The Relationship Between Psychological Symptoms,Creativity,and Loneliness in Gifted Children

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between psychological symptoms, creativity, and loneliness among gifted middle school students and to analyze gender difference in psychological symptoms. The study used a correlational design, consisting of 91 gifted middle school students. The Brief Symptom Inventory, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale, and the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were used as data-collection instruments. The results showed that there was no significant difference between gifted female and male students in the Brief Symptom Inventory total score and subscales except in the depression subscale. In addition, the Brief Symptom Inventory including subscales was significantly and positively correlated with the UCLA Loneliness Scale. There was no significant correlation between the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and the other scales. Loneliness was found to be a significant predictor of psychological symptoms. The results of this study suggest that loneliness is a major factor for the psychological well-being of gifted students.

Keywords

gifted students psychological symptoms creativity loneliness

There has been a growing body of research on social and emotional characteristics of gifted students. Gifted students have different intellectual, social-emotional, and physical development processes than their nongifted counterparts (Clark, 2007). There were different results from various studies examining the psychological state of gifted students regarding various variables (Amini, 2005). Because gifted students have differences compared with their peers, they may face various emotional and social risks (Pfeiffer & Stocking, 2000). Some characteristics of gifted students such as perfectionism, being too sensitive to stressors and conflicts, deep perception, and overexcitability may lead to these risks (Mueller, 2009; Nevitt, 2001; Reis & Renzulli, 2004; Silverman, 1993).

However, there are opposite views about gifted students’ social and emotional problems (Neihart, 1999; Plucker & Callahan, 2008). The first view claims that gifted students experience more social and emotional problems, whereas the others state that gifted students have fewer problems compared with their peers because their giftedness helps adapt to the environment. Studies comparing gifted students with nongifted peers showed that gifted students face more psychological problems (Kroesbergen, Van Hooijdonk, Middel-Lalleman, Reijnders, & Van Viersen, 2016). Some research suggests that gifted students are more likely to show more positive psychosocial and emotional qualities compared with their peers (Bain & Bell, 2004; Bracken & Brown, 2006; Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams, 2008; Litster & Roberts, 2011; Martin, Burns, & Schonlau, 2010; Mueller, 2009; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011).

The results of a study examining the emotional and behavioral adjustment of adolescents showed that the scores of the gifted youngsters on the depression scale were significantly lower than those of nongifted peers (J. Richards, Encel, & Shute, 2003). Similarly, in a meta-analysis study, Martin et al. (2010) demonstrated that gifted children had the same or lower level of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation compared with their counterparts. Also, Parker (1996) investigated psychological adjustment of mathematically gifted students by comparing them with their peers on the Brief Inventory Scale. He pointed out that the scores of gifted adolescents on the subscales of somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility, paranoid ideation, phobic anxiety, and interpersonal sensitivity were significantly lower than those of their peers. A recent meta-analysis about giftedness and psychopathology demonstrated that gifted children had better social-emotional adjustment and lower level of behavioral problems than their counterparts (Francis, Hawes, & Abbott, 2016). These studies, therefore, support the view that gifted students are better than their peers regarding psychological states.

On the other hand, some research findings showed that gifted students had more emotional and social problems than nongifted counterparts (Chan, 2003; Gross, 1993, 1994; Kline & Short, 1991; Metha & McWhirter, 1997; Silverman, 1993). Neihart (1999) stated that these emotional and social problems were mostly faced in adolescence and adulthood periods. In a study conducted in the United States, it was found that there was a dramatic increase in suicide attempts of gifted students, which were an indication that gifted students had more psychological problems, especially in these periods (Hyatt & Cross, 2009). In Turkey, assuming science high school students as gifted, Ciğerci (2006) compared science high school students with other students regarding psychological symptoms in the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Şahin, Durak-Batıgün, & Uğurtaş, 2002). They pointed out that science high school students were more likely to have some psychological sypmtoms such as depression, somatization, obsessive-compulsive disorder, paranoia, and psychosis than nongifted adolescents. Therefore, these studies indicate that gifted students may have more psychological symptoms.

As some studies stated, one of the social-emotional problems can be loneliness among gifted students (Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Özbay & Palanci, 2011). Typically, the disparity between desired and actual social relationships is considered as loneliness (Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). Loneliness is viewed as a risk factor for the physiological and health state (Cacioppo, Hawkley, & Thisted, 2010). Boland and Gross (2007) said that the differences between the interests of gifted and nongifted students and the lack of communication skills of gifted students restrict the interaction of gifted students with their nongifted peers. This situation, therefore, can lead to the social isolation of gifted students (Osbom, 1996). Also, Torrance (1970) stated that loneliness is a significant problem for highly creative gifted students. On the other hand, close relationships and friendships are important for gifted students (Silverman, 1993; Strip, Swassing, & Kidder, 1991). Woitaszewski and Aalsma (2004) noted that their cognitive skills of gifted students help them obtain successful peer relationships.

In addition to studies that supported the two opposite views, some studies found that gifted students did not differ from their peers in terms of adjustment and psychological symptoms such as well-being, stress, depression, and suicide (Bain & Bell, 2004; Baker, 1995, 1996; Bartell & Reynolds, 1986; Cross, Cassady, & Miller, 2006; Lopez & Sotillo, 2009; Shechtman & Silektor, 2012; Turakitwanakan, Saiyudthong, Srisurapanon, & Anurutwong, 2010). Mash and Barkley (1996) stated that there was no relationship between higher intelligence and depression. In Turkey, Kanli (2011) indicated that there was no significant difference between gifted and nongifted students’ depression and anxiety levels among students in Grades 5 to 7. These contradictory results about the gifted student’s psychological well-being may be because of the fact that studies have taken into account different conceptualizations, and identification procedures of giftedness and well-being are influenced by different contexts and cultures.

When examining these adverse effects of giftedness on social and emotional life, Sak (2010) emphasized the importance of an environment or conditions that gifted students need and whether these conditions are provided or not. In addition, some researchers have noted that gifted children faced some problems such as anxiety, depression, and eating disorders when their particular needs were not met or appropriate support was not provided to them (e.g., Fonseca, 2011). Therefore, gifted children should need support to actualize their potential (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Reis & Renzulli, 2010; Subotnik & Rickoff, 2010; VanTassel-Baska, Bracken, Feng, & Brown, 2009).

Psychological symptoms also were investigated according to gender, and some studies stated that there was no significant difference between gifted girls and boys regarding experiencing psychological symptoms (Cross et al., 2008; J. Richards et al., 2003). Amini (2005), on the other hand, found that gifted boys experienced more frustration than gifted girls. However, gifted girls’ reactions were more emotional regarding the responses to stressors. Zeidner and Schleyer (1999) concluded that anxiety levels of gifted girls were significantly higher than that of boys. In the general population, Kapikirani (2001) obtained similar results in the study examining the psychological symptoms of adolescents that girls had more apparent psychological symptoms regarding obsessive-compulsive disorders, depression, paranoid ideas, and sleeping and eating disorders, common somatic problems. In contrast, Aydin and Konyalioğlu (2011) found that girls and boys had similar psychological symptoms. Similarly, conflicting results also exist regarding gender in the gifted population.

Neihart (2012) also argued that gifted children did not differentiate from their peers regarding mental disorders; yet she stressed an important point that it might not be the case for creatively gifted children. Creativity is one of the main topics in gifted education. For instance, Dai, Swanson, and Cheng (2011) found that creativity/creatively gifted was one of the most frequently researched topics in 1,234 studies during 1998–2010. In addition, some researchers claimed that creativity should be taken into account in the assessment of giftedness (Renzulli, 1978; Sternberg & Lubart, 1993).

Neihart and Olenchak (2002) remarked that there was an increased risk for creatively gifted students regarding depression and suicide. Similarly, some researchers claimed that there was a relation between high creative ability and emotional problems (Neihart, 1999; Piirto, 2004). Moreover, various studies showed that personality and mood disorder levels of creatively gifted artists and writers were high (Andreasen, 1987; Claridge, 1998; Doyle, 1998; Ludwig, 1994; Neihart, 1998; Post, 1994; R. Richards, 1994). Post (1994) found that more than half of the participants had some personality disorder traits and mental illnesses in his study with 291 prominent and creative men. Some researchers have shown a link between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and creativity (Kinney et al., 2001; Kyaga et al., 2011; Santosa et al., 2007; Simeonova, Chang, Strong, & Ketter, 2005; Tremblay, Grosskopf, & Yang, 2010). Moreover, Mahon, Yarcheski, and Yarcheski (1996) found a negative correlation between loneliness and creativity scores of adolescents. Also, Koçak and İçmenoğlu (2012) found a strong negative correlation between creativity level and life satisfaction in their study conducted with 225 students in a science high school who were assumed as gifted by the researchers. In another study, Chan (2002) revealed a positive correlation between creativity and suicidal ideas, whereas there was a negative correlation between sleep problems among gifted students aged 12 to 15 years by using divergent thinking as an indicator. Kroesbergen et al. (2016) pointed out that highly creative gifted children were subject to lower feelings of well-being than those who have less creativity among first- and second-grade gifted children. Similarly, Tamannaeifar and Motaghedifard (2014) studied subjective well-being and creativity among the general population and found a positive link between creativity and psychological and social well-being but a negative relationship with emotional well-being. On the other hand, Gallucci, Middleton, and Kline (1999) administered the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) to gifted students and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) to gifted students’ parents to identify their child psychopathology. They found that the scores of the TTCT were not statistically associated with the score of CBCL. Regarding loneliness and creativity, some research claimed that loneliness was positively linked to creativity (Lim & Smith, 2008; Tick, 1988), while others suggested a negative link between them in the general population (Besse, 2012; Mahon, Yarcheski, & Yarcheski, 1999; Mahon et al., 1996).

As a result, new studies with different samples may be useful to reveal the existing situation more explicitly due to these conflicting results in the literature. It is hoped that this study will provide information in a way that will shed light on gifted students’ psychological issues, and be helpful in counseling and interventions that are necessary for them to cope with these issues. Thus, this study was conducted to examine the relationship between psychological symptoms, creativity, and loneliness of gifted middle school students. The research questions were determined as follows:

Research Question 1: Do psychological symptoms differ according to gender in gifted adolescents?

Research Question 2: Is there a significant relationship between psychological symptoms, creativity, and loneliness in gifted adolescents?

Research Question 3: What is the predictive power of loneliness and creativity on psychological symptoms?

Method

Participants

This research was based on a correlational study that is examining the relationship between two or more variables without interfering with these variables (Büyüköztürk, Kılıç Çakmak, Akgün, Karadeniz, & Demirel, 2011). The convenient sampling method was used in determining the sample of this research. Convenient sampling is a method that involves gathering responses from people who are easily available for the researcher (Kothari, 2004). McMillan and Schumacher (2006) stated the findings are useful, although generalizability of the findings is limited in convenience sampling. The results cannot be used to generalize but to better understand relationships that may exist (McMillan, 2012). The researchers selected the sample because it was easy to reach. In other words, two of the researchers were working in that afterschool enrichment program. The sample consisted of 91 gifted middle school students in Grades 5 to 8 who participated in an afterschool enrichment program in Istanbul, Turkey. This center provides afterschool services for gifted primary and middle school students. To be admitted to the center, the following steps are in place: First, a student should be nominated by the teachers via an online nomination checklist on the center’s website. Second, after being nominated by their teachers, students are required to pass a threshold score in a group intelligence test. Third, after the group intelligence test, students should achieve a score of 130 or more from an individual intelligence test. Fourth, if a student’s test score is between 120 and 130, the center conducted a creativity test, and students should score 70% or more on creativity for admission. Therefore, one of the admission criteria for the center is 120 (or more) IQ score. The center asked no tuition fee from the students. Of 91 gifted adolescents—33 (36.3%) females, 58 (63.7%) males; 37 (40.6%) fifth-grade students, 24 (26.4%) sixth-grade students, 23 (25.3%) seventh-grade students, and seven (7.7%) eighth-grade students—were included in the study.

Data-Collection Instruments

In this study, the psychological evaluation of gifted students was assessed by the BSI, their loneliness level was evaluated with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale, and creativity was measured by the TTCT.

The BSI

Derogatis (1992) developed the BSI, and Şahin and Durak (1994) adapted it to Turkish as a self-report scale for psychopathological evaluations. Although the original form of the scale has nine subscales, after the standardization process, the scale consists of 53 items and has five subscales that are anxiety measured by 13 items, depression measured by 12 items, negative self-image measured by 12 items, somatization measured by nine items, and hostility measured by seven items. Each item can be ranked on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Scores are calculated by summing rankings on items in each subscale. Higher scores indicate the intensity of symptoms that an individual experiences. Cronbach alpha coefficients for the subscales were between .87 and .75. Also, subscales of BSI had the significant correlations with other measurements such as Social Comparison Scale, Submissiveness Scale, Stress Audit Scale, UCLA Loneliness Scale, and Beck Depression Inventory (Şahin & Durak, 1994). Şahin et al. (2002) investigated the validity and reliability of the BSI with a sample of 597 adolescents. Factor analyses revealed five factors whose item distribution matched very closely with the previous study on university students. Cronbach alpha coefficients of the subscales ranged between .70 (for depression) and .88 (for somatization). In this study, Cronbach’s Alpha for total score was found as .97.

UCLA Loneliness Scale

The UCLA Loneliness Scale was developed by Russell, Peplau, and Ferguson (1978) using the Likert format to measure the level of loneliness, and it was adapted to Turkish by Demir (1989). The scale consists of 20 items, in which 10 items contain positive statements, and 10 items include negative statements. Each item is ranked as 1 (never) through 4 (frequently). Respondents are asked to rate the frequency of each item containing a statement about a feeling or a thought regarding social relations. Higher scores indicate the upper level of loneliness. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the scale was .96; the test–retest coefficient was .94. In addition, the Loneliness Scale had significant correlations with other instruments: .77 with the Beck Depression Inventory and .82 with the Multiple Depression Inventory (Demir, 1989). In this research, the adapted version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale for adolescents was used. Kaya (2005) analyzed the reliability and validity of the scale for middle school-level students, and as a result, a factor weight of four items (4, 8, 9, and 12) was found under .30 and, therefore, removed from the scale. Factor weight of the remaining 16 items was observed between .40 and .72, and the Cronbach alpha coefficient was .84. Based on the findings, the UCLA Loneliness Scale with 16 items was accepted as a reliable and valid measurement for middle school-level adolescents. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was found as .847.

TTCT

For measuring the creativity as one of the variables of the study, the TTCT, developed by E. Paul Torrance in 1966, was used. It is a paper-based measure and consists of two forms as figural and verbal. These forms are independent of each other and measure different aspects of creativity. In this study, a Figural-A form of TTCT was used. Fluency, originality, elaboration, titles, and closure are the most important aspects of creativity that TTCT measures. In the assessment of the test, the total score is computed by summing up the scores from fluency, originality, elaboration, titles, and closure and the additional scores from criterion-referenced measures. The TTCT, Figural Test Booklet (Torrance, 1972) was used as a scoring guide.

Data Collection and Analysis

The researchers applied to the center to get the permission for data collection. Then, parental consent was obtained by a written form that students were required to take home and return to the center with parent signatures. After receiving the permissions, the researchers conducted the study on a scheduled day in a 45-minute lesson time. Students first received the information about the content and importance of the study. They were told that they could quit the study at any stage during the data-collection procedure. They were free to ask any question if there was something unclear about the scales.

To determine whether the gender variable causes any differences in psychological symptoms, creativity, and loneliness, an independent sample t test was conducted. In addition, the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient was used to assess the relationship between the loneliness, creativity, and psychological symptoms. Based on the correlation, regression analysis was conducted to investigate the predictive power of loneliness and the creativity on psychological symptoms.

Results

In this section, psychological symptoms in terms of gender variable were analyzed. Then, the relationships between psychological symptoms, loneliness, and creativity were examined. Last, the predictive power of loneliness for psychological symptoms was calculated. The effect sizes also were given. The results of descriptive statistics of scales, t test, correlations, and regression analyses are presented in tables. Table 1 indicates the descriptive statistics of the BSI, the UCLA Loneliness Scale, and the TTCT.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Brief Symptom Inventory, UCLA Loneliness Scale, and TTCT.

Scales	Subscales/Index	N	Min.	Max.	M	SD
UCLA Loneliness Scale		91	16	46	24.29	7.00
TTCT		91	10	99	68.79	26.51
Brief Symptom Inventory	Total	91	53	147	79.48	22.58
	Anxiety	91	13	40	19.14	6.13
	Depression	91	12	34	18.26	6.02
	Somatization	91	9	31	13.05	4.26
	Hostility	91	7	21	11.60	3.37
	Negative Self-Image	91	12	37	17.42	5.44

Note. UCLA = University of California, Los Angeles; TTCT = Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.

As Table 1 shows, the mean score of the UCLA Loneliness Scale was 24.29 ± 7.00, and the average of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking was 68.79 ± 26.51. When the BSI was examined, the mean total score was 79.48 ± 22.58. Whether the BSI and its subscales differ according to the gender variable was the research question, and so t test results are given in Table 2.

Table 2.

t Test Results of the Brief Symptom Inventory Based on Gender Variable.

Subscales	Gender	N	M	SD	S.Err.Mean	t	p
Total	Female	33	81.48	19.67	3.43	.639	.527
Total	Male	58	78.34	24.16	3.17
Anxiety	Female	33	19.24	5.35	0.93	.116	.908
Anxiety	Male	58	19.09	6.58	0.86
Depression	Female	33	20.12	6.14	1.07	2.270	.026*
Depression	Male	58	17.21	5.74	0.75
Somatization	Female	33	13.45	4.18	0.73	.673	.502
Somatization	Male	58	12.83	4.32	0.57
Hostility	Female	33	11.42	3.07	0.54	−.383	.702
Hostility	Male	58	11.71	3.54	0.47
Negative Self-Image	Female	33	17.24	4.64	0.81	−.246	.806
Negative Self-Image	Male	58	17.52	5.88	0.77

p < .05.

Table 2 shows that there was no significant difference between gifted female and male students in the BSI total score and its subscales (p > .05) except in depression subscale. It is seen that gifted female and male students significantly differed in the depression subscale on the .05 level in favor of the females (Cohen’s d = 0.48 referring to medium effect size; Cohen, 1988). Another research question was to investigate the correlation between these scales. Table 3 shows the correlation results between the BSI, the UCLA Loneliness Scale, and the TTCT.

Table 3.

Correlation Analysis of the Brief Symptom Inventory, UCLA Loneliness Scale, and TTCT.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Anxiety	—
2. Depression	.84**	—
3. Somatization	.75**	.72**	—
4. Hostility	.68**	.72**	.60**	—
5. Negative Self-Image	.82**	.82**	.66**	.68**	—
6. Total (BSI)	.94**	.94**	.83**	.80**	.91**	—
7. UCLA Loneliness Scale	.45**	.61**	.45**	.40**	.51**	.55**	—
8. TTCT	.08	.09	.11	.08	.06	.09	.07	—

Note. n = 91. BSI= Brief Symtom Inventory; UCLA = University of California, Los Angeles; TTCT = Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.

p < .01.

As indicated in Table 3, the BSI including subscales was significantly correlated with the UCLA Loneliness Scale on the .01 level. All subscales including anxiety (r = .45), depression (r = .61), somatization (r = .45), hostility (r = .40), negative-self-image (r = .51), and the total score (r = .55) were positively correlated with the UCLA Loneliness Scale. However, there was no significant correlation between the TTCT and the BSI total score (r = .09) and the UCLA Loneliness Scale (r = .07). By correlation between the BSI and the UCLA Loneliness Scale, regression analysis was tested to investigate the predictive power of the UCLA Loneliness Scale on the BSI, and Table 4 shows the results.

Table 4.

Results of Regression Analysis Regarding the Predictive Power of UCLA Loneliness Scale on the Brief Symptom Inventory Scale.

Predictor	R ²	F	df	Variables	b	t
UCLA Loneliness Scale	.202	22.490	90	Anxiety	.449	4.742***
	.374	53.280	90	Depression	.612	7.299***
	.204	22.766	90	Somatization	.451	4.771***
	.162	17.218	90	Hostility	.403	4.149***
	.259	31.179	90	Negative Self-Image	.509	5.584***
	.306	39.209	90	Total	.553	6.262***

Note. UCLA = University of California, Los Angeles.

***

p < .001.

Table 4 indicates that the UCLA Loneliness Scale was a significant predictor of the BSI including subscales (p < .001). In regression analysis, R² is accepted as an effect size (Snyder & Lawson, 1993). According to Cohen (1988), R ² = 0.31 was a big effect size. The UCLA Loneliness Scale accounted for 20% of variance in the anxiety subscale, 37% of variance in the depression subscale, 20% of variance in the somatization subscale, 16% of variance in the hostility subscale, 26% of variance in the negative self-image subscale, and 31% of variance in the total score of the BSI.

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship between psychological symptoms, creativity, and loneliness among gifted students. Also, gender differences were examined in terms of psychological symptoms. In this study, there was no significant difference between female and male gifted students in the BSI total score and subscales except in the depression subscale. Gifted female students had significantly more the depression subscale scores than gifted male students. Similarly, Sands and Howard-Hamilton (1995) found that gifted girls more frequently reported the anxiety, frustration, and worry that were closely related to depression than gifted boys. In addition, in the general population, women are twice or thrice as likely to experience depression as males over 13 years old (Taşğın & Çuhadaroğlu, 2006). One of the accounts of these results might be that the conflict between traditional conceptions of femininity and their inner urge may increase gifted females’ depression levels. In addition, some genetic factors may increase the vulnerability to depression in females (Kendler, Gardner, Neale, & Prescott, 2001). As previously noted, there is a considerable literature on gender differences in other psychological symptoms among the general population, but this study found no significant gender difference among gifted adolescents in the BSI total score and its four subscales, which were anxiety, negative self-image, somatization, and hostility. In line with this finding, Parker (1996) found that gender was not associated with adjustment scores by using the BSI among mathematically gifted students. As Parker (1996) noted, gifted female students would stand against social gender roles. So, this situation might eliminate the gender differences of the other psychological symptoms in the gifted population. Another explanation might be that both gifted female and male students in the study used the same educational and emotional opportunities in the center. This particular educational and emotional support may eliminate the gender differences among participants.

Another result of the study was that the BSI including subscales (anxiety, depression, somatization, hostility, the negative self-image) was significantly and positively correlated with the UCLA Loneliness Scale. In other words, as loneliness increases, psychological symptoms also increase among gifted students in the study. Loneliness may make gifted students more vulnerable and increase the risk of having psychological problems. Şahin and Durak (1994) found the correlations between the UCLA Loneliness Scale and the BSI, and all subscales among university students from the general population. In addition, loneliness was a significant predictor of psychological symptoms. Regression analysis in the study indicated that loneliness explained 37% of the variance in the depression subscale. Similarly, previous empirical research pointed out concurrent relations between loneliness and depression. Loneliness in this study accounted for 31% of variance in the total score, 26% of variance in the negative self-image subscale, 20% of variance in the anxiety subscale, 20% of variance in the somatization subscale, and 16% of variance in the hostility subscale. Researchers have shown that lonely people reported a lower life quality, and psychological and physical health levels (Liu & Guo, 2007). Therefore, if a gifted child feels lonely, then it is probable that she or he may also experience psychological problems such as anxiety and depression because of having negative feelings resulting from being lonely just as this research concluded that loneliness played an important role in experiencing psychological problems. While gifted adolescents, who feel alone, are searching for their identity, negative experiences such as rejection or a lack of acceptatance from peers, may build up a negative self-image in this critical development period. Inversely, if one has enough friends to share both his or her negative and positive feelings or to have a good time with, this situation probably will help him or her overcome some difficulties and, therefore, release negative emotions and decrease the level of psychological symptoms. Besides, young adults and adolescents might be more at risk of loneliness (Özdemir & Tuncay, 2008). This risk may have an influence on the study results because the participants were composed of adolescents.

On the other hand, there was no significant correlation between creativity and psychological symptoms and loneliness. Similarly, some researchers claimed that the relationships between psychopathology and creativity were not clear or was weak (Acar & Sen, 2013; Dietrich, 2014; Lauronen et al., 2004). One of the plausible explanations for this result might be that giftedness may be a protective factor for psychological symptoms because Carson (2014) stated that intelligence was a protective element in the association between creativity and psychopathology. Similarly, Gallucci et al. (1999) conducted the TTCT to gifted students and the CBCL to gifted students’ parents in identifying their child psychopathology. They found that scores on the TTCT and CBCL were not statistically correlated. In addition, lower incidence of behavior problems in gifted children (Bartell & Reynolds, 1986; Cornell, Delcourt, Bland, Goldberg, & Oram, 1994; Gallucci, 1988) may affect the result of the study.

An interesting finding of this study was that there was no link between loneliness and creativity. As previously mentioned there were two claims about associations between loneliness and creativity in the general population. While some argued positive relations between two constructs, others asserted negative associations. But this study showed that these two opposite views might not be correct for gifted students. So, giftedness may eliminate the relationship between loneliness and creativity. This result provides a more comprehensive outlook of how these variables may work together.

The study has some limitations in that psychological symptoms and loneliness were assessed using self-reporting methods. This approach may lead to biased responses, as it is probable the participants may answer the questions in a socially desirable way. For the constructs of psychological symptoms, creativity, and loneliness, more detailed and multiple assessments may contribute to the understanding of these constructs in gifted students. For further investigation of the qualitative differences between loneliness, creativity, and psychological symptoms, longitudinal and qualitative research would yield additional information. The generalizability of the results represents another limitation of the study. The present study employed a convenience sample of gifted students who attended a special educational setting for gifted students. Therefore, replication of this study across gifted students who do not have a special support might enable generalization from the research. In addition, larger samples, including different regions would contribute to the generalization of the results. Future research of subgroups of gifted children such as twice-exceptional and highly gifted students may provide a deeper understanding of the psychological symptoms of gifted adolescents.

The results of the study indicate that loneliness may play a significant role in the psychological symptoms among gifted students. Therefore, educators of gifted students should consider the effects of loneliness in gifted education. Being aware of this risk, intervention and social programs could be organized to decrease loneliness among gifted students, such as arranging regular psychoeducational programs, focusing more on group works, and carrying out different projects with children who have the same interests. These results have some implications for parents of gifted children as well. Their role in the psychological well-being of their gifted children is undeniable. In addition to being a parent, being an emotional partner would improve the sharing among family members, and therefore, this would decrease the risk of being lonely to some extent. Many programs for gifted students focus on skill development, especially academic skills; their social and emotional well-being may not be developed unless psychological and social support is provided by parents, teachers, or other experts. Psychological counselors who work with gifted students should keep in mind that loneliness can result in some psychological issues. Some people, including peers and teachers, might have some myth about creative gifted students, including their psychological state in schools. The results of this study can be a ground for eliminating these biases in schools and societies. Although there were no gender differences in the psychological symptoms, the scores of gifted females were higher than gifted males. Therefore, guidance and psychological counseling should be provided for gifted female students in early school years.

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 received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Author Biographies

Uzeyir Ogurlu is a visiting professor at Lamar University in Beaumont, TX, USA. He had worked as a guidance counselor in elementary and high schools. He has written some articles about gifted children. His research interests include social and emotional development of gifted children and leadership education of gifted students.

Hatun Sevgi Yalın received her bachelor of science in psychology from the International University of Sarajevo in Bosnia–Herzegovina and her master degree in guidance and psychological counseling at Fatih University in Turkey in 2016. She has worked as a psychologist in a center that gives afterschool education for gifted students since 2013. Currently, she takes part in various academic research about gifted children.

Fazilet Yavuz Birben completed her undergraduate education at Istanbul University in 1995 and achieved her master’s degree at Marmara University in 2006 in guidance and psychological counseling. She worked as a consultant and manager in various educational institutions. She also carried the responsibility for project development and execution. Currently, she continues her doctoral studies both at Yildiz Technical University in the education program and instruction department and Marmara University in the guidance and psychological counseling department.

References

Acar

Sen

(2013). A multilevel meta-analysis of the relationship between creativity and schizotypy. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 214–228. doi:10.1037/a0031975

Amini

(2005). Identifying stressors and reactions to stressors in gifted and non-gifted students. International Education Journal, 6, 136–140.

Andreasen

N. C.

(1987). Creativity and mental illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 1288–1292.

Aydin

Konyalioğlu

(2011). 18-21 yaş grubu bireylerin genel zeka düzeyleri ile psikolojik semptom düzeyleri arasındaki ilişki [The relation between general intelligence levels and psychological symptom levels of adolescents]. Türk Üstün Zeka ve Eğitim Dergisi, 1, 77–103.

Bain

S. K.

Bell

S. M.

(2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 167–178. doi:10.1177/001698620404800302

Baker

J. A.

(1995). Depression and suicidal ideation among academically talented adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 218–223.

Baker

J. A.

(1996). Everyday stressors of academically gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 356–368.

Bartell

N. P.

Reynolds

W. M.

(1986). Depression and self-esteem in academically gifted and nongifted children: A comparison study. The Journal of School Psychology, 24, 55–61.

Besse

R. D.

(2012). Views of loneliness & creativity: The relationship between loneliness & health-related quality of life (Unpublished master’s thesis). Texas State University, San Marcos.

10.

Boland

C. M.

Gross

M. U. M.

(2007). Counseling highly gifted children and adolescents. In Mendaglio

Peterson

J. S.

(Eds.), Models of counseling gifted children, adolescents, and young adults (pp. 153–197). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

11.

Bracken

B. A.

Brown

E. F.

(2006). Behavioral identification and assessment of gifted and talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 112–122.

12.

Büyüköztürk

Ş.

Kılıç Çakmak

Akgün

Ö. E.

Karadeniz

Ş.

Demirel

. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods] (15. baskı). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.

13.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Hawkley

L. C.

Thisted

(2010). Perceived social isolation makes me sad: 5-year cross-lagged analyses of loneliness and depressive symptomatology in the Chicago health, aging, and social relations study. Psychology and Aging, 25, 453–463.

14.

Carson

S. H.

(2014). Cognitive disinhibition, creativity, and psychopathology. In Simonton

D. K.

(Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 198–221). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

15.

Chan

D. W.

(2002). Giftedness, adjustment problems, and psychological distress among Chinese secondary students in Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 6–24.

16.

Chan

D. W.

(2003). Assessing adjustment problems of gifted students in Hong Kong: The development of the Student Adjustment Problems Inventory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 107–118.

17.

Cheng

Furnham

(2002). Personality, peer relations, and self-confidence as predictors of happiness and loneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 327–339.

18.

Ciğerci

C. Z.

(2006). Üstün yetenekli olan ve olmayan ergenlerde benlik saygısı, başkalarının algılaması ve psikolojik belirtiler arasındaki ilişkiler [Relationships between self-esteem, perception of others and psychological symptoms in gifted and non-gifted adolescents] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Sakarya Üniversitesi, Turkey.

19.

Claridge

(1998). Creativity and madness: Clues from modern psychiatric diagnosis. In Steptoe

(Ed.), Genius and the mind: Studies of creativity and temperament (pp. 227–250). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

20.

Clark

(2007). Growing up gifted (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

21.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

Cornell

D. G.

Delcourt

M. A. B.

Bland

L. C.

Goldberg

M. D.

Oram

(1994). Low incidence of behavior problems among elementary school students in gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 4–19.

23.

Cross

T. L.

Cassady

J. C.

Dixon

F. A.

Adams

C. M.

(2008). The psychology of gifted adolescents as measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 326–339. doi:10.1177/0016986208321810

24.

Cross

T. L.

Cassady

J. C.

Miller

K. A.

(2006). Suicide ideation and personality characteristics among gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 295–357.

25.

Dai

D. Y.

Swanson

J. A.

Cheng

(2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998–2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126–138.

26.

Demir

(1989). UCLA yalnızlık ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği [Reliability and validity of the UCLA Loneliness Scale]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 7(23), 14–18.

27.

Derogatis

L. R.

(1992). The Brief Symptom Inventory-BSI: Administration, scoring and procedures manual-II. Baltimore, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research.

28.

Dietrich

(2014). The myth conception of the mad genius. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 79. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00079

29.

Doyle

C. L.

(1998). The writer tells: The creative process in the writing of literary fiction. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 29–37.

30.

Fonseca

(2011). Emotional intensity in gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

31.

Francis

Hawes

D. J.

Abbott

(2016). Intellectual giftedness and psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Exceptional Children, 82, 279–302.

32.

Gallucci

N. T.

(1988). Emotional adjustment of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 273–276.

33.

Gallucci

N. T.

Middleton

Kline

(1999). The independence of creative potential and behavior disorders in gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 194–203.

34.

Gross

M. U. M.

(1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London, England: Routledge.

35.

Gross

M. U. M.

(1994). Responding to the social and emotional needs of gifted children. The Australian Journal of Gifted Education, 3(2), 4–10.

36.

Hyatt

L. A.

Cross

T. L.

(2009). Understanding suicidal behavior of gifted students: Theory, factors, and cultural expectations. In Shvinna

L. V.

(Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 537–558). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

37.

Kanli

(2011). Üstün zekâlı ve normal ergenlerin mükemmeliyetçilik, depresyon ve kaygı düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi [Investigating the relationships between perfectionism, depression and anxiety in gifted and normal adolescents]. M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 33, 103–121.

38.

Kapikiran

N. A.

(2001). Lise öğrencilerindeki psikopatolojik belirtilerin cinsiyet ve sınıf değişkenleri açısından incelenmesi [An analysis of psychopathological symptoms of high school students in terms of gender and grades variables]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10, 34–39.

39.

Kaya

(2005). Farkli sosyometrik statülerdeki ilköğretim II. kademe öğrencilerinin benlik kavramı ve yalnızlık düzeyleri [The levels of self-concept, and loneliness of secondary school students in various sociometric status]. Türk Psikolojik Damsma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(23), 7–19.

40.

Kendler

K. S.

Gardner

C. O.

Neale

M. C.

Prescott

C. A.

(2001). Genetic risk factors for major depression in men and women: Similar or different heritabilities and same or partly distinct genes? Psychological Medicine, 31, 605–616.

41.

Kinney

D. K.

Richards

Lowing

P. A.

LeBlanc

Zimbalist

M. E.

Harlan

(2001). Creativity in offspring of schizophrenic and control parents: An adoption study. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 17–25.

42.

Kline

B. E.

Short

E. B.

(1991). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescent boys. Roeper Review, 13, 184–187.

43.

Koçak

İçmenoğlu

(2012). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin duygusal zekâ ve yaratıcılık düzeylerinin yaşam doyumlarını yordayıcı rolü [Emotional intelligence and creativity as predictors of life satisfaction among gifted students]. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(37), 73–85.

44.

Kothari

C. R.

(2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Delhi, India: New Age International.

45.

Kroesbergen

E. H.

Van Hooijdonk

Middel-Lalleman

M. M. N.

Reijnders

J. J. W.

Van Viersen

(2016). The psychological well-being of early identified gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 16–30.

46.

Kyaga

Lichtenstein

Boman

Hultman

Langstrom

Landen

(2011). Creativity and mental disorder: Family study of 300,000 people with severe mental disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199, 373–379. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.085316

47.

Lauronen

Veijola

Isohanni

Jones

P. B.

Nieminen

Isohanni

(2004). Links between creativity and mental disorder. Psychiatry, 67, 81–98. doi:10.1521/psyc.67.1.81.31245

48.

Lim

Smith

(2008). The structural relationships of parenting style, creative personality, and loneliness. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 412-419.

49.

Litster

Roberts

(2011). The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and non-gifted students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11, 130–140. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01166.x

50.

Liu

Guo

(2007). Loneliness and health-related quality of life for the empty nest elderly in the rural area of a mountainous county in China. Quality of Life Research, 16, 1275–1280.

51.

Lopez

Sotillo

(2009). Giftedness and social adjustment: Evidence supporting the resilience approach in Spanish-speaking children and adolescents. High Ability Studies, 20, 39–53.

52.

Ludwig

A. M.

(1994). Mental illness and creative activity in female writers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 1650–1656.

53.

Mahon

N. E.

Yarcheski

T. J.

(1999). Selected correlates of creativity in young adults. Psychological Reports, 84, 1246–1250.

54.

Mahon

N. E.

Yarcheski

T. J.

Yarcheski

(1996). Loneliness and creativity in adolescents. Psychological Reports, 79, 51–56.

55.

Martin

L. T.

Burns

R. M.

Schonlau

(2010). Mental disorders among gifted and nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 31–41. doi:10.1177/0016986209352684

56.

Mash

E. J.

Barkley

R. A.

(1996). Child psychopathology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

57.

McMillan

J. H.

(2012). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

58.

McMillan

J. H.

Schumacher

(2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

59.

Metha

McWhirter

E. H.

(1997). Suicide ideation, depression, and stressful life events among gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 284–304.

60.

Mueller

C. E.

(2009). Protective factors as barriers to depression in gifted and nongifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 3–14. doi:10.1177/0016986208326552v

61.

Neihart

(1998). Creativity, the arts, and madness. Roeper Review, 21, 47–50.

62.

Neihart

(1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being. Roeper Review, 22, 10–17.

63.

Neihart

(2012). Anxiety, depression, and resilience. In Cross

T. L.

Cross

J. R.

(Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 615–630). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

64.

Neihart

Olenchak

F. R.

(2002). Creatively gifted children. In Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 165–176). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

65.

Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

66.

Nevitt

H. L.

(2001). Socio-emotional guidance and counseling. In Landrum

M. S.

Callahan

C. M.

Shaklee

B. D.

(Eds.), Aiming for excellence: Gifted program standards. Annotations to the NAGC pre-K–grade 12 gifted program standards (pp. 27–37). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

67.

Osbom

(1996). Special education needs of gifted and talented children. Youth Mental Health Update, 8(4), 7–14.

68.

Özbay

Palanci

(2011). Psychosocial characteristics of gifted children and adolescents. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 89–108.

69.

Özdemir

Tuncay

(2008). Correlates of loneliness among university students. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2, Article 29. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-2-29

70.

Parker

W. D.

(1996). Psychological adjustment in mathematically gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 154–157.

71.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Stocking

V. B.

(2000). Vulnerabilities of academically gifted students. Special Services in the Schools, 16, 83–93.

72.

Piirto

(2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

73.

Plucker

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.). (2008). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

74.

Post

(1994). Creativity and psychopathology: A study of 291 world-famous men. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 22–34.

75.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 119–130.

76.

Reis

S. M.

Renzulli

J. S.

(2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Student Differences, 20, 308–317. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012

77.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappa, 60, 180–184.

78.

Richards

Encel

Shute

(2003). The emotional and behavioural adjustment of intellectually gifted adolescents: A multi-dimensional, multi-informant approach. High Ability Studies, 14, 153–164.

79.

Richards

(1994). Creativity and bipolar mood swings: Why the association? In Shaw

M. P.

Runco

M. A.

(Eds.), Creativity and affect (pp. 44–72). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

80.

Russell

Peplau

L. A.

Cutrona

C. E.

(1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480.

81.

Russell

Peplau

L. A.

Ferguson

M. L.

(1978). Developing a measure of loneliness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 290–294.

82.

Şahin

N. H.

Durak

(1994). Kisa Semptom Envanteri: Türk gençleri için uyarlanması [A study of the Brief Symptom Inventory in Turkish Youth]. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 9(31), 44–56.

83.

Şahin

N. H.

Durak-Batıgün

Uğurtaş

(2002). Kısa semptom envanteri (KSE): Ergenler için kullanımının geçerlik, güvenilirlik ve faktör yapısı [The validity, reliability and factor structure of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI)]. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, 13, 125–135.

84.

Sak

(2010). Üstün zekâlılar: Özellikleri tanılanmaları eğitimleri [The gifted: Characteristics, identification and their education] Ankara, Turkey: Maya Akademi Yayınevi.

85.

Sands

Howard-Hamilton

(1995). Understanding depression among gifted adolescent females: Feminist therapy strategies. Roeper Review, 17, 192–201.

86.

Santosa

C. M.

Strong

C. M.

Nowakowska

Wang

P. W.

Rennicke

C. M.

Ketter

T. A.

(2007). Enhanced creativity in bipolar disorder patients: A controlled study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 100, 31–39.

87.

Shechtman

Silektor

(2012). Social competencies and difficulties of gifted children compared to nongifted peers. Roeper Review, 34, 63–72. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.627555

88.

Silverman

L. K.

(1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver, CO: Love.

89.

Simeonova

D. I.

Chang

K. D.

Strong

Ketter

T. A.

(2005). Creativity in familial bipolar disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 39, 623–631.

90.

Snyder

P. A.

Lawson

(1993). Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size estimates. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 331–349.

91.

Sternberg

R. J.

Lubart

T. I.

(1993). Creative giftedness: A multivariate investment approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 7–15.

92.

Strip

Swassing

Kidder

(1991). Female adolescents counseling female adolescents: A first step in emotional crisis intervention. Roeper Review, 13, 124–128.

93.

Subotnik

R. F.

Rickoff

(2010). Should eminence based on outstanding innovation be the goal of gifted education and talent development? Implications for policy and research. Learning and Student Differences, 20, 358–364. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.12.005

94.

Tamannaeifar

M. R.

Motaghedifard

(2014). Subjective well-being and its sub-scales among students: The study of role of creativity and self-efficacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 12, 37–42.

95.

Taşğın

E. Ç.

Çuhadaroğlu

(2006). Ergenlerde majör depresyon; risk etkenleri, koruyucu etkenler ve dayanıklılık [Major depression in adolescents; risk factors, protective factors and endurance]. Çocuk ve Gençler Ruh Sağlığı Dergisi, 13, 87–94.

96.

Tick

(1988). Creativity and loneliness. The Psychotherapy Patient, 4, 131-137.

97.

Torrance

E. P.

(1970). Dyadic interaction as a facilitator of gifted performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 14, 139–143.

98.

Torrance

E. P.

(1972). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Directions manual and scoring guide, figural test, booklet A. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.

99.

Tremblay

C. H.

Grosskopf

Yang

(2010). Brainstorm: Occupational choice, bipolar illness and creativity. Economics & Human Biology, 8, 233–241.

100.

Turakitwanakan

Saiyudthong

Srisurapanon

Anurutwong

(2010). The comparative study of depression between gifted children and normal children. Journal of Medical Association Thailand, 93, 9–14.

101.

VanTassel-Baska

Bracken

Feng

Brown

(2009). A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in Title I classrooms. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 7–37.

102.

Woitaszewski

S. A.

Aalsma

M. C.

(2004). The contribution of emotional intelligence to the social and academic success of gifted adolescents as measured by the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale–Adolescent Version. Roeper Review, 27, 25–30.

103.

Zeidner

Schleyer

E. S.

(1999). Test anxiety in intellectually gifted school students. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 12, 163–189.

104.

Zeidner

Shani-Zinovich

(2011). Do academically gifted and nongifted students differ on the Big-Five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions. Personality and Student Differences, 51, 566–570.