pada a 1,528 LITTLE GENIUSES AND HOW THEY GREW BY DANIEL GOLEMAN For six decades, the famous Terman study has followed the fortunes of a group of men and women with IQs above 135. In some ways, “Terman’s children,” particularly the women, seem to have been ahead of their time. Here’s a preview of what the granddaddy of all life-span research tells us about how people of exceptional promise—as defined by IQ— fare in their careers, marriages, and family lives. hen Lewis B. Terman launched his famous study of high-1Q- children in 1921, his aims were mod- est, Terman, a Stanford University psychologist who-had developed the Stanford-Binet intelligence test, want- ‘ed to disprove the existing myth about bright kids, In those days, gifted ebil- dren were Little understood. There ‘wasastrongpopular bias against them, as psychologist Pauline Sears ex- plains: “Folklore had it that ‘early ripe, early rot,’ that precocious chil- dren were prone to insanity, physical ly weak, one-sided in their abilities, and socially inferior.” Within a few years, Terman had proved that such children were nei ther physically nor socially inferior, ‘and that, as they grew older, they not ‘only did not go to seed but surpassed their peers in accomplishment as well. From the start, Terman had also. ‘wondered: how would they fare in lat cr life, as adults? Would their genius ultimately enable them to achieve ‘greater success than their contempo- raties, or was it destined to be thwart ed? Even if their promise were ful filled, moreover, would they beable to lead normal, happy lives? The Terman study became the ‘granddaddy of all life-span rescarch, 28 rere. ran an ih Forsixdecades, teams of investigators have been tracing the pains and ples- sures of these gifted people, whose IQs are all above 125," The most recent study was done in 1977, mote than hhalf a century after the original group of 1,528 young people, ages 3 to 19, was picked. On that occasion, thrce out of four surviving members duti fully filled out and returned their questionnaires, While the data will not be ready for full analysis until 1982, Robert and Pauline Sears, the Stanford psychologists who are the ‘current stewards of the project, of fered some of their impressions of it, along with reflections on the study as ‘2 whole, to Psychology Today. Some of the results might have sur prised Terman. Most of the men and women in the study have passed re- tirement age, and it now seems clear that exceptional intelligence does not preclude ordinary happiness or world- ly success, But neither, apparently, does it guarantee extraordinary ac. complishment. Although most of the 710, dividing a person's mental ago-tis or het Score ab te Sanford ines fen compared ‘vith thie of ates in various age groaps— y his chronological age. Scores that are ove 133 represent the top| pereentel the population often considered geoius 10, Telligenge quotient, is devived by men and women in the study have done well im their careers, none ap- pears to have achieved the stimmit of teue genius. None has so far been awarded a Nobel prize or similar hon- or. There are few millionaires among them, and hardly any distinguished creative artists. (See box on page 34.) If Terman’s people have not tured cout to be that exceptional, however, their lives do offer some fresh perspec: tives on a few contemporary issucs. As some stress rescarchers have been suggesting recently, it appears that brilliant, hard-driving success-seekers do not inevitably succumb to carly héart attacks or to other stress-in: duced ailments; indeed, the mortality rate of the least successful Terman subjects was twice that of the most successful. Nor is.it necessarily true, as people often assert, that middle aged men are obsessed with their work, To most of the men in the study, it was, family that mattered ‘most. Yet for the women, the absence of children made them more satisfied swith theic work—a particularly inter ‘esting finding, since many women to- day are feeling the pressure to have both children and a career. Less unexpected was the finding that some Terman subjects did mark:ee The Terman data show that exceptional intelligence does not guarantee extraordinary accomplishment, edly better in life than others. It proved impossible to explain the dif- ference with certainty. However, the most successful members of the group shared a special drive to succeed, 4 need to achieve, that had been with them from grammar school onward. “We have ratings on such things asde- site to excel, persistence, from when ‘the subjects were 10 years old, by both teachers and parents, and again at about age 18," Robert Sears says. ‘These were very high, compared with other children in their lass.” A Classic Study: How It Was Done ‘Along with their review of the find- ings, he Searses offered a few caveats. Definitive conclusions, they wamed, ‘must await sophisticated analysis of ‘the mountains of data that have been gathered s0 far, as well as the thou: sands of additional facts from studies of the Terman men and women in old age that are sure tp pile up over the next couple of decades. Another diffi culty is that the subjects may not be typical of gifted men and women in other generations, The Terman-Sears group lived through a very special pe- riod in history; in one way or another, the Great Depression and World War I must have marked them all. (See ‘conversation on page 44.| In other ways, too, the sample will always represent a special case in bu- ‘man development: There is no Way of knowing the effect of having a team of esearchers lboking over che subjects’ shoulders to assess tHeit growth and achievertent. It may be that a subtle self-cobsciousness added special pres- sure to adjust and excel. There is a kind of reverse confirmation of ob- server influence: marly of those who ‘were least successful reported feeling silty because they hadn't fulfilled their potential. Had they not been re- minded every few years of their intel- lectual promise, they might not have borne that guilt To find his exceptional subjects, ‘Terman had sifted through 250,000 schoolchildren to locate the thousand for so with the highest IQs. Because he taught at Stanford, he found it conve: nent to limit the selection to Califor: nia public schools. His testing staff found 1,470 children with IQs of 135 or higher. Most of them were in grades three through eight, and cheir average age was L1 when they were selected in 1922. Another 58 children, younger siblings of the original group, were added in 1928. All in all, there were 857 boys and 671 girls "The sample was by no means repre sentative, even of California. For one thing, there were no Chinese, al- though the state had high proportion of them, Latin American, Italian, and Portuguese groups were alsoundertep- resented, and there were only two black children, two Armenians, and one American Indian child, Jewish children were overrepresented. While an estimated 5 percent of the Califor- tia population was Jewish, the Ter- rman sample was 10.5 percent Jewish, There was also a social-class bias. Close to one out of three children ‘were from professional families, al- though professionals made up only 3 percent ofthe general population. Only a smattering were children of unskilled laborers, compared with 15 percent in the general population, ‘Members of the sample were repeat- edly surveyed, In 1922 and again in 1928, the youngsters were tested and interviewed, as were many of their parents and teachers. The Broup was assessed by questionnaires or inter- views in 1940, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1972, “The major reports from the first 35 ‘yeets of the study are contained infive Volumes of Genetic Studies of Genius [Stanford University Press|. Subse- quent reports have appeared at inter- vals since then. Together, these re- ports add up to a classic of psychologi ‘eal research. The project is older than the so-called Grant study, a continu Tewis B. Terman in the early 1940e: He wonted to test @ myth about bright kids. voor samyThe mani —— The mortality rate of the least successful Terman subjects was twice that of the most successful. ing examination of the lives of 95 Har- vard graduates that began in 1938 and followed them into their 50s, under the supervision of psychiatrist George Vaillant. (See The Climb to Maturity,” im the September 1977 issue af Psy- ‘chology Today.) It is far more com- prehensive than Daniel Levinsoa’s study at Yale of 40 men at midlife, ‘whose biographies were reconstructed through extensive interviews The “A”s and “C's: Job Success Compared As adults, the Terman subjects varied widely in achievement. To find out what made the difference, Termen and his researcher, Melita Oden, com- pared the most and the least success- ful. The first comparison was made in 1940, followed by a second in 1960. (Since so few women in the sample ‘were employed full time, this phase of the Terman study was restrieted to met.) What the data from this phase reveal is that the most successful sub: jects were physically healthier end better adjusted as wel, Recognizing that no yardstick for achievement is universally accepted, the researchers chose work success as the best available measure, The inves- tigators judged job sucess by asking whether a man “had made use of his superior intelligence in his life work, both in his choice of vocation and in. the attainment of a position of impor- tance and responsibility in an area calling fora high degree of intellectual ability." Two criteria for an “impor tant" job were the income derived from it and the status generally ac- corded it by sociery jas measured by a standard scale) In the 1960 comparison, the 100 ‘most successful men were designated the A group, the 100 least suecessful, the © group. While the Cs were the “failures” of the Terman kids, the judgment is relative: most of them 32 eevee rae nam 80 equaled or exceeded the national aver- age for job status and income. In 1959, the national median earned income ‘was about $5,000; for the C group, it ‘was $7,178, For the As, though, medi ‘an income was close to $24,000. ‘The A group included 24 university professors, 11 lawyers, 8 research sci- entists, and 5 physicians. Thirty were business executives, one was afarmer ‘who operated large ranches. Only five ‘men in the C group were professton- als, and none was doing well. One, for ‘example, who had done graduate work in mathematics and was employed as an engineer, actually worked at the ‘technician level. The majority worked a clerks, salesmen, or in small busi nesses, Over the years, the health records of the two groups were about the same, but by 1960, only 8 As hed died, com pared with 16 Cs. (The difference in mortality rates raises a question of whether lack of success may affect health.) Natural causes [heart disease and cancer} accounted for most deaths in both groups. Although more 4s than Cs served in World War I, only fone A and three Cs lost their lives in the war. One A committed suicide, ‘compared with two Cs, And two C5 died in accidents, but no As did so, Slight differences between the ‘groups in childhood became bigger differences in adulthood. For instance, while both groups scored about the same on the intelligence tests in the original Terman study, the As skipped more gtades in grammar school, graduated earlier from high school, and received more graduate training, ‘The As were a much livelier group than the Gs. As youngsters, they had more collections (of shells, rocks, stamps} and took part in more extra curricular activities. As adults, As were members of more professional societies and civic groups than Cs were, As were also more active phys ically; at age 40, As favored sports in ‘which they participated, while Cspre- ferred to watch, ‘The As tended to come from mere advantaged families. A parents—espe- cially the fathers—had had more edu cation on the average than had the fa: thers of Cs, The educational edgeeven, extended back to grandparents, the pa ‘eral grandparents of As having com- pleted more years of college than those of Cs! Not surprisingly, then, more fathers of As than of Cs were prolessionals, : ‘The home library of an A subject ‘was more likely chan that of a C to have 500 or more books. As came from more stable homes. The parents of twice as many Cs were divorced by 1922, a trend that had became mote marked by 1928 and 1940, The death rate among C parents was also higher, although the difference did not show up until 1940, Finally, more than twice as many As as C3 came from Jewish families, Seventcen percent af the As ut only 8 percent of the Cs were jewish, ‘As children, As seemed better ad- justed than Cs. When rated by teach: ers and parents, As were given a slightly better evaluation for Social adjustment, an advantage that be- ‘came more pronounced in adulthood. As and Cs were about equally rebel: ‘ous in cheir youth, though, Nex was there any difference in either the de- grec of affection from, or ejection by, their parents, ‘The family background of the As ap- parently fostered ambition, When the ‘Terman kids were rated by their teachers and parents in 1922, the one dimension that distinguished As from Cs was “prudence and forethought, will power, perseverance, and desire to excel.” As reported a “strong liking for school.” When, 30 years later, the Terman sample looked back at theit childhood, the As recalled more fre- quently that their parents had encour- aged initiative and independence, AsHigh achievers had felt greater parental pressure to excel: to forge ahead in school, go to college. also felt more parental pressure to ex- cel: to get better grades, forge abead in school, go to college. The As were interested in every thing. In 1940, a subgroup of the Ter man sample took the Strong Voca- tional Interest Test. This group in- cluded 80 men who 20 years later, in 1960, were to be rated A and 77 who ‘were to be rated C, The most notable difference between the groups was that As received a larger number of ratings showing them interested in a ‘wider range of occupations, a pattern. ‘Sears intexpreted as revealing “drive” or a high “level of aspiration.” ‘The As seemed to get smarter as they got older. In both the 1940 and the 1950 follow-ups, As and Gs were given the Concept Mastery Test (CMT), an intelligence test for adults. | TT is eset mony of men and women in the Terman study have done well in their careers, ‘which is not surprising for a group veho as children were tated among the superinteligent. “But thare'sn0- ‘ody in the group who's a teal ge- fhins—no Einsteins,” reports psy- ehologise Robert Sears. By and large che Terman subjects ‘were fast risers, At midlife, many were national figures wishin their ‘own professions, widely known ‘antong bankers and scientists, for ex Ample, But thelx careers followed no single pattem. Their occupations sanged. from posta to brigadier general, from sandwich-shop opera- tof t0 nuclear-laboratory ditector. “The group includes numerous sei- centsts There are a great many Taw- yers and some corporation heads Since all members of che study were Californians, some ended up in the ‘movie industry “The life stories of a few Terman kids have been told in print, with identifying decails expunged. In sone ofthe ceses, che subject’ iden- tities could probably be guessed with litle sleuthing, In 1959, when Ter ran aketched the unfolding careers ofhis group atthe 45-year mark, one ‘was described as “one of the coun- trys Ieading science ition and fan- {asy writers, who has produced some 60 shore stories and novelettes, as well as.15 volumes of fiction and WHERE ARE THE EINSTEINS AND PICASSOS? nonfiction." Another was listed as “a motion-piceure director who has riade some of the most ontstanding pictures ofthe last 10 years” several ‘of his pictures had won Oscars. ‘As of 1955, the average income for the group was $33,000, compared with a national average of $5,000. The highest income for the group was $400,000, thore were no mil- Tionaires at the time itis a safe con- jecture that there are some now} ‘Although only one of the top six ‘earners in 1955 had graduated from college, two-thirds of the whole sample were college graduates, A to: ta] of 97 had doctorates, 92 had law degrees, 57 medical degrees, and 177 master's degrees. As a whole, the gcoup was above the national aver age in both occupational status and elucation, (Cunent information on income, education, and occupation al status is unavailable, but the dif ferences between the Terman soup and the general population are pre sumed to have held over the years.| By midlife, 77 members of the co hort [including 7 women] were listed jn American Men of Science, 33 in Who's Who. Together, members of the Terman group had—midway in their careers—produced neatly 2,200 scientific articles, 92 books and maonogsaphs, 235 patents, 38 novels, and 415 miscellancous articles, ex Gluding the ogtput of those em ployed an journalists and editors One oddity: the group, Seats) notes, “is low on artistic exeatio Te has produced no great musictat andno exceptional paisitr, although’ it did imelude several musicians and artists who headed university dé: | partments, as well as some modesély | successful weekend painters. ‘it may be that creative genius # too rte to have been part of the Ter man sample. But perhaps it is unfit to expect that among this parieulat oo of intelligence there would hap pen to bea Beethoven or an Enst=ig Although the Terman group sc0:6@| in the top | percent in intelligence mm the country, go did twa or three mi lion other Americans. The apparent paucity of artistic genius in the sur | ple may mean that the tests thet selves wore biased toward more pit | saic kinds of competence than ote ative flair, While intelligence anit creativity. overlap, they are not the same, and they require differen measures, The pifted test-taker may: do well in school and work, but the creative genius may need someth mote than high IQ—someshing nd ordinarily revealed in an 1Q te9 But the final verdict is not 1 “There may well be some Tesman i niius whose contribution has not ye been fully understood or appreciat cil "How do we know?" observe Pauline Seas, "They're noe dead Ie can take years to recosnize: Einstein,” DG. 4 rome s8 0s earnThe least successful men were the least likely to marry, and those who did were more likely to divorce. In 1922, the average 10 for As was 57, for Cs, 150. {This difference, however, 4s too small to account for the discre~ pancy in later-life success between the groups. Small differences in score at the extreme upper end of the [Q curve stand for little actual difference in ability.) In adulthood, the spread grew, As scoring even better than Cs on the follow-up tests. The increased advantage of As may reflect in part their more advanced education, Even so, Cs were still a generally superior ‘group. While the As’ average CMT. Score was 147, and the Gs’ was 130, the score for a group of Ph.D. candi- dates ata top university was only 119, Precursors of Success Why did Cs fail, compared with Ast It seems to have been a matter of at- titude and adjustment. The greater ambition of the As as children proved ‘constant theme later in life. In 1940 and 1950, As were rated by parents, ‘wives, and theniselves as different from Cs on only three traits, all of ‘which were related to ambition. As were more goal-oriented and had ‘greater perseverance and more self confidence. When Terman staff mem: bers visited them in 1950, the As seemed more “alert and attentive.” Cs attributed their lesser achieve ment to their own “ack of persis. tence,” while As often named “persis: tence in working toward a goal" as the important factor in their success, In 1960, at an average age of $0, the sreater ambition of the As—which emerged in many different ways over the years—was clear. When asked to zate themselves, the Asproved to have sreater ambition to be recognized for accomplishment and to have more drive for vocational advancement, They also sought greater work excel lence for its own sake, not just as a pathway to success. ‘The greater drive of As showed up in their social lives. In young adult- hood, As more often than Cs ex- pressed a strong interest in “being a leader, and having friends.” This in- terest may have been compensatory; As more often recalled that as chil- dren they had “fele different from oth- eri” and had trouble making friends and entering into social activities. (There is no evidence for this from their childhood ratings, however.) Overall, adult Cs admiteed much, iscontent with their lot. For them, “making more money” was far more ‘important than for As—but, ofcourse, the Cs made less. G5 wished they bad received more schooling. As were far sore likely to have ended up in # vo- cation they preferred, while Cs more ‘often came to their occupations as 4 result of chance or need, True to their soalditected nature, As chose theie careers far earlier than did Cs, many As had accurately predicted “what they would be when they grew up" by the time they reached 16,ltisnot very ‘surprising, then, that many more As than Cs were satisfied with their ca reers, and that Co were much more likely to feel their work gave them no satisfactory outlet for their mental ca pabilities. In fact, knowing they were part of the Terman study was at times 1 drawback for the Cs: they more of- ten felt guilty for not living upto theis potential ‘The greater happiness of As over Cs extended to family life’ and personal adjustment. Fifteen percent of Os 1e- ported having « problem with alcohol, while only 3 percent of As reported such a problem. An indicator that good marriage fosters achievement lies in the fact that while all the As hhave married, one in five of the Cs have not. The marriages of Cs were much more likely ofsil; l6percentof As were divorced by 1960; among Cs, the proportion was close to half. As tended to marry better-educated women. They also had smarter kids, and more of them: an average of 2.5, compared sith 1.6 for Cs. While the aifspring of both groups were gifted, the average 1Q of ehiléren of As was 140, for those of Cs, 132—about pro portional tothe original difference in 1Q between the two group. ‘The Terman study af who succeeds among the gifted sheds light on the re- cent report on determinants of sue cess done by Christopher Jencks and a group of researchers at Harvard (ste “Who Gets Ahead,’ Psychology To- day, July 1979}, Analyzing the find- Ings of several national surveys, the Jencks group identiied a key factors ‘amily background jincluding father’s occupation snd income, and parents education), test scores in school, years of schooling completed, and teenage personality characteristics like studi- usness. The Asin the Terman sam- ple—like some of the Cs-certainly hhad a winning combination of many ‘or all of these factors, Yet the most Ssuccessfl among te gifted had some thing that the Jencks seudy did not hhave data to detect: a special drive to. succeed that made a difference Life Satisfaction: Men After more than half a century of tests, questionnaires, and interviews, the former Terman kids were asked in 1972 toveflece oa the things that mat- tered most to them, their sources of satisfaction in life, Their average age at the time was 62, although some ‘were as young as 52, others as old as, 72, Results for men and women were reported separately, the men by Rob- cert Sears, the women by Pauline Sears, “With a long life of accomplishment behind them,” wrote Sears in his re- port on the men, “they would be in a position to evaluate its joys and sor- rows, its successes and failures, its nighi-have-boen as well as its was.” ‘The men were asked to evaluate six 36 reccune 00K eAA feeling of choosing one’s career, not drifting into it, was an important part of job satisfaction. areas of theirlives: occupation family piness came from their families life, friendship, richness of cultural In youth, work satisfaction was ile service to society, and their over- ranked second in importance, but in all oy in living, They were asked how reality the men ranked it their third important each area had seemed to greatest source of actual pleasure them in early adulthood, a they were What came in second was something planning their lives; that is, what these men hach’t sought as a major Ikinds of satisfaction they hed hoped goal: simple joy in Living. At age 62, for from life. Then, they were asked they felt they hed gotten a fair share of hhow satisfied they had been in reality pure pleasure out of life. However, joy with each during te course of thetr moved down to third place in ehefinal lives. To judge total satisfaction, the tally and work moved up to second, actual degree of satisfaction for each because work was more highly valued ‘was multiplied by the importance the originally. {See chart below.) person assigned to it, This meant that Some men, of course, reported moze in measuring actual satisfaction, a overall life satisfaction than others. particular pleasure had more weight if To see what factors in the past might ithad been sought-aftet all along. have predicted satisfaction, Sears ‘What the men bed most wanted in searched through the records back to their younger days was ahappy{amily 1922. Three sorts of data seemed life, and they were Iueky enough t0 promising: motivation, favorable lite set it, in matutity, cheir greatest hap- conditions, and expressed feelings. LIFE SATISFACTIONS OF THE GIFTED ‘Chartshows the relative importance of six sources of satstacton, as reported by the high 1G men and women nthe Terman-Sears study in 1972. By thal ine, most ofthe subjects \woro near retroment age. "Joy" means overal pleasure in iving ‘The motivation that interested Sears was the need for achievement al ready discussed. The objective condi- tions that might have fostered satis- faction, Sears thought, were health, education, income, and occupational rang, all of which might produce good feelings abvut one’s lifetime efforts. As it worked ous, early feelings about ‘oneself proved to be very important. ‘Both an early liking for one’s workand ‘a feelingat age30 of choosingone’s ca- seer rather than drifting into it corre: lated with final occupational satisfac- tion, as did rating oneself as healthy from 30 onward. High-Level training, status, and income had negligible irs portance for final career satisfaction. ‘Rather,’ concluded Sears, "it looks asif there were some continuing affec- tive quality—an optimism about life, an enjoyment of occupational com- bat, and a feeling of self-worth—that characterized the more satisfied of these men at age 30 and persisted through the next three decades of their lives.” Pleasure in family life had different roots. One carly predictor was the men’s scores at about age 30 ona Marital Apritude Test and a Marital Happiness Test devised by Terman. Other important factors included good mental health in 1940 and 1960, good social adjustment in grammar school, and sociability in high school. Having a favorable aevitude toward fa thers also predicted a satisfying family life. Having a wife who worked, though, comclated with a less satisty ing family life. A little more than 70 percent of the men hed unbroken marriages by 1972 {approximately the national average for this age group). Sears compared these men with the 21 percent who had divorced, to see which carly tests predicted marital stability #6 well a3 {good mental health in general. Men in ‘unbroken marriages also had better at titudes toward their parents, especial (atop Reeee Unlike so many members of their sex, Terman women often enjoyed both singleness and childlessness. ly coward their mothers. This fact led Sears to speculate that “for the men ‘with unbroken marriages, theze had been final resolution of whatever con- ficts may have existed in childhood, while for the divorced men, these con. icts were still remembered." Life Satisfaction: Wome: ‘The life pattems of the Terman wom- «en followed different paths from those of the men, s0 Pauline Sears and her colleague Ann Barbec did a separate analysis of the findings on women, However, the women were rated on their satisfaction in the same areas of life as were the men, and a search for predictors was made. Feminists will be disappointed, but Sears and Barbee found their male and female subjects very different. Work ‘was generally more important to men than it was to women, Women sought happiness in a great diversity of ways, they sought more satisfaction than did men from friends, culture, service toothers, and joy in living. While both sexes sav family life as the most im- portant ares for achieving satisiac- tion, women valued it more highly. When cach source of satisfaction ‘was weighted according tothe impor- tance placed on it, chere were only three areas in which the sexes dif- fered. (See chart, page40}, Men found their work far more satisfying than did ‘women, while women found far more satisfaction than men did from both friends and cultural activities. There was no difference between men and ‘women on the pleasures found in fam- ily, service to others, or joy in living ‘The sexes were more. alike when men were compared with working ‘women, not with all women, The one sex difference then was that men gave ‘more importance to work as a source of satisfaction. The working women (fewer than half of the women in the sample) derived just as much actual satisfaction asthe men did. For wom: 1, as formen, money did not buy hap. piness, When the women with the highest incomes were compared with ‘those with the lowest, there was no difference in happiness. Not suprisingly, happy chilérei of ten grew up to be happy adults, and satisfied female adults matured into satisfied older women. General sats: faction in 1972 was related to having Positive relations with parents as far back as 1928, These women in midlife continued to look favorably on their ‘own parents and had special admira- tion for their mothers. They also ad favorable self-concepts from the early years on, rating themselves high in confidence and low in inferiority. “fa woman feels self-confident early in lite," conjecture Sears and Barbee, “she is more likely to onder her ie in a way that promotes later satisfac- tion.” There were other antecedents of happiness in midlife. Good health and ‘working in a profession were positive predictors, as were the edueation and ‘occupation ofa woman's husband. Be- ing satisfied with her marrage, chil: dren, social contacts, and communi- ty service as far back as 1950 also pee- dicted a woman’s general satisfaction in 1972. Income was unimportant. Career-oriented women had had ‘more ambition for excellence in work during early and late adulthood—aa attribute they shared with the most successful Terman mea. Oddly, an early predictor for this group of wom en was having special math ability a3 children, im 1922, In 1972, the women were asked to ‘consider their lives as falling into one of four patterns: primarily that of a Jhomemaker, pursuing a career, spit: ‘ing her life between career and afaza- Aly, or working part-time only. Then, they were asked whether that pattern fit the plans they had made in early adulthood and whether they wished they had chosen another pattern. ‘Those who said their plan had been fulfilled and that they would not have chosen a different one were rated as highly satisfied in their lives. To the degree they wished it otherwise, satis- faction was rated lower. By these eri- teria, two thirds of the women were highly satisfied, The greatest satisfac- tion was reported by heads of households, whether or not they were single, divorced, or widowed, Compared witha representative na- tional sample of women who were part of a survey on the quality of ‘American life by Angus Campbell, a survey researcher at the University of ‘Michigan, the Terman women were better educated and had higher in- ‘comes and better jobs. On a measure of general happiness, the sroupa were comparable: married women, with or without children, were generally most happy, followed by the widowed, the single and, least happy of all, the di vorced. When the psychologists looked at Terman women's satis- {faction with their work patterns, how- ever, they discovered a striking rever sal in this order, Single women scored highest, then childless martied wom: en, divorced women, married wom- en with children, and widows. Groping for an explanation for the revetsal, Sears and Barbee came up with a provocative idea, “For high 1Q women,” they suggested, “indepen- dence from an unhappy marriage, the challenge of making one's own life as a widow or single person, activates, over time, feelings of competence rather than depression.” ‘deed, perhaps the most important single conclusion to be drawn from the dataon the Terman women is that a sense of being competent was te- mendously important to them—mak- ing this retirement-age group seem surprisingly similar to women born 4 generation or two later. evecare 43