The Career Decisions of Gifted Students and Other High Ability Groups

THE CAREER DECISIONS OF GIFTED STUDENTS AND OTHER HIGH ABILITY GROUPS
‘This book makes an important contribution to the

international literature on giftedness and its relationship to
career decision-making. The author compares career decision
processes used by gifted students, prodigies and geniuses,
and twice exceptional students. The book is a ‘must read’
for educators concerned with gifted education programs
in schools, school counselors and psychologists, and
researchers in the field.’
Mantak Yuen, PhD, University of Hong Kong
High ability individuals – gifted students, prodigies, geniuses,

and twice exceptional students – are a group with enormous
potential to have an impact on the advancement of different
occupational fields, as well as the lives of others in society.
The Career Decisions of Gifted Students and Other High

Ability Groups is the first ever scholarly monograph devoted to
an examination of the career decisions of this group. Drawing
on extensive research, it provides fresh insights into the THE CAREER
DECISIONS
history, the influential factors, and the processes associated
with the career decisions of gifted students, prodigies,
geniuses, and twice exceptional students.
Of relevance to researchers, psychologists, counselors,

teachers, policymakers, and families, it also provides possible OF GIFTED
STUDENTS
directions for future practice, to allow for the optimal support
of the career decisions of these highly able individuals.
Jae Yup Jung, PhD, is a senior lecturer and a GERRIC senior

research fellow at the School of Education at The University of
New South Wales. AND OTHER
Jae Yup Jung
EDUCATION / GIFTED & TALENTED

HIGH ABILITY
GROUPS
Cover image: © Getty Images
Design: Lisa Dynan
www.routledge.com/education
Routledge titles are available as eBook editions in a range of digital formats Jae Yup Jung
THE CAREER DECISIONS
OF GIFTED STUDENTS AND
OTHER HIGH ABILITY GROUPS
High ability individuals – gifted students, prodigies, geniuses and twice exceptional
students – are a group with enormous potential to have an impact on the advance-
ment of different occupational fields, as well as the lives of others in society.
The Career Decisions of Gifted Students and Other High Ability Groups is the first ever
scholarly monograph devoted to an examination of the career decisions of this
group. Drawing on extensive research, it provides fresh insights into the history,
the influential factors, and the processes associated with the career decisions of gifted
students, prodigies, geniuses, and twice exceptional students.
Of relevance to researchers, psychologists, counselors, teachers, policymakers,
and families, it also provides possible directions for future practice, to allow for the
optimal support of the career decisions of these highly able individuals.
Jae Yup Jung, PhD, is a senior lecturer and a GERRIC senior research fellow
at the School of Education at The University of New South Wales.
OF GIFTED STUDENTS
AND OTHER HIGH
ABILITY GROUPS
Jae Yup Jung

First published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Jae Yup Jung
The right of Jae Yup Jung to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without
intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Jung, Jae Yup, author.
Title: The career decisions of gifted students and other high ability groups /
Jae Yup Jung.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2018. |
Includes bibliographical references.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018004590| ISBN 9781138596238 (hbk) |
ISBN 9781138596269 (pbk) | ISBN 9780429487712 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Gifted children—Education. | Vocational guidance.
Classification: LCC LC3993 .J77 2018 | DDC 371.95—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018004590
ISBN: 978-1-138-59623-8 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-59626-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-429-48771-2 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK
The completion of parts of this monograph was possible due to funding from the
Australian Research Council under the Discovery Early Career Researcher Award
(ARC DECRA) scheme (DE130100015).
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 1
2 History of the career decisions of gifted students 15
3 Factors influencing the career decisions of gifted students 27
4 The career decision-making processes of gifted students 47
5 The career decisions of prodigies 69
6 The career decisions of geniuses 85
7 The career decisions of twice exceptional students 97
8 Conclusion 109
Index 123
1
INTRODUCTION
Humans are faced with a multitude of decisions, of varying degrees of importance,

in their lifetime. A decision may be defined as a “commitment to a course of action
that is intended to produce a satisfying state of affairs” (Yates, Veinott, & Patalano,
2003, p. 15), or in more scientific terms,
a response to a situation that is composed of three parts: (a) there is more

than one possible course of action under consideration . . . (b) the decision
maker can form expectations concerning future events and outcomes
following from each course of action . . . and (c) consequences, associated
with the possible outcomes.
(Hastie & Dawes, 2001, pp. 25–26)
A “good” decision has been variously defined as one that yields “good” outcomes,
produces a positive effect, improves future options, enables self-approval, facilitates
several goals of the decision-maker, minimizes conflict among these goals, and/
or is arrived at using a “good” decision-making process (Janis & Mann, 1977;
Schneider & Barnes, 2003; Yates et al., 2003).
The career decision

Among the various decisions that humans make today, one very critical decision
that is usually made by early adulthood is the choice of one’s future career. A number
of different perspectives exist on what specifically constitutes a career. In its broadest
sense, a career may be seen as being synonymous with the work-life history of an
individual, regardless of the type of work that is performed, or the sequence of
training and work positions that are held (Brown, van Leeuwen, & Mitch, 2004).
Most people who participate in the workforce in any capacity may be considered
2 Introduction
to have a career under this perspective. In comparison, narrower conceptualiza-

tions restrict usage of the term to the working lives of individuals who engage in
professional-type activities with a certain underlying structure of occupational
progression (e.g., in fields such as academia, accountancy, engineering, medicine,
and law), or to individuals who demonstrate “distinguished” work-related accom-
plishments. Such conceptualizations are consistent with the view that careers are
a “patterned sequence of occupational roles through which individuals move over
the course of a working life . . . (with) . . . increased prestige” (Marshall,1998, p.55),
which suggests that careers may only be pursued by individuals in a certain select
group of reputable occupations (Brown, van Leeuwen, & Mitch, 2004). The first,
more inclusive and more contemporary, of these two conceptualizations has been
adopted in this monograph.
As an area of study, the career decisions of individuals have been investigated
by scholars in a diverse range of fields including psychology, sociology, economics,
and related disciplines (Baldock, 1971; Hesketh, 2001; Russell, 2001). Brown, van
Leeuwen, and Mitch (2004) have suggested that psychological perspectives
commonly seek to investigate the “distinctive traits of individuals” in relation to
their career-related cognitions and behaviors, while sociological perspectives focus
on “interrelations between people and the setting in which the career develops,”
and economic perspectives are typically directed toward the investigation of issues
such as “the development and rationale for internal labor markets, which include
a progression of positions (‘job ladders’) that can be attained by promotion within
the firm” (p. 6). With their roots in one or more of these perspectives, multiple
career decision theories have been developed, including the trait and factor theories
(Holland, 1997), the theory of career stages (Super, 1963), the theory of circum-
scription and compromise (Gottfredson, 1981, 2002, 2005), social cognitive career
theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994), career construction theory (Savickas, 2002),
and the multiple sociological theories (e.g., Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997). Duffy
and Sedlacek (2007) have noted that one unifying theme among the various theories
“is an emphasis on person-centered variables” (p. 591).
The career decision is an important decision for a number of reasons. First of
all, it may have long-term consequences with respect to one’s education and/or
training that will be required prior to entry into the career (Creed, Patton, &
Prideaux, 2006; Jung, 2012). Furthermore, it may influence meaning in the career
decision-maker’s life, along with his/her financial situation, social status, and day-
to-day lifestyle (Johnson & Mortimer, 2002; Jung, 2012; Young & Collin, 2000).
Moreover, substantial costs appear to be associated with making an “incorrect”
career decision, “changing” the career decision at some point in time after the
initial decision has been made, or being unable to make the career decision prior
to the completion of one’s education (Jung, 2012).
The decision about one’s future career appears to be more complex now than
ever before. Serious attention to the study of career decisions only commenced at
around the time of the Industrial Revolution, when industrialization, urbanization,
and immigration in North America and Western Europe resulted, for the first time,
Introduction 3
in the creation of a range of new occupations requiring specialized skills (Savickas

& Baker, 2005). The situation today has evolved further, due to influences includ-
ing globalization, advances in technology, changes to labor markets, changes to
organizational structures, changes to employment patterns, increased job in-
security, and changes to societal values (Russell, 2001; Storey, 2000; Störmer et al.,
2014). A career decision-maker today is faced with a wide, internationalized labor
market that is filled with organizations with lean structures that are making use of
advanced technologies, employing a diverse work force, and using flexible
employment arrangements (Storey, 2000; Störmer et al., 2014). Furthermore, unlike
in the past, modern career decision-makers are unlikely to expect to spend (or be
guaranteed) their entire working lives with only one employer (Reitzle, Körner,
& Vondracek, 2009; Watt & Richardson, 2008). Indeed, reflecting the changing
conceptions of career, recent literature has introduced new notions such as the
boundaryless career (i.e., careers that involve physical and psychological mobility
across jobs, organizations, occupations, and countries) and the protean career (i.e.,
careers that are self-directed by the individual; Segers, Inceoglu, Vloeberghs,
Bartram, & Hendrickx, 2008).
The career decision today has also been affected by the changes to the general
level of educational attainment, and the expansion of higher education. Many
scholars have noted that there has been a strong increase in the general level of
educational attainment in all countries around the world over the past hundred
years (Kelley & Evans, 1996; Tunny, 2006). Some contributing factors to this pattern
may include economic growth, declining fertility levels (i.e., a greater ability to
devote educational resources to children), increasing urbanization (i.e., better access
to educational resources), and increasing levels of parental education. It is likely
that a generally well-educated population may be able to better fill the complex
and highly skilled jobs that are being newly created in modern societies.
The focus of this monograph is on the career decisions of gifted students, and
other related high ability groups (i.e., prodigies, geniuses, and twice exceptional
students), who due to their exceptional and often outstanding capabilities, may be
considered to have “the greatest potential to contribute to, and advance, the different
career fields, and have the greatest impact on the work and nonwork lives of others
in society” (Jung, 2017b, p. 51).
Giftedness
Gifted individuals differ from the rest of the population in significant ways with
respect to their abilities, traits, characteristics, behaviors, and accomplishments. At
the present time, multiple different beliefs and philosophies, that have been “charac-
terized as broad or narrow; from restrictive and exclusive to open and inclusive,
conservative or liberal, and theoretical or atheoretical” (Callahan & Hertberg-Davis,
2013, p. 14), have been proposed on what constitutes giftedness. Unfortunately,
no single definition is yet to achieve consensus as the optimal definition among
international scholars in the fields of giftedness and gifted education.
4 Introduction
IQ-based definitions
One of the first widely accepted definitions considered giftedness to be a high level
of IQ. As an example, in his pioneering work, Genetic Studies of Genius, Terman
(1925) considered gifted individuals to be those who scored in the top 1% on the
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, which is an IQ test that was translated and refined
from prototype French-language instruments. Terman and his colleagues (Terman,
1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959), who followed a cohort of such students over
more than three decades, are credited for undertaking the first large-scale
longitudinal study of the educational and career outcomes of gifted students. Two
other scholars who adopted IQ-based definitions, and hence the view that giftedness
may be a narrow, unitary, hereditary, and fixed trait, were Cox, who conducted
retrospective studies of high IQ individuals at around the time of Terman (Cox,
1926), and Hollingworth (1942), who conducted an in-depth longitudinal study
of 12 profoundly gifted children with IQ scores in excess of 180 (Olszewski-Kubilius,
Subotnik, & Worrell, 2015). While other definitions of giftedness that not only
recognized intellectual abilities, but also abilities in other domains, were also
proposed at this time, it was only when the limitations of the IQ-based definitions
of giftedness were recognized that they started to gain a wide level of acceptance
(McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012).
Marland definition
One such alternative, multifaceted definition of giftedness was developed by the U.S.
Federal Commissioner of Education, Sidney Marland, in the Marland Report
(1972). In what became known as the U.S. “federal” definition of giftedness, Marland
gave acknowledgement to six different domains of ability, including: (a) general intel-
lectual ability, (b) specific academic aptitude, (c) creative or productive thinking,
(d) leadership ability, (e) visual and performing arts, and (f) psychomotor ability. Under
this definition, giftedness was deemed when ability or achievement in any one of the
six domains is at a level (i.e., representing a minimum of 3% to 5% of the school
population) such that differentiated educational interventions, that go substantially
beyond educational interventions provided under the regular school curriculum, were
necessary. The definition appears to have incorporated the views of multiple gifted
education scholars at the time, including those of Terman (i.e., general intellectual
ability), Thorndike and Spearman (i.e., specific academic aptitude), Guilford (i.e.,
creative or productive thinking), and DeHaan and Havighurst (i.e., creative or
productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor
ability; Callahan & Hertberg-Davis, 2013; Gross, 2000).
Three ring definition of giftedness (Renzulli, 1978, 1988)

Due to his dissatisfaction with the existing definitions, Renzulli (1978, 1988) pro-
posed an alternative definition that drew upon research on eminent individuals.
Introduction 5
In his “three ring definition” or “three ring model” of giftedness, Renzulli pro-
posed that giftedness constitutes the possession, or the capability to possess, a cluster
of three different traits – above average ability (i.e., defined as general or specific
ability at the top 15% to 20% level in any given area of human endeavor), cre-
ativity (e.g., originality of thought, flexibility, and openness to experience), and
task commitment (e.g., perseverance, endurance, hard work, dedicated practice,
self-confidence, and self-belief). An interaction is considered to be necessary
among these three traits to allow the production of a creative output before gifted-
ness may be deemed (Renzulli, 1978, 2005). The novel, flexible, and ground-
breaking perspective on giftedness appears to have achieved a high level of
acceptance among scholars and practitioners in the United States and other parts
of the world (Miller, 2012). Nevertheless, one criticism is that it was developed
based on data collected from accomplished adults, and as such may not necessarily
be reflective or appropriate for gifted children and adolescents (Delisle, 2003;
Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008).
Tannenbaum’s star model (Tannenbaum, 1986, 2003)

In contrast to Renzulli, Tannenbaum drew on the psychological and educational
literature on the distinguishing characteristics of gifted children and adolescents,
in proposing an alternative definition of giftedness:
Keeping in mind that developed talent exists only in adults, a proposed

definition of giftedness in children is that it denotes their potential for
becoming critically acclaimed performers or exemplary producers of ideas
in spheres of activity that enhance the moral, physical, emotional, social,
intellectual, or aesthetic life of humanity.
(Tannenbaum, 1986, p. 33)
For someone to be considered gifted under this definition, an interaction is

necessary among five psychological and social factors: (a) superior general intelligence
(g), (b) exceptional special abilities (i.e., capacities for particular types of work), (c)
non-intellective traits (e.g., interpersonal skills, motivation, a secure self-concept,
capacity to stay on task, short-term sacrifice, mental health, and a desire to show
and share talent), (d) environmental supports (e.g., family, peers, school, community,
economic/legal/social/political institutions) and (c) chance (e.g., unpredictable
events that may allow for the realization of potential; Davidson, 2009; Tannenbaum,
1986, 2003). Nevertheless, different combinations of these factors are considered
necessary for achievement in different fields of activity (Davidson, 2009;
Tannenbaum, 1986, 2003).
As the five factors are often represented as “arms” of a sea star, Tannenbaum’s
conceptualization of giftedness is commonly referred to as the “sea star” or “star”
model. Two of the unique and distinguishing features of the model are its recog-
nition of the importance of environmental and chance factors, and its reservation
of the term “talent” for adults.
6 Introduction
Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent

(Gagné, 2003, 2009)
As with Tannenbaum, Gagné made a distinction between giftedness and talent
in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), which was first
developed in 1985, but refined on a number of subsequent occasions (2003, 2009).
Under this model, giftedness is considered to be “the possession and use of out-
standing natural abilities, called aptitudes, in at least one ability domain to a degree
that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers,” while talent is
considered to be
the outstanding mastery of systematically developed abilities, called com-

petencies (knowledge and skills), in at least one field of human activity to a
degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers who
are or have been active in that field.
(Gagné, 2009, p. 63)
In the DMGT, Gagné (2003, 2009) proposed that giftedness, existing in one of
six domains (i.e., intellectual, creative, social, perceptual, muscular, and motor
control), may be transformed into talent, which is classifiable using a taxonomy of
occupations, through a “developmental process.” Both intrapersonal (e.g., physical
health, temperament, personality, motivation) and environmental (e.g., physical
milieu, socio-cultural milieu, family, teachers, mentors) factors or “catalysts” are
seen to influence this process. A construct that was borrowed from Tannenbaum
(1983, 2003), chance, is considered to influence multiple components of the DMGT,
including giftedness, the developmental process, the intrapersonal catalysts, and
the environmental catalysts. Gagné’s model appears to be distinct from other
models and definitions of giftedness, due to its directional assertions (i.e., giftedness
to talent, and intrapersonal/environmental influences to the developmental process),
and its explicit elaborations on how giftedness may be expressed and developed
(Miller, 2012).
Mega-model of talent development (Subotnik, Olszewski-

Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011)
Most recently, Subotnik et al. (2011, 2012) proposed a mega-model of talent
development that considered giftedness to be a developmental construct. Under
this model, giftedness is conceptualized differently according to the stage of one’s
engagement and development in a particular domain of interest – in the initial
stages, giftedness is primarily defined as potential, while in the later stages it is defined
as achievement, and in the final stages, as eminence. Acknowledgement is made
that the trajectory of development (i.e., the points of commencement, peak, and
end) is likely to be specific to the particular domain in which an individual is
engaged. Indeed, Subotnik et al. (2011, p. 32) noted that
Introduction 7
(w)hether a trajectory begins in early childhood or in adolescence, for

example, depends on when the skills and abilities in the talent area emerge
and coalesce . . . (which may be) . . . affected by physical maturation in fields
such as music and sports . . . (and) . . . when talent can be recognized by
systematic identification procedures (e.g., school programs) by knowledgeable
adults (e.g., parents).
While the mega-model was informed by the work of a number of existing scholars
in diverse areas, it incorporated novel contributions such as psychosocial skills and
psychological strength training, and, perhaps most controversially, the view that
eminence should be an important goal for gifted students (Worrell, Olszewski-
Kubilius, & Subotnik, 2012). The model has been widely recognized as being an
innovative approach to understand the phenomenon of giftedness that unifies
elements of many existing models. Nevertheless, Worrell et al. (2012) have
recognized that some scholars have called for a further refinement to, and empirical
verification of, the model.
The career decisions of gifted students

Unfortunately, the literature on the career decisions of gifted students and their
related high ability groups is not very extensive. The emerging literature in the
area does, nevertheless, suggest that irrespective of the particular definition or
conceptualization of giftedness that is adopted, the career decisions of these
individuals may be substantially different to the rest of the population with respect
to the range of careers that are considered, the careers that are pursued, the decision-
making processes that are followed, and the support, counseling, and guidance that
may be necessary (Chen & Wong, 2013; Feldman, 1993; Greene, 2006; Jung, 2017a,
2017b; Kenneson, 1998; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Maxwell, 2007; Miller &
Cummings, 2009; Simonton, 1987, 2014; Tallent-Runnels, & Layton, 2004). In
each chapter of this monograph, an attempt has been made to outline what precisely
these differences may be.
Organization of the monograph

This monograph is organized into eight chapters. After this introductory chapter
is a chapter that focuses on the history of the career decisions of gifted students
(Chapter 2). In this chapter, coverage is given to the career decisions of gifted
students in societies throughout the course of history including Ancient Greece
(where individual career-related views were valued, and education/training was
emphasized), traditional Islamic society (which did not appear to specify a career
preference for gifted students), traditional Jewish society (which promoted a general
intellectual elitism), and medieval/early modern Europe (which promoted Christian
ideals in its various forms). Thereafter, there is discussion of the Industrial
Revolution, during which time multiple careers became available for the first time
8 Introduction
to large numbers of people in urban centers in North America and Europe. This
is followed by a presentation of the findings of Terman’s historical study of the
long-term educational and career outcomes of gifted children in the United States
(Terman, 1925, Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959), along with a discussion of the career
decisions and outcomes of gifted female students during the early twentieth
century.
In Chapters 3 and 4, the factors influencing the career decisions and the career
decision-making processes of gifted students are discussed. Specifically, Chapter 3
classifies the multiple factors that have been identified to date as influencing the
career decisions of gifted students into five groups: (a) personal characteristics (i.e.,
areas of interest and ability, multipotentiality, perfectionistic tendencies, and a
need for intellectual challenge and stimulation), (b) the expectations of others (i.e.,
expectations to live up to one’s potential, make a contribution to society, become
successful, and choose gender-appropriate careers), (c) types of aspired careers
(i.e., prestigious and high income careers within a narrow range of traditional fields),
(d) the early emergence of career interests, which may be related to a superior
level of access to career information, (e) difficulties with the career decision, which
may be manifested in the experience of career amotivation and/or career indecision,
and (f) culture.
Chapter 4 commences with an introduction to the current theories of decision-
making, most of which outline decision-making processes, before proceeding to
a discussion of the major career decision-making theories. Reference is made in this
chapter to Parson’s theory, which scholars generally consider to be the cornerstone
of many modern career decision-making theories, along with the various trait and
factor theories, the career development theories, the social learning theories, and
the postmodern theories. Among these theories, Gottfredson’s (1981, 2002, 2005)
theory of circumscription and compromise, and the theory of work adjustment
(Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991), are identified as career decision-
making theories that may be most applicable to gifted students. Finally, a number
of recent, empirically verified career decision-making process models of gifted
students (Jung, 2013, 2014, 2017a, 2017b) are presented.
In Chapter 5, which is slightly adapted from Jung and Evans (2016), a discussion
is presented of the unique “stages” in the career development of prodigies. Initially,
the notion that the early career-related decisions of prodigies appear to be made
for them by their families, typically involving substantial investments of time and
resources to develop the area of early mastery, is presented. Thereafter, the “mid-
life” crisis that many prodigies appear to experience as teenagers, as they face
numerous challenges in their transition to mature achievement, is discussed.
Following this, the multiple reasons that may direct prodigies away from pursuing
adult careers in their areas of early mastery are presented, including an increasing
access to a wide range of careers that may represent a better fit to the prodigy’s
abilities, non-ability factors in the career decision such as interests and values, a
possible resentment of the expectations of prodigies to fulfill their early potential,
the practicalities of an adult career in the field of early mastery (e.g., financial reward,
Introduction 9
job security, vocational value), the increasing and ongoing nature of the necessary
commitments to education/training, and a possible lack of consistent and continued
success in the field.
The career decisions of geniuses, which appear to be substantially different to
the career decisions of the other high ability groups, are discussed in the follow-
ing chapter. Chapter 6 commences with a discussion of the three elements –
intelligence, interest/passion, and commitment/motivation – that may to be simul-
taneously necessary at exceptionally high levels in the one field, for the possibility
of emergence of genius. Thereafter, the other important factors/antecedents of
genius noted in the literature are outlined, including: (a) access to appropriate
opportunities for learning, work, and personal growth, (b) birth order, (c) the
experience of traumatic events such as parental loss, (d) the availability of numerous
and appropriate role models and/or mentors, (e) the completion of formal schooling
up to a certain level, (f) the prevailing socio-cultural milieu of the society one lives
in, and (g) personal qualities including curiosity, intellectual independence, an
openness to new ideas, and a confidence in oneself. The chapter ends by noting
that, contrary to popular belief, psychopathology may not be a significant factor
in the emergence of genius.
In Chapter 7, the focus is on the career decisions of twice exceptional students.
Initially, it is explained that due to the multiple domains of giftedness and the large
numbers of disabling conditions that exist, along with the differences in the
level/severity of the two exceptionalities, twice exceptional students may be a very
broad and heterogeneous group. Thereafter, the wide range of possible career
outcomes for these students are outlined, from those that resemble the career
outcomes of students with disabling conditions only (e.g., unemployment,
underemployment, and employment in basic, entry level non-skilled roles) to those
that resemble the career outcomes of gifted students (e.g., professional careers that
require a tertiary education). Finally, the multiple factors that may predict where
precisely within this range of careers twice exceptional students may find themselves
are discussed, including: (a) the availability of careers that make use of the areas of
giftedness while limiting the challenges associated with the disabling conditions,
(b) self-expectations, (c) the expectations of others including teachers, counselors,
and parents, (d) the ability to use compensatory strategies to circumvent the
disabling conditions, (e) the personal qualities of twice exceptional students (e.g.,
motivation for success, a willingness to adapt one’s life, and positive or negative
attitudes toward the disabling conditions), (f) accommodations in the job, including
supported employment arrangements, and (g) the vocational experiences, training,
and related services received prior to the commencement of work.
The final, conclusion, chapter (Chapter 8) brings the entire monograph on the
career decisions of gifted students and related high ability groups together by making
a comparison of the similarities and differences in the career decisions of the four
groups, outlining the multiple possible implications of the current knowledge on
the career decisions of these groups for research and practice, and providing
reflections on the possible future of the career decisions of these groups.
10 Introduction
References
Baldock, C. V. (1971). Vocational choice and opportunity. Christchurch, New Zealand:
University of Canterbury.
Brown, J., van Leeuwen, M., & Mitch, D. (2004). The history of the modern career: an
introduction. In D. Mitch, J. Brown & M. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Origins of the modern career
(pp. 3–41). Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate.
Callahan, C. M., & Hertberg-Davis, H. L. (2013). Beliefs, philosophies, and definitions. In
C. M. Callahan & H. L. Hertberg-Davis (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 13–20).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Chen, C. P., & Wong, J. (2013). Career counseling for gifted students. Australian Journal of
Career Development, 22, 121–129.
Cox, C. M. (1926). Early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Creed, P. A., Patton, W., & Prideaux, L. A. (2006). Causal relationship between career
indecision and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Development, 33,
47–65.
Davidson, J. E. (2009). Contemporary models of giftedness. In L. Shavinina (Ed.), International
handbook of giftedness (pp. 81–97). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Delisle, J. R. (2003). To be or to do: Is a gifted child born or developed? Roeper Review, 26,
12–13.
Duffy, R. D., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2007). The presence of and search for a calling: Connec-
tions to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 590–601.
Feldman, D. H. (1993). Child prodigies: A distinctive form of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly,
37, 188–193.
Greene, M. J. (2006). Helping build lives: Career and life development of gifted and talented
students. Professional School Counseling, 10, 34–42.
Gagné, F. (2003). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In
R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–119).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In
B. MacFarlane, & T. Stambaugh, (Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift
of Dr Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61–80). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of
occupational aspirations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription, compromise, and
self-creation. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 85–148). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Gottfredson, L. S. (2005). Applying Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise
in career guidance and counseling. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development
and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71–100). New York: Wiley.
Gross, M. U. M. (2000). Short on memory: Long on myth. Understanding Our Gifted, Fall,
20–22.
Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2001). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of
judgment and decision-making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hesketh, B. (2001). Adapting vocational psychology to cope with change. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 59, 203–212.
Introduction 11
Hodkinson, P., & Sparkes, A. C. (1997). Careership: A sociological theory of career

decision-making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18, 29–44.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origins and development.
Yonkers, NY: World Book.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and
commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.
Johnson, M. K., & Mortimer, J. T. (2002). Career choice and development from a
sociological perspective. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 37–84). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jung, J. Y. (2012). Giftedness as a developmental construct that leads to eminence as adults:
Ideas and implications from an occupational/career decision-making perspective. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 56, 189–193. doi:10.1177/0016986212456072
Jung, J. Y. (2013). The cognitive processes associated with occupational/career indeci-
sion: A model for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 433–460.
doi:10.1177/0162353213506067
Jung, J. Y. (2014). Modeling the occupational/career decision-making processes of intellec-
tually gifted adolescents: A competing models strategy. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 37, 128–152.
Jung, J. Y. (2017a). Occupational/career amotivation and indecision for gifted and talented
adolescents: A cognitive decision-making process perspective. Journal of Psychologists and
Counsellors in Schools. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.
1017/jgc.2016.33.
Jung, J. Y. (2017b). Occupational/career decision-making thought processes of adolescents
of high intellectual ability. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40, 50–78.
Jung, J. Y., & Evans, P. A. (2016). The career decisions of child musical prodigies. In
G. E. McPherson (Ed.), Musical Prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, music education,
musicology and ethnomusicology (pp. 409–423). Oxford, U. K.: Oxford University Press.
Kaufman, S. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Conceptions of giftedness. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.),
Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 71–92).
New York, NY: Springer Press.
Kelley, J., & Evans, M. D. R. (1996). Trends in educational attainment in Australia. WwA:
Worldwide Attitudes 1996-08-26, 1–8.
Kenneson, C. (1998). Musical prodigies: Perilous journeys, remarkable lives. Portland, OR:
Amadeus Press.
Kerr, B., & Sodano, S. (2003). Career assessment with intellectually gifted students. Journal
of Career Assessment, 11, 168–186.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory
of career, academic interest, choice and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45,
79–122.
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Essentials of person-environment-correspondence counseling.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United
States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing
Office.
Marshall, G. (1998). The dictionary of sociology. Oxford, U.K.; Oxford University Press.
Maxwell, M. (2007). Career counseling is personal counseling: A constructivist approach to
nurturing the development of gifted female adolescents. The Career Development Quarterly,
55, 206–224.
12 Introduction
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, 59–88.
Miller, A. L. (2012). Conceptualizations of creativity: Comparing theories and models of
giftedness. Roeper Review, 34, 94–103.
Miller, K., & Cummings, G. (2009). Gifted and talented students’ career aspirations and
influences: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing Education
Scholarship, 6, 1–26.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Conceptualizations of
giftedness and the development of talent: Implications for counselors. Journal of Counseling
and Development, 93, 143–152.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan,
60, 180–184.
Renzulli, J. S. (1988). A decade of dialogue on the three-ring conception of giftedness. Roeper
Review, 11, 18–25.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness. A developmental model for
promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions
of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Reitzle, M., Körner, A., & Vondracek, F. W. (2009). Psychological and demographic
correlates of career patterns. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 308–320.
Russell, J. E. A. (2001). Vocational psychology: An analysis and directions for the future.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 226–234.
Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior.
In D. Brown & associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Savickas, M. L., & Baker, D. B. (2005). The history of vocational psychology: Antecedents,
origin, and early development. In W. B. Walsh & M. L. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of
vocational psychology: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed., pp. 15–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schneider, S. L., & Barnes, M. D. (2003). What do people really want? Goals and context
in decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment
and decision research (pp. 394–428). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Segers, J., Inceoglu, I., Vloeberghs, D., Bartram, D., & Henderickx, E. (2008). Protean and
boundaryless careers: A study on potential motivators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73,
212–230.
Simonton, D. K. (1987). Developmental antecedents of achieved eminence. Annals of Child
Development, 5, 131–169.
Simonton, D. K. (2014). Historiometric studies of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The
Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 87–106). Oxford, U. K.: Wiley.
Storey, J. A. (2000). ‘Fracture lines’ in the career environment. In A. Collin & R. A. Young
(Eds.), The future of career (pp. 21–36). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Störmer, E., Patscha, C., Prendergast, J., Daheim, C., Rhisiart, M., Glover, P., & Beck, H.
(2014). The future of work: Jobs and skills in 2030. London, U. K.: U. K. Commission for
Employment and Skills.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness
and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2012). A proposed direction
forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56,
176–188.
Introduction 13
Super, D. E. (1963). The definition and measurement of early career behaviour: A first
formulation. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 41, 775–779.
Tallent-Runnels, M. K., & Layton, C. A. (2004). Gifted adults with learning disabilities in
postsecondary settings, In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both
gifts and learning disabilities: Identification, assessment, and outcomes (pp. 131–154). New York,
NY: Springer.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21–52). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). New York, NY: Pearson.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius, Volume I: Mental and physical traits of a thousand
gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius, Volume IV: The gifted child
grows up. Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius, Volume V: The gifted group
at mid-life. Thirty-five years’ follow-up of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Tunny, G. (2006). Educational attainment in Australia. Economic Roundup, Autumn 2006
(pp. 1–9). Canberra, Australia: Australian Treasury. Retrieved March 4, 2009, from
www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1107/PDF/01Educational.pdf.
Worrell, F. C., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2012). Important issues, some
rhetoric, and a few straw men: A response to comments on “Rethinking giftedness and
gifted education.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 224–231.
Watt, H. M. G., & Richardson, P. W. (2008). Motivations, perceptions, and aspirations
concerning teaching as a career for different types of beginning teachers. Learning and
Instruction, 18, 408–428.
Yates, J. F., Veinott, E. S., & Patalano, A. L. (2003). Hard decisions, bad decisions: On decision
quality and decision aiding. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives
on judgment and decision research (pp. 13–63). Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2000). Introduction: framing the future of career. In A. Collin
& R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 1–17). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
2
HISTORY OF THE CAREER
DECISIONS OF GIFTED
STUDENTS
Throughout the course of history, some variation appears to have existed in the
manner in which gifted students may have gone about entering the careers in which
they eventually spent a major portion of their lives. For many gifted students in
the earlier historical periods, the literature suggests that no real “decision” or
“choice” was ever made on entry into their careers, as environmental, cultural,
and/or institutional factors may have meant that they were often not wholly
responsible for the major events in their lives. Indeed, a career decision in the
modern sense of the term only appears to have been made by large numbers of
people from about the time of the Industrial Revolution, when societies transitioned
from being dominated by agriculture to one characterized by the use of machines,
innovations in production processes, manufacturing production, and the rise of
businesses. Consequently, the Industrial Revolution appears to represent a pivotal
point of time in history whereby substantial changes were seen in the career decisions
of people, including those who were gifted.
It is noted that, as with the literature on the career decisions of gifted students
and related high ability groups, the general lack of research into the history of the
career decisions of gifted students has meant that this chapter was informed by the
literature in a number of related areas: (a) the history of giftedness, (b) the history
of gifted education, (b) the history of vocational psychology and career develop-
ment, (c) historical studies of cohorts of gifted students, and (d) historical studies
of high ability individuals, such as graduates of universities. Except for the most
recent periods in history, the literature in these areas appears to have a focus on
the career decisions of gifted males rather than gifted females, perhaps reflecting
the fact that many gifted females across different societies over the course of history
may have had very few, if any, career options, or that they may have been expected
to lead purely domestic family lives.
16 History of career decisions
Career decisions prior to the Industrial Revolution

Multiple scholars have noted that large numbers of people in predominantly
agricultural societies simply followed the careers of their parents. For example, van
Leeuwen and Maas (2010) noted generally high levels of hereditary transmission of
occupations between parents and children in antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Similarly, Dries (2011) noted that in agricultural societies “young people simply
inherited their careers from their parents” (p. 365). Only occasionally would
there be an exception to this rule, for example when “(in the United States) a
family member heard a calling from the church, the court, or the village, and left
the family to become a minister, lawyer, or merchant” (Savickas, 2000, p. 54).
Outside of the Western world, the Rasa’il Ikhwan al-Safa wa-Khulln al-Wafa
(Ikhwan al-Safa, 955/1928; the Treatises of the Brothers of Purity or “TBP”), a
tenth-century Iraqi text that may have been illustrative of historical views in parts
of the Islamic world, noted that “it is better for the sons to select an occupation
consistent with those held by the fathers and grandfathers, than for sons to choose
another job held by others” (Ikhwan al-Safa, 955/1928, Volume 1, p. 223).
Generally, the centrality of the family unit in the lives of people suggests that, prior
to the Industrial Revolution, the career decisions for many people, including
those who were gifted, may have been “ascribed” to them, and were dependent
on their family’s background and socio-economic status (Brown, van Leeuwen,
& Mitch, 2004).
Simultaneously, the prevailing socio-cultural milieu may have determined the
types of careers that were valued in different societies during different times in
history (Dumont & Carson, 1995; Tannenbaum, 2000). Indeed, it appears that the
socio-cultural milieu may have directed some gifted individuals with an appropriate
set of abilities to explore societally valued careers, or swayed gifted individuals with
capabilities in multiple areas toward careers that were most valued by the society
in which they lived. Each of the four societies noted below, which appeared to
favor gifted individuals but are unlikely to be representative of all societies
throughout history, were characterized by a distinctive socio-cultural milieu.
Ancient Greece
In Ancient Greek society, particularly the city state of Athens, people appear to
have been given substantial personal freedom to make a career choice that reflected
their individual capabilities and interests. Indeed, Dumont and Carson (1995) noted
that the “Athenian approach to vocation emphasized the individual” and that “there
(was) respect for the individual’s right to progress in his or her occupation(s) as he
or she best (saw) fit” (p. 373). Consistent with modern perspectives, people were
generally encouraged to specialize in one career field to allow for the develop-
ment of expertise. Relatedly, education, training, and practice in the one chosen
field, from a young age, was seen as imperative. Specifically, Plato (c. 350 BC/1991,
p. 649) noted that:
History of career decisions 17
According to my view, anyone who would be good at anything must practice

that thing from his youth upwards, both in sport and earnest, in its several
branches: for example, he who is to be a good builder should play at building
children’s houses; he who is to be a good husbandman, at tilling the ground;
and those who have the care of their education should provide them when
young with mimic tools. They should learn beforehand the knowledge that
they will afterwards require for their art. For example, the future carpenter
should learn to measure or apply the line in play; and the future warrior
should learn riding or some other exercise for amusement, and the teacher
should endeavor to direct the children’s inclinations and pleasures by the help
of amusements to their final aim in life. The most important part of education
is right training in the nursery. The soul of the child in his play should be
guided to the love of that sort of excellence in which when he grows up to
manhood he will have to be perfected.
For intellectually gifted students, who were considered to be those who possess
expertise in philosophic speculation, moral excellence, political insight, and literary/
musical/oratory/artistic abilities, Plato proposed that a separate and specialized
educational program (that incorporated content in science, philosophy, and meta-
physics) be made available at one of the numerous centers for advanced study
(Tannenbaum, 2000). These students would then form the pool from which the
future leaders of Athens would be selected, so that Athens would remain as a “great”
city state (Tannenbaum, 2000). Unsurprisingly, intellectual ability appears to have
been considered amongst the most “superior” of the various domains of ability in
Ancient Greek society, and those careers requiring the highest levels of intellectual
ability appear to have had the highest status in Ancient Greece (Dumont &
Carson, 1995).
Traditional Islamic societies

With some parallels to Ancient Greece, the TBP indicated that the career decisions
of individuals, including gifted individuals, in traditional Islamic societies should
reflect the best possible match between the characteristics (and particularly, the
abilities) of the individuals and the characteristics of the careers. Specifically, the
document noted that “the characters are stocked inside a person, but the choices
(of particular careers) are identified according to an individual’s capabilities
[aptitudes] and facilities [physical abilities]” (Ikhwan al-Safa, 955/1928, Volume 1,
p. 243). Nevertheless, the career decision may not have been a wholly individual
decision, as Islamic leaders appear to have been given the responsibility of assigning
careers to their subjects. For example, the TBP noted that
the public policy [involved with being a wise leader] is to recognise the
subordinate classes, status, relatives, jobs, religious sects, characters [i.e.,
personality traits], ranks [i.e., where they rank in terms of success], to better
look after them, and to put them in suitable occupations so that they might
have a chance to solve the sorts of problems for which they are best fitted.
(Ikhwan al-Safa, 955/1928, Volume 1, p. 208)
While the TBP made no mention of the particular career fields that gifted
individuals should, or may be most likely to, enter, it did suggest that gifted indi-
viduals may be more likely to be successful in the career fields that they did
eventually enter than those who are not gifted. For example, it noted the greater
importance of intellective factors over non-intellective factors such as chance,
astrological influences, and motivation, as determinants of eventual success in careers
(Carson & Altai, 1994). Moreover, it described wide variations in ability among
workers in each of the seven categories of occupations (i.e., artisans and craftsmen,
businessmen and traders, construction engineers and workers, rulers/sultans/
politicians/soldiers, servants and daily workers, disabled/unemployed/idle, and men
of religion/scholars) outlined in the document – for painters, the TBP noted that
“this job depends on imitation (copying) [of] what is in nature (things, persons,
animals etc.). Some workers in this job reach a very high level of skill, but in general,
members of the occupation exhibit wide differences in skills” (Ikhwan al-Safa,
955/1928, Volume 1, p. 220).
Traditional Jewish societies

In comparison, traditional Jewish societies appear to have been characterized by
a strong focus on study, creation, interpretation, teaching, dissemination, and
advancement of knowledge. Such a tradition may have been reflected in a life-
time of intensive learning, for many, that commenced from a very young age at
the Cheder (i.e., a Jewish school where literacy in Hebrew is developed and
Judaic scriptures are mastered), followed by more advanced work at the Yeshiva
(i.e., a Torah school where small groups of adolescents and adults study together
with student-scholars [Talmid Chacum]), and, thereafter, additional work that
may continue until one’s death (Tannenbaum, 2000). Historically, the highest
honor that may be bestowed in Jewish society has been that of the Talmid Chacum,
which is reserved for exceptionally gifted and talented individuals who are able to
demonstrate an intimate familiarity with, and an ability to create original inter-
pretations of, Judaic scriptures, jurisprudence, codes of behavior, and related
literature. Over the course of history, the devotion to the Judaic literature in
traditional Jewish societies appears to have shifted to secular learning, resulting in
outstanding contributions in every possible domain of activity and career field, as
evidenced by the achievements of luminaries including Freud, Einstein, Kafka, and
von Neumann (Tannenbaum, 2000). The general intellectual elitism propagated
in traditional Jewish societies, may have encouraged scholarly and academic-type
careers, or careers in religious settings (including rabbis for service to Judaism,
Jewish education, or the wider community) among those who were the most gifted
(Tannenbaum, 2000).
Medieval and early modern Europe

The socio-cultural milieu in medieval Europe was dominated by a devotion to
the “preservation, understanding, and enhancement of Christian ideals” (Tannen-
baum, 2000, p. 31). This was manifested in the prominence given to the Church
and its institutions by gifted artists of the time including Titan, Tintoretto,
Michelangelo, and El Greco (Tannenbaum, 2000). Similarly, the majority of
the gifted students who graduated from the two elite medieval British universities
(i.e., the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge) pursued careers
in the Church. For example, Cobban (1988) noted that between 1219 and 1499,
the two universities collectively educated 67% of English bishops, while between
1307 and 1499 they educated 68% of the deans of secular cathedrals. Large
numbers of alumni also achieved lower ranks within the Church including treasurer,
precentor, chancellor, sub-dean, rector, vicar, chaplain, and positions in the com-
munities of monks and friars (Cobban, 1988). The less commonly pursued careers
of these alumni were in teaching, service to the Crown (e.g., the chancery, ex-
chequer, king’s council, diplomat, royal bailiffs, keeper of the forest, judicial
commissioner, keeper of the privy seal, king’s secretary), service to nobility, and
the law (e.g., notary work; Cobban, 1988).
With the advent of the Protestant Reformation, the Christian ideals in parts of
early modern Europe were changed to encompass the view that “human beings
are considered perfectible through their own efforts”, and that “the highest rewards
in life (may) be attained through self-enlightenment and self-betterment in some
culturally approved area of activity” (Tannenbaum, 2000, p. 31). As a consequence,
a new enthusiasm for learning was seen, particularly in relation to scientific and
technological development, to promote the pursuit of science and technology-related
careers (along with careers in service to the Church) by the most gifted individuals
in these societies. Nevertheless, ability or talent may not have been the only criterion
for entry into, and success in, some of these careers. For example, careers in presti-
gious organizations such as the army, the navy, the large mercantile companies
(e.g., English East India Company and the Dutch East India Company) and the
Catholic Church at the highest levels, tended to be reserved for the children of
the nobility and the patriciate, while children of more humble backgrounds, if they
managed to enter these organizations, could not expect to rise to the highest, most
responsible, and/or most demanding roles (van Leeuwen & Maas, 2010).
The only exceptions were made for exceptionally gifted and ambitious
individuals. For example, the gifted sailor Michiel Adriaenszoon de Ruyter, who
was the son of a beer porter’s assistant, commenced in the Dutch navy as an
apprentice on the ropewalk, but later rose through the ranks to captain, and
later on, to become one of the most respected Dutch admirals in history (Bruijn,
1993). Another example from the Catholic Church was Giulio Mazzarino, a
commoner from a town near Rome, whose abilities allowed him to come into
contact with Cardinal Richelieu (the first minister of France under King Louis
XIII). Both Cardinal Richelieu and King Louis XIII spoke favorably of Mazzarino,
which resulted in his appointment to the position of cardinal by Pope Urban VIII
in 1641 (van Leeuwen & Maas, 2010).
Across different periods in history prior to the Industrial Revolution, a select
number of gifted individuals living in different societies appear to have been provided
with opportunities to fulfill their tremendous potential in their adult careers.
Nevertheless, it is also likely that very large numbers of gifted individuals, who
may have been equally or even more able, were not so fortunate.
Career decisions after the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution, which commenced during the eighteenth century in
Western societies, marked the end of era when large numbers of people engaged
in agricultural activities for their livelihoods (Dries, 2011). Instead of working in
farms, many people commenced work in factories that began to appear in major
cities as a result of technological advances in the production of goods and energy
(Savickas & Baker, 2005). Unlike agricultural production, which required workers
to master all of the tasks required to produce a crop, the new work environment
required a routinization and a specialization of a circumscribed set of tasks for each
worker. These developments led to the creation of a number of new jobs in
administration, research, sales, and accounting (Dries, 2011; Savickas & Baker, 2005).
To fill these jobs, large-scale movements were seen of people into the cities that
housed the new factories, from both rural areas (i.e., urbanization) and other
countries (i.e., immigration). It is noteworthy that the field of vocational psychology
traces its roots to the period around the Industrial Revolution, as it was at this
time that multiple occupations were newly created, and large numbers of people,
including gifted people, needed to make a decision about their future careers
(Savickas & Baker, 2005).
The Industrial Revolution appears to have been the impetus for the provision
by many educational institutions in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of
informal and formal qualifications for various occupations. By the late nineteenth
century, education at the primary school level (for children up to the age of about
14) was widely available in most advanced societies, while formal certification
options for specific occupations emerged for adolescents aged between 15 and 18
(Brown et al., 2004). Furthermore, formal apprenticeship programs began to
appear in Europe, which combined classroom instruction, continuing education,
and on-the-job training for occupational fields such as construction and metalwork.
For professional occupations in fields such as medicine, law, pharmacy, chemistry,
and engineering, for which intellectually gifted individuals may be most suited,
“corporations” were established to regulate entry and access to training. Of note,
Brown et al. (2004) suggested that entry into, and access to training for, these
professional careers often depended more on ability to pay and socio-political
connections, than on intellectual ability.
It was only at the beginning of the twentieth century that the modern day practice
of requiring a specialized education at the tertiary level, accompanied by the passing
of formal examinations, started to become established as the standard pathway for

entry into most professional careers (Brown et al., 2004). Such a rise in the im-
portance of formal qualifications appears to have coincided, to some degree, with
the reduced level of influence of factors such as family background and wealth
(Brown et al., 2004). Consequently, in the more recent past, the career decisions
of gifted individuals may have more strongly reflected their areas of ability and
interest, than on any other factors.
Nevertheless, as in the period prior to the Industrial Revolution, the prevailing
socio-cultural milieu continued to be a factor. For example, in the United States
during the 1950s and 1960s, large numbers of gifted students pursued education
and training for careers in science and technology, in response to the U.S. gov-
ernment’s active promotion of such careers after the Soviet Union successfully
launched Sputnik (an artificial earth satellite) to challenge America’s scientific
supremacy (Gross, 2000; Tannenbaum, 2000). At the time, scientific bodies, such
as the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, issued warnings about the need for public
schools to maintain educational standards, particularly for gifted students, to address
anticipated shortages of scientists and engineers. Relatedly, enormous levels of
funding became available for advanced educational programs targeting gifted
students in various science and technology-related fields. Moreover, in 1959, the
President of Harvard University, James B. Conant, published a report titled The
American High School Today, which outlined a 21-step plan for making changes to
the American secondary school curriculum to ensure that it is challenging and
relevant for students, including gifted students, regardless of their future career plans
(Tannenbaum, 2000).
Terman’s study
The first, and one of the most prominent, systematic historical studies of the career
decisions of gifted students, was conducted by the American psychologist Terman,
who is best known for his involvement in the development of the Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scales (Terman, 1925, 1954; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959). Starting
in 1921, Terman collected extensive longitudinal demographic, intellectual, and
socio-developmental data from a sample that comprised 856 boys and 672 girls
with an IQ of at least 135 and an average age of 11 (Duggan & Friedman, 2014;
Eccles & Harold, 1992; Terman, 1925, 1954; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959). The
wealth of data that was collected and analyzed over more than three decades allowed
for insights to be gained into the lifespan development of intellectually gifted students
living in the United States during the first half of the twentieth century (Eccles &
Harold, 1992).
The participants of Terman’s study were generally a very healthy group (i.e.,
they were taller, weighted more, and suffered from fewer illnesses than the general
population) who tended to come from fairly comfortable middle-class families
(Duggan & Friedman, 2014; Terman, 1925). Terman found that the educational
experiences of these gifted students tended to include early reading (e.g., at least
35% of the participants could read prior to the commencement of school) and
some academic acceleration (Kern & Friedman, 2009; Terman, 1925). Of note,
only 12 of the participants never completed high school, and by 1940, 70% of the
men and 67% of the women had completed undergraduate studies at university
(Duggan & Friedman, 2014; Janos, 1987; Terman & Oden, 1947). Such a pattern
of study allowed most of this group to build solid career foundations, which were
nevertheless influenced by the social, political, and economic circumstances of the
times (Shanahan, Elder, & Miech, 1997). For example, the older participants in
the sample tended to have occupations of lower status at age 40 than the younger
participants, as they were more influenced by the effects of the Great Depression
in the 1930s, in between the two world wars (Duggan & Friedman, 2014).
Unsurprisingly, Terman’s participants were more likely than their non-gifted
peers to be employed in professional (e.g., law, academia, engineering, and
medicine) or semi-professional (e.g., business, banking, military) careers by 1940,
with 45% and 26% of Terman’s male participants working in these two occupation
categories, respectively (Terman & Oden, 1947). Fifteen years later, similar numbers
(i.e., 46%) were employed in professional careers, while a substantially larger
portion (i.e., 41%) were employed in semi-professional careers, after having
“moved up” from careers in non-professional fields such as retail, the skilled trades,
and agriculture (Terman & Oden, 1959). In comparison, the female participants
of Terman’s study who were in employment by 1955 appeared to have more modest
career outcomes (Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959). The most successful of the Terman
participants were identified to be those who were the most conscientious,
motivated, and ambitious as children, and had superior levels of mental adjustment
as adults (Duggan & Friedman, 2014; Kern, Friedman, Martin, Reynolds, & Luong,
2009; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959). Generally, the early advantages of these gifted
students appeared to have been predictive of positive educational and career
outcomes later in life, although multiple environmental, personality, and other factors
may have meant that educational or career success was not always guaranteed.
Gender differences in career decisions in the early

twentieth century
As identified by Terman (Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959), and despite
advances in the education and status of women over the course of history,
substantial differences appeared to exist in the career outcomes of gifted males and
females in advanced Western societies as recently as the twentieth century. Indeed,
Emily Davies, who was the founder of Girton College, the first women’s college
at an elite British university (Cambridge University), described the gender division
in educational and career opportunities in mid-Victorian England, as follows:
The present distribution is, indeed, somewhat whimsical. In as much as young

men go into offices where they have to conduct foreign correspondence,
and as they travel about all over the world, they are taught the dead
languages. As women’s place is at the domestic hearth, and as middle class

women rarely see a foreigner, they are taught modern languages with a special
view to facility in speaking . . . as women are not expected to take part
in political affairs, they are taught history. As men do, boys are taught
mathematics instead. In physical science, astronomy and botany are
considered the ladies department. Chemistry and mechanics . . . are reserved
for boys.
(Davies, 1866/1988, pp. 127–127)
In her investigation of the careers of the highly gifted female graduates of Cambridge
University from the 1920s to the 1970s, Thane (2004) noted that an overwhelming
majority became schoolteachers for at least some portion of their lives. In the early
twentieth century, teaching was the “expected” career for female university
graduates, with many parents and teachers going as far as to consider a university
education for women to be for training as a school teacher. Even for those who
did not enter teaching immediately upon graduation, or refused to do so, many
found that teaching was the only career that was available to them later on after
raising children, irrespective of their previous area of study or occupation (Thane,
2004). After teaching, at least until the 1960s, the second most common career
outcome of these graduates was secretarial work.
Only a very small portion of British female university graduates in the first half
of the twentieth century were successful in pursuing more prestigious professional
careers such as medicine or law. For this to be possible, many of these gifted women
needed to overcome hurdles including: (a) misinformation about preparation for
tertiary study, (b) family refusal to provide financial support, (c) family preference
to educate the boys of the household, (d) exclusion from tertiary study (e.g., women
were excluded from most British medical schools until after World War I), and
(e) quotas on the numbers of women admitted into tertiary study (e.g., until the
1960s, British medical schools had strict quotas on the number of female entrants;
Dyhouse, 1998; Thane, 2004). Generally, external, institutional, and cultural
factors, relating particularly to marriage and the rearing of children, may have
severely constrained the career options for these gifted female students, which
contrasted sharply with the multitude of career options available to gifted male
students. Indeed, Harrison (1994) noted that the gifted male graduates of Oxford
University in the period from 1900 to 1967 pursued a very diverse range of high
status professional careers including medicine (12% to 33% of science graduates),
law (6% to 13% of arts graduates), business (14% to 42% of arts and science
graduates), public administration (7% to 26% of arts and science graduates), and
teaching (at least 25% of arts and science graduates). Only 3% of these graduates
pursued non-professional careers as shopkeepers, clerks, or blue collar workers.
The following is a description of how one gifted female graduate of Girton
College in 1935 went about constructing a relatively successful career despite the
numerous constraints she faced as a woman and the mother of three children (Thane,
2004, pp. 211–212):
Firstly after graduation, she trained as a housing manager. She was one of
an increasing though still small number of Girtonians who joined the growing
public sector social services in the 1930s. These were new professional
occupations that replaced tasks previously performed by unpaid women in
the voluntary sector and hence were relatively easily accessible to women
since they were seen to be within their accustomed sphere of work. She
joined the civil service during World War II and was responsible mainly for
housing policy . . . few Girtonians or other women entered this career, which
was a popular destination for male Cambridge graduates at this time, until
the absence of men in wartime increased the demand for highly qualified
women. This woman had three children, in 1942, 1944, and 1947. Like others
she found the post-war civil service again inhospitable to married women,
especially if they had children, despite the formal abolition of the “marriage
bar”. Between 1945 and 1952, she worked as a journalist on the Economist,
writing mainly on social issues. She chose this occupation because it was one
of the few that could be combined flexibly with child-rearing and enabled
her to draw on her professional knowledge and experience . . . (Then, as
she) “wanted to do real things, not writing about what other people did”
. . . she became an administrator at the government planned New Town at
Harlow which was under construction, on the recommendation of her former
(female) manager in the civil service. In 1962, she moved to become Director
of Education at the Royal Institute of British Architects, where she remained
until retirement . . . She summed up (her life and career as follows): “I’ve
had an extremely interesting life and I think a fairly useful life. I just think
being a woman you are handicapped and it’s a sort of grievance . . . to me
it’s hugely frustrating not to be able to use your full abilities . . . if something
had been available that had more responsibility, I would have taken it”.
It is noteworthy that despite her relative success, this gifted female university graduate
did not believe that she had realized her full potential.
Final remarks
A lack of educational opportunities, training opportunities, accessible career options,
and freedom in the selection of careers, are likely to be some of the main reasons
why many gifted students living in different societies across different periods
in history were not able to enter careers that were compatible with their areas of
ability and interest. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, most people appeared to
have followed the careers of their parents, which was most likely to be in the field
that dominated most societies (i.e., agriculture). Although the socio-cultural milieu
of some societies may have provided more career-related opportunities for gifted
students than others, all domains of giftedness are unlikely to have been accom-
modated in these societies, all sub-groups of gifted students are unlikely to have
benefited, and a larger number of societies may have provided minimal, if any,
career-related opportunities. Some sub-groups who appear to have been at a

particular disadvantage throughout history were gifted females, gifted students of
minority racial backgrounds, gifted students of minority religious backgrounds, and
gifted students of low socio-economic status backgrounds. To some degree, the
lack of career-related opportunities for gifted students, particularly for those from
disadvantaged backgrounds, persists to this day, meaning that large numbers of gifted
students continue to be prevented from realizing their full potential in their adult
work lives.
Unfortunately, the general lack of research in the area means that the picture
that has been presented of the career decisions of gifted students over the course
of history is, as yet, incomplete. In particular, there appears to be a dearth of research
into the historical career decisions of gifted students from non-Western societies
(including Asian, African, Middle Eastern, and Indigenous societies) and the career
decisions of gifted students from all of the different periods of history since ancient
times. Furthermore, little is known about the historical trends in the career
decisions of the various disadvantaged sub-groups of gifted students, who have not
traditionally been the focus of investigation. Finally, it is unfortunate that scholars
have continued to give minimal meaningful attention to the historical career
decisions of high ability groups who are related to gifted students (i.e., prodigies,
geniuses, and twice exceptional students).
References
Brown, J., van Leeuwen, M., & Mitch, D. (2004). The history of the modern career: An
introduction. In D. Mitch, J. Brown & M. van Leeuwen (Eds.), Origins of the modern career
Bruijn, J. R. (1993). The Dutch navy of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: Studies in maritime
history. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Carson, A. D., & Altai, N. M. (1994). 1000 years before Parsons: Vocational psychology in
classical Islam. The Career Development Quarterly, 43, 197–206.
Cobban, A. B. (1988). The medieval English Universities: Oxford and Cambridge to c. 1500.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Davies, E. (1866/1988). The higher education of women. Edited by J. Howarth. London, U.K.:
The Hambledon Press.
Dries, N. (2011). The meaning of career success: Avoiding reification through a closer
inspection of historical, cultural, and ideological contexts. Career Development International,
16, 364–384.
Duggan, K. A., & Friedman, H. S. (2014). Lifetime biopsychosocial trajectories of the Terman
gifted children: Health, well-being, and longevity. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley
handbook of genius (pp. 488–507). Oxford, U. K.: Wiley.
Dumont, F., & Carson, A. D. (1995). Precursors of vocational psychology in ancient
civilizations. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 371–378.
Dyhouse, C. (1998). Driving ambitions: Women in pursuit of a medical education,
1890–1939. Women’s History Review, 7, 321–343.
Eccles, J. S., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Gender differences in educational and occupational
patterns among the gifted. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.),
Talent Development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research
Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 3–29). Unionville, NY: Trillium.
Gross, M. U. M. (2000). Short on memory: Long on myth. Understanding Our Gifted, Fall,
20–22.
Harrison, B. (1994). History of the University of Oxford: The twentieth century (Volume 8). Oxford,
U. K.: Clarendon Press.
Ikhwan al-Safa. (1928). Rasa’il Zkhwhn al-Safa wa-khulln al-wafa [Treatises of Ikhwhn al-SafA
and brothers of purity (Volumes 1–4 in two books)]. (K. al-Dn a1 Zirikli, Ed.). Cairo,
Egypt al-Maktabat al-Tijariyat al-Kubra. (Original work written about 955 AD.)
Janos, P. M. (1987). A fifty-year follow-up of Terman’s youngest college students and IQ
matched agemates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 55–58.
Kern, M. L., & Friedman, H. S. (2009). Early educational milestones as predictors of lifelong
academic achievement, midlife adjustment, and longevity. Journal of Applied Development
Kern, M. L., Friedman, H. S., Martin, L. R., Reynolds, C. A., & Luong, G. (2009).
Conscientiousness, career success, and longevity: A lifespan analysis. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 37, 154–163.
Plato. (1991). Laws. In Encyclopaedia Brittanica (Ed.) & B. Jowett (Trans.), Great books of
the western world (Volume 6, pp. 640–799) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
(Original work published c. 350 BC.)
Savickas, M. L. (2000). Renovating the psychology of careers for the twenty-first century.
In A. Collin and R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 53–68). Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
vocational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 15–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shanahan, M. J., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Miech, R. A. (1997). History and agency in men’s
lives: Pathways to achievement in cohort perspective. Sociology of Education, 70, 54–67.
Tannenbaum, A. (2000). History of giftedness in school and society. In K. A. Heller,
F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness
and talent (2nd ed., pp. 23–53). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius volume I: Mental and physical traits of a thousand
Terman, L. M. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. The
American Psychologist, 9, 221– 230.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius, volume IV: The gifted child
grows up. Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius, volume V: The gifted group
at mid-life. Thirty-five years’ follow-up of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Thane, P. (2004). The careers of female graduates of Cambridge University, 1902s–1970s.
In D. Mitch, J. Brown, & M. H. D. Van Leeuwen (Eds.), Origins of the modern career
van Leeuwen, M. H., & Maas, I. (2010). Historical studies of social mobility and stratification.
Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 429–451.
3
FACTORS INFLUENCING THE
CAREER DECISIONS OF GIFTED
STUDENTS
At the present time, research on the career decisions of gifted students is only
emerging, and there continues to be a general paucity of literature in the area.
Nevertheless, a fair body of research exists on the individual factors associated with
the career decision (Jung, 2017b). While multiple idiosyncratic factors are likely
to be an influence in the career decisions of each gifted student (Greene, 2006;
Parris, Owens, Johnson, Grbevski, & Holbert-Quince, 2010), some psychological,
socio-cultural, and structural factors have been repeatedly identified as being
common, and even predictable, among this cohort of students (Watters, 2010).
The focus of this chapter is on the discussion of these factors, as divided into the
following six categories: (a) the personal characteristics of gifted students, (b) the
expectations of others, (c) the types of aspired careers, (d) the early emergence of
career-related interests, (e) the various difficulties associated with the career decision,
and (f) culture.
Personal characteristics of gifted students

Of the commonly recognized personal characteristics of gifted students, the
literature suggests that ability and interest, multipotentiality, perfectionism, a need
for intellectual stimulation, a need to live up to one’s potential, and high self-
expectations, may be particularly salient to, and influential in, the decisions that
these students make about their future careers.
Ability and interest

Two of the central factors in the career decisions of gifted students appear to
be their areas of ability and interest (Jung, 2014). Indeed, a prominent series of
studies by Lubinski, Benbow, and their colleagues (Achter, Lubinski, Benbow, &
28 Factors influencing career decisions
Eftekhari-Sanjani, 1999; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Webb, Lubinski, & Benbow,
2002) have suggested that cognitive abilities, such as general intelligence, and
vocational interests (and relatedly, vocational values) may be among the most
significant personal determinants of educational and vocational choice for highly
able adolescents. Nevertheless, neither cognitive abilities nor vocational interests
appear to be sufficient by themselves in directing the career decision – rather, a
collective consideration of the two factors appears to be necessary in allowing gifted
students to navigate the multifaceted cognitive and motivational issues surrounding
the decision. This appears to represent a contrast to the singularly pivotal function
of vocational interests in the career decisions of the general student population (Jung
& McCormick, 2011b; Jung, McCormick, Gregory & Barnett, 2011).
Some debate continues to exist on whether there is, typically, alignment or
conflict between the areas of ability and interest. For example, Lubinski and Benbow
(2000) have suggested that “for most well-adjusted students and employees, their
ability and preference constellation aligns with the ability requirements and rewards
of their learning or work purview” (p. 141). Similarly, Proyer (2006) has suggested
that a positive relationship may exist between compatible ability–interest domains,
such as between assessments of spatial ability and investigative/realistic interests in
Holland’s (1997) hexagonal system of vocational interests. In contrast, Sparfeldt
(2007) noted only a moderate level of correlation between career-related abilities
and interests (i.e., usually not in excess of .40), while Gottfredson (2003) went as
far as to suggest that the cognitive and non-cognitive domains associated with the
career decisions of gifted students may be relatively independent. The difference of
opinion among scholars suggests that, at least for some gifted students, the careers
that are considered interesting may not overlap with the careers in which they
may be most competent. In such cases, the “interesting” careers may take prece-
dence, particularly if the gifted student possesses verbal, mathematical, and spatial
abilities in sufficient measure to qualify them for multiple careers (Gottfredson,
2003).
Multipotentiality
Multipotentiality is a frequently discussed phenomenon that some consider to be
synonymous with, or at least a major characteristic of, giftedness (Gross, 2006; Jung,
2017a; Rysiew, Shore, & Carson, 1994; Rysiew, Shore, & Leeb, 1999). Although
a definition of a multipotential individual, as “any individual, who when provided
with appropriate environments, can select and develop any number of competen-
cies to a high level” (Fredrickson, 1979, p. 268) was proposed as early as the
1970s, no consensus has yet been reached among scholars on what it precisely
entails. To date, scholars have inconsistently defined the phenomenon as a high
level of one or more of the following four characteristics in multiple areas: ability,
interest, motivation, and opportunity (Achter, Benbow, & Lubinski, 1996, 1997;
Fredrickson & Rothney, 1972; Greene, 2006; Jung, 2013, 2017a; Leung, 1998;
Factors influencing career decisions 29
Rysiew et al., 1994, 1999; Sajjadi, Rejskind, & Shore, 2001). Arguably, the most
commonly used definition considers multipotentiality to be a combination of high
levels of only two of these characteristics (i.e., ability and interest) in multiple areas
(Jung, 2013, 2017a; Rysiew et al., 1994, 1999).
Scholars appear to be somewhat divided on whether multipotentiality, which
has been studied more intensively within the field of gifted education than in the
fields of career development or vocational psychology, is a prevalent phenomenon
among gifted students (Fiebig, 2008; Jung, 2017a). For example, only a very small
portion (i.e., less than 5%) of the four cohorts of gifted student participants studied
by Achter et al. (1996, 1997) were considered to be multipotential when the
following criteria were used to establish multipotentiality:
(a) A less than one standard deviation difference in the mathematics and verbal
scores on the SAT (i.e., a standardized test designed to make decisions on the
admission of students into university in the United States); and
(b) A less than one standard deviation difference between the average of the three
highest themes and the average of the three lowest themes in two measures
of educational/vocational interests (i.e., Holland’s hexagonal system of
vocational interests [Holland, 1997] and the Survey of Values [Allport, Vernon,
& Lindzey, 1970]).
A similarly small portion of gifted Israeli students were identified to be multipotential

by Milgram and Hong (1999) when different measures of intellectual abilities and
vocational interests, and different criteria to establish multipotentiality (i.e., a less
than one standard deviation difference in scores across three different types of
intellectual abilities [verbal, mathematical, and mechanical] and vocational interests
[science, social, and artistic]) were utilized.
Others have nevertheless suggested that the “high flat” ability/vocational interest
operationalizations of multipotentiality used by Achter et al. (1996, 1997) and
Milgram and Hong (1999) may be overly stringent. For example, Gross (2006)
has suggested that such operationalizations may be more appropriate for the assess-
ment of “equipotentiality,” while Jung (2013, 2017a) has raised questions as to
whether gifted students need to demonstrate approximately equal levels of intel-
lectual abilities and vocational interests across all of their respective dimensions to
be considered multipotential. A more useful operationalization may only require
the demonstration of high, and not necessarily equal, levels of ability and vocational
interest in a smaller, non-exhaustive number of fields (Jung, 2013, 2017a). Of note,
Jung (2013, 2017a) has adopted a substantially different approach to the assessment
of the phenomenon, that involves the use of a psychometrically rigorous multiple
item scale (Jung, 2013, 2017a), which may lead to the recognition of larger numbers
of multipotential gifted students (Kerr & Colangelo, 1988).
Typically, multipotentiality has been associated with difficulties in making
the career decision, which may include a fear of making an incorrect decision,
a reluctance to forgo feasible career options, and an inability to identify a career
option that provides a satisfactory outlet for all of the gifted student’s abilities and
interests (Achter et al., 1996; Maxwell, 2007; Rysiew et al., 1994, 1999; Sajjadi
et al., 2001). A concern of many career practitioners is that such difficulties may
lead to a number of negative consequences such as delays in making the career
decision, changes to the course of study, and the making of premature career de-
cisions. Nevertheless, and contrary to popular view, many multipotential gifted
students do not appear to experience such difficulties. Rather, many such students
have been found to view their capability and interest in multiple areas in a positive
light, and actually welcome the variety and number of realistic career options from
which the career decision may be made (Jung, 2017a; Jung & Young, 2017; Sajjadi
et al., 2001).
Perfectionism
Perhaps more so than multipotentiality, an extensive body of research exists on
the perfectionistic tendencies of gifted students (Jung, 2014, 2017a; Stornelli, Flett,
& Hewitt, 2009). Traditionally, perfectionism has been considered to be a negative
trait associated with a “rigid adherence to impossibly high standards, (the place-
ment of) irrational importance on the attainment of these standards, (the) over-
generalization of failures, and engagement in all or none thinking” (Fletcher &
Speirs Neumeister, 2012, p. 668), along with a destructive, or even a compulsive
mindset, and behaviors including procrastination (Chan, 2011; Jung, 2017a). As a
result, perfectionism has previously been considered to be a characteristic that
needs to be eliminated in order for gifted students to become successful (Schuler,
2000).
While no consensus exists on what precisely perfectionism entails (Jung, 2013;
Parker & Mills, 1996; Schuler, 2000), most scholars now appear to recognize it to
be a multidimensional construct that contains both positive and negative elements
(Chan, 2011; Dixon, Lapsley, & Hanchon, 2004; Flett & Hewitt, 2014; Stornelli
et al., 2009). In the model proposed by Hewitt and Flett (1991), which emphasizes
the interpersonal aspects of the phenomenon, perfectionism is conceptualized as
existing in one of three different forms: (a) self-oriented perfectionism (i.e., the
possession of high expectations for one’s own performance), (b) socially prescribed
perfectionism (i.e., the perception that others have high expectations for one’s
performance), and (c) other-oriented perfectionism (i.e., the possession of high
expectations for the performance of others; Jung, 2017a; Schuler, 2000). Among
these three forms, self-oriented perfectionism may be considered to be an adaptive
form of perfectionism, while socially prescribed perfectionism may be considered
maladaptive (Fletcher & Speirs Neumeister, 2012). Some factors that may lead to
the development of the various forms of perfectionism in this model may include
high parental expectations, the modeling of parental behaviors, a harsh upbringing,
a lack of challenge, a fear of failure, and a perception that one’s self-worth is
dependent on one’s achievements (Speirs Neumeister, 2004; Speirs Neumeister,
Williams, & Cross, 2009).
The other major conceptualization of perfectionism examines the phenomenon

in intrapersonal terms. Specifically, Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990)
placed a focus on how perfectionism may be manifested in one of six dimensions:
(a) personal standards, (b) organization, (c) parental expectations, (d) parental
criticism, (e) concern over mistakes, and (f) doubts about actions. Of these, the
first two dimensions (i.e., setting of high personal standards and a preference for
organization) may be linked to positive adjustment, while the last four dimensions
(i.e., the high standards of parents, the criticism of parents, an excessive concern
over mistakes, and doubts about actions) may be linked to clinical symptoms (Dixon
et al., 2004). A number of studies have suggested that some of these dimensions
may not be adequately distinct, and that they may be more optimally combined
into a smaller number of dimensions (e.g., personal standards, organization, parental
expectations and criticism, and a concern over mistakes and doubts about
actions; Cox, Ems, & Clara, 2002; Flett & Hewitt, 2014; Hawkins, Watt, & Sinclair,
2006).
Irrespective of the conceptualization that is adopted, many scholars appear to
support the idea that perfectionism may exist as a broad dichotomy that consists
of two forms: healthy perfectionism and unhealthy perfectionism (Dixon et al., 2004;
Hamachek, 1978; Jung, 2013; Schuler, 2000). Generally, healthy perfectionists
appear to strive for excellence and derive satisfaction from concerted effort, while
unhealthy perfectionists may focus on weaknesses, have a fear of failure, engage
in task avoidance, and feel anxious. Whether a gifted student espouses healthy or
unhealthy perfectionistic tendencies may have consequences on the manner in which
the career decision is made, and the type of career that is eventually pursued. In
particular, healthy perfectionists may have realistic goals about their future careers
and approach the decision in a relaxed and confident manner, while unhealthy
perfectionists may experience anxiety and stress, as they devote substantial time
and effort to the identification of a “perfect” career (Chen & Wong, 2013;
Stewart, 1999).
A need for intellectual challenge and stimulation

In addition to ability, interest, multipotentiality, and perfectionism, some scholars
in the area have recognized the importance of a need for intellectual challenge and
stimulation in the careers of gifted students. Indeed, one of the themes identified
by Emmett and Minor (1993) as a factor in the career decisions of gifted young
adults was “issues of superior intelligence,” which may be considered to comprise
three elements: (a) a need for challenge, (b) a need for variety in tasks and experi-
ences, and (c) a need for continued learning. The following participant quotes may
be illustrative:
My brain was not being challenged! I missed going to class. My brain was
turning into mush!
(22-year-old female, p. 359)
I was told . . . if I went and got a PhD in computers . . . they probably

wouldn’t want to take you ‘cause you’re overqualified. But I think I’m going
to do and get a PhD . . . I wanna learn more about computers. I personally
want to know.
(18-year-old male, p. 360)
Unlike many in the general student population, the attributes of challenge and
mental stimulation may be what gifted students find interesting and enjoyable
in a career, as suggested by the strong relationship between occupational interest/
enjoyment and intellectual stimulation identified in Jung (2014, 2017b). Never-
theless, the need for challenge and intellectual stimulation may not always be self-
directed, as Greene (2006) has indicated that the parents, teachers, and counselors
of gifted students may compel gifted students to select careers that they consider
to be sufficiently challenging or intellectually stimulating.
Other personal characteristics

Two other personal characteristics that may be influential in the career decisions
of gifted students appear to be the desire by gifted students to realize their sub-
stantial potential, and the associated self-expectations about their future careers.
Nevertheless, the evidence on these inter-related factors appears to be somewhat
mixed, as Jung (2014, 2017b) has found that while a need for intellectual stimulation
may coexist with a desire to fulfill one’s potential, no significant positive relationship
was identified between a desire to fulfill one’s potential and attitudes toward
occupations. It is consequently possible that the desire to fulfill one’s potential
and the associated self-expectations may be given a comparatively lower level of
priority by gifted students, in comparison to their other personal characteristics, in
an already very complex decision.
Expectations of others
In addition to the influence of the personal characteristics, the literature has
suggested that the career decisions of gifted students may be influenced by the
expectations of others with respect to the types of careers that are pursued, and
the gender appropriateness of these careers.
Expectations of family and others in society

Many gifted students appear to experience substantial pressures from significant
others in their lives (e.g., parents, teachers, counselors, peers), along with society
in general, to live up to their potential, make a meaningful contribution, and
otherwise be successful (Greene, 2003, 2006; Muratori & Smith, 2015). Initially,
this may influence the specific range of careers that are examined by gifted students.
For example, Miller and Cummings (2009, p. 16) proposed that “family support
for a given career (may be) the primary factor in . . . (the) consideration (by gifted
students) of a variety of occupations.” Similarly, Fiebig (2003) suggested that a
mother’s view on traditional versus non-traditional careers, and their opinions of
their gifted daughters’ scientific abilities, may predict the types of careers that their
daughters consider in making the career decision.
Additionally, and more importantly, the expectations of family members and
others in society may influence the ultimate choice of future career. In response
to the implicit or explicit messages relating to the need for gifted students to make
the most of their abilities, some gifted students have been found to compromise
their interests, while others appear to experience a considerable level of stress and
anxiety (Emmett & Minor, 1993; Leung, 1998; Sampson & Chason, 2008; Stewart,
1999). The following quote from a 23-year-old gifted male in Emmett and Minor
(1993, p. 354) may be illustrative of the possible internal struggles experienced by
some gifted students due to the expectations of others:
I can’t really say “Well, my dad said this,” or “He did that” . . . but I’m just
conscious of sort of a pressure he had. His hobby was the stock market and
investments . . . and I just sort of feel – sort of subtle, somehow – that he
wished he could go back and do it. Maybe he was kind of hoping . . . that
I would . . . and I think that when I was going through my struggles as a
freshman with what I wanted to do, it was really hard to tell my dad that
I was struggling with maybe not wanting to be a business major, because I
felt that was something he expected out of me – and wanted.
Nevertheless, rather than directing the career decision itself, many parents and other
significant parties in the lives of gifted students have also been found to provide
strong emotional support, practical guidance, and opportunities for a genuine
discussion of the possible future career options, in supporting gifted students to
reach an autonomous career decision (Muratori & Smith, 2015; Sampson & Chason,
2008).
Gender role expectations

The expectations of others appears to extend beyond the types of career that are
pursued to the gender appropriateness of the chosen careers. Despite changes to
societal attitudes, which may be more liberal now than ever before in the course
of history, gifted students still appear to be strongly encouraged to pursue careers
that are stereotypically associated with their gender identity (Chen & Wong, 2013;
Jung, 2017b). Consequently, while gifted male students continue to aspire to careers
in fields such as engineering, medicine, and architecture that tend to have high
levels of prestige, income, and educational requirements, gifted female students
appear to have a stronger likelihood of aspiring to family-friendly careers that match
their interests in fields such as teaching, pharmacy, and nursing (Kerr & Sodano,
2003; Miller & Cummings, 2009). Nevertheless, of the two groups, gifted female
students appear to be more likely to cross gender boundaries. Indeed, gifted female
students have been found to have “flatter” vocational interest profiles (Vock, Köller,
& Nagy, 2013) than gifted male students, which may reflect their more liberal views
toward gender roles (Jung, 2017b; Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Leung, 1998; Miller &
Cummings, 2009).
Despite the generally high career aspirations of gifted students of both genders
in comparison to the general student population, it is unfortunate that gifted female
students continue to be at a relative disadvantage to gifted male students in fulfilling
these aspirations, due to the persistence of gender-based ideals about career develop-
ment in society (Chen & Wong, 2013).
Types of aspired careers

Perhaps reflecting their personal characteristics and the expectations of others, gifted
students appear to have a general tendency to aspire to careers that lie within a
somewhat narrow range of traditional fields. Indeed, consistent with their vocational
interest profiles, which appear to be substantially distinct to the vocational interest
profiles of average and less intellectually able students (Vock et al., 2013), gifted
students have tended to demonstrate a preference for careers within the fields of
health, communications, law, engineering, technology, and the physical sciences
(Fiebig, 2008; Greene, 2006; Jung, 2017b; Kerr & Colangelo, 1988; Kerr & Sodano,
2003; Persson, 2009). In terms of Holland’s (1997) vocational interest themes, these
careers mainly lie within the investigative and realistic realms, which typically involve
independent analytical, mechanical, intellectual, and scholarly activities (Chen &
Wong, 2013; Sparfeldt, 2007; Vock et al., 2013). The careers that gifted students
may be unlikely to aspire to may be careers in the social and enterprising realms,
involving substantial human interaction and leadership activities for economic
objectives, in fields such as social work, counseling, business, and management (Chen
& Wong, 2013; Vock et al., 2013). Interestingly, for some gifted students, Lubinski
and his colleagues have suggested that there may be some changes to vocational
interest profiles with age (i.e., increases to realistic, investigative, artistic, and social
interests, but decreases to their enterprising and conventional interests; Lubinski,
Benbow, & Ryan, 1995; Schmidt, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1998; Vock et al., 2013).
Irrespective of the specific career that gifted students aspire to, scholars have
consistently pointed to the high levels of occupational prestige and income of these
careers (Chen & Wong, 2013; Jung, 2014, 2017b; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Leung,
1998; Muratori & Smith, 2015). For example, when a group of gifted junior high
school students were asked to rank a number of common careers in order of
preference, careers that may be considered to be highest in prestige and income
(i.e., medicine, law, science) dominated the top of their lists, while those of lesser
prestige and income (i.e., sales, education, visual arts, drama) tended to be at the
bottom (Kher-Durlabhji, Lacina-Gifford, Carter, & Lalande, 1997; Miller &
Cummings, 2009). The following quote may be illustrative of the importance placed
on occupational prestige and income by many gifted students:
Well, just the fact that I’d like to have a job that’s somewhat respected, and
I mean – like the job I had (automobile rustproofing) was about as low as
you can get – where I’m barely making minimum wage and everybody yells
at you – I want some respect, too!
(23-year-old male; Emmett & Minor, 1993, p. 355)
Early emergence of career interests

Regardless of the type of career that is aspired to and chosen, a number of scholars
have noted that most people in the general population tend to form at least tentative
aspirations about their future careers by their early teens, after a conscious
exploration of the various career options and a preliminary engagement with the
world of work (Furlong & Biggart, 1999; Jung & Young, 2017; Patton & Creed,
2007). For gifted students, the exploration of the career options and the formation
of career aspirations may be seen earlier. Specifically, the early emergence of career
interests for gifted students, which appears to be first reflected in an early passion
for learning, appears to be translated into an earlier and a more rapid progression
through the various stages of career development (e.g., the development of activity
preferences, the emergence of career-related self-concepts, the identification of a
range of career options, and the formation of tentative career intentions; Greene,
2003, 2006; Matthews & Foster, 2005; Stewart, 1999). The precocious nature of
the career-related thinking of gifted students may mean that they are in a good
position to make more considered and more optimal career decisions than other
students.
Related to an early emergence of career-related interests may be the superior
level of access that gifted students may have to career information in comparison
to others in the general population. For example, Stewart (1999) has suggested
that “gifted students explore occupations broadly and with depth at a young age”
(p. 4) and that “they possess a great deal of occupational information and ideas on
how to engage in extensive career planning” (p. 5). Similarly, Kelly and Cobb
(1991) have proposed that gifted students may have a greater level of knowledge
about the world of work and the factors that need to be considered in making the
career decision than older students, particularly for the most common and visible
careers. Nevertheless, gifted students do not appear to be as actively engaged in
the planning of their careers in comparison to students who may be substantially
older, and therefore, have a more immediate and pressing need to make a career
decision (Dunnell & Bakken, 1991).
Despite the capacity of gifted students to make early career decisions, many
scholars have expressed concerns about the making of very early commitments
to a particular career without an adequate exploration of the available career
options (i.e., career foreclosure; Greene, 2003, 2006; Hébert & Kelly, 2006;
Stewart, 1999). This is because some gifted students who make early career
decisions may needlessly restrict themselves in the range of careers that are
considered, particularly with respect to the new, non-traditional, and uncommon
career options. Furthermore, it is possible that the career interests of many gifted
students may change over time due to factors such as maturation, changes to the
environment in which gifted students live, and exposure to new experiences
(Greene, 2006). While it is true that an exceptional level of achievement in many
career fields may require an early career decision in conjunction with focused
training from a young age, the significant (and possibly negative) consequences of
such decisions may mean that they will, nevertheless, need to be approached with
caution (Ferriman, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2009; Greene, 2006; Rysiew et al., 1999).
Difficulties associated with the career decision

As for the general student population, gifted students are likely to face numerous
difficulties associated with the career decision.
Career indecision
The multiple difficulties that large numbers of gifted students have been found to
experience with their career decision may include an inability to make a career
decision, delays in making the career decision, frequent changes in the areas of
study, hesitation in changing a previous career decision, the consideration of only
a limited number of career options, and the selection of a career that is incompatible
with one’s level of ability (Emmett & Minor, 1993). The term career indecision has
been coined to refer either to the first of these difficulties (i.e., an inability to arrive
at a career decision; Guay, Senécal, Gauthier, & Fernet, 2003; Leong & Chervinko,
1996), or to these difficulties as a whole (Di Fabio, Pallazzeschi, Asulin-Peretz, &
Gati, 2013; Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996; Jung, 2013; Jung & Young, 2017; White
& Tracey, 2011). The atheoretical and poorly understood phenomenon appears
to be widely researched as one of the major issues in the field of vocational
psychology today (Di Fabio et al., 2013; Guay, Ratelle, Senécal, Larose, &
Deschênes, 2006; Jung, 2013; Skorikov, 2007).
To offer some insights into the phenomenon, Gati et al. (1996) proposed and
verified a taxonomy of difficulties associated with the career decision that may be
broadly divided into two categories – a lack of readiness for the career decision
(i.e., difficulties that may arise prior to the career decision-making process), and a
lack of information or inconsistent information for the career decision (i.e.,
difficulties that may arise during the decision-making process). In comparison, other
scholars have demonstrated that constructs such as a fear of success, a conflict of
values, an external locus of control, and a lack of career decision-making self-efficacy
may be strongly associated with, and predictive of, career indecision (Di Fabio et al.,
2013; Germeijs & De Boeck, 2003; Jung, 2013; Jung & Young, 2017; Leong &
Chervinko, 1996; Santos & Ferreira, 2012; White & Tracey, 2011).
A distinction is usually made between career indecision and the related
phenomenon of career indecisiveness. Whereas career indecision may be considered
to be a temporary experience that is a common and normal part of human
development prior to arriving at a career decision, career indecisiveness may be

described as an enduring personality trait that is associated with a chronic inability
to make decisions, that is often accompanied by an inability to make decisions in
other domains of life (Di Fabio et al., 2013; Jung, 2013; Santos & Ferreira, 2012).
Unlike undecided individuals (i.e., those who experience career indecision),
indecisive individuals have been commonly found to take a substantial amount
of time to make decisions, utilize ineffective decision-making strategies, expend
substantial effort in making decisions, show discomfort with ambiguity, and have
a propensity to delay decisions.
Career amotivation
A closely related phenomenon to career indecision is career amotivation. The
construct originates from the amotivation component of self-determination theory
(i.e., a lack of purpose relating to one’s ability to change the course of events; Deci
& Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2003), and may be defined as a lack of
motivation about the career decision due to “the inability to see any relationship
between the making of a (career) decision and the consequences of the decision”
(Jung & McCormick, 2010, p. 444). In contrast to those who exhibit other forms
of motivation, such as intrinsic motivation (i.e., engagement in an activity due to
the inherently interesting and enjoyable nature of the activity experience) or extrin-
sic motivation (i.e., engagement in an activity to obtain a reward that is separate
to the activity experience, such as income or prestige), gifted students who are
amotivated about the career decision may lack autonomy, feel incompetent, and/or
feel helpless about making the career decision (Jung, 2013). Consequently, the career
decision may be delayed, there may be some hesitation in making the decision, or
a non-optimal decision may be made (Jung, 2017a). Multiple studies have suggested
that the experience of the phenomenon may be pivotal for gifted students in
determining whether they subsequently experience career indecision, and therefore
recommend strategies to direct gifted students away from career amotivation (Jung,
2013, 2017a).
Culture
A final, but often neglected, factor that may influence the career decisions of
gifted students is culture. Culture is a complex construct that has been defined in
multiple ways in the literature, many of which relate to a set of beliefs, behaviors,
and values that are learned through socialization processes, and differentiate
groups of people. Fan’s (2000) definition of culture, as a “collection of values, beliefs,
behaviors, customs, and attitudes that distinguish a society” (p. 3) appears to en-
compass many of the elements of the existing definitions. Culture may be an
important consideration in the examination of many human decisions, including
career decisions, as it may highlight the possible assumptions that are held by
decision-makers including those relating to value systems, opportunity structures,

and education (Hesketh & Rounds, 1995; Jung, 2013).
The literature shows that there have been a variety of approaches used by
researchers to classify culture (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; House et al., 1999; Inglehart
& Carballo, 1997; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Rokeach, 1973; Ronen &
Shenkar, 1985; Schwartz, 1999). Of these, many approaches appear to use values
or value orientations (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; Inglehart & Carballo, 1997; Kluckhohn
& Strodtbeck, 1961; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1999). One classification system
based on values, which was developed by Hofstede (2001), has achieved wide
acceptance across a number of fields. Using data collected from employees in a
multinational organization across more than 50 countries, Hofstede (2001) used a
psychological approach, which involved the identification, initially, of four cultural
dimensions: individualism/collectivism (i.e., the valuing of independence/
interdependence), power distance (i.e., level of acceptance of differences in power
among people), masculinity/femininity (i.e. the valuing of masculine characteristics
such as achievement and assertiveness/valuing of feminine characteristics such as
co-operation and modesty), and uncertainty avoidance (i.e., degree of comfort with
ambiguity). Confucian work dynamism or long-term orientation/short-term
orientation (i.e., the valuing of future or present rewards) was later added as a fifth
cultural dimension that characterized East Asian/Confucian cultures (Hofstede &
Bond, 1988).
Apart from the framework developed by Hofstede (2001), a few other
classification systems have gained prominence. Such systems include those
developed by Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), House et al. (1999), and Schwartz
(1999). Prior to Hofstede, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s model of culture appears
to have achieved a wide level of acceptance (Fan, 2000). They identified five
dimensions of culture that were conceptualized as providing solutions to five
common “human problems”: human nature orientation (i.e., whether human nature
is innately “good” or “bad”), man-nature orientation (i.e., whether humans have
mastery over nature, are in harmony with nature, or are in subjugation to nature),
time orientation (i.e., whether the focus is on the past, present, or future), activity
orientation (i.e., whether the mode of activity relates to impulses or accomplish-
ments), and relational orientation (i.e., whether the relationship with others is
individualistic, collateral, or lineal). Although the model had some idiosyncrasies,
such as the attempt at introducing a moral dimension with human nature
orientation, it may have acted as a precursor to, or a prototype for, future models
of culture. Indeed, it was one of the first prominent models of culture to be
developed, and comprises dimensions, such as time orientation and relational
orientation, that have often been replicated by other scholars (e.g., Hofstede, 2001)
in broadly similar forms.
More recently, House et al. (1999) undertook Project GLOBE (Global Leader-
ship and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness), which used nine dimensions
of culture: uncertainty avoidance, power distance, societal collectivism, in-group
collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, future orientation, performance
orientation, and humane orientation. Most of the cultural dimensions used in the
project were derived either from the work of Hofstede (2001) or Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck (1961). Nevertheless, House et al.’s classification system was unique as
it went beyond values, to also examine actual behaviors and practice (House, Javidan,
Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002; Javidan, House, Dorfman, Hanges, & de Luque, 2006).
The numerous differences between values and behaviors on specific domains, which
were identified in the study, raise the suggestion that the other classification systems
for culture may be somewhat simplistic.
Schwartz’s Theory of Cultural Values (Schwartz, 1999) was similar to Kluckhohn
and Strodtbeck’s (1961) approach of providing solutions to human problems,
although the actual issues and identified dimensions (i.e., conservatism, intellectual
autonomy, affective autonomy, hierarchy, egalitarianism, mastery, and harmony)
were conceptualized somewhat differently. Parallels may also be seen between
Schwartz’s model and the model of Hofstede (2001), as both were derived using
values, and as both share similar cultural dimensions (e.g., hierarchy and power
distance, and intellectual/affective autonomy and individualism). A considerable
overlap is clearly evident among the prominent models of culture that have been
proposed in the literature.
Interestingly, some scholars have proposed alternative models of culture, that
deviate substantially from the models of Hofstede (2001), Kluckhohn and
Strodtbeck (1961), House et al. (1999), and Schwartz (1999). Inglehart and Carballo
(1997) proposed a model that incorporated modernization theory, and differentiated
societies on the basis of whether they were traditional or non-traditional, and
whether they espoused survival or well-being values. Inglehart and Carballo’s
categorization system is unique as it appears to imply the pre-eminence of economic
factors over cultural factors, and consequently may not be classifiable as a true model
of culture. Ronen and Schenkar (1985) approached the issue differently, and derived
“cultural clusters” based on similarity in religious, linguistic, geographic, and
technological characteristics. In their synthesis of prior research, Ronen and
Shenkar categorized Western cultures into the Anglo, Germanic, Nordic, and Latin
European culture clusters, while the Asian cultures were divided more broadly and
tentatively into the Far Eastern, Near Eastern, and the Arab culture clusters. Such
a line of research is distinct, as it appears to place a greater focus on arriving at
groupings for its own sake, rather than on the identification of cultural dimensions,
as many other researchers of culture have done. The very existence of numerous
alternative classification models serves to demonstrate the complexity of the
phenomenon of culture.
Of the various models of culture, the career decisions of gifted students have,
to date, been investigated using Hofstede’s (2001) classification system. In particular,
Hofstede’s individualism/collectivism dimension, which has been identified by
Hesketh and Rounds (1995) to be among “the most relevant to notions of
vocational development” (p. 370), has been repeatedly utilized to assess the degree
to which both gifted students and others in society may play a role in their career
decisions (Jung, 2013, 2014, 2017a, 2017b; Jung & McCormick, 2011a, 2011b).
Final remarks
The literature on the career decisions of gifted students, which is commonly found
in the fields of gifted education, career development, and vocational psychology,
suggests that there may be a number of common issues facing gifted students who
are faced with the career decision. Specifically, many gifted students appear likely
to form career-related interests at an early age, and thereafter identify multiple career
fields in which they may be highly capable and interested, and in which they may
experience sufficient challenge and intellectual stimulation. Moreover, they appear
likely to at least consider the range of gender compatible career fields that they are
expected to pursue, by significant others in their lives and by others in society. As
for the general student population, some gifted students may experience difficulties
with the career decision, including non-motivation about the career decision, an
inability to make the career decision, delays in making the career decision, changes
to the area of study, hesitation in changing the career decision, and the consideration
of only a limited number of career options. For many gifted students, the career
that is ultimately chosen appears most likely to lie in Holland’s (1997) investigative
or realistic realms, within the traditional fields of health, communications, law,
engineering, technology, and the physical sciences.
Unfortunately, the study of the career decisions of gifted students is generally
not very well established, and the literature in the area is only at an emergent stage.
Consequently, future research is necessary to verify the previously identified factors
that influence the career decisions of gifted students, and to identify any previously
unidentified factors. Instead of treating gifted students as a homogenous group, as
many scholars have done, such research should ideally acknowledge the various
domains in which students may be gifted, and the differences in the levels of
giftedness among students within these domains. Furthermore, greater attention is
necessary on sub-groups of the gifted student population who have traditionally
not been the focus of research, including gifted students of diverse cultural and
linguistic backgrounds, gifted students of Indigenous backgrounds, gifted students
of low socio-economic status backgrounds, and gifted students of rural backgrounds.
For their part, psychologists, counselors, teachers, and the families of gifted students
need to keep up to date with the latest developments in the research in the area,
be mindful of the unique and distinguishing factors that influence the career decisions
of gifted students, and appropriately use this knowledge to support the career
decisions of gifted students.
References
Achter, J. A., Benbow, C. P., & Lubinski, D. (1997). Rethinking multipotentiality among
the intellectually gifted: A critical review and recommendations. Gifted Child Quarterly,
41, 5–15.
Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Multipotentiality among the
intellectually gifted: “It was never there and already it’s vanishing.” Journal of Counseling
Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (1999). Assessing
vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A
discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational
Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., & Lindzey, G. (1970). Manual: Study of values. (3rd ed.) Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Chan, D. W. (2011). Perfectionism among Chinese gifted and nongifted students in Hong
Kong: The use of the Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
34, 68–98.
Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Clara, I. P. (2002). The multidimensional structure of
perfectionism in clinically distressed and college student samples. Psychological Assessment,
14, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.3.365
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, M. R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York, NY: Plenum.
Di Fabio, A., Palazzeschi, L., Asulin-Peretz, L., & Gati, I. (2013). Career indecision versus
indecisiveness: Associations with personality traits and emotional intelligence. Journal of
Career Assessment, 21, 42–56. doi:10.1177/1069072712454698
Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Hanchon, T. A. (2004). An empirical typology of
perfectionism in gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 95–106.
Dunnell, P. & Bakken, L . (1991). Gifted high school students’ attitudes toward careers and
sex roles. Roeper Review, 13, 198–202.
Emmett, J. D., & Minor, C. W. (1993). Career decision-making factors in gifted young adults.
Career Development Quarterly, 41, 350–366.
Fan, Y. (2000). A classification of Chinese culture. Cross Cultural Management, 7, 3–10.
Ferriman, K., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and
personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Develop-
mental changes and gender differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 517–532.
Fiebig, J. N. (2003). Gifted American and German early adolescent girls: Influences on career
orientation and aspirations. High Ability Studies, 14, 165–183.
Fiebig, J. N. (2008). Gifted American and German adolescent women: A longitudinal
examination of attachment, separation, gender roles, and career aspirations. High Ability
Studies, 19, 67–81.
Fletcher, K. L., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2012). Research on perfectionism and
achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49,
668–677.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2014). A proposed framework for preventing perfectionism
and promoting resilience and mental health among vulnerable children and adolescents.
Psychology in the Schools, 51, 899–912. doi:10.1002/pits.21792
Fredrickson, R. H. (1979). Career development and the gifted. In N. Colangelo &
R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 264–276). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Fredrickson, R. H., & Rothney, J. W. M. (1972). Recognizing and assisting multipotential youth.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of
perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468
Furlong, A., & Biggart, A. (1999). Framing ‘choices’: A longitudinal study of occupational
aspirations among 13- to 16-year-olds. Journal of Education and Work, 12, 21–35.
Gati, I., Krausz, M., & Osipow, S. H. (1996). A taxonomy of difficulties in career decision
making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 510–526.
Germeijs, V., & De Boeck, P. (2003). Career indecision: Three factors from decision theory.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). The challenge and promise of cognitive career assessment. Journal
Greene, M. J. (2003). Gifted adrift? Career counseling of the gifted and talented. Roeper Review,
25, 66–72.
Gross, M. U. M. (2006). Exceptionally gifted children: Long-term outcomes of academic
acceleration and nonacceleration. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 404– 429.
doi:10.4219/jeg-2006-247
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., Senécal, C., Larose, S., & Deschênes, A. (2006). Distinguishing
developmental from chronic career indecision: Self-efficacy, autonomy, and social
support. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 235–251.
Guay, F., Senécal, C., Gauthier, L., & Fernet, C. (2003). Predicting career indecision:
A selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 165–177.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology,
15, 27–33.
Hawkins, C. C., Watt, H. M. G., & Sinclair, K. E. (2006). Psychometric properties of the
Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale with Australian adolescent girls: Clarification
of multidimensionality and perfectionist typology. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 66, 1001–1022.
Hébert, T. P., & Kelly, K. R. (2006). Identity and career development in gifted students.
In F. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 35–64).
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Hesketh, B., & Rounds, J. (1995). International cross-cultural approaches to career develop-
ment. In W. B. Walsh and S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory,
research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 367–390). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptual-
ization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to
economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16, 5–21.
House, R., Hanges, P. J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., Dorfman, P. W., Javidan, M., Dickson,
M., et al. (1999). Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE.
In W. H. Mobley, M. J. Gessner, & V. Arnold (Eds.), Advances in global leadership,
Vol. 1 (pp. 171–233). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and
implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to Project GLOBE. Journal
of World Business, 37, 3–10.
Inglehart, R., & Carballo, M. (1997). Does Latin America exist (and is there a Confucian
culture)?: A global analysis of cross-cultural differences. PS: Political Science and Politics,
30, 34–47.
Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. S. (2006).
Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review
of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 897–914.
Jung, J. Y. (2013). The cognitive processes associated with occupational/career indecision:
A model for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 433–460.
doi:10.1177/0162353213506067
Jung, J. Y. (2014). Modeling the occupational/career decision-making processes of
intellectually gifted adolescents: A competing models strategy. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 37, 128–152.
Counsellors in Schools. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.
1017/jgc.2016.33.
Jung, J. Y., & McCormick, J. (2010). Amotivation and the occupational decision: An
investigation of Australian senior high school students. British Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 38, 441–458.
Jung, J. Y., & McCormick, J. (2011a). Occupational decision-related processes for amotivated
adolescents: Confirmation of a model. Journal of Career Development, 38, 275–292.
Jung, J. Y., & McCormick, J. (2011b). The occupational decision: A cultural and motivational
perspective. Journal of Career Assessment, 19, 75–91.
Jung, J. Y., McCormick, J., Gregory, G., & Barnett, K. (2011). Culture, motivation, and
vocational decision-making of Australian senior high school students in private schools.
Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 21, 85–106.
Jung, J. Y., & Young, M. (2017). Occupational/career indecision for economically dis-
advantaged high school students of high intellectual ability: A mixed methods cognitive
process model. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 718–735. doi:10.1002/pits.22023
Kelly, K. R., & Cobb, S. J. (1991). A profile of the career development characteristics of
young gifted adolescents: Examining gender and multicultural influences. Roeper Review,
13, 202–206.
Kerr, B., & Cohn, S. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for meaning.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Kerr, B. A., & Colangelo, N. (1988). The college plans of academically talented students.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 42–48.
Kerr, B. A., & Sodano, S. (2003). Career assessment with intellectually gifted students. Journal
Kher-Durlabhji, N., Lacina-Gifford, L. J., Carter, R. C., & Lalande, L. K. (1997). A career
in teaching: Comparing views of gifted and talented adolescents. Journal for Secondary Gifted
Education, 9, 21–27.
Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson & Company.
Leong, F. T. L., & Chervinko, S. (1996). Construct validity of career indecision: Negative
personality traits as predictors of career indecision. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 315–329.
Leung, S. A. (1998). Vocational identity and career choice congruence of gifted and talented
high school students. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 325–335.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137–150.
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Ryan, J. (1995). Stability of vocational interests among the
intellectually gifted from adolescence to adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80, 90–94.
Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2005). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted
education. Roeper Review, 28, 64–69.
55, 206–224.
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Multipotential abilities and vocational interests in gifted
adolescents: Fact or fiction? International Journal of Psychology, 34, 81–93.
Muratori, M. C., & Smith, C. K. (2015). Guiding the talent and career development of the
gifted individual. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 173–182.
Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. J. (1996). The incidence of perfectionism in gifted students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 40, 194–199.
Parris, G. P., Owens, D., Johnson, T., Grbevski, S., & Holbert-Quince, J. (2010). Addressing
the career development needs of high-achieving African American high school students:
Implications for counselors. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 417–436.
Patton, W., & Creed, P. (2007). The relationship between career variables and occupational
aspirations and expectations for Australian high school adolescents. Journal of Career
Persson, R. S. (2009). Intellectually gifted individuals’ career choices and work satisfaction:
A descriptive study. Gifted and Talented International, 24, 11–25.
Proyer, R. T. (2006). The relationship between vocational interests and intelligence: Do
findings generalize across different assessment methods? Psychology Science, 48, 463–476.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A review
and synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 10, 435–454.
Ryan, M. R., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Ryan, M. R., & Deci, E. L. (2003). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development and well-being. In L. W. Porter, G. A. Bigley & R. M.
Steers (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp. 49–64). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rysiew, K. J., Shore, B. M., & Carson, A. D. (1994). Multipotentiality and overchoice
syndrome: Clarifying common usage. Gifted and Talented International, 9, 41–46.
Rysiew, K. J., Shore, B. M., & Leeb, R. T. (1999). Multipotentiality, giftedness, and career
choice: A review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 423–430. doi:10.1002/j.1556-
6676.1999.tb02469.x
Sajjadi, S. H., Rejskind, F. G., & Shore, B. M. (2001). Is multipotentiality a problem or
not? A new look at the data. High Ability Studies, 12, 27–43.
Sampson, J. P., Jr., & Chason, A. K. (2008). Helping gifted and talented adolescents and
young adults make informed and careful career choices. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook
of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 327– 346).
New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
Santos, P. J., & Ferreira, J. A. (2012). Career decision statuses among Portuguese secondary
school students: A cluster analytical approach. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 166–181.
Schmidt, D. B., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1998). Validity of assessing educational–
vocational preference dimensions among intellectually talented 13-year-olds. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 45, 436–453.
Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 11, 183–196.
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–37.
Skorikov, V. (2007). Continuity in adolescent career preparation and its effects on adjustment.
Sparfeldt, J. R. (2007). Vocational interests of gifted adolescents. Personality and Individual
Differences, 42, 1011–1021.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in
gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259–274.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Williams, K. K., & Cross, T. L. (2009). Gifted high school students’
perspectives on the development of perfectionism. Roeper Review, 31, 198–206.
Stewart, J. B. (1999). Career counselling for the academically gifted student. Canadian Journal
of Counselling, 33, 3–12.
Stornelli, D., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2009). Perfectionism, achievement, and affect
in children: A comparison of students from gifted, arts, and regular programs. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 24, 267–283.
Vock, M., Köller, O., & Nagy, G. (2013). Vocational interests of intellectually gifted and
highly achieving young adults. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 305–328.
Watters, J. J. (2010). Career decision making among gifted students: The mediation of teachers.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 222–238.
Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with
math–science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational
development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785–794.
White, N. J., & Tracey, T. J. G. (2011). An examination of career indecision and application
to dispositional authenticity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 219–224. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.
2010.09.015.
4
THE CAREER DECISION-MAKING
PROCESSES OF GIFTED STUDENTS
In contrast to the level of attention that has been given by scholars to the individual
factors that influence the career decisions of gifted students, minimal research
has, to date, been conducted on how these factors may interact with one another,
and may be sequenced, to allow for an understanding of how specifically gifted
students may go about making their career decisions. In this chapter, the focus is
on the career decision-making processes of gifted students, and draws on, in turn, the
literature on the major decision-making theories, the literature on the major career
decision-making theories (including Gottfredson’s [1981, 2002, 2005] theory of
circumscription and compromise, and the theory of work adjustment [Dawis &
Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991], which may be particularly relevant for
gifted students), and a number of recently verified empirical models of the career
decision-making processes of gifted students.
Decision-making
Decision-making appears to be a complex, heterogeneous, and an interdisciplinary
area of study (Dougherty, 2003; Simon et al., 1987). Many different theories of
decision-making (most of which outline decision-making processes) exist, although
the rational choice theory appears to be one of the most influential (Morcol, 2007).
In the rational choice theory (and its variations, including expected utility theory,
rational comprehensive theory, neoclassicism, public choice, and subjective
expected utility theory), it is assumed that the decision-maker is a rational inde-
pendent being, who makes decisions logically, and with full information about the
available options and consequences, in a self-interested, utility-maximizing, and
stable, manner (Morcol, 2007). The theory has been theoretically generalized to
explain a wide range of behaviors in a wide range of disciplines (Becker, 1978;
Morcol, 2007; Zey, 1992). Some have argued that the rational choice theory is
48 Career decision-making processes
unmatched as a theory of decision-making, and that it represents a useful

approximation of reality (Herrnstein, 1990; Morcol, 2007).
Despite the major influence of the rational choice theory, it has often been shown
to be inadequate in explaining how individuals actually go about making decisions
(Crozier & Ranyard, 1997; Hastie & Dawes, 2001; Morcol, 2007; Zey, 1992).
For example, Hastie and Dawes (2001) noted that in real life situations, people
may not think systematically through each of the available options, or weigh and
evaluate each of the consequences, as the rational choice theory might suggest.
Relatedly, Janis and Mann (1977) noted that humans are reluctant decision-makers
rather than “rational calculators.”
The many critics of rational choice theory point to the influence of factors that
may co-exist with rationality to influence decision-making such as motivation,
norms, altruism, biases, personal experience, emotion, intuition, morality, and
expectations (Crozier & Ranyard, 1997; Gärling, Karlsson, Romanus, & Selart,
1997; Hastie & Dawes, 2001; Kemdal & Montgomery, 1997; Klein, 1999; Lewicka,
1997; Morcol, 2007; Schneider & Barnes, 2003; Simon et al., 1987; Verplanken
& Svenson, 1997; Zey, 1992). Others have noted factors that may prevent
full rationality in decision-making processes, such as the limitations of human
information-gathering/processing capabilities, human inconsistencies, time con-
straints, the role of habit, the complexity of decision-making situations, and the
non-availability of perfect information about options and consequences (Hastie &
Dawes, 2001; Janis & Mann, 1977; Maule & Edland, 1997; Morcol, 2007; Simon
et al., 1987; Zey, 1992). Still others argue for the need to acknowledge socio-
cultural factors, which have been neglected in rational choice theory, such as the
context of decision-making, the influence of social networks and organizations,
and the cultural embeddedness of decision-making (Janis & Mann, 1977; Kemdal
& Montgomery, 1997; Lerner & Tetlock, 2003; Morcol, 2007; Peterson, Miranda,
Smith, & Haskell, 2003; Simon et al., 1987; Zey, 1992). To more completely reflect
the reality of how decisions are made, influences other than rationality may need
to be considered.
The rational decision-making theories are often described as being part of a
family of theories that are “normative” or “prescriptive” in nature, which specify
that rationality is the basis by which individuals should engage in decision-making
(Hastie & Dawes, 2001; Janis & Mann, 1977; Simon et al., 1987; Zey, 1992). In
comparison, those non-rational decision-making theories that attempt to explain
how individuals actually go about making their decisions, may be classified as
“descriptive” or “real” decision-making theories (Hastie & Dawes, 2001; Simon
et al., 1987; Zey, 1992). Harte and Koele (1997) have noted that the normative/
descriptive distinction is the most common one that is made in decision-making
processes.
A multitude of descriptive theories of decision-making have been introduced
by scholars. One prominent line of thinking was proposed by Simon et al. (1987),
who noted that although decision-makers intend to make rational decisions, they
are unable to do so because of multiple constraining influences. In his theory of
Career decision-making processes 49
bounded rationality, Simon et al. argued that instead of making optimal and fully
rational decisions, humans make decisions that are only satisfactory for important
aspects (Crozier & Ranyard, 1997; Hastie & Dawes, 2001; Janis & Mann, 1977;
Morcol, 2007; Pliske & Klein, 2003). Simon coined the term satisficing to refer to
the seeking of adequate or satisfactory, rather than optimal, decisions (Simon
et al., 1987).
Naturalistic decision-making, differentiation and consolidation theory, and
conflict theory are other major descriptive theories in the field. Naturalistic
decision-making describes decision-making in natural situations characterized by
high stakes, time pressure, inadequate information, and domain expertise (Klein,
1999; Pliske & Klein, 2003); Svenson’s (Svenson & Hill, 1997; Verplanken &
Svenson, 1997) differentiation and consolidation theory conceptualizes decision-
making as a process whereby one choice option is progressively differentiated from
its alternatives to be superior to others; and Janis and Mann’s (1977) conflict model
introduced the notion that intense conflicts that are likely to arise whenever an
important decision is made, may limit the rationality of decisions.
More recent theories of decision-making include those that acknowledge
influences such as memory and cognitive psychology (e.g., Dougherty, 2003;
Dougherty, Gronlund, & Gettys, 2003), the role of the decision-making content
or task (e.g., Dougherty, 2003; Rettinger & Hastie, 2003), developmental
psychology (e.g., Haines & Moore, 2003), goals (e.g., Schneider & Barnes, 2003),
postmodernism, and the socio-cultural contexts of decisions (e.g., Dougherty, 2003;
Haines & Moore, 2003; Lerner & Tetlock, 2003; Peterson et al., 2003). It is pos-
sible that in the future, scholars may incorporate even greater complexity in their
conceptualization of decision-making, in an attempt to more closely reflect actual
human decision-making behaviors.
Career decision-making
Decision-making with respect to one’s future career is an area of study that has
attracted increasing attention in recent years. In the United States, career decision-
making has often been considered to be a part of the highly specialized field of
vocational psychology, which incorporates vocational behavior, career inter-
ventions, and social policy on work-related matters (Walsh & Savickas, 2005). In
other parts of the world, it is often considered to form part of other fields (Baldock,
1971; Hesketh, 2001; Hesketh & Rounds, 1995; Russell, 2001).
Parsons’ theory
The first theory of career decision-making was developed by Parsons (1909), who,
in calling for a systematic and scientific approach to match people and jobs, proposed
a three-step formula for the career decision-making process (Brown, 2002; Savickas,
2007; Savickas & Baker, 2005). According to Parsons,
there are three elements to the choice of a vocation: a clear understanding

of one’s aptitudes, abilities, interests, and resources; a knowledge of the
different lines of work; and true reasoning of the relationships between these
two groups of facts.
(Parsons, 1909, p. 5)
Parsons’ model remains highly influential as a cornerstone of many modern career

decision-making theories (Brown, 2002; Savickas & Baker, 2005).
Modern career decision-making theories

Today, the most influential career decision-making theories include the trait and
factor theories, the developmental theories, the social learning theories, and the
postmodern theories (Brown, 2002; Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997; Krumboltz, 1979;
Osipow, 1990; Osipow & Littlejohn, 1995). Many of these theories, particularly
the trait and factor theories and some developmental theories, are psychologically
based, as they focus on the individual characteristics of the decision-makers, such
as their interests, values, and personality. In contrast, the social learning theories
simultaneously have a psychological focus and an explicit acknowledgement of the
social settings of the decision-makers (Brown, 2002; Johnson & Mortimer, 2002).
Despite their diversity, many career decision-making theories, nevertheless, appear
to be inter-related, with elements of some theories, particularly the trait and factor
theories, widely replicated in others. For example, the interests of the decision-
maker, commonly recognized in the trait and factor theories, have also been
incorporated into the theory of circumscription and compromise (Gottfredson, 1981,
2002, 2005) and social cognitive career theory (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002).
Of the modern trait and factor theories, which focus on the “matching,”
“congruence” or “correspondence” between an individual’s characteristics and the
career, Holland’s (1997) theory of personality and work environments is the most
prominent, with Brown (2002) recognizing it as the most influential model of
vocational decision-making today. The theory of work adjustment (Dawis &
Lofquist, 1984; Osipow, 1990) and the person-environment correspondence theory
(Dawis, 2002) are other theories with subtle differences from Holland’s theory.
For this group of theories, the match between the individual’s personality, interests,
abilities, and/or needs with the career is seen to be an integral element of the career
decision-making process. Although logical, the trait and factor theories in their
most basic form nevertheless appear to be somewhat simplistic, as they emphasize
only a few psychological factors (e.g., interests and abilities), while excluding other
possible influences.
The career development theories approach the career decision by examining
an individual’s development processes, which are conceptualized as usually taking
many years and life stages to complete (Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997; Osipow, 1990;
Phillips & Jome, 2005; Savickas, 2007). While the first career development theory
introduced by Ginzberg focused on the development of a career choice from late
childhood to early adulthood (Savickas & Baker, 2005), many subsequent theories,
including Super’s (1963) theory of career stages, or theory of career choice and
development, go further by also examining career-related behaviors and cognitions
of the individual throughout his or her working life (Savickas, 2002). In Super’s
theory, an individual is seen to progress through different stages by mastering career-
related tasks and goals, and achieving greater levels of vocational maturity. Of the
stages conceptualized by Super, the growth (the formation of a vocational self-
concept) and exploration (the formation of tentative ideas and preferences about
a niche in society, and the subsequent formation of a career choice as greater
vocational maturity is achieved) stages appear to be the most relevant elements of
the career decision-making process. The broadness and generality of Super’s
theory, may be simultaneously strengths and weaknesses of the theory.
More contemporary career development theories include Gottfredson’s theory
of circumscription and compromise, and Savickas’ theory of career construction.
Gottfredson’s theory conceptualizes a career decision as emerging after the
progressive elimination of unacceptable careers on set criteria (Gottfredson, 1981,
2002, 2005; Phillips & Jome, 2005; Sauermann, 2005). In comparison, Savickas’
(2002) theory of career construction is simultaneously a major postmodern approach
to the study of career decision-making, as well as a career development theory.
The theory, which recognizes a number of psychological and social perspectives
through a series of propositions, may be an interesting new direction to under-
standing career decision-making processes, although like other postmodern
approaches, lacks a fixed logical form (Savickas, 2002).
In comparison to the trait and factor theories and the career development
theories, the social learning theories are characterized by their simultaneous
and explicit acknowledgment of the external, social, or cultural influences on the
career decision-making process, and the psychological characteristics of the indi-
vidual (Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997; Lent et al., 2002; Osipow, 1990). One variable
that is particularly emphasized in the social learning theories is occupational self-
efficacy (Osipow, 1990). In social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2002),
self-efficacy, and the conceptually similar outcome expectations, are seen as the
major mediating variables through which psychological (including ability con-
siderations and predispositions) and social (including gender and ethnicity)
influences act to determine career interest, career goals, and ultimately, career choice.
In this theory, the interaction between the decision-maker and the environment
is conceptualized as dynamic, situation-specific, and mutually influential. The pre-
eminence given to self-efficacy indicates that, one’s belief that one can be successful
in a particular career (as influenced by psychological and social factors) is an essential
determinant of an individual’s occupation. The empirical support (Lent et al., 2002)
for the theory suggests that it is a valid way of thinking about career decision-
making processes. Nevertheless, the primacy given to self-efficacy and outcome
expectations, over other arguably, equally influential constructs, is debatable and
may require further investigation.
Career decision-making theories applicable to gifted

students
Of the established career decision-making theories, two appear to be particularly
relevant to gifted students. Muratori and Smith (2015) noted that while some
of the established career decision-making theories may have some merit for gifted
students, Gottfredson’s (1981, 2002, 2005) theory of circumscription and com-
promise may be particularly suited for this population due to its “strong emphasis
on factors that are salient to many gifted individuals, such as cognitive ability,
occupational prestige, and the influence of sex roles and gender stereotypes on career
development” (p. 174). In comparison, Achter and colleagues considered the theory
of work adjustment (i.e., TWA; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991),
which has been used for a number of decades to understand talent development
over the life span in the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, to be a useful theory
in understanding the career decision-making processes of gifted students, as it has
“a dual emphasis on abilities and preferences” (Achter & Lubinski, 2005, p. 604)
and comprises components that may be viewed as “determinants of critical decisions
antecedent to vocational choice” (Achter, Lubinski, Benbow, 1996, p. 66) for gifted
students.
Gottfredson’s (2002) theory of circumscription and

compromise
Gottfredson’s (1981, 2002, 2005) theory of circumscription and compromise is a
theory that places a focus on how specifically people come to recognize, and then
deal with, the diverse array of career options that are available to them. The theory
was developed from an integration of the findings in a number of disciplines
including vocational assessment, career choice, job performance, status attainment,
mental ability, and behavior genetics (Gottfredson, 2005). The greatest support for
the theory appears to be centered on its focus on child development, gender
differences, constraints associated with career exploration, and elements associated
with the elimination of incompatible career options (Flum & Blustein, 2000;
Gottfredson, 1981, 2002, 2005; McLennan & Arthur, 1999; Shivy, Phillips, &
Koehly, 1996).
In essence, the theory proposes that the process of making the career decision
is a process of “matching” the individual with a career. Gottfredson (1981, 2002,
2005) has suggested that this may involve four developmental processes or phases:
(a) Cognitive growth. The attainment of proficiency in accessing, analysing, and

evaluating career-related information to allow for a solid understanding of the
wide range of career options that are available (i.e., a cognitive map of occu-
pations). For each career, this may encompass becoming familiar with the type
of work that is involved, working conditions, rewards, stereotypes, and the
common personalities of the people engaged in the career.
(b) Self-creation. The development of a person’s interests, skills, values, and goals
related to a future career, that are likely to be a product of his/her genes, culture,
environment, and experiences. Gottfredson has suggested that with greater
maturity, this may become an increasingly active and self-directed process (e.g.,
as individuals are likely to take an independent role in the selection,
development, and interpretation of their environments).
(c) Circumscription. The progressive elimination of career options that may
conflict with an individuals’ perceptions of his/her self, mainly on the basis
of gender role (which is likely to be culturally influenced, and reflective of
experiences made available to individuals of different genders), occupational
prestige, and personal interests. Other considerations during this phase may
include the level of difficulty of the available careers, and links between each
career option, income, and education. The cognitive abilities of individuals
may dictate the speed with which this phase is navigated.
(d) Compromise. The progressive elimination of the remaining acceptable
career options on the basis of accessibility to arrive at a career decision. Some
potential barriers to access for some career options may include the non-
availability of relevant education/training programs, the costs of the relevant
education/training programs, the non-availability of employment oppor-
tunities, the nature of hiring practices, discrimination, and the lack of support
from parents.
Gottfredson’s theory (1981, 2002, 2005) does not appear to suggest that the optimal
career will be identified and selected by gifted students, due to the tremendous
time, financial, and other related costs associated with gathering information on
all of the available careers. Instead, most gifted students may minimize their search
costs by selectively gathering information on those careers that are of greatest interest,
gathering information only around the time the career decision needs to be made,
and gathering information only from those sources who are personally known and
trusted. Therefore, a “good enough” career, rather than a “perfect” career appears
to be chosen under this theory.
In addition to its recognition of occupational prestige and gender roles,
Gottfredson’s theory appears to be particularly useful in understanding the career
decision-making processes of gifted students because of its explicit acknowledge-
ment of students of high intellectual ability:
Same-age children also differ considerably among themselves in (their)

general learning and reasoning ability . . . At any given chronological age,
some are far above or below their peers in mental age (that is higher or lower
in general intelligence [emphasis in original]). The brighter the child, the more
information he or she understands and extracts from his or her surrounds
and from direct instruction.
(Gottfredson, 2005, p. 73)
Consistent with the literature on the individual factors that may influence the career
decision for gifted students (Kelly & Cobb, 1991; Stewart, 1999), Gottfredson
indicates that gifted students may be more likely than students of lower intellectual
ability to access useful career-related information, and thereby develop a sophisti-
cated and complex understanding of the available careers.
Other aspects of Gottfredson’s theory that may be relevant to gifted students
relate to issues that may arise during the circumscription phase (i.e., the progressive
elimination of unacceptable career options). For example, Gottfredson (2005) has
suggested that due to differences in the level of difficulty of the different career
options, students of the highest levels of ability may be more likely than other
students to retain for consideration careers in the professional fields (e.g., medicine,
law, psychology, journalism, engineering, and pharmacy). Many of these careers
are likely to lie within the investigative and realistic realms of Holland’s (1997)
vocational classification scheme, that are commonly favored by gifted students (Chen
& Wong, 2013; Fiebig, 2008; Greene, 2006; Jung, 2017b; Kerr & Colangelo, 1988;
Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Persson, 2009; Sparfeldt, 2007; Vock, Köller, & Nagy, 2013).
Additionally, Gottfredson’s (2005) inference that gifted students may be able to
complete the elimination of unacceptable career options earlier than non-gifted
students is consistent with the pattern of early emergence of career interests among
gifted students (Greene, 2003, 2006; Matthews & Foster, 2005; Stewart, 1999).
Among the other factors that have been identified as being influential in the
career decisions of gifted students, personal career-related interests are a prominent
feature of Gottfredson’s theory as one of the main features of each of the self-
creation, circumscription and compromise phases. Less attention, however, appears
to have been devoted to the expectations of family members (Greene, 2003, 2006;
Muratori & Smith, 2015), which is nevertheless considered to be a “barrier” to
the accessibility of certain career options, or to the valuing of intellectual stimulation
(Chen & Wong, 2013; Emmett & Minor, 1993; Jung, 2014, 2017b; Kerr & Sodano,
2003). Interestingly, Gottfredson does not appear to have any real focus on multi-
potentiality or perfectionism. In fact, the acknowledgement that a non-optimal
career is likely to be selected under Gottfredson’s theory may be considered to be
antithetical to perfectionism.
Theory of work adjustment

As for Gottfredson’s (1981, 2002, 2005) theory of circumscription and compromise,
the theory of work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Dawis, 2005; Lofquist &
Dawis, 1991; Swanson & Schneider, 2013) places a focus on the existence or
otherwise of a “match” between the individual and the career. In this theory, the
career decision is seen to be made “by specifying important characteristics between
the individual and the (work) environment and then attempting to find the best
match or fit” (Swanson & Schneider, 2013, p. 29). The usefulness of the theory
has been supported in research that has assessed the nature of interactions among
its major components (Dawis, 2005; Swanson & Schneider, 2013), and in research
with disadvantaged populations (Chiocchio & Frigon, 2006; Lyons, Brenner, &
Fassinger, 2005; Lyons, & O’Brien, 2006).
Essentially, the theory proposes that: (a) each individual has a set of needs and
values that may or may not be met by the rewards offered in each work environ-
ment (e.g., income, prestige, working conditions), and (b) each work environment
has a set of requirements that may or may not be met by the skills and abilities
possessed by each individual (e.g., cognitive, affective, motor, physical, and sensory-
perceptual skills/abilities). In the situation where either the needs/values of the
individual or the skills/abilities required by the work environment are met,
correspondence is deemed to have occurred (Achter et al., 1996; Dawis, 2005;
Swanson & Schneider, 2013). Specifically, correspondence between individual
needs/values and work environment rewards is called satisfaction, while corres-
pondence between work environment requirements and the skills/abilities of
the individual is referred to as satisfactoriness (Dawis, 2005; Swanson & Schneider,
2013). The optimal career choice is likely to be one where both satisfaction and
satisfactoriness, which may influence one another, is achieved (Dawis, 2005;
Swanson & Schneider, 2013).
Dawis (2005) has acknowledged that a number of career options may allow for
the achievement of both satisfaction and satisfactoriness. In such a situation, he has
suggested that the career decision should be made after consideration of some other
factors including vocational interests, personality traits, family considerations, and
the state of the labor market. It is noted that in the adaptation to the theory of
work adjustment used by Achter and colleagues (Achter et al., 1996; Achter &
Lubinski, 2005), vocational interests were subsumed into the needs/values of
individuals, and therefore play a role earlier in the career decision-making process
(i.e., in the determination of whether satisfaction is achieved by an individual). In
either version of the theory, both abilities and interests, which multiple scholars
(Achter, Lubinski, Benbow, & Eftekhari-Sanjani, 1999; Achter & Lubinski, 2005;
Jung, 2014; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Webb, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2002)
consider imperative in understanding the career decisions of gifted students, appear
to be prominent.
In addition to ability and interest, the theory of work adjustment gives explicit
acknowledgement to a range of factors that have been recognized to influence the
career decisions of gifted students. For example, family expectations, family culture
(e.g., nuclear vs. extended, two vs. one parent, number of children, decision-making
structure, bonding, closeness) and family socio-economic status, have all been
recognized as possible influences in the career decision after satisfaction and
satisfactoriness are established (Dawis, 2005). In particular, the reference to family
socio-economic status appears to imply that any consideration of income or
occupational prestige in the career decision may be related to an individual’s
childhood and family upbringing. In comparison, the early emergence of career
interests appears to be implied in Gottfredson’s theory through recommendations
by scholars for the use of “above level” assessments of abilities and interests with
gifted students. Indeed, Achter and Lubinski (2005) have indicated that “among
the intellectually gifted, . . . crystallization (of vocational interests) may occur at an

earlier age and could be combined with ability assessment to aid advanced
educational and early career planning” (p. 609).
Among the other commonly identified factors, the theory indirectly suggests that
gender role may be an issue, not because of differences in the general levels of
intellectual ability between male and female students, but because of differences in
the specific domains in which male and female students commonly demonstrate their
strongest abilities (i.e., stronger verbal abilities among female students, and stronger
mathematical/spatial abilities among male students; Achter & Lubinski, 2005;
Halpern, 2000). Nevertheless, gender is not given explicit attention in the theory.
Similarly, no substantial or meaningful attention appears to have been given to factors
such as perfectionism, a need for intellectual stimulation, the fulfillment of potential,
high self-aspirations, or multipotentiality. Of note, only a vague reference was made
to the possible difficulties associated with the career decision, which may be an issue
for both gifted and non-gifted students, when, Dawis (2005) noted that
in choosing from among the finalist occupations, an individual must be aware

of the trade-off nature of choice, the need to balance between advantages
and disadvantages, and finally to decide on the basis of what is most important
to the person.
(p. 18)
Empirically verified career decision-making process

models of gifted students
Despite the fact that both the theory of circumscription and compromise
(Gottfredson, 1981, 2002, 2005) and the theory of work adjustment (Dawis &
Lofquist, 1984; Dawis, 2005; Lofquist & Dawis, 1991; Swanson & Schneider, 2013)
contain elements that may be useful in understanding the career decision-making
processes of gifted students, neither theory was developed specifically to describe
or explain the career decision-making processes of this group. Possibly more reflec-
tive of the career decision-making processes of gifted students may be the empiric-
ally verified career decision-making process models that have been developed by
Jung (2013, 2014, 2017a, 2017b). Using data collected from gifted students, Jung
followed structural equation modeling and related procedures to develop and refine
multiple career decision-making process models that led to the formation of both
career intentions (2014, 2017b) and career indecision (Jung, 2013, 2017a).
Decision-making processes that lead to career intentions

Jung’s (2014, 2017b) two decision-making process models that led to the forma-
tion of career intentions were informed by the literature on the career decisions
of high ability individuals, the various career decision theories, culture (i.e., the
individualism/collectivism, and long-term orientation dimensions in Hofstede
[2001]), motivation (i.e., expectancy–value theory and the theory of reasoned
action), and the career decision-making processes of adolescents in the general

student population. As such, they incorporated many of the individual factors
that have been recognized by scholars as being influential in the career decisions
of gifted students (e.g., interest/enjoyment, income, recognition, individualism,
collectivism, family influence, intellectual stimulation, and the fulfillment of
potential). Factors that may represent disparate dimensions to those that were selected
(e.g., career-related information) or were more closely associated with career inde-
cision (e.g., multipotentiality and perfectionism) were excluded from consideration.
Figures 4.1 (Jung, 2014) and 4.2 (Jung, 2017b) provide schematic representations
of the two models that were developed, which may be considered to represent
two variations in the manner in which career intentions may be formed by gifted
students. Generally, the models suggested that gifted students with an individualistic
outlook toward the future or a collectivistic orientation toward their family, are
likely to place importance on interest and enjoyment in their future careers (the
valuing of interest and enjoyment appears to coincide with the valuing of recog-
nition from others, but not the valuing of income). Thereafter, the valuing of
interest/enjoyment appears to be predictive of the attitudes that gifted students have
toward various careers, and in turn, their intentions to pursue these careers. In
both models, a need for intellectual stimulation was found to be strongly related
to interest/enjoyment in a career.
The two models collectively indicated that the career decision-making processes
of gifted students may be simultaneously similar and different to the career decision-
making processes of students in the general population. In particular, the broad
Idiocentrism-
Future*
Intellectual
Stimulation
Social Influence-
Family Career
Allocentrism- Interest/Enjoyment
Family*
Career Income Recognition

Career
Attitude
Fulfillment of Career
Potential Intention
FIGURE 4.1
Jung (2014)
* “Individualism” and “collectivism” define phenomena at the level of cultures, and “idiocentrism”
and “allocentrism” are the corresponding terms used respectively at the level of the individual
Idiocentrism-
Future* Fulfillment of
Potential
Intellectual
Stimulation
Social Influence-
Family Career
Interest/Enjoyment
Allocentrism-
Family*
_ Career
Attitude
Recognition
Career
Career Intention
Income
FIGURE 4.2
Jung (2017b)
*-“Individualism” and “collectivism” define phenomena at the level of cultures, and “idiocentrism”
career decision-making processes, including the fundamental “backbone” cognitive

process pathway (i.e., idiocentrism-future – career interest/enjoyment – career
attitude – career intention) and the relationships between career interest/enjoyment,
career income, and recognition, were identical to those identified in the general
student population (Jung & McCormick, 2011b; Jung, McCormick, Gregory, &
Barnett, 2011). In comparison, the differences in the career decision-making
processes between gifted and non-gifted students appear to center around the two
factors that may be specific to gifted students (i.e., a need for intellectual stimulation
and a desire to fulfill one’s potential). The positive relationship between career
interest/enjoyment and a need for intellectual stimulation in both models suggested
that those careers considered interesting and enjoyable by gifted students may also
be intellectually stimulating. On the other hand, the weak negative (Jung, 2014)
or non-existent (Jung, 2017b) relationship between a desire to fulfill one’s potential
and career attitude, suggested that the fulfillment of potential may not be an
important consideration in the career decision-making processes of gifted students,
even if it may co-exist with a need for intellectual stimulation (Jung, 2017b).
The two models, which allow for a clear and practical understanding of the
career decision-making processes of gifted students, may be useful in informing
the guidance and counseling of the career decisions of gifted students. First, the
differences that are evident between the career decision-making processes of gifted
and non-gifted students suggest that educators, psychologists, and counselors may
need to assess the intellectual abilities of all students prior to the provision of career
guidance, which will need to be differentiated for the two student groups.
Furthermore, in consideration of the pivotal and mediating role played by the valuing
of interest/enjoyment in careers and attitudes toward careers in the two models,
these two elements of the career decision-making processes may need to be the
focus of guidance for gifted students. For example, the greatest level of attention
may need to be given to those careers that gifted students consider to be the most
interesting and enjoyable, and for which they have the most favorable attitudes,
in any career guidance or counseling sessions. In the situation where concerns exist
about the excessively low career aspirations of some gifted students, which may
not allow them to utilize their potential, the models suggest that placing an
emphasis on the need to fulfill one’s potential may not be particularly useful, and
may even be detrimental. Instead, efforts may need to be directed at highlighting
the interesting, enjoyable, and by association, the intellectually stimulating, aspects
of the desired alternative careers.
While the two models provide useful insights for researchers and practitioners
of the career decision-making processes of gifted students, they may be further
refined with additional research in targeted areas. For example, the models do not
incorporate all of the factors that may be considered influential in the career decisions
of gifted students (e.g., gender and timing of the formation of career intentions),
or the different dimensions of culture that may be relevant to the career decision
(e.g., the power distance orientation, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty
avoidance dimensions of Hofstede [2001]). Moreover, the models do not acknow-
ledge the multiple domains in which students may be gifted, different levels of
giftedness among gifted students, or the different sub-populations of gifted students
(e.g., gifted students of diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds, urban/rural back-
grounds, and Indigenous/non-Indigenous backgrounds). Finally, the models are
limited to the decision-making processes that lead to the formation of career inten-
tions, and neglect consideration of whether such intentions translate into actual
entry into the intended careers.
Decision-making processes that lead to career indecision

In parallel with the two studies on the decision-making processes that lead to the
formation of career intentions, Jung conducted two studies to investigate the specific
manner in which gifted students may experience difficulties with the career
decision, and thereby become undecided about their future careers (Jung, 2013,
2017a). Among the factors that were included for consideration in these studies
were: (a) the characteristics of gifted students that have traditionally been associated
with career indecision (i.e., multipotentiality and perfectionism), (b) amotivation
with the career decision, which has been repeatedly shown to play a major role
in the experience of career indecision among the general student population (Jung
& McCormick, 2010, 2011a), and (c) cultural orientation variables related to
individualism and collectivism that have been demonstrated to be useful in
understanding the career decision-making processes of both gifted and non-gifted
student groups (Hofstede, 2001; Jung & McCormick, 2010, 2011a; Jung, 2014).
Multipotentiality
_
Perfectionism
Career
_ Amotivation Career
Idiocentrism- Indecision
_
Future*
_ Career
Intention
Social Influence-
Family
Allocentrism-
Family*
FIGURE 4.3
Jung (2013)
Idiocentrism-
Future*
_
Career
Amotivation
_
Career
Indecision
Social Influence-
_
Family
Career
Intention
Allocentrism-
Family*
FIGURE 4.4
Jung (2017a)
Schematic representations of the two models that were eventually developed are
shown in Figures 4.3 (Jung, 2013) and 4.4 (Jung, 2017a).
As for the models of the decision-making processes that lead to career intentions,
the two models may be considered to represent variations in the manner in which
gifted students may experience career indecision. Generally, the two models
suggested that amotivation with the career decision may represent a pivotal, medi-
ating construct that determines whether gifted students actually experience career
indecision. Two or three cognitive process pathways appear to be predictive of
amotivation with the career decision:
(a) A collectivistic outlook with respect to one’s family (or an individualistic

outlook with respect to the future) – Social influences from the family –
Amotivation with the career decision (Jung, 2013, 2017a);
(b) An individualistic outlook with respect to the future – Amotivation with respect
to the career decision (Jung, 2013, 2017a); and
(c) Multipotentiality – Perfectionism – Amotivation with the career decision (Jung,
2013).
The first two cognitive process pathways suggested that gifted students without
social influences from the family, or an individualistic outlook toward the future,
may be the most likely to become amotivated, and therefore undecided, about
their future careers (simultaneously, these pathways highlight the importance of
idiocentric/allocentric cultural orientations in the initial stages of thinking about
the career decision). In comparison, the third cognitive process pathway, which
was only found in one of the two models (i.e., Jung, 2013), suggested that gifted
students who are perfectionistic (a characteristic that is negatively predicted by
multipotentiality) may also become amotivated and undecided about their future
careers. Of note, Jung (2017a) found that perfectionism may not always be a
pervasive characteristic of gifted students, while the association between multi-
potentiality and the other elements of the career decision-making process models
of gifted students may not always be sufficiently direct.
The models appear to have the potential to be useful in informing the guidance
and support of gifted students who may be experiencing difficulty with the career
decision. First of all, in recognition of the possibly pivotal function of amotivation
in determining whether gifted students experience career indecision, it may be use-
ful to assess whether these students may be amotivated about the career decision.
A number of strategies, which may be inferred from the models, may be useful in
directing any gifted students away from amotivation. For example, in recognition
of the negative relationship between social influences from the family and
amotivation, interactions with family members could be encouraged (including
interactions with older siblings for whom the career decision may be more
imminent, and interactions with parents, for whom the career decision is already
likely to have been made). Alternatively, it may be useful to encourage an indi-
vidualistic outlook toward the future, in recognition of the negative relationship
between an individualistic outlook toward the future and amotivation (e.g., case
studies could be shown of people with individualistic future orientations moving
into successful careers). Yet another option may be a de-emphasis on the need to
achieve perfection, reflecting the positive relationship that was identified between
perfectionism and amotivation in Jung (2013).
As for the decision-making process models that lead to the formation of career
intentions, further research on the decision-making processes associated with career
indecision may be useful to gain a more complete understanding of the
phenomenon of career indecision for gifted students. In particular, greater clarity
on the roles of multipotentiality and perfectionism appears to be needed, as the
research findings to date have been somewhat inconsistent. Furthermore, it is
probable that the two models that currently exist have not incorporated all of the
key factors associated with the decision-making processes that lead to career
indecision for gifted individuals. Future investigations that identify any such factors
will obviously be desirable. Finally, it may be useful for future research to acknow-
ledge the existence of numerous sub-groups of gifted students (e.g., different domains
of giftedness, different levels of giftedness, different cultural backgrounds, urban/
rural backgrounds, Indigenous/non-Indigenous backgrounds), in recognition of the
possibly greater problems associated with the career decision that gifted students
in many of these sub-groups are likely to face.
Final remarks
While there may be greater clarity about the career decision-making processes
of gifted students than ever before, including how specifically they may go about
forming career intentions and how specifically they may come to experience career
indecision, much remains unknown and in need of further investigation. In
particular, it is unfortunate that, at the present time, no comprehensive theory exists
of the career decision-making processes of gifted students that acknowledges their
unique characteristics, distinctive decision-making patterns, and numerous sub-
groups. Such a state of affairs is probably a reflection of the general lack of interest
in the career decision-making processes of gifted students by scholars and practi-
tioners alike. Yet, the exceptional potential of this group provides a more than an
adequate justification for greater and more meaningful attention to this area.
References
Achter, J. A., & Lubinski, D. (2005). Blending promise with passion: Best practices for
counseling intellectually talented youth. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career
development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 600 – 624). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (1996). Multipotentiality among the
intellectually gifted: “It was never there and already it’s vanishing.” Journal of Counseling
vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities:
A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 777–786.
Baldock, C. V. (1971). Vocational choice and opportunity. Christchurch, New Zealand:
University of Canterbury.
Becker, G. S. (1978). The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Brown, D. (2002). Career choice and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chiocchio, F., & Frigon, J. Y. (2006). Tenure, satisfaction, and work environment flexibility
of people with mental retardation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 175–187.
Crozier, R., & Ranyard, R. (1997). Cognitive process models and explanations of decision
making. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive
models and explanations (pp. 5–20). London, U.K.: Routledge.
Dawis, R. V. (2002). Person-environment-correspondence theory. In D. Brown & associates
(Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 427–464). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Dawis, R. V. (2005). The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In S. D. Brown &
R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counselling: Putting theory and research to work
(pp. 3–23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Dougherty, M. E. (2003). Optimists, pessimists and realists. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau
(Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 643–680). Cambridge, U.K.:
Dougherty, M. R. P., Gronlund, S. D. & Gettys, C. F. (2003). Memory as a fundamental
heuristic for decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives
on judgment and decision research (pp. 125–164). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Studies, 19, 67–81.
Flum, H., & Blustein, D. L. (2000). Reinvigorating the study of vocational exploration:
A framework for research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 380–404.
Gärling, T., Karlsson, N., Romanus, J., & Selart, M. (1997). Influences of the past on the
choices of the future. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making:
Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 167–188). London, U.K.: Routledge.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-
creation. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 85–148). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
in career guidance and counseling. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development
and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71–100). New York, NY: Wiley.
25, 66–72.
Haines, B. A., & Moore, C. (2003). Integrating themes from cognitive and social cognitive
development into the study of judgment and decision making. In S. L. Schneider &
J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 246–284).
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Harte, J. M., & Koele, P. (1997). Psychometric and methodological aspects of process tracing
research. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive
Hastie, R., & Dawes, R. M. (2001). Rational choice in an uncertain world: The psychology of
judgment and decision-making. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Rational choice theory: Necessary but sufficient. American
Psychologist, 45, 356–367.
Hesketh, B. (2001). Adapting vocational psychology to cope with change. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 59, 203–212.
Hesketh, B., & Rounds, J. (1995). International cross-cultural approaches to career
development. In W. B. Walsh and S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology:
Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 367–390). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hodkinson, P., & Sparkes, A. C. (1997). Careership: A sociological theory of career
decision-making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18, 29–44.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organ-
izations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and
commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.
Johnson, M. K., & Mortimer, J. T. (2002). Career choice and development from a socio-
logical perspective. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 37–84). San
doi:10.1177/0162353213506067
Jung, J. Y. (2014). Modeling the occupational/career decision-making processes of intellec-
tually gifted adolescents: A competing models strategy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
37, 128–152.
Counsellors in Schools. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.
1017/jgc.2016.33.
Jung, J. Y., & McCormick, J. (2010). Amotivation and the occupational decision: An
Jung, J. Y., & McCormick, J. (2011a). Occupational decision-related processes for amotivated
Jung, J. Y., & McCormick, J. (2011b). The occupational decision: A cultural and motivational
Jung, J. Y., McCormick, J., Gregory, G., & Barnett, K. (2011). Culture, motivation, and
young gifted adolescents: Examining gender and multicultural influences. Roeper Review,
13, 202–206.
Kemdal, A. B., & Montgomery, H. (1997). Perspectives and emotions in personal decision
Klein, G. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Krumboltz, J. D. (1979). A social learning theory of career decision making. In A. M. Mitchell,
G. B. Jones, & J. D. Krumboltz (Eds.), Social learning and career decision making (pp. 19–49).
Cranston, RI: Carroll.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In
D. Brown & associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255–311). San
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Bridging individual, interpersonal and institutional
approaches to judgment and decision making: The impact of accountability of cognitive
bias. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision
research (pp. 431–457). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Lewicka, M. (1997). Is hate wise than love? Cognitive and emotional utilities in decision
Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. (1991). Essentials of person-environment-correspondence counseling.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Lyons, H. Z., Brenner, B. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2005). A multicultural test of the theory
of work adjustment: Investigating the role of heterosexism and fit perceptions in the job
satisfaction of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52,
537–548. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.537
Lyons, H. Z., & O’Brien, K. M. (2006). The role of person–environment fit in the job
satisfaction and tenure intentions of African American employees. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 387–396. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.387
Maule, A. J., & Edland, A. C. (1997). The effects of time pressure on human judgment and
decision making. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson, (Eds.), Decision making:
Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 189–204). London, U.K.: Routledge.
McLennan, N. A., & Arthur, N. (1999). Applying the cognitive information processing
approach to career problem solving and decision making to women’s career development.
Journal of Employment Counseling, 36, 82–96.
Morcol, G. (Ed.) (2007). Handbook of decision making. New York, NY: CRC Press.
Osipow, S. H. (1990). Convergence of theories of career choice and development: Review

and prospect. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 122–131.
Osipow, S. H., & Littlejohn, E. M. (1995). Toward a multicultural theory of career
development: Prospects and dilemmas. In F. T. L. Leong (Ed.), Career development and
vocational behavior of racial and ethnic minorities (pp. 251–262). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Peterson, M. F., Miranda, S. M., Smith, P. B., & Haskell, V. M. (2003). The sociocultural
contexts of decision making in organizations. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.),
Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 512–558). Cambridge, U.K.:
Phillips, S. D., & Jome, L. M. (2005) Vocational Choices: What do we know? What do we
need to know? In W. B. Walsh and M. L. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology:
Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 127–153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pliske, R., & Klein, G. (2003). The naturalistic decision-making perspective. In S. L. Schneider
& J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research (pp. 559–585).
Rettinger, D. A., & Hastie, R. (2003). Comprehension and decision making. In
S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research
(pp. 165–200). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, J. E. A. (2001). Vocational psychology: An analysis and directions for the future.
Sauermann, H. (2005). Vocational choice: A decision-making perspective. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66, 273–303.
Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behaviour.
In D. Brown & associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Savickas, M. L. (2007). Occupational choice. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of
career studies (pp. 79–96). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
vocational psychology: Theory, research and practice (3rd ed., pp. 15–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schneider, S. L., & Barnes, M. D. (2003). What do people really want? Goals and context
in decision making. In S. L. Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on judgment
and decision research (pp. 394–428). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Shivy, V. A., Phillips, S. D., & Koehly, L. M. (1996). Knowledge organization as a factor
in career intervention outcome: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Counseling
Simon, H. A., Dantzig, G. B., Hogarth, R., Plott, C. R., Raiffa, H., Schelling, T. C., Simon,
H. A., Dantzig, G. B., Hogarth, R., Plott, C.R., Raiffa, H., Schelling, T.C., Shepsle,
K. A., Thaler, R., Tversky, A., & Winter, S. (1987). Decision making and problem solving.
Interfaces, 17, 387–393.
Svenson, O., & Hill, T. (1997). Turning prior disadvantages into advantages: Differentiation
and consolidation in real life decision making. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O.
Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 218–232). London,
U. K.: Routledge.
Swanson, J. L., & Schneider, M. (2013). Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In
S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory
and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 29 –53). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Verplanken, B., & Svenson, O. (1997). Personal involvement in human decision making:
Conceptualisations and effects on decision processes. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, &
O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 40–57). London,
U.K.: Routledge.
Walsh, W. B., & Savickas, M. L. (2005). Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research
and practice (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zey, M. (1992). Decision making: Alternatives to rational choice models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5
OF PRODIGIES1
Prodigies are faced with a situation that most other children and adolescents do
not face, when it comes to thinking about or making decisions about their futures.
The early mastery of a valued and demanding field at the level of a trained
professional adult by a young age (Feldman, 1993, 2008; McPherson, 2006) means
that prodigies are often expected to continue in their area of extraordinary
accomplishment as adults, and to make important and substantial contributions to
the field (Goldsmith, 1987). The focus of this chapter is on the unique issues
surrounding the career decisions of prodigies, a group who have traditionally
fascinated and amazed the general public, but have not always lived up to their
early promise as adults (Shavinina, 1999).
It is noteworthy that prodigious children are a group that are most commonly
found in only a small number of fields, such as music, visual arts, chess, writing,
theater arts, and mathematics (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1986; Goldsmith, 2000).
Goldsmith (2000) has suggested that one possible reason for such a tendency is
that these fields may be more emotionally and experientially accessible to young
children, as they are characterized by well-structured symbol systems and “clear
rules for the production and manipulation” (p. 109) of elements. In comparison,
fields such as engineering, business, medicine, law, and philosophy appear less likely
to produce prodigies, as exceptionally able children may not get a corresponding
level of access. For example, early entry into such fields appears to be controlled,
and largely prevented even for prodigies, by requirements for formal tertiary
education and other gatekeepers (Howard, 2008).
Unfortunately, scholarly attention has not been devoted to the career decisions
of prodigies in all of the fields in which they may be found (Feldman, 2008). As
a result, this chapter mostly draws on the literature on the career decisions of musical
prodigies (i.e., the one type of prodigy on which a fair amount of literature exists),
along with individual pieces of research on chess and visual arts prodigies. It also
70 Career decisions of prodigies
makes applications of the research on the career decisions of gifted students to

prodigies, in recognition of the literature that has found that prodigies may, in
addition to their area of exceptional ability and achievement, have an elevated level
of general intelligence (Ruthsatz, Ruthsatz, & Ruthsatz Stephens, 2014; Ruthsatz
& Urbach, 2012), that may qualify many of them as being generally intellectually
gifted. Interestingly, among the different types of prodigies, musical and mathematical
prodigies appear to achieve higher full-scale and visual spatial subscale scores in
intelligence tests than other types of prodigies (Ruthsatz et al., 2014).
Early career-related decisions for prodigies

The literature suggests that the earliest decisions that may have consequences for
a prodigy’s future career may not be made by the prodigy himself or herself. Instead,
such decisions appear to reflect family views, which may be informed by prevailing
cultural and societal attitudes about the value of the field in which potential has
been demonstrated. As noted by Goldsmith (1987), the prodigy’s abilities are
probably first detected within the family setting, and therefore, it is the family that
is likely to make the initial decisions about whether, and how, the ability will be
developed.
Substantial investments appear to be crucial to support the prodigy’s early
development. While having parents who are experienced in the field may not
be necessary for exceptional achievement in childhood or adolescence (Davidson,
Howe, Moore, & Sloboda, 1996; McPherson et al., 2012; Sloboda & Howe, 1991;
Sosniak, 1985), considerable resources may need to be invested by caregivers to
support the early learning and development of highly accomplished children
(Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993). The extent to which some parents
may go to provide support may include the giving up of a career built up over
many years, moving the family to another part of the country (or another country),
and the re-organization of family life so that the prodigy has access to the best
teachers, facilities, and competition (Feldman, 1993, 2008; Sosniak, 1985). It is
noteworthy that McPherson and Lehman (2012), in their adaptation of the work
of Abbott and Collins (2004), consider such lifestyle changes as representing a
component of a distinct stage (i.e., investment stage) in a child’s development, which
may occur at a very young age for prodigies.
For some prodigies, it is possible that at least one parent becomes deeply involved
in their development (Feldman, 2008; Kenneson, 1998). In studies of non-
prodigious children, the children of parents who were emotionally and practically
involved in training and practice, in comparison to the children of parents who
were minimally involved, appeared to practice more and achieve more quickly
(Davidson et al., 1996; Sichivitsa, 2007; Zdzinski, 1996). In prodigies, the support
of parents may even be greater, leading to the possible creation of a level of
dependence that is longer and more intense than for other children (Feldman &
Goldsmith, 1986; Morelock & Feldman, 2003). The substantial investment and
commitment from the prodigy’s parents may also mean that the prodigy is faced
Career decisions of prodigies 71
with expectations and pressures to make a corresponding level of commitment to

their development (Jenkins, 2005). At least in the early stages of the development,
such expectations may not be an issue, due to their natural abilities and probable
intrinsic motivation (Kopiez, 2011; Sloboda, 2005).
In many ways, an early career decision may have already been made for many
prodigies by their families. The early adjustments and sacrifices of the prodigy’s
family, and their level of involvement in the prodigy’s development, may mean
that a career trajectory in the field of early mastery is already being anticipated by
many parents of prodigies. It is noteworthy that, reflecting the non-self-directed
nature of many of the early career-related decisions that may be made for musical
prodigies, the former prodigy and internationally acclaimed cellist Yo-Yo Ma
observed that “it seemed as if the course of my life had been predetermined”
(Kenneson, 1998, p. 329).
Mid-life crisis
The transition into mature achievement in the field of early mastery may present
multiple challenges for prodigies. Not only will they need to successfully navigate
the long, arduous, treacherous and unpredictable pathway to becoming a successful
adult professional (Feldman & Goldsmith, 1986), they are also likely to face shifting
criteria of evaluation. For older prodigies, it may no longer be enough to dem-
onstrate precociousness, or speedy progress through the early developmental
milestones (Goldsmith, 2000; Winner, 1996). Instead, they may need to start
demonstrating a level of depth, sophistication, and subtlety that characterizes the
level of elite adult professionals, and even to make innovative contributions that
transform the field (Feldman, 2008). Although prodigies may be able to quickly
master the “rules” of the field, they may not necessarily have the ability or
motivation to achieve under the new parameters of judgment.
As prodigies discard their status as remarkable children (Goldsmith, 2000), and
start to feel as if they are “back in the pot” with others (MacNamara, Holmes, &
Collins, 2006), they may experience what Bamberger (1982, 2016) has described
as a “mid-life crisis”. Some documented cases of musical prodigies who experienced
mid-life crises in their adolescence include Jacqueline du Pré, the cellist who became
depressed as a teenager due to doubts about her ability (Kenneson, 1998), Nils
Kirkendahl (pseudonym), who suffered from a crisis of confidence and a reluctance
to play the violin at age 16–17 (Goldsmith, 2000), and Yo-Yo Ma, who rebelled
against his childhood as a cello prodigy in an attempt to gain acceptance from peers
(Kenneson, 1998). The mid-life crisis appears to be a part of the normal develop-
mental process of transition from child prodigy to mature excellence, which may
arise as a consequence of a number of social, emotional, maturational, and career
issues (Bamberger, 2016).
In many ways, the mid-life crisis may be seen to represent a tension between:
(a) the initial career path, set very early, that prodigies are expected to follow by
their families, society, and themselves (as child prodigies), and (b) a career path
determined independently by the now older and more mature prodigy, which may
better align with the multiple factors that may start to become more obvious and
important to the decision.
The mature career decision

After the experience of a mid-life crisis, or upon reaching a certain age, many
prodigies may make a second, “mature,” career decision. The literature cites many
examples of musical prodigies who make a conscious and independent decision,
often late in adolescence, to pursue an adult career in music. Michael Jackson
(Warwick, 2012), the violinist Niccolò Paganini (Kenneson, 1998), the pianist Ervin
Nyiregyházi (Bazzana, 2007), and pianist Artur Rubinstein (Kenneson, 1998) are
examples of musical prodigies who famously achieved independence from their
domineering parents to pursue adult careers in music. For Jacqueline du Pré and
Yo-Yo Ma, a newfound fascination with the cello was developed after a period
of frustration and a lack of direction, which allowed an informed mature decision
about their futures (Kenneson, 1998). Unfortunately, there appears to be a minimal
number of well-documented cases of former musical prodigies who chose to pursue
adult careers outside of music.
It appears that “grown up” prodigies may face a unique situation when it comes
to making the mature career decision, as a somewhat “binding” initial decision
may have already been made. Unlike most other adolescents, significant investments
may have already been made in preparation for a career in the field of early mastery,
and any “change” in career may render these investments wasted. Any decision
not to continue in this field may, in fact, be considered a failure or at least a major
disappointment, which may be why many such prodigies choose to keep their pasts
hidden (Bamberger, 1982, 2016). Consequently, it appears that many prodigies
may have somewhat of a reduced level of freedom in their mature choice of a career.
The comparative lack of freedom in the career decision may, in fact, mean that
the initial dilemma faced by prodigies who do not wish to continue in their area
of early mastery is manifested in a state that may be related to the phenomenon
of career indecision. Although it has been described as being quite prevalent, and a
“developmentally appropriate experience” (Creed, Patton, & Prideaux, 2006,
p. 48) for most adolescents, for prodigies, the experience may be unusually pro-
longed due to their unique circumstances. When prodigies eventually make the
mature career decision, it may in fact be a series of two decisions:
(a) Do I remain in my area of early mastery?

(b) If not, which career do I choose?
For the majority of adolescents, only the second decision, which is complex in
itself, needs to be made. Although some adolescents may have thought through
one or more careers from an early age, due to the probable lack of any significant
investment or action towards such early aspirations, any preliminary career
“decisions” are unlikely to be enforced. Among gifted adolescents, those who do

not demonstrate a high level of performance in a particular field at a young age
may enjoy greater freedom than prodigies, as the parameters guiding their choice
may be somewhat looser. For example, the family of a generally gifted adolescent
who shows no remarkable achievements at a young age may only have the
expectation that the chosen career requires a university education, and only
corresponding educational investments may have been made prior to the time of
the career decision.
In any case, it is noteworthy that prodigies who do not pursue an adult career
in their area of early mastery or do not reach the expected professional heights are
quite common. Gardner (1993) noted no necessary link between early signs of
talent and adult achievement, and suggested that of all the possible relationships
between early and adult achievement, “the least common and most enigmatic case”
(p. 181) may be the child prodigy who was distinguished both as a remarkable
youth and as an accomplished adult. Similarly, Jenkins (2005) stated that just because
a child shows high ability in a particular domain at an early age, there is no certainty
that performance at this level will continue into adult life. Taking it one step further,
Goldsmith (2000) proposed that the best prediction about the adult outcome for
child prodigies may be that they will not continue to perform at the forefront of
their fields. It is not surprising that both of the chess prodigies studied by Feldman
and Goldsmith (1986) eventually chose to pursue adult careers that were unrelated
to chess, while only two of the visual art prodigies studied by Milbrath (1998)
continued in visual art.
It appears that only a small number of prodigies will make a mature decision
to pursue an adult career in their area of early mastery. For the majority who do
not, a number of possibilities exist in terms of the manner in which they may
go about making the career decision. As their high intellectual abilities (Ruthsatz
et al., 2014; Ruthsatz & Urbach, 2012) may mean many prodigies will qualify as
being intellectually gifted (Gagné, 2003, 2009), it is feasible that some will pursue
careers along the lines of gifted adolescents. In such cases, they are likely to make
a choice that aligns with their abilities and interests (Achter, Lubinski, Benbow,
& Eftekhari-Sanjani, 1999; Lubinski, Benbow, & Ryan, 1995; Webb, Lubinski,
& Benbow, 2002), the remaining high expectations of their families and society
(Grant, Battle, & Heggoy, 2000; Greene, 2003), a need for intellectual stimulation
(Emmet & Minor, 1993; Jung, 2017), a preference for high-paying occupations/
careers (Kelly & Cobb, 1991; Kerr & Sodano, 2003), a preference for prestigious
occupations/careers (Emmett & Minor, 1993; Miller & Cummings, 2009), and
possible perfectionistic tendencies (Jung, 2013; Parris, Owens, Johnson, Grbevski,
& Holbert-Quince, 2010). Other prodigies may make an attempt to utilize their
experience in their area of early mastery, by combining the area with another field.
For example, one of the visual arts prodigies studied by Milbrath (1998) pursued
an adult career in fashion, while another worked in advertising. Still others may
suffer the fate of William James Sidis, the famous mathematical and linguistic prodigy,
who withdrew from society and worked in menial jobs in later life (Montour, 1977).
Of those who do decide to pursue an adult career in their area of early mastery,
many do not achieve at a distinguished level for a variety of reasons (Jung, 2015).
Reasons for the pursuit vs. non-pursuit of an adult career

in the area of early mastery
Multiple reasons appear to exist for the eventual pursuit or non-pursuit of an adult
career in the area of early mastery by prodigies.
Natural ability
While child prodigies may only be able to access a certain restricted number of
fields, with age, a larger number of career fields that better reflect the diversity and
range of adult careers may become realistic options (Goldsmith, 2000). It is possible
that some of these career fields, which may require abilities that are nevertheless
similar in one or more ways to the abilities that were originally identified in the
prodigy, represent a better fit for the abilities of the grown up prodigy. Indeed,
for some prodigies, music, visual arts, chess, writing, theatre arts, or mathematics
may only have been the closest fit among the limited range of options that were
accessible to them as children. It is possible that for only a small number of prodigies
will their area of early mastery continue to be the best fitting career option in
adulthood.
Non-ability factors in the career decision

In many ways, the career decision is complex, as it is likely to be affected by a
number of factors other than ability. Multiple studies demonstrate that, apart
from individual abilities, some possible influences include personal interests,
values, income, social status, and culture (Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997; Jung &
McCormick, 2010, 2011a, 2011b; Jung, McCormick, Gregory, Barnett, 2011; Lent,
Brown, & Hackett, 2002; Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). It may therefore be overly
simplistic to expect a prodigy to make his or her career decision (or “non-
decision”) entirely on the basis of the area of his or her abilities.
Even though the abilities of prodigies may make them most suited to a career
in a particular field, the non-ability factors in the career decision may direct some
of this group to a career outside of the area of their early mastery. Indeed, it is
noteworthy that abilities and interests may be “sufficiently uncorrelated” and need
to be “assessed independently” for some gifted adolescents (Lubinski & Benbow,
2006, p. 327). In the face of any conflict between careers that align with abilities
and interests, it is plausible that some prodigies will place priority on pursuing a
career that aligns with their interests over their abilities, as such a career may lead
to a happier existence. Similarly, it may be acceptable for a prodigy to be achieving
only at a moderate level, if the pursuit of the chosen career leads to the attainment
of other personally important goals, such as financial stability or social prestige.
Only for a small number of prodigies will it be the case that the various non-ability
factors that are important in the career decision also point to a career in their area
of prodigious ability.
The importance of non-ability factors, and particularly interests, has been noted
in many of the current career decision-making theories in the field of vocational
psychology. Under the trait and factor theories, which focus on matching an
individual’s characteristics with the career (Dawis, 2002; Dawis & Lofquist, 1984;
Holland, 1997; Osipow, 1990), a career decision that is only based on the area(s)
of ability may not be a decision that is fully considered, as it may lead to a minimum
level of satisfaction with the career, and a possible change of career in the future.
In comparison, under the vocational development theories (Hodkinson & Sparkes,
1997; Osipow, 1990; Phillips & Jome, 2005; Savickas, 2007; Super, 1963), the
career decision is considered to be made gradually over time, incorporate an element
of exploration, and consider factors such as interests, abilities, and needs of the
individual. It is noteworthy that in one of the theories considered particularly useful
for gifted students, Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription and compromise
(Gottfredson, 1981, 2002, 2005), an individual’s abilities are de-emphasized in com-
parison to other factors that may be relevant to the career decision. Under this
theory, any decision to pursue a career only on the basis of ability may be con-
sidered somewhat reckless, as it is likely to have proceeded without a thorough
investigation of the requirements for acceptable and non-acceptable career options.
High expectations
While prodigies may have a good understanding of the reasons why they are being
subject to substantial pressures and expectations from society, their families, and
even themselves, there may simultaneously be a sense of resentment about such
pressures and expectations. As noted by Bamberger (1982), from childhood,
prodigies may have been singled out and isolated from their peers of the same age,
who may have lived a very different and “freer” existence. With age, these
prodigies may begin to have fundamental questions of “why” and “what for”, and
may desire the anonymity of non-prodigies. The idea has been supported in the
literature on gifted adolescents, which suggests that a negative relationship may
exist between the fulfillment of one’s potential and attitudes toward occupations
(Jung, 2014).
Jung (2014) has suggested that perhaps a dichotomy is perceived to exist
between occupations that allow highly able adolescents to fulfill their potential,
and occupations that are considered to be desirable. Alternatively, the achievement
of “a well-rounded, meaningful, (and) normal life” (Mingus & Grassl, 1999,
p. 288) may be considered by some prodigies as being more important than the
fulfillment of potential. Moreover, the possible negative and maladaptive conse-
quences of having extremely high standards (e.g., perfectionism; Hawkins, Watt,
& Sinclair, 2006; Parker & Mills, 1996), whether imposed by others or by the
prodigies themselves, may mean that the fulfillment of potential is not a desired
goal. In any case, it is noteworthy that most of the seven individuals across various
fields (i.e., Elliot, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Graham, Gandhi, and Freud) dis-
cussed in Gardner (1993), who were highly successful as adults (and often considered
to be geniuses), experienced minimal pressures in their youth to follow the careers
in which they all eventually became successful.
Motivations for an adult career in area of early mastery

A question mark also exists on the motivations for the pursuit of an adult career
in the area of early mastery of prodigies. The literature suggests that adolescents
who wish to pursue careers in fields in which prodigies are found, often do so
because of their enjoyment, or the high intrinsic interest value, of the fields
(McQuown Linnemeyer, & Brown, 2010; Parkes & Jones, 2011). Nevertheless,
many careers in these fields also appear to lack substantial financial reward, job
security, and vocational value (Bray, 2000; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1986; Marcone,
1982; Milbrath, 1998). A perception may therefore exist that while music, visual
arts, chess, writing, theatre arts, and mathematics may bring enjoyment and emo-
tional rewards, they may be somewhat risky careers.
Difficulties in the transition to an adult professional

The literature on the transition into an adult professional may also be useful in
understanding why prodigies may or may not pursue adult careers in their area
of early mastery. In the area of music, scholars (Bloom, 1985; Sosniak, 2006;
Manturzewska, 1990) have suggested that the transition from a student to an
adult professional may be a difficult one that involves the negotiation of “several
transition points through distinct phases of development, typically characterized
by spontaneous musical expression and exploration followed by periods of guided
instruction, goal oriented commitment, and the identification and development
of a musical personality” (Creech et al., 2008, p. 316).
MacNamara et al. (2006) have noted that in the early stages of one’s development
in music, which may be a period that is dominated by a fascination and enjoyment
of the subject matter, the aspiring musician may face minimal challenges as natural
ability may be enough to meet demands. Nevertheless, as he or she develops further,
the challenges become greater, with a need for increasing time commitment, and
for discipline and focus, while intensive formal instruction is received. This may
be a period when some elect to drop out of the field, due to its excessive demands,
doubts about one’s ability to meet expectations, and/or the rising performance stakes
(Creech et al., 2008). For those who remain committed to music, it is after leaving
the formal and structured environment of music education that possibly the greatest
challenge awaits, when the aspiring musician attempts to make a living. Similarly
complex and difficult transitions from a student to an adult professional are likely
in the other fields in which prodigies are commonly found.
Prodigies are a group who are very likely to pass through the earlier develop-
mental phases of becoming a professional, quickly and easily, and at a young age,
due to their exceptional abilities. In comparison to children or adolescents who
are not prodigies, the challenges that they face early on may not be as difficult to
overcome. Moreover, they may have more time to develop into accomplished adult
professionals (Goldsmith, 1987), and to explore and experiment within the field
(Feldman & Goldsmith, 1986). Nevertheless, they will still need to master the more
difficult advanced stages of development, devote substantial time to practice, and
demonstrate discipline and focus for prolonged time periods, even if this is not to
the same degree as those without prodigious abilities. While prodigies may have
the natural ability to become successful adult professionals in their area of early
mastery, they may not all possess important and necessary personal qualities or peer
networks.
Continued success in field

A final reason why some prodigies may or may not choose to pursue an adult
career in their area of prodigious ability may relate to their level of continued success
in the field, particularly in the latter stages of their development. Of the various
career decision-making theories, social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2002)
suggests that a lack of success in any career field may lead some people to re-direct
their career aspirations to fields where they feel that they are likely to achieve greater
success. In particular, Lent et al. (2002) proposed that “people form enduring interest
in an activity when they view themselves as competent at it and when they anticipate
that performing it will produce valued outcomes” (p. 265). These interests direct
the formation of career-related goals and actions, the level of success in which will
help to solidify or reshape their later career goals and actions.
The unique, but arguable, link between abilities and interests may mean that
social cognitive career theory is the theory that best explains an initial career decision
that is based solely on the prodigy’s area of ability. In addition, the theory provides
a viable explanation for the later dropout of some prodigies. Specifically, it suggests
that the lack of later successes in their area of early mastery, which may arise as
exceptional abilities will not always translate into corresponding achievements, will
mean that the prodigy’s interest in the area may not be sustained, which, in turn,
may lead to the revision of career goals. The theory has obvious strengths, in
comparison to the other major career decision-making theories, in the study of
the career decisions of prodigies.
Final remarks
It is apparent that prodigies, who are different from other children and adolescents
due to their exceptional abilities and early achievements, are faced with a complex
and unique career decision. A career trajectory in music, visual arts, chess, writing,
theater arts, or mathematics is often expected of prodigies from a young age,
and the first substantial career-related decision that is made by this group may, in
fact, be the decision on whether to continue in the field. Nevertheless, multiple
factors will need to be in alignment before such prodigies are able to make the
mature decision to become an adult professional in their area of early mastery.
Among the most important of the factors to be considered may be whether the
abilities of the prodigy, and the many non-ability considerations (such as interest),
continue to indicate that an adult career in this field is ideal.
A career in the field may only be chosen if the grown up prodigy values the
enjoyment that he/she is able to obtain and believes that he or she has the ability
to be successful. Furthermore, the prodigy as an adult needs to consider the nature
of the career itself, which may not be as appealing as his/her experiences with the
field as a child. Continued efforts may also be required to distinguish oneself as a
unique adult professional. Generally, factors such as income, social prestige, and
the general instability and riskiness of a career in the area of early mastery may
need to be only minor concerns. Additionally, it is possible that a prodigy will
only be able to transition into a successful adult professional, if he or she possesses
the essential psychosocial skills and traits that allow for the focus and discipline
necessary in an adult career.
It must, nevertheless, be noted that the process of making a career decision is
extremely complex, and the scientific knowledge base on the topic, particularly
with respect to the prodigies outside of the field of music (e.g., visual arts, chess,
writing, theatre arts, and mathematics), remains limited and incomplete (Feldman,
2008). Therefore, even with the possession of the appropriate mix of abilities, values,
characteristics, beliefs, and circumstances, there is no guarantee that prodigies will
go onto become successful adult professionals. Greater research attention on the
career decisions of prodigies in the different fields is obviously necessary.
In terms of practice, some inferences may be permitted from the existing
knowledge base on prodigies. At an early age, when the prodigy starts to trans-
late his or her abilities into exceptional achievements, it will be necessary for the
family to support and nurture his or her development. Irrespective of the eventual
career that is chosen, and consistent with fundamental principles in gifted edu-
cation (Haroutounian, 2002; Tomlinson, 2014), families should be attentive to the
child’s particular abilities and needs, and need to make arrangements for the
provision of appropriate instruction, resources, and opportunities. In the situation
where substantial (and perhaps prohibitive) time, financial, and emotional
investments are necessary, a complex and difficult decision will need to be made
in terms of the degree of support. In making this decision, families will need to
be mindful of the impact of the decision on other family members (Morelock &
Feldman, 2003).
As the prodigy grows older, it may become increasingly important for some
serious thought to be given to his or her future and future career. Rather than
taking as granted that a career in the area of prodigious ability will be pursued, the
prodigy and his or her family will need to recognize that an adult career in the
area is not certain, and that multiple factors other than ability should contribute
to an informed career decision. For this purpose, it may be useful to make active
efforts to investigate the prodigy’s emerging areas of career-related interest and
values. For example, parents and educators could pay special attention to any possible
indicators of the prodigy’s interests and values from his or her daily activities.
Additionally, the prodigy could engage in some early career counseling sessions
with trained psychologists or counselors, which focus on the identification of his/her
interests and values, as they may relate to a future career.
Opportunities for exploration of different career options, which might previously
have been difficult for the young prodigy, may now become more appropriate.
Useful information about, and exposure to, a wide range of career options may
be possible through career centers, participation in work experience programs,
and/or engagement in part-time employment. It may be particularly useful to obtain
information on, and gain exposure to, careers that are related to the area of early
mastery. Gaining exposure to, and a better understanding of, a wide range of careers
will not only help in reaching an informed career decision, but it may also be useful
in determining whether the area of early mastery continues to be the optimal career
for the prodigy.
While different careers are being explored, it may be worthwhile to devote
some attention to the development of the prodigy’s psychosocial skills, such as self-
belief, perseverance, determination, and resilience (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde,
& Whalen, 1993; Haroutounian, 2000; MacNamara et al., 2006; MacNamara,
Collins, & Holmes, 2014). Although such skills have been noted by MacNamara
et al. (2014) as being essential in the transition to a successful adult career in music,
they are also likely to be invaluable for success in any career that is eventually chosen
by the musical prodigy. For example, Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell
(2011) highlight the role of psychosocial variables in the general promotion of
outstanding achievement. Both Jung (2012) and MacNamara et al. (2014) propose
that, given their importance, psychosocial skills could be explicitly and systematically
taught from an early age.
Finally, it appears imperative that prodigies be given freedom to exercise an
informed, self-directed, and mature career choice. As noted by Morelock and
Feldman (2003), if prodigies are to continue to grow, they must begin to establish
autonomy, and others, including their families, will need to support this process.
Although the outstanding abilities of any individual do need to be appropriately
nurtured, and the achievement of early mastery in a particular field should be
celebrated, these early experiences should not necessarily bind prodigies to that
field for the remainder of their lives.
Note
1 This chapter was slightly adapted from Jung, J. Y., & Evans, P. A. (2016). The career
decisions of child musical prodigies. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies:
Interpretations from psychology, music education, musicology and ethnomusicology (pp. 409–423).
Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
References
Abbott, A., & Collins, D. (2004). Eliminating the dichotomy between theory and practice
in talent identification and development. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 395–408.
vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities:
A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 777–786.
Bamberger, J. (1982). Growing up prodigies: The midlife crisis. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 1982, 61–77.
Bamberger, J. (2016). Growing-up prodigies: The midlife crisis. In G. McPherson (ed.),
Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, musicology and ethnomusicology (pp. 294–319).
Bazzana, K. (2007). Lost genius: The curious and tragic story of an extraordinary musical prodigy.
Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press.
Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bray, D. (2000). An examination of GCSE music uptake rates. British Journal of Music Education,
17, 79–89.
Creech, A., Papageorgi, I., Duffy, C., Morton, F., Haddon, E., Potter, J., de Bezenac, C.,
Whyton, T., Himonides, E., & Welch, G. (2008). From music student to professional:
The process of transition. British Journal of Music Education, 25, 315–331.
Creed, P. A., Patton, W., & Prideaux, L. A. (2006). Casual relationship between career
indecision and career decision-making self-efficacy. Journal of Career Development, 33,
47–65.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenagers: The roots of
success and failure. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Davidson, J. W., Howe, M. J., Moore, D. G., & Sloboda, J. A. (1996). The role of parental
influences in the development of musical performance. British Journal of Developmental
Dawis, R. V. (2002). Person-environment-correspondence theory. In D. Brown & associates
(Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 427–464). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual-
differences model and its applications. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
The Career Development Quarterly, 41, 350–366.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice
in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
Feldman, D. H. (1993). Child prodigies: A distinctive form of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly,
37, 188–193.
Feldman, D. H. (2008). Prodigies. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues
and practices in gifted education: What the research says (1st ed., pp. 523–534). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Feldman, D. H., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development
of human potential. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory.
In N. Colangelo and G.A. Davis (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60–74).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0.
In B. MacFarlane and T. Stambaugh (Eds.). Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift of
Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61–8). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). The relationship between early giftedness and later achievement. In
G. R. Bock and K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 175–182).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Goldsmith, L. T. (1987). Girl prodigies: Some evidence and some speculations. Roeper Review,
10, 74–82.
Goldsmith, L. T. (2000). Tracking trajectories of talent: Child prodigies growing up. In
R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding (pp. 89–118). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Gottfredson’s theory of circumscription, compromise, and self-
creation. In D. Brown & associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed.,
pp. 85–148). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
in career guidance and counseling. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career
development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 71–100). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Grant, D. F., Battle, D. A., & Heggoy, S. J. (2000). The journey through college of seven
gifted females: Influences on their career related decisions. Roeper Review, 22, 251–260.
25, 66–72.
Haroutounian, J. (2000). The delights and dilemmas of the musically talented teenager. The
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 3–16.
Haroutounian, J. (2002). Kindling the spark: Recognizing and developing musical talent.
Hawkins, C. C., Watt, H. M. G., & Sinclair, K. E. (2006). Psychometric properties of the
Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale with Australian adolescent girls: Clarification
of multidimensionality and perfectionist typology. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 1001–1022.
Hodkinson, P., & Sparkes, A. C. (1997). Careership: a sociological theory of career decision
making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18, 29–44.
Howard, R. W. (2008). Linking extreme precocity and adult eminence: A study of eight
prodigies at international chess. High Ability Studies, 19, 117–130.
Jenkins, J. S. (2005). Prodigies of nature. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, 277–280.
Jung, J. Y. (2015). Unfulfilled potential: The adult careers of former musical prodigies
Ervin Nyiregyhazi, Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel, and David Helfgott. Australasian Journal
of Gifted Education, 24, 6–12.
the Gifted, 37, 128–152.
Jung, J. Y. (2017). Occupational/career decision-making thought processes of adolescents
G. E. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, music education,
musicology and ethnomusicology (pp. 409–423). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Jung, J. Y. & McCormick, J. (2010). Amotivation and the occupational decision: An
Jung, J. Y. & McCormick, J. (2011a). Occupational decision-related processes for amotivated
Jung, J. Y. & McCormick, J. (2011b). The occupational decision: A cultural and motivational
Jung, J. Y., McCormick, J., Gregory, G., Barnett, K. (2011). Culture, motivation, and
young gifted adolescents: Examining gender and multicultural differences. Roeper Review,
13, 202–206.
Amadeus Press.
Kerr, B., & Sodano, S. (2003). Career assessment with intellectually gifted students. Journal
Kopiez, R. (2011). The musical child prodigy (wunderkind) in music history: A historio-
metric analysis. In I. Deliège and J. W. Davidson (Eds.), Music and the mind: Essays in
honour of John Slobada (pp. 225–236). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown
& associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255–311). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth (SMPY)
after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.
Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Ryan, J. (1995). Stability of vocational interests among the
intellectually gifted from adolescence to adulthood: A 15-year longitudinal study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 80, 196–200.
MacNamara, A., Collins, D., & Holmes, P. (2016). Musical prodigies: Does talent need
trauma? In G. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, musicology
and ethnomusicology (pp. 338–357). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
MacNamara, A., Holmes, P., & Collins, D. (2006). The pathway to excellence: The role of
psychological characteristics in negotiating the challenges of musical development.
British Journal of Music Education, 23, 285–302.
Manturzewska, M. (1990). A biographical study of the life-span development of professional
musicians. Psychology of Music, 18, 112–139.
Marcone, S. (1982). Choosing a career in music. Music Educators Journal, 69, 36–36.
McPherson, G. E. (2006). The child as musician: A handbook of musical development. Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E., Davidson, J. W., & Faulkner, R. (2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking
musical ability, development and identity. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
McPherson, G. E., & Lehman, A. C. (2012). Exceptional musical abilities: Musical prodigies.
In G. E. McPherson & G. R. Welch (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music education
(pp. 31–50). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
McQuown Linnemeyer, R., & Brown, C. (2010). Career maturity and foreclosure in student
athletes, fine arts students, and general college students. Journal of Career Development, 37,
616–634.
Milbrath, C. (1998). Patterns of artistic development in children: Comparative studies of talent.
Mingus, T. T., & Grassl, R. M. (1999). What constitutes a nurturing environment for the
growth of mathematically gifted students? School Science and Mathematics, 99, 286–293.
Montour, K. (1977). William James Sidis, the broken twig. American Psychologist, 32,
265–279.
Morelock, M. J., & Feldman, D. H. (2003). Extreme precocity: Prodigies, savants, and children
of extraordinarily high IQ. In N. Colangelo, & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (pp. 455–469). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Osipow, S. H. (1990). Convergence in theories of career choice and development: Review

and prospect. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 122–131.
Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. J. (1996). The incidence of perfectionism in gifted students. Gifted
Parkes, K. A., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Students’ motivations for considering a career in music
performance. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 29, 20–28.
Parris, G. P., Owens, D., Johnson, T., Grbevski, S., & Holbert-Quince, J. (2010). Addressing
the career development needs of high-achieving African American high school students:
Implications for counselors. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 417–436.
Phillips, S. D., & Jome, L. M. (2005). Vocational choices: What do we know? What do we
need to know? In W. B. Walsh and M. L. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology:
Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 127–153). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ruthsatz, J., Ruthsatz, K., & Ruthsatz Stephens, K. (2014). Putting practice into perspective:
Child prodigies as evidence of innate talent. Intelligence, 45, 60–65.
Ruthsatz, J., & Urbach, J. (2012). Child prodigy: A novel cognitive profile places elevated
general intelligence, exceptional working memory and attention to detail at the root of
prodigiousness. Intelligence, 40, 419–426.
Savickas, M. L. (2007). Occupational choice. In H. Gunz and M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook
of career studies (pp. 79–96). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Shavinina, L. (1999). The psychological essence of the child prodigy phenomenon: Sensitive
periods and cognitive experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 25–38.
Sichivitsa, V. O. (2007). The influences of parents, teachers, peers and other factors on
students’ motivation in music. Research Studies in Music Education, 29, 55–68.
Sloboda, J. A. (2005). Exploring the musical mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. A. (1991). Biographical precursors of musical excellence: An
interview study. Psychology of Music, 19, 3–21.
Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Learning to be a concert pianist. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing
talent in young people (pp. 19–67). New York, NY: Ballantine.
Sosniak, L. (2006). Retrospective interviews in the study of expertise and expert performance.
In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge
handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 287–301). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Super, D. E. (1963). The definition and measurement of early career behavior: A first
formulation. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 41, 775–780.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated instruction. In J. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.),
Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 197–210). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Warwick, J. (2012). “You can’t win, child, but you can’t get out of the game”: Michael
Jackson’s transition from child star to superstar. Popular Music and Society, 35, 241–259.
Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Zdzinski, S. F. (1996). Parental involvement, selected student attributes, and learning out-
comes in instrumental music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 44, 34–48.
6
OF GENIUSES
The phenomenon of genius appears to be attributed to individuals, often retro-

spectively, on the basis of their outstanding creative and other achievements, rather
than any measurable inherent characteristic (Howe, 1996; Jones, Reedy, &
Weinberg, 2014). The definition of genius proposed by Sternberg and Bridges
(2014) describes these individuals as people who create “a product, that in the
context of some time and place, is held to be of . . . extraordinary value” (p. 185).
The related phenomenon of eminence has been defined as an exceptionally high
level of recognition and ranking for performances and results by experts in a
particular field (Albert, 1992; Galton, 1869). At the present time, a consensus does
not appear to exist on who specifically may be considered to be a genius. While
there may be widespread acknowledgement that luminaries such as Aristotle, da
Vinci, Darwin, Edison, Einstein, Galileo, Gandhi, Michelangelo, Mozart, Newton,
Shakespeare, and Plato qualify as geniuses, some debate surrounds the inclusion of
other figures throughout the course of history, including the Brontë sisters, Curie,
and Trollope, along with those in Murray’s (2003) list of the top 20 contributors
to 20 major disciplines (Howe, 1996; Kell & Lubinski, 2014).
To date, the literature on the study of genius has not specifically examined the
career decisions of these exceptional individuals. Nevertheless, there has been a focus
on closely related areas including the elements needed for a genius (Johnson &
Bouchard, 2014; Kell & Lubinski, 2014), the developmental antecedents of genius
and eminence (Simonton, 1987, 1993), the trajectories of geniuses upon entry into
careers (Simonton, 1991a, 1991b, 2014), and the biographies of geniuses (Nicholl,
2004; Nuland, 2000; Rosselli, 1998). This chapter draws on research in these areas,
which have relied on retrospective historical methods and the study of populations
from which genius is most likely to emerge (e.g., Study of Mathematically Precocious
Youth), most often in the fields of science, music, and literature, to gain insights
into the manner in which this very small subset of the human population may go
86 Career decisions of geniuses
about entering, and remaining in, the career fields in which they eventually make
ground breaking advances.
Elements of genius
Of fundamental importance to the career decisions of geniuses appears to be the
existence or otherwise of the three elements of genius: (a) intelligence, (b) passion/
interest, and (c) commitment/motivation. Kell and Lubinski (2014) proposed that
individuals who simultaneously display exceptionally high levels of all three of these
elements in one particular field may form the pool from which geniuses may be
identified.
Intelligence
Intelligence is a characteristic that has commonly been associated with geniuses.
Some scholars have gone so far as to define genius in terms of intellectual ability
(Kozbelt, 2014; Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959), while others have
demonstrated a positive correlation between intelligence and the related phenom-
enon of eminence (Cox, 1926; Simonton & Song, 2009). Of note, Johnson and
Bouchard (2014), considered intelligence to be an “essential and critical pre-
requisite” (p. 273) for someone to be considered a genius, although the precise
degree to which intelligence is necessary appears to be dependent on the field,
with higher levels of intelligence generally seen among eminent scientists, philos-
ophers, and writers than among eminent leaders, composers, and artists (Simonton
& Song, 2009).
Contrary to the views of some scholars who consider intelligence to bring
diminishing achievement returns at high levels (Muller et al., 2005), recent research
suggests that higher levels of intelligence may be more predictive of eminence and
genius. For example, Kell, Lubinski, and Benbow (2013) showed that exceptionally
gifted individuals with IQ levels in excess of 160 produced more outstanding career-
related outcomes with respect to holding doctoral degrees, patents, tenure in
academia, and careers in cognitively demanding fields (e.g., engineering, surgery,
and physics) than more moderately gifted individuals. In comparison, Johnson and
Bouchard (2014) noted the substantial over-representation of ethnic groups with
the highest average levels of intellectual ability (e.g., Ashkenazi Jews) at the highest
levels of various career fields (e.g., science, mathematics, visual arts, literature, music,
and philosophy) and in the receipt of prestigious recognitions such as the Nobel
Prize.
While the level of intellectual ability may be predictive of the degree to which
an individual achieves eminence, the career field in which the eminence is achieved
appears to be dependent, for some, on the domain-specific patterns in which the
intellectual ability is demonstrated (Kell & Lubinski, 2014). For example, among
individuals with IQ levels in excess of 160 in Kell, Lubinski, and Benbow (2013),
those with comparatively stronger verbal abilities tended to be directed to the
Career decisions of geniuses 87
humanities and the verbal/linguistic fields, while those with stronger mathematical/
spatial abilities tended to pursue study and careers in science, technology, engineer-
ing, and mathematics (i.e., the STEM fields). Similarly, Kell, Lubinski, Benbow,
and Steiger (2013) demonstrated that, among those with the highest levels of
intellectual ability, those with stronger verbal abilities had a tendency to show
creative outputs such as peer-reviewed publications in the arts, humanities, and
social sciences, while those with stronger mathematical/spatial abilities were
more likely to hold scientific patents and to have peer-reviewed publications in
STEM fields.
Interest/passion
As for intellectual ability, interest in, or a passion for, a particular field appears to
be an essential characteristic of geniuses. Indeed, most historical figures who have
been considered to be geniuses demonstrated an early passion for the fields in which
they eventually achieved eminence. For example, Edison’s unbridled passion for
science and technology was reflected in: (a) the creation of a scientific laboratory
initially in his bedroom, and later in the cellar of the house in which he lived,
(b) the systematic reading of all books in the Detroit Public Library in his areas
of interest, and (c) the request for training as a telegraph operator when offered a
reward for saving the son of a station agent from an accident (Ness, 2013).
Similarly, Mozart, who showed potential in multiple areas including languages and
mathematics along with music, had interests that were dominated by music in such
a manner that all other areas were considered to be “overshadowed” (Feldman,
1993).
Commitment/motivation
Related to interest is an exceptional level of commitment to, or motivation in, a
particular field, which Kozbelt (2014) considered to be a “hallmark” of genius.
Multiple scholars have noted the importance of this factor (alternatively described
as vigor, zeal, will, industriousness, perseverance, persistence, tenacity, and pro-
tracted efforts by different scholars) for the development of eminence in individuals,
particularly as it may allow for the effective mobilization of intellectual abilities
and interests (Kell & Lubinski, 2014). Numerous biographical accounts suggest that
a high level of commitment may be a characteristic of many famous eminent
individuals. For example, Keynes (1942/1956) suggested that “Newton’s extra-
ordinary gift may have resulted from the ability to deliberate intensely on a
problem for hours, days, or weeks, if necessary, until he had solved it” (Prabhu,
Sutton, & Sauser, 2008, p. 57), while Einstein’s ability to “shut himself off and
think through problems for days and weeks at a time” (Ness, 2013, p. 47) may
have been pivotal to his success.
Of note, and despite substantial differences among highly able individuals in
the amount of time and effort that they are willing to devote to the development
of their careers, those who have been recognized as geniuses appear to be very
willing to commit the approximately ten years considered necessary in preparatory
training for eminence in a career (Hayes, 1989; Jones, Reedy, & Weinberg, 2014;
Kozbelt, 2014; Simonton, 1991b). This “ten year” rule appears to be supported
across most career fields, including science, music, and chess, and among scholars
from contrasting theoretical traditions, including Ericsson, Gardner, and Simonton
(Johnson & Bouchard, 2014; Kell & Lubinski, 2014; Simonton, 1991b). Such
training, which may take place in either formal or non-formal settings, may
introduce future geniuses to the standards of the field, and allow for the acquisition
of the requisite skills, knowledge, expertise, and ideas that may serve as the basis
from which novel contributions may be made later on (Jones, Reedy, & Weinberg,
2014; Kozbelt, 2014; Simonton, 1991b).
Interestingly, research conducted with eminent musicians using historio-
metric methods has suggested that the most eminent individuals tend to have shorter
total periods of preparatory training in comparison to other eminent individuals,
although this is unlikely to be substantially less than ten years (Johnson & Bouchard,
2014; Kozbelt, 2014; Simonton, 1991b). Moreover, partly as a result of an increased
likelihood of an early commencement to training, these individuals appear more
likely than other eminent individuals to make earlier initial contributions of
significant works to their field, have greater productivity of significant works
throughout their careers, and finish their careers with the greatest total number of
significant works (Johnson & Bouchard, 2014; Kozbelt, 2014; Simonton, 1991b).
Emergence of genius
The possession and alignment of exceptionally high levels of intellectual ability,
passion/interest, and commitment/motivation in the one field appears to be seen
as providing the foundations for what scholars have termed the emergence of genius,
or more formally, emergenesis (Johnson & Bouchard, 2014; Kell & Lubinski, 2014;
Simonton, 1999). From the perspective of making the career decision, the view
that a genius may be an emergent phenomenon (i.e., the notion that the career
decision simply “emerges”) upon the possession of psychological and conative
elements at extreme levels, represents a sharp contrast to the carefully considered
and pre-meditated nature of the career decision that may be more common among
other high ability groups, including gifted students, prodigies, and twice exceptional
students. Nevertheless, the alignment of the three elements of genius does not appear
to guarantee the emergence of genius.
Multiple reasons may exist for the non-emergence of genius. Among the
possible reasons appear to be a lack of access to appropriate educational, training
and career-related opportunities, to allow for the development and translation of
the exceptional intellectual abilities of individuals into corresponding achievements
(Kell & Lubinski, 2014). Kell and Lubinski also make reference to the absence of
an elusive, as yet unidentified, characteristic or trait that they attribute to the
remaining “aspects of idiographic uniqueness” of genius (Kell & Lubinski, 2014,
p. 416). In comparison, Simonton and colleagues point to the possible absence of

one or more of the multiple antecedents of genius (Simonton, 1987, 1993),
alternatively described as “experiences that derail (individuals) from more regular
developmental trajectories” (Simonton & Song, 2009, p. 433).
Antecedents of genius
As genius cannot be considered to be a unitary phenomenon (Kozbelt, 2014), it
is unlikely that all of the traditionally recognized antecedents of genius will be
observed in all geniuses. Nevertheless, various combinations of these antecedents
have been found in eminent individuals throughout the course of history.
Birth order
A repeated finding among geniuses is that a disproportionate number of them were
first born sons in their families. Some attribute the birth order effect to the
possibility that first born sons may receive the greatest amount of parental attention
and resources in comparison to their siblings (Galton, 1869; Simonton, 1987).
Simonton (1987, 1993) has suggested that the importance of position in the family
appears to be more pronounced for eminent scientists and classical composers than
individuals who have achieved eminence in other fields, such as the visual arts.
The birth order effect may even be seen in musicians such as Mozart (the seventh
child of Leopold and Anna Maria Mozart), as most of his older siblings died in
infancy, and the older sibling to whom he was closest in age, Nannerl (a musical
prodigy herself), was a daughter. For all intents and purposes, Mozart’s father
appeared to have treated Mozart as his first born son, devoting substantial time and
family financial resources on him for approximately a decade of musical education,
in the hope that he would become a famous court musician and a source of future
income for the family (Feldman, 1993).
Parental loss
As for birth order, scholars have noted that many eminent individuals appear to
have experienced emotionally traumatic events during their childhood and
adolescence, such as orphanhood. Indeed, Simonton (1987) identified a number
of studies that showed high incidences of parental loss among eminent artistic
creators. For example, between 21% and 31% of the eminent individuals in Cox
(1926) lost a parent prior to reaching adulthood, while 30% of the famous French
and English poets in Martindale (1972) came from homes in which fathers were
absent, and 34% of the 699 eminent creators and leaders noted by Eisenstadt (1978)
lost a parent by the age of 16. Among geniuses who achieved the greatest fame,
Newton’s father passed away three months before he was born (Westfall, 2007),
while da Vinci, who was an illegitimate child, lived without his father for the first
five years of his life, and thereafter lived with his stepmother (Nuland, 2000).
Simonton (1987) speculated that the outstanding adult achievements of some of

these eminent individuals may reflect the constructive mechanisms that they may
have employed to cope with the early trauma in their lives.
Models/mentors
The availability of role models and mentors appears to be another factor that
predicts whether an individual goes onto achieve eminence, in both Eastern and
Western cultures (Simonton & Song, 2009). For example, Simonton (2014) noted
that geniuses tend to appear in clusters rather than in isolation, and embedded in
intergenerational domain-specific networks of eminent individuals that comprise
role models, mentors, masters, parents, apprentices, students, and children. Of note,
in a study of 2,026 scientists and inventors, Simonton (1992) demonstrated that
such networks may predict the levels of eminence, productivity, and the length
of the careers of these individuals, with the most eminent scientists and inventors
having the greatest numbers of intergenerational, as well as intragenerational
contacts.
Simonton (1987) suggested that the availability of role models and mentors may
not always lead to the emergence of genius, if the work of these eminent individuals
is merely imitated. Although promising scientists, musicians, and artists may be
allowed to begin their careers through the imitation of the work of their role models
and mentors, they will thereafter need to make progress through the making of
unique personal contributions that not only emulate, but also rise above, the work
of their predecessors. Interestingly, Simonton (1987) proposed that across diverse
career fields, serving an apprenticeship under more than one distinguished mentor
may be more conducive to the emergence of genius than serving under one mentor
alone, due to the greater opportunities and pressures for synthesis and integration
of diverse perspectives in the field. Moreover, the selection of role models and
mentors may need to be carefully considered to ensure that they are neither too
proximate (i.e., to discourage imitation) nor distant (i.e., to allow relevant guidance
and inspiration) to the individual in terms of age and experience. Ideally, the most
appropriate role models and mentors should be at the peak of their productive
capacities when they provide guidance and inspiration.
The biographical accounts of famous geniuses in diverse fields indicate that they
each had at least one mentor or role model during their training. For example, da
Vinci’s mentor was Verrocchio, who was a leading artist and operator of one of
finest workshops (bottega) in Florence, where he was given opportunities to design
and craft metal objects for religious and ornamental purposes, and where he
worked on commissions in various media including silver, marble, bronze, and
wood (Nuland, 2000). In comparison, Edison’s role model was Faraday, who came
from a similar background to Edison, and who was responsible for the creation of
the industrial scale energy that would make many of Edison’s inventions possible
(in addition to Faraday, Edison found mentors among engineers in the rail system
and the machine shops of Detroit). Similarly, Newton appeared to have multiple
role models, and was himself a role model to many others, as he had been
“stimulated, challenged, and provoked by 25 giants on whose shoulders he stood,
(while he also) became a giant on whose shoulders stood 106 scientists who promul-
gated, expounded, extended, qualified, and contradicted his work” (Simonton, 1992,
p. 461).
Formal/informal education
In contrast to birth order, parental loss, and the availability of appropriate role models
and mentors, academic success in formal education may not necessarily be a
requirement for the emergence of eminence or genius, particularly as many
educational systems do not appear to adequately address the educational needs of
students who demonstrate exceptional levels of ability. Of note, Simonton (1987)
identified an inverse “U-shaped” relationship between educational level and
creative achievement across many fields, whereby creative achievement increases
up to a certain level of formal education (with a possible peak in the latter years
of undergraduate university studies), beyond which a decline is seen. By explan-
ation, he suggested that while children and adolescents may benefit from the
knowledge and skills they obtain from formal schooling up to a certain point,
excessive specialization at the highest levels of formal education may be detrimental
to exceptional creative accomplishment. A major exception to this relationship
appears to exist in the scientific and related fields, where the peak may lie much
later on in one’s formal education, such as at the graduate level.
It must be noted that while formal education may not be necessary for the
emergence of genius, non-formal education and training, including extracurric-
ular activities in the area of interest and capability, may continue to be important.
Among the most eminent individuals, Edison was home schooled from a very young
age, while Einstein believed that formal education constrained his inquisitiveness,
and consequently read texts in mathematics and the philosophy of science outside
of the classroom (Ness, 2013). Similarly, da Vinci’s non-mastery of the classical
languages may be a reflection of his lack of formal education, which might
nevertheless have been advantageous in terms of sparing him the time to engage
in his multiple areas of ability and interest that included painting, architecture,
interior design, engineering, mathematics, astronomy, military ordinance, flight,
optics, geology, botany, and anatomy (Nuland, 2000).
Socio-cultural milieu
Reflecting the fact that geniuses are defined to be individuals who, at a certain
time and place, are considered to make exceptional contributions by experts in
the field (Simonton, 1987; Sternberg & Bridges, 2014), the emergence of
genius is likely to be highly dependent upon the social, cultural, and other related
values and developments of each society at a particular point in time. Indeed,
Simonton (1987) noted the importance of the socio-cultural milieu, or zeitgeist,
in determining the direction and disposition of the accomplishments of promising

individuals. In large part, this may be due to the influence of pervasive societal
beliefs on individual worldviews, along with the disciplinary validation that all
achievements will be subjected to gatekeepers (e.g., through peer review, juries,
awards) to determine whether they indeed qualify as significant contributions
(Simonton, 2014). As a case in point, Jane Austen, who did not conform to the
stylistic conventions preferred by the gatekeepers of her time, only achieved a
moderate level of recognition from her literary peers during her life time. However,
as the socio-cultural milieu evolved, the criteria for the evaluation of literature
changed, and she is now recognized as one of the “all-time greats” for her contri-
butions to English literature (McKay & Kaufman, 2014).
Personal qualities/characteristics
Finally, eminent individuals appear to possess a number of personal qualities and
characteristics that may facilitate the emergence of genius, which may include:
(a) An insatiable curiosity in the area of interest and capability that may lead
to the constant identification of new challenges on which to focus, and the
development of radical new ideas (Ness, 2013; Nuland, 2000);
(b) A sense of intellectual independence, autonomy, and self-sufficiency, all of
which have been recognized to be important for the making of creative
contributions (Albert, 1992; McKay & Kaufman, 2014; Ness, 2013);
(c) An openness to, and the proactive seeking of, new ideas and experiences,
which may allow for non-conventional and novel perspectives on existing
phenomena, the identification of new problems, and versatility in expertise
(Ness, 2013; Simonton, 2014); and
(d) A strong sense of self-confidence and self-belief that may be linked to
perseverance in an area despite years of struggle and tedium, along with a high
level of assertiveness, which may be critical in the face of adversity (including
any pressures by peers to follow prevailing views and to maintain the status
quo; Ness, 2013; Nuland, 2000).
While each of these personal qualities have been recognized as being characteristic
of groundbreaking innovators across multiple fields, it is also possible that different
combinations of these qualities may be more compatible with different fields of
endeavor (McKay & Kaufman, 2014).
Psychopathology
Contrary to popular view, which may reflect the mental breakdowns that termin-
ated the careers of some eminent individuals (e.g., Robert Schumann, Friedrich
Nietzsche, Virginia Wolf, and John Forbes Nash), psychopathology does not appear
to be a recognized antecedent of genius. Simonton (2010, 2014) has suggested that
while the relationship between insanity and genius may be described as complex,
no causal relationship has yet to be established between these constructs in empirical
studies that have utilized multiple methodologies (i.e., historiometric, experimental,
psychometric, behavioral genetic, and psychiatric methodologies). Simonton (2014)
has gone as far as to suggest that “full-fledged insanity is almost entirely antithetical
to genius level achievement” (p. 95), while even minor levels may not allow for
the behaviors, activities, and events that are necessary for the emergence of genius.
If any non-casual relationship between psychopathology and genius does exist
however, some scholars have suggested that it may be field dependent, with creative
writers among the most at risk of negative consequences (e.g., alcoholism,
depression, and suicide), and famous explorers among those who are least at risk
(Ludwig, 1995; Post, 1996). Interestingly, Damian and Simonton (2014) have
proposed that the lack of psychopathology may, in some cases, be “compensated”
for by other non-conventional, unstable, and traumatic experiences of eminent
individuals, such as becoming blind at a young age (Ray Charles), severe racial
discrimination and teenage pregnancy (Maya Angelou), and poverty (Marie Curie).
The career “decision”

Consistent with the emergenesis hypothesis, in the situation where the three funda-
mental elements of genius are satisfied, appropriate education and career-related
opportunities are available, and the lack of any antecedents of genius do not prove
to be prohibitive, a “decision” to pursue a career in the field of exceptional
intellectual ability, passion/interest, and commitment/motivation appears likely
to emerge for the future genius. If it is a conscious decision, it is probable that
the alignment of multiple factors toward the one career field may prove to be so
forceful that the career decision is a very obvious one, and for which no real
alternatives exist. Indeed, multiple biographical accounts of geniuses indicate that,
for many, the eventual career decision may be more accurately described as a natural
transition from the years of formal or informal education and training, and other
preparation, for the career field in which they demonstrated exceptional capability
and interest.
As an example, Darwin found that he had become a celebrity scientist upon
his return from a five-year voyage around the world on the HMS Beagle, during
which time he collected specimens of flora and fauna, and after years of classifying
plants and collecting beetles as an adolescent in England (Ness, 2013). Similarly,
Mozart, who was taught music by his father from the age of six, and went on tours
of the major European cities as a performer on the keyboard and violin as a musical
prodigy (when he also composed music, listened to the music of others, and met
famous composers, performers, and musicologists), continued with music on his
own as an adult, after achieving independence from his father (Feldman, 1993;
Rosselli, 1998). For both Darwin and Mozart, along with many other geniuses,
there appear to have been minimal conflict, dilemma, or indecision about entering
the career fields to which they ultimately devoted their adult lives.
Final remarks
The literature on the career decisions of geniuses suggests that the career decisions
for this very small group of exceptional individuals may be very different to the
career decisions of other related high ability groups. Specifically, in contrast to the
multiple issues that may need to be carefully considered over a long period of time
by gifted students, prodigies, and twice exceptional students, the career decisions
for geniuses appear to emerge naturally upon the “perfect” alignment of a complex
array of personal and environmental factors. It is noteworthy that a hierarchy appears
to exist among these factors, with the three fundamental elements of genius
appearing to take precedence over the other important, but perhaps less pivotal,
factors.
The very small numbers of geniuses, which Kell and Lubinski (2014) estimate
to be approximately 100 individuals over a period of over 2,000 years (if the highest
standards for inclusion are adopted), suggests that the alignment of the multiple
factors conducive to the emergence of genius may be a very rare phenomenon.
For this reason, along with the non-controllable nature of many of these factors,
it may not be very easy to purposely create an environment in which geniuses are
likely to emerge. Nevertheless, in the situation where these factors are in alignment,
every effort should be made to ensure that the individual is supported in his or
her endeavors. This may entail the provision of access to appropriate resources
and facilities, exposure to appropriate role models, mentors, and other experts in
the area, and the removal of requirements to conform to standard and prevailing
conventions and norms (e.g., requirements for formal education outside of the area
of interest and capability). In light of the magnitude of the impact these individuals
are likely to have on the lives of others and to society in general, a commensurate
level of support should be provided. Ideally, resources at the level of national
governments should be mobilized to provide such support.
For the large numbers of “near” geniuses for whom the multiple personal and
environmental factors may only show partial alignment (e.g., exceptional levels of
intellectual ability but only moderate levels of passion/interest or commitment/
motivation in the field of intellectual ability), the career decision is more likely to
resemble that of the other high ability groups. In such cases, an initial assessment
may be necessary to determine the high ability profile that represents the best fit,
prior to the provision of any educational and career-related interventions. For such
individuals, the career choice is unlikely to simply emerge or be obvious, as for
geniuses, and a level of indecision (along with some related career decision-
making difficulties) may precede the eventual decision that is made.
Fortunately, a small group of scholars, led by Simonton, continue to investigate
the phenomenon of genius. While they have examined the careers of these
exceptional individuals from a number of closely related perspectives, no study has
yet researched it specifically from the perspective of making the career decision.
Such a perspective, which could adopt any of the existing methodological
approaches, including the psychometric, historiometric, or experimental approaches,
may provide new and much needed additional insights into the specific manner
in which geniuses may go about entering the careers in which they make their
adult contributions. The findings from such research could inform more sophisti-
cated evidence-based approaches to better support the career decisions of these
exceptional individuals.
References
Albert, R. S. (1992). A developmental theory of eminence. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius
and eminence (2nd ed., pp. 3–18). Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon.
Cox, C. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Damian, R. I., & Simonton, D. K. (2014). Diversifying experiences in the development of
genius and their impact on creative cognition. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook
of genius (pp. 375–394). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
Eisenstadt, J. M. (1978). Parental loss and genius. American Psychologist, 33, 211–223.
Feldman, R. (1993). Mozart as prodigy, Mozart as artifact. In P. Ostwald & L. S. Zegans
(Eds.), The pleasures and perils of genius: Mostly Mozart (pp. 29–48). Madison, CT: Inter-
national Universities Press.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. London, U.K.:
Macmillan.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, &
C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 135– 145). New York, NY: Plenum.
Howe, M. J. A. (1996). The childhoods and early lives of geniuses: Combining psychological
and biographical evidence. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition
of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 225–270). New York, NY:
Erlbaum.
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J. (2014). Genetics of intellectual and personality traits associated
with creative genius: Could geniuses be Cosmobian Dragon Kings? In D. K. Simonton
(Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 267–296). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
Jones, B. F., Reedy, E. J., & Weinberg, B. A. (2014). Age and scientific genius. In
D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 422–450). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2014). The study of mathematically precocious youth at maturity:
Insights into elements of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius
(pp. 397–421). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2013). Who rises to the top? Early indicators.
Psychological Science, 24, 648– 659.
Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2013). Creativity and technical
innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24, 1831–1836.
Keynes, J. M. (1956). Newton, the man. In J. R. Newman (Ed.), The world of mathematics
(pp. 277–285). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. (Original work published in 1942).
Kozbelt, A. (2014). Musical creativity over the lifespan. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley
handbook of genius (pp. 451–472). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Martindale, C. (1972). Father’s absence, psychopathology, and poetic eminence. Psychological
Reports, 31, 843–847.
McKay, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Literary geniuses: Their life, work, and death. In
Muller, C. B., Ride, S. M., Fouke, J., Whitney, T., Denton, D. D., Cantor N., et al. (2005).
Gender differences and performance in science. Science, 307, 1043.
Murray, C. (2013). Human accomplishment. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Ness, R. B (2013). Genius unmasked. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Nicholl, C. (2004). Leonardo da Vinci: The flights of the mind. London, U.K.: Penguin
Nuland, SB. (2000). Leonardo Da Vinci. London, U.K.: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Post, F. (1996). Verbal creativity, depression and alcoholism: An investigation of one hundred
American and British writers. British Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 545–555.
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., & Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: Under-
standing the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 53–66.
Rosselli, J. (1998). The life of Mozart. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press
Simonton, D. K. (1991a). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and inter-
disciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130.
Simonton, D. K. (1991b). Emergence and realization of genius: The lives and works of 120
classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 829–840.
Simonton, D. K. (1992). The social context of career success and course for 2,026 scientists
and inventors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 452–463.
Simonton, D. K. (1993). Creative genius in music: Mozart and other composers. In P. Ostwald
& L. S. Zegans (Eds.), The pleasures and perils of genius: Mostly Mozart (pp. 1–28). Madison,
CT: International Universities Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model.
Psychological Review, 106, 435–457.
Simonton, D. K. (2010). So you want to become a creative genius? You must be crazy! In
D. Cropley, J. Kaufman, A. Cropley, & M. Runco (Eds.), The dark side of creativity
(pp. 218–234). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (2014). Historiometric studies of genius. In D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook
Simonton, D. K., & Song, A. V. (2009). Eminence, IQ, physical and mental health, and
achievement domain: Cox’s 282 geniuses revisited. Psychological Science, 20, 429–434.
Sternberg, R. J., & Bridges, S. L. (2014). Varieties of genius. In D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows
up: Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 5. The gifted group at
mid-life: Thirty-five years’ follow-up of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Westfall, R. S. (2007). Isaac Newton. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
7
OF TWICE EXCEPTIONAL
STUDENTS
Twice exceptional students are students who concurrently possess at least one
area of high ability and at least one area of special need, and therefore simul-
taneously qualify as being gifted and having a disability (Foley-Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck,
& Stinson, 2011). As multiple domains of giftedness (e.g., intellectual, creative,
social, perceptual, muscular, motor control; Gagné, 2009) and disabilities (e.g.,
autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, mul-
tiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairments such as Atten-
tion Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD], specific learning disability, speech/
language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment; U.S.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004) exist, twice
exceptionality is a phenomenon that may be seen in a broad, heterogeneous group
of students. Interestingly, most of the existing research on twice exceptionality,
which relates primarily to the identification of these students, the characteristics of
these students, and appropriate educational interventions for these students, appears
to have a focus on one of only three categories of twice exceptionality (i.e., giftedness
and a specific learning disability, giftedness and ADHD, and giftedness and an autism
spectrum disorder; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011).
The literature on the career decisions of twice exceptional students is almost
non-existent (Hua, 2002). Consequently, to supplement the few studies that
do exist on the topic, this chapter draws on the literature in several related areas,
many of which are also under-researched, including the postsecondary educational
experiences of twice exceptional students, the career decisions of university students
with disabling conditions, the career decisions of successful adults with disabil-
ities, the career decisions of gifted students, and the career decisions of students
with disabilities. Collectively, a review of these studies allows for a preliminary
and tentative understanding of the career decisions of twice exceptional students.
Unfortunately, the dearth of research in the area may mean that the picture that
is painted may not be fully reflective of all twice exceptional students.
98 Twice exceptional students
Range of career outcomes for twice exceptional students

A wide range of career outcomes appear to be possible for twice exceptional students.
At one extreme, the career outcomes for many twice exceptional students appear
to resemble those of students who only have disabling conditions, commonly
including unemployment, underemployment, and employment in basic entry
level, non-skilled roles (Crowe et al., 2011; Gerber, Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1992;
Rehfeldt, 2003). Among American young adults with disabilities, Newman et al.
(2011) noted that rates of employment vary from 30% to 67%, depending on the
category of disability. Those with learning disabilities, speech/language impairments,
and other health impairments appear to have the highest rates of employment (64%
to 67%), while those with deaf-blindness, orthopedic impairments, autism, multiple
disabilities, or visual impairments appear least likely to be participating in work
(30% to 44%). Of those in employment, approximately 67% have been found to
work more than 35 hours per week (with those with learning disabilities, emotional
disturbances, speech/ language impairments, other health impairments, or traumatic
brain injuries working more hours than those with autism, deaf-blindness, multiple
disabilities, or orthopedic impairments).
Of note, Newman et al. (2011) have suggested that young adults with disabilities
hold a variety of jobs, with no major difference among the disability categories.
The most common jobs appear to be in food preparation and service (13%), sales
(12%), office and administrative support (9%), construction (8%), personal care/
service (8%), and transportation (8%), with smaller percentages in the fields of
education, computing, military, and healthcare support (i.e., 4% or less). Within
these jobs, a little more than a quarter of employers appear to be aware of the
disability, with 7% of these employers providing some accommodations on the
job, including material or technological adaptations, scheduling accommodations,
human aides, and adaptations to assignments and/or supervision. The groups who
are most likely to be in receipt of employment accommodations appear to have
visual or orthopedic impairments, an autism spectrum disorder, multiple disabilities,
or deaf-blindness (Newman et al., 2011).
At the other extreme, some documented cases exist of twice exceptional
students who have successfully pursued careers in highly specialized professional
fields that require a university education (Nadeau, 2005; Tallent-Runnels &
Layton, 2004). For these twice exceptional students, the career outcomes appear
to resemble outcomes that are commonly found in gifted students, whereby the
career decision is informed by factors including the high expectations of others,
high self-aspirations, a need for intellectual challenge and stimulation, a desire for
a well-paid occupation, a desire for a prestigious occupation, personal interests,
areas of ability, gender role socialization, and a preference for unimaginative and
traditional careers (Achter, Lubinski, Benbow, & Eftekhari-Sanjani, 1999; Casey
& Shore, 2000; Chen & Wong, 2013; Emmett & Minor, 1993; Gottfredson, 2003;
Grant, Battle, & Heggoy, 2000; Greene, 2003, 2006; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Leung,
1998; Lubinski & Benbow, 2000; Maxwell, 2007; Miller & Cummings, 2009;
Twice exceptional students 99
Stewart, 1999; Vock, Köller, & Nagy, 2013) typically within the fields of health,
communications, law, business, engineering, technology, and the physical sciences
(Fiebig, 2008; Greene, 2006; Holland, 1997; Kerr & Colangelo, 1988; Kerr &
Sodano, 2003; Persson, 2009; Sparfeldt, 2007; Vock et al., 2013).
Whether twice exceptional students achieve career outcomes that are typically
seen among gifted students or students with disabilities, or somewhere in between
these two extremes, may be dependent on a number of factors that may be unique
to these students.
Factors that influence the career decisions of twice

exceptional students
Type of career
Generally, twice exceptional students appear to be best served by the pursuit of
careers that make use of their areas of giftedness, while simultaneously limiting the
challenges associated with their disabling conditions. Indeed, in research conducted
with a related groups of students, Dipeolu, Storlie, and Johnson (2015) suggested
that counselors should try to locate careers for these students that “emphasise
strengths and minimise weaknesses” (p. 182), while Lee and Carter (2012) proposed
that a close alignment is necessary between an individual’s strengths and the
workplace. Similarly, Gerber et al. (1992) noted the importance of identifying career
environments where students could succeed, and where their skills and abilities
may be optimized.
To take advantage of their areas of giftedness, some twice exceptional students
have been found to modify the career aspirations that they initially set. For
example, a student with a learning disability in mathematics in Reis, McGuire,
and Neu (2000) changed his career goal from business to law (p. 131):
I came into school as pre-business and I found that my learning disability

hindered me, especially in maths. And accounting, I mean, I dropped both
of those classes . . . It was kind of hard, but I think I’m better prepared to
handle things like [law] than the math aspect of business.
For others, this may involve the identification, or even the creation, of a new job
or career to which they may be best suited, as was the case for a twice exceptional
lawyer in Gerber et al. (1992) who developed a position that was personalized to
his strengths and weaknesses within the field of public law.
It is noteworthy that while many gifted students who experience a conflict
between their areas of interest and ability may give precedence to their area of
interest (Gottfredson, 2003), many twice exceptional students may consider such
a choice to be a “luxury” that they are not in a position to entertain. Unfortunately,
the existence of one or more disabling conditions may preclude many twice
exceptional students from considering an entire range of careers, regardless of their
level of interest in these careers. For example, twice exceptional students with
ADHD are often advised to avoid careers with daily routines (Foley-Nicpon &
Assouline, 2015), while those with an autism spectrum disorder do not appear
to be well suited to careers that involve substantial human interaction (Rehfeldt,
2003).
Low expectations
The low career aspirations of some twice exceptional students appear to be related
to the low expectations that are often communicated, directly or indirectly, to these
students by others, including their teachers, counselors, psychologists, and parents.
For example, many teachers have been found to focus on the areas of disability
rather than the areas of giftedness of twice exceptional students, meaning that in
some cases, the areas of giftedness remain unidentified (Hua, 2002; Tallent-
Runnels & Layton, 2004). Similarly, many counselors and related professionals have
been found to underestimate the role of a university education for twice exceptional
students, when they provide recommendations that these students pursue low-skilled
careers that require on-the-job training or training in vocational organizations (Hua,
2002; Satcher & Dooley-Dickey, 1991). In these situations, professional careers
that may be compatible with the areas of giftedness of twice exceptional students
may not even be considered.
In parallel with the low expectations of others may be the low self-expectations
of the twice exceptional students themselves. Some possible reasons for such
expectations may be the lack of meaningful opportunity for twice exceptional
students to demonstrate their areas of giftedness, their continuing struggles in areas
affected by the disabling conditions, a general lack of previous educational success,
and the responses of others to the disabling conditions (Hua, 2002). It is indeed
noteworthy that of the eight twice exceptional students of African American
background studied by Mayes, Hines, and Harris (2014), six expressed concerns
about their ability to be successful in high school and beyond. Many of these
concerns related to their disabling conditions, the associated difficulties in
functioning, and the anticipated non-support by others.
Use of compensatory strategies

For some twice exceptional students, the eventual career outcomes appear to be
dependent on the degree to which compensation strategies, which may be linked
to the areas of giftedness, may be used to address their disabling conditions. In
their study of the compensation strategies used by gifted students with learning
disabilities who were successful at university, Reis et al. (2000) found that each
participant employed a highly individualized set of strategies that were unique to
their disabling conditions and personal work preferences (e.g., note-taking strategies,
the use of daily/weekly/monthly calendars, the use of information technologies,
and modifications to course load). From their findings, Reis et al. (2000) concluded
that many twice exceptional students who do not learn strategies to compensate
for their disabling conditions may not have the skills to be successful in life.
For some twice exceptional students who are identified early, compensation
strategies may be developed in collaboration between the student, his/her teachers,
his/her parents, and other professionals. As an example, Tallent-Runnels and Layton
(2004) discuss one such student who was simultaneously gifted (i.e., visual-spatial
skills, strong memory, vocabulary, communication skills, problem-solving skills)
and had a learning disability (i.e., auditory discrimination, the following of
sequential directions, phonics, reading), who used compensation strategies such as
a reliance on a strong visual modality, the development of a superior sight-word
vocabulary, the use of visual cues to follow sequential information, and reliance
on facial expressions and body language to listen. In this case, a number of com-
pensation strategies were developed that reflected a thorough understanding of the
twice exceptional student’s areas of giftedness and disability, and depended heavily
on his area of giftedness (i.e., visual-spatial skills).
For other twice exceptional students, compensation strategies may need to be
self-developed after a long period of trial and error. For the twice exceptional
academic described by Tallent-Runnels and Layton (2004) with strong intellectual,
interpersonal, and time management skills, and learning disabilities in reading,
writing, and mathematics, the range of compensatory strategies utilized included
personalization of reading content using prior experiences and reading text out
loud to comprehend words. Reliance was also placed on the use of PowerPoint
slides rather than writing on boards, a dictionary when marking student assignments,
and other people (e.g., editors) to check the spelling, grammar, and syntax of her
work. The compensation strategies that were developed and refined were notable
due to the extensive number of different strategies that were employed for each
specific situation, including situations outside of the work environment (e.g., leisure
activities and driving).
Personal qualities of twice exceptional students

The personal qualities of twice exceptional students may be another important
factor that determines their career outcomes. In particular, the motivation of
these students to be successful in their education and careers, and their associated
willingness to adapt their lives, appear to be key determinants in whether or
not they progress onto specialized professional career fields (Gerber et al., 1992;
Hua, 2002; Nadeau, 2005; Tallent-Runnels & Layton, 2004). Typically, a high
level of motivation for success may be manifested in the tremendous amounts of
effort that these students devote to their work, which some have considered to be
a distinct “strategy” to compensate for their disabling conditions (Nadeau, 2005;
Reis et al., 2000). Relatedly, a motivation for educational and career success may
be manifested in the level of persistence these students show in the face of
difficulty, which may be illustrated in the following quote from a twice exceptional
student in Hua (2002):
The reason I keep staying at school is that I know I want to go to college.

If I don’t have my dream at college, I don’t think I would have been in
school right now because I really dislike the whole school atmosphere. But
I know . . . what I want to do for my job . . . and which college I would
like to go to since I already have that part of my life mapped out. So I realise
that the only way I can get to that part is through school. I have to do what
I have to do . . . whether I like it or not.
(p. 386)
For others, a high level of motivation may lead to the setting of regular and firm
goals, which may allow for a sharper focus on the future (Gerber et al., 1992).
Interestingly, Gerber et al. (1992) have suggested that the capacity by successful
individuals with disabling conditions to “reframe” their disabling conditions in a
positive and constructive light may be conducive to a range of positive career
outcomes. Specifically, they proposed a reinterpretation and reconceptualization
of the disabling condition that involves the following steps:
(a) A recognition that the key problem does not lie with the disabling condition,
but with an inability to confront the challenges associated with the disabling
condition; and
(b) The taking of positive actions to confront these challenges as they relate to
one’s aspired career.
Although the process of reframing may not come easily, it is possible that twice
exceptional students who demonstrate the greatest willingness to modify their
thinking about their disabling conditions have the most positive and satisfying career
outcomes.
Accommodations on the job

For some twice exceptional students, any positive career outcomes appear to be
dependent on the availability of jobs that provide accommodations that are specific
to their disabling conditions. These accommodations may come in various forms,
including modifications to the jobs themselves, the job settings, work schedules,
the type of supervision, and the level of supervision (Burgess & Cimera, 2014).
At a more microscopic level, appropriate job accommodations for twice excep-
tional students may include allowances for breaks, allowances for special training,
the address of sensory issues (e.g., lighting arrangements), the use of open/closed
work stations, the issuing of clear/consistent instructions, the amount of available
structured/unstructured time, and the enlisting co-workers to act as “go-betweens”
when problems arise (Crowe et al., 2011; Dipeolu et al., 2015; Lee & Carter, 2012).
The importance of accommodations on the job may be such that scholars have
suggested that, for some individuals, greater importance should be placed on the
identification of an ideal work environment rather than on an ideal job or career
(Dipeolu et al., 2015). Relatedly, others have highlighted the importance of the
identification of a receptive employer who recognizes the potential contributions
of individuals with disabling conditions, and are willing to provide appropriate
accommodations (Lee & Carter, 2012).
For twice exceptional students with the most severe disabling conditions,
supported employment arrangements may be optimal. Supported employment refers
to “paid work for at least 20 hours a week that is performed alongside co-workers
without disabilities . . . (that is intended for individuals) . . . who have a demon-
strated inability to find and maintain employment independently” (Rehfeldt, 2003,
p. 6). Four types of supported employment arrangements exist:
(a) Individual placement model (i.e., an individual works in a competitive

employment situation with the support of a specialist who provides training
and support);
(b) Enclave model (i.e., a group of three to eight individuals work under the
permanent supervision of a trainer);
(c) Work crew model (i.e., a mobile group of three to eight individuals working
under a trainer who provide services at different sites); and
(d) Small business model (i.e., a small group of individuals working under a trainer
performing manufacturing or assembly activities).
While the first of these models appear to provide the greatest number of work
hours and the highest levels of remuneration, different supported employment
models are likely to be appropriate for different twice exceptional students,
depending on the nature of their disabling conditions (Rehfeldt, 2003).
Vocation-related experiences, training, and/or services

Finally, the vocation-related experiences, training, and/or services that are received
by twice exceptional students prior to the commencement of work may influence
the career outcomes of these students. Lee and Carter (2012) highlighted the
importance of an early access to a range of career development experiences,
including part-time and vacation jobs, paid or unpaid internships, and school-
sponsored work experiences, to give individuals with disabling conditions authentic
opportunities to gain relevant vocation-related skills, and to inform their future
career decisions. In comparison, Dipeolu et al. (2015) proposed that the areas of
weakness that may be associated with the disabling conditions, as they relate to
employment, should be addressed as soon as possible. For example, for individuals
with autism spectrum disorders, they note the importance of training in social and
soft skills (e.g., role plays and scripting) and skills in executive functioning (e.g.,
goal setting), to maximize their capacity to work effectively with others and to
contribute to a positive work environment. As a supplementary measure, Rehfeldt
(2003) noted the importance of training in leisure skills for work breaks and other
free time. Generally, any vocation-related experiences, training, and services may
be most effective in the determination of the future career outcomes of twice

exceptional students if they are specifically tailored and personalized to the unique
strengths and weaknesses of these students.
The philosophy behind one of the only vocational training models that exists
for twice exceptional students, the Workforce and Independent Living Skills Training
Model developed by Crowe et al. (2011) from the work of Clark (2001; 2016), is
the achievement of an optimal match between the job and the skills and interests
of twice exceptional students with an autism spectrum disorder. Under this model,
twice exceptional students are initially administered a battery of assessments to
evaluate their levels of intelligence, executive functioning, adaptive skills, social
skills, communication skills, vocational skills, and vocational interests. Thereafter,
a job that best matches the twice exceptional student is identified, and the individual
tasks associated with the job are analyzed. The areas of giftedness (or savant skills,
as noted by Crowe et al., 2011) are then examined to arrive at specific and creative
approaches to learn and/or perform aspects of the job, and to address any
communication and social skill deficits that are important to the job. In acknow-
ledgement of the uniqueness of each twice exceptional student, no one approach
is used to optimally translate the areas of giftedness of each student into practical
skills that may be used in the workplace. Finally, personalized training is provided
to the twice exceptional student with a focus on both vocational skills and
independent living skills. Other stakeholders in the employment of the twice
exceptional student, including the employer and co-workers, are also provided
training on how to optimally work with the twice exceptional student. Unfortu-
nately, the model does not yet appear to have achieved wide acceptance within
the international twice exceptional community.
Final remarks
The general lack of attention by scholars to the career decisions of twice exceptional
students has meant that only a tentative and speculative understanding of the career
decisions of this unique group of students is possible at the present time. Certainly,
twice exceptional students appear to have a very wide range of career outcomes.
Nevertheless, the confluence of factors that may need to be in alignment for any
positive career outcomes that are consistent with the areas of giftedness of these
students (i.e., the availability of careers that make use of strengths while limiting
challenges associated with the disabling conditions, the use of a range of com-
pensatory strategies to address the disabling conditions, high levels of motivation
in the face of low expectations, a capacity to reframe disabling conditions in a positive
and constructive light, access to appropriate job accommodations, and access to
appropriate vocation-related experiences, training, and services) may mean that many
twice exceptional students will need to settle for very unsatisfying careers.
Further research is necessary on the career decisions of this highly capable
group of students. As the minimal research that does exist relates only to a few
categories of twice exceptionality, urgent attention is needed on all of the possible
combinations of giftedness domains and disabling conditions in which twice excep-

tionality may exist. In recognition of the seemingly large numbers of twice
exceptional students who do not go on pursue careers that fully utilize their potential,
a particular focus of the research may need to be on the specific barriers to optimal
career decisions, and useful approaches to support these students to fulfill their
potential in work settings. The emerging literature in the area suggests that some
of these approaches may involve the development of creative compensation
strategies that better utilize the areas of giftedness, effective and economic accom-
modations for disabling conditions in workplaces, innovative vocational training
programs that effectively address the disabling conditions of twice exceptional
students, and systems that optimally match and connect twice exceptional students
with compatible careers and jobs.
For their part, teachers, counselors, psychologists, parents, and twice exceptional
students themselves should be encouraged to learn from case studies of the twice
exceptional students who have successfully addressed their disabling conditions to
achieve positive career outcomes (e.g., Tallent-Runnels & Layton, 2004). Ideally,
all twice exceptional students should be given an early and thorough assessment
of their two exceptionalities, so that any strategies to compensate for their disabling
conditions may be developed and practiced from a young age. Additionally,
psychosocial skills and qualities, including a motivation for success and persistence
under difficult circumstances, should be developed to maximize their chances of
future success. In recognition of the fact that many of the most successful adults
with disabilities have productive and positive mindsets about their disabling
conditions, a constructive reconceptualization of their disabling conditions may also
be desirable. Finally, there may be benefits in offering twice exceptional students
exposure to a wide range of vocation-related experiences. It is unfortunate that
the nature and severity of some disabling conditions may prove prohibitive in
arriving at satisfying career outcomes for all twice exceptional students.
References
vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A
discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational
Burgess, S., & Cimera, R. E. (2014). Employment outcomes of transition-aged adults with
autism spectrum disorders: A state of the states report. American Journal on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 119, 64–83.
Casey, K. M., & Shore, B. M. (2000). Mentors’ contributions to gifted adolescents’ affective,
social, and vocational development. Roeper Review, 22, 227–230.
Clark, T. R. (2001). The application of savant and splinter skills in the autistic population through
curriculum design: A longitudinal multiple-replication case study. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Clark, T. R. (2016). Exploring giftedness and autism: A study of a differentiated educational program
for autistic savants. New York, NY: Routledge.
Crowe, D., Shafie, S., Lincoln, A., King, D., Beussink, G. E., Blake, A, Statler, C. (2011).
Workforce and independent living skills training model for individuals with high
functioning autism or Asperger’s Disorder who exhibit savant skills or giftedness: A pilot
program’s outcomes. In J. Hagen and A. T. Kisubi (Eds.), Best practices in human services:
A global perspective. Oshkosh, WI: Council for Standards in Human Service Education.
Dipeolu, A. O., Storlie, C., & Johnson, C. (2015). College students with high-functioning
autism spectrum disorder: Best practices for successful transition to the world of work.
Journal of College Counseling, 18, 175–190.
Studies, 19, 67–81.
Foley-Nicpon, M., & Assouline, S. G. (2015). Counseling considerations for the twice-
exceptional client. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 202–211.
Foley-Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical investigation
of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child
Quarterly, 55, 3–17.
Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In
B. MacFarlane, & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The festschrift
of Dr Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 61–80). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Gerber, P. J., Ginsberg, R., & Reiff, H. B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns in
employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 25, 475–487.
Grant, D. F., Battle, D. A., & Heggoy, S. J. (2000). The journey through college of
seven gifted females: Influences on their career related decisions. Roeper Review, 22,
251–260.
25, 66–72.
Hua, C. B. (2002). Career self-efficacy of the student who is gifted/learning disabled: A case
study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 375–404.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446,
118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
Lee, G. K., & Carter, E. W. (2012). Preparing transition-age students with high-functioning
autism spectrum disorders for meaningful work. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 988–1000.
Leung, S. A. (1998). Vocational identity and career choice congruence of gifted and talented
high school students. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 325–335.
55, 206–224.
Mayes, R. D., Hines, E. M., & Harris, P. C. (2014). Working with twice-exceptional African
American students: Information for school counselors. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching
and Learning, 4, 125–139.
Nadeau, K. G. (2005). Career choices and workplace challenges for individuals with
ADHD. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 549–563.
Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Xin Wei, Cameto,
R., Contreras, E., Ferguson, K., Greene, S. & Schwarting, M. (2011). The post-high school
outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school: A report from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Rehfeldt, R. A. (2003). Supported employment for adults with high functioning autism and
Asperger’s Syndrome. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 9, 1–13.
Reis, S. M., McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Compensation strategies used by high-
ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly,
44, 123–134.
Satcher, J., & Dooley-Dickey, K. (1991). Rehabilitation counselor selection of persons with
learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22, 34–36.
postsecondary settings, In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with Both
Gifts and Learning Disabilities (pp. 131–154). New York, NY: Springer.
8
CONCLUSION
This monograph has examined various issues surrounding the career decision for
four related but different groups of individuals who each display high levels of ability
– gifted students (i.e., students who possess a high level of general or specific ability
in one or more domains, including the intellectual domain), prodigies (i.e., children
who have achieved mastery in a valued and demanding field of activity at the level
of a trained professional adult), geniuses (i.e., individuals who, at a specific time
and place, exert exceptional influence on others through achievements of extra-
ordinary value), and twice exceptional students (i.e., students who simultaneously
have at least one area of high ability and at least one disabling condition). The
emerging literature suggests that the career decisions of these four groups may be
simultaneously similar and different to each other, and to individuals who do not
possess any area of high ability.
Similarities
Most of the similarities associated with the career decision appear to center around
the specific individual issues that may be salient to the career decision. For example,
both gifted and non-gifted students appear to be influenced by factors such as interest,
enjoyment, income, recognition, culture (e.g., individualistic orientations toward
the future and collectivistic orientations toward the family), social influences
from the family, and amotivation about the decision (Jung, 2013, 2014, 2017a,
2017b; Jung & McCormick, 2010, 2011a, 2011b; Jung, McCormick, Gregory, &
Barnett, 2011). Similarly, with age, prodigies appear to be increasingly influenced
by multiple non-ability factors – interests, values, income, social status, culture,
income, and motivation – along with their area of ability (Goldsmith, 2000;
Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997; Lent, Brown & Hackett, 2002; Lubinski & Benbow,
2006). Of these factors, three – interest, motivation, and intellectual ability –
110 Conclusion
have been considered to be fundamental to the emergence of genius, according

to the emergenesis hypothesis adopted by a number of scholars (Johnson &
Bouchard, 2014; Kell & Lubinski, 2014; Simonton, 1999).
Some similarities have also been identified with respect to career decision-making
processes, which only appear to have been meaningfully investigated, to date, for
gifted students and the general student population. Specifically, a fundamental
“backbone” cognitive decision-making process pathway (i.e., idiocentrism-future
– career interest/enjoyment – career attitude – career intention), along with con-
sistent relationships between career interest/enjoyment, career income, and
recognition from others, have been identified to exist among both gifted and non-
gifted students (Jung, 2014, 2017b; Jung & McCormick, 2011b; Jung et al., 2011).
Furthermore, a consistent negative relationship between family influence and
career amotivation, and a consistent positive relationship between career amoti-
vation and career indecision, have been identified for these two groups (Jung, 2013,
2017a; Jung & McCormick, 2010, 2011a). Additionally, the various career decision
theories (e.g., the trait and factor theories, the developmental theories, the social
learning theories, and the postmodern theories; Hodkinson & Sparkes, 1997;
Holland, 1997; Savickas, 2002; Super, 1963), many of which specify career
decision-making processes, appear in a broad and general sense to be applicable to
gifted students, prodigies, geniuses, twice exceptional students, along with the general
student population.
For those in the four high ability groups, many adult career outcomes appear
likely to reflect the careers of gifted students. Specifically, many gifted students
appear likely to pursue careers in the investigative and realistic realms (Holland,
1997) within a narrow range of the traditional fields of health, communications,
law, engineering, technology, and the physical sciences (Fiebig, 2008; Greene, 2006;
Jung, 2017b; Kerr & Colangelo, 1988; Kerr & Sodano, 2003; Persson, 2009), and
perhaps avoid careers in the social and enterprising realms in fields such as social
work, counseling, business, and management (Chen & Wong, 2013; Vock, Köller,
& Nagy, 2013). Similarly, most prodigies appear unlikely to remain in one of the
small number of fields (e.g., music, chess, visual arts, chess, writing, theater arts,
or mathematics) in which they demonstrated early mastery as children (Gardner,
1993; Jenkins, 2005; Goldsmith, 2000), and may instead pursue careers, as adults,
that align with their high intellectual abilities (Jung & Evans, 2016; Ruthsatz,
Ruthsatz, & Ruthsatz Stephens, 2014; Ruthsatz & Urbach, 2012). Furthermore,
it is possible that many geniuses will have adult careers in these areas (along with
a variety of other areas), albeit at an exceptional level of accomplishment that makes
a substantial impact on the lives of others (Howe, 1996; Kell & Lubinski, 2014;
Murray, 2003). Moreover, some twice exceptional students may be found in these
careers, although this is likely to be conditional on the successful identification of
careers that make use of their strengths (while minimizing the challenges associated
with their disabling conditions), the development of appropriate compensatory
strategies, retention of a high level of motivation for success, access to appropriate
job modifications, and/or access to appropriate vocational experiences, training,
Conclusion 111
and services (Burgess & Cimera, 2014; Dipeolu, Storlie, & Johnson, 2015; Gerber,
Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1992; Hua, 2002; Lee & Carter, 2012; Nadeau, 2005; Reis,
McGuire, & Neu, 2000; Tallent-Runnels & Layton, 2004).
Differences
The major differences in the career decisions between the high ability and non-
high ability groups appear to be related to the additional issues that the high ability
groups may be faced with. These include capability and interest in multiple areas
(i.e., multipotentiality), a need for intellectual stimulation, the high expectations
by others, high self-expectations, an early emergence of career interests, and
possible perfectionistic tendencies (Emmett & Minor, 1993; Goldsmith, 1987;
Greene, 2003, 2006; Jung, 2017a; Kenneson, 1998; Matthews & Foster, 2005;
Muratori & Smith, 2015; Ness, 2013; Rysiew, Shore, & Carson, 1994; Rysiew,
Shore, & Leeb, 1999; Stewart, 1999; Stornelli, Flett, & Hewitt, 2009). For some
individuals of high ability, these additional issues may interrelate with other issues
that are associated with the career decision to influence the career decision-making
process. For example, the positive relationship between perfectionism and career
amotivation among gifted students may lead to the inference that gifted students
with perfectionistic tendencies are likely to become amotivated about the career
decision (Jung, 2013), while the repeatedly identified strong positive relationship
between career interest/enjoyment and intellectual stimulation for gifted students
suggests that they may consider intellectually stimulating careers to be interesting
and enjoyable (Jung, 2014, 2017b).
In addition, a number of differences appear to exist, with respect to the career
decision, among the four highly able groups. First, prodigies appear to be unique
due to: (a) the very early age of the initial career-related decisions, which are typically
made by parents or other family members (Goldsmith, 1987; Ericsson, Krampe,
& Tesch-Römer, 1993), (b) the experience of a possible career-related “mid-life
crisis” during which time an attempt may be made to reconcile the initial career-
related decisions with a self-directed career decision (Bamberger, 1982, 2016), and
(c) the need for an additional second, mature career decision (Kenneson, 1998).
In contrast, scholars indicate that rather than making a deliberate decision about
their future careers, geniuses may experience a natural transition from the years of
formal and informal education and/or training into their eventual career fields
(Feldman, 1993; Ness, 2013; Rosselli, 1998). The transition itself may involve
minimal conflict, dilemma, or indecision on the part of the genius, although the
achievement of the status of genius is likely to require a very rare confluence of
multiple factors (Kell & Lubinski, 2014; Simonton, 1987, 2014).
Different still appears to be the career decisions of twice exceptional students,
who may be the least self-directed of the four high ability groups. Of note, the
literature suggests that many in this group may compromise their interests to pursue
a career that allows them to both utilize their strengths and de-emphasize their
weaknesses (Dipeolu et al., 2015; Lee & Carter, 2012). Indeed, the nature and
112 Conclusion
severity of the disabling conditions of twice exceptional students may mean that
this group, unlike the other high ability groups, may need to preclude from con-
sideration a wide range of career options (Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015;
Rehfeldt, 2003). In addition, and again in contrast to the situation for the other
high ability groups, twice exceptional students appear to be faced with low
expectations about their future career outcomes from teachers, parents, counselors,
and psychologists, which may have the effect of restricting their access to necessary
education and training opportunities (Hua, 2002; Satcher & Dooley-Dickey,
1991). Of all the high ability groups, twice exceptional students appear to be the
group who may be most likely to experience very negative career outcomes such
as unemployment and underemployment (Crowe et al., 2011; Gerber et al., 1992;
Rehfeldt, 2003).
Implications for research

The emerging literature on the career decisions of gifted students, prodigies,
geniuses, and twice exceptional students highlight multiple areas in which further
research may be necessary on these similar yet different groups. In particular, future
research that investigates the following research questions may be useful in gaining
a more complete understanding of the career decisions of these exceptional
individuals.
Career decisions of gifted students

(a) Are there any previously unidentified factors that influence the career decisions
of gifted students?
(b) What is the relative importance of the various factors that influence the career
decisions of gifted students?
(c) What are the differences, with respect to domains of giftedness, levels of gifted-
ness, gender, age, cultural background, socio-economic status background, and
urban/rural background, in the factors that influence the career decisions of
gifted students?
(d) What are the optimal ways to assess the factors that influence the career decisions
of gifted students?
(e) What are the career decision-making processes of gifted students of different
domains of giftedness, levels of giftedness, gender, age, cultural background,
socio-economic status background, and urban/rural background?
(f) How does the formation of career intentions impact career behaviors?
(g) What is the optimal theoretical model of the career decisions, and career
decision-making processes, of gifted students?
(h) Which previously non-utilized or under-utilized methodological approaches
are useful in the study of the career decisions, and career decision-making
processes, of gifted students?
Conclusion 113
Career decisions of prodigies

(a) What are the career decisions of prodigies in different domains?
(b) What are the career decision-making processes of prodigies in general?
(c) What are the career decision-making processes of prodigies in different
domains?
(d) What are the adult career outcomes of prodigies who do not pursue adult
careers in their area of early mastery?
(e) What factors influence the decisions of parents to support the early
development of prodigies?
(f) What are the decision-making processes of parents to support the early
development of prodigies?
(g) Are there any gender, age, cultural background, socio-economic status
background, and urban/rural background differences in the career decisions
and career decision-making processes of prodigies, and the decisions and
decision-making processes of their parents?
Career decisions of geniuses

(a) Are there any previously unidentified factors that influence the emergence of
geniuses (e.g., what is the “elusive” factor noted by Kell & Lubinski, 2014)?
(b) Which environments are most conducive to the emergence of geniuses?
(c) What are the career decision-making processes of geniuses in general?
(d) What are the career decision-making processes of geniuses in different domains?
(e) What are the career decision-making processes of geniuses of different gender,
age, cultural background, socio-economic status background, and urban/rural
background?
(f) What factors influence the decisions of parents to support the early develop-
ment of geniuses?
(g) What are the decision-making processes of parents to support the early
development of geniuses?
(h) Are there any hypotheses other than the emergenesis hypothesis that explain
the career decisions of geniuses?
(i) Are there any useful non-retrospective approaches to study the career decisions
of geniuses?
Career decisions of twice exceptional students

(a) What are the career decisions of the different types of twice exceptional students
(i.e., different domains/levels of giftedness and different disabling conditions
of various levels of severity)?
(b) What are the career decision-making processes of the different types of twice
exceptional students (i.e., different domains/levels of giftedness and different
disabling conditions of various levels of severity)?
114 Conclusion
(c) What are the career decisions and career decision-making processes of different
types of twice exceptional students of different gender, age, cultural background,
socio-economic status background, and urban/rural background?
(d) What are the optimal approaches to develop compensation strategies for
different types of twice exceptional students?
(e) What are the economic and effective job accommodations for different types
of twice exceptional students?
(f) What are the optimal vocational training programs for different types of twice
exceptional students?
(g) What are the optimal approaches to match twice exceptional students with
compatible jobs and careers?
(h) What are the optimal approaches to create jobs and careers for twice
exceptional students?
(i) What are the career decisions and career decision-making processes of twice
exceptional students who have been successful in their careers?
Implications for practice

In addition to potential areas for future research, the findings of the research
to date on the career decisions of gifted students, prodigies, geniuses, and twice
exceptional students appear to have some major implications for practice.
Specifically, across the four high ability groups, an early and thorough assessment
of the areas of high ability (as well as the disabling conditions for twice exceptional
students) by experts and professionals may be necessary so that, consistent with the
principles of gifted education, appropriate interventions may be provided to
develop the exceptional potential (and support the disabling conditions) of these
individuals from a young age. This may entail the provision of formal and informal
educational opportunities, access to resources that are compatible with the areas
of high ability, and access to appropriate role models and mentors (Jung & Evans,
2016; Reis et al., 2000; Tallent-Runnels & Layton, 2004). Simultaneously, some
scholars suggest that it may be useful to develop psychosocial skills such as
self-belief, perseverance, determination, and resilience, which may be useful for
educational and career success in any field that is eventually chosen (Jung,
2012; MacNamara, Collins, & Holmes, 2014; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, &
Worrell, 2011).
In the situation where substantial and costly support, such as for prodigies,
geniuses, and some twice exceptional students, may be necessary, some difficult
decisions may need to be made on precisely how much support is provided. To
support prodigious children and future geniuses, the literature suggests that
tremendous investments in preparatory education and training may be necessary
for up to a period of ten years (Feldman 1993, 2008; Jones, Reedy, & Weinberg,
2014; Kozbelt, 2014; Sosniak, 1985), while intensive support in the form of
vocation-related skills training, accommodations, and access to the latest technology
may be necessary for twice exceptional children, depending on the nature and
Conclusion 115
severity of the disabling condition (Dipeolu et al., 2015; Lee & Carter, 2012). On
the one hand, the decision should not substantially compromise the lives of other
family members or the development of the possibly exceptional potential of other
family members. Furthermore, an acknowledgement is necessary of the possibility
that the adult career of the child or adolescent may not be in the area of high
ability. On the other hand, the non-provision of an adequate level of support may
mean that exceptional career accomplishments, which could have a major impact
on the lives of other members of society, may never materialize. Unfortunately,
it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make a prediction on whether the
tremendous potential demonstrated by a child or adolescent will translate into
exceptional adult career achievements. In an ideal world, external parties such as
governments will be in a position to provide appropriate supplementary support.
Regardless of the decision that is made, however, all highly able individuals
should be given access to sophisticated career-related information and exposure to
a wide range of careers from an early age. This may entail career counseling from
professional experts, participation in work experience programs and internships,
and/or engagement in part-time employment. Moreover, rather than “expecting”
or “imposing” a career decision in a particular field, the highly able individual should
be given the freedom to make an independent and self-directed career decision
(Jung & Evans, 2016). For gifted students and prodigies, the eventual career that
is chosen may not necessarily be in their areas of high ability (Gardner, 1993;
Goldsmith, 2000; Gottfredson, 2003; Jenkins, 2005). In comparison, future
geniuses, who may demonstrate exceptionally high levels of intellectual ability,
interest, and motivation in the one career field, may be likely to select adult careers
in their areas of high ability (Kell & Lubinski, 2014). Perhaps twice exceptional
students may be the group for whom it may be most difficult to make predictions
about future career outcomes, due to the very wide range of documented
possibilities (i.e., from unemployment to careers in professional fields), and its
dependence on a complex mix of factors (Burgess & Cimera, 2014; Crowe et al.,
2011; Dipeolu et al., 2015; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015; Gerber et al., 1992;
Hua, 2002; Lee & Carter, 2012; Rehfeldt, 2003; Satcher & Dooley-Dickey, 1991).
For all the high ability groups, the career decision-making process models that
have been developed for gifted students may provide some clues on how to provide
optimal guidance and support (Jung, 2013, 2014, 2017a, 2017b). For example, to
support the career decisions of those who are unable to make the career decision,
the models suggest that the focus may need to be on those career-related activities
that are considered to be the most interesting, enjoyable, and intellectually
stimulating, and the nature of the attitudes toward different careers. In comparison,
to address any concerns about amotivation about the career decision, the models
imply the usefulness of strategies such as the promotion of interactions with family
members, the encouragement of an independent outlook toward the future, and
a de-emphasis of perfectionism. Furthermore, to re-direct any excessively low career
aspirations of these individuals toward those careers that may more fully utilize
their potential, the models suggest that rather than focusing on the need for these
116 Conclusion
individuals to fulfill their potential, the interesting, enjoyable, and intellectually

stimulating aspects of the alternative careers should be highlighted. While it is
expected that some elements of the career decision-making process models of gifted
students will be relevant to the career decision-making processes of each of the
other high ability groups, future research will be necessary to verify the precise
degree to which this may be the case.
The future
It is expected that major changes that are currently being seen in the work-
place environment, due to factors such as globalization, the deregulation of labor
markets, changes to employment structures, changes to employment patterns, and
changes to the demographic composition of the workforce, will mean that the
future career decisions of high ability individuals may be very different to what it
has been like in the past (Storey, 2000; Störmer et al., 2014). In particular, the
rapid technological advances that are being seen around the world are likely to
mean that there will be an increasing displacement of unskilled and low skilled
careers, in favor of new, complex, intelligent, professional, and creative type
careers (Höpfl & Atkinson, 2000; Littleton, Arthur, & Rousseau, 2000; Quinn,
1992; Richardson, 2000; Storey, 2000), to which individuals of high ability may
be particularly well suited. Indeed, these appear to be the very types of careers that
have traditionally attracted gifted students, prodigies, geniuses, and successful twice
exceptional students. It is consequently possible that, in the future, individuals in
the various high ability groups will have more careers, and a greater number of
jobs, from which to choose.
At the same time, future workplaces appear likely to be characterized by a reduced
level of job security such that employees are expected to change jobs frequently,
become more independent, and even “urged to view themselves as ‘self-employed’,
with employers being their customers” (Savickas, 2000, p. 57). In many ways, the
future work environment may resemble work environments such as those at Silicon
Valley, the world’s leading centre of technological innovation, which is considered
to be an “open labor market” and where the average length of tenure with one
employer is only two years (Littleton, Arthur, & Jackson, 2000; Saxenian, 1996).
Workers in such environments may need to make career-related decisions at multiple
points in time, and focus on maximizing their employability over their entire
working lives (Storey, 2000; Savickas, 2000). Those who exhibit high levels of
interest and ability in multiple areas (i.e., multipotentiality), a recognized
characteristic of gifted students (and possibly a characteristic of the other high ability
groups), may be particularly advantaged, as they may be most able to develop
multiple skill sets and prepare for entry into multiple related careers (Richardson,
2000). One way in which this could be possible is through the completion of
multiple specializations of study at university, which appears to be a common trend
among students of high ability in many countries (Pearson, 2016). Alternatively,
lifelong learning, for which high ability individuals may have the greatest interest,
Conclusion 117
motivation, and capacity to excel, may allow for a regular, “just-in-time” acquisition
of the latest vocationally relevant skills (Watts, 2000).
Among the only real concerns for high ability individuals in the future may lie
in the possibly greater importance of social and related skills, and social networks,
to obtain information on, and to gain access to, the most sought after positions
that may be imperative for career success. Indeed, in reference to the work
environment at Silicon Valley, Littleton et al. (2000) noted that “professional social
networks, which provide a tacit road map about who knows who and does what
in the industry . . . (may) serve as efficient job search networks and makeshift
recruitment centers” (p. 106). Relatedly, a number of scholars have noted that the
promotion and marketing of one’s work skills, and the self-management of one’s
career, may become increasingly important in the future work environment
(Savickas, 2000; Storey, 2000). Unfortunately, interpersonal, marketing, and
entrepreneurial abilities have not always been recognized as areas of strength for
individuals of high ability, particularly as it has been established that members of
one of these groups (i.e., gifted students) are generally unlikely to aspire to careers
in the social and enterprising realms that involve substantial interpersonal interaction
(Chen & Wong, 2013; Vock et al., 2013). Nevertheless, there may be individual
differences, along with differences in the skills necessary for the establishment of
strong professional networks, and the skills necessary for success in the “social”
and related type of careers.
Overall, individuals of high ability appear to be in a reasonably good position
to face the work environment of the future. Although it is possible that some high
ability individuals may not be in the best position to readily access some career-
related opportunities, strong and continued demand is likely for their tremendous
potential and corresponding achievements, particularly in the intellectual and
creative domains. Furthermore, the capability and interest of these exceptional
individuals in multiple areas, along with their capacity for and interest in continuous
learning, may be very useful in allowing them to flexibly adapt to the complex
and varying demands of different work environments within different organizations
over their working lives. Members of all of the high ability groups – gifted students,
prodigies, future geniuses, and twice exceptional students – should, therefore, be
excited about the prospect of making a career decision in the new environment
of the future.
References
Bamberger, J. (1982). Growing up prodigies: The midlife crisis. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 1982, 61–77.
Bamberger, J. (2016). Growing-up prodigies: The midlife crisis. In G. McPherson (Ed.),
Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, musicology and ethnomusicology (pp. 294–319).
Burgess, S., & Cimera, R. E. (2014). Employment outcomes of transition-aged adults with
autism spectrum disorders: A state of the states report. American Journal on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 119, 64–83.
118 Conclusion
Crowe, D., Shafie, S., Lincoln, A., King, D., Beussink, G. E., Blake, A., & Statler, C. (2011).
Workforce and independent living skills training model for individuals with high
functioning autism or Asperger’s Disorder who exhibit savant skills or giftedness: A pilot
program’s outcomes. In J. Hagen & A. T. Kisubi (Eds.), Best practices in human services:
A global perspective (pp. 200–238). Oshkosh, WI: Council for Standards in Human Service
Education.
Dipeolu, A. O., Storlie, C., & Johnson, C. (2015). College students with high-functioning
autism spectrum disorder: Best practices for successful transition to the world of work.
Journal of College Counseling, 18, 175–190.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice
in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
Feldman, R. (1993). Mozart as prodigy, Mozart as artifact. In P. Ostwald & L. S. Zegans
(Eds.), The pleasures and perils of genius: Mostly Mozart (pp. 29–48). Madison, CT:
International University Press.
Feldman, D. H. (2008). Prodigies. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues
and practices in gifted education: What the research says (1st ed., pp. 523–534). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Studies, 19, 67–81.
Foley-Nicpon, M., & Assouline, S. G. (2015). Counseling considerations for the twice-
exceptional client. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 202–211.
Gardner, H. (1993). The relationship between early giftedness and later achievement. In
G. R. Bock and K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 175–182).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Gerber, P. J., Ginsberg, R., & Reiff, H. B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns in
employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 25, 475–487.
Goldsmith, L. T. (1987). Girl prodigies: Some evidence and some speculations. Roeper Review,
10, 74–82.
Goldsmith, L. T. (2000). Tracking trajectories of talent: Child prodigies growing up. In
R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding (pp. 89–118). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
25, 66–72.
Hodkinson, P., & Sparkes, A. C. (1997). Careership: a sociological theory of career decision
making. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 18, 29–44.
Höpfl, H., & Atkinson, P. H. (2000). The future of women’s career. In A. Collin &
R. Young. (Eds.), The future of careers (pp. 130–143). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge
University Press.
Conclusion 119
Howe, M. J. A. (1996). The childhoods and early lives of geniuses: Combining psychological
and biographical evidence. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition
of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 225–270. New York, NY:
Erlbaum.
Hua, C. B. (2002). Career self-efficacy of the student who is gifted/learning disabled: A case
study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 375–404.
Jenkins, J. S. (2005). Prodigies of nature. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 98, 277–280.
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J. (2014). Genetics of intellectual and personality traits associated
with creative genius: Could geniuses be Cosmobian Dragon Kings? In D. K. Simonton
(Ed.). The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 267–296). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
Jones, B. F., Reedy, E. J., & Weinberg, B. A. (2014). Age and scientific genius. In
the Gifted, 37, 128–152.
Counsellors in Schools. Advance online publication.
G. E. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, music education,
Jung, J. Y. & McCormick, J. (2010). Amotivation and the occupational decision: An
Jung, J. Y. & McCormick, J. (2011a). Occupational decision-related processes for amotivated
Jung, J. Y. & McCormick, J. (2011b). The occupational decision: A cultural and motivational
Jung, J. Y., McCormick, J., Gregory, G., Barnett, K. (2011). Culture, motivation, and
Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2014). The study of mathematically precocious youth at maturity:
Insights into elements of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius
(pp. 397–421). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
Amadeus Press.
Kozbelt, A. (2014). Musical creativity over the lifespan. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley
handbook of genius (pp. 451–472). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
120 Conclusion
Lee, G. K., & Carter, E. W. (2012). Preparing transition-age students with high-functioning
autism spectrum disorders for meaningful work. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 988–1000.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown
& associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255–311). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Littleton, S., Arthur, M. B. & Rousseau, D. (2000). The future of boundaryless careers. In
A. Collin and R. Young. (Eds.), The future of careers (pp. 101–114). Cambridge, U.K.:
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth (SMPY)
after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math–science expertise.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.
MacNamara, A., Collins, D., & Holmes, P. (2014). Musical prodigies: (Why) does talent
need trauma? In G. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology,
Murray, C. (2003). Human accomplishment. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Nadeau, K. G. (2005). Career choices and workplace challenges for individuals with
ADHD. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 549–563.
Ness, R. B (2013). Genius unmasked. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Pearson, J. (2016, December 14). How to fix higher education: Do the numbers and rewards
follow. The Australian. Retrieved October 17, 2017 from: www.theaustralian.com.au/
higher-education/opinion/do-the-numbers-and-rewards-follow/news-story/8d441733
cd0e6cdd1a00a0eb5d880621
Quinn, J. B. (1992). Intelligent enterprise. New York, NY: Free Press.
Rehfeldt, R. A. (2003). Supported employment for adults with high functioning autism and
Asperger’s Syndrome. The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 9, 1–13.
Reis, S. M., McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Compensation strategies used by high-
ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly,
44, 123–134.
Richardson, M. S. (2000). A new perspective for counsellors: From career ideologies to
empowerment through work and relationship practices In A. Collin and R. Young. (Eds.),
The future of careers (pp. 197–211). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Rosselli, J. (1998). The life of Mozart. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press
Ruthsatz, J., Ruthsatz, K., & Ruthsatz Stephens, K. (2014). Putting practice into perspective:
Child prodigies as evidence of innate talent. Intelligence, 45, 60–65.
Ruthsatz, J., & Urbach, J. (2012). Child prodigy: A novel cognitive profile places elevated
general intelligence, exceptional working memory and attention to detail at the root of
prodgiousness. Intelligence, 40, 419–426.
Rysiew, K. J., Shore, B. M., & Carson, A. D. (1994). Multipotentiality and overchoice
syndrome: Clarifying common usage. Gifted and Talented International, 9, 41–46.
Rysiew, K. J., Shore, B. M., & Leeb, R. T. (1999). Multipotentiality, giftedness, and career
choice: A review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 423–430.
Satcher, J., & Dooley-Dickey, K. (1991). Rehabilitation counselor selection of persons with
learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22, 34–36.
Conclusion 121
Savickas, M. L. (2000). Renovating the psychology of careers for the twenty-first century.
In A. Collin and R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 53–68). Cambridge, U.K.:
Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behaviour.
In D. Brown & associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). San
Saxenian, A. L. (1996). Beyond boundaries: Open labor markets and learning in Silicon Valley.
In M. B. Arthur and D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 23–39). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model.
Psychological Review, 106, 435–457.
Simonton, D. K. (2014). Historiometric studies of genius. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The
Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 87–106). Oxford, U.K.: Wiley.
Sosniak, L. A. (1985). Learning to be a concert pianist. In B. S. Bloom (Ed.), Developing
talent in young people (pp. 19–67). New York, NY: Ballantine.
Storey, J. A. (2000). “Fracture lines” in the career environment. In A. Collin & R. A. Young
(Eds.), The future of career (pp. 21–36). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Störmer, E., Patscha, C., Prendergast, J., Daheim, C., Rhisiart, M., Glover, P., & Beck, H.
(2014). The future of work: Jobs and skills in 2030. London, U.K.: U.K. Commission for
Employment and Skills.
Stornelli, D., Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2009). Perfectionism, achievement, and affect
in children: A comparison of students from gifted, arts, and regular programs. Canadian
Journal of School Psychology, 24, 267–283.
postsecondary settings, In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both
gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 131–154). New York, NY: Springer.
Watts, A. G. (2000). The new career and public policy. In A. Collin and R. Young (Eds.),
The future of careers (pp. 259–275). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
INDEX
Abbott, A. 70 bounded rationality 49

abilities 27–28, 29, 50, 55, 56, 77; above Bridges, S. L. 85
average 5; interests versus, in career Brown, J. 2, 20, 21
decisions 74–75; creative or productive business careers 23
thinking 4; leadership 4; mathematical
29, 56, 87; psychomotor 4; verbal 29, Callahan, C. M. 3, 4
56, 86–87; visual and performing arts 4; Cambridge University graduates 19, 22–3
see also intellectual ability Carballo, M. 39
achievement 4, 6, 38 career: “good enough” 53; inclusive versus
Achter, J. A. 29, 52, 55–56 narrow conceptualizations of 1–2
activity orientation 38 career amotivation 37, 59, 61–62, 109,
affective autonomy 39 110, 111, 115
agricultural societies 16, 24 career choice and development theory 51
allocentrism 58, 60 career construction theory 2, 51
Allport, G. W. 29 career counseling/guidance 58–59, 79, 115
The American High School Today report 21 career decision-making processes 110,
amotivation 37, 59, 61–62, 109, 110, 111, 115–116; see also gifted students, career
115 decision-making processes
Ancient Greece 7, 16–17 career decision-making theories 2, 47, 110;
Angelou, Maya 93 career construction theory 2, 51; career
apprenticeship programs 20 development theories 8, 50–51, 110;
aptitude 6, 17, 50; specific academic 4 circumscription and compromise, theory
army careers 19 of 8, 47, 50, 51, 52–54, 56, 75; Parsons’
artists 19 theory 8, 49–50; personality and work
Asian cultures 39 environments, theory of 50; postmodern
assertiveness 38, 92 theories 8, 51, 110; social cognitive
Austen, Jane 92 career theory 2, 50, 51, 77; social
autonomy, intellectual/affective 39, 92 learning theories 8, 50, 51, 110; trait
and factor theories 2, 8, 50, 75, 110;
Bamberger, J. 75 work adjustment, theory of 8, 47, 50,
Benbow, C. P. 27–28, 52, 86–87 52, 54–56
birth order effect, geniuses 9, 89 career decisions 1–3; changing 2;
Bouchard, T. J. 86 differences in 111–112; economic
boundaryless careers 3 perspectives on 2; and educational
124 Index
attainment 3; importance of 2; incorrect de Ruyter, M. A. 19

2, 29; psychological perspectives on 2; decision-making: definition 1; “good” 1
similarities in 109–111; sociological decision-making theories 47–49;
perspectives on 2 descriptive or real 48–49; rational choice
career development theories 8, 50–51, 110 theory 47–48; see also career decision-
career indecision 36–37, 57, 72, 110; making theories
decision-making processes leading to 59, DeHaan, R. F. 4
61–62 delayed career decisions 36
career indecisiveness 36, 37 descriptive theories of decision-making
career intentions, decision-making 48–49
processes leading to 56–59, 62 development, trajectory of 6–7
career interest/enjoyment 57, 58, 59, 109, developmental process 6
110, 111 developmental psychology 49
career self-management 117 differences in career decisions 111–112
career stages, theory of 2, 51 Differentiated Model of Giftedness and
Carson, A. D. 16 Talent (DMGT) 6
Carter, E. W. 99, 103 differentiation and consolidation theory 49
Catholic Church 19–20 difficulties, career-decision 29–30; career
challenge, need for 31–32 amotivation 37, 59, 61–62, 109, 110,
chance factors 5, 6, 18 111, 115; see also career indecision
changing career decisions 2, 36 Dipeolu, A. O. 99, 103
Charles, Ray 93 disabled students see twice exceptional
chess prodigies 69, 73 students
Church 19–20 Dries, N. 16
circumscription and compromise, theory of du Pré, Jacqueline 71, 72
8, 47, 50, 51, 52–54, 56, 75 Duffy, R. D. 2
Cobb, S. J. 35 Dumont, F. 16
Cobban, A. B. 19
cognitive growth 52 early modern Europe 7, 19
cognitive psychology 49 economic perspectives 2
collectivism 38, 39, 56, 59, 60, 61, 109 Edison, Thomas 87, 90, 91
Collins, D. 70 education 17, 20, 21, 53, 114; geniuses 9,
commitment: geniuses 9, 87–88; parental 91; higher/tertiary 3, 20; parental 3;
70–71 primary 20
communications, careers in 34, 40, 110 educational attainment 3
compromise 53, 54; see also circumscription egalitarianism 38, 39
and compromise, theory of Einstein, Albert 87
Conant, J. B. 21 Eisenstadt, J. M. 89
conflict theory of decision-making 49 Emergenesis 88, 93, 113
Confucian cultures 38 eminence 6, 7, 85, 86, 88
Cox, C. M. 4, 89 Emmett, J. D. 31, 33
creative or productive thinking 4, 5 employment patterns/structures 3, 116
Creech, A. 76 engineering 20, 21, 34, 40, 87, 110
Crowe, D. 104 enjoyment, career 57, 58, 59, 109, 110,
cultural values, theory of 39 111
culture 37–39, 57, 59, 61, 74, 109 environmental factors 5, 6
Cummings, G. 32–33 equipotentiality 29
Curie, Marie 93 expectancy—value theory 56
expectations: of family and others 30, 31,
da Vinci, Leonardo 89, 90, 91 32–33, 54, 55, 71, 73, 75, 100, 111;
Damian, R. I. 93 gender role 33–34; gifted students 30,
Darwin, Charles 93 31, 32–34, 54, 55; outcome 51;
Davies, E. 22–23 prodigies 71, 73, 75–76; self- 9, 32, 100,
Dawes, R. M. 1, 48 111; twice exceptional students 9, 100,
Dawis, R. V. 47, 52, 54, 55, 56 112
Index 125
expected utility theory 47 indecision 59, 61–62; leading to career

external locus of control 36 intentions 56–59, 62
extrinsic motivation 37 gifted students, career decision-making
theories applicable to 52–56
family 16, 21, 57, 61, 109, 110; culture 55; gifted students, history of career decisions
expectations 30, 31, 32–33, 54, 55, 71, of 7–8, 15–26; agricultural societies 16,
73, 75; socio-economic status 16, 55; 24; Ancient Greece 7, 16–17; early
support and investment 70–71, 78; modern Europe 7, 19; Islamic societies
see also parents 7, 17–18; Jewish societies 7, 18;
Fan, Y. 37 medieval Europe 7, 19; post-Industrial
Faraday, Michael 90 Revolution 2–3, 7–8, 15, 20–24;
fear of success 36 Terman’s study 8, 21–22
Feldman, D. H. 73, 79 gifted students, personal characteristics:
females 15, 22–24, 25, 33–34 ability and interest 27–28, 55;
femininity/masculinity 38, 59 multipotentiality 28–30, 54, 57, 59, 61,
Fiebig, J. N. 33 62; need for intellectual challenge and
Fletcher, K. L. 30 stimulation 31–32, 56, 57, 58, 59;
Fredrickson, R. H. 28 perfectionism 30–31, 54, 56, 57, 59, 61
freedom of choice 72, 73 giftedness 3–7; Differentiated Model of
Frost, R. O. 31 Giftedness and Talent (Gagné‚) 6;
future orientation 38 IQ-based definitions 4; Marland (U.S.
“federal”) definition 4; mega-model of
Gagné, F. 6 talent development 6–7; star model
Gardner, H. 73, 76 (Tannenbaum) 5; three ring definition
Gati, I. 36 (Renzulli) 4–5
gender 59 Ginzberg, E. 50–51
gender differences 22–24 globalization 3, 116
gender role expectations 33–34 Goldsmith, L. T. 69, 70, 73
gender roles 53, 56 “good enough” career 53
genius/geniuses 8, 85–96, 109, 110, 111, Gottfredson, L. S. 28, 47, 51, 52–54, 75
114, 115; antecedents 9, 89–93; birth Greene, M. J. 32
order effect 9, 89; career “decision” 93, Gross, M. U. M. 29
94; commitment/motivation 9, 87–88, Guilford, J. P. 4
109; emergence/non-emergence of
88–89, 94, 110; emergenesis 88, 93, Harris, P. C. 100
113; formal/informal education 9, 91; Harrison, B. 23
future research questions 113; Hastie, R. 1, 48
intellectual ability 86–87, 109; Havighurst, R. J. 4
interest/passion 9, 87, 109; “near” 94; health: careers in 34, 40, 110; see also
parental loss 9, 89–90; personal medicine
qualities/ characteristics 92; hereditary transmission of occupations 16
psychopathology 9, 92–93; role Hertberg-Davis, H. L. 3, 4
models/mentors 9, 90–91; socio-cultural Hesketh, B. 39
milieu 9, 91–92 hexagonal system of vocational interests 28,
Gerber, P. J. 99, 102 29
gifted students 109, 110, 115; aspired higher education 3, 20
careers 34–35; cultural influences 37–39; Hines, E. M. 100
difficulties associated with career Hofstede, G. 38, 39, 56, 59
decisions see difficulties, career-decision; Holland, J. L. 28, 29, 34, 40, 50, 54
early emergence of career interests Hollingworth, L. S. 4
35–36, 54; and expectations of others Hong, E. 29
30, 31, 32–34, 54, 55; future research House, R. 38–39
questions 112 Hua, C. B. 101–102
gifted students, career decision-making human nature orientation 38
processes 110; leading to career humane orientation 39
126 Index
idiocentrism 58, 60 Ma, Yo-Yo 71, 72

Ikhwan al-Safa 16, 17–18 Maas, I. 16
income 34, 53, 55, 57, 74, 78, 109, 110 McCormick, J. 37
incorrect career decisions 2, 29 McGuire, J. M. 99
individualism 38, 39, 56, 59, 60, 61–62, MacNamara, A. 76, 79
109 McPherson, G. E. 70
Industrial Revolution, career decisions man-nature orientation 38
after 2–3, 7–8, 15, 20–24 Mann, L. 48, 49
information, career-related 36, 52, 54 Marland, S. P. 4
Inglehart, R. 39 Marshall, G. 2
insanity 93 Martindale, C. 89
intellectual ability 4, 17, 18, 28, 29, 53, 56, masculinity/femininity 38, 59
70, 73; geniuses 86–87, 109 mathematical ability 29, 56, 87
intellectual autonomy 39, 92 mathematical prodigies 70
intellectual challenge 31–32 Mayes, R. D. 100
intellectual stimulation 31–32, 56, 57, 58, Mazzarino, Giulio 19–20
59, 73, 111 medicine 20, 23
interest(s) 50; geniuses 9, 87, 109; gifted medieval Europe 7, 19
students 27–28, 29, 53, 54, 55, 56; mega-model of talent development 6–7
prodigies 77; versus abilities in career memory, and decision-making 49
decisions 74–75 mentors 9, 90–91, 114
intrinsic motivation 37 mid-life crisis 8, 71–72, 111
IQ 4, 21, 86 Milbrath, C. 73
Islamic societies 7, 17–18 Milgram, R. M. 29
Miller, K. 32–33
Jackson, Michael 72 Minor, C. W. 31, 33
Janis, I. L. 48, 49 minorities, racial/religious 25
Jenkins, J. S. 73 Mitch, D. 2
Jewish societies 7, 18 modernization theory 39
job security/insecurity 3, 116 Morelock, M. J. 79
Johnson, C. 99 motivation 5, 6, 18, 28, 56;
Johnson, W. 86 extrinsic 37; geniuses 9, 87–88,
Jung, J. Y. 3, 29, 32, 37, 56–57, 58, 59, 109; intrinsic 37; twice exceptional
61, 62, 75, 79 students 101–102, 104, 110; see also
amotivation
Kell, H. J. 86–87, 88–89, 94 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 87, 89, 93
Kelly, K. R. 35 multipotentiality 28–30, 54, 57, 59, 61, 62,
Kenneson, C. 71 111, 116
Keynes, J. M. 87 Muratori, M. C. 52
Kluckhohn, F. R. 38, 39 musical prodigies/geniuses 69, 70, 72, 76,
Kozbelt, A. 87 79, 88, 89
labor markets 3, 116 naturalistic decision-making 49

law 19, 20, 23, 34, 40, 110 naval careers 19
Layton, C. A. 101 Ness, R. B. 87
leadership ability 4 Neu, T. W. 99
Lee, G. K. 99, 103 Newman, L. 98
Lehman, A. C. 70 Newton, Isaac 87, 89, 90–91
Lent, R. W. 77 Nyiregyházi, Ervin 72
lifelong learning 116–117
Littleton, S. 117 Olszewski-Kubilius, P. 6–7, 79
Lofquist, L. H. 47, 52, 54 opportunity 28
long-term orientation 38, 56 organization, preference for 31
Lubinski, D. 27–28, 34, 52, 55–56, 86–87, outcome expectations 51
88–89, 94 Oxford University graduates 19, 23
Index 127
Paganini, Niccolò 72 qualifications 20, 21

parents: criticism 31; education 3;
expectations 30, 31, 32, 71; investment racial minorities 25
and commitment 70–71, 78; loss of, as rational choice theory 47–48
antecedent of genius 9, 89–90 rational comprehensive theory 47
Parsons, F. 8, 49–50 readiness for career decisions 36
perfectionism 30–31, 54, 56, 57, 59, 61, reading skills 21–22
62, 73, 75, 111, 115 reasoned action, theory of 56–57
performance orientation 38–39 recognition 57, 109, 110
person-environment correspondence Rehfeldt, R. A. 103
theory 50 Reis, S. M. 99, 100–101
personal characteristics/qualities: geniuses relational orientation 38
92; gifted students see gifted students, religious minorities 25
personal characteristics; twice Renzulli, J. S. 4–5
exceptional students 9, 101–102 risky careers 76, 78
personal standards 31 role models 9, 90–91, 114
personality 50 Ronen, S. 39
personality and work environments, theory Rounds, J. 39
of 50 Rubinstein, Artur 72
physical sciences 34, 40, 110
Plato 16–17 satisfaction 55
postmodern approaches 8, 49, 51, 110 satisfactoriness 55
potential 6; fulfillment of 32, 56, 57, 58, satisficing 49
59, 75–76; see also multipotentiality Sauser, W. 87
power distance 38, 39, 59 Savickas, M. L. 16, 51, 116
Prabhu, V. 87 Schenkar, O. 39
premature career decisions 30 Schneider, M. 54, 55
prestige 34, 53, 55, 73, 74, 78 Schwartz, S. H. 38, 39
primary education 20 science/scientists 19, 21, 34, 40, 87,
prodigies 8, 69–83, 109, 110, 114, 115; 90–91, 110
career counseling 79; continued success secretarial work 23
in field 77; difficulties in transition to Sedlacek, W. E. 2
an adult professional 76–77; early self-belief 5, 79, 92, 114
career-related decisions for 70–71, self-confidence 5, 92
111; exposure to career options 79; self-creation 53, 54
future research questions 113; self-determination theory 37
mature career decision 72–74, 78, 111; self-efficacy 36, 51
mid-life crisis 8, 71–72, 111; self-expectations 9, 32, 100, 111
motivations for adult career in area of semi-professional careers 22
early mastery 76; non-ability factors in short-term orientation 38
career decisions 8, 74–75, 78, 109; Sidis, William James 73
psychosocial skills 79; reasons for Silicon Valley 116, 117
pursuit/non-pursuit of career in area similarities in career decisions 109–111
of early mastery 74–77 Simon, H. A. 48–49
professional careers 20, 21, 22, 23, 54 Simonton, D. K. 88, 89, 90, 91–92,
project GLOBE 38–39 92–93, 94
protean careers 3 Smith, C. K. 52
Proyer, R. T. 28 social cognitive career theory 2, 50, 51, 77
psychological factors 5 social learning theories 8, 50, 51, 110
psychological perspectives 2 social networks 48, 117
psychomotor ability 4 socio-cultural milieu 9, 16, 21, 24, 48, 49,
psychopathology and genius 9, 92–93 91–92
psychosocial skills 79, 105, 114 socio-economic status 16, 25, 55
public administration 23 sociological perspectives 2
public choice theory 47 Sparfeldt, J. R. 28
128 Index
Spearman, N. 4 twice exceptional students 9, 97–107, 109,

specific academic aptitude 4 114–115; accommodations on the job 9,
Speirs Neumeister, K. L. 30 98, 102–103, 104, 105; compensatory
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale 4, 21 strategies 9, 100–101, 104, 105, 110;
star model 5 expectations 9, 100, 112; future research
Steiger, J. H. 87 questions 113–114; modification of
Sternberg, R. J. 85 career aspirations 99–100, 111–112;
Stewart, J. B. 35 motivation 101–102, 104, 110; personal
stimulation, intellectual 31–32, 56, 57, 58, qualities of 9, 101–102; range of career
59, 73, 111 outcomes for 9, 98–99; reframing of
Storlie, C. 99 disabling conditions 102, 104; vocation-
Strodtbeck, F. L. 38, 39 related experiences, training, and/or
subjective expected utility theory 47 services 9, 103–104, 105, 110–111,
Subotnik, R. F. 6–7, 79 114
success, fear of 36
Super, D. E. 51 uncertainty avoidance 38, 59
supported employment arrangements 9, United States 21; Terman’s study of gifted
103 children 8, 21–22
Survey of Values 29 urbanization 2, 3, 20
Sutton, C. 87
Svenson, O. 49 values 29, 38–39, 50, 109
Swanson, J. L. 54, 55 van Leeuwen, M. 2, 16
verbal ability 29, 56, 86–87
talent 5, 6; mega-model of development Verrocchio, Andrea del 90
6–7 visual arts prodigies 69, 73
Tallent-Runnels, M. K. 101 visual and performing arts ability 4
Tannenbaum, A. J. 5, 6, 18, 19 vocational development theories 75
task commitment 5 vocational psychology 20, 36, 49, 75
teaching 19, 23 vocational training, twice exceptional
technological advances 3, 19, 116 students 9, 103–104, 105, 110–111, 114
technology-related careers 19, 21, 34, 40,
87, 110 wealth 21
Terman, L. M. 4, 8, 21–22 Western cultures 39
Thane, P. 23, 23–24 work adjustment, theory of 8, 47, 50, 52,
Thorndike, E. L. 4 54–56
three ring definition of giftedness 4–5 Workforce and Independent Living Skills
time orientation 38 Training Model 104
trait and factor theories 2, 8, 50, 75, 110 Worrell, F. C. 6–7, 79
Treatises of the Brothers of Purity (TBP)
16, 17–18 Yates, J. F. 1

The Career Decisions of Gifted Students and Other High Ability Groups

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Career Decisions of Gifted Students and Other High Ability Groups

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CAREER DECISIONS OF GIFTED STUDENTS AND OTHER HIGH ABILITY GROUPS

‘This book makes an important contribution to the

High ability individuals – gifted students, prodigies, geniuses,

The Career Decisions of Gifted Students and Other High

Of relevance to researchers, psychologists, counselors,

Jae Yup Jung, PhD, is a senior lecturer and a GERRIC senior

EDUCATION / GIFTED & TALENTED

Jae Yup Jung

ISBN: 978-1-138-59623-8 (hbk)

2 History of the career decisions of gifted students 15

3 Factors influencing the career decisions of gifted students 27

4 The career decision-making processes of gifted students 47

5 The career decisions of prodigies 69

6 The career decisions of geniuses 85

7 The career decisions of twice exceptional students 97

Humans are faced with a multitude of decisions, of varying degrees of importance,

a response to a situation that is composed of three parts: (a) there is more

The career decision

to have a career under this perspective. In comparison, narrower conceptualiza-

in the creation of a range of new occupations requiring specialized skills (Savickas

Three ring definition of giftedness (Renzulli, 1978, 1988)

Tannenbaum’s star model (Tannenbaum, 1986, 2003)

Keeping in mind that developed talent exists only in adults, a proposed

For someone to be considered gifted under this definition, an interaction is

Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent

the outstanding mastery of systematically developed abilities, called com-

Mega-model of talent development (Subotnik, Olszewski-

(w)hether a trajectory begins in early childhood or in adolescence, for

The career decisions of gifted students

Organization of the monograph

Hodkinson, P., & Sparkes, A. C. (1997). Careership: A sociological theory of career

Career decisions prior to the Industrial Revolution

According to my view, anyone who would be good at anything must practice

Traditional Islamic societies

Traditional Jewish societies

Medieval and early modern Europe

Career decisions after the Industrial Revolution

of formal examinations, started to become established as the standard pathway for

Gender differences in career decisions in the early

The present distribution is, indeed, somewhat whimsical. In as much as young

languages. As women’s place is at the domestic hearth, and as middle class

career-related opportunities. Some sub-groups who appear to have been at a

Personal characteristics of gifted students

Ability and interest

A similarly small portion of gifted Israeli students were identified to be multipotential

The other major conceptualization of perfectionism examines the phenomenon

A need for intellectual challenge and stimulation

I was told . . . if I went and got a PhD in computers . . . they probably

Other personal characteristics

Expectations of family and others in society

Gender role expectations

Types of aspired careers

Early emergence of career interests

Difficulties associated with the career decision

development prior to arriving at a career decision, career indecisiveness may be

decision-makers including those relating to value systems, opportunity structures,

unmatched as a theory of decision-making, and that it represents a useful

there are three elements to the choice of a vocation: a clear understanding

Parsons’ model remains highly influential as a cornerstone of many modern career

Modern career decision-making theories

Career decision-making theories applicable to gifted

Gottfredson’s (2002) theory of circumscription and

(a) Cognitive growth. The attainment of proficiency in accessing, analysing, and

Same-age children also differ considerably among themselves in (their)