Abstract
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).
THE 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 psychological needs and emotional needs as different, related, overlapping or interchangeable concepts. Maslow’s model is, of course, the most famous and the one most likely to be encountered in popular literature (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 inferiority 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 Federation’s 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 Maslow’s model lies in its simplicity and ease of interpretation by not having 20 needs).
In the 1960s and 1970s Alderfer further expanded Maslow’s theory of motivation and formulated the ERG theory (1969) placing the following three broad categories: 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 rigorously researched model namely that of Self-Determination Theory (1985) with three core needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy. Deci and Ryan’s 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; connection/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 respective human motivational systems. This is the work we found so compelling and which we related to business, leadership and organisational 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 neuroscience 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 President 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 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). Epstein’s formulation of basic human needs tied in with Grawe’s 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 violation 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 ‘conception 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 neurobiological 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 encompassing. 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 (Eisenberger & 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 individual’s position 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 correlates 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; Kéri & Kiss, 2011; Kosfeld et al., 2005).
Pleasure: feeling of reward and positivity. This stretches back to Freud’s pleasure principle 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 satisfaction 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-Carrión et al., 2010; Schultz, 2002; Wise & Rompre, 1989).
There would be little resistance to the suggestion that human well-being is related directly to fulfilment of these basic needs. That this is so clearly anchored in neurobiology 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 separation 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 environments 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 environments 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 interventions.
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, Alderfer’s ERG and Deci and Ryan’s 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 functioning. 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 statement 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 (orientation); 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 unconscious will to protect our basic needs. Each 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 responsibility. 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 motivational 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 environment 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: ‘I’m a quick learner’ (approach); ‘I can’t 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 strategies they have developed over their life:
Go-Success: when an individual tries to fulfil a need and is successful (congruence).
Go-Fail: when an individual tries to fulfil a need but fails and the need is unfulfilled or violated (approach incongruence).
No-Success: when an individual tries to protect a basic need and is successful (avoidance congruence).
No-Fail: when an individual tries to protect a basic need but is unsuccessful and the basic need is violated (avoidance incongruence).
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 one’s 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 unconscious strategies that give human beings the illusion of consistency common in psychological theory: confabulations, cognitive dissonance, denial, etc.
Klaus Grawe’s 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 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 motivational level, gives clear insights to challenges and issues in coaching. Moreover it provides a clear level of intervention and clear understanding of resource activation for coachees. The model we propose draws on Grawe’s model and includes the following components:
SCOAP (fulfilment or violation);
Motivational schemata;
Congruency (experience of success or failure of motivational strategies);
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, formulated as SCOAP, as the core of any coaching intervention and can be used as a framework for sustainable successful coaching relationships. Using the SCOAP Coach Theory can, we claim, direct us to better and more sustainable coaching interventions based on the underlying research and theories.
Overview of SCOAP Coach Theory.
1. SCOAP fulfilment or violation: Coaching as a tool for basic need fulfilment
A coachee enters into a coaching relationship 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 derailment 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 distinction for the ongoing discussion of ‘when counselling or coaching’ is that counselling deals with (should deal with) severe or consistent basic needs violation which has led to a severe disruption in mental consistency.
Understanding the coachee’s SCOAP profile and respective fulfilment and violation 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 experience 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 intervention sustainable.
Hence the second building block in the SCOAP Coach Theory is that of understanding 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 coachee’s 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 incongruence – hence the role of the coach in creating realistic feedback loops and activating resources is crucial to successful coaching interventions.
The third building block is hence congruency based on the coachee’s SCOAP profile and motivational schemata. How these interact will lead to the final level:
4. Consistency: Coaching success as consistency management
At the highest level coaching is about consistency management – helping the coachee activate their own resources to be able to successfully manage their consistency: the system level of basic need fulfilment, motivation and personal internal resources to manage SCOAP fulfilment.
Hence the role of the coach is to understand the SCOAP profile of a coachee, their motivational schemata and their feeling of congruence. The coach based on this knowledge can help the coachee to develop strategies, activate approach schema and activate resources to create congruence and experience success and hence fulfil their SCOAP2.
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 potential 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 GROW3 (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 highlight 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 motivational strategies will fall into two broad categories 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 environment 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 framework that gives pointers and support to relative strengths of models, tools and techniques 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 behaviours.
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’.
President Human Brains Foundation. Co-Author Neuroleadership.
Organisation and Project Management, Bonn-Rhine-Sieg University of Applied Sciences. Co-Author Neuroleadership.
PhD candidate, Bonn-Rhine-Sieg University of Applied Sciences. Co-Author Neuroleadership.
President Human Brains Foundation, CEO leading brains, Certified Master Coach (BCI). Bleicherstrasse 4, 6003 Luzern, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]
Notes
[1] We named these ‘GO-Type’ for an approach focused person and ‘NO-Type’ for an avoidance focused person.
[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.
References
- Aguggia, J.P., Suarez, M.M. & Rivarola, M.A. (2013). Early maternal separation: Neurobehavioral consequences in mother rats. BehavBrain Res, 248C (1872–7549 (Electronic)), 25–31.
- Alderfer, C.P. (1969). An empirical test of a new theory of human needs. Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(2), 142–175.
- Arias-Carrión, O., Stamelou, M., Murillo-Rodríguez, E., Menéndez-González, M. & Pöppel, 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), 639–650.
- 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), 65–71.
- 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, 759–775.
- 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), 1714–1722.
- 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), 3–25.
- Corr, P.J. & McNaughton, N. (2012). Neuroscience and approach/avoidance personality traits: A two-stage (valuation-motivation) approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(10), 2339–2354.
- 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 underlying state self-esteem. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3448–3455.
- 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), 294–300.
- Epstein, S. & Weiner, I.B. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In M.J. Lerner (Ed.), Comprehensive Handbook of Psychology Volume 5: Personality and Social Psychology (pp.159–184). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Freud, S. (1911). Formulations regarding the two principles in mental functioning. Collected Papers, 4, 13–21.
- 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), 1–11.
- 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, 53–56.
- 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), 798–808.
- Grawe, K. (2004). Neuropsychotherapie (1st ed.). Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag.
- Grawe, K. (2007). Neuropsychotherapy: How the neurosciences inform effective psychotherapy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Gray, J.A. & McNaughton, N. (1996). The neuropsychology of anxiety: Reprise. Proceedings of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 43, 61–134.
- 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), 1095–1119.
- 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), 172–182.
- Holtforth, M.G., Grawe, K., Egger, O. & Berking, M. (2005). Reducing the dreaded: Change of avoidance motivation in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 15, 261–271.
- Holtforth, M.G. & Michalak, J. (2012). Motivation in psychotherapy. In R.M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp.441–462). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kauffman, C. & Coutu, D. (2009). The realities of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 2 (January), 1–25.
- Kéri, S. & Kiss, I. (2011). Oxytocin response in a trust game and habituation of arousal. Physiology & Behavior, 102(2), 221–224.
- Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, U. & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.
- 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, 6270–6275.
- Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 1–21.
- 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), 241–263.
- 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, 114–115.
- Wachter, K. (2003). Rethinking Maslow’s needs. Journal of Family Consumer Sciences, 95(2), 68–69.
- 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, 191–225.
- Young, L.J., Lim, M.M., Gingrich, B. & Insel, T.R. (2001). Cellular mechanisms of social attachment. Hormones and Behavior, 40(2), 133–138.
- 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), 1–11.