Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

Personality assessment of intellectually gifted adults: A dimensional trait

approach
⁎
Michael Mattaa, , Emanuela Saveria Grittia, Margherita Langa,b
a
Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
b
Association for the Research of clinical Psychology (A.R.P.), Milan, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Personality is often assessed by measuring the severity of dimensional traits regardless of intellectual func-
Intellectual giftedness tioning. However, extreme deviations from average cognitive abilities affect biological, psychological, and social
Adults characteristics, to the extent that they may lead to atypical trajectories of development. The present study
Personality traits examined subclinical personality traits of intellectually gifted adults who unlikely fulfill traditional criteria for
Livesley's dimensional model
psychopathological diagnosis.
DAPP-BQ
Seventy-five intellectually gifted individuals (i.e., at least one WAIS-IV Index > 130) completed the DAPP-
Developmental psychopathology
Risk factors BQ. Their scores were compared to a control group. Age range was the same across the two groups (18–45 years).
Gender differences were then examined within the gifted group.
The group of gifted individuals reported significant higher scores on eight DAPP-BQ scales. A large effect size
was found on Rejection trait; medium effect sizes on Narcissism and Low Affiliation traits. Identity Problems,
Callousness, Restricted Expression, Compulsivity, and Suspiciousness were associated with small effect sizes.
Moreover, gifted women reported higher scores than gifted men.
Dysfunctional traits of gifted adults may contribute to interpersonal maladjustments. This may be the con-
sequence of poor emotional attunement and inappropriate support that they received in childhood for their
superior intellectual abilities. Sociocultural issues may maintain these psychological vulnerabilities, especially
within gifted women.

1. Introduction dysregulation, depression, bipolar disorder, attentional and hyper-

1.1. Giftedness and psychological functioning
Most of the literature has focused on the unique psychological ex-
perience of gifted children, whereas few studies have examined what
happens when gifted individuals enroll in college, are involved in long-
term relationships or get a job (Rinn & Bishop, 2015). Indeed, “it's not
as though these former children slough off their giftedness like dis-
carded skin at the age of eighteen. Gifted children do grow up, and they
become gifted adults” (Jacobsen, 1999, p. 9).
Over the past century, empirical studies and meta-analytic reviews
supported the idea that gifted individuals achieve desirable psycholo-
gical outcomes (Martin, Burns, & Schonlau, 2010; Terman & Oden,
1959), such as high educational level, socioeconomic status (Warne,
2016) and system integrity (i.e., well-functioning body and efficiency to
face environmental challenges). However, other studies have found
opposite evidences, arguing that high Intelligence Quotient (IQ) may
represent a potential risk factor for the development of affective
activity deficits, autism spectrum disorders, and immune disorders
(Karpinski, Kinase Kolb, Tetreault, & Borowski, 2017). Thus, atypical
trajectories may lead to develop individual strengths and weaknesses,
even demonstrating that some domains (i.e., cognitive abilities) may
evolve at higher level than typical individuals (Thomas & Karmiloff-
Smith, 2002).
Multiple reasons may explain contradictory findings on psycholo-
gical functioning of gifted adults: a) correlational studies (which in-
volve general population) vs. group differences (which compare general
population and gifted group); b) different inclusion criteria for gifted
samples (e.g., IQ score ≥ 130, superior scholastic achievements, or
extraordinary verbal abilities as children, or Mensa members as adults);
c) absence of theoretical background. The present paper aims at over-
coming these limitations, examining personality vulnerabilities of in-
tellectually gifted adults. Livesley's dimensional model was used spe-
cifically for its capability to assess subclinical symptoms which
traditionally do not fulfill criteria for psychopathological diagnosis.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: michael.matta@unimib.it (M. Matta), emanuela.gritti@unimib.it (E.S. Gritti), margherita.lang@unimib.it (M. Lang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.009
Received 30 December 2017; Received in revised form 8 May 2018; Accepted 9 May 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Matta, M., Personality and Individual Differences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.009
M. Matta et al. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

1.2. Livesley's model: assessing severity of personality traits Table 1

Distribution of socio-demographic variables of both groups.
Categorical personality assessment aims to identify one or more Gifted group Comparison group
psychopathological classes that match set of symptoms displayed by
clients. Some authors have questioned this idea, claiming that psy- N 75 166
Sex men, n (%) 60 (80.00) 132 (79.51)
chological traits are in fact dimensional (Clarkin & Livesley, 2016);
Age in years (mean ± SD) 30.31 ± 7.52 26.24 ± 5.74
categorical diagnoses tend to reify disorders rather than describe them as Age range 18–45 18–45
the result of interactions among personality traits and multiple en- Education, n (%)
vironmental levels. In such a perspective, severity of personality traits 0–12 (Less than high school) 1 (1.33) 0
represents a core feature of psychological assessment where traditional 13–15 (High school) 28 (37.33) 89 (53.61)
16–17 (Bachelor's degree) 10 (13.33) 34 (20.48)
classifications are replaced by assessing areas of dysfunctions and pat-
18+ (More than Master's degree) 35 (46.66) 31 (18.67)
terns of impairments. This results particularly appropriate for complex WAIS-IV index ≥130, n (%)a
personality constructs (e.g. narcissism), for which recent examinations Full-scale IQ 42 (56.00)
postulate a continuum between healthy and pathological presentations, Verbal comprehension 17 (22.66)
Perceptual reasoning 49 (65.33)
with the latter representing maladaptive exasperations of adaptive
Working memory 20 (26.66)
personality traits (Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017). Processing speed 22 (29.33)
Livesley's dimensional model defines personality disorders as
a
adaptive failures to achieve solutions to universal life tasks. Personality The sum exceeds gifted sample size because each participant can obtain
pathology issues can affect the: (a) representation of self, and others; (b) 130 in one Index or more.
sense of intimacy, affiliation, and attachment; and/or (c) functioning
with social groups (i.e., cooperative and prosocial behaviors). This 2.2. Measures and procedures
model is based on three assumptions. First, personality is the result of
complex relations among relative stable and permanent traits. Second, After collecting socio-demographic data, the WAIS-IV and the
personality traits are dimensional; one extreme represents personality DAPP-BQ (Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic
dysfunctions, whereas the other extreme consists of optimal adaption. Questionnaire) were individually administered by licensed psycholo-
The more individuals have severe personality traits, the more their gists specifically trained.
behavior, cognition, and emotional patterns will be influenced by that The WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008) is an intelligence test which mea-
trait. Third, personality dysfunctions differ from personality disorders. sures the Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) and four intellectual Indexes, i.e., Verbal
Indeed, dysfunctions in specific components may cause occasional dif- Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Proces-
ficulties and do not necessarily lead to severe psychological impair- sing Speed (Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013).
ments. For instance, if someone is extremely shy, this single trait may The DAPP-BQ (Livesley & Jackson, 2009) is a 290-item self-report
not have great impact on general life but may cause discomfort in questionnaire to assess personality traits based on Livesley's dimen-
certain social situations. sional model. The DAPP-BQ requires the respondent to evaluate feel-
Based on these considerations, in the present study we assessed ings and behaviors on a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire ex-
differences in personality traits between intellectually gifted and amines 18 personality traits grouped into 4 second-order Clusters. A
average-intelligence adults. Secondly, we explored the dimensional validity scale measures the level of impression management and social
differences in personality traits based on gender within the gifted desirability. Each scale has a mean of 50 T-score and a standard de-
group. According to previous studies, we hypothesized that gifted viation of 10.
adults will report specific vulnerabilities related to concerns for others'
feelings (Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011), and general social detach-
ment (Schmidt, 2014). Moreover, we hypothesized that gifted women 2.3. Ethical statement
will show higher vulnerabilities than men (Reis, 2004).
All participants were recruited on a voluntary basis and they gave a
written informed consent before testing. The study was approved by the
2. Method IRB of the University.

2.1. Participants
Two hundred and forty-one individuals (192 men) participated in
this study. 75 of them (60 men) were identified as intellectually gifted.
Descriptive statistics of both samples are reported in Table 1. Partici-
pation in the study was proposed to all Mensa members via the Asso-
ciation's newsletter, whereas to college students via SONA System.
Thus, inclusion criteria for the gifted group were to be part of Mensa
Association (i.e., the High IQ Society) and to have obtained a score
equal to or higher than 130 on at least one WAIS-IV (Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition) Composite Score. The comparison
group consisted of college students and young adults. Extra credits were
assigned for their participation in the study. Additionally, it was re-
quired that controls were not Mensa members. Thus, the two groups
were mutually exclusive. The mean age was 30.31 years (SD = 7.52) for
the gifted group, and 26.24 years (SD = 5.74) for the comparison
group. Gifted participants reported a level of education distributed
between high school and college.
2.4. Data analysis
A preliminary Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with Principal Axis
factoring and Oblimin rotation was conducted to test if DAPP-BQ scales
group into meaningful factors. Then, we performed a MANCOVA to test
differences in personality traits between gifted and non-gifted adults.
Age was used as a covariate because it was statistically significant be-
tween the two groups, t(247)5.29, p < 0.001. Eta Partial Square (η2)
was calculated for each comparison to estimate the magnitude of the
effects. Mcdonald's omega (ωt) was computed to test internal con-
sistency of each scale. Finally, multiple t-tests were conducted to
measure gender differences within the gifted group. Since the gifted
women group was small (N = 15), a descriptive approach was used and
only the effect sizes were reported. Indeed, an inferential approach
would have required a higher number of women within the gifted
group. Because many comparisons were made, Type I error must be
considered.

2
M. Matta et al. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the DAPP-BQ. The longer the bars, the stronger the loading on Factors. Fit measures: Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) of factoring
reliability = 0.806; RMSEA Index = 0.121 [90% CIs = 0.105, 0.131]; BIC = −87.08.

3. Results
DAPP-BQ four-factor structure was established based on eigenva-
lues > 1 (7.02, 2.00, 1.47, and 1.37), parallel analysis (which suggested
to extract four components), and second-order Clusters proposed in the
test manual (Fig. 1). Overall, the four factors were consistent with the
original structure, except for Low Affiliation scale which had a stronger
loading on Emotional Dysregulation than on Social Avoidance.
Differences between gifted and non-gifted adults were tested with a
multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) on all DAPP-BQ scales.
All assumptions were met and analyses revealed a main effect of group
for DAPP-BQ, Λ = 0.67, F(18, 227) = 6.24, p < 0.001. Results for the
post hoc univariate ANOVAs are showed in Table 2.
All DAPP-BQ scales were normally distributed. Mean differences for
eight scales were statistically significant. Gifted group obtained con-
sistently higher scores than the comparison group. A large effect size
was found on Rejection scale (η2 = 0.15). Medium effect sizes were
noted on Narcissism (η2 = 0.10) and Low Affiliation (η2 = 0.07) scales.
Mean differences on Identity Problems (η2 = 0.02), Callousness
(η2 = 0.03), Restricted Expression (η2 = 0.04), Compulsivity
(η2 = 0.04), and Suspiciousness (η2 = 0.05) were also statistically sig-
nificant and they showed small effect sizes.

Table 2
DAPP-BQ Group Differences. Main effect of Group was controlled for age.
Scales Intellectually gifted comparison group

M SD ωt M SD ωt F pa η2

Emotional dysregulation
Anxiousness 50.35 14.39 0.95 49.28 10.96 0.92 2.09 NS 0.01
Submissiveness 47.57 11.73 0.90 49.23 9.93 0.88 0.53 NS 0.00
Insecure attachment 43.62 10.70 0.92 46.68 9.78 0.91 1.93 NS 0.01
Affective lability 47.61 13.38 0.92 47.01 10.28 0.87 0.63 NS 0.00
Oppositionality 50.64 13.38 0.93 50.26 10.38 0.89 1.32 NS 0.00
Identity problems 52.22 12.64 0.95 49.73 9.80 0.91 5.55 < 0.05 0.02^
Cognitive dysregulation 47.74 11.29 0.92 47.91 9.62 0.88 0.65 NS 0.00
Dissocial behavior
Callousness 53.69 9.53 0.86 50.94 9.10 0.89 8.33 < 0.01 0.03^
Narcissism 56.70 10.62 0.90 50.73 10.23 0.91 28.28 < 0.001 0.10*
Conduct problems 50.04 8.02 0.86 49.94 7.60 0.87 0.71 NS 0.00
Stimulus seeking 50.31 11.80 0.91 49.78 9.82 0.89 1.10 NS 0.00
Rejection 57.35 10.92 0.87 49.59 8.85 0.82 42.88 < 0.001 0.15**
Social avoidance
Low affiliation 56.11 12.48 0.92 50.44 10.10 0.90 18.34 < 0.001 0.07*
Restricted expression 56.28 12.40 0.91 51.91 10.98 0.90 9.05 < 0.1 0.04^
Intimacy problems 50.22 11.07 0.90 49.28 10.12 0.89 0.53 NS 0.00
Compulsivity 53.73 10.94 0.91 48.81 10.12 0.90 9.13 < 0.01 0.04^
Suspiciousness 53.76 10.88 0.91 49.67 8.25 0.85 11.68 0.001 0.05^
Validity 48.19 8.88 0.69 46.28 7.13 0.61 1.46 NS 0.01

Effect size’ interpretations: η2 > 0.01 small (^); η2 ≥ 0.06 medium (*); η2 ≥ 0.14 large (**).
a
NS = Not Significant.

3
M. Matta et al. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Social isolation has been already linked with Rejection traits within the
Gender differences on the DAPP-BQ within the Gifted Group. gifted population (Dijkstra et al., 2012). Because of the fear of being
Scales Gifted men Gifted women hurt or embarrassed in social situations, gifted individuals may have
repeatedly adopted behavioral strategies for hiding their needs which in
M SD M SD Cohen's d turn may have increased the likelihood to develop an inward-oriented
personality (Hollingworth, 1942). This tendency might also imply that
Emotional dysregulation
Anxiousness 48.78 14.04 57.23 14.62 −0.61* gifted individuals prefer investing on their thoughts and ideas rather
Submissiveness 46.41 11.26 52.43 13.10 −0.53* than obtaining gratification from interpersonal interactions and emo-
Insecure attachment 43.39 10.72 44.98 12.35 −0.15 tional contact with others. Thus, they are more likely to be loners and
Affective lability 46.43 13.80 54.01 8.64 −0.59* tend to spend time with people of the same level of intelligence (F.
Oppositionality 49.69 13.83 52.55 12.39 −0.21^
Schmidt, personal communication, November 2017). Also, repetitive
Identity problems 51.16 12.41 57.34 12.92 −0.50*
Cognitive dysregulation 46.68 11.25 51.77 11.28 −0.46^ interpersonal failures may temporary interfere on their intellectual ef-
Dissocial behavior ficacy which in turn could impact on cognitive performances. This may
Callousness 54.23 10.08 50.78 5.78 0.37^ represent a risk factor because it may decrease the sense of mastery and
Narcissism 57.32 10.82 54.66 10.60 0.25^
self-efficacy that they mainly experience in these activities.
Conduct problems 49.91 7.47 50.70 10.55 −0.10
Stimulus seeking 50.21 12.40 50.35 10.58 −0.01
On the other hand, introversion has been found positively related to
Rejection 57.75 10.70 56.27 10.13 0.14 typical intellectual engagement (TIE), domain-specific knowledge and
Social avoidance crystallized intelligence, as well as adult academic and occupation at-
Low affiliation 54.89 12.02 61.80 13.39 −0.57* tainments. Introverts and high TIE people tend to increase their level of
Restricted expression 55.43 12.06 59.25 13.56 −0.31^
knowledge in specialized disciplines to a greater extent than people
Intimacy problems 49.50 11.33 52.03 9.30 −0.23^
Compulsivity 53.62 10.80 54.35 13.47 −0.06 with different personality traits and attitudes. Gifted individuals may
Suspiciousness 53.48 10.80 54.12 13.15 −0.06 cultivate their abilities, spending more time in reading, thinking, and
reasoning, rather than joining social relationships. Yet, an isolated life-
Effect size’ interpretations: Cohen's d ≥ 0.20 small (^); d ≥ 0.50 medium (*); style associated with conscientiousness and perfectionism (assessed by
d ≥ 0.80 large (**). higher levels of Compulsivity trait) may predict better adult academic
and job performances (Schmidt, 2014).
Cohen's d was used to assess gender differences on the DAPP-BQ Finally, gifted participants showed higher levels of Narcissism traits
scales within the gifted group (Table 3). Generally, gifted women had as measured by the DAPP-BQ scale, that includes grandiose manifes-
higher scores than gifted men. Medium effect sizes were found on An- tations of narcissism but has been associated also to more vulnerable
xiousness (0.61), Submissiveness (0.53), Affective Lability (0.59), aspects (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). Individuals with narcissistic traits
Identity Problems (0.50), and Low Affiliation (0.57). By contrast, men are likely to feel a strong sense of “entitlement” which reflects their
showed higher scores on Callousness and Narcissism (d = 0.37 and beliefs to be special and to be treated differently from other people
0.25, respectively). (Miller, 1981) and to emphasize their personal achievements and in-
tellectual abilities. According to processual models of narcissism (Morf
4. Discussion & Rhodewalt, 2001) and to current views on the possible presentations
of narcissism, grandiosity-related manifestations, such as for example
The present study investigated differences in personality traits be- rivalry, are likely to be common to the two different forms of grandiose
tween a group of gifted adults and non-gifted controls. The main ob- and vulnerable narcissism (Geukes et al., 2017) and might reflect re-
jective was to examine if gifted individuals report personality dys- actions to the environment in form of self-regulatory strategies. These
functions to a greater extent than non-gifted people. In addition, the traits in gifted individuals possibly represent important protective fac-
study explored individual personality differences between men and tors because moderate inflation of self-esteem may prevent them from
women within the gifted group. being hurt by others' failures in recognizing and supporting their needs.
The findings are consistent with the “disharmony hypothesis” which However, differences on narcissistic traits have not been found con-
states that gifted individuals may face unique social challenges and sistently in empirical studies, neither on the Minnesota Multiphasic
have specific emotional needs which may increase psychological vul- Personality Inventory−Adolescents (Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams,
nerabilities. The latter may represent risk factors to develop and 2008) nor on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Baggette &
maintain dysfunctional personality traits (Preckel, Baudson, Krolak- Tobacyk, 1988). It must be noted nonetheless that such inconsistencies
Schwerdt, & Glock, 2015). might be due to specific differences in the variants of narcissism mea-
Generally, gifted individuals showed higher scores on DAPP-BQ sured by different studies, such as adaptive and maladaptive, and to the
scales compared to non-gifted participants. The large effect size made challenges of assessing a multidimensional and complex construct such
Rejection the most distinctive personality trait of gifted individuals. As as narcissism relying exclusively on self-reports (Gritti, Marino, Lang, &
such, individuals with higher intellectual functioning may perceive Meyer, 2017).
themselves as interpersonally dominant, hostile, and characterized by a Overall, high levels of narcissism, callousness (which is good in-
rigid cognitive style. Similar results in other studies were related to the dicator of psychopathy), and suspiciousness (which might be a good
need for competition and perfectionism of gifted individuals (Dijkstra, indicator of Machiavellianism) might lead to interpret the personality
Barelds, Ronner, & Nauta, 2012; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). characteristics of gifted adults in the light of the Dark Triad of per-
Others' support and openness can reduce feelings of unfamiliarity, and sonality (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). However, we suggest that these
“out-of-sync” of gifted people. Thus, this trait can be used productively traits, combined with the higher levels of introversion, could be better
whether interpersonal relationships and society provide an appropriate understood as a reaction of lack of security and trust in others rather
environment. However, our sample reported also higher levels of Cal- than an actual manipulative and exploitative attitude.
lousness and Suspiciousness, and those may be interpreted more ap- Moreover, intellectual giftedness should not be classified as a psy-
propriately as personality maladjustments (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). chopathological category. We do not agree with authors who have
Gifted individuals reported higher scores on Low Affiliation and suggested the concept of a “gifted personality” (Wellisch & Brown,
Restricted Expression traits. High levels of these traits are associated 2013). It seems unlikely that a rigid set of personality traits is associated
with difficulties in establishing affective relationships, emotional ex- with gifted individuals. In light of the developmental psychopathology
periences and expressions, and poor conversational and social skills. theory, individual personality results from a complex interaction of

4
M. Matta et al.
multiple processes (i.e., cognitive, biological, social and emotional)
over the lifespan. Personality outcomes reflect the level of adaptation to
the environment in order to face significant challenges at specific ages
(Cicchetti, 2016).
Additionally, high intellectual abilities may be related with risk
factors (such as minority distress, stereotypes, and sociocultural dis-
criminations) which maintain personality vulnerabilities. As a minority,
they can struggle to develop their own psychological identity which in
turn can increase perceived psychosocial distress (Baudson & Ziemes,
2016). People who are not aware of their group identity are more likely
to report psychosocial maladjustments than others. Indeed, “when
giftedness is denied or ignored, the gifted individual is unable to in-
tegrate it into his/her understanding of who he/she is” (Amend &
Beljan, 2009, p. 141). How giftedness is integrated with the overall
functioning depends on personality traits, home support, society, and
culture (Freeman, 2005).
Recent studies have examined stereotypes about gifted individuals.
On one side, they were described as more open-minded, intelligent, and
involved in scholastic activities; on the other side, the same informants
reported that they were more antagonistic, less emotionally competent,
socially withdrawn, and less motivated in prosocial behaviors (Baudson
& Ziemes, 2016). Group stereotypes can affect others' reactions and
expectations which in turn may influence negatively the quality of in-
terpersonal relationships.
Cognitive overqualification (i.e., “possession of a higher level of
cognitive ability than is required for a given job”; Fine & Nevo, 2008, p.
346) may have negative implications for job search, attitudes and
performances. For instance, in 1999 a man who obtained an IQ score of
125 was turned down for a job in the police forces. He sued the city
(Jordan v. City of New London and Harrigan, 1999) and he lost the case
because the judge stated that “a body of professional literature con-
cludes that hiring overqualified applicants leads to subsequent job
dissatisfaction and turnover”.
Gender differences on personality traits were found within the
gifted group, with women obtaining higher scores than men on most of
the scales of the questionnaire. Gifted women tended to report greater
vulnerabilities in emotion regulation and social isolation, and effect
sizes were mostly medium or large. Individuals who score higher on
these domains may feel poorer emotional stability, fragmented sense of
the Self, and struggle in expressing their emotions (Reis, 2004). Psy-
chological conflicts between strong needs of others' proximity and the
fear to be rejected and abandoned can increase the level of submis-
siveness or the tendency to be alone and have a withdrawn life-style. By
contrast, gifted men had higher levels of callousness and narcissism.
Men may be slightly more self-centered and have an egocentric per-
spective of the world, ignoring others' needs, interests, and worries. For
this reason, they may be perceived as adults with poor empathy and
little emotional sensitivity.
Moreover, cultural stereotypes and fixed gender roles may have lead
women not to be effectively supported during their educational and
professional development, decreasing the likelihood to fully express
their intellectual potential in adulthood (Lovecky, 1993). Gifted women
have often negative feelings about themselves, to the extent that they
may at times experience the “imposter syndrome”, which refers to the
tendency not to attribute personal attainments to one's abilities but to
external events, or by chance. For this reason, personal achievements
are often perceived as undeserved (Reis, 2004).
5. Limitations and strengths of the study
The findings of the study are preliminary and present some limita-
tions that warrant further examinations. Firstly, we could not use broad
domains of personality traits because four-factor structure of the DAPP-
BQ has not shown good measures of fit neither in the original manual
nor in our sample. This makes hard to compare our findings with those
obtained by administering different tests.
5
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Secondly, the gifted group was composed of Mensa members only.
Although they were selected on their WAIS-IV performances, they re-
present one specific type of giftedness. Yet, MENSA members might be
intellectually gifted individuals who need some external validation for
being gifted, who are willing to be tested and pay annual dues, and
their everyday social environment does not satisfy their intellectual
aspirations. Furthermore, MENSA members constitute only a small
percentage of the total 2% in the population. Future studies should
involve other groups, such as adults who received gifted education,
twice-exceptional (i.e., gifted individuals who suffer from psychological
disorders), etc. This would improve the generalizability of the findings
and would increase scientific knowledge about complex relationships
between intelligence and personality, and variables that influence these
psychological aspects across development.
Finally, the results on gender differences must be interpreted care-
fully because the group of gifted women was small. The uneven number
of women has been found in several gifted samples. Men are over-
represented both at the low and high extremes of cognitive abilities.
Multiple hypotheses have been suggested to explain this phenomenon
(e.g., biological, educational, and/or cultural) (Lang, Matta, Parolin,
Morrone, & Pezzuti, 2017).
Although the aforementioned limitations, the present study re-
presents the first attempt to describe personality traits of gifted adults
using a dimensional approach. Furthermore, the study included in-
dividuals from a population (i.e., gifted) that can be troublesome to
recruit for its minority status. The study also made use of assessment
methods different from self-reports, measuring intellectual functioning
through the WAIS-IV, implying a more elaborate data collection but
also a more accurate performance-based assessment.
6. Conclusion
The findings of this study have confirmed the clinical utility of
Livesley's dimensional model of personality traits. The assessment of
subclinical symptoms is important in clinical practice because it allows
to collect useful data on subtle but crucial psychological maladjust-
ments. While there are gifted individuals who fit appropriately with
their environment, others may be particularly vulnerable to develop
specific dysfunctional personality traits, such as social avoidance, nar-
cissism, perfectionism, and problems with authority. Some of them may
be “twice-exceptional”, others may mimic symptoms similar to other
disorders, such as relational difficulties, inappropriate behaviors in
social contexts, or unusual and monotonous hobbies. These features are
not always present in the same person − hence they would not be a
part of the giftedness per se – but they might be the result of poor
emotional attunement in childhood and inappropriate responses of
environment and society. Sociocultural issues, such as cognitive over-
qualification in workplace, minority stress, stereotypes, may maintain
these psychological vulnerabilities throughout adulthood.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Hogrefe which is the Italian editor of
the DAPP-BQ.
References
Amend, E. R., & Beljan, P. (2009). The antecedents of misdiagnosis: When normal be-
haviors of gifted children are misinterpreted as pathological. Gifted Education
International, 25, 131–143.
Baggette, W., & Tobacyk, J. (1988). Mensa membership and narcissism. Psychological
Reports, 62, 434. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.2.434.
Baudson, T. G., & Ziemes, J. F. (2016). The importance of being gifted: Stages of gifted
identity development, their correlates and predictors. Gifted and Talented
International, 31, 19–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1194675.
Cicchetti, D. (2016). Developmental psychopathology. Maladaptation and psychopathology.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Clarkin, J. F., & Livesley, W. J. (2016). Diagnosis and assessment. In W. J. Livesley, G.
M. Matta et al.
Dimaggio, & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.). Integrated treatment for personality disorder: A modular
approach. New York, NY: Guikford Press.
Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Adams, C. M. (2008). The psychology of gifted
adolescents as measured by the MMPI-A. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 326–339.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321810.
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., Ronner, S., & Nauta, A. P. (2012). Personality and well-
being: Do the intellectually gifted differ from the general population? Advanced
Development, 13, 103–118.
Fine, S., & Nevo, B. (2008). Too smart for their own good? A study of perceived cognitive
overqualification in the workforce. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19, 346–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190701799937.
Freeman, J. (2005). Permission to be gifted. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.).
Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 80–97). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Egloff, B., & Back, M. D.
(2017). Puffed-up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcis-
sists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 769–786. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/pspp0000093.
Gritti, E. S., Marino, D. P., Lang, M., & Meyer, G. J. (2017). Assessing narcissism using
Rorschach-based imagery and behavior validated by clinician-reports: Studies with
clinical and nonclinical adults. Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1073191117715728.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and development.
Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company.
Jacobsen, M.-E. (1999). The gifted adult: A revolutionary guide for liberating everyday genius.
New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Karpinski, R. I., Kinase Kolb, A. M., Tetreault, N. A., & Borowski, T. B. (2017). High
intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities.
Intelligence. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.INTELL.2017.09.001.
Lang, M., Matta, M., Parolin, L., Morrone, C., & Pezzuti, L. (2017). Cognitive profile of
intellectually gifted adults: Analyzing the Wechsler adult intelligence scale.
Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191117733547.
Livesley, W. J., & Jackson, D. (2009). Manual for the dimensional assessment of personality
pathology-basic questionnaire. Port Huron, MI: Sigma System Assessment.
Lovecky, D. V. (1993). The quest for meaning: Counseling issues with gifted children and
adolescents. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.). Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 29–47).
Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
Martin, L. T., Burns, R. M., & Schonlau, M. (2010). Mental disorders among gifted and
nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 54, 31–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986209352684.
Miller, A. (1981). Prisoners of childhood: The Drama of the gifted child and the search for the
true self. New York, NY: Basic Brooks.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Controversies in
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1207/s15327965pli1204_1.
Orsini, A., & Pezzuti, L. (2013). WAIS-IV contribution to the Italian standardization.
Florence, IT: Giunti O.S.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–568.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.
Preckel, F., Baudson, T. G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and mal-
adjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children.
American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1160–1184. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
0002831215596413.
Reis, S. M. (2004). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special
needs of gifted females. In S. Baum (Ed.). Twice-exceptional and special populations of
gifted students (pp. 67–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted adults. A systematic review and analysis of the
literature. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 213–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0016986215600795.
Schmidt, F. L. (2014). A general theoretical integrative model of individual differences in
interests, abilities, personality traits, and academic and occupational achievement.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 211–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1745691613518074.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius. Vol. V. The gifted group at
mid-life. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Thomas, M. S. C., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002). Modeling typical and atypical cognitive
development: Computational constraints on mechanisms of change. In U. Goswami
(Ed.). Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 575–599). Malden, MA, USA:
Blackwell Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470996652.ch26.
Warne, R. T. (2016). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 60, 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360.
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale - Fourth edition. San Antonio, TX:
Pearson.
Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2013). Many faces of a gifted personality many faces of a gifted
personality: Characteristics along a complex gifted spectrum. Talent Development &
Excellence, 5, 43–58.
Zeidner, M., & Shani-Zinovich, I. (2011). Do academically gifted and nongifted students
differ on the big-five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 566–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.
PAID.2011.05.007.