Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence

[3][4] Graves used a variety of names for his theory during his lifetime, ranging from the generic Levels of Human Existence in his earlier work[5] to lengthy names such as Emergent Cyclical, Phenomenological, Existential Double-Helix Levels of Existence Conception of Adult Human Behavior (1978) and Emergent Cyclical Double-Helix Model of the Adult Bio-Pyscho-Social Behaviour (1981).

[1] Rather than construct a hypothesis about how the conflicting systems could be resolved, Graves posed several open-ended questions and looked to see what patterns would emerge from his data.

[15] Each year, Graves recruited seven to nine new judges who knew nothing of the project, and instructed them as follows: Take these conceptions of mature personality, study them, then sort them into the fewest possible categories if you find them to be classifiable.

Graves studied the groups through one-way mirrors, gathering data on how they organized themselves, interacted with each other, solved problems, and performed on standard tests.

[18] Graves's analysis of the data collected and researched through the experiments described above became the basis for emergent cyclical (E-C) theory.

[21] E-C theory produces an open-ended system of levels, which set Graves's work apart from many of his contemporaries, such as Abraham Maslow, who sought a final, perfectible state of human development.

[9] E-C theory holds that new bio-psycho-social coping systems emerge within humans in response to the interplay of external life conditions or existential problems with internal neurobiology.

[26] When parallel conditions and systems are paired (AN, BO, CP, DQ, ER, FS...), they describe a level of existence.

Beyond FS the cycle repeats with additional neurobiological systems adding much more development on the fundamental states, with the result that "motivations are recapitulated in a much vaster conceptual context."

Any barriers to making this change must be removed or overcome, and once newly centralized at FS, the person needs a supportive environment while they come to fully understand how to successfully exist at this new level.

[31] While the levels are the most well-known part of E-C theory, Graves emphasized that they are theoretical constructs rather than realities, calling them "the base points from which the living, behaving human varies.

[19] Unless otherwise noted in the column heading or individual cell, the information in the following table is adapted from the first few pages of each level's description in The Never Ending Quest.

"[37] However, in his review of The Never Ending Quest, Allan Combs agrees that Graves's theory shows "broad similarities to the highly researched stage the- ories of Lawrence Kohlberg (1981) and Carol Gilligan (1993), as well as Robert Kegan (1994) and others.

"[38] Graves also validated aspects of his change process against other researchers who had used recognized scales for measuring a person's psychological state.

In the time since Graves's death, assessments have been produced by practitioners of Spiral Dynamics, which is built on E-C theory.

[46] Graves's primary data set, which produced the CP-B'O' levels, consisted entirely of students taking his "Normal Psychology" course, raising concerns of sampling bias and lack of diverse life perspectives.

[38] During the 1970s, Graves collected additional data from prison populations,[47] industrial workers, and other educational institutions, although it is not documented how this compared to his original methodology, or the degree to which it impacted the theory.

[48] In his review of The Never Ending Quest, Allan Combs notes that the timeline of the emergence of the levels, while "at home with modern scholarship on the history of consciousness," is speculative beyond what Graves's data could support.

For example, Loevinger cited his observations on relative developmental levels of managers and employees while of defending her concept of ego development as the "master trait" in response to a competing proposal of neuroticism or conscientiousness occupying that role.

[67] Graves's work influenced Ken Wilber's integral theory starting no later than 1995, prior to the publication of Spiral Dynamics.

[68] By way of Spiral Dynamics, this influence became increasingly prominent during the 2000s,[69] although subsequent changes by Wilber have diverged from Graves in some respects such as truncating the second "tier" of stages to two, contradicting the "six upon six" hypothesis.