The 6-Needs System in Conflict Resolution:
A New Application of Basic Human Needs Theory to the Problem-Solving Workshop
by
Jeremy S. Pollack
NCR 597
Fall 2017
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract & Keywords
2
2.
Introduction
3
3.
Background: Basic Human Needs (BHN) Theory
5
1.
Care
Stimulation
Significance
Safety
Self-Determination
Progress
4.
Methods: Applying BHN To The Problem Solving Workshop (PSW)
Conflict Analysis
List-Building
Brainstorming
5.
Conclusion
Limitations & Considerations
Future Directions
7
8
9
10
10
11
13
14
16
17
20
21
22
REFERENCES
24
APPENDICES
28
A. Human Needs Research Grid
B. Sample “ Bhn In Conflict” Survey
28
29
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 2
Abstract
Needs theorists from various academic fields have suggested that intrapersonal and/or
interpersonal conflicts stem from a depletion or threat to basic human needs (BHN). If all needs are
met, peace is a natural consequence; if needs are not all met, conflict is the natural consequence.
Based on a plethora of human needs research, I propose there are six core psychological needs
ubiquitous to human beings, which I label the 6-Needs System: care, stimulation, significance,
safety, self-determination, and progress. Once these core psychological needs are understood and
examined, conflict resolution scholar-practitioners can more effectively analyze a conflict and
construct the resolution processes.
One particular conflict resolution process, which became especially popular among those
interested in BHN, is the Problem-Solving Working (PSW), which is a “Track II” or unofficial
process. In this paper, I propose a list-building and brainstorming methodology that more pointedly
applies BHN theory within the PSW framework. Should practitioners more adequately assess which
needs in any particular conflict are being affected and how, there ought to be great benefit from a
system which more directly focuses on addressing those specific needs within a larger conflict
resolution process.
Keywords
basic human needs theory, human motivation, conflict resolution, problem-solving workshop
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 3
Introduction
A variety of conflict resolution and peacebuilding methodologies have proven effective in
some instances and not so effective in others. The question remains as to why particular methods
have varying degrees of effectiveness in different contexts. One potentially promising way of
answering this is by creating a palatable system of conflict analysis and subsequently determining
which methodologies are most relevant to which types of conflicts. This endeavor, however, is a tall
and potentially unreachable order. Nonetheless, conflict resolution scholar-practitioners will
inevitably continue to ask: How might we properly and categorically analyze conflicts, organize the
amalgam of issues within each, and most effectively address such issues with their categorizations
in mind? One answer to this question has come by applying basic human needs theories to conflict
resolution.
Much has been written on the topic of basic human needs (BHN) or human needs theory
(HNT), and more specifically on applying the theory to conflict resolution research and
methodologies (Avruch & Mitchell, 2013; Burton, 1990). However, no clear application of human
needs theory to conflict resolution or conflict management processes has been uniformly agreed
upon by scholar-practitioners; nor have any particular methodologies been scrutinized as to which
particular needs may most effectively be addressed by the application of such methods (Abu-Nimer,
2013; Mitchell, 2013). This debate is certainly due in part to the complex nature of conflicts,
especially long-standing, intractable conflicts involving multiple parties, generations, and
sociopsychological complexities, which are quite difficult to simplify for the application of a
systemized needs-based approach.
Perhaps even more fundamentally, however, the absence of a universal application of
human needs theory to conflict resolution may stem from the ongoing debate as to which needs are
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 4
actually ontological and/or universal among human beings and human groups. Indeed, proving
which needs are in fact ubiquitous and that when satisfied lead invariably to peace, remains to be a
challenge, as no research team that I am aware of has adequately provided a proven and widely
agreed-upon method of measuring such basic needs. Indeed, to conceive of such a measurement
would be quite a task, and remains a future endeavor for the general fields of psychology,
anthropology, and conflict resolution.
Nevertheless, while empirical evidence is lacking in the confirmation of which needs are in
fact shared by all members of the human species, a variety of research studies, theoretical papers,
and general common logic present fairly solid rationale as to what the basic human needs are, how
their dissatisfaction leads to conflict, and how fulfillment of those needs leads to a mitigation of
conflict (Avruch & Mitchell, 2013; Maslow, 1943; Max-Neef, Elizalde & Hopenhayn, 1992). Since
there are several conceptions of basic human needs, it should prove worthwhile to examine the
more popular needs theories, and attempt to compile them into a concise framework to understand
what core needs have been more widely agreed upon among the leading researchers on the topic.
In this paper, I will attempt to do just that. In the first section of this theoretical study, I
will examine various theories around basic human needs from multiple researchers in a variety of
disciplines, and describe why I believe when relabeled, these needs can be categorized into six core
human needs, labeled herein as The 6-Needs System. In the second part of this paper, I will discuss
the Problem-Solving Workshop (PSW) as one of the core methodologies used in conflict resolution,
especially in intercultural and international Track II processes, and propose a methodological
suggestion as a complement to the PSW, using an approach more focused through the prism of
basic human needs.
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 5
Background: Basic Human Needs (BHN)
According to BHN Theory, human needs are ubiquitous to the human species, requiring
fulfillment for the attainment of peace (Burton, 1990; Max-Neef et al., 1992). Needs are different
than wants. Wants fall under the category of “satisfiers”—the things we believe will fulfill our
needs (Abu-Nimer, 2013; Max-Neef et al., 1992). Sometimes satisfiers are particular things,
sometimes they are abstract concepts, and often they will change throughout life and throughout the
span of conflicts. Specific wants or satisfiers are not necessarily imperative for attaining peace, as
satisfiers can be switched, replaced, and/or creatively manifested in order to fulfill a need. Human
needs, on the other hand, do not change—they remain constant throughout life, no matter one’s
culture, gender, race, or belief system (Avruch & Mitchell, 2013; Burton, 1990). Per BHN theory,
fulfilling human needs is an absolute necessity to intrapersonal, interpersonal, and intergroup peace
(Burton, 1990; Maslow, 1943; Max-Neef, 1992; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Sarno, 2001). If these
implications are true, it should be no surprise that a number of researchers from various disciplines
of science and philosophy have attempted to delineate precisely what humans actually need versus
what we value and what we simply desire. Unfortunately, there remains little consensus on the
matter.
In deciphering and properly labeling human beings’ universal, ontological needs, theories of
human motivation from a variety of fields must be considered, including: humanistic psychology,
beginning with the foundational needs theory of Eric From (1992) and needs hierarchy of Abraham
Maslow (1943); needs-based sociological theories from economists such as Manfred Max-Neef
(1992); evolutionary psychobiology, beginning as early as Darwin’s instinct observations (1859)
leading up through evolutionary psychology’s approach to motivation (Aunger & Curtis, 2013;
Schaller et al., 2017); a needs-oriented approach to developmental psychology, including John
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 6
Bowlby’s attachment theory (Bowlby, 2005) and the neuro-psychobiological approach of
psychiatrists like Allan Schore (Score, 2015); and a number of other researchers from fields
including social psychology, sociology, and psychiatry (see Appendix A). Of course, research in
applying human needs theories to conflict resolution processes must also be examined, beginning
with perhaps the founding father of this approach in the conflict field, John Burton (1990), and his
theoretical predecessor Paul Sites (1973).
Each of these approaches and theorists label our basic human needs a bit differently;
however, when all are compared in order to develop as compact and practical a framework as
reasonably possible, I propose they can be boiled down to six fundamental psychological needs.
After performing a theoretical (non-statistical) meta-analysis (Appendix A) of the most prominent
needs theories, taking into consideration a multitude of scientific and philosophical ideas about
what humans’ fundamental needs are, I arrived at six core psychological needs: 1) Care, 2)
Stimulation, 3) Significance, 4) Safety, 5) Self-Determination, and 6) Progress. Theoretically,
these are the basic psychological elements required by all human beings and human groups to
develop, thrive, and cultivate psycho-emotional well-being and thus peace. When these six needs
are fulfilled, a person or human group by default will remain in a state of greater peace or
well-being; when these needs are threatened, unfulfilled, or perceived to be as such, a person or
human group will almost inevitably experience suffering and conflict.
Although my Human Needs grid (Appendix A) illuminates several theorists and their
proposed needs, for purposes of this text I will primarily focus on Maslow (1943), Burton (1990),
and Max-Neef et al. (1992) in supporting my argument for the 6-Needs System, as these theorists
present the most prominent theories from relevant yet distinct disciplines. Further, this paper
focuses only on psychological needs, and does not discuss physiological or survival needs, which
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 7
are causally both imperative to and consequential of the fulfillment of psychological needs.
Physiological needs absolutely must be met to attain peace, and can theoretically be addressed via
the same processes described in the methods sections of this paper.
The following needs are listed in order of what I believe are developmentally chronologic in
the human lifespan. I will discuss this proposal briefly within each section below. Additionally, I
will place all of the needs highlighted in theories of Maslow (1943), Max-Neef (1992), and Burton
(1990) under one or more of the six needs categories below, thus leaving none for alternative
placement.
Care
The need for care may best be described with the acronym: Connection, Acceptance,
Regard, and Empathy. These concepts are too closely linked to each be a separate need and are
frankly inadequate on their own to constitute true needs; thus, they combine into one need, which
can be thought of as the need for a close connection with an other(s) who unconditionally accepts
the individual, not out of obligation but out of a deep regard and empathic understanding. A
human being from infancy has the psychological need to be cared for by someone who deeply
accepts him, gets him and his feelings, has a deep regard for him, and is therefore not connecting to
him out of obligation. I present this need first, as care may actually be the very first need a human
being has (Hamilton, 2010), as studies have shown that even infants often do not develop properly
or even survive without loving care within weeks after birth (Hamilton, 2010; Nelson et al., 2 007;
Perry & Szalavitz, 2010).
Maslow calls this need the “Love Needs”, to which he ascribes love, belongingness, and
affection. Max-Neef refers to the needs for “affection,” which he suggests is satisfied by
relationships, the expression of emotions, intimacy, and a variety of other elements of feeling loved
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 8
and cared for. Following Maslow’s lead, Burton too labels these needs as “belongingness and love.”
These different conceptions of the need for care all seem to be indicating the same basic
requirement for an intimate connection and acceptance by others who deeply regard and understand
the individual.
Stimulation
Stimulation may be the second need a human being develops in early life, as infants as
young as a few weeks old seem to require various forms of stimulation for brain health and
psychological development (Hawler, 2000; Phillips & Shonkoff, 2000; Yarrow et al., 1972). As we
grow, the need for stimulation manifests as a desire for satisfiers such as fun, amusement,
entertainment, challenge, intrigue, adventure, and the like, all of which can help fulfill this need,
critical for life satisfaction (Cantor & Sanderson, 2003; Sheldon et al, 2004; Sirgy, 2012).
Maslow presents the need for “self-actualization,” which lies at the top (i.e. the lowest
priority) of his needs pyramid. Of this need he writes, “A musician must make music, an artist must
paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy” (p. 382). Max-Neef points to two needs,
both of which I believe should fall under this single category of stimulation: “Leisure” and
“Understanding.” Understanding, according to Max-Neef, can be satisfied by activities such as
education and investigation; while Leisure is fulfilled by play, daydreaming, entertainment, and
similar activities. While I agree that both understanding and leisure are important, these concepts
seem to me to be satisfiers of the deeper need for mental stimulation, which can be satisfied by a
variety of activities from education to amusement (although, part of Max-Neef’s conception of
leisure involves relaxing, which I believe falls under physiological needs). Similar to Maslow,
Burton labels this need as “personal fulfillment,” which he describes as the need to reach one's
potential in all areas of life. Again, although under the guise of distinct semantics, I don’t believe
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 9
these various conceptions are indeed distinct, as they all seem to be pointing to a need for cognitive
stimulation.
Significance
Many needs theorists point to the basic need for “identity.” However, the concept of
“identity” alone does not seem to be enough to explain the need surrounding identity. Identity or
self-concept is a natural product of the human mind, an evolutionary adaptation for a variety of
social purposes (Leary & Buttermore, 2003). In fact, I could not locate evidence of any normal
individuals who grow without a sense of identity, even if one’s identity is wrapped up with
confusion and/or negativity. Hence, the notion of identity seems to be more an inevitably occurring
phenomena (Meltzoff & Prinz, 2002; Povinelli, 1987; Rosenberg, 1979) and not a need that
requires fulfillment; on the contrary, countless studies point to the need for recognition of one’s
identity, which is not naturally occurring and must be sought after (Abu-Nimer, 2013; Burton,
1990; Fraser, 2000). Hence, while a sense of identity on its own is important and natural, what
seems to be critical in the formation of that identity is a sense that one’s identity is of some
significance. Each individual must feel his or her identity is as important as any other person—that
the individual matters just as much as anyone else. Likewise, groups of people must feel their
collective or cultural identity is just as important (i.e. recognized and respected) as any other.
Somewhere around 18 months, the child develops a concept of self (Stern, 1985), which
manifests the need for personal significance. All people, starting early in life, must feel they matter
in order to develop a healthy psychology (Reker, Peacock, & Wong; 1987; Zika & Chamberlain,
1982). Maslow refers to this need as “Set 2” of the “Esteem Needs,” which include reputation,
recognition, appreciation, and importance. Max-Neef calls the need “identity,” which again I
believe is really getting at the need for significance of that identity. He also presents the need for
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 10
“participation,” to be satisfied by having rights, privileges, responsibilities, and purposeful duties,
specifically within social settings. This, I believe, is also indicating the need for one to feel they
matter (i.e. personal significance). Similarly, Burton seems to agree with Maslow and Max-Neef in
that he also highlights three separate needs: self-esteem, identity, and participation. Again, these all
appear to be getting at the deep need for significance, wherein an individual needs to feel that he or
she matters and is recognized.
Safety
The labels “safety” and “security” here are essentially interchangeable. This is a need for the
psychological expectation of physical and emotional safety, now and in the future—a sense that
one’s environment is somewhat predictable and manageable with regard to survival and health.
Once development of the self-concept or identity occurs, soon thereafter or perhaps simultaneously,
the need for self-protection—a sense of safety—develops. Indeed, children in unstable or unsafe
environments or who suffer early traumatic events, tend to develop negative cognitive and affective
functionality (Harden, 2004; Pechtel, & Pizzagalli, 2011). There has been much written on the
individual adult’s and the group’s needs for security as well (Burton, 1990; Max-Neef et al., 1992).
Maslow and Burton both refer to this need as safety and sometimes security, while
Max-Neef labels it “protection.” For all three scholars, the need for security includes physical safety
as well as economic and political stability.
Self-Determination
Self-determination is the need to autonomously direct one’s own choices, and the sense that
one has control over his or her fate. The need for safety may lead to the need for self-determination,
as individuals’ development of agency may indeed be propelled by the earliest impetus for
autonomy: the capacity to protect oneself. In other words, if one develops an identity, which s/he
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 11
then must protect, it serves to reason that one’s own self-determined ability to protect oneself
should soon follow as a critical requirement for the sense of stability, certainty, and psychological
well-being. Whatever the initial psychological cause, the capacity for self-determination contributes
significantly to psychological health, and the lack thereof has a direct causal relationship with
mental health issues (Allen et al., 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000). In fact, children as young as
six-years-old seem to require a sense of autonomy and self-determination for healthy psychological
growth (Eccles, 1999).
Burton and Max-Neef both refer to the need for “freedom,” which they indicate requires a
lack of constraint by outside forces and thus the capacity to exercise choice in all aspects of life.
Maslow’s “Esteem Needs” Set 1 falls under this needs category, which he suggests encompass “the
desire for strength...independence and freedom” (p. 381).
Progress
Finally, the need for progress is embodied in one’s sense of both current and future
accomplishments—the knowledge that one has been, is, and/or will be able to set and attain goals
toward a more desirable state of being. This need may develop somewhere between six and
fourteen years old in most normal humans (Eccles, 1999). A sense of accomplishment is positively
correlated with self-esteem and well-being (Sheldon K. M., & Houser-Marko, 2001; Sheldon et al.,
2004); while the lack of progress or goal attainment may contribute to psychological dysfunction
(Reker et al., 1987; Sirgy, 2012).
Maslow’s “Self-Actualization” needs likely fall under this category as well, being split with
the need for stimulation. He writes, “This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more
and more what one is, to become everything one is capable of becoming.” Indeed, while this
requires a sense of forward progress, Maslow’s concept of such a need may also satisfy the core
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 12
need for personal significance. Max-Neef’s need of “understanding” might also be split under this
need for progress, since education or learnedness also implies a progression of knowledge. Though,
another of Max-Neef’s needs—that of “creation”—falls under this category, as he suggests that
creation can be satisfied by activities such as skill-building, invention, composition, and acquired
abilities—all of which can be thought of as satisfying the need for progress. Burton refers to the
need of “personal fulfillment,” which he frames as the need to reach one’s potential; certainly, this
is interchangable with the label of “progress”, and perhaps touches as well on the need for
significance.
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 13
Methods: Applying BHN to the Problem-Solving Workshop
Although the concept of universal human needs is a generally accepted premise for
understanding conflict, in addition to the fundamental debate as to which human needs actually
exist, there has been a secondary question in the conflict resolution field about how exactly t o
pragmatically apply such a concept to methodology, especially with regard to intractable conflicts
(Abu-Nimer, 2013; Mitchell, 2013). I propose here a framework for analyzing a conflict and
addressing its resolution, utilizing the format of a Problem-Solving Workshop (PSW) framed within
the paradigm of the 6-Needs System.
Burton (1987) originally formulated the idea of using BHN theory to inform PSWs, creating
a list of 56 “Rules” for conducting a PSW, in addition to various format examples. The PSW is
typically a “Track II” conflict resolution process, meaning that it is an unofficial workshop,
facilitated by impartial, expert panelists and led by participants involved in the conflict but not
directly or officially representing positions of authority within their groups. One of t he primary
utilities of conducting the process through the lens of basic or universal human needs is to “remind
us of that which is common about us, rather than that which separates us. And it is this that opens
up doorways for listening, cooperation and collaboration” (Nan & Greiff, 2013, p. 213). Still, there
has been, and will inevitably continue to be, ongoing debate as to how exactly BHN can be
realistically applied to PSWs and to conflict resolution processes in general. Abu-Nimer (2013), for
example, writes: “...the field of practice is still struggling with conceptualizing practical tools and
approaches to address the...core limitations of the existing BHN framework…” (p. 183).
Although PSWs are facilitated by a panel of scholar-practitioners, impartial mediators,
and/or various other experts, a central premise of the PSW format is to keep the workshop
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 14
extremely flexible and open with regard to structure, and mostly directed by the participants
(Burton, 1987). There are a few general phases of a PSW, beginning with conflict analysis, which
includes the sharing of experiences by participants, and the expression of their feelings, concerns,
and hopes surrounding such experiences; a discussion of options, changes needed, likely obstacles
to implementing change, and potential steps to overcoming those obstacles; and finally actionable
steps that could be taken by both parties after the workshop has concluded (Mitchell, 2013).
Workshops have proven both helpful in some instances (albeit not directly responsible for ultimate
resolution) and ineffective in others (Avruch & Mitchell, 2013).
Hence, there remains two questions with regard to Burton’s original proposal: 1) How can
BHN theory more pointedly and systematically be utilized within the framework of a PSW? 2) How
might a PSW be generally more effective for conflict resolution? Perhaps both questions can be
approached with a single answer: a more systematic if not rigid format for the workshop, filtered
through an applied human needs framework. I propose one potential avenue to test this more
focused approach is to employ a “list-building and brainstorming” (LBB) problem-solving
technique, utilizing the 6-Needs System.
Conflict Analysis
In approaching a conflict via the paradigm of basic human needs, practitioners or third-party
interveners should have very specific questions and goals in mind. Using the 6-Needs System, for
example, a practitioner should, by the conclusion of the analysis portion, be able to sufficiently
answer the following questions for each party respectively:
1. Does the party feel it has been and/or is being deeply or morally wronged by the other
party?
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 15
2. Does the party feel its ability to engage in interesting/meaningful activities has been and/or
is at risk of being compromised by the other party?
3. Does the party feel its identity has not been or is not being recognized as equally deserving
of respect and/or existence by the other party?
4. Does the party feel its physical safety has been and/or is at risk of being compromised by
the other party?
5. Does the party feel its ability to determine its own choices and future has been and/or is at
risk of being compromised by the other party?
6. Does the party feel its ability to progress or develop has been and/or is at risk of being
compromised by the other party?
An analysis of the conflict, in order to adequately answer these questions, could take any
number of methods previously used and validated, including both qualitative and quantitative
measures. For example, conflict resolution practitioners would be advised to conduct interviews
with both individuals and groups collectively (i.e. each collective party to a conflict separately) as
well as administer questionnaires, both of which would be combined to adequately analyze which
basic needs are perceived by each party to be under threat or depletion. (For an example of such a
questionnaire, please see Appendix B, which can be altered to fit interpersonal conflicts as well.)
Questionnaires framed through BHN have been useful in identifying unfulfilled needs in
deep-rooted conflicts (Nan & Greiff, 2013).
After analysis has taken place, and practitioners determine they have a firm handle on the
core needs being affected by the conflict, they will move into the problem-solving portion of the
PSW. (Although certainly, particular needs, especially those for significance and care, will also
likely be attended to during the analysis stage, which includes deep listening of the participants’
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 16
emotional narratives.) The problem-solving format presented in this paper, as one potential template
for implementing a needs-based approach to conflict resolution, is the LBB approach. The goal of
LBB is to create a list of the acute problems, as perceived by the participants, with all the major
facets and branches stemming from each problem; to create a vision of what the desired solutions
may look like; and to implement a brainstorming session of possible steps to get from problem to
solution, which ultimately must be shared and agreed-upon by the involved parties.
List-Building
Creating lists for the purposes of task management and completion has proven
psychologically and behaviorally beneficial, especially in the areas of creativity and goal attainment
(Barron & Barron, 2013; Bellotti, 2004; Masicampo & Baumeister, 2011). The goal of this aspect
of LBB is to finalize a complete list of all grievances and problems regarding the conflict, and a
desired outcome for each list item. Hence, within each needs category, the panel will formulate a
meticulous list of specific and explicit problems, grievances, and desired outcomes, upon which
action could theoretically be taken toward resolution.
The list-building portion of LBB can either be done by the panel alone, based on their
analysis, and then presented to the group participants for feedback, refinement, and settlement on
the particular issues; or the list can be built interactively with participants and facilitated by the
panel. However, it is advised that the list-building portion take place with each of the conflicted
parties separately, so as to develop each party’s list of their own grievances and perceived
problems, without argument from the other side. Before any list is “closed”, the panel ought to give
participants time to become extremely confident that the lists are final. Nonetheless, at least a few
additional issues will likely be illuminated at various points later in the workshop.
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 17
As an example of this method, the list-building template for the need of significance in a
deep-rooted conflict might look like the table below. Each need will have its own list that resembles
this table, and will theoretically consist of many list items.
Need: Significance
Problems/Grievances
Desired/Potential Outcome(s)
Cultural identity is not recognized by the
national government as legitimate.
Allow for cultural identity to be added to list of
cultures in national archive, identification
cards, and authorized religious systems.
Group history is erased from national archives
and history books.
Work with education department to develop a
uniform, agreed-upon history to implement into
educational materials.
Group members are not afforded representation Establish policy to allow and require
in the national congress.
representation in the House.
Brainstorming
Once the lists are finalized for each need affected, each list and its corresponding need is
dealt with separately, in facilitated brainstorming sessions. The goal of brainstorming will be to
innovate potential ways, methods, and steps to achieving the desired outcomes (Fisher, Ury, &
Patton, 1987). Depending on the depth and nature of the conflict and the needs affected, each
workshop or some portion thereof, would address one particular need at a time (i.e. an entire day or
week might be focused on the different problems and solutions related to one need). Panelists may
bring in or be comprised of scholar-practitioners with special knowledge of the sociological and
psychological aspects of the particular need, joining local leaders and experts of the general
conflict.
In proper brainstorming fashion, all ideas for actionable steps should be put on the table no
matter how outlandish, without initial reserve or judgment (Fisher et al., 1987). Once all ideas have
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 18
been expressed, evaluation can begin in order to determine viable, actionable steps that may work
for both parties, likely obstacles to such steps, and further ideas to overcome those obstacles.
Depending on the nature of the conflict, the level of emotionality involved, and the
willingness by participants to constructively engage with each other, the brainstorming sessions
may be held with both parties present and all ideas heard and later evaluated, or with each party
separately. In the latter case, wherein the panel facilitates brainstorming with each party separately,
facilitators will then compare and contract brainstorming ideas from both sides to find potential
common solutions that will be brought to both parties for negotiation.
Keeping with the core philosophy of Needs versus Satisfiers, it will be important for
facilitators to remember that while the needs are non-negotiable, their particular satisfiers (i.e.
desired outcomes) are potentially transferable. In other words, while evaluating brainstorm ideas
and potential solutions, if no viable solutions can be determined to work for both sides, facilitators
should attempt to brainstorm on potential other ways, not currently listed, to meet the basic need,
even if it is not what the participants consciously desire or believe they require for satisfaction. If
the core need is met, then the satisfier ought not matter, as it is only a means to an end. This
philosophy can help facilitators, and participants indirectly, stay innovative in their approach to
resolving the conflict. In fact, in addition to helping participants relate on a core human level (i.e.
beyond cultural differences, values, positions, and interests), the ability to creatively manifest
satisfiers toward the fulfillment of underlying needs is one of the central advantages to employing a
needs-based approach to conflict resolution.
Practitioners may facilitate brainstorming sessions starting with the easiest need (those least
affected or with the fewest amount of associated problems), so as to more quickly gain a sense of
accomplishment and progress among participants. As a result, participants should garner increased
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 19
positivity and optimism regarding the process. The most difficult issues should then theoretically be
left for later in the workshop series, when participants in conflicting parties feel more trusting of
each other and confident in the process. Sometimes, however, the deepest and most difficult needs
must be addressed before any other progress can be made, in which case addressing the more
difficult problems and associated needs first will be necessary. The order of which problems and
needs should be addressed first will be a matter for the panel to decide with the participants, as each
conflict is unique.
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 20
Conclusion
Assuming one’s physiological or physical survival needs are indeed fulfilled, BHN theory
suggests that if all basic psychological needs are also sufficiently satisfied in any individual or
group, that entity will be at relative peace by default. If any one of these needs is not adequately
met, the entity will be in a state of conflict or suffering. Hence, all conflict methodologies naturally
aim to address one or more of the basic human needs, even when not explicitly labeled in such a
manner. By understanding exactly which need(s) are being threatened or depleted in a particular
conflict, we can then better determine which needs to address during conflict resolution processes,
without wasting time or resources on needs that may not be as affected. Organizing the vast array of
conflict issues and potential solutions to those issues into a palatable system of basic human needs
is potentially an extremely efficient way of both measuring what underlying challenges are creating
the conflict and thus which methodologies to utilize in addressing such issues.
If we are to agree on a finite set of basic human needs, such as those presented in the
6-Needs System, we should then be able to place all perceived and actual problems and solutions
within one of the needs categories. In other words, all problems or grievances should be indicating,
at its root, a threat to one of the basic needs. Organizing and framing problems this way may not
only be an efficient way of systematizing the conflict resolution process but may also present a
platform for innovation when developing potential solutions; since it is the need that requires
attention, and not necessarily the surface level problem, there may be any number of solutions (i.e.
satisfiers) beyond which the parties currently imagine. Hence, in addition to allowing individuals
from all sides to view one another as human beings with relatable needs and feelings, two of the
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 21
most important advantages of applying BHN to conflict resolution process are the opportunities for
creative problem-solving and process efficiency.
Limitations
Regarding the LBB methods suggested in this paper, especially with regard to deep-rooted
conflicts, each stage of the workshop and each potential step towards a solution likely requires
various substeps; this approach, like any other PSW model, can therefore be a complicated and
in-depth process requiring multiple days or even weeks for each particular issue. Hence, the more
complex the conflict, the longer the workshop will probably be and the more workshops will likely
be required. Many PSW efforts for deep-rooted conflicts take place several times over many years.
So, while the LBB methodology can be efficient, efficiency must nonetheless be measured in
relative terms.
Further, the LBB methodology presented here is undoubtedly a simplified example based on
a theoretical premise, and must be applied and tested empirically as to its effectiveness. In addition,
conflicts are extremely diverse and unique, requiring a number of potential solutions in
combination. There is no one-stop solution for any particular conflict, especially complex
intractable conflicts involving large and/or several groups of people. Thus, the LBB method and the
PSW format in general will likely require supplementation by various other approaches, including
official Track 1 processes.
Regarding the theoretical framework of the 6-Needs System I have presented, there are
many shades and branches of needs that have been and are still argued to exist beyond the six needs
illuminated in this system; several renowned philosophers and scientists, as illuminated in
Appendix A, have proposed alternative needs and are thus unlikely to agree with my list. My
contention remains, however, that each of those “needs” can be categorized under one or more of
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 22
the six listed in the 6-Needs System, as they are simply either labeled differently or are implying the
same root need. To this point, I have not yet found a convincing counter argument.
Regarding BHN in general, many practitioners in the field of conflict resolution now say
that human needs theory is moot or theoretically unsound to apply realistically (Avruch & Mitchell,
2013). Additionally, some scholars contend as to whether core universal needs ubiquitous to the
human species do actually exist, and rather that basic needs may vary by culture. I disagree, and
believe that all human beings do indeed share core phylogenetic needs, as we all originally evolved
from the same gene pool. The suggestion that people of different cultures have different core needs
is, in my opinion, suggestive of distinct species. No research I have found would support such a
notion; in fact, an argument for culturally distinct basic needs, in my estimation, would be
contradictory to current theories of the evolutionary biological sciences. On the contrary, I agree
with proponents of the concept that different cultures have different satisfiers, but all people have
the same basic needs.
Future Directions
Individuals involved in a dynamic conflict resolution process, facilitated by skilled conflict
resolution and peacebuilding practitioners, have a chance at transforming their perceptions of the
conflict, of the parties involved, and of the needs currently unfulfilled. Conflict resolution
processes therefore have an important place in the transformation of relationships. The question
remains, however, as to how to transmit that transformation in order to change policy or implement
legislation for large groups or nations, especially those run by policy makers who themselves did
not participate in the conflict resolution processes (Abu-Nimer, 2013). In addition to validating this
paper's theoretical and methodological suggestions, the prospect of effectively migrating
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 23
achievements realized through unofficial conflict resolution processes to official policy making and
legislative processes is an important endeavor to be addressed.
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 24
REFERENCES
Abu-Nimer, M. (2013) Basic human needs: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. In K.
Avruch & C.R. Mitchell (Eds.), Conflict Resolution and Human Needs: Linking Theory and
Practice (Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution) (pp. 165-185). Abingdon,
UK: Routledge.
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K. L., & O'Connor, T. G. (1994). Longitudinal assessment of
autonomy and relatedness in adolescent-family interactions as predictors of adolescent ego
development and self-esteem. Child development, 65(1), 179-194.
Aunger, R., & Curtis, V. (2013). The anatomy of motivation: An evolutionary-ecological approach.
Biological Theory, 8(1), 49-63.
Avruch, K. & Mitchell, C.R. (Eds.). (2013). Conflict Resolution and Human Needs: Linking Theory
and Practice (Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution). Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
Barron, C. & Barron, A. (2013). The Creativity Cure: How to Build Happiness with Your Own Two
Hands. New York, NY: Scribner.
Bellotti, V., Dalal, B., Good, N., Flynn, P., Bobrow, D. G., & Ducheneaut, N. (2004, April). What a
to-do: studies of task management towards the design of a personal task list manager. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp.
735-742). ACM.
Bowlby, J. (2005). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory (Vol. 393). Taylor &
Francis.
Burton, J. W. (1987). Resolving deep-rooted conflict: A handbook. Lanham, MD: University Press
of America.
Burton, J. (Ed.) (1990). Conflict: Human Needs Theory. Berlin: Springer.
Cantor, N., & Sanderson, C. A. (2003). 12 Life Task Participation and Well-Being: The Importance
of Taking Part in Daily Life. Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology, 230.
Coutant, D. K., Worchel, S., & Hanza, M. (2001). Pigs, slingshots, and other foundations of
intergroup conflict. In Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: A social psychological
perspective (pp. 39-60). Taylor & Francis, New York.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or, the preservation of
favoured races in the struggle for life. London: J. Murray.
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 25
Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The future of children, 30-44.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1987). Getting to yes. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Sound
Ideas.
Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New left review, 3, 107.
Fromm, E. (1992). The anatomy of human destructiveness. Macmillan.
Glasser, W. (1999). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. HarperPerennial.
Hamilton, D. (2010). Why kindness is good for you. Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc.
Harden, B. J. (2004). Safety and stability for foster children: A developmental perspective. The
future of children, 31-47.
Hawley, T. (2000). Starting smart: How early experiences affect brain development. Ounce of
Prevention Fund, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2050, Chicago, IL 60603-6107.
Kelman HC. (1972) The problem-solving workshop in conflict resolution. In R.L. Merritt (Ed.),
Communication in International Politics (pp. 168-204). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Leary, M. R., & Buttermore, N. R. (2003). The evolution of the human self: Tracing the natural
history of self-awareness. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 33(4), 365-404.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370-396.
Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., & Hopenhayn, M. (1992). Development and human needs. Real-life
economics: Understanding wealth creation, 197-213.
Meltzoff, A. N., & Prinz, W. (Eds.). (2002). The imitative mind: Development, evolution and brain
bases (Vol. 6). Cambridge University Press.
Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Consider it done! Plan making can eliminate the
cognitive effects of unfulfilled goals. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(4),
667.
Mitchell, C. (2013) Beyond the “classical model” of problem-solving workshops: 25 years of
experience, experiment, and adaptation. In K. Avruch & C.R. Mitchell (Eds.), Conflict
Resolution and Human Needs: Linking Theory and Practice (Routledge Studies in Peace
and Conflict Resolution) (pp. 143-164). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Nan, S. A. & Greiff, J. L. (2013) Basic human needs in practice: The Georgian-South Ossetian
Point of View process (pp. 202-215). In K. Avruch & C.R. Mitchell (Eds.), Conflict
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 26
Resolution and Human Needs: Linking Theory and Practice (Routledge Studies in Peace
and Conflict Resolution) (pp. 165-185). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Nelson, C. A., Zeanah, C. H., Fox, N. A., Marshall, P. J., Smyke, A. T., & Guthrie, D. (2007).
Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: The Bucharest Early Intervention
Project. Science, 318(5858), 1937-1940.
Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz, M. (2010). Born for love: Why empathy is essential--and endangered.
New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Pechtel, P., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2011). Effects of early life stress on cognitive and affective
function: an integrated review of human literature. Psychopharmacology, 214(1), 55-70.
Phillips, D. A., & Shonkoff, J. P. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of
early childhood development. National Academies Press.
Povinelli, D. J. (1987). Monkeys, apes, mirrors and minds: The evolution of self-awareness in
primates. Human Evolution, 2(6), 493-509.Rosenberg, M. (2005)
https://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventory
Reker, G. T., Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. (1987). Meaning and purpose in life and well-being: A
life-span perspective. Journal of Gerontology, 42(1), 44-49.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Sarno, J. E. (2001). The mindbody prescription: Healing the body, healing the pain. Grand Central
Publishing.
Schaller, M., Kenrick, D. T., Neel, R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2017). Evolution and human motivation:
A fundamental motives framework. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(6).
Schore, A. N. (2015). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional
development. Routledge.
Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of
happiness: Can there be an upward spiral?. Journal of personality and social psychology,
80(1), 152.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal
contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it.
Personality and social psychology bulletin, 30(4), 475-486.
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 27
Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and
eudaimonia (Vol. 50). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Sites, P. (1973). Control: The basis of social order. Dunellen, NJ: Dunellen Pub. Co.
Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from psychoanalysis and
developmental psychology. Karnac Books.
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 101(2), 354.
Yarrow, L. J., Rubenstein, J. L., Pedersen, F. A., & Jankowski, J. J. (1972). Dimensions of early
stimulation and their differential effects on infant development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of
Behavior and Development, 18(3), 205-218.
Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological
well-being. British journal of psychology, 83(1), 133-145.
Need Theorists a d Leaders
i the Field
Maslow, A.
Burto , J.
Co fli t Resolutio &
Pea e uildi g
Ma -Neef, M., Elizalde,
A., & Hope ha , M.
Hua
Progress
Self-a tualizatio
Safet
Care
Safet eeds
Estee
eeds Set
stre gth,
Freedo
i dpe ed e e, freedo
Estee
eeds Set
reputatio , re og itio ,
Self-estee , Ide tit ,
apprei atio ,
Parti ipatio
i porta e
Lo e eeds lo e,
affe tio ,
Belo gi g ess, Lo e
elo gi g ess
Affe tio
Sti ulatio
Self-a tualizatio
Leisure; U dersta di g
Ph siologi al
Ph siologi al Needs
Self Deter i atio
Sig ifi a e
isti Psy hology
Fro
, E.
E o o i s&
I ter atio al
De elop e t
Field
BASIC HUMAN NEEDS THEORIES GRID
APPENDIX A
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 28
APPENDIX A
Hua isti Psy hology
Tra s e de e;
E itatio a d
Sti ulatio ;
Creatio ; U dersta di g Effe ti e ess
eeds Perso al fulfil e t
Safet /se urit , Cultural
se urit
Prote tio
eeds Perso al fulfil e t
A thropology & La
Co fli t Ma age e t
se urit
Freedo
Tra s e de e
Parti ipatio , Ide tit
Se se of Ide tit ;
Rooted ess; Fra e of
orie tatio
Su siste e
Fisher, R., Ur , W., &
Patto , B.
Related ess; U it
E itatio a d
Sti ulatio
R a , R. M., & De i, E. L.
I/O Psy hology
So ial Psy hology
Master
Co pete e
Safet a d Se urit
o trol o er o e's life
Self-Dire tio &
Auto o
Auto o
se se of elo gi g
ell- ei g
So ial Support & Lo e
Basi eeds for food a d
shelter
Related ess
Glasser, W.
Couta t, D. K., Wor hel,
S., & Ha za, M.
Sar o, J. E.
Cli i al Psy hology
Psy hiatry
So ial Psy hology
Mi d-Body Medi i e
Cele ratio / Mea i g
Po er / sig ifi a e /
o pete e
Ph si al Well- ei g
Sur i al
se urit a d prote tio
to e i
S hore, A. N.
Rose
De elop e tal
Psy hology
Feeli g safe a d se ure
Feeli g respe ted a d
pride i a ti ities
re og itio
e o o i
Ta , L., & Die er, E.
, p.
erg M.
to e perfe t
ortal
to e ph s iall
i i i le
Lear to ha dle feeli gs Auto o
Freedo
to feel u derstood
I tegrit / Ho est
Po er / sig ifi a e /
o pete e
a positi e self alue
to e liked
to feel positi e affe t
I terdepe de e /
Co e tio
Lo e / elo gi g /
o e tio
Need for i terperso al
relatio ships
to e take
Re reatio / Pla
Fu
E otio al eeds to
sur i e
Ph si al Well- ei g
, p.
/ auto o
are of
to e soothed
Pollack, NCR 597 - P. 29
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE “BHN IN CONFLICT” SURVEY
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements
I strongly disagree I disagree
Care
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Neither agree or disagree
I agree
I strongly Agree
I like the people who live in my community/village/town.
I trust and respect the local authorities.
The local authorities care about me.
I like the leaders of my country.
The leaders of my country care about my community/village/group.
Stimulation
1. There are plenty of opportunities for fun and amusement in my community.
2. I have opportunities to engage in interesting, challenging work/activities.
3. I am free to travel and explore in or out of the country as I please.
4. I am excited about the direction of my country.
5. I am satisfied with my community’s physical environment.
Significance
1. I feel respected by members of my community.
2. I feel respected by local authorities.
3. Local authorities respect my group/culture [or insert group name].
4. Leaders of my country respect and acknowledge my group/culture [or insert group name].
5. I am able to contribute to my society in a meaningful way.
Security
1. My family and I are generally safe in our community/town/village.
2. My group/culture [or insert group name] is stable in my country.
3. Local authorities offer adequate police protection and security in my town.
4. I can get financial support from the government when I really need it.
5. The national government is able and willing to protect my community/town/village.
Self-Determination
1. I have a voice in what happens in my community.
2. I have a voice in what happens in my country.
3. I can choose my own path in life.
4. I am able to earn enough money to lead a satisfying life.
5. My work time and leisure time are well balanced.
Progress
1. If I choose, I have the opportunity to progress in my career and/or community.
2. If I choose, I have the opportunity to learn new things that will help me progress in life.
3. I feel supported to grow as a worker and a person.
4. The national government runs the country in an organized, efficient way.
5. Local government manages the community in an organized, efficient way.
Jeremy Pollack