccia et al., 2007;
Gogberashvili et al., 2008). Physical restraint
is just as detrimental (violation of basic need
for control) (Brown, Henning & Wellman,
2005; Goldwater et al., 2009). We can trace
this also back to human beings beginning
with the study of Howard Skeels (Skeels &
Dye) in 1939 with retarded orphans in the
State Orphanage of Iowa whereby orphans
put into caring and stimulating environ-
ments had massive increases in their IQ
(particularly interesting in light of our
current knowledge of human needs and
neurobiology).
In summary these basic human needs are
core to human mental functioning. Their
fulfilment will lead to increased human well-
being and create positive biological environ-
ments in the brain. Non-fulfilment and
violation of these basic needs will cause stress
responses in the system and lead to
decreased psychological and physical well-
being and lead to a disruptive biological
environment in the brain.
This is why we see basic human needs,
SCOAP, and their biological representation
as the core to coaching and coaching inter-
ventions.
Motivation
From thinking of fulfilment and violation of
SCOAP as central to coaching we also need
to explore human motivation in relationship
with fulfilling or protecting SCOAP. This is
crucial for if fulfilling (or conversely not
fulfilling SCOAP) is crucial to well-being
then the ability of an individual (coachee) to
be motivated to fulfil SCOAP will be pivotal.
This will drive their ability to engage in
activities to further fulfil SCOAP to achieve
respective well-being and a healthy
biological environment in the brain.
Motivation has been widely researched:
the needs theories we previously mentioned
(Maslow, Alderfers ERG and Deci and
Ryans Self-Determination Theory) are all
positioned as motivational models rather
than mental health models. Klaus Grawe
positions the basic human needs, SCOAP, at
the core of mental health and human func-
tioning. He then posits that all of human
motivation will therefore aim to fulfil or
protect human basic needs consciously but
mostly unconsciously. This is a bold state-
ment to make considering the vast amounts
of theories and research in motivation but
the purpose of this paper is not to explore
this in detail.
To summarise so far: we know that basic
human needs are core to the human
emotional system and to human well-being.
Motivation from this perspective, according
to Grawe, can be seen as the conscious and
unconscious drive to fulfil our basic needs,
that is, to feel a little bit more valued
tomorrow (self-esteem); to have a bit more
freedom or control over the world (control);
to understand the world a bit better (orien-
tation); to have slightly better and closer
relationships (attachment); and to have
more pleasure (pleasure). Few would argue
with that.
Crucial to this is the standard theory of
approach/avoidance motivational schema.
An approach schema is the conscious and
unconscious will to fulfil our basic needs. An
avoidance schema is a conscious or uncon-
scious will to protect our basic needs. Each
10 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014
Andy Habermacher, Argang Ghadiri & Theo Peters
need, therefore, has a negative side as
Freud first said the pleasure-unpleasure
principle(emphasis added). This means we
aim to increase pleasure (approach) but also
to avoid pain and discomfort (avoidance). It
is important to note that Grawe reported
that these two schemata can be activated at
the same time as they rely on different
neuronal circuits (2007). This is also
supported by other observers (Cacioppo,
Gardner & Berntson, 1997; Corr &
McNaughton, 2012; Gray & McNaughton,
1996). This means that an individual can
have approach and avoidance schemata
active at the same time for a particular basic
need. As an example an individual in the
business world may want the new promotion
but be simultaneously afraid of the responsi-
bility. This creates motivational conflict and
something that many coaches are often
instrumental in helping their clients come to
terms with.
This. therefore, gives us a model with five
basic human needs, SCOAP, to fulfil or
protect. The conscious and unconscious
desire to fulfil or protect these needs give
rise to the two motivational schemata of
approach and avoidance. These two motiva-
tional schemata can be in conflict with each
other when an individual simultaneously
wants something but is afraid of it also.
The human being is, however, in an envi-
ronment and will be in constant interaction
with the environment and receive constant
feedback as to the success or failure
(perceived) of fulfilling or protecting basic
needs. Hence motivational strategies will be
constantly refined or alternately become
increasingly positively or negatively
anchored: Im a quick learner (approach);
I cant do that (avoidance), etc.
1
Furthermore we can speak about success
of motivational strategies as congruence.
Individuals will aim to fulfil or protect their
SCOAP according to the motivational strate-
gies they have developed over their life:
l Go-Success: when an individual tries
to fulfil a need and is successful
(congruence).
l Go-Fail: when an individual tries to fulfil a
need but fails and the need is unfulfilled
or violated (approach incongruence).
l No-Success: when an individual tries to
protect a basic need and is successful
(avoidance congruence).
l No-Fail: when an individual tries to
protect a basic need but is unsuccessful
and the basic need is violated (avoidance
incongruence).
l No-Go refers to when we have a
motivational conflict with both approach
and avoidance motivational schemata
active at the same time.
Congruence in short refers to the ability to
fulfil a basic need with ones own resources.
The system perspective
Consistency is the higher system level: it is
the sum of SCOAP fulfilment and the
congruence of motivational strategies. All
human beings strive to be consistent, that is,
have our needs fulfilled, have the resources
to fulfil our needs and to keep them fulfilled.
However, inconsistency is common and we
have also developed many internal uncon-
scious strategies that give human beings the
illusion of consistency common in psycho-
logical theory: confabulations, cognitive
dissonance, denial, etc.
Klaus Grawes most dramatic postulation
is that inconsistency is the foremost cause of
mental disturbances and moreover that
there is also a strong correlation between
avoidance schema and mental illness. His
research before his death and continued by
Martin Grosse Holtforth lends empirical
support to this and his Consistency Theory
(Grosse Holtforth et al., 2007; Holtforth et
al., 2006; Holtforth et al., 2005; Holtforth &
Michalak, 2012).
The more important component for us
and what we are aiming to propose in this
The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014 11
The case for basic human needs in coaching
1
We named these GO-Type for an approach focused person and NO-Type for an avoidance focused person.
paper is that the basic human needs, SCOAP,
are core to the coaching process and provide
a model that, at a system level and a motiva-
tional level, gives clear insights to challenges
and issues in coaching. Moreover it provides
a clear level of intervention and clear under-
standing of resource activation for coachees.
The model we propose draws on Grawes
model and includes the following compo-
nents:
1. SCOAP (fulfilment or violation);
2. Motivational schemata;
3. Congruency (experience of success or
failure of motivational strategies);
4. Consistency (system view of the three
above).
The case for basic needs in coaching
The SCOAP Coach Theory
We will be reviewing the extended version of
this theory in further articles and a book to
be published with Springer 2014/15. We
propose that the basic human needs, formu-
lated as SCOAP, as the core of any coaching
intervention and can be used as a framework
for sustainable successful coaching relation-
ships. Using the SCOAP Coach Theory can,
we claim, direct us to better and more
sustainable coaching interventions based on
the underlying research and theories.
12 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014
Andy Habermacher, Argang Ghadiri & Theo Peters
Figure 1: Overview of SCOAP Coach Theory.
1. SCOAP fulfilment or violation: Coaching
as a tool for basic need fulfilment
A coachee enters into a coaching relation-
ship with a reason this may be very clearly
formulated such as career progression,
career transition, etc. We noted earlier that
self-esteem/confidence is the number one
cited reason for entering into a coaching
relationship. In short coachees will seek out
coaches to help them in further fulfilling
basic needs. Alternatively a coachee may
seek a coach because of violation of basic
needs. This may also be, for example, in
cases of outplacement coaching or derail-
ment coaching. However, a study published
by the Harvard Business Review (Kauffman &
Coutu, 2009) noted that this is only small
proportion of corporate coaching (we know
of no similar research in life coaching).
Coaching is hence seen as a tool for
increased basic need fulfilment and is
indeed a valuable tool in developing new
strategies and motivation to further fulfil
basic needs, SCOAP.
We also note here that a simple distinc-
tion for the ongoing discussion of when
counselling or coaching is that counselling
deals with (should deal with) severe or consis-
tent basic needs violation which has led to a
severe disruption in mental consistency.
Understanding the coachees SCOAP
profile and respective fulfilment and viola-
tion is, therefore, the first building block in
the SCOAP Coach Theory.
However, to be able to fulfil their SCOAP
the coachee will need to be able to activate
resources. Therefore, this leads us to:
Coaching as resource activation for basic
need fulfilment
The role of the coach is, of course, to help
the coachee to engage in their own resource
activation to be able to fulfil their basic
needs with their own resources. This was
researched by Klaus Grawe and he put
resource activation at the heart of therapy
success (Gassmann & Grawe, 2006).
Resource activation can, however, only be
successful if we have the second building
block of the SCOAP Coach theory:
2. Motivational Schemata: Coaching as
approach schema activator
Resource activation is key to coaching and
the most famous and simplest coaching
models clearly use this in their models. For a
coachee to fulfil their basic needs they will
need to have an approach schema and
hence the role of the coach will be to activate
these schema and allow the coachee to expe-
rience success. We did not enter into the
discussion of the neurobiology of rewiring
and relearning but it is clear that positive
experiences are key to creating sustainable
habits and making any coaching interven-
tion sustainable.
Hence the second building block in the
SCOAP Coach Theory is that of under-
standing coachees motivational schemata
with reference to their SCOAP Profile. The
experience of success, as we have
mentioned, is crucial and this is the next
building block:
3. Congruency: Coaching as congruence
management system
A coachee who is unable or unsure of how to
further fulfil basic needs, is unable to avoid
damage to basic needs or has a motivational
conflict will need help in congruence
management. Hence the role of the coach
will be to help bring resource activation, goal
fulfilment and violation avoidance into line.
This may in turn also require enhancing and
refining the coachees feedback system:
Coaching as feedback control
Feedback as an essential part of the coaching
process coaching is often core in helping
the feedback system and bringing attention
to environmental and coachee specific
factors that the coachee may be unaware of.
This unawareness can be a cause of incon-
gruence hence the role of the coach in
creating realistic feedback loops and acti-
vating resources is crucial to successful
coaching interventions.
The third building block is hence
congruency based on the coachees SCOAP
profile and motivational schemata. How
these interact will lead to the final level:
The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014 13
The case for basic human needs in coaching
4. Consistency: Coaching success as consis-
tency management
At the highest level coaching is about consis-
tency management helping the coachee
activate their own resources to be able to
successfully manage their consistency: the
system level of basic need fulfilment, motiva-
tion and personal internal resources to
manage SCOAP fulfilment.
Hence the role of the coach is to understand
the SCOAP profile of a coachee, their moti-
vational schemata and their feeling of
congruence. The coach based on this knowl-
edge can help the coachee to develop strate-
gies, activate approach schema and activate
resources to create congruence and experi-
ence success and hence fulfil their SCOAP
2
.
The SCOAP Coach Theory is first and
foremost a framework that draws on solid and
extensive research into neuroscience and
psychology and consolidates much of
coaching theory and research. We propose
that within this framework we can then
analyse coaching methodologies, tools and
techniques and explain their value and poten-
tial for success based on how they slot into the
framework (e.g. a coaching technique
focusing on self-esteem fulfilment will be
particularly effective for a coachee with weak
self-esteem but may not be for a coachee with
an unfulfilled need for attachment). We also
took this approach in Neuroleadership
analysing organisational tools and leadership
styles under the spotlight of SCOAP. It will
highlight when and why certain coaching
methodologies such as GROW
3
(Whitmore,
1992) will likely be sufficient and successful.
By the same token we can think of coaching
tools and techniques in terms of where and
how they fit into the framework and where
they will be most effective.
We hence propose SCOAP Coach Theory
as an over-riding framework that will high-
light where and when to intervene and what
particular interventions will be suitable and
lead to the greatest success for an individual
coachee. We place the basic human needs,
SCOAP, and motivational strategies at the
heart of the coaching process.
Summary of SCOAP Coach Theory
The SCOAP Coach Theory builds around
the premise that five basic human needs,
SCOAP, are at the heart of human well-
being. To fulfil the separate and collective
needs of SCOAP individuals will develop
different motivational strategies that have
been learned and refined over their lifetime
and previous experiences. These motiva-
tional strategies will fall into two broad cate-
gories of approach and avoidance. These
motivational strategies may be successful
(congruence) or be repeatedly unsuccessful
(incongruence). Avoidance strategies and
continued unsuccessful strategies lead to a
decrease in well-being. SCOAP, motivation
and congruence together form the system
perspective of consistency and the role of the
coach is ultimately to help the coachee
create consistency.
From a neurobiological perspective we
know that fulfilling SCOAP will create a
healthy chemical environment in the brain
and promote positive learning and wiring in
the brain. The counter is also true: SCOAP
violation causes disruptions in mental well-
being and also in the neurobiological envi-
ronment in the brain.
The coach armed with this knowledge
and the SCOAP Coach Theory can better
implement their toolbox and techniques to
accompany, intervene and help the coachee
build and access their resources at precisely
the right place and for the right reason. This
does not replace other coaching models and
theories but rather integrates these models
and gives an overriding model and frame-
14 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014
Andy Habermacher, Argang Ghadiri & Theo Peters
2
Each coachee, it goes without saying, will have anchored their view of their own SCOAP differently. Some will
have a greater desire for self-esteem and others for control, etc. This can also be anchored in different ways,
for example, self-esteem could be anchored in ability, personal looks or in intelligence.
3
Goals/Reality/Obstacle & Options/Way forward.
work that gives pointers and support to rela-
tive strengths of models, tools and tech-
niques and identifies when and how to use
these to support consistency of the coachee.
Furthermore the SCOAP Coach Theory
also highlights the key factors for coaching
success such as resource activation, approach
schema and ability to experience success to
be able to rewire and anchor new behav-
iours.
Further writing and papers will outline in
more detail the specific components of the
SCOAP Coach Theory.
We leave you with a final thought and
shortest possible summary of this paper:
High SCOAP = high hope.
The Authors
Andy Habermacher
President Human Brains Foundation.
Co-Author Neuroleadership.
Professor Dr Theo Peters
Organisation and Project Management,
Bonn-Rhine-Sieg University of
Applied Sciences.
Co-Author Neuroleadership.
Argang Ghadiri, MSc
PhD candidate,
Bonn-Rhine-Sieg University of
Applied Sciences.
Co-Author Neuroleadership.
Correspondence
Andy Habermacher
President Human Brains Foundation,
CEO leading brains,
Certified Master Coach (BCI).
Bleicherstrasse 4,
6003 Luzern, Switzerland.
Email: andy@humanbrainsfoundation.org
The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014 15
The case for basic human needs in coaching
Aguggia, J.P., Suarez, M.M. & Rivarola, M.A. (2013).
Early maternal separation: Neurobehavioral
consequences in mother rats. BehavBrain Res,
248C (18727549 (Electronic)), 2531.
Alderfer, C.P. (1969). An empirical test of a new
theory of human needs. Organisational Behavior
and Human Performance, 4(2), 142175.
Arias-Carrin, O., Stamelou, M., Murillo-Rodrguez,
E., Menndez-Gonzlez, M. & Pppel, E. (2010).
Dopaminergic reward system: A short integrative
review. International Archives of Medicine, 3(1), 24.
Bagby, E. (1923). The inferiority reaction. The Journal
of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology.
American Psychological Association.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: Freeman.
Baumgartner, T., Heinrichs, M., Vonlanthen, A.,
Fischbacher, U. & Fehr, E. (2008). Oxytocin
shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust
adaptation in humans. Neuron, 58(4), 639650.
Boccia, M.L., Razzoli, M., Vadlamudi, S.P., Trumbull,
W., Caleffie, C. & Pedersen, C.A. (2007).
Repeated long separations from pups produce
depression-like behavior in rat mothers.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32(1), 6571.
Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health.
New York: Schocken.
Bowlby, J. (1970). Attachment and Loss, Volume I:
Attachment. The British Journal of Sociology, 21,
111.
Bowlby, J., Ainsworth, M. & Bretherton, I. (1992).
The origins of attachment theory. Developmental
Psychology, 5, 759775.
Brown, S.M., Henning, S. & Wellman, C.L. (2005).
Mild, short-term stress alters dendritic
morphology in rat medial prefrontal cortex.
Cerebral Cortex, 15(11), 17141722.
Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L. & Berntson, G.G.
(1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualisations and
measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative
space. Personality and Social Psychology Review:
An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and
Social Psychology, Inc, 1(1), 325.
Corr, P.J. & McNaughton, N. (2012). Neuroscience
and approach/avoidance personality traits:
A two-stage (valuation-motivation) approach.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(10),
23392354.
References
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation
and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum Press.
Eisenberger, N.I., Inagaki, T.K., Muscatell, K.A.,
Byrne Haltom, K.E. & Leary, M.R. (2011). The
neural sociometer: Brain mechanisms under-
lying state self-esteem. Journal of Cognitive Neuro-
science, 23(11), 34483455.
Eisenberger, N.I. & Lieberman, M.D. (2004). Why
rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system
for physical and social pain. Trends in Cognitive
Sciences, 8(7), 294300.
Epstein, S. & Weiner, I.B. (2003). Cognitive-experi-
ential self-theory of personality. In M.J. Lerner
(Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology Volume
5: Personality and Social Psychology (pp.159184).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Freud, S. (1911). Formulations regarding the two
principles in mental functioning. Collected Papers,
4, 1321.
Gassmann, D. & Grawe, K. (2006). General change
mechanisms: The relation between problem
activation and resource activation in successful
and unsuccessful therapeutic interactions.
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13(1), 111.
Ghadiri, A., Habermacher, A. & Peters, T. (2012).
Neuroleadership a journey through the brain for
business leaders. Berlin: Springer.
Gogberashvili, K., Didebulidze, K., Ubiria, I., Uberi,
E. & Chkuaseli, N. (2008). The intermittent and
prolonged maternal separation affects behavioral
reactions in rat pups. Georgian Medical News, 154,
5356.
Goldwater, D.S., Pavlides, C., Hunter, R.G., Bloss,
E.B., Hof, P.R., McEwen, B.S. & Morrison, J.H.
(2009). Structural and functional alterations to
rat medial prefrontal cortex following chronic
restraint stress and recovery. Neuroscience, 164(2),
798808.
Grawe, K. (2004). Neuropsychotherapie (1st ed.).
Gttingen: Hogrefe Verlag.
Grawe, K. (2007). Neuropsychotherapy: How the neuro-
sciences inform effective psychotherapy. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gray, J.A. & McNaughton, N. (1996). The neuro-
psychology of anxiety: Reprise. Proceedings of the
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 43, 61134.
Grosse Holtforth, M., Pincus, A.L., Grawe, K., Mauler,
B. & Castonguay, L.G. (2007). When what you
want is not what you get: Motivational correlates
of interpersonal problems in clinical and non-
clinical samples. Journal of Social & Clinical
Psychology, 26(10), 10951119.
Holtforth, M.G., Bents, H., Mauler, B. & Grawe, K.
(2006). Interpersonal distress as a mediator
between avoidance goals and goal satisfaction in
psychotherapy inpatients. Clinical Psychology &
Psychotherapy, 13(3), 172182.
Holtforth, M.G., Grawe, K., Egger, O. & Berking, M.
(2005). Reducing the dreaded: Change of avoid-
ance motivation in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy
Research, 15, 261271.
Holtforth, M.G. & Michalak, J. (2012). Motivation in
psychotherapy. In R.M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Human Motivation (pp.441462).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, C. & Coutu, D. (2009). The realities of
executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 2
(January), 125.
Kri, S. & Kiss, I. (2011). Oxytocin response in a trust
game and habituation of arousal. Physiology &
Behavior, 102(2), 221224.
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, U.
& Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in
humans. Nature, 435, 673676.
Kross, E., Berman, M.G., Mischel, W., Smith, E.E. &
Wager, T.D. (2011). Social rejection shares
somatosensory representations with physical
pain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 108, 62706275.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation.
Psychological Review, 50(4), 121.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robbins, A. (2014). The 6 human needs: Why we do what
we do. Retrieved 10 January 2014, from:
http://training.tonyrobbins.com/
the-6-human-needs-why-we-do-what-we-do/
Schultz, W. (2002). Getting formal with dopamine
and reward. Neuron, 36(2), 241263.
Skeels, H.M. & Dye, H.B. (1939). A study of the
effects of differential stimulation on mentally
retarded children. Proceedings and Addresses,
American Association for Mental Defectiveness, 44,
114115.
Wachter, K. (2003). Rethinking Maslows needs.
Journal of Family Consumer Sciences, 95(2), 6869.
Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance.
London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Wise, R.A. & Rompre, P.P. (1989). Dopamine and
reward. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 191225.
Young, L.J., Lim, M.M., Gingrich, B. & Insel, T.R.
(2001). Cellular mechanisms of social attach-
ment. Hormones and Behavior, 40(2), 133138.
Zhang, L.X., Levine, S., Dent, G., Zhan, Y., Xing, G.,
Okimoto, D. & Smith, M.A. (2002). Maternal
deprivation increases cell death in the infant rat
brain. Developmental Brain Research, 133(1), 111.
16 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014
Andy Habermacher, Argang Ghadiri & Theo Peters