the case for basic human needs in coaching

The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 10, No. 1, June 2014 7 The British Psychological Society ISSN: 17481104

THE CONCEPT of basic human needs iswidespread in psychology andpsychotherapy. There seems to be anoverlapping consensus that basic needs arecrucial to human beings, to human well-being, to mental health and to motivationsystems yet there are few models that havewidespread acceptance as the model despitea rich and diverse background with vastquantities of theoretical and empiricalresearch over more than a century. Thisresearch has at times focused on humandrives, needs, physiological and psycho-logical needs and emotional needs asdifferent, related, overlapping or inter-changeable concepts. Maslows model is, ofcourse, the most famous and the one mostlikely to be encountered in popular litera-ture (1943). It is a simple model and at firstglance, particularly to the layman, seems tomake sense. This does not hold up to closerscrutiny or scientific research (Wachter,2003).

The history of basic human needs,however, stretches further back than Maslow Freud, of course, formulated what was tobecome the pleasure principle as a key driver

of the id (1911). It was thereafter Adler whoproposed, counter to Freud, that self-esteemand overcoming inferiority as core to humanbeings (Bagby, 1923). Overcoming inferi-ority is notably still present in the mass ofpopular literature targeted at building self-esteem and confidence for which coachingis a tool often used. Indeed building self-esteem was noted as number one reason forentering into a coaching relationship in theInternational Coach Federations 2009Global Client Study. A collection of basichuman needs was first proposed by Murrayin the 1930s (1938). He proposed a list of 20needs many of these seem to be correct butthe danger of any model with 20 items is thatit lacks coherency and further human needscan be justifiably added or taken away. It isalso unlikely that these 20 needs will beconsistent or present in all human beings(the popularity of Maslows model lies in itssimplicity and ease of interpretation by nothaving 20 needs).

In the 1960s and 1970s Alderfer furtherexpanded Maslows theory of motivation andformulated the ERG theory (1969) placingthe following three broad categories:

Original Paper

The case for basic human needs incoaching: A neuroscientific perspective The SCOAP Coach TheoryAndy Habermacher, Argang Ghadiri & Theo Peters

While writing our book Neuroleadership which explored the field of neuroleadership (combining neurosciencewith leadership) we came across the work of Klaus Grawe. His work in neuropsychotherapy and theConsistency Theory he proposed we found to be particularly interesting and saw it as model that can beapplied in all systems within which human beings operate. Since writing Neuroleadership and applying themodels we proposed in the business world we have come to the conclusion that indeed this is a very relevantbut also practical model that can be applied to leadership scenarios. Moreover, and understandably givenits roots in neuropsychotherapy, this we see can be applied with great impact in coaching contexts. We hencepropose 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 thecore human needs. This is again appealingthough it seems obvious that many peoplefail to push for growth. Similarly Deci andRyan formulated the most recent and rigor-ously researched model namely that of Self-Determination Theory (1985) with threecore needs of competence, relatedness andautonomy. Deci and Ryans work aimed tosynthesise many of the components of othermodels including drives and organismicbehaviours with intrinsic and extrinsic variables.

It seems evident that needs and drivescan explain in different ways a large part ofwhat is happening in the human psyche(without any overarching agreement onwhich precise needs and drives). It is alsoclear to us in the coaching profession thatthese needs and desires can be crucial to thehealth and motivation and level of fulfilmentof each coachee and their respective views ofsuccess and fulfilment.

In addition to the scientific modelsmentioned above popular models haveappeared in recent years and manypsychology sites list a variety of basic needsor human emotional needs. More famouslyin the popular coaching field AnthonyRobbins, the legendary popular coach, haslisted six human needs. These are: certainty;uncertainty/variety; significance; connec-tion/love; growth; contribution (Robbins,2014). You will notice that the first Certaintyand the second Uncertainty contradict eachother therefore meaning they are nothuman basic needs present in all humanbeings.

Yet, none of these models explain orconnect human functioning at all levels: a system level, a motivational level, anoptimal performance level and a mentalhealth level. Self-Determination Theoryalmost fulfils most of these criteria and isvery well researched but it primarily dealswith intrinsic motivation and as the namesuggests components of self-determination.This is precisely why we see the work of KlausGrawe (Professor of Psychology at Zurich

University) and his Consistency Theory(2007) as so important though little knownin the English speaking world. His mostrecent work, before his untimely death in2005, aimed to consolidate neurobiologywith therapy and in this work he put forwarda solid and well-researched case for hisConsistency Theory. This combined thesystem level of human beings with needfulfilment (and need violation) and respec-tive human motivational systems. This is thework we found so compelling and which werelated to business, leadership and organisa-tional theory in Neuroleadership (Ghadiri,Habermacher & Peters, 2012) and for whichwe have since seen as a solid model forcoaching this is unsurprising as the rootslie in neuropsychotherapy.

Neuroscience of basic needsNeuroscience has reached new heights inpopularity as we write this paper. It is likely tocontinue the research has mushroomed, ashave popular reports in newspapers andmagazines. There is no doubt that neuro-science can and will also shed new light ontocurrent psychological theories.

Klaus Grawe was one of the first in thefield of psychotherapy to truly connectneuroscience to therapy and wrote the firstbook on Neuropsychotherapy in 2004 inGerman and published in 2007 in English.This was a detailed look at neuroscience andtherapy and the first rigorous attempt toconsolidate therapy with the science of thebrain. This in the meantime has becomemore widespread. Klaus Grawe was also Pres-ident of the Society for PsychotherapyResearch 1995/96. He was particularlyknown for his criticism of the psychoanalysisfield noting that the techniques andmethods of therapy should reflect empiricalresearch.

Klaus Grawe reported, particularly, onthe work of Seymour Epstein who on writingon Cognitive Experiential Theory (Epstein &Weiner, 2003) postulated that humans have alimited number of broad basic needs andproposed 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. Epsteinobserved that these four emotional needsare always present in human beings andtheir fulfilment or violation will lead to anincrease or decrease in human well-being.Moreover motivation to fulfil or protectthem will depend on how these needs areanchored and the socialisation process ofeach individual. This also incidentally neatlyexplains some of the core theories of thegreat 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 andSelf-Efficacy and Control (1997). Epsteinsformulation of basic human needs tied inwith Grawes work on schema theory and inNeuropsychotherapy Grawe gave a moredetailed analysis of the neurobiology ofmental disorders, therapy and the basicneeds from a neurobiological perspective.Grawe (2007) put these needs right at thecentre of his work noting that their viola-tion or enduring non-fulfilment leads toimpairments in mental health (p.167).

Our work and further analysis with thesebasic human needs has further led us toexpand these needs from four to five needs:the need of Control and Orientation we seeas two separate needs. Control is the action:freedom and autonomy and influence self-efficacy in short. Orientation, on the otherhand, is how an individual understands andbuilds a picture of the world or a concep-tion of reality as Epstein put it. For these fiveneeds we use the acronym SCOAP.

Allow us to give a brief overview of thehuman basic needs we propose, SCOAP, andtheir representation in the brain and neuro-biological systems:

Self-esteem: is the feeling of self-worthand value. This has been considered a keyneed by a long, long list of authors andresearchers. This is also, ironically, probablythe hardest to research at a biological level asthe concept of self-esteem is so all encom-passing. Nevertheless recent research hasinvestigated neural representation of self-

esteem (Eisenberger et al., 2011) and morespecifically, for example, that social rejectionactivates pain centres in the brain (Eisen-berger & Lieberman, 2004; Kross et al.,2011).

Control: feeling of freedom andautonomy and the ability to control theworld around us. Control also dependsstrongly on orientation and is tightly linkedto the adrenaline system in the brain(Grawe, 2007).

Orientation: feeling of understandingand creating a consistent and coherentpicture of the world and an individuals posi-tion in this either in terms of the world ingeneral or an individual context, such as abusiness or family. It is clear in mental healththat mental illness is often accompanied bydistorted orientations of the world andreality.

Attachment: feelings of bonding toothers. This has been well researched sincefirst proposed by Bowlby in the 1950s(Bowlby, Ainsworth & Bretherton, 1992;Bowlby, 1951, 1970). Attachment is first andforemost attachment to primary caregiversbut recent research into the neural corre-lates show how important the oxytocinsystem is (and other opiates) and how thisdrives attachment feeling (Young et al.,2001) not to mention the ability to trust.This has also been measured in the field ofeconomic decision making (Baumgartner etal., 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 tosee that pleasure is a core component of ourlife either in elation but also in deeper satis-faction and feelings of reward. Indeed thegood/bad evaluation stretches across all oursenses (for example, the sense of smell andgood smells vs. bad smells). Pleasure relatesclosely to the dopamine system and otheropiates (Arias-Carrin et al., 2010; Schultz,2002; Wise & Rompre, 1989).

There would be little resistance to thesuggestion 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. Thatviolation of basic needs can cause disruptionis also widely accepted there is a vast bodyof research into impacts of childhoodtrauma (which can be considered as severebasic need violation) in psychology. This hasnow also been supported by a mass ofresearch in neurobiology namely in thedevelopment of neurons in animal studies.For example, it has been shown that rat pupsseparated from their mother (violation ofbasic need for attachment) develop neuronsthat are shrunken in size and the extent oftheir connections and even cell death(Zhang et al., 2002). This maternal separa-tion also extends to the neurobiologicalfunctioning of the mother (Aguggia, Suarez& Rivarola, 2013; Boccia et al., 2007;Gogberashvili et al., 2008). Physical restraintis just as detrimental (violation of basic needfor control) (Brown, Henning & Wellman,2005; Goldwater et al., 2009). We can tracethis also back to human beings beginningwith the study of Howard Skeels (Skeels &Dye) in 1939 with retarded orphans in theState Orphanage of Iowa whereby orphansput into caring and stimulating environ-ments had massive increases in their IQ(particularly interesting in light of ourcurrent knowledge of human needs andneurobiology).

In summary these basic human needs arecore to human mental functioning. Theirfulfilment will lead to increased human well-being and create positive biological environ-ments in the brain. Non-fulfilment andviolation of these basic needs will cause stressresponses in the system and lead todecreased psychological and physical well-being and lead to a disruptive biologicalenvironment in the brain.

This is why we see basic human needs,SCOAP, and their biological representationas the core to coaching and coaching inter-ventions.

MotivationFrom thinking of fulfilment and violation ofSCOAP as central to coaching we also needto explore human motivation in relationshipwith fulfilling or protecting SCOAP. This iscrucial for if fulfilling (or conversely notfulfilling SCOAP) is crucial to well-beingthen the ability of an individual (coachee) tobe motivated to fulfil SCOAP will be pivotal.This will drive their ability to engage in activities to further fulfil SCOAP to achieverespective 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 andRyans Self-Determination Theory) are allpositioned as motivational models ratherthan mental health models. Klaus Grawepositions the basic human needs, SCOAP, atthe core of mental health and human func-tioning. He then posits that all of humanmotivation will therefore aim to fulfil orprotect human basic needs consciously butmostly unconsciously. This is a bold state-ment to make considering the vast amountsof theories and research in motivation butthe purpose of this paper is not to explorethis in detail.

To summarise so far: we know that basichuman needs are core to the humanemotional system and to human well-being.Motivation from this perspective, accordingto Grawe, can be seen as the conscious andunconscious drive to fulfil our basic needs,that is, to feel a little bit more valuedtomorrow (self-esteem); to have a bit morefreedom or control over the world (control);to understand the world a bit better (orien-tation); to have slightly better and closerrelationships (attachment); and to havemore pleasure (pleasure). Few would arguewith that.

Crucial to this is the standard theory ofapproach/avoidance motivational schema.An approach schema is the conscious andunconscious will to fulfil our basic needs. Anavoidance schema is a conscious or uncon-scious will to protect our basic needs. Each



need, therefore, has a negative side asFreud first said the pleasure-unpleasureprinciple(emphasis added). This means weaim to increase pleasure (approach) but alsoto avoid pain and discomfort (avoidance). Itis important to note that Grawe reportedthat these two schemata can be activated atthe same time as they rely on differentneuronal circuits (2007). This is alsosupported by other observers (Cacioppo,Gardner & Berntson, 1997; Corr &McNaughton, 2012; Gray & McNaughton,1996). This means that an individual canhave approach and avoidance schemataactive at the same time for a particular basicneed. As an example an individual in thebusiness world may want the new promotionbut be simultaneously afraid of the responsi-bility. This creates motivational conflict andsomething that many coaches are ofteninstrumental in helping their clients come toterms with.

This. therefore, gives us a model with fivebasic human needs, SCOAP, to fulfil orprotect. The conscious and unconsciousdesire to fulfil or protect these needs giverise to the two motivational schemata ofapproach and avoidance. These two motiva-tional schemata can be in conflict with eachother when an individual simultaneouslywants something but is afraid of it also.

The human being is, however, in an envi-ronment and will be in constant interactionwith the environment and receive constantfeedback as to the success or failure(perceived) of fulfilling or protecting basicneeds. Hence motivational strategies will beconstantly refined or alternately becomeincreasingly positively or negativelyanchored: Im a quick learner (approach);I cant do that (avoidance), etc.1

Furthermore we can speak about successof motivational strategies as congruence. Individuals will aim to fulfil or protect theirSCOAP 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 aneed but fails and the need is unfulfilledor violated (approach incongruence).

l No-Success: when an individual tries toprotect a basic need and is successful(avoidance congruence).

l No-Fail: when an individual tries toprotect a basic need but is unsuccessfuland the basic need is violated (avoidanceincongruence).

l No-Go refers to when we have amotivational conflict with both approachand avoidance motivational schemataactive at the same time.

Congruence in short refers to the ability tofulfil a basic need with ones own resources.

The system perspectiveConsistency is the higher system level: it isthe sum of SCOAP fulfilment and thecongruence of motivational strategies. Allhuman beings strive to be consistent, that is,have our needs fulfilled, have the resourcesto fulfil our needs and to keep them fulfilled.However, inconsistency is common and wehave also developed many internal uncon-scious strategies that give human beings theillusion of consistency common in psycho-logical theory: confabulations, cognitivedissonance, denial, etc.

Klaus Grawes most dramatic postulationis that inconsistency is the foremost cause ofmental disturbances and moreover thatthere is also a strong correlation betweenavoidance schema and mental illness. Hisresearch before his death and continued byMartin Grosse Holtforth lends empiricalsupport to this and his Consistency Theory(Grosse Holtforth et al., 2007; Holtforth etal., 2006; Holtforth et al., 2005; Holtforth &Michalak, 2012).

The more important component for usand what we are aiming to propose in this



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 providea model that, at a system level and a motiva-tional level, gives clear insights to challengesand issues in coaching. Moreover it providesa clear level of intervention and clear under-standing of resource activation for coachees.The model we propose draws on Grawesmodel 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 TheoryWe will be reviewing the extended version ofthis theory in further articles and a book tobe published with Springer 2014/15. Wepropose that the basic human needs, formu-lated as SCOAP, as the core of any coachingintervention and can be used as a frameworkfor sustainable successful coaching relation-ships. Using the SCOAP Coach Theory can,we claim, direct us to better and moresustainable coaching interventions based onthe underlying research and theories.



Figure 1: Overview of SCOAP Coach Theory.

1. SCOAP fulfilment or violation: Coachingas a tool for basic need fulfilmentA coachee enters into a coaching relation-ship with a reason this may be very clearlyformulated such as career progression,career transition, etc. We noted earlier thatself-esteem/confidence is the number onecited reason for entering into a coachingrelationship. In short coachees will seek outcoaches to help them in further fulfillingbasic needs. Alternatively a coachee mayseek a coach because of violation of basicneeds. This may also be, for example, incases of outplacement coaching or derail-ment coaching. However, a study publishedby the Harvard Business Review (Kauffman &Coutu, 2009) noted that this is only smallproportion of corporate coaching (we knowof no similar research in life coaching).Coaching is hence seen as a tool forincreased basic need fulfilment and isindeed a valuable tool in developing newstrategies and motivation to further fulfilbasic needs, SCOAP.

We also note here that a simple distinc-tion for the ongoing discussion of whencounselling or coaching is that counsellingdeals with (should deal with) severe or consis-tent basic needs violation which has led to asevere disruption in mental consistency.

Understanding the coachees SCOAPprofile and respective fulfilment and viola-tion is, therefore, the first building block inthe SCOAP Coach Theory.

However, to be able to fulfil their SCOAPthe coachee will need to be able to activateresources. Therefore, this leads us to: Coaching as resource activation for basicneed fulfilmentThe role of the coach is, of course, to helpthe coachee to engage in their own resourceactivation to be able to fulfil their basicneeds with their own resources. This wasresearched by Klaus Grawe and he putresource activation at the heart of therapysuccess (Gassmann & Grawe, 2006).Resource activation can, however, only besuccessful if we have the second buildingblock of the SCOAP Coach theory:

2. Motivational Schemata: Coaching asapproach schema activatorResource activation is key to coaching andthe most famous and simplest coachingmodels clearly use this in their models. For acoachee to fulfil their basic needs they willneed to have an approach schema andhence the role of the coach will be to activatethese schema and allow the coachee to expe-rience success. We did not enter into thediscussion of the neurobiology of rewiringand relearning but it is clear that positiveexperiences are key to creating sustainablehabits and making any coaching interven-tion sustainable.

Hence the second building block in theSCOAP Coach Theory is that of under-standing coachees motivational schematawith reference to their SCOAP Profile. Theexperience of success, as we havementioned, is crucial and this is the nextbuilding block:3. Congruency: Coaching as congruencemanagement systemA coachee who is unable or unsure of how tofurther fulfil basic needs, is unable to avoiddamage to basic needs or has a motivationalconflict will need help in congruencemanagement. Hence the role of the coachwill be to help bring resource activation, goalfulfilment and violation avoidance into line.This may in turn also require enhancing andrefining the coachees feedback system:Coaching as feedback controlFeedback as an essential part of the coachingprocess coaching is often core in helpingthe feedback system and bringing attentionto environmental and coachee specificfactors that the coachee may be unaware of.This unawareness can be a cause of incon-gruence hence the role of the coach increating realistic feedback loops and acti-vating resources is crucial to successfulcoaching interventions.

The third building block is hencecongruency based on the coachees SCOAPprofile and motivational schemata. Howthese interact will lead to the final level:



4. Consistency: Coaching success as consis-tency managementAt the highest level coaching is about consis-tency management helping the coacheeactivate their own resources to be able tosuccessfully manage their consistency: thesystem level of basic need fulfilment, motiva-tion and personal internal resources tomanage SCOAP fulfilment.

Hence the role of the coach is to understandthe SCOAP profile of a coachee, their moti-vational schemata and their feeling ofcongruence. The coach based on this knowl-edge can help the coachee to develop strate-gies, activate approach schema and activateresources to create congruence and experi-ence success and hence fulfil their SCOAP2.

The SCOAP Coach Theory is first andforemost a framework that draws on solid andextensive research into neuroscience andpsychology and consolidates much ofcoaching theory and research. We proposethat within this framework we can thenanalyse coaching methodologies, tools andtechniques and explain their value and poten-tial for success based on how they slot into theframework (e.g. a coaching techniquefocusing on self-esteem fulfilment will beparticularly effective for a coachee with weakself-esteem but may not be for a coachee withan unfulfilled need for attachment). We alsotook this approach in Neuroleadershipanalysing organisational tools and leadershipstyles under the spotlight of SCOAP. It willhighlight when and why certain coachingmethodologies such as GROW3 (Whitmore,1992) will likely be sufficient and successful.By the same token we can think of coachingtools and techniques in terms of where andhow they fit into the framework and wherethey will be most effective.

We hence propose SCOAP Coach Theoryas an over-riding framework that will high-

light where and when to intervene and whatparticular interventions will be suitable andlead to the greatest success for an individualcoachee. We place the basic human needs,SCOAP, and motivational strategies at theheart of the coaching process.

Summary of SCOAP Coach TheoryThe SCOAP Coach Theory builds aroundthe premise that five basic human needs,SCOAP, are at the heart of human well-being. To fulfil the separate and collectiveneeds of SCOAP individuals will developdifferent motivational strategies that havebeen learned and refined over their lifetimeand previous experiences. These motiva-tional strategies will fall into two broad cate-gories of approach and avoidance. Thesemotivational strategies may be successful(congruence) or be repeatedly unsuccessful(incongruence). Avoidance strategies andcontinued unsuccessful strategies lead to adecrease in well-being. SCOAP, motivationand congruence together form the systemperspective of consistency and the role of thecoach is ultimately to help the coacheecreate consistency.

From a neurobiological perspective weknow that fulfilling SCOAP will create ahealthy chemical environment in the brainand promote positive learning and wiring inthe brain. The counter is also true: SCOAPviolation causes disruptions in mental well-being and also in the neurobiological envi-ronment in the brain.

The coach armed with this knowledgeand the SCOAP Coach Theory can betterimplement their toolbox and techniques toaccompany, intervene and help the coacheebuild and access their resources at preciselythe right place and for the right reason. Thisdoes not replace other coaching models andtheories but rather integrates these modelsand gives an overriding model and frame-



2 Each coachee, it goes without saying, will have anchored their view of their own SCOAP differently. Some willhave 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 usethese to support consistency of the coachee.

Furthermore the SCOAP Coach Theoryalso highlights the key factors for coachingsuccess such as resource activation, approachschema and ability to experience success tobe able to rewire and anchor new behav-iours.

Further writing and papers will outline inmore detail the specific components of theSCOAP Coach Theory.

We leave you with a final thought andshortest possible summary of this paper:High SCOAP = high hope.

The AuthorsAndy HabermacherPresident Human Brains Foundation.Co-Author Neuroleadership.

Professor Dr Theo PetersOrganisation and Project Management,Bonn-Rhine-Sieg University of Applied Sciences. Co-Author Neuroleadership.

Argang Ghadiri, MScPhD candidate, Bonn-Rhine-Sieg University of Applied Sciences. Co-Author Neuroleadership.

CorrespondenceAndy HabermacherPresident Human Brains Foundation,CEO leading brains,Certified Master Coach (BCI).Bleicherstrasse 4, 6003 Luzern, Switzerland.Email: [email protected]



Aguggia, J.P., Suarez, M.M. & Rivarola, M.A. (2013).Early maternal separation: Neurobehavioralconsequences in mother rats. BehavBrain Res,248C (18727549 (Electronic)), 2531.

Alderfer, C.P. (1969). An empirical test of a newtheory of human needs. Organisational Behaviorand Human Performance, 4(2), 142175.

Arias-Carrin, O., Stamelou, M., Murillo-Rodrguez,E., Menndez-Gonzlez, M. & Pppel, E. (2010).Dopaminergic reward system: A short integrativereview. International Archives of Medicine, 3(1), 24.

Bagby, E. (1923). The inferiority reaction. The Journalof 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). Oxytocinshapes the neural circuitry of trust and trustadaptation 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 producedepression-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. DevelopmentalPsychology, 5, 759775.

Brown, S.M., Henning, S. & Wellman, C.L. (2005).Mild, short-term stress alters dendriticmorphology in rat medial prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 15(11), 17141722.

Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L. & Berntson, G.G.(1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualisations andmeasures: The case of attitudes and evaluativespace. Personality and Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality andSocial Psychology, Inc, 1(1), 325.

Corr, P.J. & McNaughton, N. (2012). Neuroscienceand 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 motivationand 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). Theneural sociometer: Brain mechanisms under-lying state self-esteem. Journal of Cognitive Neuro-science, 23(11), 34483455.

Eisenberger, N.I. & Lieberman, M.D. (2004). Whyrejection hurts: A common neural alarm systemfor physical and social pain. Trends in CognitiveSciences, 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 Volume5: Personality and Social Psychology (pp.159184).Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Freud, S. (1911). Formulations regarding the twoprinciples in mental functioning. Collected Papers,4, 1321.

Gassmann, D. & Grawe, K. (2006). General changemechanisms: The relation between problem activation and resource activation in successfuland 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 andprolonged maternal separation affects behavioralreactions 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 torat medial prefrontal cortex following chronicrestraint 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 theNebraska Symposium on Motivation, 43, 61134.

Grosse Holtforth, M., Pincus, A.L., Grawe, K., Mauler,B. & Castonguay, L.G. (2007). When what youwant is not what you get: Motivational correlatesof interpersonal problems in clinical and non-clinical samples. Journal of Social & ClinicalPsychology, 26(10), 10951119.

Holtforth, M.G., Bents, H., Mauler, B. & Grawe, K.(2006). Interpersonal distress as a mediatorbetween avoidance goals and goal satisfaction inpsychotherapy 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. PsychotherapyResearch, 15, 261271.

Holtforth, M.G. & Michalak, J. (2012). Motivation inpsychotherapy. In R.M. Ryan (Ed.), The OxfordHandbook of Human Motivation (pp.441462).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kauffman, C. & Coutu, D. (2009). The realities ofexecutive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 2(January), 125.

Kri, S. & Kiss, I. (2011). Oxytocin response in a trustgame and habituation of arousal. Physiology &Behavior, 102(2), 221224.

Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P.J., Fischbacher, U.& Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust inhumans. Nature, 435, 673676.

Kross, E., Berman, M.G., Mischel, W., Smith, E.E. &Wager, T.D. (2011). Social rejection sharessomatosensory representations with physicalpain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof 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 whatwe 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 dopamineand reward. Neuron, 36(2), 241263.

Skeels, H.M. & Dye, H.B. (1939). A study of theeffects of differential stimulation on mentallyretarded 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 andreward. 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). Maternaldeprivation increases cell death in the infant ratbrain. Developmental Brain Research, 133(1), 111.



Copyright of Coaching Psychologist is the property of British Psychological Society and itscontent may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or emailarticles for individual use.

the case for basic human needs in coaching

Documents