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

net/publication/282521290

Gifted Adults

Article in Gifted Child Quarterly · October 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0016986215600795

CITATIONS READS
53 23,916

2 authors:

Anne N. Rinn James Bishop

University of North Texas University of North Texas
87 PUBLICATIONS 1,940 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 101 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Bishop on 09 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

600795
research-article2015
GCQXXX10.1177/0016986215600795Gifted Child QuarterlyRinn and Bishop

Article

Gifted Child Quarterly

Gifted Adults: A Systematic Review and

2015, Vol. 59(4) 213­–235
© 2015 National Association for
Gifted Children
Analysis of the Literature Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0016986215600795
gcq.sagepub.com

Anne N. Rinn1 and James Bishop1

Abstract
What happens when a gifted child grows up? Despite a slew of provocative book titles regarding gifted adults in the
mainstream media, and the inclusion of the notion of giftedness among adults in the definition of giftedness proposed by
Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell, there is a limited amount of research that has examined the gifted adult. In this
systematic review of the literature, we categorized the available research literature into nine thematic areas: (a) whether or
not gifted children become gifted adults; (b) family of origin; (c) effects of early educational experiences; (d) characteristics of
gifted adults; (e) career; (f) family of procreation; (g) career and family interaction; (h) life goals, satisfaction, and well-being;
and (i) counseling. Implications for gifted adults and the field of gifted education are discussed.

Keywords
adults, giftedness, eminence, lifespan

What happens when a gifted child grows up? Educators, par-
ents, researchers, policy makers, and counselors spend a con-
siderable amount of time planning for, and attending to, the
educational, cognitive, and socioemotional needs of gifted
children, but for what purpose? To ensure the gifted child is
adequately intellectually stimulated during childhood and
that his or her social and emotional needs are met? Do we
also have a bigger end goal? Many in the field of gifted edu-
cation would argue that we want to prepare gifted children to
meet their potential and to be capable, productive, success-
ful, happy, and even eminent (Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius,
& Worrell, 2011; Subotnik & Rickoff, 2010) adults. But,
how do we know gifted education has met these goals? If we
accept that gifted education has a larger purpose than the
day-to-day activities, projects, and homework assignments
that come along with a gifted program, we must also accept
that gifted children grow up. “It’s not as though these former
children slough off their giftedness like discarded skin at the
age of sixteen or eighteen or twenty-one. Gifted children do
grow up, and they become gifted adults” (Jacobsen, 1999a,
p. 9). Yet we know very little about what happens once a
gifted individual graduates from high school (Rinn &
Plucker, 2004), and even less about what happens when a
gifted individual “grows up.”
Over the past two decades, a number of provocative book
titles regarding gifted adults have appeared in mainstream
media that attempt to answer some questions about the lives
of gifted adults: The Gifted Adult: A Revolutionary Guide for
Liberating Everyday Genius (Jacobsen, 1999a), Gifted
Grown Ups: The Mixed Blessings of Extraordinary Potential
(Streznewski, 1999), Gifted Lives: What Happens When
Gifted Children Grow Up (Freeman, 2010), Gifted Workers:
Hitting the Target (Nauta & Ronner, 2013), Remarkable
Women: Perspectives on Female Talent Development
(Arnold, Noble, & Subotnik, 1995), and Living with Intensity:
Understanding the Sensitivity, Excitability, and the Emotional
Development of Gifted Children, Adolescents, and Adults
(Daniels & Piechowski, 2008). In addition, some organiza-
tions serve as outlets for gifted adults: Mensa International,
which is an international high IQ society, and the Mega
Foundation, which serves gifted adults with an IQ of 164 or
greater. Despite these efforts, there remains a dearth of
research on gifted adults that provides us with an integrated
understanding of what giftedness means or looks like during
adulthood.
In 2011, Subotnik et al. proposed a new definition of
giftedness:
Giftedness (a) reflects the values of society; (b) is typically
manifested in actual outcomes, especially in adulthood; (c) is
specific to domains of endeavor; (d) is the result of the coalescing
of biological, pedagogical, psychological, and psychosocial
factors; and (e) is relative not just to the ordinary (e.g., a child
with exceptional art ability compared to peers) but to the
extraordinary (e.g., an artist who revolutionizes a field of art).
(p. 3)
1
University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Anne N. Rinn, Department of Educational Psychology, University of
North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311335, Denton, TX 76203, USA.
Email: anne.rinn@unt.edu

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015

214
Their definition of giftedness specifically includes adults
and, in combination with the previously mentioned books in
mainstream media and the purported goals of gifted educa-
tion, raises the question: Who is a gifted adult?
Strong studies on gifted adults are rare. The available
research is often flawed by methodological shortcomings,
including imprecise and unclear definitions of giftedness,
small sample sizes, and a lack of adequate comparison
groups. Some studies are based on anecdotal experiences
rather than empirical observations (such as that by Lovecky,
1986; Roeper, 1991), and many studies of gifted adults
come from the same databases (e.g., Perrone et al., 2004,
2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 20121; Study of Mathematically
Precocious Youth, see Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). Some
research on high ability adults exists outside the field of
gifted education, such as in the field of individual differ-
ences, which has produced a large amount of research on
IQ differences among individuals of varying ages. However,
as in the case of individual differences research, in particu-
lar, definitional clarity becomes an issue. The term gifted is
not typically used and studies of high ability are based
solely on one’s IQ (see, e.g., Ashton, 2013, and Cooper,
2010). The field of gifted education, though, views high
ability more broadly than just one’s IQ score (National
Association for Gifted Children, 2010), including other
domains such as specific academic ability, music, creativ-
ity, and leadership. Thus, inconsistencies in defining a
gifted adult across fields of study also complicate our abil-
ity to adequately understand the characteristics, experi-
ences, and needs of gifted adults.
Regardless of the shortcomings of existing research, the
study of gifted adults is important to the field of gifted and
talented education for a variety of reasons. First, there is a
direct benefit to the current programs servicing gifted chil-
dren. The outcomes and experiences of gifted adults give
insight into the successes or failures of educational programs
for gifted children and can inform current and future practice
(Subotnik & Olszewski-Kubilius, 1997). Second, from a
utilitarian view, because it can be said that the majority of
people are most productive in adulthood, the same can be
said for gifted people. If the end goal of gifted and talented
education is to produce eminence and innovative products
(Subotnik & Rickoff, 2010), then adulthood is the period
when gifted and talented education bears its fruit (Simonton,
2008). Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, giftedness
should be recognized holistically as an experience that runs
through the entire lifespan (Keating, 2009). Given that child-
hood comprises little more than a quarter of the average life-
time, the remaining three quarters of the lifetime of a gifted
person should not remain unexamined.
The current study synthesizes and analyzes the research
literature on gifted adults in order to (a) begin a conversation
regarding the characteristics, experiences, and needs of
gifted adults; (b) identify gaps in the literature regarding
gifted adults; and (c) to suggest areas of future research
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
pertaining to the characteristics, experiences, and needs of
gifted adults.
Method
We collected articles in several ways. First, we searched
multiple online databases (Academic Search Complete,
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Professional
Development Collection, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and
Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX
with Full Text) to identify peer-reviewed articles in psychol-
ogy, education, sociology, and other relevant fields using the
keywords “gifted,” “high-achieving,” “eminent,” “high-abil-
ity,” “IQ,” and “intelligence,” each in combination with the
word “adult.” Dissertations, master’s theses, and articles that
were not peer-reviewed (e.g., newsletter articles, newspaper
articles) were excluded from the current study. Second, we
searched back issues of the following journals for relevant
articles: Gifted Child Quarterly (1957-2015), Journal for the
Education of the Gifted (1983-2015), Roeper Review (1978-
2015), Journal of Secondary Gifted Education (1996-2006),
High Ability Studies (1996-2015), Journal of Advanced
Academics (2006-2015), and Advanced Development (1989-
2014). Finally, we scanned the references section of each
included article for any relevant article we may have missed.
Searches were conducted between June 2012 and June 2013,
with follow-up searches conducted in June 2014 and January
2015.
“Gifted adults,” for the purposes of this study, included
(a) current eminent, gifted, or high-achieving adults (defined
by each particular study) or adults who were identified as
gifted during their youth (defined by each particular study);
and (b) those who had surpassed the traditional age for col-
lege completion (the early 20s). While college students could
certainly be considered adults by legal (i.e., age of majority)
and biological (i.e., sexual maturity) definitions, postsecond-
ary education and other postsecondary endeavors (e.g., mili-
tary service) are often considered a time of “emerging
adulthood,” or the period between approximately ages 18
and 25 whereby young people develop autonomy and a sense
of self before moving into early adulthood (see Arnett, 2000).
See Table 1 for information regarding the indicators of adult
giftedness as defined by each study included in this review.
Finally, although we did not include a specific cutoff date for
the inclusion of articles in this article, very few studies of
gifted adults were found to exist prior to the late 1970s,
except for the work of Terman and his colleagues (Terman
et al., 1925) and the beginning of the Study of Mathematically
Precocious Youth (SMPY) in the early 1970s (see Lubinski
& Benbow, 2006).
In this systematic review of the literature, we categorized
the included articles into thematic areas using the grounded
theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Initial coding was
done individually and was then refined as a team. The the-
matic areas are (a) whether or not gifted children become
Rinn and Bishop 215

Table 1. Indicators of Adult Giftedness as Designated by Each Study.

Youth Status as
Youth IQ standardized HS class Academic doctoral Adult Mensa or adult
Study score(s) test score(s) rank prize in HS student accomplishments IQ score(s) Other
Antshel et al. (2009) X
Antshel et al. (2010) X
Benbow, Lubinski, Shea, and X
Eftekhari-Sanjani (2000)
Campbell and Feng (2011) X X
Dijkstra, Barelds, Groothof, X
Ronner, and Nauta (2012)
Feldman (1984) X
Ferriman, Lubinski, and X
Benbow (2009)
Firkowska-Mankiewicz X
(2011)
Freeman and Walberg X
(1999)
Hansen and Hall (1997) X
Holahan and Velasquez X
(2011)
Kaufmann (1981) X X
Kaufmann, Harrel, Milam, X X
Woolverton, and Miller
(1986)
Kaufmann and Matthews X X
(2012)
Kitano and Perkins (1996) X
Lewis, Kitano, and Lynch X
(1992)
Lubinski, Benbow, and Ryan X
(1995)
Lubinski, Benbow, Webb, X
and Bleske-Rechek (2006)
Lubinski. Schmidt, and X
Benbow (1996)
Park, Imboden, Park, Hulse, X
and Unger (1992)
Park, Lubinski, and Benbow X
(2007)
Park, Lubinski, and Benbow X
(2008)
Park, Lubinski, and Benbow
(2012)
Perrone, Civiletto, Webb, X X
and Fitch (2004)
Perrone, Ksiazak, et al. X X
(2010)
Perrone, Perrone, Ksiazak, X X
Wright, and Jackson
(2007)
Perrone, Tschopp, Snyder, X X
Boo, and Hyatt (2010)
Perrone, Webb, Wright, X X
Jackson, and Ksiazak
(2006)

(continued)

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015

216 Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)

Table 1. (continued)

Youth Status as
Youth IQ standardized HS class Academic doctoral Adult Mensa or adult
Study score(s) test score(s) rank prize in HS student accomplishments IQ score(s) Other
Perrone, Wright, Ksiazak, X X
Crane, and Vannatter
(2010)
Perrone-McGovern, Boo, X X
and Vannatter (2012)
Perrone-McGovern et al. X X
(2011)
Persson (2009) X
Peterson (2012) X
Piechowski and Colangelo X X X
(1984)
Robertson, Smeets, Lubinski, X
and Benbow (2010)
Ruf (2001) X
Sears (1977) X
Sękowski and Siekańska X
(2008)
Siekańska and Sękowski X
(2006)
Simonton (2008) X
Stålnacke and Smedler X
(2011)
Standing, Aikins, Madigan, X
and Nohl (2015)
Stewart and Porath (1999) X
Subotnik and Arnold (1995) X X
Terman (1942) X
Terman (1954) X
Tomlinson-Keasey and Little X
(1990)
Wai (2013) X
Wai (2014a) X
Wai, Lubinski, and Benbow X
(2005)
Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, and X
Steiger (2010)
Walberg et al. (1981) X
Walker, Reis, and Leonard X
(1992)
Watve (2008) X
Weidenheim, Escobar, and X
Rapin (2012)
Wirthwein, Becker, Loehr, X
and Rost (2011)
Wirthwein and Rost (2011a) X
Wirthwein and Rost (2011b) X
Yewchuk and Schlosser X
(1995)

Note. Standardized Test Scores = On-level or above-level; HS = high school; Mensa = membership in Mensa. Other refers to recommendations from high
school officials, autobiographical statements, scores from a rating scale based on Gardner’s (1983) model of personal intelligence (i.e., interpersonal and
intrapersonal intelligence), participation in gifted programs as a child, or graduating from a highly selective school.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015

Rinn and Bishop
gifted adults; (b) family of origin; (c) effects of early educa-
tional experiences; (d) characteristics of gifted adults; (e)
career; (f) family of procreation; (g) career and family inter-
action; (h) life goals, satisfaction, and well-being; and (i)
counseling. We discuss each of these themes in detail, but
first, we discuss three major longitudinal studies of gifted-
ness that contribute to much of what is covered in this review.
Historical Research and Seminal
Longitudinal Studies of Gifted Adults
Several well-known longitudinal studies of giftedness that
range across the lifespan or portions of the lifespan make up
the bulk of research on gifted adults. For an in-depth discus-
sion of longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent across
the lifespan, we refer the reader to Subotnik and Arnold
(1994) and Horowitz, Subotnik, and Matthews (2009). As
several longitudinal studies are referenced numerous times
throughout our review, we discuss them in detail here.
Terman’s Study of the Gifted
Longitudinal research in gifted education largely started with
the Terman Study of the Gifted (Terman, 1926; Terman et al.,
1925) in 1921, whereby Terman began following the lives of
more than 1,500 gifted children. At selection, participants
were an average age of 11 years and all had an IQ of 135 or
greater. At the time of the last survey in 1999, 97% of the
remaining participants had reached the age of 80 or older.
This longitudinal study of gifted individuals, from childhood
to adulthood, largely reveals a population considered healthy
and successful (Terman & Oden, 1947), and was among the
first to refute previous claims that gifted children were sickly
and awkward. It should be noted, though, that there are
numerous issues with Terman’s study, including the fact that
most of the children selected for participation were White
and from a middle-to-upper class socioeconomic status.
Much of the success of these gifted individuals could be
attributed to their backgrounds and not their IQs (Vialle,
1994). Also, because Terman’s research started nearly a cen-
tury ago, many of the findings could be outdated. This is not
to say that Terman’s study is not influential to the field of
gifted education, as it certainly has been, but to note that his
study was not inclusive of individuals from underserved
backgrounds (e.g., those in poverty or from racial minority
groups) and his findings may not always be relevant to con-
temporary issues in gifted education.
Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth
Five cohorts of individuals identified between 1972 and
1997 (more than 5,000 individuals) are being tracked
through the SMPY, which is a planned 50-year longitudinal
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
217
study of intellectual talent (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). The
first four cohorts were identified through talent searches,
meaning at or before age 13, each of these individuals were
identified based on their scores on subtests of the College
Board Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). The 1972 cohort
(Cohort 1) includes 2,188 participants who earned a score of
at least 390 on the math subtest of the SAT or 370 on the
verbal subtest of the SAT. The 1976 cohort (Cohort 2)
includes 778 participants who earned a score of at least 500
on the math subtest of the SAT or 430 on the verbal subtest
of the SAT. The 1980 cohort (Cohort 3) includes 501 partici-
pants who earned a score of at least 700 on the math subtest
of the SAT or 630 on the verbal subtest of the SAT. All par-
ticipants were followed up at ages 18, 23, and 33. The 1987
cohort (Cohort 4) includes 1,000 participants who earned a
score of at least 500 on the math subtest of the SAT, 430 on
the verbal subtest of the SAT, or 20 on an ACT subtest.
Cohort 5 consists of students selected from top math/sci-
ence graduate programs in 1992, and who were again fol-
lowed up 10 years later. While SMPY participants may have
advanced capabilities in other domains, the participants are
included in the SMPY research studies because of their spe-
cific abilities in a particular domain (i.e., math, science, ver-
bal), which somewhat limits the generalizability of the
findings from the SMPY research. However, research has
shown a correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores
(ranging from r = .53 to .82, p < .01), suggesting that higher
SAT scores are at least somewhat indicative of a higher IQ
(Brodnick & Ree, 1995; Frey & Detterman, 2004).
“1988 Midwestern Study”
In the “1988 Midwestern Study,” individuals have been
participating in a longitudinal study of giftedness since they
were adolescents in 1988. Beginning in 1988, directors of
guidance in all public and private high schools in a
Midwestern state identified the two highest ranking gradu-
ates from schools graduating fewer than 250 students, the
five highest ranking graduates from schools graduating
more than 250 students, and all Merit Scholar finalists and
semifinalists for inclusion in a longitudinal study of gifted-
ness. Perrone and colleagues (2004, 2006, 2007, 2010,
2011, 2012) have been following these gifted individuals
for more than 20 years. The inclusion of both class rank and
standardized test scores as indicators of giftedness limits
the sample to academically high achieving students and
those with specific aptitude for math and verbal abilities,
also affecting the generalizability of the findings. However,
as previously mentioned, a relationship likely exists
between SAT scores and IQ scores, suggesting general
intelligence levels were taken into account in the design of
this study (Brodnick & Ree, 1995; Frey & Detterman,
2004).
218
Do Gifted Children Become Gifted
Adults?
A simple answer to the question “Do gifted children become
gifted adults?” is, “Yes, they do.” If identified as gifted dur-
ing childhood on the basis of one’s IQ score, for example,
we can assume the “gifted” label persists throughout adult-
hood, as one’s IQ score is fairly stable from childhood to
adulthood (Deary, Whalley, Lemmon, Crawford, & Starr,
2000; Deary, Whiteman, Starr, Whalley, & Fox, 2004;
Mackintosh, 2011), and any age-related declines in IQ may
be delayed in individuals with higher than average IQs
(Baxendale, 2011). If identified as gifted in the realm of cre-
ativity, leadership, or a specific academic ability during
childhood, we have no reason to believe that specific area of
giftedness would dissipate without cause as an individual
ages. However, if we reframe the question as, “Do gifted
children use their giftedness in a significant or outstanding
way as adults and/or become eminent2 as adults?” then we
can begin to answer the question based on the available
research literature.
One camp of researchers says intelligence during child-
hood, whether formally recognized or not, is largely a
requirement for eminence in adulthood, but it is not a guar-
antee (Simonton & Song, 2009; Walberg et al., 1996). Much
of this research is retrospective in nature, whereby the child-
hoods of eminent adults are examined for common themes
and experiences (e.g., Albert, 1978; Cox, 1926; Goertzel,
Goertzel, & Goertzel, 1978). For example, using a sample of
291 eminent African Americans,3 Simonton (2008) con-
ducted a historiometric study to determine factors that con-
tribute to adult eminence. Even after the inclusion of a variety
of control variables (e.g., gender, year of birth) in his analy-
ses, he found that early giftedness, in particular, was predic-
tive of adulthood eminence and creative achievement. In
other words, eminent adults were once gifted children. He
did not, however, include a control group of adults who are
not eminent, but who were identified as gifted when chil-
dren. Walberg et al. (1981) conducted a similar historiomet-
ric study of 200 men born between the 14th and 20th centuries
(e.g., Mozart, Lincoln) and found that early intelligence was
predictive of adult eminence. Freeman and Walberg (1999)
also conducted a historiometric study of 256 eminent African
American women who lived in the 20th century and found
evidence of early intellectual ability among these women, in
addition to the traits of perseverance and single-mindedness.
Similar to Simonton (2008), though, Walberg et al. and
Freeman and Walberg did not include control groups.
Nonetheless, while childhood giftedness may matter,
Feldman (1984) found somewhat of a threshold effect, which
suggests that above a certain threshold of cognitive ability
(an IQ of 120, or an ability level in the 90th percentile, for
example), differences in cognitive ability no longer matter.
In comparing the 26 individuals (7 women and 19 men) with
an IQ greater than 180 from Terman’s Study of the Gifted
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
with a comparison group of 26 randomly chosen individuals
(11 women and 15 men) with an average IQ of 150, Feldman
found the 180 IQ group and the 150 IQ group did not differ
markedly in terms of educational attainment, jobs or profes-
sions chosen, marriage, having children, or life satisfaction.
In contrast to the threshold effect, though, research from
the SMPY studies suggest higher levels of cognitive ability,
even within the top 1% of cognitive ability, do matter (Kell,
Lubinski, & Benbow, 2013; Robertson, Smeets, Lubinski, &
Benbow, 2010). When examining the top 1% of mathemati-
cally precocious individuals involved in the first three
cohorts of SMPY, Park, Lubinski, and Benbow (2008) found
that mathematical ability level differences at age 13 could
predict advanced degree attainment in science, technology,
engineering, or mathematics (STEM), the likelihood of
authoring a peer-reviewed STEM publication, and the likeli-
hood of earning a patent 25 years later. Furthermore, also
using the same sample of the top 1% of mathematically pre-
cocious individuals involved in the first three cohorts of
SMPY, Wai, Lubinski, and Benbow (2005) examined the top
versus bottom quartiles of the top 1% and found statistically
significant effect sizes favoring the top quartile with regard
to secured doctorates, doctorates in the STEM fields, income,
patents, and tenure track positions at top universities in the
United States about 20 years later. Even within the top 1%,
then, differences emerge between the “able” and the “excep-
tionally able” (p. 489). Wai (2013, 2014a) adds to the idea
that higher cognitive ability levels matter by retrospectively
assessing the educational experiences and cognitive abilities
of “America’s elite”4 (Wai, 2013, p. 203) and “the world’s
rich and powerful”5 (Wai, 2014a, p. 54). By examining the
universities that each of these individuals attended, Wai was
able to estimate the cognitive ability of each individual based
on the average standardized test scores of individuals attend-
ing those universities (e.g., the average combined SAT math
and critical reading scores of individuals attending the
California Institute of Technology is 1525, making it the
most elite institution in the United States, according to Wai).
Because of the correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores
(Brodnick & Ree, 1995; Frey & Detterman, 2004), Wai con-
cludes that the global elite and America’s elite are largely
drawn from the intellectually and academically gifted, and
he suspects many are in the top 1% of ability.
Similarly, using SMPY data, Park, Lubinski, and Benbow
(2007) showed that ability patterns at age 13, detected by
both the sum of math and verbal SAT scores (general ability
level) and the math SAT score minus the verbal SAT score
(tilt, or differential ability strength), could predict creative
accomplishments and the domain in which they occur 25
years later (e.g., humanities vs. STEM). A positive ability tilt
indicated a greater strength in quantitative ability (e.g.,
STEM) and a negative ability tilt indicated a greater strength
in verbal ability (e.g., humanities). Robertson et al. (2010)
added to these findings to suggest vocational interests and
lifestyle preferences, in combination with ability patterns,
Rinn and Bishop
can predict educational and occupational domains and per-
formance among SMPY young adolescents in the top 1% of
quantitative ability decades later. There might also be cross-
cultural similarities in these findings. Firkowska-Mankiewicz
(2011) discusses the “Warsaw Studies,” which was a longitu-
dinal study conducted with a cohort of 11 to 13 year olds in
Warsaw, Poland, beginning in the 1970s. In 1994, there were
170 people from the High IQ group (mean IQ = 130 in child-
hood); in 1995, 141 people remained from the High IQ
group; and in 1999, 97 people remained from the High IQ
group. The results from a series of studies related to the
Warsaw children indicate that IQ score at age 13 is a good
indicator of attained education, occupational status, and
material well-being later in life.
On the other hand, researchers have found that “most
gifted children, even most child prodigies, do not go on to
become adult creators” (Winner, 2000, p. 165) and most
gifted children identified as gifted on the basis of traditional
measures of intellectual ability do not become eminent adults
(Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000; Subotnik, 2009; Subotnik &
Steiner, 1994; VanTassel-Baska, 1989). Howard (2008) says,
“There is little apparent link between being a prodigy and
becoming eminent . . . and some recognized geniuses, such
as Albert Einstein, reportedly showed no early signs of great
talent” (pp. 119-120). In a study using data from Terman’s
Study of the Gifted, Tomlinson-Keasey and Little (1990)
found that parental education and intellectual determination
were predictors of the intellectual skill of gifted adults later
in life, while sociability was a negative predictor. Terman
himself (1942) found that vocational success was not neces-
sarily correlated with intellectual ability within his sample,
but that the drive to achieve and one’s emotional stability
contributed more to success in one’s chosen field.
Regardless of whether a gifted child will become an emi-
nent adult, interests and values during childhood may be
somewhat stable over time for a gifted individual. In a study
of 114 males and 48 females from Cohort 2 of the SMPY
studies, Lubinski, Benbow, and Ryan (1995) administered a
vocational interest inventory at age 13 and then again 15
years later, at age 28. Over the 15-year time period, one’s
dominant vocational interest at age 13 was more likely than
chance to be one’s dominant or adjacent to the dominant
value at age 28 (κ = .18, 95% confidence interval = [.07,
.29]). Similarly, in a study of 94 male and 109 female stu-
dents from Cohort 1 of the SMPY studies, Lubinski, Schmidt,
and Benbow (1996) examined participants’ values (i.e., theo-
retical, economic, political, aesthetic, social, and religious) at
age 13 and then again 20 years later at age 33. Lubinski et al.
found “global, educationally, and vocationally relevant pref-
erences among intellectually gifted adults are somewhat
related to early adolescent assessments” (p. 447). Over the
20-year time period, one’s dominant value at age 13 was
more likely than chance to be one’s dominant or adjacent to
the dominant value at age 33 (κ = .12, 95% confidence inter-
val = [.04, .20]).
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
219
In examining which gifted children grow up to become
eminent and which ones do not, we have to take into account
more than just childhood IQ. In addition to the early identifi-
cation of ability as well as skills and interests during child-
hood, other childhood experiences also play a role in the
development of giftedness or eminence during adulthood. In
the following sections, we explore characteristics of one’s
family of origin and early educational experiences that may
or may not lead to eminence during adulthood.
Family of Origin
Research is mixed regarding whether eminence in adulthood
is associated with a harmonious home and family life during
childhood or with a stressful environment (Albert, 1991, per-
haps due to parental dysfunction or the early loss of a parent
[the Phaeton Effect; Iremonger, 1970]). For example, some
gifted children from harmonious families have exhibited
lower than expected levels of eminence in adulthood
(Subotnik, Kassan, Summers, & Wasser, 1993), but may be
scholastic achievers during the school years (Albert, 1978).
Eminent and creative achievers, then, can “come from fami-
lies where there were tense family relationships, unconven-
tional parenting and socialization practices in use, and a
greater likelihood of parental dysfunction or parental loss”
(Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000, p. 65). For example, among a
sample of 145 Presidential Scholars6 from 1964 to 1968 (70
male, 75 female), 60% reported experiencing significant trau-
matic events or extreme conditions before the age of 18 (e.g.,
bullying, economic hardship, family discord, death of a par-
ent or guardian; Kaufmann & Matthews, 2012). Stewart and
Porath (1999) conducted a content analysis of written bio-
graphical and autobiographical accounts of five British boys
who were born between 1880 and 1933. These boys were
born into low socioeconomic conditions, but became eminent
in adulthood. Each boy, and later man, was considered ver-
bally talented. All five boys faced significant difficulty during
their childhoods, including poverty, parental ill health, paren-
tal death, and moving frequently.
Furthermore, in a study of 41 female and 20 male outpa-
tients diagnosed with personality disorders, 38 of who were
diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, Park,
Imboden, Park, Hulse, and Unger (1992), using a rating
scale based on Gardner’s (1983) model of personal intelli-
gence (i.e., interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences),
found that 74% of the borderline personality patients met
the definition for giftedness compared with only 34% of the
control patients. Of interest, though, 74% (17 of 23) of the
borderline personality patients were also identified as hav-
ing experienced psychological abuse in their childhood,
whereas the control group reported psychological abuse in
only 13% of the cases. Of those patients reporting psycho-
logical abuse, 91% identified a dominant parent who was
also the primary psychological abuser, with 78% character-
izing the psychological abuse as intrusive over involvement,
220
criticism, and constant devaluation. Childhood psychologi-
cal abuse may certainly be handicapping, but it appears to
spur some gifted individuals toward self-development. In a
study of 41 intellectually gifted adults7 between the ages of
40 and 60 years, Ruf (2001) found that 56% of the partici-
pants reported childhood psychological abuse. Participants
who overcame resentment of childhood psychological abuse
were more likely to pursue self-actualization, defined as
“living up to one’s potential” (p. 267). Ruf’s study failed to
explicitly identify the catalyst for the emotional growth,
although a review of her results indicated that of those par-
ticipants who were identified as self-actualizing and survi-
vors of childhood psychological abuse, 80% had received
counseling.
Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen (1993) and
Therival (1999) assert that stress and trauma during child-
hood are not necessary for adult eminence, but that a bal-
ance of parental, familial, or other support and tension or
misfortune may result in later eminence. Standing, Aikins,
Madigan, and Nohl (2015) examined eminent American
writers, presidents of the United States, and the 100 most
influential 20th century Americans as judged by Life maga-
zine and found that the majority experienced some form of
early loss, but that “mentoring, innate ability, education,
favorable external circumstances, or luck” contributed to
their success (p. 196). Similarly, in a study of 197 eminent
Canadian women,8 Yewchuk and Schlosser (1995) found
most of the women viewed their parents as encouraging and
supportive during childhood and adolescence. Other sources
of support seem to matter, too. Kaufmann, Harrel, Milam,
Woolverton, and Miller (1986) had 255 of the 1964 to 1968
Presidential Scholars complete a questionnaire concerning
significant milestones in their undergraduate and graduate
school experiences. Of these, 139 participants (68 men and
71 women) identified the presence of a mentor in their lives
as a significant experience, with 79% reporting it as a posi-
tive experience. The majority (66%) of mentors were identi-
fied as teachers, with counselors mentioned to a lesser
degree. When questioned about the function of a mentor,
61% of the gifted adults surveyed considered role modeling
as one of the functions, with support and encouragement a
close second at 58%.
Indeed, early experiences seem to matter later in life. In
1954, Terman analyzed data from his longitudinal study of
gifted individuals and focused specifically on the life suc-
cess of 730 men at age 30, which was measured by examin-
ing the extent to which a man had made use of his superior
intellectual ability. The 150 most successful men were
labeled Group A, and the 150 least successful men were
labeled Group C. Notable differences regarding early life
experiences emerged between the groups: For example, half
of the fathers of Group A men were college graduates and
15% of the fathers of Group C men were college graduates.
Group A men had nearly 50% more books in their homes
during childhood than Group C men. Campbell and Feng
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
(2011) replicated Terman’s study with a modern sample of
Group A (most successful, N = 24) and Group C (least suc-
cessful, N = 24) American Academic Olympians.9 Campbell
and Feng also found differences between the groups regard-
ing early life experiences: Individuals in Group A were
characterized by an abundance of books and magazines in
their childhood homes, parents who recognized their talent
and encouraged their development in that domain, and
higher socioeconomic statuses. Individuals in Group C were
characterized by lower socioeconomic statuses, less intel-
lectual stimulation during childhood, less recognition from
their parents regarding the development of their talents, and
negative affective school experiences (i.e., insensitive
teachers and peers).
Sękowski and Siekańska (2008) compared the early fam-
ily experiences of 90 gifted adults10 (ranging in age from 26
to 35 years) and 90 average ability adults (ranging in age
from 26 to 35 years) who were a matched comparison group.
They found numerous statistically significant differences
between the groups. For example, regarding siblings, 43.3%
of the gifted adults grew up without siblings, while only
8.9% of the comparison group had no siblings. Among the
gifted adults, 15.6% of their fathers held doctoral degrees,
while only 1.1% of the fathers of the comparison group held
doctoral degrees. Regarding their mothers, among the gifted
adults, 56.7% of the mothers had a university education and
8.9% held a doctoral degree. Among the comparison group,
35.6% of the mothers had a university education and 0% held
a doctoral degree. Kaufmann (1981) reports similar findings
with a sample of 322 Presidential Scholars from 1964 to
1968, which were described previously, such that 60% of the
Scholars’ fathers attended college and 44% earned advanced
degrees. Of the Scholars’ mothers, 73% attended college and
15% earned advanced degrees.
In a study of the perceptions of multigenerational gifted-
ness among a sample of 89 gifted adults from the 1988
Midwestern Study (mean age = 36.73 years, SD = 0.62),
Perrone, Ksiazak, et al. (2010) found that 37% of partici-
pants thought neither of their parents were gifted, 34%
thought both of their parents were gifted, 14% thought only
their mother was gifted, 14% thought only their father was
gifted, and 1% was unsure. Those participants who thought
their parents were gifted suggested giftedness in the follow-
ing categories: “math and science; exceptional memory;
mechanical or spatial ability; interpersonal skills; language
and writing; problem solving and critical thinking; athletic
ability; leadership, business, or organizational skills; creative
or artistic abilities; and general academic abilities” (p. 614).
The participants’ mothers were most likely to be identified as
gifted in the areas of creative or artistic abilities, language
and writing, and general academic abilities. The participants’
fathers were most likely to be identified as gifted in the areas
of math and science, mechanical or spatial ability, interper-
sonal skills, creative or artistic skills, and general academic
abilities.
Rinn and Bishop
Effects of Early Educational Experiences
Acceleration and Advanced Coursework
Using a sample of the top 1% of mathematically precocious
individuals involved in the first three cohorts of SMPY, Park,
Lubinski, and Benbow (2012) examined the effects of grade
skipping on adult productivity in the STEM fields. Park et al.
used exact and propensity score matching to create matched
samples, resulting in a group of “grade skippers” (1972
cohort n = 179; 1976 cohort n = 116; 1980 cohort n = 68) and
a control group (1972 cohort n = 358; 1976 cohort n = 231;
1980 cohort n = 68). Results indicate that in every cohort, a
greater proportion of grade skippers than control participants
earned doctoral degrees, doctoral degrees in STEM, STEM
publications, and patents. Also, pooled comparisons of
cohorts show age advantages for the grade skippers of
between 1 year to 1.5 years for doctoral degree attainment,
doctoral degree attainment in STEM, and first STEM publi-
cation, meaning grade skippers reach each of these outcomes
1 year to 1.5 years earlier than the control participants. The
effects of acceleration on subsequent STEM accomplish-
ments (defined as citations and citation indices) continued at
ages 42, 46, and 50 years, although the effects were different
for men and women as well as for those in different cohorts.
Overall, these findings support Pressey’s time-saving theory,
suggesting that appropriately used grade-based acceleration
with mathematically precocious adolescents can have lasting
effects on the productivity of those pursuing careers in the
STEM fields (as cited in Park et al., 2012).
Using a sample of 88 participants (mean age = 35.89,
SD = 0.35) from the 1988 Midwestern Study, Perrone, Wright,
Ksiazak, Crane, and Vannatter (2010) examined the academic
and interpersonal experiences of participants who were
enrolled in advanced classes during elementary school, sec-
ondary school, or college. Of the 88 participants, 72% were
enrolled in advanced classes during elementary or secondary
school. Of these, 85% indicated that their academic experi-
ences in these classes were positive and 59% indicated that
their interpersonal experiences in these classes were positive.
Positive experiences included college preparation, academic
challenge, and intellectual engagement, among others.
Negative experiences, though, included segregation/isolation
from peers and social stigma from the gifted label, among
others. Of the 88 participants, only 32% were enrolled in
advanced classes during college. Positive experiences were
largely noted, including the rewarding challenge provided in
these classes, social interaction with other advanced students,
smaller class sizes, and access to the best professors.
Enrichment
Researchers interested in the talent development process
have noted that deep immersion in a discipline or domain of
talent during childhood and adolescence is predictive of
adult accomplishment and eminence (Bloom, 1985; Feldman,
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
221
1986; Gagne, 1995). For example, Subotnik and Olszewski-
Kubilius (1997) note summer programs for the gifted and
interaction with intellectual peers during childhood and ado-
lescence are essential for talent development and adult emi-
nence. In a study of 53 men between the ages of 30 and 40
years,11 Watve (2008) examined the effects of enriched edu-
cational programs during childhood on academic (educa-
tional qualifications, acquisition of languages, literature
published, etc.), practical (occupational status, income,
material-possessions, etc.), and social (leadership performed,
special recognitions achieved, membership of groups, etc.)
accomplishments during adulthood. Comparison was made
between those men who had participated in 6 years of
enriched educational programs during childhood and those
equally able men who had not participated in enriched edu-
cational programs during childhood. Watve found that those
men who participated in enriched educational programs dur-
ing childhood were more likely than those who had not to
have academic and social accomplishments, specifically (a)
to achieve basic educational qualifications, (b) to acquire
additional qualifications in addition to basic educational
qualifications, (c) to become members of social groups, (d)
to conduct training programs, and (e) to deliver talks outside
of their academic area. Furthermore, among the most math-
ematically precocious SMPY participants (the top 1 in 200 in
quantitative reasoning ability for their age taken from Cohort
1 and Cohort 2, and the top 1 in 10,000 in quantitative rea-
soning ability for their age taken from Cohort 3 of the SMPY
studies), those with more pre-collegiate STEM educational
opportunities, termed STEM educational dose, had more
STEM accomplishments (doctorate in the STEM fields,
STEM publications, STEM tenure, and STEM occupations)
20 years later (Wai, Lubinski, Benbow, & Steiger, 2010).
A discussion of the childhood experiences of gifted adults
leads us to the characteristics, experiences, and needs of
gifted individuals during adulthood. In the following sec-
tions, characteristics of gifted adults are discussed, followed
by a discussion of career and family of procreation, and then
life satisfaction (or lack thereof).
Characteristics of Gifted Adults
Several researchers discuss anecdotal and observational
experiences with gifted adults and describe characteristics of
these gifted adults that set them apart from their average abil-
ity peers. Lovecky (1986) outlines the following traits of
gifted adults: divergent thinking, excitability, sensitivity, per-
ceptivity, and entelechy (i.e., having a goal). Roeper (1991)
explains gifted adults have the following characteristics,
among others: complex intellectual ability, childlike emo-
tions, feelings of being fundamentally different from others,
driven by their giftedness, feelings of being overwhelmed by
their own creativity, introversion, need for solitude, need for
meaning, individualized methods of learning, able to see pat-
terns of development and growth (trends), need for truth,
222
perfectionism, feelings of being misunderstood, difficulty in
understanding the behaviors of others, strong sense of humor,
difficulty with authority figures, and strong moral convic-
tions. Tolan (1994) also discusses similar characteristics:
emotional intensity, moral sensitivity and concern for justice,
and social experiences that depend on finding like-minded
others. Of the characteristics described by Lovecky (1986),
Roeper (1991), and Tolan (1994), only a few have been
empirically examined, most notably emotional sensitivity,
intensity, and perceptions of giftedness.
Emotional Sensitivity and Intensity
Overexcitabilities are ways that an individual experiences
the world (Piechowski, 1979). The notion of overexcitabili-
ties stems from Dabrowski’s (1964) Theory of Positive
Disintegration, which is a theory of personality develop-
ment. For a thorough description of Dabrowski’s ideas and
the Theory of Positive Disintegration, the reader is referred
to Dabrowski (1937, 1964, 1972) and Dabrowski, Kawczak,
and Piechowski (1970). The five forms of overexcitabilities
may be described as follows: A psychomotor overexcitability
refers to a surplus of energy and nervousness. A sensual
overexcitability is an enhanced level of sensory experience
and is marked by the pursuit of pleasure through senses such
as tastes and smell. An intellectual overexcitability is associ-
ated with striving for knowledge and truth through question-
ing, discovering, and analyzing, but differs from the construct
of intelligence. An imaginational overexcitability is charac-
terized by daydreaming, fantasizing, dramatization, and the
use of imagery and metaphors. An emotional overexcitability
is marked by the intensified level of interpersonal relations to
people, things, and places, and compassionate feelings for
others. Within a gifted adult sample, overexcitabilities are
usually measured using the Overexcitability Questionnaire-
Two (OEQ-II; Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski, & Silverman,
1999), which is a Likert-type self-report questionnaire
designed to measure the five overexcitabilities. However, it
should be noted that the study of overexcitabilities and the
use of the OEQ-II from both theoretical (see Mendaglio,
2012) and measurement (Van den Broeck, Hofmans,
Cooremans, & Staels, 2014; Warne, 2011) perspectives has
been controversial and findings from this questionnaire
should be interpreted with these controversies in mind.
In a study of 96 intellectually gifted adults12 (mean IQ =
136, SD = 8.3) and 91 adults of average intelligence (mean
IQ = 103, SD = 9.2), all aged 30 to 31 years, both male and
female gifted adults scored higher on the intellectual overex-
citability subscale of the OEQ-II than the males and females
of average intelligence (d = 0.42; Wirthwein, Becker, Loehr,
& Rost, 2011). In a related study using the same sample
(Wirthwein & Rost, 2011a), a high-IQ group (N = 123; mean
IQ = 117, SD = 11.9) and an average-IQ group (N = 97; mean
IQ = 102, SD = 12.7) was compared on overexcitability sub-
scale scores. Again, the high-IQ group scored higher on the
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
intellectual overexcitability subscale of the OEQ-II than the
average-IQ group (d = .56) and also on the sensual overexcit-
ability subscale (d = .32). Piechowski and Colangelo (1984)
found gifted adolescents to score lower than gifted adults
(N = 28, mean age 36.4)13 in intellectual overexcitability.
Piechowski and Colangelo also found gifted adolescents to
score lower than gifted adults, and gifted adolescents to score
lower than average ability graduate students, on a measure of
sensual overexcitability, concluding that sensual overexcit-
ability may be a characteristic of age and maturity rather than
giftedness.
Perceptions of Giftedness
Stålnacke and Smedler (2011) studied the psychosocial
experiences of 302 adults (mean age = 36 years, SD = 9.6)
who were members of the Swedish Mensa Society.14 As a
group, the majority of participants experienced feelings of
being “different,” but not different enough to downplay
their giftedness or to adjust their behavior in order to be
accepted as adults. Many experienced difficulties in child-
hood, though, suggesting it takes time to come to terms with
one’s abilities and talents. In a similar study of 83 gifted
adults (ranging in age from 34 to 36 years) from the 1988
Midwestern Study, Perrone, Perrone, Ksiazak, Wright, and
Jackson (2007) surveyed the participants on issues related to
self-perceptions of giftedness. Most participants saw others’
perceptions of them as gifted as a positive force (e.g.,
increasing their self-confidence, as a motivating factor,
increasing their self-awareness). A minority of the partici-
pants felt others’ perceptions of them as gifted had a nega-
tive impact on their lives (e.g., causing too much pressure,
embarrassment). Lewis, Kitano, and Lynch (1992) also
examined the cognitive and affective experiences of 31
gifted adults (mean age = 42.0 years, SD = 6.4)15 and found
the gifted adults rated themselves as different from their per-
ception of average ability individuals in the areas of internal
motivation and cognitive versatility (gifted adults having
more of both), and need for recognition (average ability
adults having more).
Career
Educational and Occupational Success
Cognitive ability seems to be predictive of later educational
and occupational success (Wai, 2014b). Among a sample of
286 male and 94 female SMPY participants (mean age 33.6
years), which represents the ablest cohort of all SMPY par-
ticipants (within the top 0.01%), 51.7% of the males and
54.3% of the females earned doctoral-level degrees (PhD,
MD, or JD; Lubinski, Benbow, Webb, & Bleske-Rechek,
2006). These SMPY participants earned doctoral degrees at 50
times the base-rate expectation for the general population. Of
the total sample, 59.4% of them had careers in postsecondary
Rinn and Bishop
education, engineering, science, medicine, or law. The
SMPY follow-ups also show consistent gender differences:
Men are more likely than women to enter the fields of engi-
neering and physical/inorganic sciences. Women are more
likely than men to enter the fields of law, medicine, social
sciences, and life sciences (Benbow, Lubinski, Shea, &
Eftekhari-Sanjani, 2000; Robertson et al., 2010). An exami-
nation of the 1964-1968 Presidential Scholars shows similar
findings: Among a sample of 145 participants, 70% of them
earned doctoral level degrees, 20% earned master’s degrees,
21% had careers in education (more women than men), 19%
had careers in health care and health sciences (more men
than women), and 14% had careers in legal fields (about
equal numbers of men and women; Kaufmann & Matthews,
2012).
Satisfaction in Chosen Career
Perhaps one of the greatest challenges for gifted adults
involves choosing a career path (Karnes & Oehler-Stinnett,
1986). The path to a chosen career can be even more compli-
cated when the gifted adult is a multipotentialite, meaning
that they may be capable of success across numerous areas
due to multiple strengths and interests (Delisle & Squires,
1989). The degree to which this is an issue for the gifted is in
dispute; some studies have suggested that the issue may not
be as critical as once thought (Achter, Benbow, & Lubinski,
1997; Emmett & Minor, 1993).
In Poland, Siekańska and Sękowski (2006) examined the
job satisfaction and temperament structure of 90 gifted
adults16 (ranging in age from 26 to 35 years) and 90 average
ability adults (ranging in age from 26 to 35 years) who were
a matched comparison group. Results indicated the gifted
adults were significantly more satisfied with their jobs than
the comparison group. Factors that led to satisfaction with
their jobs among the gifted group included (a) “that their job
is connected with their interests,” (b) “that they can take
advantage of their skills, predispositions and expertise,” (c)
“that they can display their talent for creative thinking . . .
and to be independent in their thinking and activity,” (d)
“that work is a source of pleasure,” and (e) “that the atmo-
sphere in their team is good” (p. 79). Perrone, Tschopp,
Snyder, Boo, and Hyatt (2010) found that of a sample of 87
participants from the 1988 Midwestern Study, most were sat-
isfied with their careers and had met their expectations
regarding career predictions and success. Nauta and Corten
(2002), though, note that gifted adults may have difficulty at
work when the work environment is not conducive to the
needs and characteristics of a gifted individual. Persson
(2009), in a study of 287 members of Mensa (216 men and
71 women), all of who ranked in the 98th percentile or higher
for intelligence, found that intellectually gifted adults were
most happy in their careers when they were business owners
or in positions of leadership that allowed for considerable
autonomy.
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
223
Family of Procreation
Choice of Partner
Previous research has indicated spousal correlations between
standardized IQ measures (r = .37, Bouchard & McGue,
1981; r = .41, Jensen, 1978). These findings are not surpris-
ing given the similarity–attraction hypothesis, which states
that the more similar two individuals are, the higher the
attraction between them (Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Nelson,
1965). SMPY follow-up research of the top 1% in quantita-
tive ability shows that the significant others of SMPY indi-
viduals are typically well-educated. Of those SMPY
individuals in long-term relationships (81% in Cohort 1 at
age 33 and 72% in Cohort 2 at age 33), 78% (Cohort 1) and
88% (Cohort 2) of their significant others had earned at least
a bachelor’s degree (Benbow et al., 2000).
Among a sample of 87 gifted adults (33 male, 54 female)
from the 1988 Midwestern Study, ranging in age from 31 to
33 years old at the first data collection point and 36 to 38
years old at the second data collection point, marital satisfac-
tion was found to be related to life satisfaction (Perrone-
McGovern, Boo, & Vannatter, 2012). Participants with gifted
spouses had higher marital and life satisfaction scores than
participants with non-gifted spouses at the first data collec-
tion point, but there were no significant differences between
participants with gifted spouses, and those with non-gifted
spouses with regard to marital and life satisfaction at the sec-
ond data collection point. In a study of 354 heterosexual
members of Mensa and 558 heterosexual individuals of aver-
age ability, Dijkstra, Barelds, Groothof, Ronner, and Nauta
(2012) found the gifted group thought it was more important
to have a partner with high intelligence than did the individu-
als in the average ability group. The individuals in the gifted
group also rated the following characteristics as more impor-
tant than did the individuals in the average ability group:
highly educated and is similar to you. The individuals in the
average ability group placed greater emphasis than the gifted
group on the following characteristics: physically healthy,
wants children, good earning capacity, good heredity, good
housekeeper, religious, and is opposite to you.
Marital Status and Number of Children
As previously mentioned, Sękowski and Siekańska (2008)
compared the early family experiences of 90 gifted adults
(ranging in age from 26 to 35 years) and 90 average ability
adults (ranging in age from 26 to 35 years) who were a
matched comparison group. They also examined the current
family environment of both groups of individuals. There were
statistically significant differences regarding marital status
and number of children between the two groups. Among the
gifted group, 47.8% of them were single and 50% were mar-
ried, compared with 28.9% single and 68.9% married in the
comparison group. Regarding number of children, 65.6% of
224
the gifted group and 48.9% of the comparison group had no
children. Among the gifted group, 23.3% had one child and
11.11% had two or more children. Among the comparison
group, 28.9% had one child and 22.2% had two or more chil-
dren. Lubinski et al. (2006) examined the reproduction rates
of 286 male and 94 female former SMPY participants (mean
age of 33.6 years), which represents the ablest cohort of all
SMPY participants (within the top 0.01%). Of these, 62.2%
of males and 69.0% of females had no children. Of those with
children, the majority had only one child. Of all participants,
the mean number of children for male participants was 0.61
and for female participants was 0.44.
While the Sękowski and Siekańska (2008) and Lubinski
et al. (2006) studies examined adults at or under the age of
35, which could account for the low numbers of children, in
general, the reproduction rates of individuals with a high IQ
are lower than those of average ability and lower ability
adults (Shatz, 2008). Among the 1964-1968 Presidential
Scholars, at around the age of 60 years, 81% of the Scholars
were married (or in marriage-like relationships, such as
domestic partnerships and civil unions). However, most had
small families, such that 23% had no children, 52% had one
or two children, 16% had three children, and 9% had four or
more children (Kaufmann & Matthews, 2012).
Career and Family Interaction
While there is no single path to eminence in adulthood, inter-
personal relationships can influence one’s personal and pro-
fessional development (Mockros, 1996). For example, in a
study of the career goals of 113 gifted adults (ranging in age
from 30 to 32 years) from the 1988 Midwestern Study,
Perrone et al. (2004) conducted interviews regarding barriers
to, and supports of, career goal attainment and family goal
attainment. They found the two most common career goals
among this sample were to “achieve job success or promo-
tion” and “updating skills and credentials” (p. 126). The larg-
est barrier to these career goals was a commitment to
non-work roles (e.g., family and community), and the most
commonly cited sources of support for achieving career
goals were “support from family” and “professional support”
(p. 127). Regarding family goals, the most commonly cited
goal revolved around children: either having more children
or wanting to stop having children. The second most com-
monly cited family goal was related to having a “good qual-
ity of family life” (p. 126). The largest barriers to these
family goals were commitment to career and nonfamily roles
and financial concerns. The most commonly cited sources of
support for achieving family goals were “having adequate
financial resources” and “work flexibility of participants and
their spouses” (p. 127). These findings indicate gifted adults
have a desire to be successful in their careers, but to also bal-
ance that success with having a family. These goals reflect
typical goals of individuals in their early 30s, which is con-
sidered to be a time of striving for security in one’s career,
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
and childbearing and childrearing (Perrone et al., 2004;
Super 1980).
Unique Experiences of Women
Most research suggests gifted women and gifted men (and
gifted girls and gifted boys) have different experiences
(Leder, 2004). Historically, women have been subjected to
sex role stereotyping and have had a lack of opportunity dur-
ing childhood and adolescence, thus making it less likely that
women would attain eminence during adulthood (Kronborg,
2010; Lovecky, 1993). Even if identified as gifted during
childhood, Kerr (1997) suggests that objective measures
such as IQ scores, aptitude test scores, and grade point aver-
ages have failed to predict the achievement of gifted women
in adulthood. And, once in adulthood, gifted women are
more prone to experiencing the imposter syndrome, or the
doubting and discrediting of one’s abilities and achievements
(Bell, 1990). For these reasons, in examining career and fam-
ily interaction among gifted adults, some researchers specifi-
cally focus on the unique experiences of women.
Walker, Reis, and Leonard (1992) examined the experi-
ences of a sample of 544 gifted women representative of the
decades from the 1910s to the 1980s who were graduates of
a highly selective school for intellectually gifted females.17
While 92% of the women were college graduates, and 73%
of the women either did not have children or chose to com-
bine career with homemaking, those women who chose not
to work outside the home were found to be happier and less
depressed than their working counterparts. The homemakers
were also found to be less ambitious and less adventurous
than their working counterparts. In more recent research on
women, Ferriman, Lubinski, and Benbow (2009) examined
Cohort 5 of the SMPY study and found gender differences
over time (between ages 25 and 35 of the participants). By
age 35, women placed more emphasis on flexibility in work
schedule, limiting the amount of time devoted to work, and
not working on weekends than did men, whereas there were
no gender differences in these work-related preferences at
age 25. Furthermore, more than 50% of the women with chil-
dren at age 35 rated working fewer than 50 to 60 hours per
week as extremely important, but less than 20% of men with
children, women without children, and men without children
had the same preference. Ferriman et al. (2009) also found
that women with children had the highest levels of life satis-
faction, followed by men with children and men without
children. Women without children reported the lowest levels
of life satisfaction.
Subotnik and Arnold (1995) interviewed 11 elite female
scientists18 (ranging in age from 29 to 31 years) about issues
related to their career establishment, particularly as it per-
tained to life satisfaction and their personal lives. They
found that romantic relationships act as either brakes or sup-
ports to the women’s career establishment and achievement.
Several issues affected the women’s careers: her own values
Rinn and Bishop
regarding the relative importance of family versus work, the
relative priority of her or her partner’s career, job opportuni-
ties in her and her partner’s fields, the attitude of her partner
toward household and childbearing tasks, and mutual sup-
port for each other’s careers. Similarly, Kitano and Perkins
(1996) examined factors affecting the achievement of 16
gifted women19 who come from countries other than the
United States (Africa, Asia, Latin America and the
Caribbean, Eastern and Western Europe). The women
ranged in age from 25 to 43 years, with a mean age of 35
years. The women identified the following factors that sup-
ported their achievement: personal characteristics or behav-
iors; family members; teachers, advisors, or education in
general; financial aid; peers or colleagues; faith in God; and
luck, chance, or circumstance. Obstacles they encountered
included financial limitations, being female, conflicting
roles or values, personal characteristics, poor teachers or
education, lack or advisors and role models, political cir-
cumstances (e.g., civil war, totalitarian government), lack of
peer support, and racism.
Life Goals, Satisfaction, and Well-Being
Whether they attain eminence or not, most research indicates
positive longitudinal outcomes for high ability individuals
(Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). For example, individuals with a
high IQ have been shown to be more creative, earn more
money, be physically healthier, and to live longer lives (Batty,
Shipley, Gale, Mortensen, & Deary, 2008). Furthermore,
research typically indicates a positive relationship between
level of intelligence and subjective well-being (Diener, 1984;
Watten, Syversen, & Myhrer, 1995; Wulff, Bergman, &
Sverke, 2009), defined largely as “people’s emotional
responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life
satisfaction” (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999, p. 277).
In a study of 101 intellectually gifted adults20 (mean
IQ = 136, SD = 8) and 91 adults of average intelligence
(mean IQ = 103, SD = 9), all aged 28 years old, Wirthwein
and Rost (2011b) examined the subjective well-being of both
groups. They found that intellectually gifted adults were nei-
ther “happy” nor “unhappy” relative to their peers of average
intelligence. Small statistically significant differences were
found in two domains, though. Within the domain of leisure,
gifted adults were somewhat less satisfied than their peers of
average intelligence (d = −.28). Furthermore, in examining
which domains of life were most relevant for general life sat-
isfaction, the only domain contributing to life satisfaction
among gifted adults was “work.” Among adults of average
intelligence, the domains of “self” and “friends” made sig-
nificant contributions to general life satisfaction.
As gifted individuals age, though, indicators of life satis-
faction begin to include social relationships, in addition to
one’s career. In a study of 57 gifted adults (ranging in age
from 36 to 39 years) from the 1988 Midwestern Study,
Perrone-McGovern et al. (2011) examined the role major life
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
225
decisions (i.e., the top five most important decisions partici-
pants had made since graduating from high school) and the
effect those had on life satisfaction. The most common cate-
gory for participants’ best life decision was related to an
increase in level of commitment in romantic relationships
(e.g., getting married). Regarding one’s worst life decision,
participants most commonly noted missed opportunity.
Interestingly, the most common result of worst life decisions
was dissatisfaction with, or termination of, a romantic rela-
tionship. Among a different subsample of 99 adults (40 men,
59 women; all between the ages of 33 and 35 years) from the
1988 Midwestern Study, Perrone et al. (2006) found marital
satisfaction (and existential well-being, defined as one’s
sense of meaning and purpose in life) to be a predictor of life
satisfaction. These findings support previous researchers
who have noted an association between strong romantic rela-
tionships and life satisfaction among the gifted. Hansen and
Hall (1997), for example, examined the impact of marriage
on a sample of 167 high-ability women (mean age = 50
years)21 and found those in supportive and collaborative rela-
tionships were more likely to view themselves as having
high potential for achievement and increased motivation for
success in both personal and professional goals. Sears (1977)
examined a group of gifted men from the Terman Study of
the Gifted (mean age = 62 years) and found that those who
were happily married had the highest levels of life satisfac-
tion. In a 3-year study of 242 men and women from the
Terman Study of the Gifted (mean age = 83.8 years in 1996
and mean age = 86.4 years in 1999), social relationships with
both friends and family continued to play a central role in the
lives of these individuals. In contrast, participants’ intellec-
tual pursuits and productivity declined during this time
period (Holahan & Velasquez, 2011).
The research in this section generally supports the idea
that gifted adults largely have positive experiences with their
careers and their families of procreation. Most gifted adults
included in the research presented here found satisfaction in
both their careers and their personal lives. For those gifted
adults who are not satisfied with their life choices, or who
have unresolved traumatic experiences from childhood, dual
diagnoses, relationship difficulties, or other issues, counsel-
ing may be helpful.
Counseling
Similar to the experiences of gifted children, some clinicians
indicate that gifted adults may face relatively unique issues
compared with their chronological peers, some of which
require professional help (see Peterson, 2009). For example,
in both anecdotal and clinical reports about real clients,
Grobman (2009), Hazell (1999), Prober (2008), and Willings
(1985) suggest the main challenges for gifted adults who
seek therapy are addressing painful school and childhood
experiences, high sensitivity, emotional intensity, existential
depression, perfectionism, multi-potentiality, relationship
226
difficulties, and suicide ideation. Rocamora (1992) goes fur-
ther, suggesting that there are different sets of issues for the
recognized and unrecognized gifted. While the recognized
gifted experience inner and external pressures as well as the
need for public recognition, the unrecognized gifted struggle
to come to terms with the label and with the pressure to be
normal. The counseling relationship offers both the recog-
nized and unrecognized gifted adult, perhaps for the first
time, an opportunity to be understood and valued (Jacobsen,
1999b).
Although there is little research regarding the misdiagno-
sis of the gifted (see Hartnett, Nelson, & Rinn, 2004), Webb
et al. (2006) suggested that more than 25% of gifted children
may be misdiagnosed. This could be even greater for gifted
adults, for while gifted children have their counseling needs
provided by school counselors and child psychologists,
gifted adults, often unrecognized, may seek out the counsel-
ing services of private practitioners, the majority of who are
unlikely to be have any training on the subject of giftedness
or may be pathology-focused (Bourdeau & Thomas, 2003).
According to Alvarado (1989), a counselor’s failure to rec-
ognize giftedness, a lack of understanding of the issues
related to being gifted, and evaluating gifted adults using
normal populations as a baseline, complicates the problems
of the gifted. These factors increase the risk of misdiagnosis
as well as decrease the likelihood that gifted adults will
receive the counseling that they need. For example, the par-
ticipant22 in Peterson’s (2012) 15-year longitudinal case
study reported the continued efforts of various psychological
professionals to pathologize her emotional intensities, well
into adulthood, with one even suggesting a diagnosis of
schizophrenia.
Some gifted adults legitimately have another exceptional-
ity, such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Very little research exists in the area of twice exceptional
adults, but some researchers and practitioners have offered
guidelines for facilitating the development of twice excep-
tional adults. For example, Hayes (1994) discusses the tran-
sition of the gifted/learning disabled adolescent to adulthood.
Kutner (1999) discusses ADHD among gifted adults and
suggests that “for some gifted AD/HD adults, without diag-
nosis and treatment, high intelligence may be a liability” (p.
89), as gifted adults with ADHD are “decidedly different
from gifted adults who have the ability to monitor their own
conscious thoughts and control their attention” (p. 96).
Among a sample of 53 high IQ adults (full scale IQ > 120)
who did not have ADHD and 64 high IQ adults who met the
diagnostic criteria for ADHD, the twice exceptional adults
reported lower quality of life, had poorer familial and occu-
pational functioning, had more functional impairments, and
had more co-morbid psychiatric disorders (Antshel et al.,
2009). In addition, the gifted adults with ADHD performed
worse than gifted adults without ADHD on tests of executive
functioning (Antshel et al., 2010). Not all twice exceptional
adults will experience such difficulties, though. In another
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
example of a twice exceptional adult, Weidenheim, Escobar,
and Rapin (2012) discussed the neuropathology of a 63-year-
old gifted man with Asperger syndrome on his death. He was
described as having superior intellect, with a particular talent
for mathematics (he earned a doctorate in mathematics), and
fulfilled the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders Text Revision (DSM IV-TR) criteria for Asperger
syndrome in an intellectually gifted individual (see American
Psychiatric Association, 2000). Although this case study is
not generalizable, it provides some evidence that twice
exceptional individuals can overcome obstacles and have
successful careers.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to explore the research
literature on gifted adults in order to (a) begin a conversation
regarding the characteristics, experiences, and needs of
gifted adults; (b) identify gaps in the literature regarding
gifted adults; and (c) to suggest areas of future research per-
taining to the characteristics, experiences, and needs of gifted
adults. We categorized the research into themes: (a) whether
or not gifted children become gifted adults; (b) family of ori-
gin; (c) effects of early educational experiences; (d) charac-
teristics of gifted adults; (e) career; (f) family of procreation;
(g) career and family interaction; (h) life goals, satisfaction,
and well-being; and (i) counseling. A review of the coverage
across thematic sections reveals two noteworthy findings.
First, the majority of research on gifted adults discusses the
childhood experiences of those gifted adults, be it a discus-
sion of whether or not early identification of giftedness is
predictive of adult accomplishments/eminence, examination
of one’s family of origin, or childhood educational experi-
ences. Fewer studies examine the current lives of gifted
adults, namely the characteristics of gifted adults, their
careers, their families of procreation, the interaction between
career and family, and their life goals, satisfaction, and well-
being. Very few studies examine twice exceptional adults
and the counseling needs/experiences of gifted adults. In
order to better understand the characteristics, needs, and
experiences of gifted adults, more research should be con-
ducted on the current lives and experiences of gifted adults,
rather than retrospective examinations of their childhoods.
Second, of the 60 studies included in Table 1, 25 of them
defined adult giftedness on the basis of childhood or adoles-
cent standardized test scores (either on-level or above-level).
The majority of these were from the SMPY studies and the
1988 Midwestern Study. Furthermore, 11 of the studies used
childhood IQ scores as an indicator of adult giftedness, 10
used high school class rank, and 3 used one’s status as an aca-
demic prize winner during high school.23 Only 6 studies used
adult IQ scores and 10 studies used adult accomplishments as
indicators of adult giftedness. These indicators of adult gifted-
ness lead us to the conclusion that most researchers in the field
are defining adult giftedness based on childhood cognitive and
Rinn and Bishop
academic ability rather than performance during adulthood.
The research included in this article supports the idea that,
while childhood giftedness appears to be an important predic-
tor of later eminence (Simonton & Song, 2009; Walberg et al.,
1996), eminence is not required for the label of adult gifted-
ness. While not every gifted child achieves eminence in adult-
hood, an individual’s giftedness does not “disappear” after
high school or college (Rinn & Plucker, 2004).
In the definition of giftedness proposed by Subotnik et al.
(2011), giftedness “is typically manifested in actual out-
comes, especially in adulthood” (p. 3). Yet what about the
gifted adult whose outcomes are not so obvious? If a gifted
man or woman chooses to stay home and raise his or her chil-
dren rather than have a career outside the home, does he or
she cease being gifted? Or, if a gifted man or woman chooses
a career in a field that is not preceded by graduate education
or advanced training, do they also renounce their giftedness?
Is there a “time limit” by which an adult must achieve emi-
nence before the possibility of doing so ceases to exist?
Subotnik et al., when speaking of outcomes, are actually talk-
ing about eminence. There are a number of factors, though,
outside of giftedness or talent that can determine eminence,
such as one’s family of origin and one’s early educational
experiences, as seen in the research included in this article.
The experience of transitioning from gifted child to gifted
adult does not necessarily depend on the adult producing in a
manner acceptable to his or her society. Future research
should examine the career decision-making processes of
gifted adults in order to understand why some gifted adults
choose or aim for a path of eminence and why some do not,
and/or for whom pursuing eminence is an option.
Giftedness can be seen as an inherent capacity for excep-
tional performance within a particular talent domain, not
necessarily in the product of that talent. Not all gifted adults
seek to achieve eminence with their gifts, nor do they always
have the opportunity to do so. When eminence is made the
requirement of classification of “gifted adult,” when results
or products become necessary criteria, inequity arises, and
we ignore the role of free will in determining how those gifts
are applied. Consequently, we suggest adult giftedness and
eminence should be examined as independent constructs in
future research. While Subotnik et al. (2011) suggest gifted-
ness is developmental, such that an individual moves from
potential to achievement to eminence, we argue adult gifted-
ness, as in childhood, is still based on potential. Achievement
and eminence are wonderful and desirable outcomes, but
they should not necessarily be a requirement for adult gifted-
ness. Eminence, too, should be defined in future research.
Most of the research examined here views eminence more
along the lines of high achievement than significantly affect-
ing one’s field. Subotnik et al. call for a distinction between
high achievement and eminence, but current research does
not seem to make that distinction.
Regarding the family backgrounds of gifted adults, some
researchers argue that eminent adults come from dysfunctional
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
227
families or experience traumatic events at an early age
(Kaufmann & Matthews, 2012; Olszewski-Kubilius, 2000). It
is unclear whether dysfunction and trauma during childhood is
the exception or the rule, though, as other researchers suggest
family or parental support during childhood and adolescence
are important precursors to later adult achievement (Campbell
& Feng, 2011; Terman, 1954). The available research on family
of origin, though, suggests gifted adults come from smaller
families (no siblings or one sibling; Sękowski & Siekańska,
2008), have educated parents (Kaufmann, 1981; Sękowski &
Siekańska, 2008; Terman, 1954), have at least one gifted parent
(Perrone, Ksiazak, et al., 2010), had an abundance of books and
magazines in their childhood homes (Campbell & Feng, 2011),
and had a high socioeconomic status as a child (Campbell &
Feng, 2011). In most of the studies examined here, childhood
dysfunction and trauma were simply not examined. Research
on adverse childhood experiences with average ability popula-
tions typically shows negative adult outcomes, such as health
problems and a tendency to engage in risky behavior (e.g.,
Felitti et al., 1998), suggesting more research is needed to
examine the role of giftedness in predicting eminence among
those individuals who have experienced trauma during
childhood.
A number of researchers have suggested that early educa-
tional advantage is one of the most important factors that
contribute to later adult achievement (Bloom, 1985; Feldman,
1986; Gagne, 1995; Oden, 1968; Terman, 1925). Acceleration
and enrichment, during childhood and adolescence, seem to
contribute to productivity, achievement, and excellence dur-
ing adulthood (Firkowska-Mankiewicz, 2011; Park et al.,
2012; Perrone, Wright, et al., 2010; Wai et al., 2010; Watve,
2008). These findings shed a positive light on gifted educa-
tion in the United States, such that components of gifted edu-
cation during the elementary and secondary grades appear
beneficial for future endeavors during adulthood. Consistent
with recommendations from the National Association for
Gifted Children, we maintain that
to educate all of our children and allow them to compete in a
global economy in all fields of human endeavor, the nation must
provide an environment in which gifted and talented students,
along with all our children, can reach their full potential. . . . To
do otherwise is to shortchange a significant segment of the K-12
population that deserves an appropriate education and can make
important contributions to our society. (National Association for
Gifted Children, 2013, p. 1)
Research on gifted adults’ choice of romantic partners sup-
ports the similarity–attraction hypothesis, suggesting gifted
adults are romantically attracted to other gifted or high ability
adults (Benbow et al., 2000; Byrne, 1971; Byrne & Nelson,
1965; Dijkstra et al., 2012). Furthermore, those gifted adults
in romantic relationships with other gifted or high ability
adults are likely to be more satisfied with their relationships,
at least during the early 30s (Perrone-McGovern et al., 2012).
228
The available literature regarding romantic relationships,
however, is limited in terms of representing the entire popula-
tion of gifted adults. Dijkstra et al. (2012), for example, draw
conclusions about the desired characteristics of romantic part-
ners from a sampling of Mensa members, whose motivations
for seeking membership in the high IQ group may affect the
study results and may not be representative of all gifted adults.
Also, it is important to note that the available research only
examines heterosexual couples. Research on the romantic
relationships of gifted gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered,
or questioning (GLBTQ) adults has not been conducted at
this point in time, suggesting an obvious need for future
research in this area.
In the early 30s, gifted adults have a 50% chance or so of
being married, but the majority of gifted adults at this time
either have no children or only one child (Lubinski et al.,
2006; Sękowski & Siekańska, 2008). By their 60s, gifted
adults are likely to be married, but still have small families
(either no children or one to two children; Kaufmann &
Matthews, 2012). Research repeatedly shows a negative cor-
relation between IQ and fertility rates, both in the United
States and European countries (Lynn, 1996; Lynn & Van
Court, 2004; Rodgers, Cleveland, van den Oord, & Rowe,
2000) and between nations using national IQ scores and
national fertility rates (Shatz, 2008). It is not surprising, then,
that gifted adults are not having children at the same rates as
average and lower ability adults.
For those gifted adults who do decide to have children,
they often must combine this desire with a desire to be suc-
cessful in their careers, which may also explain the small
family sizes of gifted adults. These goals reflect typical goals
of individuals in their early 30s, which is considered to be a
time of striving for security in one’s career, and childbearing
and childrearing (Perrone et al., 2004; Super 1980). The
gifted adults across several studies included in this article are
a highly educated group, with more than half of them earning
doctorate degrees (Kaufmann & Matthews, 2012; Lubinski
et al., 2006), suggesting some overlap in the timing of one’s
graduate education and one’s childbearing/childrearing years.
By age 35, gifted women with children or those planning for
children begin to place more emphasis on flexibility in work
schedule than do men (Ferriman et al., 2009). It appears that
women, in particular, still have to compromise some aspect of
having a career and having a family. In academia, for exam-
ple, the research productivity of women professors declines
after the birth of a child (Hunter & Leahey, 2010).
Research typically indicates that high ability adults have
positive outcomes later in life (Batty et al., 2008; Lubinski &
Benbow, 2006) and are largely happy and satisfied with their
lives (Diener, 1984; Watten et al., 1995; Wulff et al., 2009).
During early adulthood, a gifted adult’s career contributes
most heavily to life satisfaction (Wirthwein & Rost, 2011b)
and most gifted adults across the studies examined here are
satisfied with their careers (Perrone, Tschopp, et al., 2010;
Siekańska & Sękowski, 2006), but as gifted adults age,
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
contributors to life satisfaction include romantic relationships
(Perrone et al., 2006; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2011) and
parenting (Ferriman et al., 2009). Strong romantic relation-
ships are even viewed as helpful in attaining professional
goals during early and middle adulthood (Hansen & Hall,
1997). By late adulthood (60s and on), romantic relationships
and social relationships with friends and family contribute the
most to life satisfaction, while intellectual and career pursuits
provide less life satisfaction over time (Holahan & Velasquez,
2011; Sears, 1977).
For gifted adults, counseling can play a considerable role
in their emotional growth. Gifted adults seek counseling for
a variety of reasons, including addressing painful school
experiences, high sensitivity, emotional intensity, existential
depression, perfectionism, multi-potentiality, relationship
difficulties, suicidal ideation, and career counseling (Delisle
& Squires, 1989; Karnes & Oehler-Stinnett, 1986; Prober,
2008; Willings, 1985). Additionally, some gifted adults expe-
rienced childhood psychological abuse that still presents
psychological problems for them, with a number of those
affected seeking counseling (Ruf, 2001). The literature sug-
gests, though, that counselors do not appear to be prepared to
address the needs of the gifted adult (Alvarado, 1989). One
shortcoming of the literature addressing counselor compe-
tency is that the evidence has been, thus far, largely anec-
dotal, and more research needs to be conducted to validate
that general perception.
Limitations and Directions for Future
Research
The current study has unveiled a number of limitations with
regard to the study of gifted adults. As discussed earlier in
this article, some research on gifted adults is flawed because
of imprecise and unclear definitions of giftedness, small
sample sizes, lack of adequate comparison groups, numerous
studies from the same databases, and anecdotal descriptions
rather than empirical observations. All of these issues arose
in the current review. In addition, the quantitative research in
this review is correlational in nature, thus limiting our ability
to make causal inferences. Furthermore, we see numerous
words used to describe adult giftedness, including eminence,
creative production, and achievement. Because of the multi-
ple definitions of adult giftedness, it is very possible that we
missed important research studies, or even fields of research,
in collecting articles for this study. As with defining gifted-
ness in children and adolescents, defining giftedness in
adulthood is complicated. Future research should consider
the current study in defining adult giftedness, be it eminent
production during adulthood or a cognitive ability and psy-
chosocial experience left over from childhood.
Future research should also consider replicating and
extending previous research on gifted adults. Some of the
topics included in the current analysis are not generalizable
because they are drawn from isolated research studies and/or
Rinn and Bishop
convenience samples (e.g., research on twice exceptional
adults, individuals who voluntarily joined Mensa).
Replication and extension would provide a stronger sense of
the characteristics of the gifted adult as well as the experi-
ences and needs of the gifted adult.
The current research on gifted adults is also limited in that
it largely focuses on intellectual or academic giftedness. The
experiences of individuals from one domain-specific group,
such as the SMPY, may not be generalizable to gifted adults
in other domains. Adults who are gifted in the areas of cre-
ativity, leadership, the arts, or physical domains were not
included in the research we examined.
Some research on gifted adults (e.g., Issacs, 1961; Wilson,
Sakata, & Frumkin, 1968), and gifted women in particular, is
outdated. For example, Holahan (1984-1985) examined life
goals at age 30 and perceptions of goal attainment and life
satisfaction at age 70 among a subsample of individuals par-
ticipating in the Terman Study of the Gifted. She found men
were predominately oriented toward occupational pursuits
while women were predominately oriented toward home and
family life. As we have seen from more current research
(Subotnik & Arnold, 1995; Walker et al., 1992), women are
more likely to have careers outside the home than they did
prior to the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and
1970s. Future research should examine modern issues related
to women and men combining career and family including
maternity and paternity leave, childcare arrangements, and
the role of step-families and blended families, among other
issues.
Related to research on adult women, Maitra (2012) sug-
gests there is a need to discuss the importance of motherhood
when conducting research on gifted women. “Mothering” is
often cited in gifted women’s talent development as a barrier
to one’s career, with the balance between career and mother-
hood being particularly difficult for women in certain careers.
For example, in a study of 15 artists and 4 professionals, all
of whom are mothers, the artists experienced more conflict
between their work and motherhood than did the profes-
sional women (Foley, 1996). Yet women who are mothers
and also have careers in the STEM fields also report having
difficulty balancing family and career, as well as facing dis-
crimination, negative perceptions, and unequal amounts of
pressure (Monosson, 2008). Prober (1999) suggests gifted
women undertake mothering with the same intensity that
they bring to the rest of their lives, and that researchers and
others would benefit from understanding how motherhood
affects the careers of gifted women and how being a gifted
woman affects one’s ability to parent.
Conclusion
Gifted adults are a relatively unexamined group in the
research literature. Comprehensive studies of the characteris-
tics, experiences, and needs of gifted adults are warranted, but
with a particular focus on clearly defining giftedness during
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
229
adulthood, control group comparisons, and the replication
and extension of previous studies. Research on eminence and
giftedness during adulthood may help researchers and educa-
tors to better understand the experiences of gifted children
and to give insight into those children who may become emi-
nent adults, but also to help gifted adults better understand
themselves and to reach their own potential.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. Full citations appear when discussed in detail.
2. As noted in the Method section, we use both the terms gifted
and eminent throughout this article, depending on the study
referenced.
3. In this historiometric analysis, whereby biographical informa-
tion about eminent adults was subjected to measurement and
quantitative analysis, giftedness was assessed by raters blind
to the identity of the individuals being evaluated. The Creative
Achievement Scale (Ludwig, 1992) was used to provide esti-
mates of early giftedness based on adult eminence.
4. “Five groups of America’s elite (total N = 2,254) were exam-
ined: Fortune 500 CEOs, federal judges, billionaires, Senators,
and members of the House of Representatives” (Wai, 2013,
p. 203).
5. “To investigate who becomes a member of the global elite,
three groups were examined: the world’s billionaires (N =
1426), most powerful people (N = 231) according to Forbes
magazine, and World Economic Forum (Davos) attendees
(N = 2624)” (Wai, 2014a, p. 54).
6. The 1964 to 1968 cohort of Presidential Scholars was chosen
from a pool of 14,000 candidates who scored in the top 0.5%
on the 1963 to 1967 National Merit Scholarship Qualifying
Test (a measure of verbal and mathematical abilities). Each
year, 121 Presidential Scholars were selected from this pool
based on scores on other standardized tests, recommendations
from high school officials, and autobiographical statements.
7. Giftedness was self-reported and required at least one 99th
percentile subscale score on a nationally recognized standard-
ized test of ability taken during childhood.
8. The women were identified as eminent on the basis of their
inclusion in the Who’s Who of Canadian Women. These
“women were recognized for their exceptional achievement
in all facets of public life: politics, sports, the arts, education,
literature, journalism, the professions and so on” (Yewchuk &
Schlosser, 1995, p. 79).
9. The Olympians examined in this study were 190 United States
Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry Olympians from cohorts
spanning the 1970s to the 2000s. The intellectual ability of the
Olympians was determined by constructing a composite of
standardized test scores (SAT, PSAT, and GRE), grade point
averages, and high school ranking at graduation.
230
10. A “gifted adult” in this study was one who was a prizewinner
of school subject contests at the nationwide (Poland) level dur-
ing secondary school.
11. The men had been identified as gifted during the school years
“on the basis of standardized intelligence tests scores and . . .
on the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test” (Watve,
2008, p. 255).
12. Giftedness was operationalized according to Spearman’s g
(1927), based on three intelligence test scores obtained during
both childhood and adolescence. Participants were drawn from
the Marburg Giftedness Project (Rost, 2009).
13. The adults were identified as gifted either because they were
members of Mensa or because they qualified for similar status
on the basis of high GRE, SAT, or IQ scores, former place-
ment in gifted classes, or known and recognized scholarly
achievement.
14. To be a member of the Swedish Mensa Society, one must have
an IQ of 130 or more.
15. Participants in this study were identified as gifted on the basis
of their status as doctoral students.
16. A “gifted adult” in this study was one who was a prizewinner
of school subject contests at the nationwide (Poland) level dur-
ing secondary school.
17. Criteria for admission and indicators of giftedness were not
included in this article.
18. Women were selected from the Westinghouse Science Talent
Search 1983 cohort (N = 146; Subotnik, Duschl, & Selmon,
1993) and the Illinois Valedictorian Project 1981 cohort (n =
46 women; Arnold, 1993, 1994). The Westinghouse Science
Talent Search is a nationwide annual contest for high school
seniors gifted in science or mathematics. Students compete
by submitting a technical paper describing an experiment or
proof. The Illinois Valedictorian Project is a longitudinal study
exploring the postsecondary educational and career achieve-
ments of valedictorians and salutatorians since their 1981 high
school graduation.
19. Participants were the recipients of 1-year scholarship for grad-
uate or post-graduate study or research in the United States
awarded to women who demonstrate outstanding academic
ability and who are not citizens or permanent residents of the
United States.
20. Intelligence was assessed in both childhood and adolescence.
Giftedness was operationalized according to Spearman’s g
(1927), based on three intelligence test scores. Participants
were drawn from the Marburg Giftedness Project (Rost,
2009).
21. These women “were not formally identified as gifted, how-
ever, they scored in the top 10% of the population on mea-
sures of aptitude and achievement to gain entry into the
University of Michigan. Nearly all women met and exceeded
the University’s entrance requirements, and 80% of the alum-
nae were honor and scholarship award winners” (Hansen &
Hall, 1997, p. 171).
22. Clear information on the identification of giftedness was not
provided. Peterson (2012) says the participant “was identified
as gifted early in school” and “participated in a program for
gifted children” (p. 297).
23. There is overlap here, as some studies used multiple indicators
of adult giftedness.
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
References
Achter, J. A., Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1997). Rethinking
multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted: A critical
review and recommendations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41,
5-15. doi:10.1177/001698629704100102
Albert, R. S. (1978). Observations and suggestions regarding gift-
edness, familial influence, and the achievement of eminence.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 201-211.
Albert, R. S. (1991). People, processes, and developmental paths
to eminence: A developmental-interactional model. In R.
M. Milgram (Ed.), Counseling gifted and talented children:
A guide for teachers, counselors, and parents (pp. 75-93).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Alvarado, N. (1989). Adjustment of gifted adults. Advanced
Development, 1, 77-86.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statisti-
cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington,
DC: Author.
Antshel, K. M., Faraone, S. V., Maglione, K., Doyle, A., Fried, R.,
Seidman, L., & Biederman, J. (2009). Is adult attention defi-
cit hyperactivity disorder a valid diagnosis in the presence of
high IQ? Psychological Medicine, 39, 1325-1335. doi:10.1017/
S0033291708004959
Antshel, K. M., Faraone, S. V., Maglione, K., Doyle, A., Fried, R.,
Seidman, L., & Biederman, J. (2010). Executive functioning
in high-IQ adults with ADHD. Psychological Medicine, 40,
1909-1918. doi:10.1017/S0033291709992273
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of develop-
ment from the late teens through the twenties. American
Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469
Arnold, K. D. (1993). Academically talented women in the
1980s: The Illinois valedictorian project. In K.D. Hulbert &
D.T. Schuster (Eds.), Women’s lives through time: Educated
American women of the twentieth century (pp. 393-414). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Arnold, K. D. (1994). The Illinois Valedictorian Project: Early adult
careers of academically talented male high school students.
In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman:
Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp.
24-51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Arnold, K. D., Noble, K. D., & Subotnik, R. F. (Eds.). (1995).
Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent develop-
ment. New York, NY: Hampton Press.
Ashton, M. C. (2013). Individual differences and personality (2nd
ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Batty, G. D., Shipley, M. J., Gale, C. R., Mortensen, L. H., &
Deary, I. J. (2008). Does IQ predict total and cardiovascular
disease mortality as strongly as other risk factors? Comparison
of effect estimates using the Vietnam Experience Study. Heart,
94, 1541-1544. doi:10.1136/hrt.2008.149567
Baxendale, S. (2011). IQ and ability across the adult life span.
Applied Neuropsychology, 18, 164-167. doi:10.1080/0908428
2.2011.595442
Bell, L. A. (1990). The gifted woman as imposter. Advanced
Development, 2, 55-64.
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H.
(2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at
age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11,
474-480. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00291
Rinn and Bishop
Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New
York, NY: Ballantine.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & McGue, M. (1981). Familial studies of intel-
ligence: A review. Science, 212, 1055-1059. doi:10.1126/sci-
ence.7195071
Bourdeau, B., & Thomas, V. (2003). Counseling gifted clients and
their families: Comparing clients’ and counselors’ perspec-
tives. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 114-126.
doi:10.4219/jsge-2006-415
Brodnick, R. J., & Ree, M. J. (1995). A structural model of aca-
demic performance, socioeconomic status, and Spearman’s g.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 583-594.
doi:10.1177/0013164495055004006
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Byrne, D., & Nelson, D. (1965). Attraction as a linear function of
proportion of positive reinforcements. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1, 659-663. doi:10.1037/h0022073
Campbell, J. R., & Feng, A. X. (2011). Comparing adult pro-
ductivity of American mathematics, chemistry, and physics
Olympians with Terman’s longitudinal study. Roeper Review,
33, 18-25. doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.530203
Cooper, C. (2010). Individual differences and personality (3rd ed.).
London, England: Hodder Education.
Cox, C. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: The early men-
tal traits of three hundred geniuses (Vol. 2). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented
teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Dabrowski, K. (1937). Psychological basis of self-mutilation.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 19, 1-104.
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness: Neuroses
and psychoneuroses from the perspective of positive disinte-
gration. London, England: Gryf.
Dabrowski, K., Kawczak, A., & Piechowski, M. M. (1970). Mental
growth through positive disintegration. London, England:
Gryf.
Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M. M. (Eds.). (2008). Living with
intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emo-
tional development of gifted children, adolescents, and adults.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Deary, I. J., Whalley, L. J., Lemmon, H., Crawford, J. R., & Starr,
J. M. (2000). The stability of individual differences in men-
tal ability from childhood to old age: Follow-up of the 1932
Scottish Mental Survey. Intelligence, 28, 49-55. doi:10.1016/
S0160-2896(99)00031-8
Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Starr, J. M., Whalley, L. J., & Fox,
H. C. (2004). The impact of childhood intelligence on later life:
Following up the Scottish Mental Surveys of 1932 and 1947.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 130-147.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.130
Delisle, J., & Squires, S. (1989). Career development for gifted
and talented youth: Division on Career Development (DCD)
and The Association for the Gifted (TAG) position state-
ment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 65-70.
doi:10.1177/088572888901200202
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
231
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin,
95, 542-575. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective
well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 276-302. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.276
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., Groothof, H. A. K., Ronner, S., &
Nauta, A. P. (2012). Partner preferences of the intellectually
gifted. Marriage & Family Review, 48, 96-108. doi:10.1080/0
1494929.2011.628779
Emmett, J. D., & Minor, C. W. (1993). Career decision-making fac-
tors in gifted young adults. Career Development Quarterly, 41,
350-366. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1993.tb00409.x
Falk, R. F., Lind, S., Miller, N. B., Piechowski, M. M., &
Silverman, L. K. (1999). The Overexcitability Questionnaire-
Two (OEQII): Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire.
Denver, CO: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.
Feldman, D. H. (1984). A follow-up of subjects scoring above
180 IQ in Terman’s “Genetic Studies of Genius.” Exceptional
Children, 50, 518-523. Retrieved from http://ecx.sagepub.com/
content/50/6/518.short
Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the
development of human potential. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D.
F., Spitz, A. M., Edwards, V., & . . . Marks, J. S. (1998).
Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction
to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The adverse
childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 14, 245-258. doi:10.1016/S0749-
3797(98)00017-8
Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Work pref-
erences, life values, and personal views of top math/science
graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental
changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood
and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
97, 517-532. doi:10.1037/a0016030
Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A. (2011). Adult careers: Does childhood
IQ predict later life outcome? Journal of Policy and Practice
in Intellectual Disabilities, 8, 1-9. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
1130.2011.00281.x
Foley, P. W. (1996). Artists who mother. Advanced Development,
7, 1-18.
Freeman, J. (2010). Gifted lives: What happens when gifted chil-
dren grow up? New York, NY: Routledge.
Freeman, K. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1999). Childhood traits and
conditions of eminent African American women. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 402-419. doi:10.1177/
016235329902200405
Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or
g? The relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test
and General Cognitive Ability. Psychological Science, 15,
373-378. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x
Gagne, F. (1995). Hidden meanings of the “talent devel-
opment” concept. Educational Forum, 59, 350-362.
doi:10.1080/00131729509335067
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intel-
ligences. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded
theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine
Transaction.
232
Goertzel, M. G., Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, T. G. (1978). Three
hundred eminent personalities: A psychosocial analysis of the
famous. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grobman, J. (2009). A psychodynamic psychotherapy approach to
the emotional problems of exceptionally and profoundly gifted
adolescents and adults: A psychiatrist’s experience. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 33, 106-125. Retrieved from http://
files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ856178.pdf
Hansen, J. B., & Hall, E. G. (1997). Gifted women and mar-
riage. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 169-180. doi:10.1177/
001698629704100406
Hartnett, D. N., Nelson, J. M., & Rinn, A. N. (2004). Gifted or
ADHD? The possibilities of misdiagnosis. Roeper Review, 26,
73-76. doi:10.1080/02783190409554245
Hayes, M. L. (1994). Gifted/learning disabled adolescent to adult.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 75-82.
Hazell, C. G. (1999). The experience of emptiness and the use of
Dabrowski’s theory in counseling gifted clients: Clinical case
examples. Advanced Development, 8, 31-46.
Holahan, C. K. (1984-1985). The relationship between life goals at
thirty and perceptions of goal attainment and life satisfaction
at seventy for gifted men and women. International Journal of
Aging and Human Development, 20, 21-31.
Holahan, C. K., & Velasquez, K. S. (2011). Perceived strategies
and activities for successful later aging. International Journal
of Aging and Human Development, 72, 343-359. doi:10.2190/
AG.72.4.d
Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (Eds.). (2009).
The development of giftedness and talent across the life span.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Howard, R. W. (2008). Linking extreme precocity and adult emi-
nence: A study of eight prodigies at international chess. High
Ability Studies, 19, 117-130. doi:10.1080/13598130802503991
Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research produc-
tivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science,
40, 433-451. doi:10.1177/0306312709358472
Iremonger, L. (1970). The fiery chariot: A study of British prime
ministers and the search for love. London, England: Secker &
Warburg.
Issacs, A. F. (1961). Sources of motivation in cre-
atively gifted adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 5, 63-64.
doi:10.1177/001698626100500208
Jacobsen, M. (1999a). The gifted adult: A revolutionary guide
for liberating everyday genius. New York, NY: Ballantine
Books.
Jacobsen, M. (1999b). Arousing the sleeping giant: Giftedness
in adult psychotherapy. Roeper Review, 22, 36-41.
doi:10.1080/02783199909553995
Jensen, A. R. (1978). Genetic and behavioral effects of nonran-
dom mating. In R. T. Osborne, C. E. Noble, & N. Weyl (Eds.),
Human variation: The biopsychology of age, race, and sex
(pp. 51-105). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Karnes, F. A., & Oehler-Stinnett, J. J. (1986). Life events as stress-
ors with gifted adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 23,
406-414. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(198610)23:4<406::AID-
PITS2310230416>3.0.CO;2-N
Kaufmann, F. A. (1981). The 1964-1968 Presidential Scholars: A
follow-up study. Exceptional Children, 48, 164-169. Retrieved
from http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10078.aspx
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
Kaufmann, F. A., Harrel, G., Milam, C. P., Woolverton, N., &
Miller, J. (1986). The nature, role, and influence of men-
tors in the lives of gifted adults. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 64, 576-578. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.
tb01208.x
Kaufmann, F. A., & Matthews, D. J. (2012). On becoming them-
selves: The 1964-1968 Presidential Scholars 40 years later.
Roeper Review, 34, 83-93. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.660682
Keating, D. P. (2009). Developmental science and giftedness:
An integrated life-span framework. In F. D. Horowitz, R. F.
Subotnik, & D. Matthews (Eds.), The development of gifted-
ness and talent across the lifespan (pp. 189-208). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). Who rises to
the top? Early indicators. Psychological Science, 24, 648-659.
doi:10.1177/0956797612457784
Kerr, B. A. (1997). Developing talents in girls and young women.
In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted edu-
cation (2nd ed., pp. 483-497). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Kitano, M. K., & Perkins, C. O. (1996). International gifted women:
Developing a critical human resource. Roeper Review, 19,
34-40. doi:10.1080/02783199609553781
Kronborg, L. (2010). What contributes to talent development in
eminent women? Gifted and Talented International, 25(2), 11-
27. Retrieved from http://www.world-gifted.org/Publications/
GnTI-Journal
Kutner, D. R. (1999). Blurred brilliance: What AD/HD looks like in
gifted adults. Advanced Development, 8, 87-96.
Leder, G. (2004). Gender differences among gifted students:
Contemporary views. High Ability Studies, 15, 103-108.
doi:10.1080/1359813042000225366
Lewis, R. B., Kitano, M. K., & Lynch, E. W. (1992). Psychological
intensities in gifted adults. Roeper Review, 15, 25-31.
doi:10.1080/02783199209553452
Lovecky, D. V. (1986). Can you hear the flowers singing? Issues
for gifted adults. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64,
572-575. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1986.tb01207.x
Lovecky, D. V. (1993). Creative connections: Perspectives on
female giftedness. Advanced Development, 5, 117-129.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically
precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for
the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2006.00019.x
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Ryan, J. (1995). Stability of voca-
tional interests among the intellectually gifted from adolescent
to adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80, 196-200. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.196
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-Rechek, A.
(2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades.
Psychological Science, 17, 194-199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2006.01685.x
Lubinski, D., Schmidt, D. B., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). A 20-year
stability analysis of the Study of Values for intellectually gifted
individuals from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 443-451. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.443
Ludwig, A. M. (1992). The Creative Achievement Scale. Creativity
Research Journal, 5, 109-119. doi:10.1080/10400419209534427
Rinn and Bishop
Lynn, R. (1996). Dysgenics: Genetic deterioration in modern popu-
lations. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Lynn, R., & Van Court, M. (2004). New evidence of dysgenic fer-
tility for intelligence in the United States. Intelligence, 32, 193-
201. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2003.09.002
Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and human intelligence (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Maitra, K. (2012). Gifted mothers as social capital: A view from a
disadvantaged perspective. Gifted Education International, 28,
185-191. doi:10.1177/0261429411435014
Mendaglio, S. (2012). Overexcitabilities and giftedness research:
A call for a paradigm shift. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 35, 207-219. doi:10.1177/0162353212451704
Mockros, C. A. (1996). The social context of extraordinary indi-
viduals. Advanced Development, 7, 19-38.
Monosson, E. (Ed.). (2008). Motherhood, the elephant in the
laboratory: Women scientists speak out. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Position state-
ment: Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the
paradigm. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.nagc.org.442elmp01.blackmesh.com/sites/default/files/
Position%20Statement/Redefining%20Giftedness%20for%20
a%20New%20Century.pdf
National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). Position statement:
Mandated services for gifted and talented students. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/
files/Position%20Statement/Mandated%20Services%20for%20
Gifted%20and%20Talented%20Students.pdf
Nauta, N., & Corten, F. (2002). Gifted adults in work. (K. Jamdagni,
Trans.). Tijdschrift voor Bedrijfs- en Verzekeringsgeneeskunde
[Journal for Occupational and Insurance Physicians], 10,
332-335. Retrieved from http://sengifted.org/archives/articles/
gifted-adults-in-work
Nauta, N., & Ronner, S. (2013). Gifted workers: Hitting the target.
Utrecht, Netherlands: Shaker Media.
Oden, M. H. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: Forty-year fol-
low-up of the Terman gifted group. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 77, 3-93.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2000). The transition from childhood
giftedness to adult creative productiveness: Psychological
characteristics and social supports. Roeper Review, 23, 65-71.
doi:10.1080/02783190009554068
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting
intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sci-
ences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years.
Psychological Science, 18, 948-952. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2007.02007.x
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2008). Ability differ-
ences among people who have commensurate degrees matter
for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 957-961.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02182.x
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2012). When less is more:
Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM productivity among
mathematically precocious adolescents. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 105, 176-198. doi:10.1037/a0029481
Park, L. C., Imboden, J. B., Park, T. J., Hulse, S. H., & Unger, H.
T. (1992). Giftedness and psychological abuse in borderline
personality disorder: Their relevance to genesis and treatment.
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
233
Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 226-240. doi:10.1521/
pedi.1992.6.3.226
Perrone, K. M., Civiletto, C. L., Webb, L. K., & Fitch, J. C. (2004).
Perceived barriers to and supports of attainment of career
and family goals among academically talented individuals.
International Journal of Stress Management, 11, 114-131.
doi:10.1037/1072-5245.11.2.114
Perrone, K. M., Ksiazak, T. M., Wright, S. L., Vannatter, A.,
Crane, A. L., & Tanney, A. (2010). Multigenerational gift-
edness: Perceptions of giftedness across three genera-
tions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 606-627.
doi:10.1177/016235321003300407
Perrone, K. M., Perrone, P. A., Ksiazak, T. M., Wright, S. L., &
Jackson, Z. V. (2007). Self-perception of gifts and talents
among adults in a longitudinal study of academically tal-
ented high-school graduates. Roeper Review, 29, 259-264.
doi:10.1080/02783190709554420
Perrone, K. M., Tschopp, M. K., Snyder, E. R., Boo, J. N., & Hyatt,
C. (2010). A longitudinal examination of career expectations
and outcomes of academically talented students 10 and 20 years
post-high school graduation. Journal of Career Development,
36, 291-309. doi:10.1177/0894845309359347
Perrone, K. M., Webb, L. K., Wright, S. L., Jackson, Z. V., &
Ksiazak, T. M. (2006). Relationship of spirituality to work and
family roles and life satisfaction among gifted adults. Journal
of Mental Health Counseling, 28, 253-268. doi:10.17744/
mehc.28.3.81a1dlhwelblce0v
Perrone, K. M., Wright, S. L., Ksiazak, T. M., Crane, A. L., &
Vannatter, A. (2010). Looking back on lessons learned: Gifted
adults reflect on their experiences in advanced classes. Roeper
Review, 32, 127-139. doi:10.1080/02783191003587918
Perrone-McGovern, K. M., Boo, J. N., & Vannatter, A. (2012).
Marital and life satisfaction among gifted adults. Roeper
Review, 34, 46-52. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.627552
Perrone-McGovern, K. M., Ksiazak, T. M., Wright, S. L., Vannatter,
A., Hyatt, C. C., Shepler, D., & Perrone, P. A. (2011). Major
life decisions of gifted adults in relation to overall life satis-
faction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 817-838.
doi:10.1177/0162353211425101
Persson, R. S. (2009). Intellectually gifted individuals’ career
choices and work satisfaction: A descriptive study. Gifted and
Talented International, 24, 11-24. Retrieved from http://www.
diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:281434/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals
do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53, 280-282. doi:10.1177/0016986209346946
Peterson, J. S. (2012). The asset-burden paradox of giftedness: A
15-year phenomenological, longitudinal case study. Roeper
Review, 34, 244-260. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.715336
Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N.
Colangelo & R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling
the gifted (pp. 25-58). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Piechowski, M. M., & Colangelo, N. (1984). Developmental
potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 80-88.
doi:10.1177/001698628402800207
Prober, P. (1999). Gifted women and motherhood: A workshop
model. Advanced Development, 8, 77-86.
Prober, P. (2008). Counseling gifted adults: A case study. Annals of
the American Psychotherapy Association, 11, 10-15.
234
Rinn, A. N., & Plucker, J. A. (2004). We recruit them, but then
what? The educational and psychological experiences of aca-
demically talented undergraduates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48,
54-67. doi:10.1177/001698620404800106
Robertson, K. F., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010).
Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top
math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational
interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, per-
formance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 19, 346-351. doi:10.1177/0963721410391442
Rocamora, M. (1992). Counseling issues with recognized and
unrecognized creatively gifted adults. Advanced Development
Journal, 4, 75-89. Retrieved from http://talentdevelop.com/
articles/Page147.html
Rodgers, J. L., Cleveland, H., van den Oord, E., & Rowe, D. C.
(2000). Resolving the debate over birth order, family size,
and intelligence. American Psychologist, 55, 599-612.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.599
Roeper, A. (1991). Gifted adults: Their characteristics and emo-
tions. Advanced Development, 3, 85-98.
Rost, D. H. (2009). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche.
Befunde aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Gifted
and high achieving adolescents: Findings from the Marburg
Giftedness Project] (2nd ed.). Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
Ruf, D. L. (2001). Environmental, familial, and personal factors
that affect the self-actualization of highly gifted adults: Case
studies. In N. Colangelo, & S. Assouline (Eds.), Talent devel-
opment IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn
Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development
(pp. 429-433). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Sears, R. R. (1977). Sources of life satisfaction of the Terman gifted
men. American Psychologist, 32, 119-128. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.32.2.119
Sękowski, A., & Siekańska, M. (2008). National academic award
winners over time: Their family situation, education and
interpersonal relations. High Ability Studies, 19, 155-171.
doi:10.1080/13598130802504270
Shatz, S. M. (2008). IQ and fertility: A cross-national study.
Intelligence, 36, 109-111. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.03.002
Siekańska, M., & Sękowski, A. (2006). Job satisfaction and tem-
perament structure of gifted people. High Ability Studies, 17,
75-85. doi:10.1080/13598130600947127
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Childhood giftedness and adult-
hood genius: A historiometric analysis of 291 eminent
African Americans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 243-255.
doi:10.1177/0016986208319294
Simonton, D. K., & Song, A. V. (2009). Eminence, IQ, physical and
mental health, and achievement domain: Cox’s 282 geniuses
revisited. Psychological Science, 20, 429-434. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2009.02313.x
Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and mea-
surement. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Stålnacke, J., & Smedler, A. (2011). Psychosocial experiences and
adjustment among adult Swedes with superior general mental
ability. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 900-918.
doi:10.1177/0162353211424988
Standing, L. G., Aikins, S., Madigan, B., & Nohl, W. (2015).
Exceptional achievement and early parental loss: The Phaeton
Effect in American writers, presidents, and eminent individu-
als. Journal of Psychohistory, 42, 188-199.
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
Gifted Child Quarterly 59(4)
Stewart, R. E., & Porath, M. (1999). From childhood rags to
adult riches: A case study. High Ability Studies, 10, 197-211.
doi:10.1080/1359813990100206
Streznewski, M. K. (1999). Gifted grownups: The mixed blessings
of extraordinary potential. New York, NY: Wiley.
Subotnik, R. F. (2009). Developmental transitions in giftedness and
talent: Adolescence into adulthood. In F. D. Horowitz, R. F.
Subotnik, & D. Matthews (Eds.), The development of gifted-
ness and talent across the lifespan (pp. 155-170). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (Eds.). (1994). Beyond Terman:
Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Subotnik, R. F., & Arnold, K. D. (1995). Passing through the gates:
Career establishment of talented women scientists. Roeper
Review, 18, 55-61. doi:10.1080/02783199509553698
Subotnik, R. F., Duschl, R. A., & Selmon, E. H. (1993). Retention and
attrition of science talent: A longitudinal study of Westinghouse
Science Talent Search winners. International Journal of
Science Education, 15, 61-72. doi:10.1080/0950069930150105
Subotnik, R. F., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993).
Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (1997). Restructuring
special programs to reflect the distinctions between children’s
and adults’ experiences with giftedness. Peabody Journal of
Education, 72, 101-116. doi:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681868
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C.
(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A pro-
posed direction forward based on psychological science.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
Subotnik, R. F., & Rickoff, R. (2010). Should eminence based on
outstanding innovation be the goal of gifted education and talent
development? Implications for policy and research. Learning
and Individual Differences, 20, 358-364. doi:10.1016/j.lin-
dif.2009.12.005
Subotnik, R. F., & Steiner, C. L. (1994). Adult manifestations of
adolescent talent in science: A longitudinal study of 1983
Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners. In R. F. Subotnik
& K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longi-
tudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 52-76). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career
development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282-298.
doi:10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1
Terman, L. M. (Ed.). (1925-1926). Genetic studies of genius:
Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (1st
and 2nd eds., Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M. (1942). The vocational successes of intellectually
gifted individuals. Occupations: The Vocational Guidance
Journal, 20, 493-498. doi:10.1002/j.2164-5892.1942.
tb01216.x
Terman, L. M. (1954). Scientists and nonscientists in a group of 800
gifted men. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied,
68, 1-44. doi:10.1037/h0093672
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic Studies of Genius:
The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a
superior group (Vol. 4). Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
 Rinn and Bishop
Therival, W. A. (1999). Why are eccentrics not eminently cre-
ative? Creativity Research Journal, 12, 47-55. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1201_6
Tolan, S. (1994). Discovering the gifted ex-child. Roeper Review,
17, 134-138. doi:10.1080/02783199409553642
Tomlinson-Keasey, C., & Little, T. D. (1990). Predicting educa-
tional attainment, occupational achievement, intellectual skill,
and personal adjustment among gifted men and women. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 442-455. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.82.3.442
Van den Broeck, W., Hofmans, J., Cooremans, S., & Staels,
E. (2014). Factorial validity and measurement invariance
across intelligence levels and gender of the Overexcitabilities
Questionnaire-II (OEQ-II). Psychological Assessment, 26,
55-68. doi:10.1037/a0034475
VanTassel-Baska, J. L. (1989). Characteristics of the developmen-
tal path of eminent and gifted adults. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska
& P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted
learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 146-162).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Vialle, W. (1994). “Termanal” science? The work of Lewis
Terman revisited. Roeper Review, 17, 32-38. doi:10.1080/
02783199409553614
Wai, J. (2013). Investigating America’s elite: Cognitive ability, educa-
tion, and sex differences. Intelligence, 41, 203-211. doi:10.1016/
j.intell.2013.03.005
Wai, J. (2014a). Investigating the world’s rich and powerful:
Education, cognitive ability, and sex differences. Intelligence,
46, 54-72. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.05.002
Wai, J. (2014b). Experts are born, then made: Combining pro-
spective and retrospective longitudinal data shows that cog-
nitive ability matters. Intelligence, 45, 74-80. doi:10.1016/j.
intell.2013.08.009
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and
occupational accomplishments among intellectually preco-
cious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.97.3.484
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010).
Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational
dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 860-871. doi:10.1037/a0019454
Walberg, H. J., Tsai, S., Weinstein, T., Gabriel, C. L., Rasher, S. P.,
Rosecrans, T., . . . Vukosavich, P. (1981). Childhood traits and
environmental conditions of highly eminent adults. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 25, 103-107. doi:10.1177/001698628102500303
Walberg, H. J., Zhang, G., Cummings, C., Fillipelli, L. A., Freeman,
K. A., Haller, E. P., . . . Zeiser, S. (1996). Childhood traits and
experiences of eminent women. Creativity Research Journal,
9, 97-102. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0901_9
Walker, B. A., Reis, S. M., & Leonard, J. S. (1992). A develop-
mental investigation of the lives of gifted women. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 36, 201-206. doi:10.1177/001698629203600406
Warne, R. T. (2011). A reliability generalization of the
Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 22, 671-692. doi:10.1177/1932202X11424881
Watten, R. G., Syversen, J. L., & Myhrer, T. (1995). Quality of
life, intelligence and mood. Social Indicators Research, 36,
287-299. doi:10.1007/BF01078818
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com by guest on September 8, 2015
View publication stats
235
Watve, S. V. (2008). Intellectually gifted adults: Life accom-
plishments. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education
Policy, 2, 251-266. Retrieved from http://bjsep.org/getfile.
php?id=22
Webb, J. T., Goerss, J., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Beljan, P.,
& Olenchak, F. R. (2006). Diagnosis or misdiagnosis.
Understanding Our Gifted, 18, 15-17.
Weidenheim, K. M., Escobar, A., & Rapin, I. (2012). Brief report:
Life history and neuropathology of a gifted man with Asperger
syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
42, 460-467. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1259-0
Willings, D. (1985). The specific needs of adults who are gifted.
Roeper Review, 8, 35-38. doi:10.1080/02783198509552925
Wilson, M. E., Jr., Sakata, R., & Frumkin, R. M. (1968). Attitudes
of some gifted adults, future rehabilitation counselors, and
rehabilitation professors toward disabilities. Psychological
Reports, 22, 1303-1304. doi:10.2466/pr0.1968.22.3c.1303
Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American
Psychologist, 55, 159-169. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.159
Wirthwein, L., Becker, C. V., Loehr, E., & Rost, D. H. (2011).
Overexcitabilities in gifted and non-gifted adults: Does sex
matter? High Ability Studies, 22, 145-153. doi:10.1080/1359
8139.2011.622944
Wirthwein, L., & Rost, D. H. (2011a). Focusing on overexcit-
abilities: Studies with intellectually gifted and academically
talented adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 51,
337-342. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.041
Wirthwein, L., & Rost, D. H. (2011b). Giftedness and subjective
well-being: A study with adults. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21, 182-186. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001
Wulff, C., Bergman, L. R., & Sverke, M. (2009). General mental
ability and satisfaction with school and work: A longitudinal
study from ages 13 to 48. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 30, 398-408. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.015
Yewchuk, C. R., & Schlosser, G. A. (1995). Characteristics of
the parents of eminent Canadian women. Roeper Review, 18,
78-83. doi:10.1080/02783199509553702
Author Biographies
Anne N. Rinn is an associate professor of educational psychology
at the University of North Texas, where she also serves as assis-
tant department chair and coordinator of the Doctoral Program in
Gifted and Talented Education. She received her undergraduate
degree in psychology from the University of Houston and her doc-
torate in educational psychology from Indiana University. Her
expertise is in the area of the social and emotional development of
gifted individuals. She currently serves on the Executive
Committee of the AERA Research on Giftedness, Creativity, and
Talent SIG and as Program Chair of the NAGC Research and
Evaluation Network.
James Bishop is a doctoral candidate in educational psychology
with a concentration in gifted and talented education at the
University of North Texas. Prior to beginning his doctoral pro-
gram, he received his bachelor’s degree in creative writing from
the University of North Texas and master’s degrees in professional
development and professional counseling from Amberton
University. He is a licensed professional counselor intern at
Fundamental Foundations Counseling Center in Frisco, Texas,
where he specializes in working with gifted children and adults.