Hope this reference helps: "Broadening the Iterative Conception of Set" by Mark F. Sharlow, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, Volume 42, Number 3, 2001, pp.149-170. According to the abstract, "the modified conception maintains most of the features of the iterative conception of set, but allows for some non-wellfounded sets. It is suggested that this modified iterated conception of set supports the axioms of Quine's set theory NF". Pay particular attention to Section 4--"Loosening Up the hierarchy" and figures 1-4.
As regards the relation of the iterative concept of set with, say, AFA, I refer you to a quote from Stephen G. Simpson regarding this very topic (this from one of his postings):
"AFA in no way invalidates the iterative concept of set. The intended model V of ZFC (including the axiom of foundation) is a canonical inner submodel of the intended model $V^{*}$ of
$ZFC^{*}$=ZFC-Foundation +Anti-foundation [AFA--my comment].
Namely, V is the well-founded part of $V^{*}$. And all of the f.o.m. action takes place in V. And each of V and $V^{*}$ is canonically recoverable from the other. (The elements of $V^{*}$ are just the isomorphism types of directed graphs in V [this suggests a way (at least to me) to generalize the iterative concept of set--let each stage of the hierarchy form the isomorphism types of new subdigraphs, including the ones that violate the Axiom of Foundation--my comment].) If we refer to the elements of V as 'sets' and the elements of $V^{*}$ as 'hypersets' (Sazonov) or 'schmets' (Anderson) or whatever, there is no conflict." (www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2000-May/004007.html)
At least it is something to think about.