Dr. Dąbrowski and Dr. Piechowski.

Resolving conceptual confusion.

Over the years, publications have comingled the ideas of Dr. Piechowski and Dr. Dąbrowski. It is critical to distinguish Dr. Piechowski’s views and articulate the differences between his ideas versus Dr. Dąbrowski’s original theory.

I do not believe that Dr. Piechowski’s work advances the theory; instead, it represents a different approach. Over the past 40 years, my critiques have focused on four main issues.
≻ First: over the years, some of Dr. Piechowski’s viewpoints have been misinterpreted as representing and reflecting the original theory presented by Dr. Dąbrowski.
≻ Second: most research projects have relied on Dr. Piechowski’s theoretical approaches, rather than focussing on Dr. Dąbrowski’s.
≻ Third: researchers who use the instruments developed by Dr. Piechowski and his colleagues to examine overexcitabilities have yielded questionable results, in my opinion, due to the instruments’ poor construct validity.
≻ Finally, research has not progressed beyond looking at overexcitability. It would be valuable to explore other essential constructs developed by Dr. Dąbrowski such as the third factor, the nature and operation of the dynamisms, psychoneuroses, and positive disintegration.

Menu:

⚂ 9.3.6 Also see: This section is pertinent to this discussion: 3.6.7. Dąbrowski and Maslow.

⚃ Dr. Michael M. Piechowski (born 1933) was born in Poland and emigrated to the United States, where he pursued his education in the sciences.
≻ He obtained a Ph.D. in molecular biology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and became a professor at the University of Alberta.
≻ He shifted his focus to psychology after meeting Dr. Dąbrowski in 1967.
≻ Dr. Piechowski worked with Dr. Dąbrowski in person until 1970 when he went to the University of Wisconsin to study counselling psychology.
≻ He continued working with Dąbrowski by correspondence from Wisconsin until 1975 (Piechowski, 2008).

⚃ Dr. Piechowski introduced Dąbrowski’s construct of overexcitability to the field of gifted education through a book chapter published in 1979 (Piechowski, 1979).
≻ The idea of overexcitability became popular in gifted education and Dr. Piechowski went on to develop several instruments to measure overexcitability.
≻ He published many articles and authored and co-authored several important books including: Mellow out, they say. If I only could: Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright (2006) and Living with intensity (2009, co-edited with Susan Daniels).
≻ His work has focussed on the emotional lives of gifted students examining how intense experiences intersect with intelligence and their role in psychological growth.

⚃ Dr. Piechowski taught at Northland College in Ashland, Wisconsin where he retired as a Professor Emeritus.

⚃ Dr. Piechowski showed outstanding dedication to the annual Yunasa summer camp for exceptionally gifted youth, which he organized for over 20 years.

⚃ A single PDF file containing the majority of Dr. Piechowski’s papers (due to copyright no books are included). DOWNLOAD PDF.

⚄ This section was updated in 2024. Portions of this section are from a presentation by Bill Tillier at the 19th Annual Society for the Advancement of Gifted Education (SAGE) Conference November 7th & 8th, 2008 Revised 2020 University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta.

⚄ Dr. Piechowski’s presentation of TPD differs from Dr. Dąbrowski’s original position on several important points, but he has seldom made these distinctions. This has created conceptual confusion: what Dr. Dąbrowski said versus Dr. Piechowski. The work of the two has often been commingled by subsequent authors.

⚄ I recognize and appreciate Dr. Piechowski’s work, however, where the two authors differ in their views, it is important to differentiate their approaches, especially for those involved in a detailed study of Dr. Dąbrowski’s theory.

⚄ As will be illustrated below, Dr. Piechowski has expressed philosophical and conceptual disagreements with the TPD.

⚄ As will be illustrated below, Dr. Piechowski has expressed disagreements with the theory based on empirical findings.

⚅ He rejects Dr. Dąbrowski’s view that the average person reflects primary integration and suggests that the construct be eliminated from the theory (however, “level one should be retained”).

⚅ He presents a different view of developmental potential, one where dynamisms emerge from overexcitability and where instincts and higher emotions are not involved.

⚅ He suggests there are cases of development that occur with little developmental potential present indicating that strong developmental potential may not always be necessary for growth.

⚅ He presents a major revision of Level II, placing the average person at this level and downplaying the role of disintegration in this level.
≻ In his version, Dr. Piechowski presents examples of “unilevel development” that that show “that not all material has to be generated from the framework of Dąbrowski’s theory” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 72).
≻ Dr. Piechowski places the second factor at the second level (Dr. Dąbrowski places the first and second factor at level one).

⚅ Dr. Piechowski links self-actualization with the theory; the self-actualizing person represented by level IV and the self-actualized person represented by level V.

⚅ In 1967, Dr. Piechowski was a professor in the “molecular biology” (microbiology) department at the University of Alberta when he met Dr. Dąbrowski in the winter of 1967.
≻ He gave up his position to become an unpaid research assistant (along with several other dedicated students – Marlene Rankel, Leo Mos, Dexter Amend, Lynn Kealy, Bill Hague, etc.) and subsequently, became one of Dr. Dąbrowski’s co-authors.
≻ They formed a close personal and professional relationship and Dr. Piechowski became a “primary collaborator.”
≻ Dr. Piechowski left in January 1970, moving to Wisconsin to pursue a Ph.D. in counselling.
≻ My understanding is that he left because he wanted more input into the theory, and Dr. Dąbrowski would not allow it.

⚅ The two continued work by correspondence that culminated in preparing the 1977 book manuscripts for publication.
≻ Dr. Piechowski changed the final galley proofs submitted for publication, including changing the titles, authorship, and adding a 50-page section on self-actualization.
≻ When Dr. Dąbrowski saw the published work, he rejected it and broke off all contact with Dr. Piechowski.
≻ Dr. Dąbrowski requested the original manuscripts, still in draft form, be republished, and this was finally done in 1996.

⚅ In Wisconsin, Dr. Piechowski met Nick Colangelo and Kay Ogburn, who were also graduate students.
≻ In 1979, Colangelo and Ron Zaffrann edited a book on counseling for gifted individuals, which included a chapter by Dr. Piechowski titled “Developmental Potential.” This chapter discussed the application of overexcitability to gifted individuals.
≻ Dr. Piechowski dedicated himself to “furthering research, writing, and advocacy in the field of gifted education, with a particular focus on overexcitability for the next four decades.”
≻ Dr. Piechowski also went on to give many seminars between 1980 and 1994, promoting his views of TPD; mainly emphasizing overexcitability in the gifted field.

⚅ At one time, Dr. Dąbrowski’s writings were difficult to obtain and many people discovered the theory by reading Dr. Piechowski’s more accessible materials.
≻ When Dr. Dąbrowski died, he gave me his papers but did not explicitly give me permission to distribute his works. No one was given permission from Mrs. Dąbrowski to distribute the materials while she was alive.

⚅ In 1994, Sharon Lind organized a seminar in Keystone Colorado. She invited a group of students of Dr. Dąbrowski’s (Leo Mos, Marlene Rankel, Bill Hague, Dexter Amend, Norbert Duda, and me) [a.k.a. “the Canadians”] along with Dr. Piechowski, Linda Silverman, Frank Falk, Nancy Miller, Cheryl Ackerman, and others [a.k.a. “the Americans”].
≻ Many in the audience were shocked when we took out Dr. Dąbrowski’s English books, not realizing they existed (despite the fact that these works had been referenced in the past).

⚅ The purpose of the 1994 Keystone meeting was to examine the differences between Dr. Piechowski’s teachings and Dr. Dąbrowski’s work.
≻ Over the years, these differences were brought to light, mostly by Norbert Duda, a student of Dr. Dąbrowski’s from Quebec.
≻ Many differences were discussed at Keystone, and I left the meeting with a resolution to create this website in order to promote Dr. Dąbrowski’s work and archive and disseminate his theory.
≻ I eventually secured permission to distribute Dąbrowski’s original works and this further brought differences to light.

⚅ Historically, my role has been to highlight the conceptual differences between the two authors.
≻ This is critically important when new students discover the theory and are confused over what Dr. Dąbrowski originally said, compared to some of Dr. Piechowski’s writings.
≻ Over the years, others (for example, Dr. Mendaglio) and me have asked Dr. Piechowski to differentiate and promote his view of development under his name and to present his theory of development – an endeavour we feel would be valuable for everyone interested. He has refused, saying that he “has no theory of development.”
≻ Dr. Piechowski said Dr. Dąbrowski was mistranslated: “I realized that whoever did the translation did not understand what Dąbrowski was saying. Unlike his French, Dąbrowski’s English was too limited to check the translation, although it was quite adequate in conversation and his seminars” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 41).
≻ Dr. Piechowski has told me that “Dąbrowski made mistakes in writing the theory that need to be corrected – and [he is] simply making these corrections.”

⚅ I first met Dr. Dąbrowski in October 1976, and I first met Dr. Piechowski in Edmonton, Christmas 1977.

⚅ I have been a staunch advocate for the theory as Dr. Dąbrowski proposed it.
≻ At one point, he took me aside and asked me to “shepherd the theory after he died.”
≻ I studied with him until he left Edmonton in the fall of 1979, passing away in 1980 in Poland.
≻ I subsequently received his papers.

⚅ I also have maintained correspondence with Dr. Piechowski from 1977 until present.

⚅ My role has occasionally been characterized as a “personal conflict” with Dr. Piechowski. This is not the case; he and I maintain an ongoing correspondence. I have publicly promoted my concerns in an effort to maintain the academic integrity of Dąbrowski’s theory.

⚃ 9.3.2.2 Difference 1: Issues pertaining to the publication of the 1977 books.

⚅ Much of the confusion can be traced back to the publication of the 1977 books.
≻ This publication characterized Dąbrowski’s work as a “theory of emotional development” and linked self-actualization with the theory.
≻ This section will address how this came to be.

⚅ In 1970, an unpublished manuscript by Dr. Dąbrowski titled Multilevelness of instinctive and emotional functions was printed by the University of Alberta (Dąbrowski, 1970).

⚅ In 1972, Volume 2 was created and bound as a manuscript by the University of Alberta. (Dąbrowski and Piechowski, 1972).

⚅ In 1974, Volume 1 was created and bound as a manuscript by the University of Alberta. (Dąbrowski, 1974).

⚅ The 1972 and 1974 manuscripts were edited by Dr. Piechowski while Dr. Dąbrowski was in Poland and submitted to Dabor Publishers to produce the 1977 books.

⚅ The following chart shows differences between the original manuscript titles and the titles as published.

⚅⚁ Volume 1 of the 1977 books:
⚅⚁ Dr. Dąbrowski’s original title: Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions. Part 1: Theory and description of levels of behavior.
⚅⚁ Published under Dr. Piechowski’s revised title: Theory of levels of emotional development: Multilevelness and positive disintegration.

⚅⚁ Volume 2 of the 1977 books:
⚅⚁ Dr. Dąbrowski’s original title: Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions. Part 2: Types and Levels of Development.
⚅⚁ Published under Dr. Piechowski’s revised title: Theory of levels of emotional development: From primary integration to self-actualization.

⚅ One: The phrase “Dąbrowski’s Theory of Emotional Development” was subsequently popularized by Dr. Piechowski in his works and lectures. This was rejected by Dr. Dąbrowski as he felt this characterization changed – narrowed – the scope of his theory, altered its focus away from positive disintegration and psychoneuroses, and away from personality development.

⚅⚁ The result of this change has been ongoing confusion about what Dr. Dąbrowski’s theory is called: Some authors have subsequently referred to “Dąbrowski’s Theory of Emotional Development” as the title of the theory, for example, Silverman (1993a, 1993b). Some authors used both titles, for example, Piirto (1997, p. 7) wrote “the Dąbrowski Theory of Positive Disintegration (as it is called in Canada, or of Emotional Development, as it is called in the United States).” Sisk (2008, p. 26) referred to the theory using both titles: “Dąbrowski’s … Theory of Positive Disintegration, also known as the Theory of Emotional Development.”

⚅⚁ Dr. Piechowski says he historically used a “generic name” and primarily portrayed “Dąbrowski’s theory of emotional development” as a theory describing and measuring emotional development. (see Piechowski, 2014).
≻ He now acknowledges the “proper name” of the theory is the theory of positive disintegration [The convention all researchers should use when referring to the theory]. (Piechowski, 2014, p. 12).

⚅⚀ Two: the revised subtitle of volume 2 implies that the goal of development is self-actualization.
≻ Dr. Piechowski explained to me that adding self-actualization to the title “would make the work more popular”. “It is a pity that Dąbrowski never understood that placing self-actualizing people within the structure of his theory, rather than diminish it, showed its power. A convergence of two independently developed constructs confirms and validates what they depict as an objective reality” (Piechowski, 2009, p. 6).
≻ Dr. Dąbrowski was opposed to equating self-actualization with his higher levels and thus he rejected this subtitle. (see 9.3.2.7 Difference 6 below)

⚅⚀ “The publisher then requested the change in the title. This was the time when developmental psychology was dominated by cognitive development and Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning. I decided to change the title to emphasize emotional development. I regret not checking this with Dąbrowski but the pressure to submit the manuscript to the publisher and the lack of ease, and the high cost, of overseas telephone communication prevented me from doing so” (Piechowski, 2024, pp. 165-166).

⚅⚀ In an email dated February 25, 2025 at 6:36 AM, Dr. Piechowski stated: “The change of title was requested by the publisher, Dabor Science. The subtitles were meant to put Dąbrowski’s work in the context of psychology of the 1970s.”

⚅⚀ The 1974 manuscript (Volume 1), was printed as a work by Dr. Dąbrowski (no other authors appear on the manuscript).
⚅⚁ Volume 1 of the 1977 book was published as Dr. Dąbrowski with Dr. Piechowski. In his changes, Dr. Piechowski added himself as the author of chapters 1, 2, 3, 5 and as the primary author of chapter 6. Dr. Piechowski told me that he “deserved full authorship of these sections because he had spent 600 hours making changes and trying to find a publisher.”
⚅⚁ Correct APA reference: Dąbrowski, K. (with Piechowski, M. M.) (1977). Theory of levels of emotional development: Volume 1 – Multilevelness and positive disintegration. Dabor Science.

⚅⚀ The 1972 manuscript (Volume 2), was printed as coauthored by Dr. Dąbrowski & Piechowski (with the assistance of Dexter Amend and Marlene King).
⚅⚁ Volume 2 of the 1977 book was published as coauthored by Dąbrowski & Piechowski (with the assistance of Dexter Amend and Marlene King).
⚅⚁ Correct APA reference: Dąbrowski, K. & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of levels of emotional development: Volume 2 – From primary integration to self-actualization. Dabor Science.

⚅⚀ Subsequently, both volumes have often been incorrectly referenced collectively as Dąbrowski & Piechowski, 1977.

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski inserted a case study of Saint-Exupéry as chapter 8 of Volume 2.
≻ This material equated Dr. Dąbrowski’s levels with self-actualization.
≻ This material was in press at the time and was subsequently published as an article (Piechowski, 1978).
≻ Dr. Dąbrowski rejected equating Maslow’s theory of self-actualization with his own.

⚅⚀ There are a number of other minor differences in the text. In my opinion, a direct comparison best serves the interested reader.

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski substituted the preface in the 1977 books. The preface used was written by Dr. Dąbrowski endorsing a journal article of Dr. Piechowski’s and was previously published in that context (in Piechowski, 1975).
≻ It was not written to endorse the content of these books (Dr. Piechowski changed “this article” to “this book”).
≻ In an email dated February 25, 2025 at 6:36 AM, Dr. Piechowski stated: “The preface that Dąbrowski wrote for the two volumes was full of philosophical meanderings that did not introduce the theory well to the reader. We owe the Editor of Genetic Psychology Monographs gratitude for inviting Dąbrowski to describe what moved him to develop his theory. This is the preface to my monograph of 1975 which Dąbrowski was pleased with. Consequently, it made sense to include it in the 1977 book.”

⚅⚀ It should be noted for research purposes the data presented in the original manuscripts is more comprehensive but that the data presented in the 1977 works is more accurate (several mistakes in calculation were corrected but several data points are omitted). This information was supplied by Dr. Piechowski.

⚅ Dr. Dąbrowski would not acknowledge the 1977 books after they were published and asked several people (including me) to help in republishing the original manuscripts.

⚅ As per Dr. Dąbrowski’s wishes, a reprinting of the original titles and text of the 1972 / 1974 manuscripts was done in 1996, in Poland, by Mrs. Dąbrowski (Dąbrowski, 1996).

⚅ The 1996 reprinting bound both volumes into one book (now listed as part 1 and part 2). Dr. Dąbrowski was listed as author of parts 1 and 2. Dr. Piechowski was listed as an “assistant” on part 2 (along with Dexter Amend and Marlene King).

⚅ An errata from the publisher has been circulated to correct the citation of part 2 to reflect the 1972 manuscript (indicating Dr. Piechowski as a co-author of part 2).

⚅ Dr. Piechowski has indicated that he believes that the authorship citations of the 1974 manuscript and of the 1996 book (part 1) are inaccurate and that the correct citations of his role appears in the 1977 book (Volume 1).

⚄ Here is an important footnote. The 1996 books are a republication of the existing manuscripts. Dąbrowski did not have a chance to do a final edit of these manuscripts, and there is material in volume one that reflects Piechowski’s approach that Dąbrowski certainly would have changed. For example, on page 33 of volume one, the second factor is listed as an aspect of level two, unilevel disintegration. Dąbrowski taught that the first and second factor are both aspects of unilevel integration – Level one. In Piechowski’s approach, level one reflects factor one and level two reflects factor two.

⚅⚀ As can be seen in chapter three of volume 1, 1977, – authorship credited to Dr. Piechowski, pages 18 to 26, his description of level I started out reflecting Dr. Dąbrowski’s original approach. To see the whole section click here (PDF).

⚅⚁ “At least two forms of primary integration can be distinguished, an extreme one and a less extreme one. Previously this distinction has not been made explicit but it is present in an earlier description of forms of primary integration (Dąbrowski, 1967). We shall start with a discussion of the extreme form” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 20).
… “Primary integration has been usually defined as ‘an integration of mental functions, subordinated to primitive drives’ (Dąbrowski et al., 1970, p. 176, Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 156). No inner psychic milieu and no developmental dynamisms are associated with this structure. The individual has no capacity for processing experience of any psychic depth, nor for developmental transformation: his behavior is automatic, impulsive, or coldly calculated. He recognizes only his self-serving goals. His intelligence serves him as an instrument to satisfy his basic goals without controlling or transforming basic drives” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 20).
… “In primary integration, the elementary social responsiveness that makes people desire to cooperate and be helpful is lacking, as are the elementary forms of individual responsiveness and empathy. The level I individual has no consideration for others” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 20).
… “At level I, the individual does not reflect on his experience or his behavior. He does not evaluate it in terms of responsibility, and, consequently, he is not able to judge in moral or emotional terms the consequences of his behavior for himself and for others. Indeed, others are treated merely as objects or as means to ends. Aside from that they are given little consideration. Thus, there is no inner conflict for the level I person” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 21).
… “This extreme description of the level I person has been modeled after the successful psychopath. But there also exist unsuccessful psychopaths, as attested by most of the psychopaths studied by Cleckley, who do not appear to enjoy their antics and the havoc they create. The successful psychopath, the model for the extreme form of the level I person, gets ahead in life through ruthless competition, intent on winning and advancing himself at any cost” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 21).
… “The milder form of primary integration applies to “normals” rather than successful psychopaths or near-psychopaths. These individuals have a narrow scope of interest, limited horizons in thinking, aspirations, and affect, but they are not totally without feeling. While they may acquire skills of various kinds, develop their abilities, become competent within the prescribed demands of the job market, have achievements that are visible and readily rewarded, there is no actual development in the basic underlying structure of their personality. Such “normals” follow a stereotyped path of development with regard to social advancement. The course of their lives is generally predictable. When because of a loss of job, or other misfortune, the continuity of progress is broken for such a person, then, seeing no alternatives, he may suffer nervous breakdown or commit suicide” (Piechowski, 1977, pp. 21-22).
… “The hold of primary structure is strong and transitions from level I to II are rare and difficult, possible only if there are present some nuclei of instability, some cognitive complexity and some emotional responsiveness” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 22).
… “It is likely that Kohlberg’s good boy – good girl and law-and-order orientations (stages 3 and 4) also represent milder forms of primary integration, for in both theories these individuals follow externally established rules” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 22).

⚅⚀ In 2008, page 55, Dr. Piechowski stated that based on the Master’s thesis of his first graduate student, Margaret Lee Schmidt, “Level I is not a personality structure, but instead is the result of limited developmental potential of people trying to survive in a ruthlessly competitive and economically uncertain world. While Dąbrowski, just like Adorno et al., viewed primary integration as a rigid personality structure, now it makes more sense to see it as the outcome of social conditions. If people are operating at Level I, it is because this is the condition of their world, not because they are constituted that way”.

⚅⚀ “The concept of primary integration – originally called primitive integration by Dąbrowski – was not examined until Margaret Schmidt showed in her thesis that it largely corresponds to the concept of authoritarian personality (Schmidt, 1977). Authoritarian personality results from strict parenting and social pressures that enforce conformity and respect for authority; that is, those who hold power. Therefore, it is not an integration either inherited genetically or arrived at by the individual himself” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 13).

⚅⚀ “Furthermore, there is nothing primary about primary integration. It is not the starting point of development, and it conflicts with our evolutionary design for primary affectional attachment (Bowlby, 1969). We are born as social beings programmed for social interaction through cooing, smiling, and calming in loving arms. Asocial character develops because of emotional injuries that repeatedly break the bond of attachment. If it looks like an integration, it is due to the defensive armor to protect oneself from emotional hurt” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 56).

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski: “The concept of primary integration (Level I) needs to be reconsidered, as it is neither primary nor a personality structure but the outcome of the way society is” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 76).

⚅⚀ Here, Piechowski presents the viewpoint that growth is limited by socialization, not by genetic developmental potential as Dr. Dąbrowski described it: “The concept of primary integration as a starting point for personality development is untenable in light of research on child development. In its place, Level I as a type of development that is constrained by social pressures and the effort to succeed in life will serve better. Milgram’s studies of obedience and Bandura’s of the ways of bypassing one’s conscience are sufficient to explain how the Level I type of integration can take hold of a person” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 11).

⚅⚀ “Dąbrowski’s characterization of primary integration as self-serving, manipulative, and lacking in consideration for others is more negative. The type of behavior that involves harm to others is most often transitory and adopted under conditions of obedience to authority and other mechanisms that bypass one’s conscience. This ﬁts precisely with Dąbrowski’s concept of Level I. Therefore, the concept of primary integration should be abandoned and replaced with Level I” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 17).

⚅⚀ “By definition, primary integration has a developmental potential so limited that inner transformation, the essence of multilevel development, is out of reach. Consequently, the theory makes it clear that primary integration is not where development can start under any conditions” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 14).

⚅⚀ The behaviour Dr. Dąbrowski described at Level I “is not a personality structure but the consequence of a culture that increasingly puts distance between people” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 15).

⚅⚀ Discussing Milgram’s famous obedience experiment, Dr. Piechowski said: “The high proportion of people who obeyed the authority figure to the end demonstrates that the concept of primary integration does not fit reality. It is the response to the situation, and the person’s assigned role in it, that for a period of time leads to harming others. Does this make people part-time psychopaths, as Dąbrowski would have it?” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 16).

⚅⚀ “Abolishing the concept of primary integration does not mean that the concept of Level I should be abolished” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 2014, p. 14) … “it makes sense to separate the concept of Level I from primary integration, a descriptive but ill-defined term” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 16).

⚅⚀ “In regard to Levels I and II what I said was that Dabrowski’s theory would lose none of its value were these levels not included, since the theory is mainly about multilevel development.” (Piechowski, 2009, p. 2; 2015, p. 230).
≻ Unfortunately, Dr. Piechowski does not explain the nature of level one that he wants to retain.

⚅⚀ “In elaborating his theory, Dąbrowski’s main effort was toward elucidating multilevel development. His theory would be just as powerful if Level I were never included. There is nothing essential about it to the conceptual structure of the theory” (Piechowski, 2015, p. 230).

⚅⚀ “Dąbrowski developed his ideas before the advent of attachment theory. This is why his view that newborns are in a state of primary integration and that they are egoistic by nature is seriously outdated and resoundingly incorrect. Ignorance of child development is incomprehensible in an educator and so is insisting that Dąbrowski is never wrong and fifty years of developmental psychology can be discounted” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 172).

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski has told me that “it is philosophically unacceptable for anyone to be seen as biologically limited in terms of growth; limitations are social and can be eliminated.”

⚅⚀ Dr. Dąbrowski: “Primary Integration. The characteristic of cognitive and emotional structures and functions of primary integration is that they are automatic, impulsive, and rigid. Behavior is controlled by primitive drives and by externality. Intelligence neither controls nor transforms basic drives; it serves the ends determined by primitive drives. There is no inner conflict while external conflicts are the rule. The overall picture is of little differentiation, primitive drive structure, and predominant externality [second factor]” (Dąbrowski, 1996, p. 18)

⚅⚀ Here is an example of a description of Level I based on Dr. Dąbrowski’s views from Mika (2003, p. 2): Although primary integration describes level 1 and thus encompasses most individuals in the present human society, people existing in primary (negative) integration do not form a homogenous group. According to Dr. Dąbrowski, there are degrees of primary integration, just like there are degrees of disintegration. An overwhelming majority of people possess some developmental potential, which means they have some capability for positive disintegration. Dr. Dąbrowski also notes that a great majority of people also exhibit some psychopathic traits, but only constitutional psychopaths and persons with global mental retardation are so highly integrated that they are incapable of any degree of development. Based on the degree of integration and disintegration, Dr. Dąbrowski described the following groups of people inhabiting level 1: [from lowest to highest]

⚅⚀ As can be seen in chapter three – authorship credited to Dr. Piechowski, pages 18 to 26 of volume 1, 1977, his description of level II started out reflecting Dr. Dąbrowski’s original approach. To see the whole section click here.

⚅⚁ Level II: Unilevel Disintegration
“There are two ways in which Dr. Dąbrowski (1967) applies the term unilevel disintegration. The first usage denotes a temporary departure from primary integration, a short-term breakdown of its rigid, tight cohesion; in this sense, unilevel disintegration is equivalent to a period of disequilibrium, often followed by reintegration, the reestablishment of the original primary structure. Such periods of disintegrations may occur, for example, during adolescence, menopause, illness, retirement, or they may take place in response to circumstances that force a sudden change of perspective with regard to one’s position in life”(Piechowski, 1977, pp. 23-24).
… “The second usage refers to a formation of personality with built-in imbalances of physiological and psychological systems, autonomic liabilities, polarizations, a structure made up a varied, uneven parts that do not match, do not fit together, and do not work together. Consequently the structure is somewhat loose, comes apart under the impact of stress and emotional tension, and is not equipped with resources for retooling and reconstruction of a more coordinated whole” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 24).
… “Insight into oneself and self-awareness are weak in unilevel disintegration as is the capacity for inner psychic transformation of conflicts, difficulties, experienced tensions. Rather than being transformed, tensions must be released or converted. They may be transposed to the body, giving rise to psychosomatic disorders. They may be externalized as projections, distortions of reality, or hallucinations. They may be quelled with alcohol, drugs, or suicide. Guilt feelings are passive and come from lack of acceptance, lack of approval, lack of love in childhood. Since that conscious moral responsibility that is characteristic of the higher levels is missing, the guilt characteristic of this level is debilitating and does not have the power to open a passage from unilevel to multilevel processes (Ogburn, 1976). It is a “no exit” condition” (Piechowski, 1977, pp. 24-25).
… “The degree of instability varies in level II, and as a result this level has the most multiform structure of all the levels. It encompasses total mental fragmentation as in psychosis and drug-induced states, a middle range of more stereotyped forms of behavior—inferiority toward others, dependency, need to conform, seeking approval and admiration—and at the other extreme partially integrated forms that convey certain degree of stability, even maturity (here Loevinger’s Conscientious-Conformist is a possible counterpart)” (Piechowski, 1977, p. 26).

⚅⚀ “[At Level II] the self derives its definition from fulfilling the expectations of others, family, or society (‘second factor’)” (Piechowski, 2003, p. 289). [As Dąbrowski taught the theory to me, he placed second factor at level I.]

⚅⚀ Based upon Dr. Piechowski’s interpretation, in the gifted literature, Level II is often described as a level of socialization (encompassing the average person), and the goal of Level II has been described as socialization (see Silverman, 1993, p. 14).

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski: “I feel very strongly that emotional growth within the unilevel universe of Level II should not be underestimated but respected and explored further. This raises the question as to whether it is possible to facilitate a transition to multilevel emotional growth if a person’s developmental potential is limited. And is it possible to imagine a harmonious society without a multilevel majority? I feel it is possible – to imagine” (2008, p. 72).

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski: “Level II is not always characterized by disintegration, because it carries the possibility of partial integration, or adaptive integration, that follows the conventions and dictates of society and one’s immediate environment. Level II may carry inner instability that we would see in oscillations of mood, inconsistent ways of acting, or shifting from one extreme to the other. But it is also possible to have a fairly integrated worldview of conventional values or a sort of intellectual rationalism. Fulfilling the expectations of others, family, or society (“second factor”) in extreme cases may lead to anorexia and bulimia in gifted women (Gatto-Walden, 1999). Inner fragmentation (“I feel split into a thousand pieces”) and unpredictable shifts among many “selves” are often experienced. In adolescence, a failed attempt at identity, which Elkind (1984) called “the patchwork self,” is another example of the inner disorganization. At this level, personal growth becomes a struggle toward achieving an individual sense of self” (2008, p. 69).

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski: “The concept of level II fits well with the case studies of highly gifted adults and also with the Perry inspired study of women’s emotional development. The concept of unilevel disintegration, however, cannot be applied wholly to level II because the majority of lives identified within this level are more or less stable. Even Dąbrowski’s concept of partial integration seems to have limited application because it implies that there is some “disintegration” going on or that the person is chronically on the brink of one. This makes little sense. Instead, we should conclude that the lives of most people follow the stages of lifespan development and that some may be so unreflective that they match level I and others are somewhat more reflective and match level II” (2017, p. 93).

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski: “One of the defining features of level II is susceptibility to social convention and opinion (the so-called second factor). Unilevel growth of the self, which is at once cognitive and emotional, can defy convention by rejecting prescribed social roles, such as of a dutiful daughter, wife, or mother. In this case, personal growth and change breaks out of the control of social convention and opinion” (2017, p. 94).

⚅⚀ Dr. Piechowski: “The concept of unilevel disintegration can represent level II only in part because evidence shows that the majority of lives that belong here are rather stable. Unilevel churning, turmoil, and collapse – the disintegration piece – is the clinical part of the picture that deals with psychosomatic and psychoneurotic disorders, addictions, psychoses, and so forth” (2017, p. 94).
≻ This quotation also foreshadows two further issues:

⚅⚁ That developmental potential may not be critical to emotional growth and that multilevelness may not be not be a critical element in human psychology.

⚅⚀ Dr. Dąbrowski: Unilevel Disintegration. “It consists of disintegrative processes occurring as if on a single structural level. There is disintegration but no differentiation of levels of emotional or intellectual control. Unilevel disintegration begins with the loosening of the cohesive and rigid structure of primary integration. There is hesitation, doubt, ambivalence, increased sensitivity to internal stimuli, fluctuations of mood, excitations and depressions, vague feelings of disquietude, various forms of mental and psychosomatic disharmony. There is ambitendency of action, either changing from one direction to another, or being unable to decide which course to take and letting the decision fall to chance, or a whim of like or dislike. Thinking has a circular character of argument for argument’s sake. Externality is still quite strong” (Dąbrowski, 1996, p. 18).

⚅⚀ Dr. Dąbrowski named Level II to reflect its basic feature unilevel disintegration, characterized by brief and often intense crises between equivalent alternatives.

⚅⚀ Dr. Dąbrowski stressed the intense, transitional nature of the level: “Prolongation of unilevel disintegration often leads to reintegration on a lower level, to suicidal tendencies, or to psychosis” (Dąbrowski, 1964, p. 7).

⚅⚀ Unless one falls back to Level I or progresses onto Level III, one chronically at Level II risks finding oneself in “a trap of a rapidly growing mental tension” – a drama “without exit” (Dąbrowski, 1970, p. 135).

⚅⚀ Level II – “perhaps they represent twenty percent of all people” (quoted in Rankel, 2008).

⚅⚀ In Fort Lauderdale, in 2002, Dr. Piechowski said that because Level I and II are not associated with development per se, these levels are “totally irrelevant” and “should be dropped from the theory.”

⚅⚀ “The theory would lose none of its value if the two lower levels were never added” (Piechowski, 2015, p. 230).

⚅⚀ Little significant inner life exists at Levels I (primary integration) and II (unilevel disintegration), inner psychic life only begins at Level III with multilevel processes (Piechowski, 2008, p. 43; Piechowski, 2014).

⚅⚀ in 2024, Dr. Piechowski reprised his position: “My argument was that in the light of our knowledge of early child development, Dąbrowski’s concept of primary integration has no empirical basis. Primary means first in line and this position is held by an intensely emotional, reciprocal, and profoundly social bond … What I tried to do in the paper on rethinking Dąbrowski’s theory was to fill the blank spaces (Dąbrowski’s description is just a very general sketch) with psychological knowledge of behaviors that fit Level I, a level of the struggle for survival and mentalities than can be subverted. Albert Bandura described eight ways to get around one’s conscience while engaging in harmful actions toward others” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 169).
≻ Piechowski continues: “Normal, decent, law-abiding persons may find themselves in situations that temporarily make them do what Dąbrowski saw as ‘psychopathic’ behavior. Such behavior is deprived of consideration for others. It is moral disengagement that enables individuals to retain a belief in being good persons. The behavior is not a personality structure, but the consequence of a culture that increasingly puts distance between people” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 170).

⚅⚀ Development only begins at Level III with the inner psychic milieu and its creative and transforming dynamisms and with multilevel disintegration (see Piechowski, 2008, p. 43; Piechowski, 2014, p. 13).

⚅⚀ Dr. Dąbrowski: lacking strong developmental potential, the “so called normal person” (about 65-70% of the population) is limited to Level I, primary integration, or to the borderline of Level I – II.

⚅⚀ Tillier: The removal of primary or primitive integration (but retaining Level I), to view Level II as the level of the average person, primarily influenced by second factor, and only partly involving disintegration represent major theoretical departures to the degree that it would no longer be appropriate to refer to it as “Dr. Dąbrowski’s theory”.
≻ Tillier: The lower levels are essential because Dr. Dąbrowski explicitly described lower and higher levels that would account for both the lowest and highest behaviors seen in humans.
≻ He also explicitly accounted for how growth could occur from level I – Individuals with strong developmental potential can break free of the rigid structures at level one and begin to move forward in development thus moving from the lowest levels toward the highest.

⚄ Dr. Dąbrowski defined developmental potential as “The constitutional endowment which determines the character and the extent of mental growth possible for a given individual” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 293).

⚄ When I learned the theory from Dąbrowski, he described developmental potential as including the higher developmental instincts (the partial death instinct, the developmental instinct, the creative instinct, the transcendental instinct, and the self perfection instinct), the dynamisms, overexcitability, the third factor, and special abilities on talents.

⚄ Dąbrowski said that developmental potential can be assessed using three features: “The developmental potential can be assessed on the basis of the following components: psychic overexcitability (q.v.), special abilities and talents, and autonomous factors (notably the Third factor)” (Dąbrowski, 1972, p. 293).

⚄ In Dr. Piechowski’s view developmental potential is primarily overexcitability and “ … instincts and higher emotions are not part of DP!” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 171). “Instincts and higher emotions are not part of developmental potential” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 176 italics in original).

⚅ He states that the dynamisms are derived from the overexcitabilities: “Autonomous and accelerated development is always associated with multiple forms of overexcitability (11, 13, 14). They can be detected in children aged 2-3 (10, 14). It is thus logical to assume that they constitute a major portion of the original endowment. The dynamisms should then be the derivatives of overexcitability (section V, D). If this is assumed to be true, then the forms of overexcitability become the elements of the original structure of DP. Thus at the start of development DP can be equated with the complement of five forms of overexcitability” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 255).
≻ [Developmental potential is] “associated with observable traits – the five forms of overexcitability and their derivatives – the dynamisms – which allow one to assess its composition and strength” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 266).
≻ “Developmental dynamisms emerge from the raw fabric of overexcitabilities” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 168).

⚅ As we see here, Piechowski originally presented this as a hypothesis. “If we accept the hypothesis that dynamisms differentiate from forms of overexcitability, then these take on the role of primary factors of development. Thus the theory of positive disintegration offers the means by which one can account for developmental transformations in the level of cognitive and emotional behavior. The same means (i.e., the dosages of different forms of overexcitability) appear, at present, sufficient to account for the origin of individual variation in the patterns and levels of development” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 169).

⚄ For Dr. Piechowski, the role of developmental potential has always been paramount, overshadowing positive disintegration: “The significance and the originality of the theory of positive disintegration does not lie, as it is often believed (1, p. 103; 3; 23; 41; 52) in introducing the idea of disintegration as a positive developmental process. Understandably, this aspect of the theory is most important for clinical psychology, psychiatry, and education. Nevertheless, the significance and originality of Dąbrowski’s theory lie in its concepts of developmental structures, developmental potential, and the characteristics by which they can be detected and measured” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 266).

⚄ Dr. Piechowski has asked me to emphasize his formula for measuring developmental potential.

⚅ “We shall now turn to the research and procedures which furnished the means of testing some of the features of the theory, in this case, (a) the constellations of dynamisms at each level of development, (b) the operational definition for the developmental potential (DP = d + oe), and (c) the constancy of DP” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 266).

⚅ “We can express the expected relationship by the following equation: DP = (d + oe) [times] Y where “d” stands for the percentage of dynamism ratings in the total number of ratings for a given subject, “oe” stands for the percentage of overexcitability ratings in the total number of ratings for the same subject, and “y,” or “yield,” is the ratio of the total number of ratings (b) divided by the total number of response units (a) for a given subject” (Piechowski, 1975, p. 284).

⚅ “DP was calculated by adding the frequencies of dynamisms (d) and overexcitabilities (oe): DP = d + oe” (Piechowski, 2008, pp. 51-52).

⚅ “There were four rating categories: dynamisms (D), dynamism precursors (P), functions (F), and overexcitabilities (OE). For a given subject, the total number of ratings was b = D + P + F + OE. A unit may have zero, one, or more ratings. The total number of units for a subject was a. The ratio b/a was called the yield (Y). The ratio Y was useful as one test of the internal consistency of the rating process of the one rater, myself” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 52).

⚅ Tillier: I never emphasized this formula as I believe it lacks construct and content validity because it does not take into consideration the third factor.

⚄ “The concept of developmental potential is logically necessary. Weak developmental potential limits development; strong developmental potential makes it possible to go far. By definition, primary integration has a developmental potential so limited that inner transformation, the essence of multilevel development, is out of reach. Consequently, the theory makes it clear that primary integration is not where development can start under any conditions” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 14).

⚄ On the other hand, Dr. Piechowski said: “under optimal conditions, even children with limited developmental potential can grow up to be good citizens with a strong sense of fairness” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 54).

⚄ “Speculating about … developmental potential, we came up with two terms: conserving and transforming. Potential for conserving growth would allow it to continue through Level II close to Level III, but not any further. Transforming growth, however, would continue” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 74).

⚄ Dr. Piechowski now outlines two approaches to development and to developmental potential:

⚅ 1). Following Dr. Dąbrowski’s approach, Dr. Piechowski equated personal growth with climbing a mountain saying that “not everyone has the strength, endurance, and determination to go far; few manage to reach the summit” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 64).

⚅ 2). Dr. Piechowski reviewed examples of “unilevel development” occurring at Level II and concluded these cases represent significant growth:

⚅⚀ “This raises the question as to whether it is possible to facilitate a transition to multilevel emotional growth if a person’s developmental potential is limited” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 72).

⚅⚀ “The above examples show that not all material has to be generated from the framework of Dąbrowski’s theory” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 72).

⚄ Dr. Piechowski connects developmental potential with development: “the next step – multilevel development – cannot be set in motion without a strong developmental potential” (Piechowski, 2017, p. 94).

⚄ On the other hand, he also states: “And is it possible to imagine a harmonious society without a multilevel majority? I feel it is possible – to imagine” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 72).

⚄ For Dr. Dąbrowski, the crux of individual development is multilevelness – Multilevel exemplars:

⚅ Challenge one to take active control of one’s development and strive for ideals and growth.

⚄ Today, society is based upon unilevel principles and reflects self-centered and self-serving motives.

⚄ An ideal society would be based on multilevel principles and ideals, reflecting other-centered motives and would be comprised of a majority of multilevel individuals.

⚅ “We shall try to demonstrate that Maslow’s concept of SA fits the structure of Level IV and that, consequently, the traits of SA logically follow from that structure” (Dąbrowski & Piechowski, 1977, pp. 158-159).

⚅ “Self-actualization, as a psychological norm suggested by Maslow, now finds support in the framework of the theory of positive disintegration as an attribute of the Level IV structure” (Dąbrowski & Piechowski, 1977, pp. 218-219).

⚄ “The correspondence between Saint Exupéry’s material and SA and between the terms of SA and the terms of positive disintegration shows that the structure of Level IV underlies all of the characteristics of SA” (Piechowski, 1978, p. 229).

⚄ “In Level IV, we have an explicit and detailed developmental structure which accounts for the pervasiveness and the cohesion of the traits of SA” (Piechowski, 1978, p. 230).

⚅ In 1991, Dr. Piechowski explained: “Maslow’s self-actualizing person fits Level IV; the self-actualized person – the enlightened one – fits Level V.” “The early stages of self-actualization” … “correspond to Level III growth processes” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 20).

⚅ “The fit between Level IV as the structural skeleton and self-actualization as the flesh of rich description with which to cover the bones is too good not to be true” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 58).

⚅ In representing his position, Dr. Piechowski said: “He [Dąbrowski] didn’t know that Maslow had changed his position and realized that self-actualization does not necessarily follow satisfaction of all of the needs below (Maslow, 1971). I believe he must not have read Maslow’s description of self-actualizing people nor gotten through my paper (it is rather dense). His conclusion was that his theory and Maslow’s could not be commensurate. He never understood that by providing a theoretical structure for Maslow’s concept of self-actualization, his theory was showing its power” (Piechowski, 2008, p. 57).
≻ “Dąbrowski felt strongly that Maslow’s claim that satisfaction of lower needs would more or less automatically move people to toward self-actualization was fundamentally wrong. He didn’t know that Maslow had changed his position and realized that self-actualization does not necessarily follow satisfaction of all the prior needs (Maslow 1971). Furthermore, Dąbrowski did not understand that the demonstration of the good fit between the two independently derived concepts was a confirmation of the power of the theory of positive disintegration” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 174).

⚅ Dąbrowski strongly advocated a qualitative difference between animals and humans. In TPD there is a qualitative difference between the highest and lowest values and between “what is” and “what ought to be” that is not seen in Maslow.
≻ For example, Maslow’s belief was that instinctoid biology underlies a single continuum of both our lowest and highest traits – “the so-called spiritual or value-life, or ‘higher’ life, is on the same continuum (is the same kind or quality of thing) with the life of the flesh, or of the body, i.e., the animal life, the material life, the ‘lower’ life. That is, the spiritual life is part of our biological life. It is the ‘highest’ part of it, but yet part of it” (Maslow 1971/1976, pp. 313-314).
≻ “[M]an has a higher nature which is just as ‘instinctoid’ as his lower nature, and that this higher nature includes the needs for meaningful work, for responsibility, for creativeness, for being fair and just, for doing what is worthwhile and for preferring to do it well” (Maslow 1971/1976, p. 228).
≻ “The first and most obvious level of acceptance is at the so-called animal level. Those self-actualizing people tend to be good animals, hearty in their appetites and enjoying themselves without regret or shame or apology” (Maslow, 1954, p. 207).

⚄ Dr. Piechowski did not acknowledge that Maslow also described a level higher than self-actualization; self-transcendence. At this highest level, “one transcends one’s own personality” (Maslow, 1967, p. 160). See Koltko-Rivera, (2006) for more information.

⚃ 9.3.2.8 Difference 7: The relationship between overexcitability and the dynamisms.

⚄ Piechowski believes that the dynamisms arise from overexcitability “The dynamisms are actually the products of certain types and combinations of overexcitabilities” (Piechowski and Wells, 2021, p. 78).
≻ “ … overexcitabilities are the raw developmental potential at the start of development and that dynamisms emerge from the process of transformation of overexcitabilities into dynamisms (Wells & Falk, 2021).” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 168).
≻ Tillier: I raise this question because when Dąbrowski taught us the theory he always emphasized the role of instincts in the dynamisms. I would say he presented the dynamisms as initially being driven by, or based on the higher developmental instincts. He called the developmental instinct the “mother” instinct and then you have the creative instinct and the instinct for self-perfection. Instincts come to work hand-in-hand with the dynamisms and overexcitabilities in development.

⚄ Dr. Piechowski did not emphasize dynamisms in his work, suggesting: “As overexcitabilities are dominant early in development and multilevel dynamisms are rare, consequently, detailed discussion of dynamism of positive disintegration would have been premature in regard to school-age children” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 177).

⚄ Dr. Piechowski has introduced a new construct involving conserving and transforming growth.
≻ “Judith Ann Robert (1984; Robert & Piechowski, 1981) took up the task of exploring the distinction between conserving and transforming personal growth. Examining the content of responses to open-ended questionnaires, she found telling differences. Conserving and transforming subjects both showed the presence of a hierarchy of values, but the conserving subjects did not show evidence of inner psychic transformation that would enable them to put their ideals in action. This process, present in the transforming subjects, carries out the specific tasks of inner restructuring” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 176).

⚄ Dr. Piechowski believes that TPD corresponds to ADHD, autism, and neurodivergence.
≻ “Today we recognize that Dąbrowski was describing features of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, and other types of neurodivergence in his description of the overexcitabilities (Piechowski & Wells, 2021; Wells & Falk, 2021). The theory of positive disintegration as a non-pathologizing framework can be considered a forerunner to the modern neurodiversity paradigm (Walker, 2021; Wise, 2023)” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 175).
≻ This interesting conjecture deserves further consideration.

⚄ The following quote is ironic, given that Dr. Piechowski has chosen to emphasize overexcitability over the other constructs in the theory, for example, psychoneurosis.
≻ “A theory is a whole, why would one of its elements be more important than the rest?” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 175).

⚅ Mendaglio and Tillier (2015) suggested two possible resolutions: (a) Dr. Piechowski might differentiate his work from that of Dąbrowski as Jung did [from Freud] and propose his own theory under his own name or, alternatively,
(b) “he could take the approach that Robbie Case did in developing a neo-Piagetian theory and integrate his views in a neo-Dąbrowskian conceptualization, amending TPD to reflect a Piechowskian perspective [and put this forth under his own name]” (Mendaglio & Tillier, 2015, p. 220).

⚄ Dr. Piechowski’s ongoing arguments appear to be based more on philosophical differences rather than upon strong or extensive research data (see 1978, 2002, 2003, 2008).

⚄ Dr. Piechowski has introduced several interpretations and criticisms that have influenced the literature.

⚄ Confusion was created when interpretations were not clearly differentiated from Dr. Dąbrowski’s original works.

⚄ Awareness of these issues is critical for those who want to understand and apply Dr. Dąbrowski’s approach.

⚄ Dr. Piechowski (2014) advocated “rethinking Dąbrowski’s theory.” Mendaglio and Tillier (2015) replied.

⚄ Dr. Piechowski rejected Dr. Dąbrowski’s view of Level II as a transitional level dominated by unilevel disintegration:
“The concept of unilevel disintegration, however, cannot be applied wholly to Level II because the majority of lives identified within this level are more or less stable. Even Dąbrowski’s concept of partial integration seems to have limited application because it implies that there is some ‘disintegration’ going on or that the person is chronically on the brink of one. This makes little sense. Instead, we should conclude that the lives of most people follow the stages of lifespan development and that some may be so unreflective that they match Level I and others are somewhat more reflective and match Level II” (Piechowski, 2017, p. 93).

⚄ I have included this long quote in the summary because it succinctly captures the dilemma: some of Dr. Dąbrowski’s constructs make little sense to Dr. Piechowski, and he favours different conclusions.

⚄ The quote also illustrates another dilemma:
Dr. Piechowski’s frequent contradictions. He concluded “the lives of most people follow the stages of lifespan development.” Yet in the opening paragraphs of this same paper, Dr. Piechowski rejected a stage approach: “The challenge in understanding the theory lies in the fact that the levels are not successive stages but represent different types of development” (Piechowski, 2017, p. 87; also see Piechowski, 2014, pp. 11-12).

⚄ In summary, rather than “rethinking Dąbrowski’s theory,” both Dr. Piechowski and the gifted community would be better served if he developed his own constructs and published his own theory that could then be compared to Dr. Dąbrowski’s original.

⚄ “There is a myth of a ‘history of disagreements’ between Piechowski and Dąbrowski which Chojnowski tries to perpetuate. A suggestion to drop the label ‘primary integration’ but retain ‘Level I’ can hardly be called a disagreement with the theory and its author. Only one difference emerged during Dąbrowski’s lifetime – whether characteristics of self-actualization describe individuals who reached Level IV. This is a difference of opinion, based on a misconception, that has nothing to do with the demonstrated fact that individuals who reached Level IV show characteristics of self-actualization. Rather than disagreement, it is an affirmation of the power of the theory” (Piechowski, 2024, p. 178).
≻ It’s hard to understand how the differences outlined in the above quote and on this page would not constitute “disagreements”. Dr. Piechowski seems unable to perceive or acknowledge disagreements when they are obvious.

⚄ Historically, Dr. Piechowski inserted his own views under the titling of TPD and Dr. Dąbrowski’s name, making it difficult for new readers to see the different contributions of each author, thus creating confusion.

⚅ Example: Chia (2017, p. 651) misattributed the creation of the five levels to Dr. Piechowski. “The past experiences provided Dąbrowski food for serious thought and certainly enriched fodder for developing his theory which, later, his colleague, Dr. Piechowski (2003), adapted to create the continuum of five developmental levels in personality structure: primary integration, unilevel disintegration, multilevel disintegration, directed multilevel disintegration, and secondary integration.”

⚅ Example: Vuyk (2015, p. 15) says: “Later, Piechowski (1979, 2006), who was a student of Dąbrowski, described five areas of heightened sensitivity or OEs that represented developmental potential and could lead to this advanced development.” [The five overexcitabilities were clearly elaborated by Dąbrowski (see 1972, pp. 6-7)].

⚃ 9.3.3.1 Tillier, W. (2009). Conceptual differences between Piechowski and Dąbrowski. In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (pp. 60-68). Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).

⚃ 9.3.3.2 Mendaglio, S. (2009). Point-Counter Point. In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (p. 69). Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).

⚃ 9.3.3.3 Piechowski, M. M. (2009). Dr. Piechowski’s response to William Tillier’s “Conceptual differences between Piechowski and Dąbrowski” In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (pp. 70-74). Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).

⚃ 9.3.3.4 Tillier, W. (2009). Tillier’s response to Dr. Piechowski. In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (pp. 75-77). Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).

⚃ 9.3.3.5 Reference: Frank, J., Curties, H., & Finlay, G. (Eds.). (2009). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).

⚃ Dr. Piechowski uses social learning theory and sees level I as socially constructed, not genetic. It is caused by poor parenting and by children growing up in unloving authoritarian households.

⚃ Schmidt, M. (1977). The pebble in song and legend: Primary integration in studies of personality and development (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.

⚃ Dr. Piechowski claimed that based on this one master’s thesis, level I in TPD can be adequately explained using the concept of the authoritarian personality.

⚃ “The concept of primary integration – originally called primitive integration by Dr. Dąbrowski – was not examined until Margaret Schmidt showed in her thesis that it largely corresponds to the concept of authoritarian personality (Schmidt, 1977). Authoritarian personality results from strict parenting and social pressures that enforce conformity and respect for authority; that is, those who hold power. Therefore, it is not an integration either inherited genetically or arrived at by the individual himself” (Piechowski, 2014, p. 13).

⚃ “This paper is an attempt to establish some sort of correspondences between the theories of Dr. Dąbrowski, Kohlberg and Loevinger particularly between the lower levels or stages postulated by the respective theorists. All three are theories of development where development is understood as a change in level of organization or structure. All three have an empirical basis. In addition empirical studies of especially significant personality forms which appear to fit structures defined by these theories will be examined. Included here are Peck and Havighurst’s (1960) five character types, the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik Levinson, and Sanford, 1950) and the psychopath (Cleckley, 1941)” (Schmidt, 1977 p. 4).

⚃ “Peck and Havighurst describe five basic character types: amoral, expedient, conforming, irrational-conscientious and rational altruistic, which are hierarchically arranged at least in terms of ‘successful’ adaptation to the environment and ‘mental health’ defined in a conventional way. The character types range from egocentric to allocentric, from external or no control to self control. Cleckley’s Mask of Sanity and Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality, though not presenting levels or stages of personality offer descriptions of two special personality types each having a particular set of characteristics by which they can be identified. Both these studies have the advantage of being particularly rich in case material” (Schmidt, 1977, p. 4).

⚃ “The psychopath of course is different than the authoritarian personality not only in being another type altogether but in that the psychopath appears to be born not made. Psychopaths appear to come from disparate backgrounds and often these to be optimal” (Schmidt, 1977, p. 67).

⚃ “One of the most characteristic traits of the psychopath is the lack of feeling. They seem to have been born with not only weak emotional overexcitability but with emotional underexcitability. The psychopath can be highly intelligent and well aware how the world works. He can even have the overexcitabilities – psychomotor, sensual, and to a limited extent imaginational, but lacking the emotional component he is incapable of growth and development. Dr. Dąbrowski maintains that emotional overexcitability is the essential determiner of growth. Psychopathic personality demonstrates by its absence how important it is” (Schmidt, 1977, pp. 67-68).

⚃ “The psychopath is a special case of Level I development, but many of his characteristics are shared by other Level I individuals to a greater or lesser extent. Cleckley’s psychopath is the unsuccessful type in terms of social norms. But take away unmotivated antisocial behavior, failure to learn by experience and failure to follow a life plan and add ambition and a little talent, and you have a picture of success ruthlessly achieved and often admired” (Schmidt, 1977, p. 70).

⚃ Dr. Piechowski: “Schmidt showed in her thesis that it [primary integration] largely corresponds to the concept of authoritarian personality” (2014, p. 13).
≻ However, he failed to mention Schmidt included both psychopaths and authoritarian personalities in level I.
≻ She did not address the relative prevalence of each type.

⚃ “Both Cleckley and Adorno have shown that there are constellations of character traits that go into the makeup of particular personality types, that it is not content but the underlying response to the self, to others and the environment that produce the psychopath or the authoritarian personality. These underlying response patterns contain elements that are all characteristic of Level I functioning – deficient affect, lack of introspection, reification of others and viewing the elements of the environment as instruments for the satisfaction of one’s own basic needs. There are many differences between the psychopath and the authoritarian personality. The former appears to ‘repress’ nothing and acts out every whim and desire, the latter appears to have everything tightly under wraps. The most essential difference however is that the psychopath from all evidence is born that way while the authoritarian personality is a product of his environment” (Schmidt, 1977, pp. 73-74, italics added).

⚃ “It is important to realize, especially if one is bothered by the thought of so many people being at such a low level of development with little or no potential for further growth as it is understood in TPD, that it is very likely that given optimal, or at least favorable environmental conditions, no one outside of psychopaths, mental defectives, etc., would be limited to Level I. People functioning at Level I, it seems clear from the research cited here, are largely products of damaging home environments which are related to the quality of the society in which they exist. In a nation that preaches democracy, human rights, equality, etc., but glorifies material goods, power and prestige, and makes it difficult for fragile ‘human’ values to survive, it is not surprising that so many individuals are limited to Level I functioning” (Schmidt, 1977, pp. 74-75).

⚃ “Dąbrowski’s theory, on the other hand, is elitist. Although its elitism does not mean giving the ‘elite’ an advantage, since in TPD the higher level ‘elite’ does not seek its advantage. It sets the Highest development of which a human being is capable of achieving as the standard by which to judge men. It says that the ‘average man’, or the majority (Dabrowski and Piechowski, 1972) is in reality at a low level of development and only a minority, many of whom are labeled maladjusted, psychoneurotic, misfits, etc., by society are moving toward higher levels of development. The theory even goes on to state that the majority are incapable, by virtue of their heredity, of advancing to the highest levels of development, no matter how optimal their social environment might be” (Schmidt, 1977, p. 77).

⚃ “There are several implications for counseling stemming from Dr. Dąbrowski’s theory and from the other material presented here. Surely the most important is that an integrated self is not necessarily a healthy self. In fact, it has been demonstrated here that most of those at the level of Primary Integration are pathetic one-dimensional persons – the Delta’s, the Impulsives, the authoritarians are basically stunted beings who function at a level that is closer to that of a machine than to the human. Therefore, counselors should not be necessarily striving toward adaptation or adjustment on the part of their clients nor toward squeezing them into the ‘right’ corner of the OK corral” (Schmidt, 1977, pp. 77-78).

⚃ Schmidt: “there are many differences between the psychopath and the authoritarian personality” (1977, p. 73). Maslow equated the two: “The conditions which the authoritarian attributes to human nature, in general, are in point of fact found only in a small proportion of our population. The only individuals who ultimately fulfill their conditions are those we call psychopathic personalities” (Maslow, 1943, p. 411).

⚂ Frank, J., Curties, H., & Finlay, G. (Eds.). (2009). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).
≻ Maslow, A. H. (1943). The authoritarian character structure. Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 401-411. doi:10.1080/00224545.1943.9918794
≻ Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. In Harper’s psychological series. Harper & Row.
≻ Maslow, A. H. (1967). Neurosis as a failure of personal growth. Humanitas, 3, 153-169.
≻ Maslow, A. H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Viking.
≻ Maslow, A. H. (1976). The farther reaches of human nature. Penguin. (Original work published 1971)
≻ Mendaglio, S. (2009). Point-Counter Point. In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (p. 69). Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).
≻ Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2015). Has the time come to emulate Jung? A response to Piechowski'’s most recent rethinking of the theory of positive disintegration: I. The case against primary integration. Roeper Review, 37(4), 219-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1077495
≻ Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Levels of development and forms of psychic overexcitability. In K. Dąbrowski, (with Piechowski, M. M.) Theory of levels of emotional development: Volume 1 – Multilevelness and positive disintegration (pp. 18-36). Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science.
≻ Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo and R. Zaffrann (Eds.), New Voices in Counseling the Gifted (25-57). Kendall Hunt.
≻ Piechowski, M. M. (2009). Dr. Piechowski’s response to William Tillier’s “Conceptual differences between Piechowski and Dąbrowski” In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (pp. 70 - 74). Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).
≻ Piechowski, M. M. (2014). Mellow out, they say. If only I could: Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Royal Fireworks Press.
≻ Piechowski, M. M. (2015). A reply to Mendaglio and Tillier. Roeper Review, 37(4), 229-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1077496
≻ Piechowski, M. M. (2017). Rethinking Dąbrowski’s theory II: It’s not all flat here. Roeper Review, 39(2), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1289487
≻ Piechowski, M. M. (2024). Setting the Record Straight: A Reply to Chojnowski’s “Three Ways to Read Dabrowski’s Theory.” Psychologia Wychowawcza, 30, 165-182. https://doi.org/10.71358/pw.1856 P
≻ Piechowski, M. M. & Daniels, S., Eds. (2009). Living with Intensity: Understanding the Sensitivity, Excitability, and Emotional Development of Gifted Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Great Potential Press.
≻ Piechowski, M. M. & Wells, C. (2021). Reexamining Overexcitability: A framework for understanding intense experience. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross, (Eds.). Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (2nd ed., pp. 63-83). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003235415-6
≻ Schmidt, M. L. (1977). The pebble in song and legend or primary integration in studies of personality and development. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
≻ Tillier, W. (2009a). Conceptual differences between Piechowski and Dąbrowski. In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (pp. 60-68). Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).
≻ Tillier, W. (2009b). Tillier’s response to Dr. Piechowski. In J. Frank, H. Curties, & G. Finlay, (Eds.). Imagining the way: Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference (pp. 75-77). Unpublished Manuscript. (Proceedings from the 19th Annual SAGE Conference. November 7-8, 2008, University of Calgary, Calgary AB.).

⚁ 9.3 Dr. Dąbrowski and Dr. Piechowski.

William Tillier

Menu: