Roeper Review

ISSN: 0278-3193 (Print) 1940-865X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uror20

Through the Dąbrowski Lens: A Fresh Examination

of the Theory of Positive Disintegration

Amanda Harper, Linley Cornish, Susen Smith & Peter Merrotsy

To cite this article: Amanda Harper, Linley Cornish, Susen Smith & Peter Merrotsy (2017)
Through the Dąbrowski Lens: A Fresh Examination of the Theory of Positive Disintegration,
Roeper Review, 39:1, 37-43, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1247395

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1247395

Published online: 27 Dec 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 64

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uror20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 04 January 2017, At: 21:09
Roeper Review, 39:37–43, 2017
Copyright © The Roeper Institute
ISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X online
DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1247395

Through the Dabrowski

˛ Lens: A Fresh Examination
of the Theory of Positive Disintegration
Amanda Harper , Linley Cornish, Susen Smith, and Peter Merrotsy

Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive disintegration is an emotion-centered, nonontogenetic,
five-level theory of personality development where the experience of all emotions is essen-
tial for the process of growth. In this article, we examine the complexities of the three factors
of development, which are essential to the notion of development within the theory of positive
disintegration. We elaborate on the relationships between these factors, depict the processes
and interactions in a new graphical framework, provide associated explanations, and support
these by additional references to Dabrowski’s
˛ original writings.
Keywords: Dabrowski,
˛ developmental potential, empathy, factors of development, gifted,
integration, multilevelness, overexcitabilities, personality, positive disintegration

The purpose of this article is to provide additional clarity, Dabrowski

in the form of a new graphical depiction and associated
explanations, regarding the interactions within and among
the three factors of development that are central to the pro-
cesses of development described within Dabrowski’s
˛ theory
of positive disintegration.
Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive disintegration is a grand
theory of personality development (Mendaglio, 2008b) and
has its developmental basis in the experiences of life.
Reflecting on the development and growth of human-
ity depicted through the theory of positive disintegration,
Dabrowski
˛ (1975) states: “The juxtaposition of inhuman
forces and inhuman humans with those who were sensi-
tive, capable of sacrifice, courageous, gave a vivid panorama
of a scale of values from the lowest to the highest”
(p. 233).
Dabrowski
˛ (1967) is clear in his view of the fully devel-
oped personality, which includes only positive qualities:
Personality . . . is a name given to an individual fully devel-
oped, both with respect to the scope and level of the most
essential positive human qualities, an individual in whom all
the aspects form a coherent and harmonized whole, and who
possesses, in a high degree, the capability for insight into
his own self, . . . conscious that his development is not yet
complete. (p. 5)
Accepted 31 December 2015.
Address correspondence to Amanda Harper, University of Tasmania,
Private Bag 45, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia. E-mail: amanda.
harper@utas.edu.au
˛ (2015) contrasts the fully developed personality
with the notion of individuality that has both negative and
positive qualities, including motivation driven by egoistic
views.
Mendaglio (2008b) captures the essence of the definition
of personality, stating that in the context of Dabrowski’s
˛ the-
ory of positive disintegration, personality is “the product of
an individual’s struggle to move upward toward an ideal”
(p. 21). Mendaglio echoes Dabrowski,
˛ stating that intel-
lectual achievement should not be the yardstick by which
human development is measured. Adding to this sentiment,
Mroz (2009) suggests that human development is the pro-
cess of striving to be the person one wishes to be, rather than
who one is. This process, involving personal reflection and
change, is integral to evolving humanness and authenticity
through the development of personality where “the devel-
opmental instinct acts against the automatic, limited, and
primitive expressions of the life cycle” (Dabrowski,
˛ 1964,
p. 2). Further, Dabrowski
˛ (1967) states:
The process of personality building, therefore, is character-
ized by a wandering “upward”, toward an ideal . . . and the
gradual acquiring of a structure within which . . . general
human traits appear . . . [where] . . . the instincts of a human
being are to a considerable extent subject to the princi-
ple of dynamic disintegration . . . (multilevel disintegration),
in order to unify within the process of development in a
homogeneous personality structure. (pp. 54–55)
There are five incremental levels of development outlined
by Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive disintegration. Though an
individual may not necessarily begin a personal development
38 A. HARPER ET AL.
journey at the lowest level, the fluid nature of the devel-
opmental process may witness an individual move up and
then regress to a level lower than that where they began
(Ackerman, 2009).
Level I is primary integration. At this level, self-interest
is the main personal motivation, and empathy or consid-
eration of others is not visible in behaviors. Individuals
display a self-serving and egocentric demeanor (Miller &
Silverman, 1987) with little, if any, inhibition. Conflict,
blame, and responsibility are externalized (Rankel, 2008).
Though this level is a cohesive and balanced state, there
is no evidence of psychological development (Mendaglio,
2008b). Dabrowski
˛ (1996) describes this level as having “lit-
tle differentiation, primitive drive structure, and predominant
externality” (p. 18).
Level II, or unilevel disintegration, is the first stage
of disintegration, which involves a time of inner conflict,
identity confusion, and even anxiety or despair. Moodiness
and confusion may occur at this stage (Mendaglio, 2008a).
Attitudes and behaviors swing back and forth, displaying
uncertainty of purpose and conviction (Miller & Silverman,
1987). This is a transition phase from primary integra-
tion and either leads to further disintegration at level III,
to a regression back to the stability of primary integra-
tion, or, as Mendaglio (2008a) suggests, to an individ-
ual suffering “dire consequences such as psychoses or
suicide” (p. 37).
Level III is spontaneous multilevel disintegration. At this
level, the individual’s hierarchy of values begins to emerge
and starts to influence behavior. The process occurs as
a result of self-reflection, evaluation, and enhanced self-
perception. With this emergence may come significant
personal inner struggle or turbulence. Dabrowski˛ (1976)
describes this as an essential individual quality that “is like
the consciousness of our developmental identity” (p. 132).
An awareness of conflict between the ideal and existing self
ensues and the individual “can make conscious and volitional
choices about what to emphasize and what aspects to inhibit”
(Tillier, 2008b, p. 106). Dabrowski
˛ (1996, p. 19) states
clearly that in this level, behaviors are molded by “an emerg-
ing autonomous, emotionally discovered, hierarchy of values
and aims,” and the inner conflict experienced therein is “a
crucial period for positive, i.e. developmental transforma-
tions.” Multilevelness emerges and “results in a revolution
in how individuals perceive themselves and the world”
(Mendaglio, 2008b, p. 38).
Level IV is organized multilevel disintegration. In this
level, the individual adopts conscious control over his or her
life and development. Dabrowski
˛ (1974, as cited in Hague,
1976) indicates that at this level the inner conflicts reduce
and the individual’s hierarchy of values becomes more sta-
ble. At level IV the individual becomes quite self-aware and
able to undertake self-analysis, with the third factor emerging
as a key dynamism (Bailey, 2010). Dabrowski
˛ (1972) defines
a dynamism as a “biological or mental force controlling
behavior and its development” (p. 294). In describing the
third factor, Dabrowski
˛ (1973) wrote that it:
consists . . . in the acceptance of those values which are
closer to the ideal of personality and in the rejection of those
values which are farther from this ideal. . . . This viewpoint
involves a look backwards, an awareness of what one was,
and a look forward . . . ; of what one is becoming. This devel-
opmental perspective is applied, not only toward oneself, but
also toward other people and allows one to understand them
and their own dynamics of developmental transformations.
(p. 77)
Level V, or secondary integration, is the pinnacle of
human development and is the level at which personal-
ity is attained. Peace Pilgrim is proposed by Piechowski
(2009a) as an exemplar of level V. The hierarchy of val-
ues determines actions, behavior emulates these values,
and there is little or no inner conflict. The influence of
the aforementioned thinkers is reflected again at this level
of development, which aligns with Kierkegaard’s knight
of faith, Nietzsche’s superhuman, and Plato’s governing
class (Tillier, 2008b). Although Dabrowski
˛ and Maslow
maintain a different perspective on what constitutes robust
mental health and the processes of achieving advanced
levels of development (Piechowski, 2009b), Maslow also
acknowledges the prospect of individuals achieving their full
potential through self-actualization (Barnathan, 2007; Tillier,
2008b). It is noteworthy, however, that Dabrowski
˛ does not
support Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (Huitt, 2007)
regarding self-actualization. Dabrowski
˛ contends that there
is no evidence of multilevelness or the individual’s capacity
for self-reflection and the conscious decision making regard-
ing behavioral choices moving towards the personality ideal
within Maslow’s theory (Tillier, 2008a).
Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive disintegration has often
been embraced by the gifted education community, fre-
quently with a focus on the overexcitabilities (Bailey, 2011;
Jennaway & Merrotsy, 2011; Piechowski, 1997; Silverman,
2009). Though the overexcitabilities are a vital part of
Dabrowski’s
˛ theory, there is further scope for investigating
the place of the full theory within the gifted education lit-
erature (Ackerman, 2009; Mendaglio, 2012; Mroz, 2009;
Tillier, 2009a, 2011). Tillier (2011) argues that the full
value of Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive disintegration is not
realized when the theory is considered in part—it is the
complexity of the full theory and its inherent multilevelness
that provides insight and depth of understanding. In refer-
ring to the levels within the theory, Tillier (2011) wrote in
an online post that “to illustrate this, Dabrowski
˛ said that the
difference between love at level I and love at level V was
greater than the difference between love and hate.”
Although the hierarchical view of personality devel-
opment is not unique (Westen, Burton, & Kowalski,
2006), three characteristics that set the theory of positive
disintegration apart from other theories are the emphasis

placed on the role of emotions in the developmental process
(Ackerman, 2009; Mendaglio, 2008a; Piechowski, 1975);
the concept of multilevelness, including the complex nature
and interrelatedness of factors; and the notion of develop-
mental potential (Dabrowski,
˛ 1972, 1973, 1996).
Much has been written of the five levels within the the-
ory; however, the transition from one level to another is
not automatic and does not correlate with age or matura-
tion. An individual’s capacity for personality development
involves three factors of development and the processes
of disintegration and integration. Dabrowski
˛ (1972) defines
the three factors of development: “The first factor is the
constitutional endowment, the second factor is the social
environment. The third factor is the dynamism of conscious
choice (valuation) by which one affirms or rejects certain
qualities in oneself and in one’s environment” (pp. 305–306).
Figure 1 is a graphical depiction of the interplay between
the processes and some traits of the three factors of develop-
ment. These factors are quite separate from the five levels of
development.
The first factor of development is heredity and the endow-
ment with which a person is born, which is akin to Freud’s id
(Mendaglio, 2008c). Rankel (2008, p. 97) describes the first
factor as “biological and unconscious.” Within the first factor
there are two elements: developmental instinct and develop-
mental potential. The relationship of these two elements to
heredity is depicted in Figure 1 by the solid line connect-
ing them. Mendaglio (2008b) notes that Dabrowski
˛ labels the
first element, developmental instinct, as the mother instinct
and suggests that it is the genesis of all developmental
forces.
The second element of the first factor of develop-
ment is developmental potential, which Dabrowski
˛ (1996,
p. 10) states “determines what level of development a per-
son may reach if the physical and environmental conditions
are optimal.” It is worth noting that Dabrowski
˛ refers to pos-
itive developmental potential, which he differentiates from
negative developmental potential (Dabrowski,
˛ 1972). For the
purposes of this article and exploring the relationships of
positive development, Figure 1 depicts developmental poten-
tial in terms of the positive. Dabrowski
˛ (1972) identifies two
contributors to developmental potential; however, he consid-
ers the “main form of the positive developmental potential
are five kinds of psychic overexcitability namely, sensual,
psychomotor, affective (emotional), imaginational and intel-
lectual” (pp. 6–7). Mendaglio (2008a) adds to the definition,
stating “overexcitability is a higher than average respon-
siveness to stimuli due to heightened sensitivity of nervous
system receptors” (p. 24). The presence of overexcitabilities
within an individual’s heredity may have a strong influence
on personality development. Dabrowski
˛ (1972) states that
“one could say that one who manifests a given form of
overexcitability, and especially one who manifests several
forms of overexcitability, sees reality in a different, stronger
and more multisided manner” (p. 7).
THROUGH THE DABROWSKI LENS 39
The inner milieu is the inner physical and physiologi-
cal makeup of an individual. It is contrasted with the inner
psychic milieu, which is the other element of developmen-
tal potential. Again the relationship is depicted in Figure 1
through the use of solid lines. The inner psychic milieu
is defined by Mendaglio (2008a) as “the internal mental
environment where cognitive forces, when activated, regu-
late development” (p. 28). The inner psychic milieu has its
genesis in the inner milieu, as a response to the physical
realm, where mental functions respond to an awareness of
one’s own physicality. In the preface to Personality Shaping
Through Positive Disintegration, Dabrowski
˛ (1967) states
that though personality development “occurs under the influ-
ence of various external milieus . . . it is in the inner
psychic milieu that the formative process takes place” (p. v).
Dabrowski,
˛ Kawczak, and Piechowski (1970) later sug-
gested that the inner psychic milieu “appears significantly,
only at advanced stages of mental development, basically at
the time of multilevel disintegration” (p. 24).
Dynamisms also form part of an individual’s develop-
mental potential and, in Dabrowski’s
˛ view, are a genetic
endowment (Mendaglio, 2008b). There are two main cat-
egories of dynamisms. The first, dissolving dynamisms,
foster feelings of internal discontent that provide the cata-
lyst for personality development. Dabrowski
˛ suggests that
this disintegration of norms, ideals, expectations, personal
contentment with oneself—that is, the status quo—must
occur before the new, more developed version of self can
emerge. Figure 1 lists a number of the feelings, experi-
ences, and sensations that may accompany the dissolving
dynamism as the individual experiences disintegrative pro-
cesses. Dabrowski
˛ (1967) provides detailed information on
the major dynamisms involved in positive disintegration;
for example, dissatisfaction with oneself. In discussing this
dynamism, Dabrowski
˛ links it to another, anxiety over one-
self, both of which he states are symptomatic of the processes
of positive multilevel disintegration (Dabrowski,
˛ 1967). He
further states that anxiety over oneself and astonishment
in oneself are both creative dynamisms that prepare the
individual for future emotional and intellectual development.
Once disintegration has taken place, the developmental
dynamisms may be activated to begin the building of a new,
improved version of self. Again Figure 1 lists some of the
traits or sensations that may be experienced during this pro-
cess. One of the more complex developmental dynamisms
is subject/object in oneself , which manifests as higher-level
personality shaping occurs. Dabrowski
˛ (1967) states that
The advent of the “subject–object” dynamism is determined
by the developmental instinct in its higher phase, in the
phase of breaking away from the mediocre life cycle of a
man. . . . An individual developing toward personality is
subject to positive disintegration which . . . , causes the
internal life of an individual, his inner psychic milieu, to
40 A. HARPER ET AL.

FIGURE 1 Three factors of development. From The Development of Empathy in Gifted Children, Through the Lens of Dabrowski’s
˛ Theory of Positive
Disintegration, by A. J. Harper, 2013, University of New England, Armidale, Australia. Used with permission.

develop and enrich itself . . . which lies at the root of
self-knowledge. (pp. 103–104)
Dabrowski
˛ (1964, p. 56) also describes the experience of
subject/object in oneself as an individual “assumes a critical
attitude toward himself and his surroundings, strives to verify
opinions with reality, attempts to transmit personal moral
experiences to others, and makes demands of a moral nature
both on himself and on other people.”
Mendaglio (2008b) further outlines some of the more
complex aspects of the developmental dynamisms; for
example, the third factor, which is both a developmental
dynamism and a factor of development in its own right.
This is depicted within Figure 1 through the use of a dotted

line, linking the third factor to the list of developmen-
tal dynamisms that occur within the inner psychic milieu.
Mendaglio describes the third factor dynamism as discrim-
inating “among functions and events according to their
value for enhancing development; if they are not growth-
promoting, they are rejected” (p. 31).
Importantly, the relationships between the elements of
developmental potential are not linear. It is not a simple
case of one element appearing, impacting on an individ-
ual’s life, and then the next element appearing, in succession.
There is an intricate, and individual, web of interrelation-
ships that occurs between these elements that stimulate a
unique version of personality development within each indi-
vidual. Though the flow in Figure 1 does emulate the growth
of the understanding of these elements in human develop-
ment, the two-dimensional nature of the figure does not
allow for the diagrammatic representation of this complexity.
It does, however, provide a new clarity regarding the skeletal
relationships between the three factors of development.
Environmental and social circumstances constitute the
second factor, or influence, in an individual’s development.
Though these two circumstances have been widely discussed
in the broader literature (Westen et al., 2006), the degree
to which these external factors influence the individual
from the perspective of the theory of positive disintegration
is regulated and mediated by the strength of the individ-
ual’s developmental potential, through his or her genetic
endowment.
The first two developmental factors, heredity and environ-
mental and social, are not unique to the theory of positive
disintegration. Though Dabrowski
˛ (1964) notes that “the
importance of self-objectivity, self-criticism, self-control,
and objective evaluation of the social environment has long
been recognized” (p. 54), the final area, known as the third
factor, does set the theory of positive disintegration apart
(Ackerman, 2009). Mendaglio (2008b) defines the third
factor as “the force by which individuals become more self-
determined, controlling their behaviors through their inner
voices and values” (p. 26). Dabrowski
˛ (1964) is clear on the
importance of the third factor, stating that:
Along with unborn properties and the influence of environ-
ment, it is the “third factor” that determines the direction,
degree, and distance of man’s development. . . . Because
of the third factor the individual becomes aware of what
is essential and lasting and what is inferior, temporary, and
accidental both in his own structure and conduct and in his
exterior environment. (p. 53)
The third factor engages after the activation of the first
and second factors (Mendaglio, 2008b, p. 26). Individuals,
having also moved through the second factor, consciously
choose to examine their own selves and undertake self-
development and engage in autopsychotherapy, whereby
they lead themselves through stressful periods, utilizing a
process of positive self-talk (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009).
THROUGH THE DABROWSKI LENS 41
It is also important to note that it is not the experience of
stress within the process of disintegration per se that causes
development but the engagement of various dynamisms, in
combination with the other factors of development, that
stimulates development (Tillier, 2009b).
It is within the phase of multilevel disintegration that the
third factor primarily occurs (Dabrowski,
˛ 1964). When the
third factor engages and the autonomous person thus “strives
to see that every concrete act of an individual is in correlation
with his personality ideal” (Dabrowski,
˛ 1964, p. 61), individ-
uals have risen above the control of biological tendencies to
live by the guidance of their own code of values and will
have a tendency toward self-education (Dabrowski,
˛ 1976).
Dabrowski
˛ (1972) explains the notion of self-education as
“the process of working out the personality in one’s inner
self” (p. 62).
Further, Dabrowski
˛ (2015) states:
Awareness of one’s imperfection, anxiety with respect to
oneself, longing for an ideal, accompanied by a perception
that one must work upon his own remolding, should go hand
in hand with the work of raising the level of society. We can
change and improve the group in which we live, therefore,
only if we know how to develop ourselves. (p. 19)
Dabrowski
˛ provides a clear message regarding the necessity
of self-awareness and self-education, particularly for those
people charged with furthering society. This highlights the
immense value of increased understanding of the entirety of
Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive disintegration, particularly
among educators, counselors, and therapists, as a tool to
facilitate a deeper understanding of self but also to better
understand the potential personality development of students
and clients. With this understanding, we can begin to explore
more unique ways to further nurture, scaffold, and sup-
port the needs of individuals. Without such self-knowledge,
Dabrowski
˛ (2015) suggests that the transformational nature
of furthering society becomes “pseudo-work, a cover for atti-
tudes and aims which often have nothing to do with real
social work” (p. 19).
CONCLUSION
We have provided additional insight into the processes
and interactions within and between the three factors
of development from Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive
disintegration. These processes and interactions have been
graphically depicted through the inclusion of Figure 1
and supported by further reference to Dabrowski’s
˛ original
writings.
ORCID
Amanda Harper http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7980-1438
42 A. HARPER ET AL.

REFERENCES Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (pp. 13–40). Scottsdale,

AZ: Great Potential Press.
Mendaglio, S. (2008c). The theory of positive disintegration (TPD) and
Ackerman, C. M. (2009). The essential elements of Dabrowski’s theory of
other approaches to personality. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s
positive disintegration and how they are connected. Roeper Review, 31,
theory of positive dinsintegration (pp. 249–274). Scottsdale, AZ: Great
81–95. doi:10.1080/02783190902737657
Potential Press.
Bailey, C. L. (2010). Overexcitabilities and sensitivities: Implications
Mendaglio, S. (2012). Overexcitabilities and giftedness research: A call for
of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration for counseling the
a paradigm shift. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 207–219.
gifted. Retrieved from http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas10/
doi:10.1177/0162353212451704
Article_10.pdf
Miller, N. B., & Silverman, L. K. (1987). Levels of personality development.
Bailey, C. L. (2011). An examination of the relationships between ego
Roeper Review, 9, 221–225. doi:10.1080/02783198709553056
development, Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration, and the
Mroz, A. (2009). Theory of positive disintegration as a basis for
behavioral characteristics of gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly,
research on assisting development. Roeper Review, 31, 96–102.
55, 208–222. doi:10.1177/0016986211412180
doi:10.1080/02783190902737665
Barnathan, M. (2007). Where Maslow becomes Dabrowski—The emergence
Piechowski, M. M. (1975). A theoretical and empirical approach to the study
of the fourth factor. Retrieved from http://www.positivedisintegration.
of development. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 92, 231–297.
com/Barnathan2007.pdf
Piechowski, M. M. (1997). Emotional giftedness: The measure of intraper-
Dabrowski,
˛ K. (1964). Positive dinsintegration. Boston, MA: Little, Brown
sonal intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of
& Company.
gifted education (pp. 366–381). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Dabrowski,
˛ K. (1967). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration.
Piechowski, M. M. (2009a). Peace Pilgrim, exemplar of level V. Roeper
Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company.
Review, 31, 103–112. doi:10.1080/02783190902737673
Dabrowski,
˛ K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. London, England:
Piechowski, M. M. (2009b, November). Response to William Tillier’s
Gryf.
“Conceptual differences between Piechowski and Dabrowski.”
Dabrowski,
˛ K. (1973). The dynamics of concepts. London, England: Gryf.
Retrieved from http://www.positivedisintegration.com/Response%
Dabrowski,
˛ K. (1975). Foreword to: A theoretical and empirical approach to
20to%20William%20Tillier.pdf
the study of development. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 92, 233–237.
Rankel, M. D. (2008). Dabrowski on authentic education. In S. Mendaglio
Dabrowski,
˛ K. (1976). On the philosophy of development through positive
(Ed.), Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (pp. 79–100).
disintegration and secondary integration. Dialectics and Humanism, 3,
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
131–144. doi:10.5840/dialecticshumanism197633/413
Silverman, L. K. (2009). The measurement of giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina
Dabrowski,
˛ K. (1996). Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive func-
(Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (Vol. 2, pp. 947–970). New
tions. Lublin, Poland: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu
York, NY: Springer.
Lubelskiego.
Tillier, W. (2008a, November). Introduction of the concept of multi-
Dabrowski,
˛ K. (2015). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration.
level actualization. Paper presented at the 8th International Congress
Otto, NC: Red Pill Press.
of the Institute for Positive Disintegration in Human Development,
Dabrowski,
˛ K., Kawczak, A., & Piechowski, M. M. (1970). Mental growth
Alberta, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.positivedisintegration.com/
through positive disintegration. London, England: Gryf.
SEDI%20-%2076V%20-%204%20Proceedings.pdf
Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M. M. (2009). Dabrowski’s levels and the pro-
Tillier, W. (2008b). Philosophical aspects of Dabrowski’s theory of posi-
cess of development. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living
tive disintegration. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive
with intensity (pp. 19–29). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
disintegration (pp. 101–121). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Hague, W. J. (1976). Positive disintegration and moral education. Journal of
Tillier, W. (2009a). A brief overview of Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive
Moral Education, 5, 231–240. doi:10.1080/0305724760050302
disintegration and its relevance for the gifted. Retrieved from http://www.
Harper, A. J. (2013). The development of empathy in gifted children, through
positivedisintegration.com/gifted.htm
the lens of Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive disintegration (Unpublished
Tillier, W. (2009b). Dabrowski˛ without the theory of positive
master’s thesis). University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
disintegration just isn’t Dabrowski. Roeper Review, 31, 123–126.
Huitt, W. (2007). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Retrieved from http://www.
doi:10.1080/02783190902737699
edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/maslow.html
Tillier, W. (2011, October 22). Multilivelness and the overexcitabilities
Jennaway, A., & Merrotsy, P. (2011). Dabrowski’s theory of positive
[Discussion board comment]. Retrieved from https://groups.yahoo.com/
disintegration and its use with gifted children. TalentEd, 27, 61–67.
neo/groups/dabrowskidiscussiongroup/conversations/topics/4041
Mendaglio, S. (Ed.). (2008a). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration.
Westen, D., Burton, L., & Kowalski, R. (2006). Psychology
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
(Australian and New Zealand ed.). Milton, Australia: John Wiley &
Mendaglio, S. (2008b). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration: A
Sons.
personality theory for the 21st century. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.),
 THROUGH THE DABROWSKI LENS 43

AUTHOR BIOS

Amanda Harper is an educator with extensive experience in classroom delivery and curriculum design. She com-
pleted her master of education (honors) with a focus on the development of empathy in gifted children with
consideration to Dabrowski’s
˛ theory of positive disintegration. Amanda is currently undertaking her PhD candidature
with the University of Tasmania, further exploring empathy and the place of Dabrowski’s
˛ theory in the clinical skills
acquisition of undergraduate medicine, para-medicine, and pharmacy students. E-mail: amanda.harper@utas.edu.au

Linley Cornish is a teacher educator and Chair of Teaching and Learning in the University of New England.
She teaches preservice teachers a general course on learning theory and effective teaching strategies, as well as
a specific course on teaching in mixed-grade classes. Her main research interests are in mixed-grade teaching
and rural education. She is coeditor of TalentEd, a journal for teachers and parents of talented students. E-mail:
linley.cornish@une.edu.au

Susen Smith is GERRIC Senior Research Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Gifted & Special Education at the University
of New South Wales, Australia. Her research interests include differentiating curriculum and pedagogy for diverse
student needs using the model of dynamic differentiation (MoDD), gifted underachievers, students with learning
difficulties, socioaffective needs, and using dynamic cognitive and affective taxonomies and matrices. She is published
internationally and invited to keynote at international conferences. E-mail: susen.smith@unsw.edu.au

Peter Merrotsy is a professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Australia, where he teaches
primary and secondary mathematics education. His research focuses on gifted children and youth from backgrounds
of disadvantage (such as cultural minority status, low-socioeconomic communities, and rural and isolated contexts),
as well as on creativity and problem solving. He is coeditor of TalentEd, a journal for teachers and parents of gifted
and talented students. E-mail: peter.merrotsy@uwa.edu.au