See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328074907

Personality assessment of intellectually gifted adults: A dimensional trait

approach

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · April 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.009

CITATIONS READS

9 3,407

3 authors:

Michael Matta Emanuela S. Gritti

University of Houston University of Padova
9 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Margherita Lang
Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
43 PUBLICATIONS   179 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Personality Assessment View project

Intelligence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Matta on 18 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Personality Assessment of Intellectually Gifted Adults: A Dimensional Trait Approach

Michael Matta1, Emanuela Saveria Gritti1, & Margherita Lang1,2

1
Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
2
Association for the Research of clinical Psychology (A.R.P.), Milan, Italy

Corresponding Author: michael.matta@unimib.it

Others’ Authors Email Addresses: emanuela.gritti@unimib.it; margherita.lang@unimib.it

1
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Personality Assessment of Intellectually Gifted Adults: A Dimensional Trait Approach

Highlights

 Personality traits of intellectually gifted adults were examined.

 Gifted reported smaller interests for others’ feelings.
 Gifted reported a preference for social detachment.
 Gifted women showed higher vulnerabilities than men.
 Specific sociocultural issues may maintain psychological maladjustments.

Abstract

Personality is often assessed by measuring the severity of dimensional traits regardless of

intellectual functioning. However, extreme deviations from average cognitive abilities affect

biological, psychological, and social characteristics, to the extent that they may lead to atypical

trajectories of development. The present study examined subclinical personality traits of

intellectually gifted adults who unlikely fulfill traditional criteria for psychopathological diagnosis.

75 intellectually gifted individuals (i.e., at least one WAIS-IV Index greater than 130) completed

the DAPP-BQ. Their scores were compared to a control group. Age range was the same across the

two groups (18−45 years). Gender differences were then examined within the gifted group.

The group of gifted individuals reported significant higher scores on eight DAPP-BQ scales. A

large effect size was found on Rejection trait; medium effect sizes on Narcissism and Low

Affiliation traits. Identity Problems, Callousness, Restricted Expression, Compulsivity, and

Suspiciousness were associated with small effect sizes. Moreover, gifted women reported higher

scores than gifted men.

Dysfunctional traits of gifted adults may contribute to interpersonal maladjustments. This may be

the consequence of poor emotional attunement and inappropriate support that they received in

childhood for their superior intellectual abilities. Sociocultural issues may maintain these

psychological vulnerabilities, especially within gifted women.

2
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Keywords

Intellectual Giftedness; Adults; Personality Traits; Livesley’s Dimensional Model; DAPP-BQ;

Developmental Psychopathology; Risk Factors.

3
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

1. Introduction

1.1 Giftedness and Psychological Functioning

Most of the literature has focused on the unique psychological experience of gifted children,

whereas few studies have examined what happens when gifted individuals enroll in college, are

involved in long-term relationships or get a job (Rinn & Bishop, 2015). Indeed, “it’s not as though

these former children slough off their giftedness like discarded skin at the age of eighteen. Gifted

children do grow up, and they become gifted adults” (Jacobsen, 1999, p. 9).

Over the past century, empirical studies and meta-analytic reviews supported the idea that

gifted individuals achieve desirable psychological outcomes (Martin, Burns, & Schonlau, 2010;

Terman & Oden, 1959), such as high educational level, socioeconomic status (Warne, 2016) and

system integrity (i.e., well-functioning body and efficiency to face environmental challenges).

However, other studies have found opposite evidences, arguing that high Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

may represent a potential risk factor for the development of affective dysregulation, depression,

bipolar disorder, attentional and hyperactivity deficits, autism spectrum disorders, and immune

disorders (Karpinski, Kinase Kolb, Tetreault, & Borowski, 2017). Thus, atypical trajectories may

lead to develop individual strengths and weaknesses, even demonstrating that some domains (i.e.,

cognitive abilities) may evolve at higher level than typical individuals (Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith,

2002).

Multiple reasons may explain contradictory findings on psychological functioning of gifted

adults: a) correlational studies (which involve general population) vs. group differences (which

compare general population and gifted group); b) different inclusion criteria for gifted samples (e.g.,

IQ score ≥ 130, superior scholastic achievements, or extraordinary verbal abilities as children, or

Mensa members as adults); c) absence of theoretical background. The present paper aims at

overcoming these limitations, examining personality vulnerabilities of intellectually gifted adults.

4
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Livesley’s dimensional model was used specifically for its capability to assess subclinical

symptoms which traditionally do not fulfill criteria for psychopathological diagnosis.

1.2 Livesley’s Model: Assessing Severity of Personality Traits

Categorical personality assessment aims to identify one or more psychopathological classes

that match set of symptoms displayed by clients. Some authors have questioned this idea, claiming

that psychological traits are in fact dimensional (Clarkin & Livesley, 2016); categorical diagnoses

tend to reify disorders rather than describe them as the result of interactions among personality traits

and multiple environmental levels. In such a perspective, severity of personality traits represents a

core feature of psychological assessment where traditional classifications are replaced by assessing

areas of dysfunctions and patterns of impairments. This results particularly appropriate for complex

personality constructs (e.g. narcissism), for which recent examinations postulate a continuum

between healthy and pathological presentations, with the latter representing maladaptive

exasperations of adaptive personality traits (Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017).

Livesley’s dimensional model defines personality disorders as adaptive failures to achieve

solutions to universal life tasks. Personality pathology issues can affect the: (a) representation of

self, and others; (b) sense of intimacy, affiliation, and attachment; and/or (c) functioning with social

groups (i.e., cooperative and prosocial behaviors). This model is based on three assumptions. First,

personality is the result of complex relations among relative stable and permanent traits. Second,

personality traits are dimensional; one extreme represents personality dysfunctions, whereas the

other extreme consists of optimal adaption. The more individuals have severe personality traits, the

more their behavior, cognition, and emotional patterns will be influenced by that trait. Third,

personality dysfunctions differ from personality disorders. Indeed, dysfunctions in specific

components may cause occasional difficulties and do not necessarily lead to severe psychological

impairments. For instance, if someone is extremely shy, this single trait may not have great impact

on general life but may cause discomfort in certain social situations.

5
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Based on these considerations, in the present study we assessed differences in personality

traits between intellectually gifted and average-intelligence adults. Secondly, we explored the

dimensional differences in personality traits based on gender within the gifted group. According to

previous studies, we hypothesized that gifted adults will report specific vulnerabilities related to

concerns for others’ feelings (Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011), and general social detachment

(Schmidt, 2014). Moreover, we hypothesized that gifted women will show higher vulnerabilities

than men (Reis, 2004).

2. Method

2.1 Participants

Two hundred and forty-one individuals (192 men) participated in this study. 75 of them (60

men) were identified as intellectually gifted. Descriptive statistics of both samples are reported in

Table 1. Participation in the study was proposed to all Mensa members via the Association’s

newsletter, whereas to college students via SONA System. Thus, inclusion criteria for the gifted

group were to be part of Mensa Association (i.e., the High IQ Society) and to have obtained a score

equal to or higher than 130 on at least one WAIS-IV (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth

Edition) Composite Score. The comparison group consisted of college students and young adults.

Extra credits were assigned for their participation in the study. Additionally, it was required that

controls were not Mensa members. Thus, the two groups were mutually exclusive. The mean age

was 30.31 years (SD = 7.52) for the gifted group, and 26.24 years (SD = 5.74) for the comparison

group. Gifted participants reported a level of education distributed between high school and college.

6
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Table 1
Distribution of socio-demographic variables of both groups.

Gifted Group Comparison Group

N 75 166
Sex men, n (%) 60 (80.00) 132 (79.51)
Age in years (mean ± SD) 30.31 ± 7.52 26.24 ± 5.74
Age range 18–45 18–45
Education, n (%)
0-12 (Less than high school) 1 (1.33) 0
13-15 (High school) 28 (37.33) 89 (53.61)
16-17 (Bachelor’s Degree) 10 (13.33) 34 (20.48)
18+ (More than Master’s Degree) 35 (46.66) 31 (18.67)
WAIS-IV Index ≥ 130, n (%)a
Full-Scale IQ 42 (56.00)
Verbal Comprehension 17 (22.66)
Perceptual Reasoning 49 (65.33)
Working Memory 20 (26.66)
Processing Speed 22 (29.33)
a
The sum exceeds gifted sample size because each participant can obtain 130 in one Index or more.

2.2 Measures and procedures

After collecting socio-demographic data, the WAIS-IV and the DAPP-BQ (Dimensional

Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire) were individually administered by

licensed psychologists specifically trained.

The WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008) is an intelligence test which measures the Full-Scale IQ

(FSIQ) and four intellectual Indexes, i.e., Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working

Memory, and Processing Speed (Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013).

The DAPP-BQ (Livesley & Jackson, 2009) is a 290-item self-report questionnaire to assess

personality traits based on Livesley’s dimensional model. The DAPP-BQ requires the respondent to

evaluate feelings and behaviors on a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire examines 18

personality traits grouped into 4 second-order Clusters. A validity scale measures the level of

impression management and social desirability. Each scale has a mean of 50 T-score and a standard

deviation of 10.
7
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

2.3 Ethical Statement

All participants were recruited on a voluntary basis and they gave a written informed

consent before testing. The study was approved by the IRB of the University.

2.4 Data Analysis

A preliminary Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with Principal Axis factoring and Oblimin

rotation was conducted to test if DAPP-BQ scales group into meaningful factors. Then, we

performed a MANCOVA to test differences in personality traits between gifted and non-gifted

adults. Age was used as a covariate because it was statistically significant between the two groups,

t(247)5.29, p < .001. Eta Partial Square (η2) was calculated for each comparison to estimate the

magnitude of the effects. Mcdonald’s omega (ωt) was computed to test internal consistency of each

scale. Finally, multiple t-tests were conducted to measure gender differences within the gifted

group. Since the gifted women group was small (N = 15), a descriptive approach was used and only

the effect sizes were reported. Indeed, an inferential approach would have required a higher number

of women within the gifted group. Because many comparisons were made, Type I error must be

considered.

3. Results

DAPP-BQ four-factor structure was established based on eigenvalues greater than 1 (7.02,

2.00, 1.47, and 1.37), parallel analysis (which suggested to extract four components), and second-

order Clusters proposed in the test manual (Figure 1). Overall, the four factors were consistent with

the original structure, except for Low Affiliation scale which had a stronger loading on Emotional

Dysregulation than on Social Avoidance.

- INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE -

8
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Differences between gifted and non-gifted adults were tested with a multivariate analysis of

covariance (MANCOVA) on all DAPP-BQ scales. All assumptions were met and analyses revealed

a main effect of group for DAPP-BQ, Λ = .67, F(18, 227) = 6.24, p < .001. Results for the post hoc

univariate ANOVAs are showed in Table 2.

Table 2

DAPP-BQ Group Differences. Main effect of Group was controlled for age.

Intellectually
Comparison Group
Gifted
Scales M SD ωt M SD ωt F pa η2
Emotional Dysregulation
Anxiousness 50.35 14.39 .95 49.28 10.96 .92 2.09 NS 0.01
Submissiveness 47.57 11.73 .90 49.23 9.93 .88 0.53 NS 0.00
Insecure Attachment 43.62 10.70 .92 46.68 9.78 .91 1.93 NS 0.01
Affective Lability 47.61 13.38 .92 47.01 10.28 .87 0.63 NS 0.00
Oppositionality 50.64 13.38 .93 50.26 10.38 .89 1.32 NS 0.00
Identity Problems 52.22 12.64 .95 49.73 9.80 .91 5.55 <.05 0.02^
Cognitive Dysregulation 47.74 11.29 .92 47.91 9.62 .88 0.65 NS 0.00
Dissocial Behavior
Callousness 53.69 9.53 .86 50.94 9.10 .89 8.33 <.01 0.03^
Narcissism 56.70 10.62 .90 50.73 10.23 .91 28.28 <.001 0.10*
Conduct Problems 50.04 8.02 .86 49.94 7.60 .87 0.71 NS 0.00
Stimulus Seeking 50.31 11.80 .91 49.78 9.82 .89 1.10 NS 0.00
Rejection 57.35 10.92 .87 49.59 8.85 .82 42.88 <.001 0.15**
Social Avoidance
Low Affiliation 56.11 12.48 .92 50.44 10.10 .90 18.34 <.001 0.07*
Restricted Expression 56.28 12.40 .91 51.91 10.98 .90 9.05 <0.1 0.04^
Intimacy Problems 50.22 11.07 .90 49.28 10.12 .89 0.53 NS 0.00
Compulsivity 53.73 10.94 .91 48.81 10.12 .90 9.13 <.01 0.04^
Suspiciousness 53.76 10.88 .91 49.67 8.25 .85 11.68 .001 0.05^
Validity 48.19 8.88 .69 46.28 7.13 .61 1.46 NS 0.01
a
NS = Not Significant.
Effect size’ interpretations: η2 > 0.01 small (^); η2 ≥ 0.06 medium (*); η2 ≥ 0.14 large (**).

All DAPP-BQ scales were normally distributed. Mean differences for eight scales were

statistically significant. Gifted group obtained consistently higher scores than the comparison group.

A large effect size was found on Rejection scale (η2 = 0.15). Medium effect sizes were noted on

Narcissism (η2 = 0.10) and Low Affiliation (η2 = 0.07) scales. Mean differences on Identity

Problems (η2 = 0.02), Callousness (η2 = 0.03), Restricted Expression (η2 = 0.04), Compulsivity (η2

9
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

= 0.04), and Suspiciousness (η2 = 0.05) were also statistically significant and they showed small

effect sizes.

Cohen’s d was used to assess gender differences on the DAPP-BQ scales within the gifted

group (Table 3). Generally, gifted women had higher scores than gifted men. Medium effect sizes

were found on Anxiousness (0.61), Submissiveness (0.53), Affective Lability (0.59), Identity

Problems (0.50), and Low Affiliation (0.57). By contrast, men showed higher scores on Callousness

and Narcissism (d = 0.37 and 0.25, respectively).

Table 3

Gender Differences on the DAPP-BQ within the Gifted Group.

Gifted Men Gifted Women

Scales M SD M SD Cohen’s d
Emotional Dysregulation
Anxiousness 48.78 14.04 57.23 14.62 −0.61*
Submissiveness 46.41 11.26 52.43 13.10 −0.53*
Insecure Attachment 43.39 10.72 44.98 12.35 −0.15
Affective Lability 46.43 13.80 54.01 8.64 −0.59*
Oppositionality 49.69 13.83 52.55 12.39 −0.21^
Identity Problems 51.16 12.41 57.34 12.92 −0.50*
Cognitive Dysregulation 46.68 11.25 51.77 11.28 −0.46^
Dissocial Behavior
Callousness 54.23 10.08 50.78 5.78 0.37^
Narcissism 57.32 10.82 54.66 10.60 0.25^
Conduct Problems 49.91 7.47 50.70 10.55 −0.10
Stimulus Seeking 50.21 12.40 50.35 10.58 −0.01
Rejection 57.75 10.70 56.27 10.13 0.14
Social Avoidance
Low Affiliation 54.89 12.02 61.80 13.39 −0.57*
Restricted Expression 55.43 12.06 59.25 13.56 −0.31^
Intimacy Problems 49.50 11.33 52.03 9.30 −0.23^
Compulsivity 53.62 10.80 54.35 13.47 −0.06
Suspiciousness 53.48 10.80 54.12 13.15 −0.06
Effect size’ interpretations: Cohen’s d ≥ 0.20 small (^); d ≥ 0.50 medium (*); d ≥ 0.80 large (**).

4. Discussion

The present study investigated differences in personality traits between a group of gifted

adults and non-gifted controls. The main objective was to examine if gifted individuals report

10
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

personality dysfunctions to a greater extent than non-gifted people. In addition, the study explored

individual personality differences between men and women within the gifted group.

The findings are consistent with the “disharmony hypothesis” which states that gifted

individuals may face unique social challenges and have specific emotional needs which may

increase psychological vulnerabilities. The latter may represent risk factors to develop and maintain

dysfunctional personality traits (Preckel, Baudson, Krolak-Schwerdt, & Glock, 2015).

Generally, gifted individuals showed higher scores on DAPP-BQ scales compared to non-gifted

participants. The large effect size made Rejection the most distinctive personality trait of gifted

individuals. As such, individuals with higher intellectual functioning may perceive themselves as

interpersonally dominant, hostile, and characterized by a rigid cognitive style. Similar results in

other studies were related to the need for competition and perfectionism of gifted individuals

(Dijkstra, Barelds, Ronner, & Nauta, 2012; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). Others’ support and

openness can reduce feelings of unfamiliarity, and “out-of-sync” of gifted people. Thus, this trait

can be used productively whether interpersonal relationships and society provide an appropriate

environment. However, our sample reported also higher levels of Callousness and Suspiciousness,

and those may be interpreted more appropriately as personality maladjustments (Livesley &

Jackson, 2009).

Gifted individuals reported higher scores on Low Affiliation and Restricted Expression

traits. High levels of these traits are associated with difficulties in establishing affective

relationships, emotional experiences and expressions, and poor conversational and social skills.

Social isolation has been already linked with Rejection traits within the gifted population (Dijkstra

et al., 2012). Because of the fear of being hurt or embarrassed in social situations, gifted individuals

may have repeatedly adopted behavioral strategies for hiding their needs which in turn may have

increased the likelihood to develop an inward-oriented personality (Hollingworth, 1942). This

tendency might also imply that gifted individuals prefer investing on their thoughts and ideas rather

than obtaining gratification from interpersonal interactions and emotional contact with others. Thus,
11
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

they are more likely to be loners and tend to spend time with people of the same level of

intelligence (F. Schmidt, personal communication, November 2017). Also, repetitive interpersonal

failures may temporary interfere on their intellectual efficacy which in turn could impact on

cognitive performances. This may represent a risk factor because it may decrease the sense of

mastery and self-efficacy that they mainly experience in these activities.

On the other hand, introversion has been found positively related to typical intellectual

engagement (TIE), domain-specific knowledge and crystallized intelligence, as well as adult

academic and occupation attainments. Introverts and high TIE people tend to increase their level of

knowledge in specialized disciplines to a greater extent than people with different personality traits

and attitudes. Gifted individuals may cultivate their abilities, spending more time in reading,

thinking, and reasoning, rather than joining social relationships. Yet, an isolated life-style associated

with conscientiousness and perfectionism (assessed by higher levels of Compulsivity trait) may

predict better adult academic and job performances (Schmidt, 2014).

Finally, gifted participants showed higher levels of Narcissism traits as measured by the

DAPP-BQ scale, that includes grandiose manifestations of narcissism but has been associated also

to more vulnerable aspects (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). Individuals with narcissistic traits are likely

to feel a strong sense of “entitlement” which reflects their beliefs to be special and to be treated

differently from other people (Miller, 1981) and to emphasize their personal achievements and

intellectual abilities. According to processual models of narcissism (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001) and

to current views on the possible presentations of narcissism, grandiosity-related manifestations,

such as for example rivalry, are likely to be common to the two different forms of grandiose and

vulnerable narcissism (Geukes et al., 2017)and might reflect reactions to the environment in form of

self-regulatory strategies. These traits in gifted individuals possibly represent important protective

factors because moderate inflation of self-esteem may prevent them from being hurt by others’

failures in recognizing and supporting their needs. However, differences on narcissistic traits have

not been found consistently in empirical studies, neither on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
12
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Inventory−Adolescents (Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams, 2008) nor on the Narcissistic

Personality Inventory (Baggette & Tobacyk, 1988). It must be noted nonetheless that such

inconsistencies might be due to specific differences in the variants of narcissism measured by

different studies, such as adaptive and maladaptive, and to the challenges of assessing a

multidimensional and complex construct such as narcissism relying exclusively on self-reports

(Gritti, Marino, Lang, & Meyer, 2017).

Overall, high levels of narcissism, callousness (which is good indicator of psychopathy), and

suspiciousness (which might be a good indicator of Machiavellianism) might lead to interpret the

personality characteristics of gifted adults in the light of the Dark Triad of personality (Paulhus &

Williams, 2002). However, we suggest that these traits, combined with the higher levels of

introversion, could be better understood as a reaction of lack of security and trust in others rather

than an actual manipulative and exploitative attitude.

Moreover, intellectual giftedness should not be classified as a psychopathological category.

We do not agree with authors who have suggested the concept of a “gifted personality” (Wellisch &

Brown, 2013). It seems unlikely that a rigid set of personality traits is associated with gifted

individuals. In light of the developmental psychopathology theory, individual personality results

from a complex interaction of multiple processes (i.e., cognitive, biological, social and emotional)

over the lifespan. Personality outcomes reflect the level of adaptation to the environment in order to

face significant challenges at specific ages (Cicchetti, 2016).

Additionally, high intellectual abilities may be related with risk factors (such as minority

distress, stereotypes, and sociocultural discriminations) which maintain personality vulnerabilities.

As a minority, they can struggle to develop their own psychological identity which in turn can

increase perceived psychosocial distress (Baudson & Ziemes, 2016). People who are not aware of

their group identity are more likely to report psychosocial maladjustments than others. Indeed,

“when giftedness is denied or ignored, the gifted individual is unable to integrate it into his/her

understanding of who he/she is” (Amend & Beljan, 2009, p. 141). How giftedness is integrated with
13
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

the overall functioning depends on personality traits, home support, society, and culture (Freeman,

2005).

Recent studies have examined stereotypes about gifted individuals. On one side, they were

described as more open-minded, intelligent, and involved in scholastic activities; on the other side,

the same informants reported that they were more antagonistic, less emotionally competent, socially

withdrawn, and less motivated in prosocial behaviors (Baudson & Ziemes, 2016). Group

stereotypes can affect others’ reactions and expectations which in turn may influence negatively the

quality of interpersonal relationships.

Cognitive overqualification (i.e., “possession of a higher level of cognitive ability than is

required for a given job”; Fine & Nevo, 2008, p. 346) may have negative implications for job

search, attitudes and performances. For instance, in 1999 a man who obtained an IQ score of 125

was turned down for a job in the police forces. He sued the city (Jordan v. City of New London and

Harrigan, 1999) and he lost the case because the judge stated that “a body of professional literature

concludes that hiring overqualified applicants leads to subsequent job dissatisfaction and turnover”.

Gender differences on personality traits were found within the gifted group, with women

obtaining higher scores than men on most of the scales of the questionnaire. Gifted women tended

to report greater vulnerabilities in emotion regulation and social isolation, and effect sizes were

mostly medium or large. Individuals who score higher on these domains may feel poorer emotional

stability, fragmented sense of the Self, and struggle in expressing their emotions (Reis, 2004).

Psychological conflicts between strong needs of others’ proximity and the fear to be rejected and

abandoned can increase the level of submissiveness or the tendency to be alone and have a

withdrawn life-style. By contrast, gifted men had higher levels of callousness and narcissism. Men

may be slightly more self-centered and have an egocentric perspective of the world, ignoring

others’ needs, interests, and worries. For this reason, they may be perceived as adults with poor

empathy and little emotional sensitivity.

14
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Moreover, cultural stereotypes and fixed gender roles may have lead women not to be

effectively supported during their educational and professional development, decreasing the

likelihood to fully express their intellectual potential in adulthood (Lovecky, 1993). Gifted women

have often negative feelings about themselves, to the extent that they may at times experience the

“imposter syndrome”, which refers to the tendency not to attribute personal attainments to one’s

abilities but to external events, or by chance. For this reason, personal achievements are often

perceived as undeserved (Reis, 2004).

5. Limitations and strengths of the study

The findings of the study are preliminary and present some limitations that warrant further

examinations. Firstly, we could not use broad domains of personality traits because four-factor

structure of the DAPP-BQ has not shown good measures of fit neither in the original manual nor in

our sample. This makes hard to compare our findings with those obtained by administering different

tests.

Secondly, the gifted group was composed of Mensa members only. Although they were

selected on their WAIS-IV performances, they represent one specific type of giftedness. Yet,

MENSA members might be intellectually gifted individuals who need some external validation for

being gifted, who are willing to be tested and pay annual dues, and their everyday social

environment does not satisfy their intellectual aspirations. Furthermore, MENSA members

constitute only a small percentage of the total 2% in the population. Future studies should involve

other groups, such as adults who received gifted education, twice-exceptional (i.e., gifted

individuals who suffer from psychological disorders), etc. This would improve the generalizability

of the findings and would increase scientific knowledge about complex relationships between

intelligence and personality, and variables that influence these psychological aspects across

development.

15
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Finally, the results on gender differences must be interpreted carefully because the group of

gifted women was small. The uneven number of women has been found in several gifted samples.

Men are overrepresented both at the low and high extremes of cognitive abilities. Multiple

hypotheses have been suggested to explain this phenomenon (e.g., biological, educational, and/or

cultural) (Lang, Matta, Parolin, Morrone, & Pezzuti, 2017).

Although the aforementioned limitations, the present study represents the first attempt to

describe personality traits of gifted adults using a dimensional approach. Furthermore, the study

included individuals from a population (i.e., gifted) that can be troublesome to recruit for its

minority status. The study also made use of assessment methods different from self-reports,

measuring intellectual functioning through the WAIS-IV, implying a more elaborate data collection

but also a more accurate performance-based assessment.

6. Conclusion

The findings of this study have confirmed the clinical utility of Livesley’s dimensional

model of personality traits. The assessment of subclinical symptoms is important in clinical practice

because it allows to collect useful data on subtle but crucial psychological maladjustments. While

there are gifted individuals who fit appropriately with their environment, others may be particularly

vulnerable to develop specific dysfunctional personality traits, such as social avoidance, narcissism,

perfectionism, and problems with authority. Some of them may be “twice-exceptional”, others may

mimic symptoms similar to other disorders, such as relational difficulties, inappropriate behaviors

in social contexts, or unusual and monotonous hobbies. These features are not always present in the

same person − hence they would not be a part of the giftedness per se – but they might be the result

of poor emotional attunement in childhood and inappropriate responses of environment and society.

Sociocultural issues, such as cognitive overqualification in workplace, minority stress, stereotypes,

may maintain these psychological vulnerabilities throughout adulthood.

16
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

References

Amend, E.R., & Beljan, P. (2009). The Antecedents of Misdiagnosis: When Normal Behaviors of

Gifted Children are Misinterpreted as Pathological. Gifted Education International, 25, 131–

143.

Baggette, W., & Tobacyk, J. (1988). Mensa Membership and Narcissism. Psychological Reports,

62, 434. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.2.434

Baudson, T.G., & Ziemes, J.F. (2016). The Importance of Being Gifted: Stages of Gifted Identity

Development, Their Correlates and Predictors. Gifted and Talented International, 31, 19–32.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1194675

Cicchetti, D. (2016). Developmental Psychopathology. Maladaptation and Psychopathology.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Clarkin, J.F., & Livesley, W.J. (2016). Diagnosis and Assessment. In W.J. Livesley, G. Dimaggio,

& J.F. Clarkin (Eds.), Integrated Treatment for Personality Disorder: A Modular Approach.

New York, NY: Guikford Press.

Cross, T.L., Cassady, J.C., Dixon, F.A., & Adams, C.M. (2008). The Psychology of Gifted

Adolescents as Measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 326–339.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321810

Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D.P.H., Ronner, S., & Nauta, A.P. (2012). Personality and Well-being: Do the

Intellectually Gifted Differ From the General Population? Advanced Development, 13, 103–

118.

Fine, S., & Nevo, B. (2008). Too Smart for Their Own Good? A Study of Perceived Cognitive

Overqualification in the Workforce. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 19, 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701799937

17
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Freeman, J. (2005). Permission to be Gifted. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),

Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 80–97). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Küfner, A.C.P., Egloff, B., … Back, M.D.

(2017). Puffed-up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcissists.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 769–786.

http://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000093

Gritti, E.S., Marino, D.P., Lang, M., & Meyer, G.J. (2017). Assessing Narcissism Using Rorschach-

based Imagery and Behavior Validated by Clinician-reports: Studies with Clinical and

Nonclinical Adults. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117715728

Hollingworth, L.S. (1942). Children Above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and Development.

Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company.

Jacobsen, M.-E. (1999). The Gifted Adult: A Revolutionary Guide for Liberating Everyday Genius.

New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Karpinski, R.I., Kinase Kolb, A.M., Tetreault, N.A., & Borowski, T.B. (2017). High Intelligence: A

Risk Factor for Psychological and Physiological Overexcitabilities. Intelligence.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INTELL.2017.09.001

Miller, J.D., Lynam, D.R., Hyatt, C.S., & Campbell, W.K. (2017). Controversies in narcissism.

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-

032816-045244

Lang, M., Matta, M., Parolin, L., Morrone, C., & Pezzuti, L. (2017). Cognitive Profile of

Intellectually Gifted Adults: Analyzing the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Assessment.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117733547

Livesley, W.J., & Jackson, D. (2009). Manual for the Dimensional Assessment of Personality

18
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Pathology-Basic Questionnaire. Port Huron, MI: Sigma System Assessment.

Lovecky, D.V. (1993). The Quest for Meaning: Counseling Issues with Gifted Children and

Adolescents. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the Gifted and Talented (pp. 29–47).

Denver, CO: Love Publishing.

Martin, L.T., Burns, R.M., & Schonlau, M. (2010). Mental Disorders Among Gifted and Nongifted

Youth: A Selected Review of the Epidemiologic Literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 31–41.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209352684

Miller, A. (1981). Prisoners of Childhood: The Drama of the Gifted Child and the Search for the

True Self. New York, NY: Basic Brooks.

Morf, C.C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-

regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1204_1

Orsini, A., & Pezzuti, L. (2013). WAIS-IV Contribution to the Italian standardization. Florence, IT:

Giunti O.S.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–568.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

Preckel, F., Baudson, T.G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and Maladjusted?

Implicit Attitudes and Automatic Associations Related to Gifted Children. American

Educational Research Journal, 52, 1160–1184. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215596413

Reis, S.M. (2004). We Can’t Change What We Don’t Recognize: Understanding the Special Needs

of Gifted Females. In S. Baum (Ed.), Twice-Exceptional and Special Populations of Gifted

Students (pp. 67–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

19
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Rinn, A.N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted Adults. A Systematic Review and Analysis of the

Literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795

Schmidt, F.L. (2014). A General Theoretical Integrative Model of Individual Differences in

Interests, Abilities, Personality Traits, and Academic and Occupational Achievement.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 211–218.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613518074

Terman, L.M., & Oden, M.H. (1959). Genetic Studies of Genius. Vol. V. The Gifted Group at Mid-

life. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Thomas, M.S.C., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002). Modeling Typical and Atypical Cognitive

Development: Computational Constraints on Mechanisms of Change. In U. Goswami (Ed.),

Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 575–599). Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell

Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996652.ch26

Warne, R. T. (2016). Five Reasons to Put the g Back Into Giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60,

3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360

Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX:

Pearson.

Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2013). Many Faces of a Gifted Personality Many Faces of a Gifted

Personality: Characteristics Along a Complex Gifted Spectrum. Talent Development &

Excellence, 5, 43–58.

Zeidner, M., & Shani-Zinovich, I. (2011). Do Academically Gifted and Nongifted Students Differ

on the Big-Five and Adaptive Status? Some Recent Data and Conclusions. Personality and

Individual Differences, 51, 566–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PAID.2011.05.007

20
 PERSONALITY TRAITS AND GIFTED ADULTS

Figure 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the DAPP-BQ. The longer the bars, the stronger the loading on Factors. Fit
measures: Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) of factoring reliability = .806; RMSEA Index = .121 [90% CIs = .105, .131]; BIC =
-87.08.

21

View publication stats