Self-Actualization In Psychology: Theory, Examples & Characteristics

Self-actualization (also referred to as self-realization or self-cultivation) can be described as the complete realization of one’s potential as manifest in peak experiences which involve the full development of one’s abilities and appreciation for life (Maslow, 1962).

The attainment of self-actualization involves one’s full involvement in life and the realization of that which one is capable of accomplishing.

Generally, the state of self-actualization is viewed as obtainable only after one’s fundamental needs for survival, safety, love, and self-esteem are met (Maslow, 1943, 1954).

Self-Actualization Theory

Self-actualization theory emphasizes the innate drive of individuals to reach their full potential.

Kurt Goldstein highlighted the holistic nature of self-actualization, encompassing physical, psychological, and social well-being.

Maslow proposed a hierarchy of needs, with self-actualization at the highest level, while Rogers focused on the importance of congruence and unconditional positive regard in fostering personal growth. 

Kurt Goldstein

The term “self-actualization” is most associated with Abraham Maslow. But he did not coin it. Kurt Goldstein, a physician specializing in psychiatry and neuroanatomy, introduced it in the early 20th century.

Goldstein (1939, 1940) viewed self-actualization as the ultimate goal of every organism. It named an individual’s desire for self-fulfillment and the propensity to become actualized in one’s potential.

Every living thing counted.

He contended that each human being, plant, and animal has an inborn goal to actualize itself as it is.

Goldstein pointed out that organisms, therefore, behave in accordance with this overarching motivation.

In his book, “The Organism: A Holistic Approach to Biology Derived from Pathological Data in Man”, Goldstein argued that self-actualization involves the tendency to actualize an organism’s individual capacities as much as possible (Goldstein, 2000).

According to Goldstein’s (1940) view, self-actualization was not a goal to be reached in the future. It was an organism’s innate propensity to realize its potential at any moment, under the circumstances it faced.

Carl Rogers

Carl Rogers described self-actualization as a continuous, lifelong process. An individual’s self-concept is maintained and enhanced through reflection and the reinterpretation of experience, which lets the person recover, change and develop (Rogers, 1951).

This process never really stops.

According to Rogers (1967), the human organism has an underlying “actualizing tendency.” It works to develop all capacities in ways that maintain or enhance the organism and move it toward autonomy.

That regard has to come from somewhere.

According to Rogers, people could only self-actualize if they had a positive self-view, or positive self-regard. That depends on unconditional positive regard from others. People need to feel valued and respected without reservation, especially by their parents in childhood.

Self-actualization also requires congruence: how a person sees themselves (their self-image) must match their ideal self, the way they want to be. A large gap between the two breeds negative self-worth. Self-actualization then becomes impossible.

Rogers (1967) held that the self is a consistent yet fluid pattern of self-perceptions, organized and formed through evaluational interactions. Tension can arise. When a person’s ideal self pulls away from their actual experience, the resulting incongruence becomes a psychopathological state, rooted in the perversion of their own actualizing tendency.

For Rogers (1967), a person who is in the process of self-actualizing, actively exploring potentials and abilities and experiencing a match between real and ideal selves is a fully functioning person.

Becoming a Fully functioning person means “that the individual moves towards “being”, knowingly and acceptingly, the process which he inwardly and actually “is.” He moves away from what he is not, from being a facade.

This takes courage.

He is not trying to be more than he is, with the attendant feelings of insecurity or bombastic defensiveness. He is not trying to be less than he is, with the attendant feelings of guilt or self-deprecation.

He is increasingly listening to the deepest recesses of his psychological and emotional being, and finds himself increasingly willing to be, with greater accuracy and depth, that self which he most truly is”.

Few people manage it fully.

Fully functioning people are in touch with their own feelings and abilities and are able to trust their innermost urges and intuitions.

To become fully functioning, a person needs unconditional positive regard from others, especially their parents in childhood.

Unconditional positive regard is an attitude of acceptance of others despite their failings.

Not everyone gets this.

However, most people don’t perceive the positive regard of others as being unconditional. They tend to think they will only be loved and valued if they meet certain conditions of worth.

These conditions of worth create incongruity within the self. The real self, how a person actually is, pulls against the ideal self, how they think they should be or want to be.

Abraham Maslow

As did Goldstein, Maslow viewed self-actualization as realizing one’s potential. However, Maslow (1943) described self-actualization more narrowly than Goldstein, restricting it to human beings rather than all organisms.

Maslow pointed out that humans have lower-order needs that must be generally met before their higher order needs can be satiated, such as self-actualization. He categorized those needs as follows (Maslow, 1943):

Self-actualization is the final stage of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, so not every human being reaches it.

To Maslow, self-actualization meant the desire for self-fulfillment, or a person’s tendency to be actualized in what he or she is potentially.

Individuals may perceive or focus on this need very specifically. For example, one individual may have a strong desire to become an ideal parent. In another, the desire may be expressed economically, academically, or athletically. For others, it may be expressed creatively in paintings, pictures, or inventions.

The form varies.

Maslow further explained that self-actualization involves the intrinsic development of an organism. He contended that self-actualization is more growth-oriented than deficiency-focused (Gleitman, Fridlund, & Riesberg, 2004).

Maslow acknowledged the apparent rarity of self-actualized people and argued that most people are suffering from psychopathology of normality.

Most people never fully reach it.

Unlike Sigmund Freud, whose psychodynamic approach was focused on unhealthy individuals engaging in disturbing conduct, Maslow was associated with the humanistic approach, which focuses on healthy individuals.

Consequently, Maslow’s perspective is more consistent with a positive view of human nature, which sees individuals as driven to reach their potential. This humanistic perspective markedly differs from the Freudian view of human beings as tension-reducing organisms.

Examples of Self-Actualizations

Examples of self-actualization can vary greatly from person to person as it involves the pursuit of personal growth and fulfillment in line with one’s unique values and aspirations. 

Some examples may include:

1. Pursuing a passion or creative endeavor, such as painting, writing, or playing an instrument.
2. Setting and achieving meaningful goals that align with personal values and aspirations.
3. Engaging in acts of kindness and altruism to contribute to the well-being of others.
4. Seeking personal development through continuous learning and acquiring new skills.
5. Embracing authenticity and living in alignment with one’s true values and beliefs.
6. Cultivating meaningful relationships and connections with others based on mutual respect and support.
7. Engaging in self-reflection and introspection to gain deeper self-awareness and personal insight.
8. Making choices and decisions that prioritize personal happiness and well-being rather than external validation.
9. Embracing and accepting oneself fully, including both strengths and weaknesses.
10. Experiencing moments of flow, where one is fully immersed and engaged in an activity that brings a sense of joy, purpose, and fulfillment.

Moving beyond mere theory and speculation, Maslow identified several individuals he considered to have attained a level of self-actualization (Maslow, 1970).

Noteworthy herein are the diversity of occupations and the variety of the backgrounds which these individuals represent while still meeting the criteria of self-actualization.

• Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865; American President)
• Albert Einstein (1879- 1955; Theoretical Physicist)
• Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965; Writer, Humanitarian, Theologian, Organist, Philosopher, and Physician)
• Aldous Huxley (1894- 1963; Philosopher and Writer)
• Baruch Spinoza (1632- 1677; Philosopher)
• Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962; Diplomat and Activist)
• Jane Addams (1860-1935; Settlement Activist, Sociologist, Public Administrator)
• Thomas Jefferson (1743- 1826; American President, Architect, Philosopher)
• William James (1842- 1910; Philosopher and Psychologist)

How Maslow Identified Self-Actualizers

Maslow’s fifteen characteristics did not come from an experiment or a validated questionnaire. They came from his own biographical study of a small, hand-picked group of people he judged to be unusually psychologically healthy. How he arrived at the list shapes how much weight the list deserves.

The Biographical Method

Aim: Maslow (1954) set out to describe what psychologically healthy people are like. He wanted to build a “positive” psychology of the fully developed person, instead of the clinical literature’s usual focus on the sick and the average.

Method: Maslow screened out anyone showing neurosis or psychopathy, then sought positive evidence of self-actualization in people using their talents fully.

Nothing here was standardized.

His cases came from personal acquaintances, public figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Albert Einstein, and a few promising younger people.

Findings: Maslow distilled a recurring cluster of about fifteen traits, including self-acceptance, deep relationships, and a philosophical sense of humour.

He judged genuine self-actualization to be rare. Even self-actualizers, he said, were “conspicuously not perfect.”

Conclusion: Maslow believed he had found a real, describable pattern of psychological health, one that helped launch both humanistic and positive psychology.

He himself later called the method “pretty crude.”

A Contested Foundation

The method is the theory’s best-known weakness.

It is subjective: Maslow alone decided who counted as self-actualized, so the portrait risks reflecting his own values rather than an independent standard.

It is also circular. Self-actualizers were defined by certain qualities, then found to have those qualities, with no control group and no test independent of Maslow’s own judgement.

Critics have also raised the nominal fallacy here: naming a pattern “self-actualization” can be mistaken for actually explaining it.

The sample was narrow, too. It leaned heavily on well-educated Western men.

Only a handful of women, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jane Addams, appear, and there was little ethnic or class diversity. That imbalance limits how far the portrait generalizes.

None of this erases the insight. It just means the fifteen traits describe a rich hypothesis, not an established finding.

Characteristics of Self-Actualized Individuals

Abraham Maslow based his theory on case studies of historical figures whom he saw as examples of self-actualized individuals, including Albert Einstein, Ruth Benedict, and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Maslow examined the lives of each of these people in order to assess the common qualities that led each to become self-actualized.

Based on Maslow’s description of self-actualizers, one can find several striking similarities that these supposedly self-actualized individuals share in common.

Some of such characteristics which distinguish self-actualized individuals from the rest of humanity are as follows (Maslow, 1954, 1970).

1. Acceptance: self-actualized people accept others and their own flaws with humor and tolerance, and stay true to themselves rather than performing for others (Talevich, 2017).
2. Independence: they tend to be self-governing and resourceful, relying on their own judgement rather than external authorities to direct their lives (Martela & Pessi, 2018).
3. Deep Relationships: they cultivate a few close, loving relationships rather than many shallow ones.
4. Appreciation: they maintain a fresh, grateful appreciation even for life’s ordinary pleasures.
5. Clear Perception: they judge people and situations accurately, comfortable with ambiguity and quick to spot dishonesty.
6. Autonomy: they seldom depend on their environment or culture to form their opinions.
7. Purpose: they see life as a mission or calling that reaches beyond themselves.
8. Spontaneity: their behaviour is natural and unpretentious, even where their outer conduct stays conventional.
9. Need for Solitude: they tolerate, and often enjoy, more privacy and solitude than most people.
10. Sense of Humour: their humour is thoughtful and self-deprecating rather than hostile or superior.

Critical Evaluation

Despite the popularity of self-actualization as a concept associated with positive psychology and motivation theories, it does not cease to draw criticism.

The Canadian psychiatrist Eric Berne for instance, has called self-actualization the game of self-expression based on the belief that good feelings are to be pursued (Berne, 2016).

Additionally, critics have pointed out that self-actualizing tendencies can lead to a positive but non-relational approach to human beings (Thorne, 1992).

Fritz Perls warned that the focus can drift, too. Striving to actualize one’s true self can turn into merely building an appearance of self-actualization, which is misleading (Perls, 1992).

Vitz (1994) has contended that Maslow and Rogers have turned the psychological concept of self-actualization into a moral norm. Finally, the possibility of self-actualization has also come to be seen as a special privilege reserved only for a select few.

Maslow disagreed.

In response to these concerns, Maslow has acknowledged that expressions of unrestrained whims and the pursuit of private pleasures have often been mislabeled as self-actualization (Daniels, 2005). Maslow, too, shared the concern that the concept might be misunderstood.

In fact, when many people wrote to Maslow describing themselves as self-actualized persons, Maslow doubted whether he had sufficiently articulated his theory (Steven, 1975).

He kept refining the theory.

However, Maslow did not hold that only an elite few could attain the state of self-actualization. On the contrary, he pointed out that often people living in strikingly similar circumstances experience enormously different outcomes in life.

He reasoned that such a reality underscores the importance of attitude as a factor that influences one’s destiny.

Paradoxical narrative of self-actualization

Winston (2018) takes a fresh look at Abraham Maslow’s classic work on self-actualization. She provides a nuanced analysis of the paradoxical nature of self-actualizers’ perceptions of themselves, others, and the world.

Winston dismantles Maslow’s chapter on self-actualization from his seminal Motivation and Personality book and rearranges it to demonstrate the ongoing struggle Maslow faced in describing self-actualizers.

The contradictions are deliberate.

On one hand, he would characterize them in a certain way, only to provide a contradictory example shortly after. For instance, he described them as accepting reality yet noted they display resignation. Or as free from excessive guilt yet not immune to anxiety and self-criticism (Winston, 2018).

Both readings appear in his notes.

On one hand, Maslow portrayed self-actualizers as comfortable with uncertainty, doubt and vagueness. Yet he also stated they are rarely unsure or conflicted (Winston, 2018).

Both are true at once.

Additionally, he characterized them as capable of fully identifying with, and losing themselves in, close relationships. However, he also noted they retain a certain detachment from loved ones.

Rather than dismissing these opposing descriptions as contradictions or inconsistencies, as some scholars have done, Winston sees them as paradoxes that convey the complexity of psychological health. In her analysis, she uncovers three key paradoxes:

1. Self-actualizers share common traits yet remain utterly unique individuals.
2. Their perceptions of themselves, others and the world are simultaneously positive and negative. They have an accurate view of reality as messy rather than black-and-white.
3. They can accept what cannot change yet have the courage to change what they can, displaying wisdom in discerning the difference (Winston, 2018).

Winston argues the paradoxes are not flaws to tidy away. They reflect the genuine, contextually appropriate complexity of psychological health.

Her framework challenges approaches that unconditionally promote some potentials while suppressing others. Instead, she advocates examining the conditions under which any given potentiality may be adaptive or maladaptive.

For individualistic cultures only?

The concept of self-actualization, characterized by realizing one’s full potential, is often seen as the pinnacle of psychological development. However, the cultural specificity of self-actualization has been questioned (Ivtzan, 2008).

Specifically, the individualistic focus on developing uniqueness, fulfilling one’s capacities, and prioritizing personal growth over social belonging may not generalize across cultures.

Not every culture agrees.

Research suggests self-actualization aligns closely with individualistic values prominent in the West. It fits less well with the collectivist values of interdependence and social harmony found in Asia, Africa, and Central and South America.

Ivtzan tested this directly.

Itai Ivtzan (2008) compared 100 British (individualistic culture) and 100 Indian (collectivist culture) participants aged 18-25 on their responses to the Personal Orientation Inventory (POI). The POI measures 12 characteristics seen as central to self-actualization (Shostrom, 1963).

The results were striking.

As predicted, the British group scored significantly higher than the Indian group on 10 out of 12 scales, including time competence, inner-directedness, self-actualizing values, feeling reactivity, and self-acceptance.

Ivtzan concluded that the concept of self-actualization, as currently defined, lacks cross-cultural validity. The lower POI scores from the Indian group likely reflect measurement bias rather than truly less self-actualization.

Cultures shape the meaning of self-fulfillment in different ways. While the drive to achieve one’s potential is universal, how this manifests likely depends on cultural values.

These findings underscore the need to re-examine concepts like self-actualization through a cross-cultural lens.

Applying Western models globally risks promoting an ethnocentric view of human motivation and adjustment. Future research should explore how self-actualization presents in diverse cultures. Practically, the study also cautions the use of self-actualization theory in multi-cultural organizational contexts.

Contemporary Research

Recent studies ask whether Maslow’s descriptive portrait, not his strict ranking of needs, survives modern testing.

Aim: Kaufman (2023) tested whether Maslow’s characteristics of self-actualizing people form one coherent, externally valid construct.

No prior scale had done this.

Method: Kaufman built a 30-item scale, the Characteristics of Self-Actualization Scale, covering traits such as authenticity, purpose and peak experiences.

He validated it against personality and well-being measures in adult samples.

Results: The ten characteristics loaded onto a single general factor. Higher scorers were more motivated by growth than by deficiency, and reported greater life satisfaction, self-acceptance, purpose and self-transcendent experiences.

Conclusion: Kaufman concluded that Maslow’s portrait holds up under modern testing.

The design is correlational, though. So it shows the traits cohere and predict flourishing, not that self-actualization causes it.

Three further studies extend the picture. Martela and Pessi (2018) reviewed the meaningful-work literature and found that people experience work as meaningful when it fuses self-realisation with a broader, self-transcendent purpose.

Fu and Ma (2022) built a scale for peak-experience triggers and tested it on 424 employees. Peak experiences at work predicted proactive behaviour and positive word-of-mouth, especially when closely tied to the job itself.

Kitson et al. (2020) reviewed the self-transcendence literature systematically. Reliable measures now exist. But no single “gold standard” instrument has emerged.

Self-Transcendence and Theory Z

Late in his life, Maslow (1971) argued self-actualization is not actually the top of human development.

He distinguished two kinds of self-actualizer. “Merely healthy” self-actualizers are practical, effective people for whom peak experiences and mystical, cosmic awareness matter relatively little.

“Transcenders,” by contrast, are self-actualizers for whom peak experiences and a sense of connection to something larger are central and consciously motivating.

Few people reach this stage.

Maslow called this higher reach Theory Z. Above self-actualization he placed self-transcendence: the motivation to go beyond the personal self to serve a cause, other people, or something larger.

Self-transcendence is the least-developed part of Maslow’s theory, cut short by his death in 1970. It remains the part most alive in contemporary positive psychology, where it has been revived and popularised as a “new science of self-actualization” (Kaufman, 2020).

References

Berne, E. (2016). Games people play the psychology of human relationships. Penguin Life.

Daniels, M. (2005). Shadow, self, spirit: essays in transpersonal psychology (p. 122). Imprint Academic.

Gleitman, Henry & Fridlund, Alan & Riesberg, Daniel. (2004). Psychology (6th Ed.) . New York: Norton.

Goldstein, K. (1939). The Organism. New York, NY: American Books.

Goldstein, K. (1940). Human Nature. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press.

Ivtzan, I. (2008). Self-actualisation: For individualistic cultures only? International Journal on Humanistic Ideology, 1(2), 113–140.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370-96.

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company.

Martela, F., & Pessi, A. B. (2018). Significant work is about self-realization and broader purpose: defining the key dimensions of meaningful work. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 363.

Maslow, A.H. (1970). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Perls, F. S. (1992). In and out the garbage pail. Gestalt Journal Press.

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered. Therapy, 515-520.

Rogers, C. (1963) The Actualizing Tendency in Relation to “Motives” and to Consciousness. In: Jones, M.R., Ed., Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1-24.

Rogers, C. (1967). On becoming a person: a therapist’s view of psychotherapy. London: Constable.

Rogers, C., & Kramer, P. D. (1995). On becoming a person : a therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.

Shostrom, E. L. (1963). Personal orientation inventory.

Stevens, B. (1975). Body work. Gestalt is, 160-191.

Talevich, J. R., Read, S. J., Walsh, D. A., Iyer, R., & Chopra, G. (2017). Toward a comprehensive taxonomy of human motives . PloS one, 12 (2), e0172279.

Thoma, E. (1963). Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Psychosomatics, 4 (2), 122–123.

Thorne, B. (1992). Key figures in counselling and psychotherapy. Carl Rogers. Sage Publications, Inc.

Venter, Henry. (2017). Self-Transcendence: Maslow’s Answer to Cultural Closeness. Journal of Innovation Management, 4 (4), 3-7.

Vitz, P. C. (1994). Psychology as religion: The cult of self-worship . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Winston, C. N. (2018). To be and not to be: A paradoxical narrative of self-actualization. The Humanistic Psychologist, 46(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000082

Further Reading

• A cognitive‐systemic reconstruction of Maslow’s theory of self‐actualization
• An inventory for the measurement of self-actualization
• Questionnaire: Are you self-actualized?