Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence

Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence (E-C theory or ECLET) is a theory of

adult human development constructed from experimental data by Union
College professor of psychology Clare W. Graves. It produces an open-ended series of
levels,[1] and has been used as a basis for Spiral Dynamics[2] and other managerial and
philosophical systems.[3][4]

Contents

 1Names
 2Motivation and experimental design
o 2.1Phase one: Essays on personal conceptions of the mature adult human
o 2.2Phase two: Classification of the essays
o 2.3Phase three: Observation of behaviors of groups of people with similar
conceptions
o 2.4Phase four: Making sense of the data through research
 3Development of the theory
o 3.1The emergent cyclical double-helix
o 3.2The six upon six hypothesis
o 3.3Conditions for change
 4The levels of existence
 5Verification of the theory
 6Using the theory with individuals
 7Criticism
 8Influence
 9Notes
 10References

Names[edit]
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).[6]
In his posthumously published book, The Never Ending Quest, Graves titled the chapter
introducing the theory "The Emergent Cyclical Model," and used the phrases "emergent
cyclical conception" ("E-C conception") and "emergent cyclical theory" ("E-C theory")
repeatedly as short names throughout the subsequent chapter on verifying his work.[7]
However, "levels of existence" is the more commonly known part of the phrase, and
was used in the title of the peer-reviewed 1970 article in the Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, the single such academic psychology publication Graves made during his
lifetime (although he also presented at academic conferences).[8]
Graves himself considered the levels to be artifacts of the theory,[9] therefore this article
adopts the following conventions:

 emergent cyclical theory (E-C theory) is used for the theory itself

 levels of existence refers to the open-ended set of levels generated by the
theory
 Gravesian theory, Gravesian thought, or ECLET is used when such
precision is not needed, or when there is need to discuss the body of work as
a whole
Typographically, this article adopts the letter pair formatting chosen for The Never
Ending Quest, which places the letters directly adjacent to each other (AN) rather than
hyphenated (A-N). This is the form used in the manuscript abandoned in 1977. Graves
used both hyphenated and unhyphenated forms, both before and after abandoning his
manuscript.[10] In contrast, in the same source "E-C" for "emergent cyclical" is always
hyphenated.[11]

Motivation and experimental design

Graves began his work in response to questions from his students regarding which of
various conflicting psychological theories was correct.[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.
While not typical at the time, these approaches would later become known as grounded
theory and inductive thematic analysis.[12]
Graves settled on the following questions to frame his experiments:[13]

1. What will be the nature and character of conceptions of psychological

maturity, in the biologically mature human being, produced by biologically
mature humans who are intelligent but relatively unsophisticated in
psychological knowledge in general, and theory of personality in
particular?
2. What will happen to a person's characterization of mature human
behavior when s/he is confronted with the criticism of his/her point of view
by peers who have also developed their own conception of
psychologically mature behavior?
3. What will happen to a person's conception of mature human behavior
when confronted with the task of comparing and contrasting his/her
conception of psychologically mature human personality to those
conceptions which have been developed by authorities in the field?
4. Into what categories and into how many categories, if any, will the
conceptions of mature human personality produced by intelligent,
biologically mature humans fall?
5. If the conceptions are classifiable, how do they compare structurally and
how do they compare functionally?
 6. If the conceptions are classifiable, how do the people who fall into classes
compare behaviorally as observed in quasi-experimental situations and in
every day life?
7. If the conceptions are classifiable, how do the people who fall into one
class compare to people who fall into other classes on standardized
psychological instruments?
These questions led him to design a four-phase experiment, in which collected pertinent
data from his psychology students and others. His initial research, conducted between
1952 and 1959, involved a diverse group of around 1,065 men and women aged 18 to
61.[14] Supplemental studies were carried out over the next twelve years.[13]
Phase one: Essays on personal conceptions of the mature adult
human[edit]
Students in Graves's class on "Normal Psychology" were assigned to develop their own
personal conception of the psychologically mature adult human. These students
included full-time male undergraduates, coed graduate students in teacher education
and industrial management, and coed night school students. The students were given
four weeks to produce the essay, during which the class covered relevant topics around
the nature of personality and relevant human behavior for developing such a
conception.[15][16]
Graves's students were not aware of the research project, and were told that the papers
would be graded on:[15]

1. Breadth of coverage of human behavior.

2. Concurrence with established psychological fact.
3. The internal consistency of the conception.
4. The applicability of the conception.
Next, the students spent four weeks in small groups where each student presented their
conception to the group and received criticism, after which they turned in a defense of
their existing conception, or a modified conception. This step demonstrated the reaction
of students to peer criticism. Finally, after another four weeks of small group study of
existing conceptions of mature personality in academic psychological literature, the
students once again turned in a defense or modification of their conception. This step
demonstrated the reaction of students to being confronted by authority. Graves
observed the students in their small group work, without their knowledge as logistics
allowed, and interviewed each student after the final defense or revision was turned in.[15]
Phase two: Classification of the essays[edit]
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. Do not force any into
categories. If some do not fit any category you decide upon, just place them into an
unclassifiable group.
Each judge first produced their own classification, and then the judges produced a
single classification by unanimous agreement. Essays for which no unanimous
classification could be determined were added to the unclassifiable group.[17][12]
Phase three: Observation of behaviors of groups of people with
similar conceptions
Graves also taught classes in Organizational/Industrial, Experimental, and Abnormal
Psychology, and most of his students from the Phase One studies took one of those
classes from him the semester after taking Normal Psychology. These classes were
structured such that students were organized into groups which, unknown to them, each
contained students with the same classification of mature personality. Students who had
not participated in Phase One were grouped together, providing what Graves called a
"moderate control" effect. Students in the Organizational and Experimental Psychology
classes were given specially designed problems to solve, while those in the Abnormal
Psychology class were given many standard psychological tests as part of that class's
normal approach. 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.[17][12]
Phase four: Making sense of the data through research
From 1960 until his retirement in the late 1970s, Graves researched other work in order
to make sense of confusing aspects of his data.[17] Since many adult humans do not take
psychology classes (the source of his data), including those from cultures who do not
participate in western educational systems, this phase also included research on how
such adults might fit with Graves's collected data.[18]

Development of the theory

Graves's analysis of the data collected and researched through the experiments
described above became the basis for emergent cyclical (E-C) theory.[6][19]
Graves theorized that in response to the interaction of external conditions with internal
neurological systems, humans develop new bio-psycho-social coping systems to solve
existential problems and cope with their worlds. These coping systems are dependent
on evolving human culture and individual development, and they are manifested at the
individual, societal, and species levels. While there is an ordered progression of stages,
later stages are not presented as "better" in the sense of moral superiority.[20] Rather,
each level is best suited to the existential problems that caused it to emerge.[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. Both progression and regression through the
levels are possible in response to environmental conditions.[22]
The emergent cyclical double-helix
One of several visualizations of Graves's emergent cyclical levels of existence. The prime (') marks are
explained under the six upon six hypothesis.

Emergent cyclical theory is more broad than just the well-known set of levels of
existence,[1] and Graves considered the levels themselves to simply be artifacts of the
theory.[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. It is this interaction, which cycles between what Graves
referred to as "express self" and "sacrifice self" systems, which is the core of the
theory[23]
Graves identified the existential problems / life conditions with letters in the first half of
the alphabet (A, B, C, D, E, F...), and the emergent coping systems with letters in the
second half (N, O, P, Q, R, S...).[24] Each system emerges in response to the
corresponding existential problems. (N in response to A, O in response to B, etc.)
[25]
 Color codes, which are common in later systems built on E-C theory, are not
something that Graves ever used.[26]
When parallel conditions and systems are paired (AN, BO, CP, DQ, ER, FS...), they
describe a level of existence. In these states, the active neuronal system is the one
most suited to solving the existential problems that are present in their environment. It is
also possible to have non-parallel situations, such as a person in an environment
with E level problems who has developed the Q neuronal system but not yet the R. This
person will often find the world confusing and stressful. On the other hand, a person
who is centralized at FS but finds themself in an environment of primarily E problems
will be frustrated for other reasons, such as everyone around them seeming to focus on
the "wrong" problems and solutions.[27]
Old systems remain available even after new systems are developed, and the level at
which a person is centralized can move forwards or backwards. A person centralized
at ER who feels the need for more community and spirit can, if conditions are right,
move up to FS. Or they might shift back to the familiar DQ at which they were
centralized in the past. For most people, multiple systems will be available, although
one may dominate.[27]
The six upon six hypothesis[edit]
Six upon six spiral model of E-C theory

For most of Graves's original period of research, GT was the latest state to appear.
Near the end, a small number of subjects expressing GT in his study shifted to a new
state, HU. This emergence, seven or so years into his experiment, of a rare new system
is what prompted Graves to view the set of states as open-ended, with no final, ultimate
state existing.[28]
Additionally, Graves noted a remarkable similarity between the HU and BO systems,
leading him to re-evaluate GT, finding it to have similarities with AN. From this
observation, he hypothesized that there are six fundamental coping
systems, AN through FS. 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." In recognition of
this, he began using primes to mark the higher-order systems,
renaming GT to A'N' and HU to B'O'.[29] While Graves viewed this hypothesis as
unproven, he felt that the data demanded its consideration.[28]
Conditions for change
A key part of E-C theory is the change process by which a person moves from one level
of existence to the next. There are six conditions for change in this process:[30]

1. Potential
2. Solutions of existing problems
3. Feeling of dissonance
4. Gaining of insights
5. Removal of barriers
6. Opportunity to consolidate
Consider a person centralized at ER, who is facing new problems of the F sort, which
will require a change to being centralized at FS. The person must have the potential to
change, including openness to change. They must have solved the problems of their
current level (the E problems), in order to have available energy and resources to focus
on the next set of problems (the F problems). They must have felt the dissonance that
comes from their currently dominant R system failing to solve the F problems. They
must gain insight into how the R system is failing them, and how the S system will help.
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]

The levels of existence

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."[32] In contrast to the values focus of the later
Spiral Dynamics formulation, Graves focused on the motivations that he saw as
underlying each level, with alternating "express" and "sacrifice" themes.[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.

The Levels of Existence produced by Graves's Emergent Cyclical Theory

Neurolog
Lett 6- Existentia Learnin
Summar Orienta ical
er on- Theme Drive l g Biology[34]
y tion Coping
Pair 6 Problems Style[33]
System

N:
Attuned
...as if
to
just
processin
another
g relevant
animal reducin
Autistic, A: info,
according g the
Automati Imperative responds
Express to the tension habituati [unspecified
AN c, , periodic, only to
self... dictates of on / unknown]
Reactive physiologi change in
of one's needs is
Existence cal needs intensity
imperativ right
of the
e periodic
imperativ
physiolog
e need
ical needs
and not to
patterning

BO Animistic Sacrific ...to the elders, B: Safety, O: Pavlovia [unspecified

, e self... traditions ancesto security, Attuned n / unknown]
Tribalisti of one's rs, and and to the
c elders, traditio assurance non-
Existence one's n know imperativ
ancestors the e,
 right aperiodic,
way to physiolog
be ical needs

...and to
P: Sense
hell with
conscious
the
C: ness, and
conseque
my way Boredom, conscious operant
Egocentri nces, lest noradrenalin
Express is the unchangin ness of or
CP c one suffer e>
self... right g elder- self, instrume
Existence the adrenaline
way dominated capacity ntal
torment
life to
of
experienc
unbearabl
e shame
e shame

Q:
D: Haves
only Avoidant
Absolutis vs have-
one learning,
tic, nots,
...now in right guilt,
Saintly, increased avoidan
order to way to defer adrenaline >
Moralisti Sacrific conscious ce
DQ receive think, gratificati noradrenalin
c- e self... ness of conditio
reward based on, e
Prescripti self and ning
later on control
ve others,
authorit impulses,
Existence awareness
y rationaliz
of death
e

R:
...for Dispassio
E: Is this
what self nate,
many the only
desires, objective,
ways to life I will
Multiplist but in a hypotheti
think, ever live
ic, fashion co- expecta
Express but and, if so, [unspecified
ER Materialis calculate deductive, ncy
self... only why can't I / unknown]
tic d not to not learning
one have some
Existence bring moralistic
best pleasure in
down the -
way this
wrath of prescripti
existence?
others ve
thinking

FS Sociocent Sacrific ...now in many F: coming S: truly operatio [unspecified

ric, e self... order to right to peace experienc nal / unknown]
Personalit get ways to with ing the learning
ic, acceptanc think, aloneness, inner,
 based subjective
e now, in with one's
Sociocrati on peer feelings
order for inner self
c group of process
all to get and with
Existence accepta humankin
now others
nce d

my way
does
teacher's
not
job is to
have to
pose
be
problem
...for yours, A' (G):
s, help
what self nor Threats to
provide
desires, yours the
N' ways to
but never mine, survival of
(T): N sys see
Systemic, at the yet I organismi something
tem plus them,
Cognitive expense have c life: relating to
some but to
A' , Express of others very depleting the chemical
GT additional leave
N' Problema self... and in a strong natural complex
system of the
tic manner convicti resources, producing
cells person
Existence that all ons overpopul fear
denoted to their
life, not about ation,
as Y own
just my what is excessive
conclusi
life, will my individuali
on as to
profit way, ty
what
but
answers
never
to
such
accept[35]
about
yours

HU B' Intuitive, Sacrific ...by values B' (H): O' [unspeci increased ga
O' Experient e self... adjusting what Realizatio (U): O sy fied / lvanic skin
ialist to the they n how stem plus unknow resistance[36]
Existence realities feel much one some n]
of one's they will never additional
existence should, know system of
and not just about cells
automatic what existence, denoted
ally knowle that a as Y
accept the dge problem-
existentia tells solving
l them existence
dichotom they is not
ies as should; enough
they are non-
and go on interferi
living; ng
sacrifice percepti
 the idea
that one
will ever
on
know
rather
what it is
than
all about
active
and
controll
adjust to
ing
this as the
percepti
existentia
on
l reality
of
existence

Verification of the theory

Graves compared his conception of adult development with those of many of the
leading thinkers of his time, concluding that most were compatible with his view, but
often had gaps compared to his set of levels, or only addressed part of the range. In a
lengthy examination of Graves's work, Nicholas Reitter considers that in reaching these
conclusions "Graves appears in his relative isolation to have convinced himself of
greater scientific support than can reasonably be claimed for a particular developmental
view such as his, however great its appeal and other merits."[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.[39]

Using the theory with individuals

Graves demonstrated that individuals react more quickly to words associated with their
value system than with those associated with others. More recent research has built on
this to show differences in neurological activation among those operating from
individualistic vs collectivistic stages.[40] While some academic research has been done
on assessing the presence of bio-psycho-social coping systems in individuals,[41]
[42]
 Graves did not publish any such tools. He noted:[43]
Those who have tried to develop instruments have based them on what people think, do
or believe, which is not the proper base for assessment devices. They should be based
not on what the person thinks but how s/he thinks, not on what people do or what they
believe but how they do what they do, and how they believe that which they do believe.
In the time since Graves's death, assessments have been produced by practitioners of
Spiral Dynamics, which is built on E-C theory.[44]
While some have treated Graves's levels as a "simplistic categorization tool," Graves
noted that even a person centralized at a particular level drew only roughly 50% on that
level, 25% on the level before it, and 25% on the level after.[45] In his original data,
Graves found that about 60% of his subjects were centralized around one level, while
40% were more mixed.[19] A person might operate from different levels at home vs at
work or in other contexts, and might change to be centralized at either a later or earlier
level depending on their environment.[46]

Criticism
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. Furthermore, the BO and AN levels were the result of
research in anthropological literature and therefore not the product of the same
methodology as the other levels.[38]
Validating Graves's results is viewed as challenging as his raw data was thrown out
towards the end of his life, with only collated results retained.[48][49] Graves's results as
presented in his posthumous writing have been criticized as too vague to support the
universality of his conclusions.[50]
Graves's approach of using his students as subjects without their knowledge would be
considered ethically dubious today.[51]
Graves's assertions regarding neurobiology lack direct evidence,[38] and are in need of
validation by experts in that field.[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.[38]
While some variations of Spiral Dynamics have been criticized for producing cult-like
communities of practice, several people who level that criticism note that it does not
apply to Graves's work itself.[52][53] In an examination of Graves's work in the June 2018
issue of the Journal of Conscious Evolution, however, Nicholas Reitter connects this
phenomenon with Graves having not fully published his ideas during his lifetime. He
observes that Graves's ideas are "more often cited, used in conversation, or otherwise
recognized tangentially, than they are examined straightforwardly and thus subjected to
deliberate acceptance, refutation, or criticism," and that furthermore by "leaving his
legacy in not-quite-finished form, and in cultivating followers who have elaborated his
ideas leaving them essentially unquestioned, [Graves] appears to have succeeded in
leaving us a provocative and important theory, while so far avoiding anything like a
debate about its merits."[54]

Influence
E-C theory has primarily been influential in the field of business management, having
first been published to a broad audience in the Harvard Business Review after Graves
encountered difficulty finding a psychology theory-oriented journal interested in
publishing his work.[8] Other researchers in this field built on Graves's work during his
lifetime,[5][55] and his work continues to be cited in journals regarding business-related
topics such as change management,[56] cross-cultural management,[57] marketing,
[58]
 sustainability,[59] hiring of workers with disabilities,[60] and the neurology of decision-
making.[61] Additionally, Graves's work has formed the basis of several non-academic
books on business strategy and change.[3][2]
Gravesian theory has also been applied in the field of education.[62]
While sometimes referenced in the context of academic publications on psychology,[63]
[64]
 or cited alongside other developmental psychologists such as Jane
Loevinger or Lawrence Kohlberg,[65] Graves's ideas are not broadly influential in
mainstream psychology or philosophy academia.[66] However, Graves is neither entirely
unknown nor entirely dismissed among mainstream developmental psychologists. 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.[70]
E-C theory has also influenced, again by way of Spiral Dynamics,
developmental metamodernism.[4]