Living With the Gift of Giftedness: An Exploratory Study on the Well-Being of Intellectually Gifted Adults

Abstract

While it is now argued that intellectual giftedness is not causally associated with well-being, the individual and environmental determinants associated remain empirically underexplored. Trying to fill this gap, this study investigated potential risk and protective factors on the well-being and mental health of 219 Canadian intellectually gifted adults. Exploratory transversal analyses were conducted between 11 determinants frequently evoked in the literature on intellectually gifted individuals and hedonic well-being (positive/negative affect; ∝ = .85–.87; satisfaction with life; ∝ = .88), eudemonic well-being (existential crisis/meaning in life; ∝ = .76–.87; interpersonal connection; ∝ = 92) and psychopathologies. Results show that twice-exceptionality and lower socioeconomic status are risk factors for the development of psychopathologies, while being married/in civil union and having a higher perceived level of potential achievement are protective factors for hedonic and eudemonic well-being. Results are discussed in light of previous knowledge about gifted individuals.

Keywords

ANOVA/MANOVA giftedness intellectually gifted logistic regression Pearson correlations social/emotional well-being

Despite the growing popular interest in giftedness and its broad scientific coverage, little consensus is accessible about the gifted persons’ evolution into their adult lives (Brown et al., 2020; Brown & Peterson, 2022; Rinn & Bishop, 2015). While gaining a better understanding of gifted adults is necessary to validate the ways we tend to the development of gifted individuals, most empirical studies seem to focus mainly on comparing their social and emotional experience to the general population, obtaining varying conclusions according to the paradigms and operationalization of giftedness and well-being used (e.g., Jones, 2013; Rinn, 2024). If experts have recommended to clarify explicit and implicit conceptualisations used to move this field forward, they have also highlighted that the relationship between giftedness and well-being could overcome causality and be better explained by multiple individual and environmental determinants (Rinn, 2024). This calls for a shift in this knowledge field, suggesting, among other things, that more research be devoted to gaining a better understanding of potential risk and protective factors of well-being and mental health in the gifted population (e.g., Jones, 2013; Neihart & Yeo, 2018; Rinn, 2024). In trying to fill this research gap, we have attempted to take a first step by exploring potential individual and environmental determinants of well-being within a population of Canadian intellectually gifted adults. Hedonic well-being (positive and negative affect, life satisfaction), eudemonic well-being (meaning in life and crisis of meaning, quality of interpersonal connections), and the self-reported presence or absence of mental disorder(s) have all been examined to gain a broader perspective of this complex question.

Theoretical Background

Defining Intellectual Giftedness

Although giftedness has been the object of several theoretical conceptions, including a wide range of definitional components (e.g., engagement and/or creativity; Renzulli & Reis, 2018; Tannenbaum, 2003), there is no consensus regarding its definition (Guay et al., 2020; Marleau, 2021; Rinn, 2024). This lack of a consensual definition evokes ontological tensions and practical challenges, particularly in terms of identifying and assessing giftedness, great heterogeneity of practice being observed (Guay et al., 2020; Marleau, 2021; Rinn, 2024).

To ensure greater clinical and research rigor (e.g., interpretation of the data, accuracy between the sample and the construct under study), many experts have called for the clarification of the paradigm of giftedness used (e.g., Carman, 2013; Marleau, 2021; Rinn, 2024). In Quebec, Canada, where the research took place, experts have suggested the adoption of intellectual giftedness as research and clinical paradigm (also known as the high IQ paradigm or the giftedness as potential paradigm; Carman, 2013; Pollet & Schnell, 2017). Indeed, displaying exceptional intellectual abilities has frequently been one of the central criteria to define giftedness. For instance, in unidimensional psychometric models of giftedness, the latter has generally been defined as having intellectual abilities above the 98th percentile (IQ > 130) on an intelligence scale, typically the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS; e.g., Carman, 2013; Sternberg & Kaufman, 2018). Alternative and more inclusive multidimensional models of giftedness, for example, Renzulli’s Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (e.g., Renzulli & Reis, 2018) and Gagné’s Integrated Model of Talent Development (DMGT/IMTD; e.g., Gagné, 2023), which are two of the most cited theoretical models on giftedness, still tend to include intellectual potential in their proposed conceptualization. For this reason, in Quebec, giftedness is now majorly defined as an atypical neurocognitive profile characterized by an exceptional intellectual potential (e.g., Gauvrit, 2021; Marleau, 2021). This definition of intellectual giftedness cannot be generalized to other higher abilities such as sport or music and is to be distinguished with a definition of giftedness centered on achievement, talent, or success (talent development paradigm; Guay et al., 2020). Moreover, even if this perspective presents some theoretical and operational limits (e.g., Guay et al., 2020; Marleau, 2021), local experts also recommended that intellectually gifted individuals be assessed by cognitive measures or tests realized by psychologists/neuropsychologists who possess the necessary expertise to assess IQ and combine or distinguish giftedness from other psychological or neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., Labouret, 2021). These assessments of intellectual giftedness are often realized by experts in private organizations or within a clinical context (e.g., hospitalization, school psychologist).

Well-Being Among Intellectually Gifted Individuals

Because of this cultural view of intellectual giftedness as primarily characterized by a superior intellectual potential, there have been numerous debates on the role of IQ and intellectual abilities in the development, functioning, and well-being of intellectually gifted individuals. Essentially, two conflicting perspectives are expressed. On one hand, because of a philosophical tradition where intelligence is associated with a lucidity that can instill madness, as well as fundamental maladjustment with peers, intellectual giftedness has been associated with an increased vulnerability and potential well-being alterations from childhood to adulthood (e.g., see Jones, 2013 for a review). This view is frequently known as the divergence hypothesis or the disharmony hypothesis (e.g., Bergold et al., 2018). On the other hand, because of the abilities that can emerge from a superior intellectual potential, intellectual giftedness has been associated with eminence, success, and well-being (e.g., Holahan et al., 1995; Terman, 1925), and has long been perceived as an essentially favorable condition for the individual (e.g., Jones, 2013; Subotnik et al., 2011).This view is frequently known as the harmony hypothesis (e.g., Bergold et al., 2018).

While both views received empirical evidence to support their position, the harmony hypothesis initially gained a larger scientific support in research on intellectually gifted children and adults. Indeed, ever since the pioneering longitudinal Genetic Studies of Genius realized by Lewis Terman and his colleagues (1947) on gifted individuals (IQ > 140 on the Standford-Binet Intelligence Scale), it has been claimed that intellectually gifted children are as adapted as neurotypical children and grow to become adults who show very high levels of professional success, psychosocial adjustment, and report lower mental health disorder prevalence than the general population (see also Holahan et al., 1995; Oden, 1968; Terman & Oden, 1959). This finding has been supported by longitudinal studies, including the 35-year longitudinal study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY; Bernstein et al., 2021; Lubinski & Benbow, 2006; Lubinski et al., 2014), which concluded that participants’ levels of subjective well-being (according to Diener et al.’s [1985] Life Satisfaction Scale and Diener et al.’s [2010] Positive and Negative Affect Scales) were above the mean values of these scales from childhood to adulthood. Transversal studies and meta-analyses on intellectually gifted children, students, and adults have also supported the harmony perspective (e.g., Boazman & Sayler, 2011; Gonzalez-Mulé et al., 2017; Harrison et al., 2015). Based on numerous studies, including those cited above, the conclusion that giftedness is associated with positive longitudinal outcomes has thus been largely widespread to support the harmony hypothesis in intellectually gifted individuals (e.g., Rinn & Bishop, 2015).

Despite the growing consensus surrounding the various positive outcomes of intellectual giftedness (e.g., academic and socio-economic success; Rinn, 2021; Rinn & Bishop, 2015), some researchers have called for caution when it comes to well-being and mental health, as few nuanced results were found. In comparative studies, Wirthwein and Rost (2011), Bergold et al. (2020), and Dijkstra et al. (2012) observed an absence of differences regarding the subjective well-being (positive and negative affect and satisfaction with life) of their intellectually gifted and non-gifted students and adult samples, while Casino-García et al. (2021) found lower subjective well-being rates in their gifted students sample. Another team of researchers (Pollet & Schnell, 2017; Vötter, 2019; Vötter & Schnell, 2019a, 2019b) also found more contrasting results. Indeed, their longitudinal research project showed that intellectually gifted adults seemed to show enduring lower levels of subjective well-being (as measured by the WHO-5; Brähler et al., 2007) and meaning in life (according the Meaning in Life and Meaning Crisis scales; Schnell, 2009) compared to a control group drawn from the general population. Similarly, the cross-sectional study by Stålnacke and Smedler (2011) pointed out that intellectually gifted adults showed a significantly lower eudemonic well-being level than the normative mean score on the Sense of Coherence Scale (Antonovsky, 1993).

In parallel, a few recent studies on mental health disorders in intellectually gifted individuals also supported a more nuanced approach to this question, revealing that intellectually gifted adults could present higher prevalences of self-reported mental disorders, particularly anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder than control groups (Lancon et al., 2015; D. J. Smith et al., 2015) or the general population prevalence (e.g., Karpinski et al., 2018). However, robust systematic literature review and epidemiological studies on mental health have suggested otherwise and ensured continued support to the harmony hypothesis. Indeed, research shows that gifted children seem to present lower mental health disorders that neurotypical children (Francis et al., 2016). Other findings also suggest that this could remain over time. For example, the recent study conducted by Williams et al. (2023) using the UK biobank, states that as they age, intellectually gifted individuals show lower levels of general anxiety, childhood or adulthood stressors, and abuse- and trauma-related disorders, and show no differences in other mental health disorders when compared to the non-gifted general population. Their high intellectual group (general IQ > 98th percentile) was also less neurotic and felt less socially isolated. These conclusions have also been observed in epidemiological studies by Brown et al. (2021) and Wraw et al. (2016).

Interpretative Reviews

Even if these latest studies add validity as well as conceptual richness to the research on well-being in intellectually gifted children, students, and adults, they remain scarce and conclusions on this issue remain preliminary. Indeed, methodological and paradigmatic gaps between the studies seem to make the drawing of reliable and valid conclusions almost impossible (e.g., Rinn, 2021, 2024; Wirthwein & Rost, 2011). As researchers have noted (e.g., Labouret, 2021; Rinn, 2024; Williams et al., 2023), these studies also involve common sampling confusions (e.g., Mensa and academics samples), making it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions. Moreover, Pollet and Schnell (2017) emphasized that, apart from their work, most studies on the well-being of intellectually gifted adults tend to rely solely upon hedonic well-being indicators such as subjective well-being measures (satisfaction with life and positive and negative affect) or mental health disorders inventories. As they highlighted that well-being transcends the pleasant life and its subjective experience (also known as happiness, e.g., Huta, 2013, 2017; Huta & Ryan, 2010) or the absence of it, they argued that the inclusion of eudemonic indicators is also important to the study of well-being in gifted adults. Defining eudemonic well-being as centered on the “good life,” a form of life that allows individuals to reach their full potential and align with their personal value system (e.g., Ryff, 1989), the addition of eudemonic well-being indicators focused on life meaning, personal growth, environmental mastery, or positive relationships with others was recommended. By adding this nuance, Pollet and Schnell (2017) encouraged that future research on intellectually gifted be inclusive of both the hedonic and eudemonic well-being theoretical perspectives.

Furthermore, a growing number of giftedness experts now suggest that contradictory results that persist in the scientific literature may not solely be attributable to the theoretical and methodological gaps identified. Given these persistent discrepancies, they now advocate that the association between well-being and giftedness in adults may go beyond causality. Indeed, they increasingly advance that it is implausible for high intellectual potential to be the sole cause of well-being or mental health alterations (e.g., Pollet & Schnell, 2017; Rinn, 2021, 2024). As stated by Neihart and Yeo (2018), “giftedness seems to add complexity to an individual that can either enhance or interfere with healthy adjustment, depending on several factors” (p. 497). This conclusion has been echoed by Rinn (2024) in her more recent critique of the current state of research on social and emotional experiences of gifted individuals, in which she stated that “it is probably fair to say having a very high IQ could likely relate to some unique social and emotional experiences, but one cannot say that a very high IQ causes unique social, emotional, or psychological experiences” (p. 38). According to her, “any mental health issues that arise during childhood could be due to a plethora of environmental and individual factors” (p. 38), thus calling for a deepening of current research on the potential determinants of well-being among gifted individuals (e.g., Harder et al., 2014; Rinn, 2021, 2024; Webb, 2014).

Determinants of Well-Being in Intellectually Gifted Individuals

In addition to chance (also referred to as luck), several authors have suggested that the effect of intellectual giftedness on well-being may vary according to the presence or absence of multiple determinants (or moderators), which could modulate the individual’s ability to be in harmony with oneself or one’s surroundings, and thus to achieve one’s intellectual potential (Cross & Cross, 2015; Duplenne et al., 2024; Neihart & Yeo, 2018; Pereira-Fradin, 2004; Webb, 2014). The following section aims to summarize the main hypotheses and findings in the development of intellectually gifted individuals.

Individual Determinants

Most of the research on the determinants of well-being in intellectually gifted individuals seem to have focused on individual internal factors, such as personality factors, perfectionism, and emotional intelligence. First, in gifted children and students, research shows that gifted samples seem to show higher extraversion and conscientiousness, as well as lower scores of neuroticism when compared to non-gifted samples (e.g., Dijkstra et al., 2012; Mammadov & Ward, 2023; Matta et al., 2019; Porath, 2013). These effects also seem to remain over time, as suggested by recent studies on intellectually gifted adults samples (e.g., Mammadov & Ward, 2023; Stanek & Ones, 2023). As the latest findings of the Five-Factor Personality Model (McCrae & Costa, 1996) suggest that extraversion and conscientiousness could enhance well-being in the general population (e.g., Anglim et al., 2020), these personality traits may thus represent a protective factor among gifted individuals, given their higher prevalences in this population.

Concerning perfectionism as a global construct, a recent meta-analysis suggested an absence of difference on well-being between the gifted and the non-gifted (Ogurlu, 2020). Adaptative perfectionistic striving, on the other hand, could sometimes be associated with positive outcomes, such as subjective well-being (Grugan et al., 2021). The latter could maintain in adulthood, where intellectually gifted adults who showed greater levels of adaptative perfectionism (strivers) seemed to show higher level of emotional regulation and subjective well-being (Perrone-McGovern et al., 2015).

Finally, regarding emotional intelligence, recent meta-analyses illustrate that gifted children, students, and adults, particularly girls and women, could present higher levels of emotional intelligence (Abdulla Alabbasi et al., 2021; Ogurlu, 2020), which could also enhance the healthy adjustment and subjective well-being of the gifted population (e.g., Casino-García et al., 2021).

While these findings seem more robust and identify important protective factors of the well-being of intellectually gifted students and adults, other individual determinants seem less studied. Among them, gender identity and subtype groups of intellectually gifted individuals (highly gifted and twice exceptional gifted individuals) have also been suggested as promising determinants of the well-being of the gifted children, students and adults (e.g., Neihart, 1999; Webb, 2014).

Regarding gender identity, popular and clinical literature suggest that intellectually gifted girls and women would be more at risk of encountering well-being alterations such as social isolation, poorer recognition of their intellectual giftedness, or fewer professional opportunities (e.g., Bell, 1990; Bianco et al., 2011; de Kermadec, 2019; Holahan, 2021; Lovecky, 1993; Reis & Hébert, 2008). From an empirical perspective, research on gifted children and students show contrasting results, as some studies suggest that gifted girls could present higher well-being than gifted boys (e.g., Chen et al., 2018), while others suggest the contrary (e.g., Bergold et al., 2015). However, the effect of gender in older intellectually gifted individuals seems less studied. Indeed, only Holahan (1984, 2021), Wirthwein and Rost (2011), and Perrone-McGovern et al. (2012) seem to have explicitly tested the role of gender identity on subjective well-being in intellectually gifted adults, obtaining non-significant statistical differences. In parallel, more recent studies have also highlighted that minority-gender individuals could be more at risk of developing mental health disorders (e.g., Lipson et al., 2019; Stacey & Wislar, 2023), which has also been advanced in the gifted population (e.g., Wikoff et al., 2021). Experts notably suggest that minority-gender identity may “exacerbate the burden of being twice different” (Lo et al., 2022, p. 2), which may contribute to well-being alterations. Further research on the effect of gender on the well-being of gifted individuals thus seems necessary to examine these links and clarify the differences, if any.

When it comes to subtypes of giftedness, it has been regularly argued that the rareness and the consequent discrepancy it creates may predispose highly gifted (Francis et al., 2016; Hollingworth, 1942) or twice-exceptional (Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015; Hébert, 2022; Kutner, 1999; Neihart, 1999) individuals to a higher risk of altered well-being and socio-emotional problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, loneliness, existential dread). Indeed, research shows that twice-exceptional children and students exhibit lower levels of happiness, more self-esteem difficulties, and more anxiety, depression, and oppositional symptoms than their peers without ADHD (e.g., Antshel et al., 2008; Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2018; Neihart & Yeo, 2018; Reis et al., 2014; Terriot, 2021). However, when gifted students become adults, there seems to be very little empirical support of this clinical claim, apart from a study by Antshel et al. (2009) that suggests that twice-exceptional gifted and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) adults present greater functional difficulties (e.g., impaired work and family functioning) and mental health disorders than the high IQ group without ADHD. Because well-being alterations are also most prevalent in the general population who presents neurodevelopmental disorders or learning disabilities (e.g., Beaton et al., 2022; Brod et al., 2012; Fuller-Thomson et al., 2022; Wilmshurst et al., 2011), this hypothesis needs to be examined thoroughly before further conclusions can be drawn.

Environmental Determinants

Regarding environmental well-being determinants, particular interest seems to have arisen in those that could reduce or enhance social discrepancies and talent development in intellectually gifted individuals (e.g., Rinn, 2024; Webb, 2014). Indeed, the issues surrounding the equity of intellectually gifted children and students are being increasingly identified in the scientific literature and the role of determinants such as socioeconomic status, minority ethnocultural affiliation, and support from family or close ones are being highlighted (e.g., Worrell & Dixson, 2022). In intellectually gifted students, there is also a large scientific corpus about gifted education that highlights that appropriate educational programs such as acceleration or specific programs can be an important protective factor on mental health and well-being (e.g., Bernstein et al., 2021; Cash & Lin, 2022).

As gifted children grow into their adult lives, fewer studies appear accessible. Among the available knowledge, the ability of loved ones and relatives to support the gifted person is widely considered as a central factor in the trajectory of their well-being (Brown & Peterson, 2020; Sifuentes-Becerril et al., 2018; Webb, 2014). For example, empirical findings illustrate the significant protective effect of being in a marital relationship on well-being, particularly life satisfaction (e.g., Perrone-McGovern et al., 2011, 2012). For their part, Pollet and Schnell (2017) have identified the protective effect of parenthood on meaning in life.

Beyond the direct role of the couple and family of intellectually gifted adults on their well-being, several authors also studied the impact of growing up in a family of origin where one or more members have also been identified as gifted. For instance, Dijkstra et al. (2012) identified that their sample of intellectually gifted adults placed greater importance on finding a partner like themselves and of high intelligence than the control group drawn from the general population. Perrone-McGovern et al. (2012) also found that gifted participants who were in a marital relationship with a gifted spouse reported higher levels of life satisfaction than those in a relationship with a non-gifted individual. However, this effect was not detected five years later, which has been attributed to the fact that the benefits of the partner’s giftedness could become less important over time, while other relational positive outcomes (i.e., intimacy, shared interests, family goals) became more prevalent.

Regarding other environmental determinants, studies remain disparate. Although many studies show that gifted individuals generally achieve high education levels and socioeconomic status, two outcomes associated with well-being (e.g., Rinn & Bishop, 2015), there remains a considerable lack of understanding about the well-being of intellectually gifted individuals who do not attain high educational levels or socioeconomic status. Moreover, if several studies have highlighted the risks for gifted students in minority cultural or gender groups (e.g., Barnes, 2022; Garces-Bacsal & Elhoweris, 2022; Long, 2022; Warne, 2022), none seems to have empirically investigated the effects of this reality on well-being. Nevertheless, this knowledge gap appears significant, as several studies have highlighted the importance of achieving intellectual potential and accessing opportunities as predominant for the well-being of gifted students and adults (e.g., Perrone et al., 2007; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2011; Persson, 2009; Pollet & Schnell, 2017; Wirthwein & Rost, 2011).

Overall, while certain determinants appear promising for a better understanding of the well-being of intellectually gifted individuals, there seems to remain very little knowledge about the effects of these determinants in older gifted samples, very few studies appearing accessible on intellectually gifted adults. The scarcity of empirical research and the preliminary findings associated with it thus call for further research to clarify the respective associations of these determinants with various well-being dimensions. This is particularly important as numerous experts claim the importance of tending to the development of all gifted individuals, regardless of their origins, gender, giftedness type, or the environmental support they received (e.g., Brown & Peterson, 2022; Worrell & Dixson, 2022).

Current Study

Trying to fill the theoretical, empirical, and conceptual gaps discussed above, we attempted to answer the following question: what are the risk and protective factors of intellectually gifted adults’ well-being? To do so, our study explored the associations between well-being and 11 individual and environmental potential determinants of well-being frequently evoked but underexplored in the literature on the developmental trajectory of gifted individuals: gender, subtypes of giftedness, personal annual income, education level, being part of a minority cultural group, presence of one or more gifted family member(s), marital status, parenting status, perceived level of professional and family support and perceived level of achievement of their intellectual potential. Because this study is designed to propose a broader perspective on the complex experience of well-being among intellectually gifted adults by looking into its multiple dimensions, the effects on each determinant were verified on three hedonic well-being indicators (positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction with life), three eudemonic well-being indicators (meaning in life, crisis of meaning, and quality of interpersonal connections) and one index of self-reported mental health disorder(s). No a priori hypotheses were formulated given the limited nature of the empirical studies previously published.

Method

Procedure

This explorative study adopted a quantitative cross-sectional and correlational design. A sample of intellectually gifted French-Canadian adults (18 years and older) was recruited in 2022. To assure an accurate representation of intellectual giftedness while staying coherent with the gifted as potential paradigm (or high IQ paradigm), participants were only included in this study if they reported having been cognitively tested and identified as intellectually gifted by a psychologist/neuropsychologist qualified to assess intellectual giftedness. These intellectually gifted participants were recruited from the researchers’ network, as well as from mailing lists of non-profit organizations dedicated to giftedness that agreed to collaborate in the recruitment. An advertisement for the study was also shared on social media platforms about research projects and on social networks that cater to gifted individuals and their networks. Intellectually gifted adults interested in participating in the study were invited to complete the battery of questionnaires via the SimpleSurvey web platform, for an estimated duration of 30 minutes. To do so, they were invited to click on the link attached to the advertisements, which allowed them to access the information, consent form, and questionnaires.

Participants

Altogether, 219 French-Canadian identified as intellectually gifted adults aged 19 to 70 (M = 38.31; Mdn = 38) participated in this study (see Table 1). Almost all participants were Caucasian, and the majority identified as women. Most participants were married, and half had one or more children. Finally, half of the participants had completed a master’s degree or more, and more than half of the sample reported a personal annual income of CAN $60,000 or more, which is comparable to the Canadian median income (Statistics Canada, n.d.).

Table 1.

Participants’ Demographic and Giftedness Information.

Variable	Total (N=219)
Age (SD)	38.31 (9.77)
Gender (%)
Woman	73.50
Man	22.80
Other^a	3.70
Cultural Group (%)
Caucasian	96.80
Other^b	3.20
Education level (%)
Pre-university	16.40
Undergraduate	34.70
Master	36.10
Doctorate or more	12.80
Personal annual income (%)
0-19 999	13.70
20 000 – 39 999	12.80
40 000 – 59 999	17.80
60 000 – 79 999	12.80
80 000 – 99 999	15.10
< 100 00	23.70
Marital status (%)
Married/civil union	55.30
In a relationship without cohabitation	11.90
Single, divorced, and widowed	32.90
Parental status (%)
Parent	52.10
Type of giftedness (%)
Twice Exceptionality	39.70
Highly gifted	32.00
Gifted Family Member(s) (%)
No	63.90
Frequency of perceived support (SD)^c
Perceived support from relatives and family members	2.63 (1.31)
Perceived support from the working environment	1.54 (1.42)
Perceived level of potential’s achievement (SD)^d	3.30 (.99)

Transgender, non-binary, queer and self-definition of gender. ^bAsian, African and Indigenous people. ^cOn a 5-point Likert-type scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). ^dOn a 5-point Likert-type scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (totally).

In addition, participants were asked about their giftedness. They had to specify whether they had been cognitively tested and identified as twice exceptional (defined to them as the concomitance of intellectual giftedness and one or more neurodevelopmental or learning disorder(s) such as dyslexia or ADHD; Labouret & Francois, 2021; Reis et al., 2014) and/or highly gifted (defined by an IQ > 99th percentile; Gross, 2018; Silverman, 2009). A third claimed having been diagnosed as highly gifted, and nearly 40% as twice exceptional. Although these categories were non-exclusive, as participants could present more than one condition, 75 participants declared having been diagnosed with ADHD, 15 with a specific learning disorder (e.g., dyslexia), eight with autism, six with a motor disorder (e.g., Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome), and four with a language disorder. Almost half of the participants noted the presence of one or more gifted family member(s) in their life (e.g., parent, sibling, spouse, children). Participants were also asked to rate the frequency of perceived support from their family, friends, and their professional environment on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). On average, participants reported a low frequency of support from their relatives and a very low frequency of support from their professional environment. Finally, participants were asked to indicate, on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (totally), the extent to which they subjectively felt they led a life that enabled them to actualize their intellectual potential. Globally, participants reported an average perceived level of actualization.

Measures

In addition to the socio-demographic and giftedness measures, four distinct well-being measures were included, rather than a multidimensional general well-being measure, to capture the overall and holistic phenomena of well-being in gifted adults. Measures were chosen for their validity in gifted adult samples, their good psychometric properties and the fact that they are relatively brief and available in French.

Hedonic Well-Being

To assess the hedonic facets of well-being, the French version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988; translated from Bouffard & Lapierre, 1997) was administered. The PANAS consists of 20 items (10 positive affect and 10 negative affect), in which participants are asked to rate the extent to which they have experienced each affect in the last six months on a Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). The French version supports the two-factor structure of the PANAS and shows a satisfactory internal consistency (∝ = 0.79–0.90; Bouffard & Lapierre, 1997). Cognitive facets of hedonic well-being were assessed by the French-Canadian version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985; translated by Blais et al., 1989), a five-item questionnaire designed to quantify individuals’ overall satisfaction with their lives. Participants respond to statements (e.g., “I am satisfied with my life”) on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Internal consistency was considered satisfactory (∝ = .79–.84) within the original sample (Blais et al., 1989).

Eudemonic Well-Being Measure

In-house translations of Meaning in Life and Crisis of Meaning scales of the Source of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe; Schnell, 2009, 2021) were administered to capture two dimensions of meaning in life: meaningfulness (5 items, e.g., “I have a fulfilled life”) and crisis of meaning (3 items, e.g., “I am missing meaning in my life”). Items are rated on a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (no agreement) to 5 (complete agreement). The original version of the SoMe has been validated and shows satisfactory internal consistency (∝ = .78–.90; Schnell, 2009). The scales also show satisfactory to excellent internal consistency within our sample (∝= .76–.95, see Table 2), as well as good construct validity, when compared to the other well-being measures used (see Table 3).

Table 2.

Descriptive Analysis, Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients and Pearson Correlations of Well-Being Indicators.

Well-Being Indicators	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. PA	–	–.12*	.49**	.30**	.59**	–.47**
2. NA		–	–.36**	–.08	–.16*	.37**
3. SWL			–	.48**	.61**	–.61**
4. CON				–	.47**	–.78**
5. Meaning					–	–.63**
6. CM						–
M	3.38	2.68	4.62	3.59	16.81	6.57
SD	.71	.76	1.40	.81	4.83	5.01
Skewness	–.13	.17	–.40	–.34	–.46	.14
Kurtosis	–.42	–.65	–.73	–.53	–.12	1.37
Cronbach α	.85	.87	.88	.83	.76	.92

Note. PA = Positive affect. NA = Negative Affect. SWL = Satisfaction with Life. CON = Quality of Interpersonal Connection. CM = Crisis of Meaning.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3.

Well-Being Indicators Means (SD) and Wilks-Lambda F Ratios for each Exploratory Determinant.

Determinant	PA	NA	SWL	Meaning	CM	CON	Wilks-Lambda F (p; η2)
Gender Identity							.98 (.46; .03)
Woman	3.42 (.71)	2.70 (.80)	4.75 (1.40)	17.09 (4.64)	6.33 (5.12)	3.62 (.79)
Man	3.32 (.73)	2.59 (.69)	4.39 (1.28)	16.18 (5.40)	6.94 (4.71)	3.50 (.80)
Other	3.11 (.55)	2.86 (.58)	3.48 (1.58)	15.00 (4.66)	9.00 (4.24)	3.55 (.81)
Cultural Group							2.44 (.03; .07)
Caucasian	3.39 (.71)	2.68 (.76)	4.65 (1.38)	16.78 (4.86)	6.62 (5.02)	3.59 (.82)
Other	3.21 (.82)	2.47 (.42)	3.66 (1.72)	17.71 (3.99)	4.86 (4.38)	3.66 (.75)
Education Level							1.11 (.34; .03)
Pre-university	3.39 (.71)	2.72 (.79)	4.32 (1.39)	17.44 (5.05)	6.56 (5.06)	3.67 (.75)
Undergraduate	3.26 (.73)	2.65 (.77)	4.38 (1.48)	15.76 (5.00)	7.32 (4.96)	3.64 (.79)
Master	3.46 (.49)	2.64 (.79)	4.90 (1.35)	17.37 (4.80)	6.18 (5.06)	3.62 (.82)
≥Doctorate	3.52 (.68)	2.80 (.68)	4.86 (1.19)	17.25 (3.87)	5.61 (4.87)	3.56 (.93)
Annual income							1.21 (.21; .04)
0-19 999	3.28 (.63)	2.85 (.79)	3.93 (1.46)	16.13 (4.90)	7.63 (4.75)	3.50 (.88)
20 000 – 39 999	3.59 (.52)	2.87 (.63)	4.59 (1.42)	17.39 (4.60)	5.93 (5.02)	3.59 (.87)
40 000 – 59 999	3.24 (.68)	2.75 (.71)	4.37 (1.24)	16.00 (5.36)	7.62 (5.22)	3.61 (.78)
60 000 – 79 999	3.48 (.68)	2.57 (.90)	4.52 (1.56)	16.57 (4.53)	6.11 (4.59)	3.54 (.75)
80 000 – 99 999	3.38 (.64)	2.46 (.70)	5.10 (1.36)	17.82 (4.48)	5.61 (5.19)	3.73 (.74)
< 100 00	3.40 (.74)	2.60 (.76)	5.03 (1.19)	17.27 (4.56)	6.23 (5.00)	3.59 (.87)
Marital Status							2.28 (.008; .06)
Single	3.26 (.72)	2.68 (.86)	4.13 (1.33)	16.14 (4.70)	7.28 (4.23)	3.39 (.85)
Married/C-U	3.47 (.69)	2.64 (.74)	4.94 (1.32)	17.08 (4.71)	5.98 (4.83)	3.67 (.78)
In a relationship w/o cohabitation	3.33 (.70)	2.86 (.62)	4.46 (1.56)	17.38 (5.72)	7.31 (5.19)	3.78 (.74)
Parental status							2.46 (.02; .07)
Parent	3.39 (.73)	2.60 (.74)	4.83 (1.35)	16.72 (4.99)	6.09 (4.82)	3.55 (.81)
Non-Parent	3.38 (.69)	2.76 (.79)	4.39 (1.32)	16.90 (4.68)	7.09 (5.17)	3.64 (.81)
Gifted Family							.95 (.10; .50)
Yes	3.42 (.77)	2.70 (.76)	4.63 (1.50)	16.05 (4.76)	6.47 (5.14)	3.62 (.75)
No	3.37 (.67)	2.66 (.77)	4.62 (1.50)	17.23 (4.84)	6.62 (4.94)	3.57 (.87)

Note. PA = Positive affect. NA = Negative Affect. SWL = Satisfaction with Life. CON = Quality of Interpersonal Connection. CM = Crisis of Meaning. Significant multivariate effects are in bold.

The Connection scale of the General Well-Being Inventory (GWBI-65; Longo et al., 2017; French translation from Beliveau, 2021) was administered to capture the relational facet of eudemonia. This scale measures the ability to create and maintain positive and meaningful connections with people. Participants respond to five statements (e.g., “I feel close and connected to the people around me”) on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (not at all true) to 5 (completely true). The original version shows good reliability (ωh = .86; Longo et al., 2017), as well as the translated version (∝ = .89).

Mental Health Disorders Index

Drawing on the measure presented by Karpinski et al. (2018) in their study on gifted adults, a self-reported mental health disorders index was designed for this study to identify participants’ mental health disorder(s). Participants were asked to indicate if they had been diagnosed with one or more mental health disorder(s) by a professional practitioner (i.e., psychiatrist, psychologist, MD). If they answered yes, they were invited to select which diagnoses on a pull-down menu of all the mental health disorders listed in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). For the purposes of this study, all self-reported mental health disorder(s) were combined into a single dichotomous variable indicating the presence (1) or absence (0) of one or more self-reported diagnosed mental health disorder(s), excluding learning disorders and neurodevelopmental disorders which are reported as twice-exceptionality.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

No missing values were found on the main variables. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, and Pearson’s correlations on all well-being variables are presented in Table 2. Overall, the sample showed moderate to high scores for positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. Participants reported moderate levels of quality of interpersonal connection and meaning in life subscales, as well as a low score on the crisis of meaning subscale. Finally, 57.50% of the participants reported having a diagnosis of one or more mental health disorder(s). Descriptive analyses also revealed that most variables presented skewness and kurtosis indices that did not depart from a normal distribution, ranging between -1 and 1 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Only Crisis of Meaning presented a slightly positive kurtosis, which still appears acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients also seemed to support the measures’ reliability among this sample.

Most well-being scales were significantly correlated in the expected direction (i.e., the higher the participants’ positive affect, life satisfaction, quality of interpersonal connection and meaning in life, the lower their negative affect and crisis of meaning scores). These preliminary links support the relevance of combining all the well-being scales in a multivariate well-being model when carrying out the main analyses.

Main Analyses

The study’s objectives were assessed with exploratory statistical analyses conducted in SPSS 28.0.0. First, seven multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were conducted on the combined six well-being subscales (i.e., positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, connection, meaning in life, meaningfulness) to compare participants based on categorical determinants: gender identity, education level, personal annual income, minority cultural group (1 = Caucasian; 2 = non-Caucasian), presence of one or more intellectually gifted family member(s), marital status, and parenting status. An additional factorial MANOVA was conducted for type of giftedness, including two dichotomous variables: being identified as twice exceptional (yes/no) and/or as highly gifted (yes/no). Assumptions of normality, as well as the homogeneity of the variances and the covariances (Box’s ps > .05), were all met. The data also presented an absence of multicollinearity (rs < .70, see Table 2).

As shown in Table 3, results revealed that three out of seven variables were associated with well-being as an overall construct: cultural groups, marital status, and parental status. Moreover, results from the factorial MANOVA for subtypes of giftedness revealed no interaction effect, Wilks-Lambda F(3,215) = 1.46, p = .20, but principal multivariate effects of twice-exceptionality, Wilks-Lambda F(3,215) = 2.44, p = .03, η² = .06, and highly gifted, Wilks-Lambda F(3,215) = 2.49, p = .02, η² = .07. It should nevertheless be noted that when the significance level was adjusted according to the Bonferroni correction (i.e., the specified alpha level of .05 is divided by the number of analyses [8]) to prevent type 1 error, only the multivariate effect of marital status remained significant. For this reason, one post hoc analysis was conducted on marital status to determine the nature of the group differences identified.

Because of its robustness in the context of multivariate analyses, the post hoc analysis selected was the descriptive discriminant analyses (DDA; see K. N. Smith et al., 2020). In addition to the postulates associated with MANOVA, all of which have been met, the multivariate normality was verified by examining the plot of Mahalanobis distances and paired chi-square values of the model residuals. Because no important deviation was noted, the postulate was estimated as met. Results revealed two discriminant functions, although only the first discriminant function was considered significantly associated with the well-being effects observed between marital status groups (p = .008; R_c = .21; R_c² = .04). Because function 2 was not statistically associated with well-being outcomes (p = .31), only the first function was interpreted to understand the nature and weight of the variables involved in the outcomes (see Table 4). When results were analyzed in greater detail, the combined standardized weight and structure coefficients suggest that the effects observed on well-being seem mostly attributable to satisfaction with life (standardized coefficient = 1.15), as it is responsible for 75% of the observed variance. However, positive affect (20% of the observed variance) and quality of interpersonal connection (19% of the observed variance) also appear to be lightly involved in the well-being differences observed. As for meaning and negative affect, their combined small standard weight coefficients and medium to high standardized discriminant coefficients suggest that they might exercise a suppression effect on the linear equation, which means that they could contribute to enhance the group differences in one or more determinants (K. N. Smith et al., 2020), which corresponds to life satisfaction and positive affect, after statistical verification. Results also reveal that crisis of meaning is not associated with the well-being differences observed in marital status, weighting very little to the equation (less than 1% of explained variance). Concerning the interpretation of differences, results show that married/civil union show significantly better outcomes than their single counterpart on the multivariate effects of satisfaction with life, positive affect and quality of interpersonal connection, with a moderate effect size (p < .001; Cohen’s d = .69, 95% CI [.40, .99]). The group of participants that were in a relationship without cohabiting, for their part, did not differ significantly from the single group (p = .23, 95% CI [-.18, .73] nor from married/civil union group (p = .06, 95% CI [- .84, .09]).

Table 4.

Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients, Structure Coefficients, and Group Centroids for Marital Status Function 1.

Well-being determinant	Standardized coefficient	r _s	R _s ²
Satisfaction with life	1.15	.87	.75
Positive affects	.28	.45	.20
Negative affect	.25	–.11	.01
Meaning	–.65	.25	.06
Crisis of meaning	–.02	–.39	.15
Connection	.15	.44	.19
Group Centroids
Single	–.42
Married/Civil Union	.27
In a relationship w/o cohabitation	–.14

Note. r_s = structure coefficient.

Second, to explore the associations between the well-being subscales and three continuous determinants (i.e., perceived levels of family support, work support and intellectual potential achievement), bivariate Pearson correlations were conducted. Significant results revealed that family support was positively associated with life satisfaction (r = .27, p < .001), quality of interpersonal connections (r = .41, p < .001), and meaning in life (r = .15, p = .003). Workplace support was weakly positively associated with quality of interpersonal connections (r = .16, p = .03) and meaning in life (r = .15, p = .02). Achievement of potential was strongly positively associated with positive affect (r = .47, p < .001), life satisfaction (r = .61, p < .001), quality of interpersonal connections (r = .36, p < .001), and meaning in life (r = .54, p < .001). It was also moderately to strongly negatively associated with negative affect (r = –.23, p < .001) and crisis of meaning (r = –.55, p < .001). When the Bonferroni correction was applied, only achievement of potential maintained its associations with all the well-being subscales mentioned above. Family support also remained associated with life satisfaction, the quality of interpersonal connections and meaning in life.

Finally, because mental health disorder(s) was a dichotomized categorical outcome variable (0 = absence; 1 = presence), a logistic regression was carried out for each of the determinants explored. Assumptions of homoscedasticity and linearity of the logit were verified, along with the absence of multivariate outliers (Cook’s distance < 1). Overall, as shown in Table 5, most of the potential determinants were not associated with the presence of mental health disorders, as the regression models were not significant for gender identity, education level, cultural group, parenting status, presence of one or more gifted family member(s), perceived levels of family support, perceived level of work support and intellectual potential achievement (ps > .05). Nevertheless, the regression models were significant for two potential determinants. First, the regression model assessing the contribution of a low income (1 = low annual personal income) on mental health disorders was significant, χ²(1, N = 219) = 3.97, p = .004, as this determinant explained between 1.90% (Cox & Snell’s R²) and 2.50% (NagelKerke’s R²) of the variance in mental health disorders. More precisely, gifted people with a personal annual income ranging from $20,000 to $39,999 presented a 1.8 times higher risk of presenting mental health disorder(s) than gifted people with a $40,000 or more personal annual income. Second, the regression model assessing the contribution of types of giftedness (with twice exceptional and highly gifted subtypes of giftedness entered simultaneously) was significantly associated with mental health disorder(s), χ²(1, N = 219) = 4.93, p = .004, as subtypes of giftedness explained between 2.30% (Cox & Snell’s R²) and 3.00 % (NagelKerke’s R²) of the variance. Indeed, twice-exceptional participants were 1.9 times more likely to present concomitant mental health disorder(s) than non-twice exceptional participants. The effects remained significant (p < .005) when the Bonferroni correction was applied.

Table 5.

Results of Logistic Regression for Mental Health Disorder(s).

Predictor variable	B(se)	Odds ratio (Ex( b ))	95% CI
Woman^a	–.23 (.31)	1.25	[.69, 2.29]
Other Genders^b	.82 (.83)	2.28	[.45, 11.53]
Pre-University degree^c	–.04 (.37)	1.04	[.50, 2.14]
Cultural Minority	0.63 (.85)	1.88	[.37, 9.91]
Low Income (>39 999)^d	.64 (.33)*	1.90	[0.99, 3.60]
Celibacy	.13 (.29)	1.14	[.65, 2.03]
Parenthood	–.34 (.28)	.71	[.43, 1.21]
Gifted family member(s)	–.04 (.29)	1.05	[.60, 1.83]
Twice Exceptionality	.63 (.29)*	1.88	[1.07, 3.30]
Highly Gifted	.08 (.30)	1.00	[.56, 1.81]
Family/relative’s Support	.07 (.11)	1.07	[.87, 1.25]
Work’s Support	.13 (.10)	1.15	[.87, 1.31]
Potential’s actualization	–.16 (.14)	.85	[.65, 1.12]

Note. ^aRef = non-woman. ^bRef = cisgender. ^cRef = university degree. ^dRef = High income (< 40,000).

p < .05.

General Discussion

Given the recommended avenues of research on the social and emotional experience of intellectually gifted individuals, the present study aimed to gain a more precise and thorough understanding of the well-being risk and protective factors of intellectually gifted adults by exploring the associations between well-being and individuals and environmental factors frequently evoked but underexplored in the literature on intellectually gifted individuals. Exploratory statistical analyses on potential individual determinants suggested that twice exceptionality plays a role in the well-being of intellectually gifted adults. Regarding environmental potential determinants, analyses identified the significant role of marital status, family support, annual personal income, and perceived levels of achievement of their intellectual potential.

Individual Determinants of Well-Being

Results showed that twice exceptionality was significantly associated with mental health disorder(s). Twice-exceptional participants reported almost twice the risk of presenting a mental health disorder diagnosis than gifted-only participants. This result appears consistent with the hypothesis formulated by clinicians (e.g., Kutner, 1999; Terriot, 2021) and researchers (Neihart & Yeo, 2018; Rinn & Bishop, 2015), as well as with the comparison study on gifted adults conducted by Antshel et al. (2009), which showed that ADHD-intellectually gifted adults presented greater well-being alterations and mental health disorders than gifted adults without ADHD. While this finding could be attributed to the fact that all individuals with neurodevelopmental or learning disorders generally exhibit greater impairments in terms of well-being (Beaton et al., 2022; Brod et al., 2012; Fuller-Thomson et al., 2022; Wilmshurst et al., 2011), these impairments could further be explained by the specific challenges faced by twice-exceptional individuals. As Kutner (1999) and Terriot (2021) discussed, this finding could be expounded by the paradoxical fact that even if twice-exceptional individuals have exceptional intellectual potential, their neurodevelopmental limitations complexify its actualization. This paradox is occasionally associated with a phenomenon known as internal dyssynchrony, which has been linked with greater mental health alterations in gifted children and adults (e.g., Terrassier, 1979, 2009). Greater well-being difficulties observed in our twice-exceptional participants could also be explained by the risk of delayed diagnoses or interventions encountered in this population, which has recently been pointed out by Milioni et al. (2017), Mullet and Rinn (2015), and Bishop and Rinn (2020). Indeed, their research showed that ADHD-gifted children, students, and adults are at risk of having their giftedness or their ADHD masked by their concomitant neuroatypicality, hence potentially leading to delayed identification or misdiagnosis of twice-exceptionality and lack of appropriate services. Either way, as previously noted (e.g., Neihart, 2008; Neihart & Yeo, 2018; Rinn & Bishop, 2015), this result suggests that twice-exceptionality is a risk factor among the gifted population and that, from childhood, twice exceptional gifted individuals should be monitored for the development of mental health disorders. Special attention should be paid to the understanding of their special needs and those of their parents, which may differ from the special needs of gifted children without a twice-exceptionality so that we can assure targeted interventions to prevent the potential socioemotional difficulties they could encounter during their life (Brault-Labbé et al., 2024).

Interestingly, our results showed no significant differences in mental health disorder(s), nor subjective (positive/negative affect and satisfaction with life) and eudemonic (meaning in life, crisis of meaning and connection) well-being between highly gifted adults and typically gifted participants. While these results appear to contradict the hypothesis about highly gifted individuals originally formulated by Hollingworth (1942) and Francis et al. (2016), they are consistent with the absence of empirical evidence of highly gifted children being more vulnerable to social and emotional problems (Neihart, 1999, 2008), in addition to allowing this knowledge to be extended to adults.

When it comes to gender identity, our exploratory results suggest no difference between gifted women, gifted men, and gifted people who identify as transgender, non-binary, or who self-define their gender. While this result is consistent with the absence of difference between male and female gifted adults observed in empirical studies by Holahan (1984), Wirthwein and Rost (2011), and Perrone-McGovern et al. (2012), it does not confirm that gender minorities could be a risk factor in the gifted population (Lo et al., 2022; Wikoff et al., 2021). The latter conclusion must however be interpreted with a lot of nuances, given the very small sample size associated with gender minorities (n = 8).

Environmental Determinants of Well-Being

Regarding environmental determinants, our results first showed that being married or in a civil union may be a protective factor for well-being, particularly in terms of life satisfaction, positive affects, and quality of interpersonal connection. These results are not surprising, as some studies have already illustrated that marital relationships and marital satisfaction could enhance hedonic or subjective well-being (e.g., life satisfaction and positive affect) in gifted adults (Perrone et al., 2006; Perrone-McGovern et al., 2012; Sears, 1977). In addition, the fact that it contributes positively to the quality of interpersonal connection suggests that marital status may also be important for eudemonic well-being, as married/civil union intellectually gifted adults seem to benefit from the personal connection in a way that may add more purpose and direction to their life. However, contrary to Perrone-McGovern et al. (2012), we did not detect a protective effect of having gifted spouses or relatives on hedonic, eudemonic, or negative well-being. This result could suggest that the well-being of intellectually gifted adults is more closely tied to the quality of their relationships than to the giftedness of their loved ones. Indeed, whether their loved one is gifted or not, what may most promote well-being is being in a relationship where they can subjectively feel that their needs for understanding, mutual respect, and affiliation are being met, as gifted adults themselves stated in the qualitative study of Perrone-McGovern et al. (2011). This hypothesis would also lend support to our findings showing that the level at which they perceived to be supported by their family was weakly positively associated with meaning in life and moderately positively associated with positive affect, life satisfaction and quality of interpersonal connections. From childhood to adulthood, our conclusions thus continue to support the importance of taking concrete actions to foster and maintain supportive relationships to improve the well-being of intellectually gifted individuals.

In terms of personal annual income, our study showed that low levels of income represent a significant risk factor for the development of mental health disorder(s). Indeed, individuals reporting the lowest level of personal annual income (CAN $0- 39,999) were almost twice as likely to present concomitant mental health diagnoses than their richer counterparts. This finding is consistent with the meta-analysis of Pinquart and Sörensen (2000) and the more recent systematic review of Thomson et al. (2022), revealing that, in the general population, high income is a protective factor against the development of mental health disorders, particularly when it enables an individual to lift themselves out of poverty and attain a standard of living deemed comfortable. However, in the intellectually gifted individuals, the effect of very low income on mental health could also be attributed to their specific reality, as low-income intellectually gifted adults could have suffered from tardive identification of their giftedness or insufficient adapted support for their needs. They may also have lacked opportunities to achieve their intellectual potential, which could explain both why they did not attain a high level of socioeconomic status, but also the subsequent development of personal difficulties such as mental health disorders (Ballam, 2009; Hamilton et al., 2018; Hodges et al., 2022). This underscores the critical importance of promptly identifying giftedness in childhood and providing individualized support to gifted children and students, especially those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, to enable them to access opportunities for self-actualization and the realization of one’s intellectual potential into their adult lives.

Turning to the achievement of intellectual potential, our findings revealed that the perceived level of potential achievement may be the strongest protective hedonic and eudemonic well-being factor of our study. Indeed, results showed that it was strongly positively associated with life satisfaction, which is in line with the findings of Siekańska and Sękowski (2006, 2008), who found that life satisfaction was significantly higher among gifted adults who felt that their jobs were congruent with their interests and enabled them to make the most of their high abilities. Achievement of intellectual potential was also strongly positively associated with positive affect, quality of interpersonal connections and meaning in life, as well as moderately to strongly negatively associated with negative affect and crisis of meaning. Since educational level and annual income were not significantly associated with positive well-being indicators, these results appear particularly innovative. Indeed, they may indicate that intellectually gifted adults experience greater hedonic and eudemonic well-being when they subjectively feel that they are achieving their intellectual potential rather than when they objectively achieve it through academia or high-income employment. This hypothesis would be consistent with the qualitative study by Perrone-McGovern et al. (2011), in which gifted adults recommended choosing a career based on intellectual abilities and interests rather than on salary or social expectations. In this vein, the development of gifted individuals would benefit from being directed in a way that allows them, starting from school age, to discover what best allows them to fulfill their potential in a personally meaningful way.

Strengths and Limitations

To our knowledge, the present study seems to be one of the first to have simultaneously empirically explored the roles of multiple individual and environmental determinants on the well-being of intellectually gifted individuals, which can be considered a noteworthy milestone to gain a better understanding of risk and protective factors of well-being inside the gifted population. Moreover, this study was conducted in a relatively large sample of intellectually gifted adults, which contributed to the development of knowledge on this under-researched population (Brown & Peterson, 2022; Brown et al., 2020). As methodological shortcomings, particularly sample biases (i.e., Mensa group biases or academia biases, see Rinn, 2024 and Williams et al., 2023), are frequently evoked in previous studies on intellectually gifted adults (e.g., Williams et al., 2023; Wirthwein & Rost, 2011), our sampling method can be considered as a strength, since participants were asked that their giftedness be identified by professionals who possess the expertise to assess intellectual giftedness, which enhance the reliability of the construct of intellectual giftedness used. Our sampling method may also have allowed the recruitment of a group that was not uniquely impaired or, conversely, uniformly highly functional, since psychological assessment of giftedness can be performed in clinical settings, without being limited to them. Given the challenge of recruiting this highly rare subgroup of the population, the sample size has significantly exceeded the initial aimed sample size to obtain 80% statistical power (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Finally, as suggested by Pollet and Schnell (2017), we included simultaneous hedonic and eudemonic measures of well-being, which represents a strength by helping capture the most nuanced and precise role of the studied determinants.

Several limitations can however be noted. First, this study has limitations regarding its transferability, as the data collected concerns only individuals considered intellectually gifted according to the high IQ paradigm and therefore does not apply to individuals considered gifted according to other paradigm or models (e.g., Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, see Renzulli & Reis, 2018; Star Model, see Tannenbaum, 2003). Beyond the general limitations of cross-sectional and correlational designs, this study could also be limited by a potential self-selection bias, as only a subset of particularly informed, involved or impacted intellectually gifted may have been exposed to social media or organizations about giftedness. This explorative study is also based solely on a self-reported confirmation of intellectual giftedness and self-reported questionnaires, which could be associated with notable biases. First, because the researchers do not know which specific IQ tests were used to identify intellectual giftedness, they cannot ensure that the results from the different assessments are directly comparable or consistent across the sample. Moreover, although carefully examined, self-reported measures could also have led to common method biases or social desirability. Finally, the way we collected the data could have led to a lack of understanding and/or adherence to the eligibility criteria in some participants, which may have resulted in invalid participation in the study and higher risk of invalid responses to questions (i.e., self-classification of diagnosed mental health disorders, twice-exceptionality or highly giftedness). Moreover, despite numerous efforts to recruit a broad and diverse selection of intellectually gifted adults, the sample’s homogeneity in terms of gender identity, cultural groups, educational level, and personal annual income may limit the generalization of the findings, particularly to minority groups or marginalized gifted adults. To promote inclusive research and ensure more valid results, it might have been relevant to target more gifted adults from economically disadvantaged backgrounds or from minority groups, particularly those who identify as other genders or who are not Caucasian. Nonetheless, the combined rareness of each group represents a significant feasibility challenge that must be emphasized. Concerning the sample’s homogeneity, it is also possible to note that twice exceptional and highly gifted individuals are over-represented in our sample. While this can be potentially cause by mistakes in self-classification of these conditions, it could also be explained by the fact that participants were required to have an evaluation by a neuropsychologist or psychologist qualified to assess intellectual potential. This may have led to a selection bias where the people who sought professional assessment were the ones with the most distinctive features in their cognitive functioning, i.e., twice exceptional and highly gifted individuals. This could be more likely considering that resources and contexts for formally identifying giftedness remain underdeveloped in the region of Canada where the study was conducted.¹ Another study conducted in the same area found a similar prevalence (47.9%) of self-reported twice-exceptionality among its sample of 259 parents of gifted children (Brault-Labbé et al., 2024). Thus, this represents a cultural limitation to the generalizability of the study that needs to be considered when results are interpreted.

On another note, the analyses lead to findings based on small effect sizes, which suggests that the results could have a limited practical relevance and should be interpreted carefully, despite our robust statistical controls and high statistical power. The robustness of our analytical controls may also have contributed to reducing the identification of potentially interesting exploratory results, given that the Bonferroni correction has been associated with the risk of type II error (Warne, 2014).

Finally, our study did not include a control group, which appears as a notable limitation. Even if our results clarify what are the risk and protective factors within the intellectually gifted population and give us clearer avenues to understand which gifted individuals might be in specific need of targeted interventions, this prevents us from comparing the role of potential determinants of well-being in gifted adults with the general population. Thus, it is still impossible to determine whether some factors are salient to gifted adults and if so, to what extent. Given the fact that we are trying to gain a better understanding of intellectually gifted adults to foster their unique development, this appears especially important to rectify in the future.

Implications for Further Research

Because this study seems to be the first to explore underlying well-being determinants between different groups of intellectually gifted adults, replication studies with other samples of intellectually gifted are encouraged. To promote a developmental understanding of these underlying determinants, it would notably be interesting to pursue similar objectives in studies with gifted children and adolescent samples, within longitudinal research designs extending into adulthood, to better capture the evolution of well-being in intellectually gifted individuals through time.

Even if our explorative study contributes to a better understanding of individual and environmental determinants involved in promoting the well-being of intellectually gifted, it is fundamental to pursue research by conducting further studies that will enable multiple comparisons, such as comparisons between an intellectually gifted sample and a general population group. For example, multiple comparison studies appear particularly relevant to clarify the innovative finding that twice exceptionality seems to represent a risk factor for mental health disorder(s) in intellectually gifted adults. Indeed, it would be interesting to deepen our comprehension by comparing mental health disorder(s) between twice-exceptional individuals and typically developing neuroatypical and neurotypical individuals. Since neurodevelopmental disorders have been associated with mental health difficulties in the general population (Beaton et al., 2022; Brod et al., 2012; Fuller-Thomson et al., 2022; Wilmshurst et al., 2011), it would be important to further understand how intellectually gifted individuals adapt when compared to them. We may be surprised to discover that intellectual giftedness becomes a protective factor when gifted twice-exceptional individuals are compared to the general population who live with neurodevelopmental disorders or learning disabilities. Studies examining more specifically the links between giftedness and/or twice-exceptionality and different categories of mental health disorder(s) would also be relevant to examine whether certain types of clinical vulnerabilities stand out when subgroups of gifted individuals are compared with each other or with neurotypical and neuroatypical non-gifted individuals. Concerning twice exceptionality, further studies could also be conducted to explore if some exceptionalities are more likely to increase the risk of well-being alterations than others, as our study did not permit to isolate these conditions.

In parallel, because twice exceptionality and low-income minority groups both appear as risk factors for mental health disorder(s) in gifted adults, further research could be initiated on the role of intersectionality in the well-being of intellectually gifted students and adults, as our study suggests that this could be an important avenue of explanation of well-being alterations in our population. It would also be important to further understand the potential links with cultural and gender minorities, as our other gender and culture groups may have been too small to draw robust statistical conclusions.

Finally, to clarify what intellectually gifted individuals do to foster their well-being, it would be interesting to ask them directly by using qualitative study designs. Qualitative studies could clarify the role of subjectively important well-being determinants found in our study (e.g., perceived level of relatives’ support, perceived level of intellectual potential achievement), as well as help the emergence of new well-being determinants that researchers would not otherwise have considered. Notably, this avenue is coherent with the results of a survey presented by Brown et al. (2020), in which international experts in giftedness have highlighted the importance of gifted individuals’ input and conducting research that fosters a better understanding of their lived experiences. In doing so, we may be amazed by the diversity, complexity and richness in the paths found by intellectually gifted adults to live with the “gift” of their giftedness.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by scholarships from the Social Sciences and Humanities and Research Council and from the Fonds de recherche du Québec (FRQ) to the first author.

Open Science Disclosure Statement

The data analyzed in this study are not available for purposes of reproducing the results. The code or protocol used to generate the findings reported in the article are not available for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the study. The following newly created, unique materials used to conduct the research are available upon request for purposes of replicating the procedure: Every home-translated measure can be shared in its translated version. The psychopathology index that has been created for the purpose of the study can also be shared.

Ethics Approval Statement

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Université de Sherbrooke’s Institutional Research Ethics Committee (approval no. 2021-3280) on January 24, 2022.

ORCID iDs

Joanie Poirier

Anne Brault-Labbé

Audrey Brassard

Notes

Author Biographies

Joanie Poirier is a PhD candidate in clinical psychology at the University of Sherbrooke, located in Quebec, Canada. She combines clinical practice and research, employing a relational and intersubjective psychodynamic approach. Her research interests include intellectual giftedness, well-being, existential psychology, and the therapeutic process. She is currently completing her doctoral thesis on the well-being and mental health of intellectually gifted adults. Her work seeks to deepen existing research by shedding light on the risk and protective factors affecting this population, as well as the unique aspects of their subjective experience.

Anne Brault-Labbé, PhD, is a full professor in the Department of psychology at the University of Sherbrooke, located in Quebec, Canada. The concept of psychological well-being has always been part of her research interests. In recent years, the theme of intellectual giftedness has become central to her work. Having received various grants with fellow researchers sharing her interests, Dr. Brault-Labbé contributes not only to the advancement of knowledge in this field, but also to raise awareness and train professionals and educational establishments called upon to support gifted individuals in Quebec, in the service of their well-being. Her primary expertise pertaining to giftedness is the experience of parents of gifted children and adolescents, which has led her to also take an interest in gifted adults, since they are frequently gifted themselves.

Audrey Brassard, PhD, is a Full Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Sherbrooke, located in Quebec, Canada. She earned her PhD in clinical psychology in 2006 from the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, specializing in couple and family psychology. Her research and clinical interests encompass adult attachment, determinants of relationship well-being, intimate partner violence, and sexual difficulties among adults from diverse populations. Dr. Brassard also teaches quantitative methods, expertise that she particularly put to contribution in her numerous collaborations on research with her colleague, Dr. Brault-Labbé, notably in the fields of marital commitment, transition to parenthood and intellectual giftedness.

References

Abdulla Alabbasi

A. M.

Ayoub

A. E.

Ziegler

(2021). Are gifted students more emotionally intelligent than their non-gifted peers? A meta-analysis. High Ability Studies, 32(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1770704

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.).

Anglim

Horwood

Smillie

L. D.

Marrero

R. J.

Wood

J. K.

(2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226

Antonovsky

(1993). The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social Science & Medicine, 36(6), 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90033-Z

Antshel

K. M.

Faraone

S. V.

Maglione

Doyle

Fried

Seidman

Biederman

(2008). Temporal stability of ADHD in the high-IQ population: Results from the MGH Longitudinal family studies of ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(7), 817–825. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318172eecf

Antshel

K. M.

Faraone

S. V.

Maglione

Doyle

Fried

Seidman

Biederman

(2009). Is adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a valid diagnosis in the presence of high IQ? Psychological Medicine, 39(8), 1325–1335. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708004959

Ballam

(2009). Gifted and growing up in a low income family: Mindsets, resilience, and interventions. Teachers and Curriculum, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.15663/tandc.v11i1.41

Barnes

K. L.

(2022). The inherent racism of (gifted) education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 119–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037705

Beaton

D. M.

Sirois

Milne

(2022). The role of self-compassion in the mental health of adults with ADHD. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 78, 2497–2512. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.23354

10.

Beliveau

M.-È.

(2021). Attachement et bien-être chez les célibataires de la population générale: Rôle médiateur de la solitude [Attachment and well-being among single individuals in the general population: The mediating role of loneliness] [Doctoral dissertation, Université de Sherbrooke]. https://savoirs.usherbrooke.ca/handle/11143/18548?show=full

11.

Bell

L. A.

(1990). The gifted woman as imposter. Advanced Development, 2, 55–64.

12.

Bergold

Wirthwein

Rost

D. H.

Steinmayr

(2015). Are gifted adolescents more satisfied with their lives than their non-gifted peers? Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01623

13.

Bergold

Wirthwein

Steinmayr

(2018). Subjective well-being of intellectually gifted children and adolescents. In González-Burgos

(Ed.), Psychobiological, clinical, and educational aspects of giftedness (pp. 143–165). Nova Biomedical Books.

14.

Bergold

Wirthwein

Steinmayr

(2020). Similarities and differences between intellectually gifted and average-ability students in school performance, motivation, and subjective well-being. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220932533

15.

Bernstein

B. O.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2021). Academic acceleration in gifted youth and fruitless concerns regarding psychological well-being: A 35-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 830–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000500

16.

Bianco

Harris

Garrison-Wade

Leech

(2011). Gifted girls: Gender bias in gifted referrals. Roeper Review, 33(3), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.580500

17.

Bishop

J. C.

Rinn

A. N.

(2020). The potential of misdiagnosis of high IQ youth by practicing mental health professionals: A mixed methods study. High Ability Studies, 31(2), 213–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1661223

18.

Blais

M. R.

Vallerand

R. J.

Pelletier

L. G.

Brière

N. M.

(1989). L’échelle de satisfaction de vie: Validation canadienne-française du “Satisfaction with Life Scale.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 21(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079854

19.

Boazman

Sayler

(2011). Personal well-being of gifted students following participation in an early college-entrance program. Roeper Review, 33(2), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.554153

20.

Bouffard

Lapierre

(1997). La mesure du bonheur [Measuring happiness]. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 18(2), 271–310. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-43031-010

21.

Brähler

Mühlan

Albani

Schmidt

(2007). Teststatistische prüfung und normierung der deutschen versionen des EUROHIS-QOL Lebensqualität-index und des WHO-5 Wohlbefindens-index [Testing and standardization of the German version of the EUROHIS-QOL and WHO-5 quality-of life-indices.]. Diagnostica, 53(2), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.53.2.83

22.

Brault-Labbé

Cloutier

Caouette

A. M.

Bolduc

Morin

M. K.

Boudreault

Brassard

(2024). Perceptions comparées de parents d’enfants doués et doublement exceptionnels quant à l’intensité de leurs difficultés parentales au Québec [Compared perceptions of parents of gifted and twice-exceptional children regarding the intensity of their parenting difficulties in Quebec]. Revue de Psychoéducation, 53(2), 297–322.

23.

Brault-Labbé

Comtois

Dupuis-Fortier

Morin

Poirier

Hubert

(in press). La difficile rencontre entre des parents d’enfants doués et leur communauté: une étude qualitative [The difficult encounter between parents of gifted children and their community: A qualitative study]. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée

24.

Brod

Pohlman

Lasser

Hodgkins

(2012). Comparison of the burden of illness for adults with ADHD across seven countries: A qualitative study. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10(47). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-47

25.

Brown

Peterson

(2020). “We are not that!” A focus group study with gifted adults: Direction for future research. Advanced Development: A Journal for Adult Giftedness, 18, 107–127. https://gifteddevelopment.org/gdcstore/p/volume18

26.

Brown

Peterson

(2022). Current approaches to research with gifted adults: Differences known and unknown. Roeper Review, 44(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.2005207

27.

Brown

Peterson

E. R.

Rawlinson

(2020). Research with gifted adults: What international experts think needs to happen to move the field forward. Roeper Review, 42(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2020.1728797

28.

Brown

M. I.

Wai

Chabris

C. F.

(2021). Can you ever be too smart for your own good? Comparing linear and nonlinear effects of cognitive ability on life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1337–1359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964122

29.

Carman

C. A.

(2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12472602

30.

Cash

T. N.

Lin

T.-J.

(2022). Psychological well-being of intellectually and academically gifted students in self-contained and pull-out gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(3), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211032987

31.

Casino-García

A. M.

Llopis-Bueno

M. J.

Llinares-Insa

L. I.

(2021). Emotional intelligence profiles and self-esteem/self-concept: An analysis of relationships in gifted students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1006. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031006

32.

Chen

Fan

Cheung

H. Y.

(2018). The subjective well-being of academically gifted students in the Chinese cultural context. School Psychology International, 39(3), 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318773788

33.

Cross

J. R.

Cross

T. L.

(2015). Clinical and mental health issues in counseling the gifted individual. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00192.x

34.

de Kermadec

(2019). La femme surdouée: Double différence, double défi [The gifted woman: Double difference, double challenge]. Albin Michel.

35.

Diener

Emmons

R. A.

Larsen

R. J.

Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

36.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

37.

Dijkstra

Barelds

D. P. H.

Ronner

Nauta

A. P.

(2012). Personality and well-being: Do the intellectually gifted differ from the general population? Advanced Development, 13, 103–118. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/personality-well-being-do-intellectually-gifted/docview/1781543858/se-2

38.

Duplenne

Bourdin

Fernandez

D. N.

Blondelle

Aubry

(2024). Anxiety and depression in gifted individuals: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231208922

39.

Foley-Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

(2015). Counseling considerations for the twice-exceptional client. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(2), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00196.x

40.

Foley-Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

(2020). High ability students with coexisting disabilities: Implications for school psychological practice. Psychology in the Schools, 57(10), 1615–1626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22342

41.

Foley-Nicpon

Kim

J. Y. C.

(2018). Identifying and providing evidence-based services for twice-exceptional students. In: Pfeiffer

(Eds.), Handbook of giftedness in children. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_20

42.

Francis

Hawes

D. J.

Abbott

(2016). Intellectual giftedness and psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Exceptional Children, 82(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779

43.

Fuller-Thomson

Carrique

Macneil

(2022). Flourishing despite attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A population based study of mental well-being. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology, 7, 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41042-022-00062-6

44.

Gagné

(2023). The differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In Gubbins

E. J.

McMillen

K. S.

Renzulli

J. S.

Eckert

R. D.

Little

C. A.

(Eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (2nd ed., pp. 165–192). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003419426-7

45.

Garces-Bacsal

R. M.

Elhoweris

(2022). Decentering whiteness in gifted education: Addressing the needs of the gifted “others” through social justice and culturally responsive pedagogies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 121–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037713

46.

Gauvrit

(2021). Panorama des modèles contemporains du haut potentiel [Overview of contemporary models of giftedness]. In Clobert

Gauvrit

(Eds.), Psychologie du haut potentiel: Comprendre, identifier, accompagner (pp. 47–58). De Boeck supérieur

47.

Gonzalez-Mulé

Carter

K. M.

Mount

M. K.

(2017). Are smarter people happier? Meta-analyses of the relationships between general mental ability and job and life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.003

48.

Gross

M. U. M.

(2018). Highly gifted students. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 429–440). Routledge; Taylor & Francis Group.

49.

Grugan

Hill

Madigan

D. J.

Donachie

T. C.

Olsson

L. F.

Etherson

M. E.

(2021). Perfectionism in academically gifted students: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1631–1673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09597-7

50.

Guay

M.-C.

Authier

É.

Duval

Caron

M.-J.

(2020, November 14). Overrating giftedness: Time to set the record straight. Les rendez-vous de la formation de l’Ordre des psychologues du Québec. https://www.ordrepsy.qc.ca/web/les-rendez-vous-de-la-formation-2020/la-douance-a-outrance-il-est-temps-de-remettre-les-pendules-a-l-heure

51.

Hamilton

McCoach

D. B.

Tutwiler

M. S.

Siegle

Gubbins

E. J.

Callahan

C. M.

Brodersen

A. V.

Mun

R. U.

(2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted dtudents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053

52.

Harder

Vialle

Ziegler

(2014). Conceptions of giftedness and expertise put to the empirical test. High Ability Studies, 25(2), 83–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.968462

53.

Harrison

S. L.

Sajjad

Bramer

W. M.

Ikram

M. A.

Tiemeier

Stephan

B. C. M.

(2015). Exploring strategies to operationalize cognitive reserve: A systematic review of reviews. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 37(3), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2014.1002759

54.

Hébert

T. P.

(2022). Supporting the emotional well-being of twice-exceptional students using literature. In: Piske

F. H. R.

Collins

K. H.

Arnstein

K. B.

(Eds.), Critical issues in servicing twice exceptional students. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10378-0_6

55.

Hodges

Mun

Rinn

(2022). Disentangling inequity in gifted education: The need for nuance in racial/ethnic categories, socioeconomic status, and geography. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 154–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040533

56.

Holahan

C. K.

(1984). The relationship between life goals at thirty and perceptions of goal attainment and life satisfaction at seventy for gifted men and women. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 20(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.2190/EPUV-2GL0-008P-L0C8

57.

Holahan

C. K.

(2021). Achievement across the life span: Perspectives from the Terman Study of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 185–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220934401

58.

Holahan

C. K.

Sears

R. R.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford University Press.

59.

Hollingworth

L. S.

(1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet; origin and development. World Book.

60.

Huta

(2013). Pursuing eudaimonia versus hedonia: Distinctions, similarities, and relationships. In Waterman

A. S.

(Ed.), The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on Eudaimonia (pp. 139–158). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14092-008

61.

Huta

(2017). An overview of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being concepts. In Reinecke

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of media use and well-being: International perspectives on theory and research on positive media effects (pp. 14–33). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

62.

Huta

Ryan

(2010). Pursuing pleasure or virtue: The differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 735–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9171-4

63.

Jones

T. W.

(2013). Equally cursed and blessed: Do gifted and talented children experience poorer mental health and psychological well-being? Educational and Child Psychology, 30(2), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2013.30.2.44

64.

Karpinski

R. I.

Kinase Kolb

A. M.

Tetreault

N. A.

Borowski

T. B.

(2018). High intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities. Intelligence, 66, 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.09.001

65.

Kutner

D. R.

(1999). Blurred brilliance: What AD/HD looks like in gifted adults. Advanced Development, 8, 87–96.

66.

Labouret

(2021). Les enjeux de la définition du haut potentiel entre pratique et théorie [The issues surrounding the definition of giftedness between practice and theory]. In Clobert

Gauvrit

(Eds.), Psychologie du haut potentiel: Comprendre, identifier, accompagner (pp. 37–46). De Boeck supérieur.

67.

Labouret

Francois

(2021). Haut potentiel? Accompagner la demande d’évaluation de l’adulte [High potential? Supporting the adult’s assessment request]. In Clobert

Gauvrit

(Eds.), Psychologie du haut potentiel: Comprendre, identifier, accompagner (pp. 481–502). De Boeck supérieur.

68.

Lancon

Martinelli

Michel

Debals

Auquier

Guedj

Boyer

(2015). Comorbidités psychiatriques et qualité de vie chez les sujets adultes à haut potentiel intellectuel: Relations avec l’estime de soi [Psychiatric comorbidities and quality of life in adults with high intellectual potential: Relationships with self-esteem]. La Presse Médicale, 44(5), e177–e184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2014.11.018

69.

Lipson

S. K.

Raifman

Abelson

Reisner

S. L.

(2019). Gender minority mental health in the U.S.: Results of a national survey on college campuses. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 57(3), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.013

70.

C. O.

S.-F.

Sungur

Lin

C.-H.

(2022). Giftedness, gender identities, and self-acceptance: A retrospective study on LGBTQ+ postsecondary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211029681

71.

Long

D. A.

(2022). Equity, not just equality: How equality of educational outcome policies could help narrow excellence and identification gaps. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037944

72.

Longo

Coyne

Joseph

(2017). The Scales of General Well-Being (SGWB). Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.005

73.

Lovecky

D. V.

(1993). Creative connections: Perspectives on female giftedness. Advanced Development, 5, 117–129.

74.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x

75.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

Kell

H. J.

(2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2217–2232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551371

76.

Mammadov

Ward

T. J.

(2023). Exploring the relations between personality, implicit theories, and subjective well-being among high-ability undergraduate students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221107862

77.

Marleau

(2021). L’évaluation de la douance intellectuelle [The assessment of intellectual giftedness]. Psychologie Québec. https://www.ordrepsy.qc.ca/-/l-%C3%A9valuation-de-la-douance-intellectuelle

78.

Massé

(2000). Gifted education in Quebec: A short past, a few appearances, and almost no future! AGATE (Journal of the Gifted and Talented Education Council of the Alberta Teachers’ Association), 14, 60–71.

79.

Matta

Gritti

E. S.

Lang

(2019). Personality assessment of intellectually gifted adults: A dimensional trait approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 140, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.009

80.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

Jr . (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In Wiggins

J. S.

(Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). Guilford Press.

81.

Milioni

A. L.

Chaim

T. M.

Cavallet

de Oliveira

N. M.

Annes

dos Santos

Louzã

da Silva

M. A.

Migue

C. S.

Serpa

M. H.

Zanetti

M. V.

Busatto

Cunha

P. J.

(2017). High IQ may “Mask” the diagnosis of ADHD by compensating for deficits in executive functions in treatment-naïve adults with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 21(6), 455–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054714554933

82.

Mullet

D. R.

Rinn

A. N.

(2015). Giftedness and ADHD: Identification, misdiagnosis, and dual diagnosis. Roeper Review: A Journal on Gifted Education, 37(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1077910

83.

Neihart

(1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553991

84.

Neihart

(2008). Identifying and providing services to twice-exceptional children. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 165–180). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8

85.

Neihart

Yeo

L. S.

(2018). Psychological issues unique to the gifted student. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

Shaunessy-Dedrick

Foley-Nicpon

(Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 497–510). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-032

86.

Oden

M. H.

(1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow-up of the Terman gifted group. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 77(1), 3–93. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1968-08939-001

87.

Ogurlu

(2020). Are gifted students perfectionistic? A meta-analysis. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220933006

88.

Pereira-Fradin

(2004). La variabilité intra-individuelle chez les enfants à haut potentiel intellectuel [Intra-individual variability in children with high intellectual potential]. Psychologie Française, 49(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2004.07.002

89.

Perrone

K. M.

Perrone

P. A.

Ksiazak

T. M.

Wright

S. L.

Jackson

Z. V.

(2007). Self-perception of gifts and talents among adults in a longitudinal study of academically talented high-school graduates. Roeper Review, 29(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554420

90.

Perrone

K. M.

Webb

L. K.

Wright

S. L.

Jackson

Z. V.

Ksiazak

T. M.

(2006). Relationship of spirituality to work and family roles and life satisfaction among gifted adults. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 28(3), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.17744/mehc.28.3.81a1dlhwelblce0v

91.

Perrone-McGovern

K. M.

Boo

J. N.

Vannatter

(2012). Marital and life satisfaction among gifted adults. Roeper Review, 34(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2012.627552

92.

Perrone-McGovern

K. M.

Ksiazak

T. M.

Wright

S. L.

Vannatter

Hyatt

C. C.

Shepler

Perrone

P. A.

(2011). Major life decisions of gifted adults in relation to overall life satisfaction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(6), 817–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211425101

93.

Perrone-McGovern

K. M.

Simon-Dack

S. L.

Beduna

K. N.

Williams

C. C.

Esche

A. M.

(2015). Emotions, cognitions, and well-being: The role of perfectionism, emotional overexcitability, and emotion regulation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(4), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607326

94.

Persson

R. S.

(2009). Intellectually gifted individuals’ career choices and work satisfaction: A descriptive study. Gifted and Talented International, 24(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2009.11674857

95.

Pinquart

Sörensen

(2000). Influences of socioeconomic status, social network, and competence on subjective well-being in later life: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 15(2), 187–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.15.2.187

96.

Pollet

Schnell

(2017). Brilliant: But what for? Meaning and subjective well-being in the lives of intellectually gifted and academically high-achieving adults. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(5), 1459–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9783-4

97.

Porath

(2013). The gifted personality: What are we searching for and why? Talent Development and Excellence, 5(2), 5–11. https://d-nb.info/1051891523/34

98.

Reis

S. M.

Baum

S. M.

Burke

(2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534976

99.

Reis

S. M.

Hébert

T. P.

(2008). Gender and giftedness. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 271–291). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8_14

100.

Renzulli

J. S.

Reis

S. M.

(2018). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental approach for promoting creative productivity in young people. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

Shaunessy-Dedrick

Foley-Nicpon

(Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 185–199). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-012

101.

Rinn

A. N.

(2021). Social, emotional, and psychosocial development of gifted and talented individuals (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003238058

102.

Rinn

A. N.

(2024). A critique on the current state of research on the social and emotional experiences of gifted individuals and a framework for moving the field forward. Gifted Child Quarterly, 68(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231197780

103.

Rinn

A. N.

Bishop

(2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795

104.

Ryff

C. D.

(1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069

105.

Schnell

(2009). The sources of meaning and meaning in life questionnaire (SoMe): Relations to demographics and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903271074

106.

Schnell

(2021). The psychology of meaning in life. Routledge.

107.

Sears

R. R.

(1977). Sources of life satisfactions of the Terman gifted men. American Psychologist, 32(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.2.119

108.

Sękowski

Siekańska

(2008). National academic award winners over time: Their family situation, education and interpersonal relations. High Ability Studies, 19(2), 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130802504270

109.

Siekańska

Sękowski

(2006). Job satisfaction and temperament structure of gifted people. High Ability Studies, 17(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600947127

110.

Sifuentes-Becerril

D. L.

Castillo-Chávez

L. M.

Hernández-Cortés

(2018). Does giftedness deserve clinical attention? In González-Burgos

(Ed.), Psychobiological, clinical, and educational aspects of giftedness (pp. 119–142). Nova Biomedical.

111.

Silverman

L. K.

(2009). The measurement of giftedness. In Shavinina

L. V.

(Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 947–970). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_48

112.

Smith

D. J.

Anderson

Zammit

Meyer

T. D.

Pell

J. P.

Mackay

(2015). Childhood IQ and risk of bipolar disorder in adulthood: Prospective birth cohort study. BJPsych Open, 1(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjpo.bp.115.000455

113.

Smith

K. N.

Lamb

K. N.

Henson

R. K.

(2020). Making meaning out of MANOVA: The need for multivariate post hoc testing in gifted education research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219890352

114.

Stacey

Wislar

(2023). Physical and mental health disparities at the intersection of sexual and gender Minority statuses: Evidence from population-level Data. Demography, 60(3), 731–760. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-10708592

115.

Stålnacke

Smedler

A.-C.

(2011). Psychosocial experiences and adjustment among adult Swedes with superior general mental ability. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(6), 900–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211424988

116.

Stanek

K. C.

Ones

D. S.

(2023). Meta-analytic relations between personality and cognitive ability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(23), Article e2212794120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2212794120

117.

Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Household income in Canada. https://www160.statcan.gc.ca/prosperity-prosperite/household-income-revenu-menage-fra.htm

118.

Sternberg

R. J.

Kaufman

S. B.

(2018). Theories and conceptions of giftedness. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 29–47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_3

119.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056

120.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.

121.

Tannenbaum

A. J.

(2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). Allyn and Bacon.

122.

Terman

L. M.

(1925). Genetic studies of genius. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford University Press.

123.

Terman

L. M.

Oden

M. H.

(1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group. Stanford University Press.

124.

Terman

L. M.

Oden

M. H.

(1959). Genetic studies of genius. The gifted group at mid-life (Vol. 5). Stanford University Press.

125.

Terrassier

J. C.

(1979). Le syndrome de dyssynchronie [The dyssynchrony syndrome]. Neuropsychiatrie de L’enfance et de L’adolescence, 27(10–11), 445–450. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/530390/

126.

Terrassier

J.-C.

(2009). Les enfants intellectuellement précoces [Intellectually precocious children]. Archives de Pédiatrie, 16(12), 1603–1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcped.2009.07.019

127.

Terriot

(2021). Enfants doublement exceptionnels [Twice-exceptional children]. In Clobert

Gauvrit

(Eds.), Psychologie du haut potentiel: Comprendre, identifier, accompagner. De Boeck supérieur.

128.

Thomson

R. M.

Igelström

Purba

A. K.

Shimonovich

Thomson

McCartney

Reeves

Leyland

Pearce

Katikireddi

S. V.

(2022). How do income changes impact on mental health and wellbeing for working-age adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health, 7(6), e515–e528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00058-5

129.

Vötter

(2019). Crisis of meaning and subjective well-being: The mediating role of resilience and self-control among gifted adults. Behavioral Sciences, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010015

130.

Vötter

Schnell

(2019a). Bringing giftedness to bear: Generativity, meaningfulness, and self-control as resources for a happy life among gifted adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01972

131.

Vötter

Schnell

(2019b). Cross-lagged analyses between life meaning, self-compassion, and subjective well-being among gifted adults. Mindfulness, 10, 1294–1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1078-x

132.

Warne

R. T.

(2014). A primer on multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for behavioral scientists. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(17), 1–10.

133.

Warne

R. T.

(2022). Analyzing disproportionate representation in gifted education: Identification procedures, proximal causes, distal causes, and theoretical causes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 98–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037943

134.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

135.

Webb

J. T.

(2014). Gifted children and adults: Neglected areas of practice. The National Register of Health Service Psychologists, 18–27. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/35540691/gifted-children-and-adults-neglected-areas-of-practice-james-webb

136.

Wikoff

H. D.

Lane

E. M. D.

Beck

M. J.

(2021). “We need to feel safe”: Experiences of gifted LGBTQ+ students and implications for school counselors. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 15(3), 268–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2021.1914277

137.

Williams

C. M.

Peyre

Labouret

Fassaya

Guzmán García

Gauvrit

Ramus

(2023). High intelligence is not associated with a greater propensity for mental health disorders. European Psychiatry, 66(1), Article e3. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.2343

138.

Wilmshurst

Peele

Wilmshurst

(2011). Resilience and well-being in college students with and without a diagnosis of ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 15(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054709347261

139.

Wirthwein

Rost

D. H.

(2011). Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(2), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001

140.

Worrell

F. C.

Dixson

D. D.

(2022). Achieving equity in gifted education: Ideas and issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 79–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211068551

141.

Wraw

Deary

I. J.

Der

Gale

C. R.

(2016). Intelligence in youth and mental health at age 50. Intelligence, 58, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.06.005