Self-perception of gifts and talents among adults in a longitudinal study of academically talented high-school graduates.

The purpose of this study is to examine definitions and self-perceptions of giftedness among adults in a longitudinal study of academically talented high-school graduates. Past research has examined characteristics of gifted children and adolescents, but there is a paucity of empirical research focusing on gifted adults. Little is known about how giftedness manifests itself after the school years, and how gifted adults view themselves and their talents outside of the academic world. Our study addresses this gap in the literature and increases our understanding of how giftedness impacts adults. A greater understanding of these factors should help counselors work more effectively with this population. Further, knowing more about gifted adults provides a significant source of background information for understanding gifted children (Coleman & Cross, 2001); thus, it is critical to investigate giftedness beyond the educational years.

Statement of the Problem

There are many ways to define giftedness. Theorists and researchers have argued over different points of view regarding what constitutes giftedness and how it may be recognized. Further, although the term "giftedness" connotes something positive, there are some potentially negative aspects of giftedness. Educators and counselors can benefit from learning more about how giftedness impacts individuals throughout their lives.

Tolan (1994) discussed how gifted individuals are usually identified during childhood, when their characteristics, behaviors, and age at reaching developmental milestones are significantly different from those of their chronological age peers. It is far less common for adults to be identified as gifted, because few adults take IQ tests or are otherwise compared to their peers with regard to other indicators of giftedness. Adults are generally regarded as gifted only if they have produced some notable achievement, such as an invention or a significant award. Tolan, however, argued that children who have been identified as gifted do not simply lose their giftedness as they mature. Instead, they maintain their giftedness as adults but do not receive recognition for their gifted traits. Adults' possession of gifted traits can lead to success or to unique issues and problems which often go unrecognized. As adults, some gifted individuals' traits help them to succeed in their careers. Unfortunately, other gifted adults may experience isolation, boredom, and a sense of dissatisfaction. Gifted adults' emotional sensitivity and intensity can be an asset to success in fields where creativity and expression are prized, such as the arts. In other fields, gifted adults may feel pressure not to express their emotionality and intensity. Gifted adults who are in frequent contact with other gifted individuals, either at work or through other social activity, may experience feelings of belongingness and excitement from interacting with like-minded others. Conversely, gifted individuals' whose workplaces and social environments are bereft of other gifted adults may feel alone, misunderstood, and dissatisfied, or they may hold themselves back in conversation in order to appear normal and to fit in. Tolan asserted that the best way to deal with issues that arise from giftedness in adulthood is to honor and strive to understand one's giftedness. The author also advocated that the definition of giftedness for both adults and children be reconsidered and refocused on internal characteristics rather than external achievements.

Sternberg (2005) asserted that giftedness should be defined through leadership abilities. He stated that performing well in a domain is not sufficient, but that taking a leadership role in that domain is the important factor to consider when defining giftedness. Sternberg proposed a theory of giftedness in leadership called the Wisdom Intelligence Creativity Synthesized (WICS) theory. His theory proposed that leaders use creativity to generate new ideas, intelligence to analyze and implement the ideas, and wisdom to consider how their ideas will affect individuals and the world.

Willings (1985) argued that gifted adults face many of the same problems that challenge gifted children, and the problems of gifted adults can be just as severe, if not more so. Willings conducted a longitudinal study of the lives of 15 former college students who had been identified as gifted. This sample included 9 gifted women and 6 gifted men. Participants reported that they had struggled with disillusionment about their college education, career, gender-role issues, unhappy marriages, one or more divorces, boredom or other dissatisfaction in significant interpersonal relationships, and broken engagements. Willings suggested that many gifted adults are unlikely to find self-fulfillment through their careers alone. He proposed that gifted adults should think of their life's work as divided into two categories: career strategies and strategies for creative growth. This study was one of the few empirical studies that focused on gifted adults; however, the very small sample size limits the generalizability of the results. More empirical research is needed with larger sample sizes of gifted adults in order to gain greater insight about this population.

One exception to the relative lack of large empirical research studies on gifted adults is the Terman Study of the Gifted. A study published in 1999 (C. K. Holahan, C. J. Holahan, & Wonacott, 1999) analyzed archival data from the Terman Study and revealed that participants who reported living up to their intellectual abilities were more satisfied with their work life, family life, and life in general. Thus, it seems that self-perceptions related to achievement of potential are important to the happiness of gifted adults. Gifted adults who do not perceive themselves as achieving their potential may be at risk for depression or low self-esteem.

Jacobsen (1999) detailed counseling issues for gifted adults. She noted that, on the positive side, common traits of the gifted include a broad knowledge base, exceptional ability to integrate information, insightfulness, exceptional perceptiveness, advanced problem-solving abilities, a preference for complexity, originality and creativity, tolerance for ambiguity, a high energy level, enjoyment of discussions and debates, and multiple interests and areas of talent. Gifted people are often also highly sensitive in both the emotional and sensory realms, highly curious, empathic and compassionate, devoted to chosen causes, goal-oriented, self-motivated, and perseverant. On the negative side, asynchronous development, perfectionism, high standards for both themselves and others, self-criticism, and idealism are common traits that may create problems for gifted adults.

Similarly, Neihart (1999) noted some research supports the idea that giftedness has a negative impact on one's psychological health, while other research shows that giftedness decreases an individual's risk for psychological problems. Neihart asserted that membership in the general category of giftedness does not alone predict psychological well-being. Instead, she proposed that a gifted person's mental health is influenced by the interaction of several factors: type and degree of giftedness, personality characteristics, and educational or environmental fit. Thus, her perspective agrees with the literature that examines the complexity of risk and protective factors on psychological well-being using a biopsychosocial model (Cicchetti, 2006).

Purpose of the Present Study

The purpose of this study is to address the relative lack of empirical research on gifted adults and to add to the existing understanding of adult giftedness by examining definitions and self-perceptions of giftedness among adults in a longitudinal study of academically talented high-school graduates. Participants were asked about their perceptions of their gifts and talents in high school and as adults. The role of gender in self-perceptions of gifted adults was examined. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected regarding perceptions of giftedness and areas of perceived talent.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants were 83 adults (29 men, 54 women). All participants graduated from high school in 1988, and their ages ranged from 34 to 36 at the time of the survey (mean age was 34.89, SD = .38). All participants were college graduates. The majority of participants were Caucasian (94%), 2.5% were Asian American, 1.5% were African American, 1.3% were Native American, and 0.7% were Latino/Latina. The highest degree completed was a bachelor's degree for 39% of participants, a master's degree for 31% of participants, and a doctorate for 30% of participants. Most participants were married (82%), whereas 10% were single, 2% were living with a partner, 5% were divorced, and 1% didn't specify their status. Years of marriage for married participants ranged from 1 to 14.5 (mean = 8.66, SD = 4.0). Of those who were married, 91% indicated that it was their first marriage and 9% indicated that it was their second marriage. Most participants had children (71%). The average number of children for participants was 1.6 (SD = 1.27). In terms of vocational status, 69% were working full time; 16% were working part time; 13% were full-time homemakers; 1% were full-time students; and 1% were looking for work.

Participants in our study were part of an ongoing longitudinal study that looks at the career and life-span development of academically gifted and talented individuals. For the longitudinal study, participants were recruited during their senior year of high school. School counselors were asked to identify the top two graduates in schools graduating less than 250 students, and the top five graduates in schools graduating more than 250 students. In addition, national merit scholars and the two students in each school with the highest ACT scores were asked to complete surveys and to participate in the study. Annual follow-up studies have been conducted since 1989. For the present study, participants were mailed surveys and asked to return completed surveys in the stamped, addressed envelopes provided.

Measurement of Perceptions of Gifts and Abilities

An extensive review of the literature revealed no existing quantitative measures of adult giftedness with demonstrated psychometric properties. The only measure of adult giftedness identified was Silverman's Adult Giftedness Scale (Silverman, 1997). The authors contacted Dr. Silverman to inquire about psychometric properties of the scale and learned that the scale had not yet been used in any empirical research. The authors of the present study decided to use the scale in this research as a first step towards demonstrating its psychometric properties. The information collected using this scale will hopefully be useful to future researchers and encourage more research on adult giftedness. In order to strengthen the present study, the authors also included the Self-Perception Profile. Although this measure was not designed specifically for gifted adults, it measures perceptions of competencies, and there is evidence that this measure is valid and reliable, in the present study, we found evidence of convergent validity though a significant positive correlation between the Adult Giftedness Scale and the Self-Perception Profile. Evidence of reliability and other information about the scales are provided in the following section.

Instruments

Silverman's Adult Giftedness Scale. Silverman's Adult Giftedness Scale contains 38 items that have been identified through the literature as characteristics of giftedness. Individuals are asked to rate the degree to which each trait describes them. Responses are given on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from Not at all True to Very True. There was no existing psychometric information on the scale; however, data from the present study found adequate internal consistency reliability for the scale. In the present study, the coefficient alpha for this scale was .88. Silverman's Adult Giftedness Scale was positively correlated with the Adult Self-Perception Profile (r = .23, p = .05), which measures perceived competencies and will be described in greater detail below.

Adult Self-Perception Profile. The Adult Self-Perception Profile (Messer & Harter, 1986) assesses an individual's perceived competencies across 12 different domains. These domains are: Sociability, Job Competence, Nurturance, Athletic Abilities, Physical Appearance, Adequate Provider, Morality, Household Management, Intimate Relationships, Intelligence, Sense of Humor, and Global Self-Worth. Participants respond to questions with a forced-choice four-point scale. The scale has 50 items. The first 11 subscales have four items each and the Global Self-Worth subscale has six items. Items are scored either 1, 2, 3, or 4, where 4 represents the highest self-perception and 1 represents the lowest self-perception. Internal consistency estimates for the subscales ranged from .76 to .91 (Messer & Harter). The normed sample included homemakers as well as men and women who worked outside the home in paid employment. Alpha coefficients for the normed sample were .78 for Sociability, .73 for Job Competence, .78 for Nurturance, .90 for Athletic Abilities, .84 for Physical Appearance, .86 for Adequate Provider, .76 for Morality, .86 for Household Management, .85 for Intimate Relationships, .82 for Intelligence, .77 for Sense of Humor, and .91 for Global Self-Worth. Alpha coefficients for the present study were .83 for Sociability, .68 for Job Competence, .80 for Nurturance, .89 for Athletic Abilities, .85 for Physical Appearance, .83 for Adequate Provider, .84 for Morality, .85 for Household Management, .88 for Intimate Relationships, .80 for Intelligence, .80 for Sense of Humor, and .90 for Global Self-Worth. Coefficient alpha for the total scale in the present study was .92.

Open-ended questions. Participants answered open-ended questions about their definitions of giftedness, their perceptions of their own giftedness, and how the gifted label impacted them in school and as adults. Specific questions were as follows:

1. How do you define "giftedness"?

2. You were identified as an academically talented student in high school, and thus included in this study. Did you believe that you were gifted and/or talented when you were in high school? If so, how? If not, why not?

3. Do you believe that you are gifted and/or talented now? If so, how? If not, why not? How has your giftedness changed or stayed the same since high school?

4. Are your talents mainly focused in one or two specific areas, or are you multitalented? Please list areas in which you have talents or feel especially competent.

5. How did being labeled as gifted in high school affect your identity, goals, and need to achieve both then and now?

6. How has others' perceptions of you as gifted or talented impacted your self-perception of your giftedness?

Results

Qualitative Measurements

Participants were asked the question, "How do you define giftedness?" Responses were grouped into 10 categories by the research team. The most common definition was that giftedness is knowledge or performance that is significantly above average or above norms for one's own age (25% of responses). The second most common definition was exceptional ability in a specific task or domain (21% of responses). The third most common definition was being able to learn more quickly and easily than most people (16% of responses). Other categories of responses (with percentage of responses in parentheses) were as follows: having exceptional natural or innate abilities (15%), possessing a high level of intelligence (7%), being able to combine innate ability and hard work (4%), being able to think or understand concepts at a deeper level than many others (4%), successfully balancing above-average skills with other aspects of life (3%), being academically successful (3%), and being exceptionally creative (2%).

Participants were asked if they believed they were gifted or talented in high school. Sixty-six percent of respondents replied "yes", 30% replied "no", and 4% replied that they were unsure. Next, participants were asked if they believe that they are gifted or talented now. Fifty-eight percent of respondents replied "yes", 37% replied "no", and 5% were unsure. We examined the agreement between questions one (gifted then) and two (gifted now) and found that 53% of respondents answered that they believed they were gifted in high school and now; 12% indicated that they believed they were gifted in high school but did not believe they were gifted now; 15% said that they did not believe they were gifted in high school but did believe they were gifted now; and 16% said they did not believe they were gifted in high school and still do not believe they are gifted. Next, we examined gender differences in answers to these questions. Answers were dummy coded into four categories: 1 (gifted then, gifted now), 2 (gifted then, not gifted now), 3 (not gifted then, gifted now), and 4 (not gifted then, not gifted now). Kendall's tau was significant ([pi] = .27, df = 3, p = .006) for gender and agreement between questions one and two. Chi-square was also significant, [chi square] (3, N = 83) = 9.5, p = .02. More men than women indicated that they believed they were gifted in high school and now. Seventy-one percent of men answered yes to both questions, whereas only 45% of women answered yes to both questions. More men than women also indicated that they believed they were gifted in high school but not gifted now (17% of men and 10% of women). No men indicated that they did not believe they were gifted in high school but believed they were gifted now; however, 23% of women fit this category. Finally, more women than men indicated that they did not believe they were gifted in high school or now (21% of women vs. 8% of men).

Participants were asked, "Are your talents focused in one or two specific areas or are you multitalented? Please list areas in which you have talents or feel especially competent." Sixty-seven percent saw themselves as multitalented whereas 33% saw themselves as talented in one specific area. Areas of competence were organized into four categories by the research team. These categories were: math and science, communication and social skills, visual and performing arts, and sports or athletic abilities. For the areas of competence listed by both the multitalented and the specifically talented participants, the most common area of competence cited was communication and social skills (46%), followed by math and science (34%), visual and performing arts (12%), and sports or athletic abilities (8%).

Participants were asked if they were labeled as gifted in high school, and if so how that affected their identity, goals, and need to achieve both then and now. Responses were grouped into 10 categories according to interrater agreement. The most common response was that being identified as gifted increased perfectionism and the need for achievement (21%). The second most common response was that in high school, being labeled as gifted increased expectations from others and put pressure on participants (13%). The third most common response was that being labeled as gifted did not effect participants in any significant way (12%). Other categories of responses were as follows: being identified as gifted increased self-confidence (10%); the pressure that went along with the gifted label decreased over time (9%); participant felt special in high school but after graduation felt more average (8%); in high school, goals were based on a desire to please others by meeting their expectations, whereas current goals are more internally motivated (8%); participant was not labeled as gifted in high school (8%); in high school, the gifted label led to social rejection or isolation but this is not true now (7%), and being gifted is central to participant's identify (3%).

Finally, participants were asked how others' perceptions of them as gifted impacted their self-perception of giftedness. Categories of responses were as follows: being perceived as gifted increased self-confidence (18%); others' perceptions increased participant's self-awareness of abilities (16%); high expectations by others served as a positive motivating factor (12%); high expectations had a negative impact because participants felt pressure to succeed, and felt their motivation was external rather than internal (12%); it caused embarrassment or was hard to accept (l 1%); it had little or no impact (10%); participant was not perceived by others as gifted (6%); participant found it positively reinforcing and encouraging (6%); others' perceptions of participant's giftedness opened doors and created opportunities for the participant (5%); and others' perceptions were congruent with self-perception of giftedness (4%).

Quantitative Measurements

In addition to describing self-perceptions of giftedness in an open-ended format, participants completed two scales to assess self-perceptions of giftedness and self-perceptions of abilities. Means and standard deviations for the Giftedness Scale, the Self-Perceptions Scale Total Score, and the Self-Perceptions Subscales scores are presented in Table I. Possible scores on Silverman's Adult Giftedness Scale range from 38 to 190, with higher scores indicating higher self-perceptions of giftedness. In the present study, the mean score for participants was 137 (SD = 16.67), and the range was from 99 to 188, which is in the upper range of possible scores for the scale. This is not surprising, given that participants were all identified as gifted in high school. Unfortunately, there is no existing psychometric data on this scale for comparison, but the present authors hope that future researchers will benefit from the data presented. Future research could use this information as a basis for comparison. It would be interesting to compare scores for those identified as gifted with individuals not identified as gifted, or with those who performed at an average level academically in high school. A t-test was conducted to examine possible gender differences in the Adult Giftedness Scale. The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were met as demonstrated by nonsignificant Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Levene tests. Results from the t-test indicated no significant differences by gender, t = .01, df = 79, p > .05.

Possible scores for the Adult Self-Perception Profile range from 50 to 200, with higher scores indicating higher sell-perception of abilities. The range of scores in the present sample was between 112 and 199, with a mean of 157 (SD = 16.70). Again, participants rated themselves in the upper half of possible scores. After testing for normality and variance assumptions, some subscales of the Adult Self-Perception Profile appeared to have violations, so the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was used to examine possible gender differences in overall self-perceptions of abilities. Results from the Mann-Whitney test indicated no significant differences by gender for the total scale score, U = 627, Z = .647, p = .52. Next, the effects of gender on each of the 12 subscales of the self-perception scale were also examined using the Mann-Whitney Test. Significant gender differences were found for some of the scales, but not for others (see Table 2 for a summary of Z values). No significant gender differences were found for Sociability, Physical Appearance, Adequacy as a Provider, Household Management, Intimate Relationships, Intelligence, Sense of Humor, or Global Self-Worth. Significant gender differences were found for Job Competence, Nurturance, Athletic Competence, and Morality. Examination of means revealed that women had higher self-perceptions of their abilities in the areas of Job Competence (M = 13.72, SD = 2.03), Nurturance (M = 13.70, SD = 1.91), and Morality (M = 13.96, SD = 2.03), and lower self-perceptions of their abilities in Athletic Competence (M = 9.78, SD = 2.98); whereas men had higher sell-perceptions of their abilities in Athletic Competence (M = 11.29, SD = 3.06), and lower self-perceptions of their abilities in the areas of Job Competence (M = 12.86, SD = 1.55), Nurturance (M = 12.36, SD = 2.47), and Morality (M = 12.57, SD = 1.98).

Discussion

Participants defined giftedness in various ways, but the most common description included having exceptional knowledge or abilities and being able to learn quickly. Most participants described themselves as multitalented, rather than having special talents in one specific area. All of the participants in the present study were identified as academically talented or gifted in high school. Participants were asked about how the "gifted" label, or how other's perceptions of them as gifted or talented impacted them. On the positive side, participants discussed how it increased self-confidence and an awareness of their own abilities, how it created opportunities for them, and how it was a motivating factor to do their best. On the negative side, participants described how being identified as gifted increased perfectionism and the need for achievement, put pressure on them, or caused them to feel different or isolated. Most participants agreed with the assessment that they were gifted in high school, but some did not believe they were gifted and others were unsure.

More men than women indicated that they believed they were gifted both in high school and currently. This is consistent with past research that found that men viewed themselves higher in the area of giftedness than women (Stake, 1992). These findings echo those of Arnold's (1994) Illinois Valedictorian Project study, which compared women's and men's estimates of their own intelligence from their senior year of high school through adulthood. Arnold found that women in her sample progressively believed that they were less intelligent as they advanced through their college years. Although the women's and men's grade point averages and average SAT scores were equal, none of the women believed that they had above-average intellectual abilities. As adults, the women of the Illinois Valedictorian Project never believed that they were intellectually gifted, although 25% of the men did. Overall, the gifted men had higher estimates of their own intelligence from high school through adulthood.

One possible reason for the discrepancy in self-perceptions of giftedness between the men and women in both this study and Arnold's research is the impostor phenomenon. The impostor phenomenon was identified by Clance and Imes (1978) in case studies of talented female psychotherapy clients. The researchers found that despite strong evidence to the contrary, their clients believed that they were not intelligent and that their accomplishments were due purely to luck or erroneous evaluations by others. This belief pattern, in addition to a fear that others would discover one was an "impostor" and did not deserve her successes, is the hallmark of the impostor phenomenon. Clance and Imes identified two family dynamics that contribute to the development of the impostor phenomenon. Gifted females are at risk for this self-perception problem if (a) they grow up in a family with multiple gifted children where another child is labeled "the smart one" even if they are equally gifted, or (b) if they grow up in a family where they are clearly recognized as gifted and later begin to question that label because they find that some tasks are difficult for them. Gifted men, on the other hand, are less likely to experience the impostor syndrome because males in Western society are socialized to believe that being intelligent, high-achieving, and a good provider is part of the "normal" male role (Kerr & Cohn, 2001).

Another possible reason for the discrepancy in sell-perceptions of giftedness among men and women in the present study is the different expectations that society has of gifted men and women. Kerr (1994) notes that "Most gifted young women are now expected to be successful in a career as well as in marriage" (p. 14). Additional prevalent societal expectations of talented women include being a good mother and managing the majority of household chores. According to Reis (1998), women are responsible for 75% of "family care-giving" in the United States (p. 28). For men, life roles such as parenting and contributing to housework are not as emphasized. If a talented woman is cognizant of the many expectations that society has for her exemplary performance in multiple life roles, she may perceive herself as less than gifted if she is unable to excel in all of these areas. Perhaps the female participants in the present study's lower self-perceptions of their giftedness are a result of evaluating their abilities relative to a high standard of success in many life roles.

Gender differences were also found for self-perceptions of talents in the areas of Job Competence, Nurturance, Athletic Ability, and Morality. Women indicated higher self-perceptions of their abilities in the areas of Job Competence, Nurturance, and Morality whereas men indicated higher self-perceptions of their abilities in the area of Athletic Competence. Our finding that women reported higher job competence is somewhat different from past research. Women face strong negative stereotypes regarding their job competence (Lockwood, 2006). Men are perceived to be more competent than women in the workplace (Madden, 2005) and women must exhibit greater competence than similar men to be regarded as equally capable (Ridgeway, 2001). However, the type of career may be an important factor in men's and women's sell-perceptions of job competence. For example, Morgan, Isaac, and Sansone (2001) found that women reported higher perceived competence in education and social service careers, whereas men reported higher perceived competence for physical and mathematical careers.

The pattern of gender differences in the domains of Nurturance, Morality, and Athletic Ability found in the current study is consistent with previous findings and traditional gender role expectations. Previous studies have concluded that women report higher levels of competence than men on scales that measure nurturance (MacDonald, 1999) and morality (Stake, 1992). In examining morality, there are two modes of moral reasoning (care and justice) and a meta-analysis concluded that there are small differences favoring women in care orientations and favoring men in justice orientations (Jaffee & Hyde, 2000).

Our findings in regard to perceived athletic ability are also consistent with a two-year longitudinal study in which men reported higher perceptions of their competence in athletic ability than did women (Shapka & Keating, 2005).

No significant gender differences were found for Sociability, Physical Appearance, Adequacy as a Provider, Household Management, Intimate Relationships, Intelligence, Sense of Humor, or Global Self-Worth. The lack of gender differences in these areas is consistent with some research findings and inconsistent with others. One point to consider is that gender is a pervasive social construct (King, Hyde, Showers, & Buswell, 1999) and the lack of differences could be due to the subcultural context of being a gifted adult.

The lack of significant gender differences in perceptions of intelligence is consistent with previous research that found that both boys and girls placed in schools for the gifted tend to have high perceptions of their own intelligence (Ninot, Bilard, Delignieres, & Sokolowski, 2000). Similarly, the lack of differences between men and women in perceptions of humor is consistent with past research that found that gifted boys and girls tend to perceive themselves as having a good sense of humor (Holt & Willard-Holt, 1996).

The lack of significant gender differences in perceptions of physical appearance is somewhat surprising. In Western society, the physical appearance of women tends to be scrutinized much more than that of men; and in contrast to men, women are more often subjected to unrealistically high standards and social pressure to look attractive (Hay & Ashman, 2003). In addition, gender differences might be expected for household management. It is difficult to say, however, which gender should have more perceived competence in the area. On the one hand, women have been traditionally seen as the homemakers and, thus, might be expected to perceive themselves as more competent than men in this area. On the other hand, Cinamon (2006) found that women tend to anticipate their work interfering with their family and their family interfering with their work more than men do. One might predict that this could weaken female participants' perceptions of their competence to manage their household.

The lack of gender differences for sociability differed from past research. King et al. (1999) found that males tend to report themselves as being more social than females do. Males may also overestimate their social acceptance more than females do (Ninot et al., 2000). Finally, the lack of significant gender differences in perceptions of intimate relationships might be explained by the idea that men and women tend to conceptualize intimate relationships differently (Burns, 2002).

Limitations of the Study and Directions for Future Research

One limitation of the study is that there was no existing psychometric data on Silverman's Adult Giftedness Scale. The authors hope that future researchers using the scale can benefit from the data presented here and use it as a basis for comparison. Future research could examine scores on this scale for adults that were identified as gifted in school and adults that were identified as having average or below average abilities or intelligence. Further, there is a need for measures of adult giftedness with demonstrated psychometric properties. Future research could focus on the development of such scales and measures.

A second limitation is that all participants were gifted adults who were high achievers in high school. Gifted individuals who are achieving academically may differ in their self-perceptions from average students or from the underachieving gifted. It would be interesting for a future study to compare the self-perceptions of gifted adults who were academic achievers with those who were gifted but did not achieve academic markers of success in high school.

An additional future research possibility would be to study the factors or events that cause changes in gifted adults' perceptions of themselves as gifted or not gifted. Twenty-seven percent of participants in this study indicated a change in their self-perceptions of giftedness in the 17 years between their high-school graduation and the time they completed our survey. If this percentage reflects a trend in the general population of gifted adults, it would be helpful for counselors to know what factors play a role in this change. Knowing the factors that impact adults' self-perceptions of their giftedness may allow counselors to develop interventions that help gifted adults to correct misperceptions of their own abilities and to maintain accurate self-perceptions.

Manuscript submitted June 5, 2006.

Revision accepted September 25, 2006.

REFERENCES

Arnold, K. D. (1994). Academically talented women in the 1980s: The Illinois Valedictorian Project. In K. D. Hulbert & D. T. Schuster (Eds.), Women's lives through time: Educated women in the twentieth century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, A. (2002). Women in love and men at work: The evolving heterosexual couple? Psychology, Evolution, & Gender, 4, 149-172.

Cicchetti, D. (2006). Development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 1-23). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Cinamon, R. G. (2006). Anticipated work-family conflict: Effects of gender, self-efficacy, and family background. Career Development Quarterly, 54, 202-215.

Clance. P. R., & Imes. S. A. (1978). The impostor phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 1-8.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in school: An introduction to development, guidance, and teaching. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Hay, I., & Ashman, A. F. (2003). The development of adolescents' emotional stability and general self-concept: The interplay of parents, peers, and gender. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 50, 77-90.

Holahan, C .K., Holahan, C. J., & Wonacott, N. L. (1999). Self-appraisal, life satisfaction, and retrospective life choices across one and three decades. Psychology and Aging, 14, 238-244.

Holt. D. G., & Willard-Holt, C. (1995). An exploration of the relationship between humor and giftedness in students. International Journal of Humor Research, 8, 257-271.

Jacobsen, M. E. (1999). Arousing the sleeping giant: Giftedness in adult psychotherapy. Roeper Review, 22, 36-42.

Jaffee, S., & Hyde, S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 703-726.

Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness (Rev. ed.). Scottsdale. AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.

Kerr. B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for meaning. Scottsdale. AZ: Great Potential Press.

King, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 470-500.

Lockwood, P. (2006). "Someone like me can be successful": Do college students need same gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 36-46.

MacDonald, K. (1999). Love and confidence in protection as two independent systems underlying intimate relationships. Journal of Family Psychology 13, 492-495.

Madden. M. E. (2005). 2004 Division 35 presidential address: Gender and leadership in higher education. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 3-14.

Messer. B., & Hatter, S. (1986). Manual for the Adult Self-Perception Profile. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Morgan, C.. Isaac, J. D., & Sansone. C. (2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295-320.

Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-18.

Ninot, G., Bilard, J., Delignieres, D., & Sololowski, M. (2000). Overestimation of perceived competence in adolescents placed in specialized schools. European Review of Applied Psychology 50, 165-174.

Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Choices and compromises of talented females. Mansfield Center. CT: Creative Learning Press.

Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637-655.

Shapka. J. D., & Kealing, D. P. (2005). Structure and change in self-concept during adolescence. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 37, 83-96.

Silverman. L. K. 11997). Giftedness in adults. Retrieved April 12. 201)7, from hltp://www.gifteddevelopment.com/ADJ/scale.htm

Slake, J. E. (1992). Gender differences and similarities in self-concept within everyday life coutexts. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16. 349-363.

Sternberg, R. J. (2005). WICS: A model of giftedness in leadership. Roeper Reviews; 28, 37-44.

Tolan. S. (1994). Discovering the gifted ex-child. Roeper Review, 17, 134-139.

Willings, D. (1985). The specific needs of adults who are gifted. Roeper Review, 8, 35-38.

Kristin M. Perrone, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Counseling Psychology at Ball State University and a Licensed Psychologist. She teaches and supervises masters and doctoral level counselors-in-training. Her research interests are in career development, work-family interface, stress and coping, and gifted adults. E-mail: [e-mail]

Philip A. Perrone, PhD, is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Counseling Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Prior to his retirement in 1998, he directed the Guidance Institute for Talented Students (GIFTS). E-mail: [e-mail]

Tracy M. Ksiazak, MA, is a doctoral student in Counseling Psychology at Ball State University. She is also pursuing a cognate in Gifted Studies. Her research interests are in social and emotional issues of gifted children and adults. E-mail: [e-mail]

Stephen L. Wright, MA, is pursuing a doctoral degree in Counseling Psychology at Ball State University and seeking a specialization in assessment. He has served as a residential hall director and taught workshops to gifted adolescents. His interests include career development, attachment dynamics, gifted adults, and family issues. E-mail: [e-mail]

Z. Vance Jackson, MA, is a doctoral student in the Department of Counseling Psychology at Ball State University. He is currently completing his predoctoral internship. His research interests are in attitudes, social justice, career development, life satisfaction, and gifted adults. E-mail: [e-mail]

Correspondence may be addressed to: Kristin M. Perrone, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Counseling Psychology, Teachers College 622, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306; Email: [e-mail]; Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone].

Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations
for Adult Giftedness Scale and
Adult Self-Perception Profile

Measure and variable                      M          SD

Giftedness scale                       136.69       16.67
Self-perception profile total score    157.56       16.70

Self-perception subscales:
  Sociability                           11.40       2.66
  Job competence                        13.42       1.91
  Nurturance                            13.24       2.19
  Athletic competence                   10.29       3.07
  Physical appearance                   10.87       2.74
  Adequacy as a provider                13.83       2.10
  Morality                              13.48       2.11
  Household management                  12.78       2.46
  Intimate relationships                11.55       2.99
  Intelligence                          13.40       2.22
  Sense of humor                        12.77       2.49
  Global self-worth                     19.85       3.38

Table 2

Z-Values for
Adult Self-Perception
Profile Subscales
T-tests by Gender

Subscale                           Z

Sociability                      .413
Job competence                  2.047 *
Nurturance                      2.504 *
Athletic competence             2.260 *
Physical appearance              .233
Adequacy as a provider           .572
Morality                        2.964 *
Household management            1.331
Intimate relationships          1.575
Intelligence                    1.632
Sense of humor                  1.710
Global self-worth               1.463

* p < .05.