Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

A meta-analytic review of emotional intelligence in gifted individuals: A

multilevel analysis
Uzeyir Ogurlu *
The University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Some research has examined emotional intelligence among gifted individuals, but these individual studies have
Gifted provided mixed results. The present meta-analysis aimed to clarify the nature of the relationship between
Emotional intelligence emotional intelligence and giftedness. Hedge’s unbiased g was used as the effect size metric, and a 3-level
Trait models
multilevel meta-analytic approach was applied, due to the dependency among the effect sizes obtained from
Ability models
Meta-analysis
the same study. The analyses used 81 effect sizes, from 17 published studies, and indicated that there was a
Multilevel significant difference between gifted and non-gifted participants in terms of emotional intelligence in favor of
gifted individuals (g = 0.120, p = .023, 95% CI [0.031, 0.208]). The moderator analyses revealed that gifted
individuals tended to be more emotionally intelligent when emotional intelligence is measured based on ability,
but not trait models. The implications and limitations of the findings are discussed.

1. Introduction
One of the basics of human development is that physical, cognitive,
social, and emotional developments are interdependent and interre­
lated. There is a constant interaction between all domains of develop­
ment (Diamond, 2007). Considering this principle, giftedness cannot be
completely understood without a deep understanding of social-
emotional development. Yet, the large amount of research on cogni­
tive facets of the gifted surpasses the studies on the emotional domains
of giftedness (M. Zeidner, 2017). However, the field of gifted education
is increasingly recognizing the importance of social and emotional well-
being among the gifted population (Lubinski & Benbow, 2000).
The field of gifted education is based on the belief that gifted in­
dividuals are those who have superior abilities or potentials in one or
more domains, including intelligence, creativity, art, sports, leadership
capacity, or in specific academic fields (Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 2011).
Nevertheless, the identification of gifted and talented individuals has
been debated in the field (J.S. Renzulli & Reis, 2004). This process is
based on the conceptualization of giftedness which has evolved over the
last several decades (Worrell & Erwin, 2011). Giftedness as a cognitive
characteristic mostly based on IQ or intelligence has shifted to a more
dynamic developmental path considering social and psychological fac­
tors (U. Ogurlu, 2020a). For instance, according to the three-ring
conception of giftedness, three characteristics are needed to
demonstrate gifted behaviors which are above average ability, crea­
tivity, and task commitment (J.S. Renzulli, 2012). Giftedness is viewed
as the combination of these three constructs. Although, contemporary
identification procedures include various approaches and strategies
rather than focusing solely on intelligence quotient (IQ), intelligence
measurements remains essential factor in identification procedures in
the field (J.S. Renzulli & Gaesser, 2015).
In addition to identification, there has been debate on the issues of
the social and emotional well-being of gifted children, however, scholars
tend to agree that gifted children are not emotionally deficient (Neihart,
1999; Norman, Ramsay, Martray, & Roberts, 1999). However, they are
not immune to social and emotional challenges (S.I. Pfeiffer & Stocking,
2000). They may have more intense feelings than their peers about what
happens around them (Piechowski, 1997). Similarly, gifted individuals’
asynchronous development can make them vulnerable to feeling
different from others (Neihart, 1999). Dabrowski (1972) claims that
gifted children have emotional overexcitability, which is characterized
by intense emotionality, intense empathy, and strong affective expres­
sion (Sousa, 2009). A recent meta-analysis found that gifted individuals
exhibited higher mean overexcitability scores than non-gifted in­
dividuals (Winkler & Voight, 2016). This social-emotional functioning
of gifted individuals can affect their emotional intelligence level.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is an important psychological construct
that correlates with becoming more productive members of society (S.I.

* Corresponding author at: 1901 Fourth Avenue, Stevens Point, WI 54481-3897, United States of America
E-mail address: uogurlu@uwsp.edu.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110503
Received 26 September 2020; Received in revised form 30 October 2020; Accepted 3 November 2020
0191-8869/Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Uzeyir Ogurlu, Personality and Individual Differences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110503
U. Ogurlu
Pfeiffer, 2001). The field of gifted education has a particular interest in
emotional intelligence (D.W. Chan, 2005; J.D. Mayer, Perkins, Caruso, &
Salovey, 2001). Keeping in mind that social and emotional development
varies dramatically among gifted people, there are some characteristics
of gifted children that may have an impact on their emotional intelli­
gence. For instance, gifted children are often found to have increased
sensitivity and high empathy, which are critical components of EI (Davis
et al., 2011). Another important aspect of EI is self-awareness. Meta-
analyses on self-concept in gifted children indicated that gifted children
demonstrated a higher global and academic self-concept than other
types of self-concept (e.g. Litster & Roberts, 2011; Pang, 1998).
Studies on EI among the gifted population are interesting to analyze
from the perspective of other cognitive and socio-emotional factors (J.D.
Parker, Saklofske, & Keefer, 2017). J.D. Mayer et al. (2001) examined
the relationship between the concepts of EI and emotional giftedness in a
small sample consisting of 11 gifted children. Those with higher
emotional intelligence appeared to be more aware of their own and
others’ feelings. In addition, they were able to better control their be­
haviors guided by emotional information and they were more effectively
cope with peer pressure than other participants. D.W. Chan (2003)
pointed out that gifted students with high IE scores used positive coping
strategies such as valuing peer acceptance, participating in activities,
and analyzing emotions. EI was negatively associated with stress in
gifted adolescents (D.W. Chan, 2004) and was a significant predictor of
gifted students’ self-perceived creativity (D.W. Chan, 2005). Healthy
perfectionists reported a significantly higher level of emotional intelli­
gence than unhealthy perfectionists in a gifted sample (D.W. Chan,
2009). Bellamy, Gore, and Sturgis (2005) revealed that EI and locus of
control were significantly correlated in gifted individuals. J.D. Parker
et al. (2017) found that exceptionally high-achieving high school stu­
dents with higher EI scores were significantly more likely to graduate
with a degree, in comparison with their low-EI counterparts. These re­
sults show that EI has a positive impact on the gifted population. On the
other hand, Woitaszewski and Aalsma (2004) explored that emotional
intelligence did not have a significant impact on the social and academic
success of gifted adolescents. Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius (2006) found
no correlation between emotional intelligence and moral judgment, as
well as leadership in gifted students. The aforementioned studies about
EI among the gifted population indicate that EI is an important construct
to scrutinize among gifted individuals.
1.1. The construct of EI
Although there is a lack of agreement on the components and mea­
surements of EI (S.I. Pfeiffer, 2001; M. Zeidner, 2017), it can be defined
as the set of abilities to generate, recognize, perceive, understand, and
evaluate their own and others’ emotions in order to direct thinking and
actions (D.L. Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). According to J.D. Mayer
et al. (2001), emotional intelligence is an outcome of the combinatory
relationship of the cognitive and emotional domains. The domain of
emotion facilitates the cognitive capacity that manages abstract
reasoning of emotions. In the literature, EI, by and large, has been
conceptualized based on two separate frameworks and assessment
models (Zeidner, Shani-Zinovich, Matthews, & Roberts, 2005; J.D.
Parker et al., 2017). The first perspective views EI as a cognitive ability
involving the capacity to perceive, use, understand, and regulate emo­
tions (J. Mayer & Salovey, 1997; J.D. Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002).
The ability model considers EI a standard intelligence and uses
performance-type tests. An example of this is the Multifactor Emotional
Intelligence Scale (MEIS), developed by J.D. Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey
(1999). They designed their instrument based on a four-branch model:
perceiving emotions, assimilating emotions, understanding emotions,
and managing emotions. In 2002, the authors revised the test and
published the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso-Emotional-Intelligence–Test
(MSCEIT). The MSCEIT uses questions based on everyday scenarios to
assess how individuals respond to social tasks, read facial expressions,
2
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
and solve emotional problems.
The second view defines EI as a non-cognitive attribute, or a per­
sonality trait, based on self-perceptions (K.V. Petrides, 2009; K.V. Pet­
rides, Furnham, & Mavroveli, 2007). As a trait, EI is seen as an innate
characteristic that promotes well-being (Harms & Credé, 2010). The
trait model depends on self-report inventories such as the Trait EI
Questionnaire (K.V. Petrides, 2009), the Schutte Self-Report Emotional
Intelligence Test (N.S. Schutte et al., 1998), and the Emotional Quotient
Inventory (EQi: R. Bar-On, 1997). These scales are composed of short
statements that require a response on a Likert scale format and include
some subscales. For instance, the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi: R.
Bar-On, 1997) has five composite scales of Intrapersonal, Interpersonal,
Adaptability, Stress, and General Mood (R. Bar-On, 1997).
In addition to the fact that there is no single universally accepted
measurement of EI, EI scales remain controversial with respect to its
validity. For example, Brackett and Mayer (2003) compared some EI
measures and indicated little convergence across EI scales. Even though
the theoretical distinction between ability and trait EI models is not
well-defined, the two perspectives are sufficiently different (Matthews,
Lin, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2018). For instance, these two assessment
models were correlated with intelligence and personality aspects at
different levels. Some meta-analyses revealed non-significant associa­
tions between measures of trait EI and intelligence, and a positive link
between ability EI and measures of crystallized intelligence and verbal
IQ; a moderate correlation between trait EI and personality, but not
ability EI (Joseph & Newman, 2010; D.L. Van Rooy, Viswesvaran, &
Pluta, 2005). Similarly, meta-analytic studies indicated that the associ­
ation between emotional functioning and emotional intelligence was
dependent on the type of IE measures (Martins, Ramalho, & Morin,
2010; N.S. Schutte, Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2007).
For instance, EI was more strongly associated with mental and psycho­
somatic health when measured as a trait than as ability (Martins et al.,
2010). In addition, Zeidner et al. (2005) found that emotional intelli­
gence differences between the gifted and non-gifted depended on the
operationalization of EI. Their study showed higher competency scores,
but lower trait test scores, for gifted children than their non-gifted
counterparts. The results also showed that the ability EI scores and
trait EI scores were weakly correlated.
1.2. Relationship between EI and giftedness
Studies that compared the emotional intelligence of gifted and non-
gifted people yielded contradictory results. Some results have shown
that gifted individuals had higher emotional intelligence levels than
non-gifted peers (Kaya, Kanık, & Alkın, 2016; Lupu, 2012; Ozbey, Sar­
icam, & Adam Karduz, 2018; Zeidner et al., 2005). Other studies pointed
out that there were no differences between gifted and non-gifted par­
ticipants in the overall emotional intelligence scores (Al-Onizat, 2012;
Angela & Caterina, 2020; Karimi & Besharat, 2010; Lee & Olszewski-
Kubilius, 2006; D. Li & Shi, 2019; Prieto & Ferrando, 2009). In some
studies, by contrast, gifted individuals had lower EI scores than their
non-gifted peers (Casino-García, García-Pérez, & Llinares-Insa, 2019;
Dijkstra, Barelds, Ronner, & Nauta, 2012). However, some studies
revealed that the gifted sample scored higher in some EI subtests, but
lower in some subtests than the non-gifted sample (Al-Onizat, 2012; Lee
& Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Prieto & Ferrando, 2009; Schwean,
Saklofske, Widdifield-Konkin, Parker, & Kloosterman, 2006; Zeidner
et al., 2005). One possible reason why these results varied could be the
measurement model adopted in these studies. The emotional intelli­
gence differences between gifted and non-gifted samples seem to be
dependent on the particular measurement model that the study employs.
For instance, Zeidner et al. (2005) compared the differences in EI be­
tween gifted and non-gifted samples using both ability EI and trait EI
measurements. They found higher ability test (MSCEIT) scores, but
lower trait test scores (the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence
Test) for gifted children in comparison with their non-gifted
U. Ogurlu
counterparts.
The major objective of the present meta-analysis is to reveal the
relationship between EI and giftedness using multilevel analysis.
Admittedly, the relationship between giftedness and EI could be influ­
enced by different factors, and they need to be taken into consideration
in order to make sense of variation in the study results. A few of these
potential variables (i.e., moderators) are discussed below.
1.3. Gender differences in EI
Studies on gender differences in EI also have had varied results. Some
meta-analyses reported that ability-based EI was more likely to be lower
in males than in females in the general population (Kong, 2014; J.M.
Salguero, Extremera, & Fernández-Berrocal, 2012). On the other hand,
J.P.A. Parker, Saklofske, Wood, Eastabrook, and Taylor (2005) exam­
ined the gender differences in trait emotional intelligence during the
transition to young adulthood, with the short version of the Emotional
Quotient Inventory in their first year of college, then again after 32
months. Males and females reported similar scores at both times of
testing. Zeidner et al. (2005) showed that females in both gifted and non-
gifted samples received higher scores than their male peers on the
MSCEIT, while males had higher scores than females on the trait EI tool.
Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius (2006) also indicated some gender differ­
ences in a gifted sample using a trait EI scale. The results revealed that
gifted males scored higher than gifted females on adaptability, while
females had a higher mean score on interpersonal ability. There were no
gender differences in stress management and intrapersonal ability
scales. Similarly, Schwean et al. (2006) observed gender differences in
which females had higher intrapersonal, interpersonal, and total EI
scores comparing to gifted males. The literature provides mixed results
about the role of gender in differences in EI and another objective of the
present study is to examine if the relationship between EI and giftedness
is different for males and females.
1.4. Age differences in EI
Another area of controversy is whether EI changes as individuals
grow older. Some studies have shown a positive link between EI and age.
J.P.A. Parker et al. (2005) reported increases in trait emotional intelli­
gence during the transition to young adulthood within a sample of un­
dergraduate students. Chapman (2005) also discerned some differences
in trait emotional intelligence between young adults and midlife adults,
as measured by the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (N.S.
Schutte et al., 1998). Studies analyzing how EI, as measured by the
ability models, changes with age in the general population, have yielded
varied results. Some studies have found that older participants per­
formed significantly better on MSCEIT (Extremera, Fernández-Berrocal,
& Salovey, 2006; J.D. Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999). On the contrary,
some studies did not find any significant link between age and MSCEIT
(Birks, McKendree, & Watt, 2009; Farrelly & Austin, 2007). Other
studies have even indicated a negative association between age and
emotional perception (Day & Carroll, 2004; Palmer, Gignac, Manocha,
& Stough, 2005). Regarding the gifted population, D.W. Chan (2007)
reported that primary gifted students outperformed secondary gifted
students on the Utilization of Emotion subscale of the Schutte Self-
Report Emotional Intelligence. Other studies though, (e.g. D.W. Chan,
2003, 2005) concluded no significant differences across different age
groups. Because of those mixed results in the general population, and
due to the shortage of research regarding the impact of aging on the
development of EI among gifted individuals, the current meta-analysis
used age as another moderator.
1.5. Cultural differences in EI
Studies comparing cultural differences have pointed out that EI may
have different meanings across cultures (Matthews et al., 2018). A meta-
3
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
analytic study put forward that cultural beliefs and values influence
emotions and perceptions (Taras, Kirkman, & Steel, 2010). Gunkel,
Schlägel, and Engle (2014) discerned the impact of culture on EI in a
sample consisting of nine countries. Related to the field of gifted edu­
cation, Pandya (2017) examined the impact of a spiritual education
program on the emotional intelligence levels of gifted students from 15
different countries. Results showed that post-test emotional intelligence
scores were higher for gifted children from Europe and the US, Canada,
and Australia than they were from Asia and Africa. Thus, another po­
tential variable is culture, which can be coded based on the study
sample.
1.6. Educational programs for the gifted
The other important topic in the field of gifted education is educa­
tional interventions for gifted people. Considering recent meta-analytic
results, educational interventions have had a positive impact on the
academic, social, and emotional development of gifted individuals. For
instance, the effects of acceleration and enrichments programs were
found positive on gifted students’ academic outcomes and social-
emotional development (Kim, 2016; Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011).
Goldring (1990) located 23 studies that compare gifted students in a
special class to those in a regular classroom. The findings indicated that
the achievement of gifted students in special classes was higher than
those in regular classes. Schwean et al. (2006) found that the gifted
students in a special program scored significantly lower in EI than those
not in the special program. Given the effects of programs for gifted in­
dividuals, attending a gifted program would have different impacts on
the social-emotional well-being of gifted individuals, including
emotional intelligence. Thus, involvement in a gifted program or lack
thereof was another moderator in the present meta-analysis.
1.7. The present study
The question of whether gifted individuals had higher EI levels than
their non-gifted counterparts has been a focus of theoretical and
empirical work in gifted education. Overall, the findings on the com­
parison of gifted and non-gifted samples in emotional intelligence have
yielded inconclusive results. Recently, M. Zeidner and Matthews (2017)
suggested that more research was necessary to clarify the relationship
between EI abilities in gifted students. Meta-analyses can deal with
possible issues related to small sample sizes, imprecise measurements,
context-bound results, and heterogeneity of study results in gifted edu­
cation (Pigott & Moon, 2016). A meta-analysis on EI in gifted and non-
gifted individuals can help to understand the characteristics of
emotional functioning in gifted children (S.I. Pfeiffer, 2001).
A recent meta-analysis of 135 effect sizes from 21 English and Arabic
studies showed that gifted students had higher levels of EI than non-
gifted students (Abdulla Alabbasi, Ayoub, E, & Ziegler, 2020). They
also tested four moderators: age, gender, EI measures, and EI skills.
Whereas gender and EI measures were significant, age and EI skills were
not. Gifted males had a higher EI than non-gifted males. They found that
gifted students had a higher EI than non-gifted students (g = 0.226, p <
.001) whereas the difference between the gifted and non-gifted females
did not differ significantly.
There are a few issues with this meta-analysis. First, although the
authors combined studies from two different cultures, this was not used
as a moderator. Second, there is the problem of Type I error because they
treated each moderator separately by applying various ANOVAs rather
than a multiple regression approach (meta-regression) where all mod­
erators are tested simultaneously and follow-up analyses are conducted
for the significant moderators only. Therefore, some of the significant
findings in this study are questionable because they were tested as if they
are the only moderator. Abdulla Alabbasi et al. (2020) used meta-
regression analyses simply to obtain the total R-squared. Most impor­
tantly, they did not use an appropriate statistical model that controls the
U. Ogurlu
dependency of multiple effect sizes from a single study. Therefore, their
mean effect size estimates are influenced by the studies that contributed
to more effect sizes than those that had fewer effect sizes.
The present study conducted a meta-analysis by using multilevel
analysis. Using multiple effect sizes per study violates the assumption of
independent effect sizes (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). A multilevel random-
effects model can handle this interdependency of effect sizes and the
differences in sample size (Houben, Van Den Noortgate, & Kuppens,
2015). This meta-analysis differs from the previous meta-analysis to
compare EI levels in gifted and non-gifted individuals, such that in our
study we (i) used the multilevel effect size (ES) calculation), (ii) include
more moderators such as publication year, location of the study, gifted
sample selection, and the model of EI measurement (iii) involved more
English studies (17 studies). The previous meta-analysis employed 12
English papers and 9 Arabic papers that compared EI levels among gifted
and non-gifted populations.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the
studies that compared EI between gifted and non-gifted individuals.
Such information would be useful for developing programs and policies
that target the social and emotional well-being of gifted individuals. This
meta-analytic study included six moderators: publication year, gender
(i.e., male, female, and mixed), age levels (i.e., middle and lower, high
school, and college and up levels), location of the study (i.e., America,
Europe, and Asia), gifted sample selection (i.e., from a special program,
from assessments and mixed), and the model of EI measurement (i.e.,
ability and trait). Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to answer the
following questions:
1. Are there any EI level differences between gifted individuals and
non-gifted peers?
2. Do moderators including year, gender, age levels, location, gifted
sample selection, and the model of EI measurement explain the
variability in the effect sizes?
2. Method
2.1. Study variables
The current meta-analysis compares the emotional intelligence levels
of gifted and non-gifted individuals. The literature was reviewed to find
studies comparing emotional intelligence levels in gifted and non-gifted
samples.
2.2. Data sources and search strategies
Various search processes were conducted to find relevant studies.
The first process included searching for relevant articles by utilizing a
number of databases, including Academic Search Complete, ERIC, Psy­
cINFO, PsychArticles, Medline (PubMed), Social Sciences Citation
Index, Science Direct, ProQuest Social Sciences, Web of Science, and
Dissertation Abstracts International. The author further conducted a
general web search, using Google Scholar. The search was conducted
with no date limitation.
The following keywords were used: gifted, talented, intellectually
superior, high-ability, high potential, high-achieving, high cognitive
abilities, non-gifted, precocious, high IQ, academically advanced, grade-
skipping, curriculum compacting, early school entrance, and emotional
intelligence, Emotional Quotient, EI, emotion, awareness, empathy,
well-being, stress management, intrapersonal, interpersonal, adapt­
ability, and emotional competence. The next step included reading the
abstracts, and those studies not related to emotional intelligence in the
gifted, or not containing quantitative data, were eliminated. A targeted
search was then conducted within relevant journals, including the Gifted
Child Quarterly, Journal of Advanced Academics, Journal for the Edu­
cation of the Gifted, Exceptional Children, High Ability Studies, and
Roeper Review.
4
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
To reduce the publication bias in this meta-analysis, unpublished
studies were searched by the Research Gate database. In spring 2020, we
also contacted some authors who had investigated emotional intelli­
gence among gifted in the past to obtain current and unpublished
research. We reviewed literature reviews or book chapters about
emotional intelligence in the gifted population (e.g. Maree & Ebersöhn,
2002; Matthews et al., 2018; S.I. Pfeiffer, 2001; M. Zeidner & Matthews,
2017). Also, the reference lists of each relevant study were examined to
find more studies.
2.3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The researcher selected articles independently by screening entire
texts using the following criteria:
• Studies written in English were included.
• Quantitative studies that reported statistics that allow for the
calculation of effect size (e.g., means and standard deviations) were
included. Qualitative studies and anecdotal evidence were excluded.
• Studies that compared EI levels among gifted and non-gifted in­
dividuals were included.
Forty-four full-text articles were identified for eligibility using
various search strategies. Thirty-nine studies were found through data­
bases, and four articles were obtained by screening the reference list. As
Fig. 1 demonstrates, during the search process, eleven studies out of 44
publications (e.g. R. Bar-On, 2007; Maree & Ebersöhn, 2002; Matthews
et al., 2018; J.D. Mayer et al., 2001; S.I. Pfeiffer, 2001; Robinson, 2014;
M. Zeidner, 2017; M. Zeidner & Matthews, 2017) were excluded because
they were literature review, book chapters or qualitative studies. In
addition to that, two studies (e.g. Candeias et al., 2009; Khasawneh &
Aldiabat, 2017) were excluded because the relevant statistical infor­
mation was neither reported nor provided via e-mail. One study (e.g.
Akca, 2010) was not included because of the fact that the EI measure­
ment tool in the study was developed for adults, but this particular study
used the measurement tool on children, without any reliability and
validity data on children. Since this meta-analysis focuses on the com­
parison of emotional intelligence levels in gifted and non-gifted people,
13 articles (e.g. Al-Hamdan, Al-Jasim, & Abdulla, 2017; Anaïs, 2018;
Bellamy et al., 2005; D.W. Chan, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009; Corso,
2002; J.D. Parker et al., 2017; Woitaszewski & Aalsma, 2004) did not
include a control group and were therefore excluded. The final data set
included 17 studies that are marked with an asterisk in the reference
section.
2.4. Coding procedure
A coding form with basic study information and effect size estima­
tions, along with potential moderators, was developed using the
guidelines of the 6th edition of the Publication Manual of the American
Psychological Association (APA, 2010). The researcher coded each study
for publication year, gender, gifted sample size, non-gifted sample size,
sample selection methods, effect size, location of the study, the
conceptualization of giftedness, measures of EI, validity, and reliability
of the scales and information necessary for the moderator analyses. The
coding was an iterative process. Each comparison between the gifted
and non-gifted samples was recorded in a separate row in order to obtain
all possible effect sizes from the research reports. In addition to coding
studies for EI differences in gifted participants and non-gifted counter­
parts, each study was coded for additional information to be used as
moderators, which are described below.
2.5. Moderators of the study
This meta-analytic study included six moderators: publication year,
gender, age levels, location of the study, gifted sample selection, and the
U. Ogurlu
Fig. 1. Flow chart for the inclusion of studies.
model of EI measurement.
2.5.1. Year
The year of publication was coded for each eligible study. The first
study comparing EI levels of gifted and non-gifted individuals was in
2004, and the last one was in 2020. Therefore, there were 17 included
studies that spanned 16 years.
2.5.2. Gender
The gender of the participants in both the gifted and non-gifted
samples was coded as male (k = 26) and female (k = 26). If the study
did not include frequencies for gender, it was coded as mixed. Eight
studies did not have gender information, and therefore they were coded
as mixed (k = 29).
2.5.3. Age
The researcher coded the age of the participants based on grade
levels since most of the studies did not include the information on the
participants’ mean age. Participants’ grade levels were coded as middle
school and lower (grades 1–8) (k = 32), high school (grades 9–12) (k =
27), and college and up (colleges and adults) (k = 22).
2.5.4. Location
The included studies represent a number of countries around the
world. The researcher coded the location where the data were collected
using continental categories (i.e., America, Europe, and Asia). Studies
were conducted in 12 different countries (e.g. Israel, Iran, USA,
Romania, China, Canada, Spain, Turkey, Jordan, Mexico, Netherlands,
Italy), from different regions. Based on their continents, the USA,
Mexico, and Canada were coded as America (k = 32); Romania, Spain,
Netherlands, and Italy were coded as Europe (k = 17); Israel, China,
Jordan, and Iran were coded as Asia (k = 32).
5
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
2.5.5. Gifted sample selection
Gifted individuals in studies were sampled either from employing
assessment criteria or chosen from programs or schools for gifted in­
dividuals. Petersen (2013) used two separate categories in her meta-
analysis: gifted samples that were identified directly from assessment
criteria, and gifted samples that were taken from participation in gifted
programs. Thus, we also coded the gifted sample in two categories: se­
lection by assessment criteria (k = 25), and selection by special pro­
grams (k = 48), including gifted programs or special schools for gifted
individuals. Five studies obtained their gifted sample from special
schools for gifted individuals, and three studies chose their sample from
special programs for the gifted. One study included gifted individuals
from both categories, which is coded as mixed (k = 6).
2.5.6. Emotional intelligence measurement model
Although the measurement of EI is still controversial, a majority of
the research and scholarship are in agreement on two measurement
models; ability and trait models (Zeidner et al., 2005; Brackett & Mayer,
2003; J.D. Parker et al., 2017). Considering these two models and pre­
vious studies on EI, the scales of EI included in this meta-analysis were
categorized into two facets; ability EI and trait EI. In this meta-analysis,
the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) was
the only scale based on ability model so it was coded as an ability model
(k = 24). Studies that were categorized as trait model (k = 57) included
the Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQi: YV; R. Bar-On &
Parker, 2000), Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (N.S.
Schutte et al., 1998), the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-
Child Form (K.V. Petrides & Furnham, 2001), Trait Meta-Mood Scale-
24 (J.M. Salguero, Fernández-Berrocal, Balluerka, & Aritzeta, 2010),
The Modified Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (E.J. Austin,
Saklofske, Huang, & McKenney, 2004), and the General Emotional In­
telligence Scale (Mehrabian, 2000). Table 1 provides a list of studies
with potential moderators in the present meta-analysis.
U. Ogurlu Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Overview of Studies Compared the EI Levels between Gifted and Non-gifted Individuals (n = 17).
Study Gifted participants Non-gifted Country EI measurement tool/model Major findings
participants

Zeidner et al. (2005) In special schools for gifted high school Non-gifted high Israel MSCEIT (J.D. Mayer et al., Gifted students scored higher on the
students (n = 85) school students (n = 2002)/ Ability MSCEIT, but lower on the Schutte
125) Self-Report Emotional Intelligence
The Schutte Self-Report Test
Emotional Intelligence Test (
N.S. Schutte et al., 1998)
/Trait
Karimi and Besharat In special schools for gifted high school Non-gifted high Iran Emotional Intelligence Scale- Gifted students had scores than their
(2010) students (n = 86) school students (n = 41(E.J. Austin et al. (2004)/ peers but the differences were not
89) Trait statistically significant
Castro-Johnson and Based on academic achievement (GPA, College students (n USA MSCEIT(J.D. Mayer et al., Gifted students had higher total EI
Alvin (2003) SAT), honor college students (n = 300) = 230) 2002)/ Ability scores than their counterparts
Lupu (2012) Based on results at Non-gifted college Romania The General Emotional Gifted students scored higher than
national and international math and IT students (n = 57) Intelligence Scale ( non-gifted peers
Olympic competitions, gifted college Mehrabian, 2000)/Trait
students (n = 57)
D. Li et al. (2017) In a gifted educational program, gifted Non-gifted primary China The Trait Emotional There were no statistically significant
primary school students (n = 98) graders (n = 125) Intelligence Questionnaire- differences in EI between gifted and
Child Form (Mavroveli, non-gifted participants.
Petrides, Shove, &
Whitehead, 2008)/Trait
Schwean et al. Based on several criteria including Primary and middle Canada The Emotional Quotient Non-gifted students rated their
(2006) teacher nomination, exceptional school students (n = Inventory: Youth Version interpersonal abilities significantly
academic achievement, and ability test 169) (EQi:YV; Bar-On & Parker, higher than gifted students, however,
scores of approximately two standard 2000/Trait gifted students scored their
deviations above the mean, gifted intrapersonal and adaptability
primary and middle school students (n abilities significantly higher than non-
= 169) gifted students.
Casino-García et al. Gifted primary and middle school Unidentified primary Spain Trait Meta-Mood Scale-24 Gifted students showed lower scores
(2019) students identified as gifted in and middle school (Salguero, Fernández- in EI.
compulsory education (n = 132) students (n = 141) Berrocal, Balluerka,
Aritzeta,2010)/Trait
Ozbey et al. (2018) In a gifted educational program, gifted Middle school Turkey The Modified Schutte The emotional intelligence mean
middle school students (n = 122) students from regular Emotional Intelligence Scale ( score of gifted students was
schools (n = 246) E.J. Austin et al., 2004)/Trait statistically significantly higher than
the emotional intelligence mean score
of non-gifted students.
Al-Onizat (2012) In special schools for gifted middle Middle school Jordan The Emotional Quotient There were no statistically significant
school students (n = 253) students from public Inventory: Youth Version differences between the gifted and
schools (n = 431) (EQi:YV; Bar-On & Parker, non-gifted students.
2000)/Trait
Yassini and Mehrdad Gifted female high school students (n Non-gifted female Iran The Modified Schutte EI Scale Gifted students had higher scores in EI
(2014) = 60) high school students (E.J. Austin et al., 2004)/ than non-gifted peers.
(n = 60) Trait
D. Li and Shi (2019) In a gifted educational program, gifted Non-gifted primary China The Trait Emotional There were no statistically significant
primary graders (n = 80) graders from general Intelligence Questionnaire- differences between the gifted and
educational classes Child Form (Mavroveli et al., non-gifted students.
(n = 104) 2008)/Trait
Valadez Sierra, Depending on the scores obtained in A group of average Mexico MSCEIT(J.D. Mayer et al., Students with high intelligence had
Borges del Rosal, Raven’s Advanced intelligence, with a 2002)/ Ability higher scores in EI than students with
Ruvalcaba Progressive Matrices Test, percentile of 50 (n = average intelligence.
Romero, Villegas, college students with superior 65).
and Lorenzo intelligence, with a
(2013) percentile of 90 or more (n = 64)
Lee and Olszewski- In a gifted educational program, gifted From the normative USA & The Emotional Quotient Gifted male students showed a higher
Kubilius (2006) high school students gifted (n = 215) sample, high school Canada Inventory: Youth Version level of emotional intelligence in
students (n = 1461) (EQi:YV; Bar-On & Parker, comparison with the normative
2000)/Trait sample, but gifted female students
were lower than the norm in overall
EI.
Dijkstra et al. (2012) Members of Non-gifted adults (n Netherlands The Emotional Intelligence Gifted individuals showed lower
MENSA Association Gifted adults (n = = 192) Scale (N.S. Schutte et al., levels of EI compared to others.
196) 1998)/Trait
Angela and Caterina Members of the Non-gifted adults (n Italy The Bar-On Emotional There were no statistically significant
(2020) MENSA Association = 18) Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; R. differences in EI between gifted and
Gifted adults (n = 23) Bar-On, 1997)/Trait non-gifted adults.
Prieto and Ferrando Based on teacher nominations, ability Non-gifted learners Spain The Emotional Quotient There were no statistically significant
(2009) tests scores, (n = 945) Inventory: Youth Version differences in EI between gifted and
and creativity test scores (EQi:YV; Bar-On & Parker, non-gifted participants.
gifted primary school students 2000)/Trait
(n = 98)

6
U. Ogurlu
2.6. Rater reliability
To ensure the reliability of the study coding, 17 studies were re-
coded by an independent researcher after brief training. The second
rater coded 17 papers using a worksheet that included all potential
moderators and study characteristics. The agreement rate was 98%.
2.7. The calculation of effect sizes
This study calculated an unbiased estimate of Hedges’ g (L.V. Hed­
ges, 1981). Hedges’ g relies on the standardized mean difference.
However, this effect size has a small bias in small samples due to over­
estimating the absolute value of effect sizes. This bias can be fixed by
using Hedge’s unbiased effect size formula as follows (Lipsey & Wilson,
2001):
Hedge’s unbiased g (gub = unbiased g) was calculated using Eq. (1).
(
3
) u0g is a level-3 unit specific random effect, rig is a level-2 random effect, g
gub = g 1 − (1)
4N − 9
where g is calculated as
g=
Mg1 –Mg2
(2)
sp
where Mg1 and Mg2 represented group means, and sp represents pooled
standard deviation.
Weight term (w) is defined in terms of standard error (SE) of the
effect size as:
1 level analysis also considers the inclusion of predictors to explain the
w= (3)
SE2
The effect sizes in the study are reported alongside 95% confidence
intervals, for simplicity in interpretation.
2.8. Assessment of publication bias and homogeneity tests
Publication bias comes from the selective publication of studies with
significant results. This bias could have an impact on the conclusions of
the meta-analyses (Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2006). In this study,
funnel plots were used to examine the publication bias. A funnel plot is a
graphical depiction of the effect sizes on the x-axes, versus standard
errors or sample sizes on the y-axes. In the absence of bias, and between-
study heterogeneity, the plot will resemble a symmetrical reversed
funnel.
A heterogeneity test assesses the null hypothesis that all studies are
assessing the same effect (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003).
In this meta-analysis, both Cochran’s Q test (L.V. Hedges & Olkin, 1985)
and I2 statistic (Higgins et al., 2003) were used to examine whether there
is true heterogeneity in the study. The Q statistic follows a chi-square
distribution with degrees of freedom (N− 1). The I2 statistic is a per­
centage of total variation across studies owing to heterogeneity rather
than chance (Higgins et al., 2003).
2.9. Statistical analyses
While coding eligible studies, multiple effect sizes were often ob­
tained from a single study, due to the fact that EI measurement tools
have various subscales. For example, MSCEIT has four subscales
including emotion perception, assimilating emotions, understanding
emotions, and managing emotions. Thus, 81 effect sizes were identified
from 17 studies. Retrieval of multiple effect sizes from a single sample or
study leads to dependency among the effect sizes. This often violates the
assumption of the statistical independence of data in meta-analyses.
Therefore, the three-level meta-analytic model was applied in this
meta-analysis to handle this dependency among multiple effect sizes
from a single study. This three-level approach models the sampling
7
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
variation for each effect size (level 1), variation over effect sizes within a
study (level 2), and variation over studies (level 3) (Van den Noortgate,
López-López, Marín-Martínez, & Sánchez-Meca, 2015). A specific form
of 3-Level Multilevel Modeling was used in this study which, has been
utilized by previous research as well (e.g. Acar, Sen, & Cayirdag, 2016;
U. Ogurlu, 2020b). In this model, the first level represents a within-effect
size model, the second level shows variation between the effect sizes
within the same study, and the third one represents variation across
studies. The unconditional model provides an estimate of an overall
mean, based on the random-effects model considering second and third
level variances (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). S. Konstantopoulos (2011)
indicated the unconditional model, which will be used to estimate the
overall mean effect size, as follows:
Yig = γ 00 + u0g + rig + eig , (4)
where Yig symbolizes observed effect size, γ 00 symbolizes overall mean,
= 1, 2, …, m symbolizes the level-3 units (studies) and i = 1, 2, … n
symbolizes level-2 units (effect size).
When p moderators are added at level-2, the final models seems
πig = β0g + β1g X1ig + ⋯ + βpg Xpig + rig , (5)
where β0g, β1g, …βpg symbolize regression coefficients to be estimated,
and X1ig, ….. Xpig symbolize study-specific moderators.
Contrary to the traditional random-effects model, this three-level
model involves variance between studies, and variance between effect
sizes from the same study (Van den Noortgate et al., 2015). The three-
heterogeneity, and the estimation of Level 2 and Level 3 heterogeneity
(Cheung & Chan, 2014). (For more on the three-level meta-analytic
model, see S. Konstantopoulos, 2011; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Van
den Noortgate et al., 2015). This model was tested using proc. SAS
command with the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation.
3. Results
This meta-analysis used a total of 81 effect sizes from 17 published
studies. The studies that were included are provided in Table 1. Publi­
cation year ranges from 2004 to 2020.
The total sample size was 6914 individuals (2217 gifted and 4697
non-gifted). Before examining the mean effect size and the study mod­
erators, publication bias was examined using the funnel plot. Funnel
plots were assessed for asymmetry using Egger’s test and Begg and
Mazumdar’s rank correlation. The values of Egger’s test, (t (81) = 0.460,
p = .646) and of Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation (rt = 0.104, p =
.168) were not significant. Therefore, publication bias does not appear
to be a serious threat in the present dataset.
The homogeneity-of-variance was significant (QT (81) = 720.84, p <
.001). The Q test shows the variance of the effect size was not homo­
geneous and larger than the effect of the standard error only. Also, an I2
percentage was quite high (88.07%). These two statistics showed that
the data were largely heterogeneous.
The unconditional model provided an estimate of the overall mean as
Table 2
Unconditional model.
Estimates SE p 95% CI
Fixed effects
Intercept 0.120 0.045 0.023 (0.031, 0.208)
Variance components
Second level 0.127 0.026 <0.001 (0.076, 0.177)
Third level 0.002 0.010 0.414 (− 0.017, 0.021)
Note: The second level models the variation over effect sizes within a study; the
third level models the variation over studies.
U. Ogurlu Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx

a random effect and the variances at the second and third levels. Table 2 Table 4
shows the fixed coefficients, variance components, standard errors, p Univariate analyses of moderators.
values, and 95% confidence intervals (CI). k Mean ES p 95% CI Q I2
The primary results of the unconditional model with no predictors (g)
indicated that the overall effect size was g = 0.120, p = .023, 95% CI General mean 81 0.120 0.023 (0.031, 720.84 88.07%
[0.031, 0.208], suggesting that a significant difference existed between 0.208)
the gifted and non-gifted participants, with respect to emotional intel­
Gender
ligence in favor of gifted individuals. This difference can be interpreted Female 26 0.120 0.207 (− 0.062, 358.94 92.20%
as small based on Cohen’s (1988) criteria. The second level variance was 0.302)
0.127, p < .001, 95% CI [0.076, 0.177]; it was found to be significant. Male 26 0.170 0.129 (− 0.015, 271.88 89.33%
0.357)
However, Level 3 variance was not significant, 0.002, p = .414, 95% CI
Mixed 29 0.083 0.209 (− 0.027, 107.98 72.22%
[− 0.017, 0.021]. 0.194)
A full model was tested by including all of the moderators in the
Age levels
model. Table 3 presents the main model. There were six moderators in
Middle school & 32 0.099 0.247 (− 0.066, 83.26 68.77%
this study, including year, gender, age, location, gifted sample selection, lower 0.266)
and EI measurement models. The results of the three-level main model in High school 27 0.083 0.255 (− 0.021, 517.97 93.05%
Table 3 shows that year, gender, age, location, and gifted sample se­ 0.187)
College & up 22 0.164 0.327 (− 0.085, 108.78 80.70%
lection were not significant, but the EI measurement model explained a
0.415)
significant amount of variation in effect sizes (β = − 0.673, SE = 0.193, p
= .006). This finding indicates that gifted individuals scored higher in EI Location
America 32 0.149 0.259 (− 0.061, 495.90 92.54%
levels than that of non-gifted counterparts, but only when the EI level is
0.359)
measured based on the ability model, rather than the trait model. In Asia 32 0.096 0.115 (− 0.020, 146.49 78.84%
other words, the EI level differences between gifted and non-gifted in­ 0.213)
dividuals were dependent on the type of measure used to determine Europe 17 0.118 0.168 (− 0.039, 77.15 77.97%
emotional intelligence. The mean effect size values are presented in 0.275)

Table 4. The mean effect size for ability-based measurements (g = 0.326, Gifted sample selection
p = .05, 95% CI [0.155, 0.499]) was statistically higher than for trait- From a specific 25 0.171 0.180 (− 0.015, 593.29 90.90%
program 0.357)
based measurements (g = 0.037, p = .466, 95% CI [− 0.063, 0.138]).
From assessment 18 0.082 0.163 (− 0.032, 159.74 83.10%
This finding implies that gifted individuals tend to have much higher criteria 0.197)
scores on EI levels than their non-gifted peers when it is measured by Mixed 6 0.104 0.919 (− 1.86, 23.19 69.81%
ability-based EI measurements. 2.075)

EI models
4. Discussion Ability 24 0.326 0.05 (0.155, 82.85 72.24%
0.499)
Trait 57 0.037 0.466 (− 0.063, 599.18 89.65%
This meta-analysis examined differences in EI between gifted and
0.138)
non-gifted individuals and explored some variables on the direction and
magnitude of any observed group differences by using multilevel anal­
ysis. For this meta-analysis, 81 effect sizes were obtained from 17 individuals had higher scores than their non-gifted peers with respect to
studies, which compared EI levels between gifted and non-gifted groups EI (g = 0.120) even though this difference can be considered small ac­
within the same study. Results from the meta-analysis suggest that gifted cording to Cohen’s criteria for the magnitude of effect sizes. These re­
sults illustrate that gifted individuals are not emotionally dysfunctional
as some (Neihart, 1999; Norman et al., 1999) have indicated that the
Table 3 social-emotional adjustment of the gifted population was at least as high
Main model. as that of their non-gifted counterparts and often higher in many studies.
Estimates SE p 95% CI Furthermore, in this meta-analysis, giftedness seems to coincide with
Fixed effects being emotionally competent. EI-related characteristics of gifted in­
Intercept − 42.592 33.811 0.247 (− 108.86, 23.67) dividuals may contribute to the result, including increased sensitivity,
Publication year 0.021 0.016 0.243 (− 0.010, 0.052) exceptional empathy (Piechowski, 1997), higher self-esteem, higher
Age (high school) 0.221 0.216 0.321 (− 0.202, 0.644) locus of control (S. Konstantopoulos, Modi, & Hedges, 2001), and higher
Age (college & up) − 0.159 0.338 0.641 (− 0.821, 0.503)
Gender (female) − 0.028 0.105 0.786 (− 0.234, 0.178)
global self-concept (Litster & Roberts, 2011). Keeping in mind that levels
Gender (mixed) 0.130 0.272 0.646 (− 0.403, 0.663) of giftedness vary social and emotional needs, gifted individuals might
Location (europe) 0.098 0.225 0.687 (− 0.343, 0.539) have more competencies to be able to cope with emotional and social
Location (asia) − 0.124 0.188 0.557 (− 0.492, 0.244) problems than their peers (Eklund, Tanner, Stoll, & Anway, 2015).
Gifted sample (assessment) − 0.083 0.265 0.755 (− 0.602, 0.436)
Another explanation of the results would be that verbal ability in gifted
Gifted sample (mixed) 0.368 0.277 0.243 (− 0.175, 0.911)
EI model (trait) − 0.673* 0.193 0.006 (− 1.051, 0.295) individuals may support emotional competency, since the association
between EI, particularly ability measurements, and crystallized intelli­
Variance components
gence, especially verbal skills, has been shown consistently (Farrelly &
Second level 0.119* 0.025 <0.001 (0.070, 0.168)
Third level 0.006 0.023 0.477 (− 0.039, 0.051) Austin, 2007; MacCann, Roberts, Matthews, & Zeidner, 2004).
Analyses of the moderators indicate that there was a significant
Note: Dummy coding: Age Level 0 = Middle &Lower, Age Level 1 = High School,
difference in EI when specific EI measures were used. The results
Age Level 2 = College &Up; Gender 0 = Male, Gender 1 = Female, Gender 2 =
revealed that gifted individuals tended to be more emotionally intelli­
Mixed; Location 0 = America, Location 1 = Europe, Location 2 = Asia; Gifted
Sample 0 = From Special Programs, Gifted Sample 1 = From Assessment, Gifted gent when EI is measured based on ability, but not trait models. The
Sample 2 = Mixed; EI Model 0 = Ability Model, EI Model 1 = Trait Model. result of the present meta-analysis reinforces the idea that these two
The second level models the variation over effect sizes within a study; the third models measure somewhat different characteristics (M. Zeidner, 2017;
level models the variation over studies. M. Zeidner & Matthews, 2017). Ability EI measurements are quantified
*
p < .05.

8
U. Ogurlu
by performance-based tests that assess a set of intelligence-like abilities,
where individuals solve problems designed to estimate their actual
levels of emotional knowledge (Mayer et al., 1999). On the other hand,
EI trait measurements are constructed of a set of personality dispositions
that can be measured with self-report questionnaires (R. Bar-On, 2000;
K.V. Petrides, 2009). Namely, ability EI assesses emotional competency,
whereas trait EI measures the feeling of being emotionally competent
(Cherniss, 2010). In this meta-analysis, the only ability EI measurement
employed was MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002). Studies have shown that
correlations between ability EI and measures of cognitive ability were
higher than for trait EI (e.g. R. Bar-On, 1997; J.D. Mayer, Roberts, &
Barsade, 2008; D.L. Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004). There is also ev­
idence for a stronger link between ability EI and crystallized abilities
rather than with fluid ability (e.g., E.J. Austin, 2010; Farrelly & Austin,
2007; MacCann et al., 2004; Roberts, Zeidner, & Matthews, 2001).
Despite the recent changes in the definition of giftedness, including
broader conceptualizations and different skills, intelligence tests that
measure cognitive abilities are still the most common gifted identifica­
tion tools in the field (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012). Most of the studies in
this meta-analysis also relied on academic achievement and cognitive
abilities to identify gifted individuals. Given the fact that gifted in­
dividuals have higher cognitive abilities, higher EI differences in ability
EI among gifted samples might be plausible.
Therefore, emotional intelligence as a cognitive ability may be
higher in the gifted population, as a function of cognitive intelligence.
Another possibility is that the MSCEIT measures general knowledge
about emotions; this result may indicate that gifted individuals have an
advantage with regards to general knowledge. In addition, it is worth
mentioning that the trait EI measurements assess the perception of a
person’s emotional intelligence, rather than actual competence. Thus,
this perception could be subject to how individuals perceive themselves.
As a consequence, the self-images of participants could have an impact
on the results. In conclusion, self-report EI and performance-based EI
tests require different responses and yield different results. Insofar as
performance-based EI tests are concerned, gifted individuals had a
higher ability to perceive, understand, and manage emotions than their
non-gifted peers.
M. Zeidner (2020) addressed that research on the socio-emotional
adjustment of gifted students has focused on weaknesses, and vulnera­
bilities regarding academic and mental health development but their
positive psychosocial attributions comparing to non-identified peers
have been neglected. Recognizing that gifted individuals have higher
emotional intelligence would emphasize the importance of a strength-
based approach. A strengths-based perspective focuses on personal
growth, empowerment, and coping skills, based on ideals that focus on
strengths instead of problems (Galassi & Akos, 2007). Practices based on
the strengths-based approach in gifted education can contribute to a
more positive view of gifted characteristics, which in turn promote the
capabilities of gifted children. Thus, when emotional problems occur,
one needs to look for inconsistency between the social and emotional
needs of gifted individuals, and their social and educational environ­
ment, rather than assuming emotional deficiencies in the gifted
population.
4.1. Limitations
The current study has some limitations. In this study, locations are
categorized by their continents. Different categorizations based on cul­
tural similarities would result in cultural differences in EI. In the study,
the identification process of gifted individuals was not taken into
consideration, although the gifted sample selection was added as a
moderator. In fact, most studies did not provide sufficient information
on identification procedures for the gifted. As more studies report on this
critical factor, future studies might add identification processes as
another moderator. Finally, some of the published studies on EI were
excluded because they focused on the gifted population without
9
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
comparisons of the non-gifted population. Therefore, in future studies,
EI could be analyzed and compared only within the gifted population by
using meta-analytic techniques.
5. Conclusion
The study findings reveal that gifted individuals had higher EI levels
than their non-gifted counterparts. The EI measurement models
heighten this disparity, when the actual emotional competence is
assessed, rather than the perceived competence. These findings must be
interpreted within the context of various definitions and identifications
of giftedness and EI. Our investigations provide insights and evidence
regarding the social-emotional development of gifted individuals. The
findings reemphasize the importance of addressing social-emotional
development, such as emotional competence, among gifted people.
Researchers should keep investigating EI and the contributing factors to
help gifted individuals reach their self-actualization. Since success in life
requires both head strengths and heart strengths (S.I. Pfeiffer, 2013).
Overall, the results seem to be more consistent with the instance that
gifted individuals are not emotionally deficient.
1
References
Abdulla Alabbasi, A. M., Ayoub, A., E, A., & Ziegler, A. O. (2020). Are gifted students
more emotionally intelligent than their non-gifted peers? A meta-analysis. High
Ability Studies, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1770704.
Acar, S., Sen, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). Consistency of the performance and
nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review.
The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0016986216634438.
Akca, F. (2010). Talented and average intelligent children’s levels of using emotional
intelligence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 553–558.
Al-Hamdan, N. S., Al-Jasim, F. A., & Abdulla, A. M. (2017). Assessing the emotional
intelligence of gifted and talented adolescent students in the Kingdom of Bahrain.
Roeper Review, 39(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2017.1289462.
*Al-Onizat, S. H. (2012). The relationship between emotional intelligence and academic
adaptation among gifted and non-gifted student. Journal of Human Sciences, 9(1),
222–248.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (6th ed.). Author.
Anaïs, S. Y. (2018). The relationship between analytical intelligence, emotional intelligence,
and overexcitabilities in gifted children [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Alliant
International University.
*Angela, F. R., & Caterina, B. (2020). Creativity, emotional intelligence and coping style
in intellectually gifted adults. Current Psychology, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12144-020-00651-1.
Austin, E. J. (2010). Measurement of ability emotional intelligence: Results for two new
tests. British Journal of Psychology, 101(3), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1348/
000712609X474370.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., Huang, S. H. S., & McKenney, D. (2004). Measurement of
trait emotional intelligence: Testing and cross-validating a modified version of
Schutte et al.’s (1998) measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3),
555–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191- 8869(03)00114-4.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence.
Multi-Health Systems, Inc.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the emotional
quotient inventory. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional
intelligence: Theory, development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the
workplace (pp. 363–388). Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R. (2007). The impact of emotional intelligence on giftedness. Gifted Education
International, 23(2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940702300203.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. (2000). The emotional quotient inventory: Youth version: Technical
manual. Multi-Health Systems.
Bellamy, A., Gore, D., & Sturgis, J. (2005). Examining the relevance of emotional
intelligence within educational programs for the gifted and talented. Electronic
Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 3(2), 53–78.
Birks, Y., McKendree, J., & Watt, I. (2009). Emotional intelligence and perceived stress in
healthcare students: A multi-institutional, multi-professional survey. BMC Medical
Education, 9(61), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-61.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental
validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167203254596.
1
Note: References with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included to meta-
analysis.
U. Ogurlu
Candeias, A. A., Franco, G., Pires, H., Rebocho, M., Charrua, M., Barahona, H., … Mira, I.
(2009). Assessment of social and emotional intelligence: A study with Portuguese
gifted and non-gifted children. In T. Subhi-Yamin (Ed.), Excellence in education 2008:
Future minds and creativity. Proceedings of the annual conference of the International
Centre for Innovation in education (ICIE) held in Paris-France (July-14, 2008) (pp.
363–371). Ulm-Germany.
*Casino-García, A. M., García-Pérez, J., & Llinares-Insa, L. I. (2019). Subjective
emotional well-being, emotional intelligence, and mood of gifted vs. unidentified
students: A relationship model. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16(18), 32–66. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183266.
*Castro-Johnson, M., & Wang, A. Y. (2003). Emotional intelligence and academic
performance of college honors and non-honors freshmen. Journal of the National
Collegiate Honors Council, 4, 105–115.
Chan, D. W. (2003). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and their relationships with
social coping among gifted adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 32(6), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025982217398.
Chan, D. W. (2004). Perceived emotional intelligence and self-efficacy among Chinese
secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8),
1781–1795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.007.
Chan, D. W. (2005). Self-perceived creativity, family hardiness, and emotional
intelligence of Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 16(2–3), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-471.
Chan, D. W. (2007). Leadership competencies among Chinese gifted students in Hong
Kong: The connection with emotional intelligence and successful intelligence. Roeper
Review, 29(3), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554407.
Chan, D. W. (2009). Dimensionality and typology of perfectionism: The use of the frost
multidimensional perfectionism scale with Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong.
The Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 174–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0016986209334963.
Chapman, B. P. (2005). Emotional intelligence at mid life: A cross sectional investigation of
structural variance, social correlates, and relationships to established personality and
ability taxonomies. [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of North Texas.
Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 3(2), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2010.01231.x.
Cheung, S. F., & Chan, D. K. S. (2014). Meta-analyzing dependent correlations: An SPSS
macro and an R script. Behavior Research Methods, 46(2), 331–345.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Corso, L. (2002). Social intelligence: Social skills competence and emotional intelligence in
gifted adolescents [unpublished specialist project]. Western Kentucky University.
Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. In Gryf.
Davis, G. A., Rimm, S. B., & Siegle, D. (2011). Education of the gifted and talented (6th ed.).
Pearson.
Day, A. L., & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional
intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group
citizenship behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(6), 1443–1458.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00240-X.
Diamond, A. (2007). Interrelated and interdependent. Developmental Science, 10(1),
152–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00578.x.
*Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P., Ronner, S., & Nauta, A. P. (2012). Personality and well-
being: Do the intellectually gifted differ from the general population? Advanced
Development, 13, 103–118.
Eklund, K., Tanner, N., Stoll, K., & Anway, L. (2015). Identifying emotional and
behavioral risk among gifted and nongifted children: A multi-gate, multi-informant
approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/
spq0000080.
Extremera, N., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Salovey, P. (2006). Spanish version of the
Mayer Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) version 2.0:
Reliabilities, age, and gender differences. Psicothema, 18(1), 42–48.
Farrelly, D., & Austin, E. (2007). Ability EI as intelligence? Associations of the MSCEIT
with performance on emotion processing and social tasks and with cognitive ability.
Cognition and Emotion, 21(5), 1043–1063. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02699930601069404.
Galassi, J. P., & Akos, P. (2007). Strengths-based school counseling: Promoting student
development and achievement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goldring, E. B. (1990). Assessing the status of information on classroom organizational
frameworks for gifted students. Journal of Educational Research, 83(6), 313–326.
Gunkel, M., Schlägel, C., & Engle, R. L. (2014). Culture’s influence on emotional
intelligence: An empirical study of nine countries. Journal of International
Management, 20(2), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2013.10.002.
Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2010). Emotional intelligence and transformational and
transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 17(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051809350894.
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related
estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical models for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring
inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ [British Medical Journal], 327(7414), 557–576.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
Houben, M., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Kuppens, P. (2015). The relation between short-
term emotion dynamics and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 141, 901–930. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038822.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-
analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0017286.
10
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
*Karimi, M., & Besharat, M. A. (2010). Comparison of alexithymia and emotional
intelligence in gifted and non-gifted high school students. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 5(1), 753–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.179.
*Kaya, F., Kanık, P., & Alkın, S. (2016). A comparison of gifted and non-gifted students’
emotional intelligence and communication skills. International Online Journal of
Educational Sciences, 8(1), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2016.01.018.
Khasawneh, O., & Aldiabat, M. I. (2017). Differences in emotional (affective) intelligence
among gifted and ordinary students. International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science Invention, 6(3), 6–11.
Kim, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students.
The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0016986216630607.
Kong, D. T. (2014). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT/MEIS)
and overall, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence: Meta-analytic evidence and critical
contingencies. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 171–175. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2014.03.028.
Konstantopoulos, S. (2011). Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three-
level meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 2(1), 61–76.
Konstantopoulos, S., Modi, M., & Hedges, L. V. (2001). Who are America’s gifted?
American Journal of Education, 109(3), 344–382.
*Lee, S. Y., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). Comparisons between talent search students
qualifying via scores on standardized tests and via parent nomination. Roeper Review,
28(3), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190609554355.
*Li, D., Liu, T., Zhang, X., Wang, M., Wang, D., & Shi, J. (2017). Fluid intelligence,
emotional intelligence, and the Iowa gambling task in children. Intelligence, 62,
167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.004.
*Li, D., & Shi, J. (2019). Fluid intelligence, trait emotional intelligence and academic
performance in children with different intellectual levels. High Ability Studies, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1694493.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.
Litster, K., & Roberts, J. (2011). The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted
and non-gifted students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational
Needs, 11(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01166.x.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55(1),
137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.137.
*Lupu, V. (2012). Emotional intelligence in gifted and non-gifted high school. Bulletin
Scientific, 17(2), 128–132.
MacCann, C., Roberts, R. D., Matthews, G., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Consensus scoring and
empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional intelligence (EI) tests.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36(3), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0191-8869(03)00123-5.
Maree, J. G., & Ebersöhn, L. (2002). Emotional intelligence and achievement: Redefining
giftedness? Gifted Education International, 16(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/
026142940201600309.
Martins, A., Ramalho, N., & Morin, E. (2010). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the
relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49(6), 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029.
Matthews, G., Lin, J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2018). Emotional intelligence and
giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA
handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 585–600). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-038.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Shove, C., & Whitehead, A. (2008). Investigation of the
construct of trait emotional intelligence in children. European Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 17(8), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-008-0696-6.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, &
D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications (pp. 3–31). Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Perkins, D. M., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2001). Emotional intelligence
and giftedness. Roeper Review, 23(3), 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02783190109554084.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional
intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 507–536. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.59.103006.093646.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence
test (MSCEIT) User’s manual. Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267–298. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00016-1.
McClain, M. C., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States
today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School
Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757.
Mehrabian, A. (2000). Beyond IQ: Broad-based measurement of individual success
potential or “emotional intelligence”. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 126(2), 133–239.
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the
empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02783199909553991.
Norman, A., Ramsay, S., Martray, C., & Roberts, J. (1999). Relationship between levels of
giftedness and psychosocial adjustment. Roeper Review, 22(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02783199909553990.
Ogurlu, U. (2020a). Giftedness. In S. Pritzker, & M. Runco (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity (3rd ed., pp. 546–550). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
12-809324-5.21896-8.
Ogurlu, U. (2020b). Are gifted students perfectionistic? A Meta-analysis. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 43(3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0162353220933006.
U. Ogurlu
*Ozbey, A., Saricam, H., & Adam Karduz, F. (2018). The examination of emotional
intelligence, sense of community, perception of social values in gifted and talented
students. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 8(2), 64–79.
Palmer, B. R., Gignac, G., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). A psychometric evaluation
of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test version 2.0. Intelligence, 33
(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.003.
Pandya, S. P. (2017). Spiritual education program for improving the emotional
intelligence of gifted children: A multi-city single-group evaluation study. Gifted and
Talented International, 32(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15332276.2018.1537138.
Pang, S. (1998). The relationship between giftedness and self-concept: A meta-analysis of
gifted research [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. California State University.
Parker, J. D., Saklofske, D. H., & Keefer, K. V. (2017). Giftedness and academic success in
college and university: Why emotional intelligence matters. Gifted Education
International, 33(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429416668872.
Parker, J. P. A., Saklofske, D. H., Wood, L. M., Eastabrook, J. M., & Taylor, R. N. (2005).
Stability and change in emotional intelligence: Exploring the transition to young
adulthood. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/
10.1027/1614-0001.26.2.100.
Petersen, J. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted
program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4),
342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002.
Petrides, K. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence
questionnaire (TEIQue). In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The
springer series on human exceptionality. Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory,
research, and applications (pp. 85–101). Springer Science + Business Media.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 425–448.
Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Mavroveli, S. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence:
Moving forward in the field of EI. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.),
Series in affective science. The science of emotional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns
(pp. 151–166). Oxford University Press.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Popular but elusive construct. Roeper
Review, 23(3), 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190109554085.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2013). Lessons learned from working with high-ability students. Gifted
Education International, 29(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429412440653.
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Stocking, V. B. (2000). Vulnerabilities of academically gifted students.
Special Services in the Schools, 16(1–2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J008v16n01_06.
Piechowski, M. M. (1997). Emotional giftedness: The measure of intrapersonal
intelligence. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd
ed., pp. 366–381). Allyn & Bacon.
Pigott, T., & Moon, S. M. (2016). Introduction to the meta-analysis special issue. The
Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 79–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634439.
*Prieto, M. D., & Ferrando, M. (2009). Emotional intelligence: Re-examining some
preconceptions. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. Matthews (Eds.), The Routledge
international companion to gifted education (pp. 149–154). Roudledge.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Renzulli, J. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development
for the 21st century: A four-part theoretical approach. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 56
(3), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212444901.
Renzulli, J. S., & Gaesser, A. H. (2015). A multi criteria system for the identification of
high achieving and creative/productive giftedness. Revista de Educación, 368,
96–131. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-290.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2004). Identification of students for gifted and talented
programs. Corwin Press.
Roberts, R. D., Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2001). Does emotional intelligence meet
traditional standards for an intelligence? Some new data and conclusions. Emotion, 1
(3), 196–231. https://doi.org/10.1037//1528-3542.1.3.196.
Robinson, K. I. (2014). The influence of advanced cognitive ability on the development of
psychological defenses and in understanding and managing affect: A study of latency-aged
gifted students [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The City University of New York.
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2006). Publication Bias in Meta-
Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. John Wiley & Sons.
11
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx
Salguero, J. M., Extremera, N., & Fernández-Berrocal, P. (2012). Emotional intelligence
and depression: The moderator role of gender. Personality and Individual Differences,
53(1), 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.006.
Salguero, J. M., Fernández-Berrocal, P., Balluerka, N., & Aritzeta, A. (2010). Measuring
perceived emotional intelligence in adolescent population: Psychometric properties
of the trait Meta mood scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(9), 1197–1210.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2010.38.9.1197.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, E. L., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., &
Donheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2007).
A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and
health. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(2), 921–933. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.003.
*Schwean, V. L., Saklofske, D. H., Widdifield-Konkin, L., Parker, J., & Kloosterman, P.
(2006). Emotional intelligence and gifted children. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 2
(2), 30–37.
Sousa, D. (2009). How the gifted brain learns. Corwin.
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Moon, S. M. (2011). The effects of acceleration on high-ability
learners: A meta-analysis. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0016986210383155.
Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Culture’s
consequences: A three-decade, multilevel, meta-analytic review of Hofstede’s
cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 405–439. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0018938.
*Valadez Sierra, M. D. L. D., Borges del Rosal, M.Á., Ruvalcaba Romero, N., Villegas, K.,
& Lorenzo, M. (2013). Emotional intelligence and its relationship with gender,
academic performance and intellectual abilities of undergraduates. Electronic Journal
of Research in Educational Psychology, 11(2), 395–412.
Van den Noortgate, W., López-López, J. A., Marín-Martínez, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J.
(2015). Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: A multilevel approach. Behavior
Research Methods, 47(4), 1274–1294. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0527-2.
Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic
investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00076-9.
Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct validity:
What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Relations, 18(4), 445–462.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1804_9.
Winkler, D., & Voight, A. (2016). Giftedness and overexcitability: Investigating the
relationship using meta-analysis. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 243–257. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0016986216657588.
Woitaszewski, S. A., & Aalsma, M. C. (2004). The contribution of emotional intelligence
to the social and academic success of gifted adolescents as measured by the
multifactor emotional intelligence scale-adolescent version. Roeper Review, 27(1),
25–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190409554285.
Worrell, F. C., & Erwin, J. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and
talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 319–340.
https://doi.org/10.1080/153779 03.2011.615817.
*Yassini, L., & Mehrdad, H. (2014). Comparing emotional intelligence and humor in
gifted and non-gifted students.Indian Journal Scientific Research, 8(1), 1–6. doi:
10.1.1.433.3956.
Zeidner, M. (2017). Tentative guidelines for the development of an ability-based
emotional intelligence intervention program for gifted students. High Ability Studies,
28, 29–41.
Zeidner, M. (2020). “Don’t worry—Be happy”: The sad state of happiness research in
gifted students. High Ability Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13598139.2020.1733392.
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2017). Emotional intelligence in gifted students. Gifted
Education International, 33(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0261429417708879.
*Zeidner, M., Shani-Zinovich, I., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2005). Assessing
emotional intelligence in gifted and non-gifted high school students: Outcomes
depend on the measure. Intelligence, 33(4), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intell.2005.03.001.