This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Marketing & Advertising Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Psychology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is the significance of the reference to Thomas Franklin Moore on the first line?
Thanks
John Courtneidge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.171.42 (talk • contribs) 18:53, October 2, 2006

A second point

At:
http://www.interestfreemoney.org/papers/ourfourneeds.htm
an essay ('by' me) that describes a 'Four Component Needs theory' has been (for a longish time) publicised on the internet.
If I refer to this on the Wikipedia page, does that constitute an infringement of the Wikipedia rules/guidlines?
again, thanks
John Courtneidge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John courtneidge (talk • contribs) 19:11, October 2, 2006

The wikilink points to an article on a sportsman, with no mention of any academic background. I take it this is the wrong Ian Gough? Autarch (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC). yes (he's footballer) - Ian Gough: footballer. --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found: Professor Ian Gough. personal.lse.ac.uk/goughi/

I mean: Ian Gough, Professor Emeritus (University of Bath). --PLA y Grande Covián (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being terminally dumb, here, but what separates a "want" from a "psychological need" (or perhaps more tellingly, "subjective need")? Both are things that keep the organism emotionally happy and aren't typically found as motivators in those which lack the higher mental functions to conceive of spending energy to obtain something not absolutely vital for existence. Neither are actually crucial to survival or physical health, or even in some cases basic mental health. They just make your mood better, when you've already covered the actual, "if you don't get enough of this, you will literally die because your respiratory processes will pack up", literal needs. Note, for one thing, the way we have to teach children the difference between "I need" and "I want", and how the former is more likely to be satisfied so long as there's a reasonable basis behind it. If there is actually a separation between them I fancy it's quite fuzzy... 193.63.174.254 (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being terminally dumb - this is a common question and I must admit that when I first started studying consumer behaviour, it took me a long time to understand the distinction. Anyway, I'm much older and wiser now - and these days, I get it. I have added some additional commentary to the lead section of this article that hopefully answers your question. Feel free to contact me if you need further clarification. BronHiggs (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘Unmet’ and ‘need’ seem to be very contradictory. If a need is unmet, but the organism survives, is the need actually a need? 2601:541:680:6B10:75FA:1DA2:6534:8875 (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you! In the lead, it says: "In the case of a need, a deficiency causes a clear adverse outcome: a dysfunction or death." So yes, organisms can survive even when some of their needs are unmet. Lova Falk (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]