Authors: Cordelia Mühlenbeck, Thomas Jacobsen
Abstract
In contemporary stage models of personality development, such as Jane Loevinger’s Ego-development and Kegan’s constructive developmental framework, development is seen as a process where an increasingly complex self-concept forms through interaction with the environment. The external environment serves as a frame of reference, shaping the self’s characteristics at different development stages. Loevinger’s studies suggest changes in focus areas within these frames as development progresses. To investigate this assumption and further explore these focus areas, the present study combined Loevinger’s Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT) with an additional question about life priorities. The findings confirm that life focus areas identified in Loevinger’s research shift outward from one’s immediate surroundings as development advances. The study thus reinforces the idea that self-concept evolves through interaction with a widening perception of the world, supporting developmental models that link personal growth with a broader connection to the world.
Key words: Ego-development, Jane Loevinger, meaning making, relation to the world, life focus
Dieser Artikel ist erschienen in: Mühlenbeck, C. & Jacobsen, T. (2026). On the Relation Between Ego-Development and Life Focus in Adult Development. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 1-14. Um den Artikel zu zitieren, nutzen Sie bitte diese Referenz.
Introduction
Jane Loevinger’s stage model of ego development is based on the view that „The ego is above all a process not a thing. The ego is in a way like a gyroscope whose upright position is maintained by its rotation. […] The striving to master, to integrate, to make sense of experience is not one ego function among many but the essence of the ego.“ (Loevinger, 1969, p. 85) It was developed in relation to Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (Lee & Snarey, 1988; Loevinger & Knoll, 1983), in reference to and further development of Piaget’s stage model of cognitive development (Loevinger, 1976) and Erikson’s psychosocial model (Erikson, 1994), but also in inspiration of Stack Sullivan’s work on personality development (Loevinger, 1983; Sullivan, 1950). What all models have in common is that development is step-like rather than continuous and is expressed in developmental phases. In a critical review on Loevinger’s model and measure of ego development, Hauser describes:
„Loevinger’s approach is best characterized as one which takes account of the individual’s integrative processes and overall frame of reference. Her conception of ego development assumes that each person has a customary orientation to himself and to the world and that there is a continuum (ego development) along which these frames of reference can be arrayed. […] It is the sequence of steps along this continuum of differentiation and complexity that Loevinger and her co-workers have delineated as stages of ego development.“ (Hauser, 1976, pp. 928-929)
The core feature of development in this model is the relationship between self and world as the two frames of reference, which in turn continue to change as development progresses. Loevinger’s Ego Development Theory provides a structural-developmental roadmap for how individuals progressively expand and refine their meaning-making systems, moving from simple, externally oriented perspectives toward complex, autonomous, and integrated forms of self-understanding. Whereas Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory foregrounds the active process of “fitting the world to constructs” as a continual act of interpretation and reconstruction (Pfenninger & Klion, 1994), and Walker (1990) emphasizes the inherently relational nature of construing, Loevinger, like Kegan, offers a sequenced account of how such personal construct systems themselves change in structural complexity over time (Vaughn & Pfenninger, 1994). Her model aligns with Cox and Lyddon’s (1997) view of self as an emerging identity that is progressively re-authored through interaction with the social world, and it complements narrative-based educational approaches such as Mayo’s (2001) use of life-story analysis to foster developmental reflection. Echoing Botella and Gallifa’s (1995) account of evolving personal epistemic assumptions, Loevinger’s stages can be seen as charting increasingly differentiated and integrated interpretive repertoires. Rychlak’s (1990) emphasis on the constructive nature of all cognition underscores Loevinger’s value: a validated, meaning-oriented stage model linking the individual’s construct systems with culturally embedded, relational selves. Although Vaughn and Pfenninger (1994) caution that fixed stages may conflict with Kelly’s emphasis on ongoing reconstruction, this tension can be reconciled by viewing Loevinger’s framework as a meta-level description of a coherent developmental system that is always present, but whose progression reveals variability in the pace and timing of individual growth. In this sense, her stages do not constrain the open-ended variability of construing but instead provide a heuristic scaffold for understanding how transformations in meaning-making tend to unfold within a stable underlying sequence across diverse contexts.
Regarding psychometric aspects there is a wide range of validation studies for which a critical review found „substantial empirical support for the conceptual soundness of ego development theory and the WUSCT“ (Gilmore & Durkin, 2001, p. 541). For detailed overviews of critical objections and features of validation and confirmation, we refer to the literature (Gilmore & Durkin, 2001; Hauser, 1976). What is important in the context of the present study are the characteristics of the stages and Loevinger’s assumptions or rather results on the connection between personality development and the focus on the meaning of life and the respective reference in the immediate and wider environment, which is reflected in the relation to the direct surroundings but also generally to the world. In order to be able to identify the degree or kind of this reference, which then constitutes the respective development stage, Loevinger and her colleagues developed the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT) (Hy & Loevinger, 2014; Loevinger, 1998) and published a manual for rating the individual stages based on the data collected over many years (Hy & Loevinger, 2014).
The concept of ego development has a long history of ideas in various cultures, such as ancient Greece and Hinduism (Loevinger, 1976, 1983). However, ego development should not be understood as a purely gradual evolutionary process, nor as clearly defined jumps from one stage to the next (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 3), as already noted above, as problems arise in both perspectives. In the former, the characteristic and distinguishable features of different phases are ignored, while in the latter, the stability that the ego exhibits despite the stage-based approach is ignored (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 4). According to Loevinger, the specific developmental phases can be divided into nine different stages (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, pp. 4-7), whereby the first, as it is pre-linguistic and the stages are determined by means of sentence completions, is not further defined, except for the fact that the developmental goal of the individual in this first stage is to build a stable world of objects that correlates with the self in this phase (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 4). The lowest stage that can be determined using the WUSCT is the second stage (Impulsive Stage, E2), typically in very young childhood, in which physical needs and impulses predominate (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, pp. 4-5). In the third stage (Self-Protective Stage, E3), there are initial abilities to control impulses and to deal with the delay in satisfying needs, but long-term goals and ideals are lacking. „Older children and adults who remain at this stage see life as a zero-sum game; they may become hostile, opportunistic or even psychopathic.“ (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 5) In the fourth stage (Conformist Stage, E4), there is a transition from the ego-centeredness of the self-protective stage to group-centeredness. „At this stage, the child identifies self with the group or its authority […] What is conventional and socially approved is right.“ (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 5) In the fifth stage (Self-Aware Stage, E5), a distinction is made between self and group and the ability to conceptualize one’s own inner life develops. In addition, different possibilities are perceived for situations, whereas in the Conformist Stage these consisted of absolute rules and statements (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 5). In the sixth stage (Conscientious Stage, E6), a further development of ego-awareness takes place and a transition to self-assessed standards. This means that situations or circumstances are not accepted or rejected because the group or an authority confirmed them, but because the individual has assessed them himself (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 6). Statements in the sentence completions are characterized by greater conceptual complexity than in the lower stages. In the seventh stage (Individualistic Stage, E7), there is an even stronger sense of individuality than in the previous stages. The personality is perceived as a whole and there is a greater tolerance for individual differences (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 6). There are two more stages described by Loevinger, namely the eighth stage (Autonomous Stage, E8), in which the recognition of others‘ needs for autonomy is predominant and other people are perceived in their complexity and diversity of character traits (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 6). The ninth and last stage described by Loevinger (Integrated Stage, E9) is so rare according to her results, „probably less than 1 % of an urban population in the United States“ (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 6), that she omits a full description of this stage and recommends combining it with the eighth (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, pp. 6-7). However, this last stage was examined in detail in further data collection and evaluation by Cook-Greuter (Cook-Greuter, 1985; Cook-Greuter, 1999; Cook-Greuter, 2000), who added a tenth stage to the ninth. In her descriptions, she calls the ninth the Construct-aware Stage and the tenth the Unitive Stage (Cook-Greuter, 1985). In the ninth stage, there is a reflection of one’s own emotional and rational processes, and in the tenth stage there is an even more complex ability to adopt other perspectives and to leave one’s own ego perspective (Cook-Greuter, 1985, pp. 75, 86). The individuals in this last stage are described as people who feel integrated into nature (Cook-Greuter, 1985, p. 87).
Cook-Greuter also summarizes the stages into levels, with the first three stages being the Pre-conventional Tier (Tier I), stages four to six being the Conventional Tier (Tier II), stages seven to nine being the Post-conventional Tier (Tier III), and the levels above that (there are potentially more than ten stages assumed) being the Post-post-conventional / Ego-transcendent Tier (Tier IV) (Cook-Greuter, 2000, p. 229). Tier III, i.e. stages seven to nine, together only make up about 9% of the population, Tier IV only < 1%, whereas Tier II makes up 80% of the population and Tier I 10% (Cook-Greuter, 2000, p. 229). This summary in tiers was possible because the respective stages have similar developmental goals and a common life focus. In Tier I, the focus is on the development of self-awareness, in Tier II, on the awareness of and the focus on one’s own culture, and in Tier III, on the reflection of one’s own culture and its integration into a complex world (Cook-Greuter, 1985; Cook-Greuter, 2000). The description of these tiers clearly shows the emphasis of the respective life focus, which was also indirectly described by Loevinger in the developmental goals of the individual stages.
Robert Kegan also found a similar distribution of development stages in his studies, but in his model of the constructive developmental framework (Kegan, 1982) he also highlights the functioning of stage development as an interplay between integration into a background and separation from a foreground, since the “deep structure of any principle of mental organization is the subject-object relationship” (Kegan, 1994, p. 32; Mühlenbeck, 2022, p. 202). The evolved foreground, to which we refer and on which we can consciously reflect, is described as the object part, the unconscious background, in which we are embedded and by which we are held, as the subject part (Kegan, 1994, p. 32). Kegan also highlights the parallels between the different stage models of development and describes their similarities in terms of this subject-object relationship, which is why he also describes similar priorities in life focus based on the developmental goals of the respective stages (Kegan, 1982, pp. 86-87). The aim of the current study was to examine these priorities in life focus in more detail and to give direct empirical data for the indirect results found through the sentence completion test. Since the focus of the development stages, or tiers, can be viewed as a change in the way of relating to the immediate environment, namely as a „frame of reference“ (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, pp. 3-4), as described previously, the change in the priorities in life focus can be regarded as a change in the radius of the reference to the environment. For this reason, in the present study we combined the WUSCT with a question on priorities in life focus. Our hypothesis was that as development progressed, the radius of external reference to the environment would increase. The results allow us to determine more precisely the different frames of reference for the developmental stages and how the radius of reference changes with further development, from the immediate environment to a larger context.
Materials and Methods
Participants and Ethics Statement
We tested 110 participants (age range of 18-67 (no minors); mean: 28.85, sd: 13.75; gender: 34 male, 76 female), who were recruited via the email distribution lists of the university conducting the study, HSU Hamburg (Helmut Schmidt University / University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg). A power analysis for the sample size with a targeted average effect size of 0.4 and a power of 0.8 resulted in a sample size of 60 participants. The maximum number of participants was targeted at approximately 100 participants from the outset, as the very complex qualitative evaluation of the data still had to be feasible. Before the data was collected, the study was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of the university conducting the study. Before the study was carried out, the participants were given information about the study and data protection and their written informed consent was requested, which they provided by clicking a box. Without clicking the consent box the study was discontinued. The participants‘ data was collected completely anonymously. Subsequently, socio-demographic data including age, gender and cultural background were collected, but these did not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the person. All participants had grown up in Germany, but some of them had different cultural backgrounds. The study was conducted in German, which was possible without restrictions due to the participants‘ understanding of the German language, as they all grew up in Germany.
Testing Procedure
The study was conducted with the online questionnaire software unipark, which was provided and installed by HSU Hamburg and carried out over the period from 12/20/2017 to 11/27/2018. Participants who did not complete the questionnaire were immediately deleted in the data export and counted as not tested, whereby 3 participants were dropped. This left 107 participants in the same age range for further evaluation. After collecting the socio-demographic data, the participants were presented with the questions of our study. In addition to the two parts of the here presented study, information was also gathered on aesthetic preferences and visual perception, which are discussed in separate reports (Mühlenbeck & Jacobsen, 2025a, 2025b). All components were presented in a randomized order. The parts of this study included the sentence stems of the WUSCT (part 1) developed by Jane Loevinger, translated into German, with four sentence stems being replaced (13, 14, 29, 33 of the original WUSCT, see appendix) because we considered them more appropriate in relation to our questions. The original sentences dealt with the participants‘ own attitudes towards sex, which is an important part of psychosexual development. However, these sentences could have been perceived as irritating in the professional and student area of our survey group, which is why we replaced them with sentences that were more suitable for the professional context (see also: Binder, 2015). The exchange of some sentence stems is possible without any problems, as described in Hy and Loevinger’s evaluation manual (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 26; 32), since the remaining sentence stems still offer enough opportunity to adequately measure the development stage and the new sentence stems can also be evaluated with the help of the manual, according to the general rules of coding. The presented sentence stems from Part 1 can be found in detail in the appendix. The instructions for the Loevinger Sentence Completion Test were: „Please complete the following sentences. There are no right or wrong answers. Use the words in italics (in some sentences) if you are a woman.“ In part 2 of this study, participants were asked about their most relevant purposes in life. The instructions were: „Name 5 terms that describe the most important things in your life in the order of most important to least important: The most important thing in my life is: …“ and were based on the scale for assessing the meaning of life (Breyer & Danner, 2015). However, the answer format was not used here, but the answer options were left completely open in order to allow qualitative evaluation according to our own categories.
Data Analysis
All data were evaluated qualitatively and by two independent raters. The evaluation of the sentence completions was conducted using the manual written by Hy and Loevinger (2014). The development stage corresponding to the sentence completions was determined in each case. The data from Part 2 were coded into thematic categories related to our research question on increasing radius. First, the initial codes were chosen freely with regard to the question by which relationship in the direct living environment a focus is formed. The categories were then ordered according to the radius of their reference to the external environment, which their content represented. This resulted in four categories with ascending radius regarding the focus of reference: 1) focus related to the Ego; 2) related to the immediate social environment (e.g., family and friends); 3) related to a higher-order relationship with a larger life goal, e.g., one’s own culture; 4) related to God or spirituality in general. The ascending radius categories were then assigned an increasing point value, with a larger radius corresponding to a higher number of points (radius-category 1) was assigned one point; radius-category 2)—two points; 3)—three points; 4)—four points). Subsequently, a weighting was calculated based on the position of each category in the ranking, as our question involved a descending evaluation of life aspects, from most important to least important (position 1—points were multiplied by 5; position 2—points were multiplied by 4; etc.). The resulting point values were added together and averaged over the number of responses, thus providing each individual participant with their own radius value, which lay within the range between the smallest possible value of 3 and the greatest possible value of 12. An average radius for each developmental stage could then be calculated. The degree of agreement between the two raters was then determined for the ratings or codings from Parts 1 and 2. After that, descriptive statistics were calculated, namely the mean radius of reference with standard deviation for each development stage obtained. Statistical analyses were conducted using inferential methods appropriate for ordered group levels. Due to the very small sample size of group E7 (n = 2), this group was excluded from inferential statistical analyses and is reported descriptively only. Because the development stages E4, E5, and E6 represent an ordinal progression, the primary hypothesis was tested using linear regression, with group level entered as a continuous predictor and radius of reference as the dependent variable. Group differences were additionally examined using ANOVA for completeness. All tests were two-tailed with an alpha level of .05. All data were evaluated using R (R-Core-Team, 2013).
Results
The distribution of development stages was as follows (see also Table 1): stage E4: 26 participants; stage E5: 56 participants; stage E6: 23 participants, stage E7: 2 participants. The calculation of the percentage agreement of the ratings of the development stages (Total Protocol Rating – TPR) between the two ratings resulted in: number of participants: 107, percentage agreement: 0.93. Regarding the coding of the categories for the radius of reference the percentage agreement between the two ratings was: number of participants: 107, percent of agreement: 0.9. The mean radius of reference in the four development stages obtained was as follows (see Table 1): E4—mean 4.28 (SD 0.77); E5—mean 5.38 (SD 0.86); E6—mean 6.79 (SD 1.29); E7—mean 8.50 (SD 0.14).
| Groups: Development stages from TPR (E) | Sample size (n) | Mean radius of reference (M) | Standard deviation (SD) |
| E4 | 26 | 4.28 | 0.77 |
| E5 | 56 | 5.38 | 0.86 |
| E6 | 23 | 6.79 | 1.29 |
| E7 | 2 | 8.50 | 0.14 |
Table 1: Radius of reference is reported in the original measurement units. Group E7 (n = 2) is reported descriptively only and was not included in inferential statistical analyses due to insufficient sample size.
A linear regression revealed a significant positive association between group level and radius of reference (see also Table 2): β = 1.25, SE = 0.13, t(103) = 9.94, p < .001, 95% CI [1.00, 1.50]. The model explained 49% of the variance in the radius of reference (R² = .49). For completeness, a one-way ANOVA confirmed a significant effect of group, F(2, 102) = 49.73, p < .001, η² = .49. Tukey–Kramer post-hoc tests showed that all pairwise group differences were significant (all p < .001). Visual inspection of residuals indicated no substantial deviations from normality or homoscedasticity. Results from the regression and ANOVA converged, indicating a robust and systematic increase in the radius of reference across the development stages.
| Predictor | β | SE | t | p | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Development stages | 1.25 | 0.13 | 9.94 | < .001 | [1.00, 1.50] |
Table 2: Linear regression predicting radius of reference. Development stages were coded numerically (E4 = 4, E5 = 5, E6 = 6). Model fit: R² = .49, adj. R² = .49.
Discussion
The objectives of the current study were to investigate life focus priorities in relation to ego-development and validate the indirect findings from the sentence completion tests of earlier studies, as reported in the introduction. As the participants were recruited through the university’s email distribution lists, they were individuals from an academic environment. A brief inquiry into their socio-demographic data showed that the entire sample group had grown up in the German cultural area. Thus, the results on the number of development stages obtained from the WUSCT coincide with those of Loevinger and Cook-Greuter (Cook-Greuter, 2000, p. 229; Hy & Loevinger, 2014, pp. 4-7), since almost all adults were rated in stages four to six (which all belong to the above described Tier II) – in Cook-Greuter’s results, approx. 80%, see above. However, it should be noted that Cook-Greuter’s distribution resulted from a very large mixed-population total sample group of several thousand participants and here, only this relatively small sample group of 107 participants from the university environment was tested. The results from part 2 – the question regarding the life focus – also correspond to the descriptions of the developmental goals of the relevant stages E4 – E7. Development in the individual stages is understood as the processing and interpretation of experience within a certain frame of reference, or meaning, in which this frame of reference is characterized differently in each case (Schultz & Selman, 2013). In stage E4, the focus of life, i.e. the frame of meaning, consists primarily of the identification with a reference group or authority, whereby an initial self-awareness is formed through identification with group rules, in contrast to the self-centeredness of the previous stage, in which the personal needs and ego-dimensions are primarily unconscious (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 5). That is, the increase in the frame of reference (our coded radius) that we found in the answers to the question regarding the life focus indicates a radius of awareness of the reference dimensions that corresponds to the descriptions from the previously collected data (Cook-Greuter, 1985, 1999, 2000; Hy & Loevinger, 2014; Kegan, 1986; Loevinger, 1966, 1969, 1976, 1983; Loevinger & Knoll, 1983). In this respect, the increase in the radius of reference at stage E5 (see Table 1) can be interpreted as an awareness of deeper interpersonal relationships, as Loevinger describes: „interpersonal relationships are described not merely as actions but also in terms of feelings. In many people at this stage, there is an acute sense of the distinction between self and group“ (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 5). Accordingly, at stage E6 the frame of reference can be seen in the awareness of the relationship to culture, as Loevinger describes: „The Conscientious person is reflective; self and others are described in terms of reflexive traits. […] People at this level are more likely than those at lower levels to think beyond their own personal concerns to those of society“ (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 6), which is again reflected in the increase in the radius from E5 to E6 of our data, where, in general, the increase in the radius value results from the more frequent occurrence of the more distant relationship categories (i.e., interpersonal relationships, relationships to culture, to spirituality).. The transition from E6 to E7 involves a shift from self-chosen standards toward increased tolerance of ambiguity, individuality, and inner psychological complexity (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, p. 6). However, we will omit an interpretation of our results for stage E7 due to the limited data available.
Regarding the question of what exactly constitutes the connection between ego development and the change in life focus (i.e., our measured radius), we can formulate an interpretive answer as follows: in Loevinger’s model, ego development is not conceptualized as a specific trait or content variable, but as a structural transformation in meaning-making that organizes how individuals construe self–other relations and social norms (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, pp. 3-4). Development is characterized by increasing differentiation and coordination of perspectives on the self, others, and broader social systems, resulting in changes in what is experienced as relevant, salient, or morally consequential. Importantly, this structural transformation cannot be reduced to general cognitive ability or abstraction alone. Although cognitive complexity may be a necessary enabling condition, ego development primarily concerns the integration of affective, moral, and relational dimensions of experience (Hy & Loevinger, 2014, pp. 4-6). From this theoretical standpoint, an expansion in the radius of life-focus is consistent with more complex forms of meaning-making, insofar as individuals become able to situate their goals and concerns within broader interpersonal and systemic contexts. However, the present findings do not permit strong causal claims, and it remains possible that ego development covaries with other developmental processes (e.g., generative concern or cognitive differentiation) that also contribute to changes in the scope of purpose. Nevertheless, the strong and systematic association observed in our data suggests that the expansion of the reference framework captured by the radius of life-focus aligns closely with the broader meaning-making structures indexed by Loevinger’s ego development, indicating that both may reflect manifestations of a shared underlying process of structural differentiation and integration.
Drawing on findings from multiple developmental stages across a broad age range, our results complement existing empirical studies and theoretical approaches (for overviews see e.g.: Taves, 2020; Taves & Asprem, 2019; Taves et al., 2018) that link developmental psychology to the study of worldviews and meaning making (for a conceptional overview, see: Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Specifically, our results demonstrate how ego development is associated with shifts in meaning-making processes that reference different dimensions of the world—from the immediate lived world to more comprehensive and abstract understandings of reality—and how these evolving reference frames give rise to distinct conceptions of the meaning of life.
In recent research in the psychology of worldviews it has been explored how fundamental beliefs about the nature of the world—often referred to as „primal world beliefs“—change over the lifespan (Lansford et al., 2024; Mascolo, 2024). While some of these beliefs remain stable, significant life events and personal experiences can lead to shifts in one’s worldview. One key finding was that life events play a crucial role in shaping worldviews over time (Clifton, 2020; Gutierrez & Park, 2015). A study on college students found that 76.8% of participants experienced a significant change in at least one of their core beliefs over the course of a semester. Positive life experiences appeared to buffer declines in self-esteem, suggesting that worldviews are not fixed but rather evolve in response to lived experiences (Gutierrez & Park, 2015). The findings of this study indicate in a wider interpretation that religious beliefs and attitudes often shift throughout adulthood, whereby these changes are linked to personal development, major life transitions, and social influences. In our study, references to God or spirituality in general (category 4) were not frequent, but they did occur. And due to the relatively young average age of our sample group, this relationship to spirituality was therefore independent of age. In the context of these mentioned studies it suggests that while some aspects of belief systems may remain stable, others are dynamic and adaptable over time.
Overall, the results of our study can be summarized as follows: the descriptions of the respective frames of reference regarding the life focus in the three development stages E4-E7 from the previous results (Cook-Greuter, 1985; Cook-Greuter, 1999; Cook-Greuter, 2000; Hy & Loevinger, 2014; Kegan, 1986; Loevinger, 1966, 1969, 1976, 1983; Loevinger & Knoll, 1983) could be confirmed with our results regarding the focus in life. A possible refinement for future studies could lie in the collection of larger data sets, which presumably then also obtain data from the higher Tier III, where our results could be confirmed for the remaining stages that were not obtained here. Furthermore, studies that capture developmental dynamics over extended periods of time, and thereby illuminate changes in individuals’ relationships to different dimensions of the world, would be particularly insightful. Beyond this, a valuable extension of the present study would be a cross-cultural comparison to examine whether the observed shifts in frames of reference and life focus can be replicated across different cultural contexts. Even without such a comparison, however, our findings already indicate that personality development is not only associated with a more immediate sense of purpose in life, but also with the formation of broader, coherent frameworks of meaning within which individuals situate themselves. These frameworks, in turn, continue to evolve as development progresses.
References
Binder, T. (2015). Persönlichkeitsentwicklung und Beratungskompetenz: Ich-Entwicklung von Beratern und Führungskräften im Rahmen von Weiterbildungsprogrammen Freie Universität Berlin]. Berlin.
Botella, L., & Gallifa, J. (1995). A constructivist approach to the development of personal epistemic assumptions and worldviews. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 8(1), 1-18.
Breyer, B., & Danner, D. (2015). Skala zur Erfassung des Lebenssinns (ALLBUS). Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. In (Vol. 10).
Clifton, J. D. (2020). Testing if primal world beliefs reflect experiences—or at least some experiences identified ad hoc. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1145.
Cook-Greuter, S. (1985). A detailed description of the successive stages in ego development theory. second annual meeting of the Society for Research in Adult Development, Cambridge, MA (revised version 2013),
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (1999). Postautonomous Ego Development: A Study of Its Nature and Measurement. Harvard University].
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2000). Mature ego development: A gateway to ego transcendence? Journal of Adult Development, 7(4), 227-240. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009511411421
Cox, L. M., & Lyddon, W. J. (1997). Constructivist conceptions of self: A discussion of emerging identity constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 10(3), 201-219.
Erikson, E. H. (1994). Identity and the life cycle. W.W. Norton & Company.
Gilmore, J. M., & Durkin, K. (2001). A Critical Review of the Validity of Ego Development Theory and Its Measurement. Journal of personality assessment, 77(3), 541-567. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7703_12
Gutierrez, I. A., & Park, C. L. (2015). Emerging adulthood, evolving worldviews: How life events impact college students’ developing belief systems. Emerging Adulthood, 3(2), 85-97.
Hauser, S. T. (1976). Loevinger’s model and measure of ego development: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5), 928. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.5.928
Hy, L. X., & Loevinger, J. (2014). Measuring ego development (2 ed.). Psychology Press.
Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self. Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (1986). Die Entwicklungsstufen des Selbst: Fortschritte und Krisen im menschlichen Leben. Kindt.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Harvard University Press.
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of general psychology, 8(1), 3-58.
Lansford, J. E., Kerry, N., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bornstein, M. H., Chang, L.,…Gurdal, S. (2024). Development of primal world beliefs. Human Development, 68(4), 149-158.
Lee, L., & Snarey, J. (1988). The relationship between ego and moral development: A theoretical review and empirical analysis. Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches, 151-178.
Loevinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measurement of ego development. American Psychologist, 21(3), 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023376
Loevinger, J. (1969). Theories of ego development. In L. Breger (Ed.), Clinical-cognitive psychology: Models and integrations (pp. 83-135). Prentice-Hall.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. In: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Loevinger, J. (1983). On ego development and the structure of personality. Developmental Review, 3(3), 339-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(83)90019-9
Loevinger, J. (1998). Technical foundations for measuring ego development: The Washington University Sentence Completion Test. Psychology Press.
Loevinger, J., & Knoll, E. (1983). Personality: Stages, traits, and the self. Annual review of psychology, 34(1), 195-222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.34.020183.001211
Mascolo, M. F. (2024). Theorizing “Primal World Beliefs”: A Relational-Developmental Account. Human Development, 68(4), 159-170.
Mayo, J. A. (2001). Life analysis: Using life-story narratives in teaching life-span developmental psychology. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14(1), 25-41.
Mühlenbeck, C. (2022). The orientation on absolute infinity and the openness of worldviews as the necessary foundation for models of developmental psychology. META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy., XIV(1), 201-223. www.metajournal.org
Mühlenbeck, C., & Jacobsen, T. (2025a). Ego-Development and the Aesthetics of Structures. Sage Open, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251387164
Mühlenbeck, C., & Jacobsen, T. (2025b). The relation between the aesthetic perception of objects and the focus in visual attention across different stages of Ego-development. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000747
Pfenninger, D. T., & Klion, R. E. (1994). Fitting the world to constructs: The role of activity in meaning making. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 7(3), 151-161.
R-Core-Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.In R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
Rychlak, J. F. (1990). George Kelly and the concept of construction. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 3(1), 7-19.
Schultz, L. H., & Selman, R. L. (2013). Ego development and interpersonal development in young adulthood: A between-model comparison. In A. B. P. Michiel Westenberg, Lawrence D. Cohn (Ed.), Personality Development: Theoretical, Empirical, and Clinical Investigations of Loevinger’s Conception of Ego Development (pp. 181-202). Psychology Press.
Sullivan, H. S. (1950). The illusion of personal individuality. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 13(3), 317-332.
Taves, A. (2020). From religious studies to worldview studies. Religion, 50(1), 137-147.
Taves, A., & Asprem, E. (2019). Scientific worldview studies: A programmatic proposal. Evolution, cognition, and the history of religion: A new synthesis, 297-308.
Taves, A., Asprem, E., & Ihm, E. (2018). Psychology, meaning making, and the study of worldviews: Beyond religion and non-religion. Psychology of religion and spirituality, 10(3), 207.
Vaughn, C. M., & Pfenninger, D. T. (1994). Kelly and the concept of developmental stages. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 7(3), 177-190.
Walker, B. M. (1990). Construing George Kelly’s construing of the person-in-relation. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 3(1), 41-50.