Abstract
Dąbrowski’s theory of positive disintegration has been associated with the psychology of giftedness for four decades, and Sal Mendaglio has significantly contributed to the thoughtful understanding of the theory throughout those 40 years. In this interview, Mendaglio discusses the relationship between the theory of positive disintegration and the psychology of giftedness. Mendaglio addresses potential misunderstanding of the theory as well as the concept of overexcitabilities. He clarifies that Dąbrowski’s theory is not a theory of giftedness; however, the theory as well as Dąbrowski’s concept of intelligence contributed to Mendaglio’s understanding of the psychology of giftedness. Mendaglio cautions against the oversimplification of overexcitabilities and the tools with which the construct has been measured.
Salvatore “Sal” Mendaglio is Professor of Education in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. He also serves as Chair of Educational Studies in Counseling Psychology and the Graduate Program Director for the Educational Psychology Program. His primary area of research and scholarship is the psychology of giftedness and the theory of positive disintegration, with special emphasis on counseling gifted individuals. Born in Italy, Dr. Mendaglio spent his youth in Canada. He earned his PhD in Counseling Psychology at the University of Toronto in 1976. Shortly thereafter, he joined the Counseling Psychology program at University of Calgary and in 1995 began teaching in the School of Education where he currently offers courses in leadership and gifted education. This interview took place in the spring of 2019.
To appreciate my initial interest in the theory of positive disintegration (TPD), you need to know how I was first introduced to it. My introduction to it was the result of necessity—through serendipity I began counseling gifted individuals in a small independent practice. Though I had no academic background in giftedness/gifted education, I received referrals of identified gifted students considered academic underachievers.
Necessity led me to TPD. During the early 1980s, there were virtually no resources in Calgary for education of gifted children and no resources at all for counseling gifted individuals. With no previous background knowledge in giftedness or counseling gifted individuals, I, of course, did what any professional should do—I went searching the literature. I was very disappointed because, in the voluminous literature, there were only a handful of titles that had counseling in the title. To be frank, those resources contained information related to counseling but nothing that I felt could help me direct a counseling process. Ultimately, I discovered TPD through secondary sources, most notably the works of Michael Piechowski and Linda Silverman. Subsequently, I began studying Dąbrowski’s English book made available by my friend and occasional collaborator William Tillier.
My interest in the theory was sparked by Dąbrowski’s privileging emotion over intelligence, in human behavior and development. Prior to encountering TPD, I had developed my own theorizing to guide my counseling with clients. A key element in my emerging theory was the importance of emotion in daily living. I developed a rallying cry: “It’s all about emotion.” Applying it to counseling, I concluded that the actual reason for clients’ seeking counseling and psychotherapy is their inability to handle intense negative emotions, regardless of their presenting problems. As I learned more about TPD from original sources, I found it fascinating how Dąbrowski explained—not simply described—that negative emotions propelled some individuals toward the highest level of human development. Dąbrowski’s theory initially helped me deepen my understanding of my rallying cry. By explaining that negative emotions may lead to higher levels of functioning, Dąbrowski taught me that for some clients the goal of counseling is not to eliminate those emotions but celebrate them as signs of development.
That is a great question. To answer the question, we need to consider existing conceptions of giftedness. As you know, authors have proposed an increasing number of definitions, especially since the 1970s. While there is a lack of consensus on how to define giftedness, I see a few themes evident in these definitions. There are implicit or explicit critiques of Terman’s exclusive focus on intelligence: it is too narrow and conservative resulting in identifying a rather small percentage of a population. Sydney Marland dealt with that by expanding the areas in which giftedness may be manifested and thereby identified. Gagné followed Marland’s multidimensional approach while providing a more detailed and theoretical rationale for his numerous categories of gifts and talents. Renzulli proposed replacing giftedness as trait preferring the notion of gifted behavior in his famous three ring conception. Renzulli’s focus on productivity appears to have influence subsequent conceptions. In recent years, there is a greater focus by proponents such as Sternberg, Subotnik, and others on productivity as the major component of giftedness. Others such as Annemarie Roeper and the Columbus group focus more on such matters as processes of awareness and asynchrony. Despite the diversity of approaches, one constant is apparent: the criterion of high intelligence, at times referred to as cognitive ability. Dąbrowski’s conceptualization of intelligence contributed to my psychology of giftedness.
It must be said that TPD is not a theory of giftedness. The term gifted appears here and in Dąbrowski’s English language books but there is no explicit definition. His approach to giftedness is illustrated in a study he reported. He conducted a comparative study with gifted and developmentally delayed youth to explore certain facets of his theory. He used the Wechsler test of intelligence to select his sample. In effect, Dąbrowski used Terman’s definition of giftedness—a high score on an intelligence test. In his use of gifted in his books, it is clear to me that he is referring to well-above-average intelligence.
If we view giftedness solely in terms of intelligence (as I do), then, TPD has a great deal to offer to the psychology of giftedness. One implication is that giftedness is neutral in nature: intelligence may be used for positive or negative ends. Intelligence, in and of itself, is subordinate to emotion. A high level of intelligence is no guarantee of developing a highly functioning human being. Dąbrowski stated that well above average intelligence is necessary but not enough for moral development. A high level of intelligence coupled with Dąbrowskian developmental potential creates internal conflict that is the essence of positive disintegration—the process of development—to occur. A high level of intelligence—giftedness—in such circumstances provides the keen awareness of self and the world that creates negative emotions (disintegrating dynamisms) that are driving forces of development.
Giftedness can also be used for self-serving, narcissistic, and outright evil purposes. Dąbrowski noted that high intelligence with limited developmental potential with high ambition leads to very dangerous uses of intelligence. He illustrated this by describing well-known historical figures who committed heinous acts on humanity. Criminal behavior and bullying are other less extreme examples of how high intelligence can be manifested.
The TPD perspective on intelligence convinced me to view giftedness as neutral in nature. This contrasts with the positive bias in most current conceptions of giftedness.
For those interested in applying TPD, it is essential to understand what it is not and what it is. TPD is not a theory of giftedness. TPD is not a theory of overexcitability (OE). Not all TPD concepts are applicable to all gifted individuals. TPD is Dąbrowski’s explanation of the full range of human functioning from the worst to the best of humanity. TPD is a theory that emphasizes biological bases of human functioning, which some find problematic. It uses terms (e.g., disintegration, development, personality) idiosyncratically, differing significantly from their general psychological usage. TPD is a theory containing assumptions, propositions, and constructs, tightly knitted together such that it is challenging to consider a construct in isolation.
Regarding its application, Dąbrowski advises that TPD should not be used to justify or condone disruptive behavior. In my experience, the challenge for teachers and parents of all children is responding to their emotion expressions. Not all expressions are of equal value! Children and adolescents are known to use emotions to manipulate adults. A young child’s crying when reminded that it is bedtime is an example of attempt to derail parents and allow the child to stay up longer. Using emotions to manipulate occurs in various forms, some subtle, some aggressive. Clearly this is the type of emotion expression that adults should discourage.
Children and adolescents possessing all forms of OE tend not to behave in manipulative, aggressive ways. They tend to present more emotional expressions than other children. Presence of OEs manifests in children’s expressions of concern for other, social withdrawal, awareness of global issues, altruistic behaviors, intellectual curiosity, and asking probing questions. Dąbrowski stated that OE may be manifested young children, such as 2 or 3 years of age.
Whenever adults interpret emotion expression in all children and adolescents, my advice is to ignore it and avoid being distracted from the task at hand. On the contrary, when emotions are the result of altruism or genuine questioning, adults should encourage youth to express them in an accepting atmosphere. Naturally, the context is important, for example, teachers or parents cannot be expected to drop everything and attend to children’s emotion. Adults should invite children to discuss their experiences at a more opportune time.
I think that most parents and educators know how to appropriately respond to children’s emotions. To my mind, what is more important for educators and others is to avoid misuse TPD. A situation that I have witnessed is teachers and parents familiar with OE excusing disruptive behavior: “It’s just the manifestation of OEs.”
I see no difference among those three groups in terms of how they perceive overexcitabilities. There tends to be confusion regarding the nature of Dąbrowski’s OEs. It is a property of the central nervous system that is not a universal endowment. OE is not learned, it is the product of heredity—some people have no OE, others have some, and few have all five forms (psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional). Bearing in mind that giftedness is equated with high intelligence, giftedness is not synonymous with inheritance of all forms of OE.
Furthermore, the possession of all five forms is essential for advanced development by contributing to inner conflict. The interaction of the lower forms (psychomotor, sensual) and the higher forms (imaginational, intellectual, emotional) and the social environment is responsible for inner conflict.
Teachers, parents, and researchers tend to assume that all gifted individuals possess all forms of OE and that OE is generally positive. Giftedness, as high intelligence, is not synonymous with possession of OE. While high intelligence is a prerequisite for OE, it is not a guarantee. Some gifted individuals may possess no form, some forms, or all forms. Of course, if one were to define giftedness using Dąbrowski’s OE, then all gifted individuals would possess all forms of OE.
As I noted earlier, the possession of all forms of OE results in inner conflict. This means that such individuals are prone to experience existential anxiety, depression, and guilt. Such negative emotions arise as they become aware of the discrepancy between the way the world is and the way it ought to be—between the ideal and real.
Parents, typically, do not concern themselves with scholarly research; they are likely most affected by opinions of authors and practitioners. Overexcitabilities are likely the most accessible TPD construct. Unlike positive disintegration, dynamism, and inner conflict, OEs have a positive flavor to them. Rarely are parents presented with the full TPD picture of OEs. Parents observe boundless energy (psychomotor), enjoyment of certain foods (sensual), children’s imaginary playmates (imagination), asking questions (intellectual), or emotional expressions (emotional). OEs may be also used to explain negative behaviors—attributing the cause to OEs no other reasons (e.g., egocentrism, impulsivity, poor parenting). Parents can’t be blamed for not reading research findings, when experts provide readily accessible information in books or websites.
On the contrary, researchers have a different agenda—they need to scrutinize construct and theories examining them in dispassionate ways. I think that some—not all—researchers are skeptical. This is evidenced by a growing number of researchers globally (from Denver to Hong Kong) who investigate the relationship between giftedness and OE.
I am not concerned about researchers’ remaining skeptical of the existence of OE. That is their prerogative. Dąbrowski’s TPD is simply a theory after all. In my view, it is a theory akin to the theories of Freud, H.S. Sullivan, and Rogers. Psychoanalysis, interpersonal theory of psychiatry, and self-theory were created by clinicians who were astute observers, producing theories, manifesting their creativity. Similarly, Dąbrowski created a theory based on his interpretation of observations he made in life and in clinics. I would be concerned when skepticism is based on limited knowledge of TPD.
If skepticism of OE is based on published research, I fully understand. I have written a couple of articles critiquing the approach to research on OE and giftedness. Current questionnaires, for example, do not accurately reflect Dąbrowski’s view which is far more complex that can be captured in a Likert-type questionnaire.
But let’s face it, whether it is OE, anxiety, perfectionism, we are dealing with constructs. By definition, constructs have no empirical referent in the world. We cannot see anxiety. The nature of constructs encourages skepticism, not to mention numerous definitions for the same construct.
I am quite familiar with those findings. The conclusion of their findings, as Vuyk et al.’s title suggests, is that gifted education should replace OE with openness to experience. I completely disagree with that proposal. That two measures correlate is not enough rationale to abandon OEs. I cannot, with authority, comment on the appropriateness of the measure used to operationalize openness to experience. With my background knowledge of TPD, I am, however, in a position to critique the OE measure, which I have done elsewhere. The OEQ-II cannot capture the complexity of Dąbrowski’s definition and description of the five forms of OE. If one reads TPD in the original, it would be apparent that a Likert-type scale cannot adequately reflect the construct of OE. Having said that, I understand that researchers like the OEQ-II is because of its ease of administration and scoring.
Beyond my issues with the questionnaire, I disagree with the conclusion to abandon OE on conceptual grounds. Let’s look at the two conceptualizations in which openness and OE appear. The five-factor model has its origin in the lexical approach used by Cattell (1957) as well as Allport and Odbert (1936). They read numerous dictionaries looking for descriptors of personality. They found literally thousands of words. Cattell used a subset to create a taxonomy of traits. Such is the origin of the five-factor model. In contrast, Dąbrowski began in the 1930s creating his theory based on, among other things, observations of human functioning and his clinical practice. The five-factor model describes traits; TPD explains the range of human functioning. The five-factor model is not a theory; it is an empirically derived categorization of human traits. TPD is a theory replete with assumptions, principles, propositions, and constructs that create a coherent whole.
What is missing in the case made by the two cited articles is the nature and role of OE. The forms of OE are not simply standalone traits—they are processes which interact to create an intensification of experience and inner conflict which contribute to individual’s transcending lower forms to higher forms of functioning; from a life motivated by needs and drives to one motivated by universal positive values. My comments approximate Dąbrowski’s view of OE. I am not aware of how openness to experience, rather than constructs with which it is correlated, is proposed as transformational human functioning. If openness to experience is proposed as a factor, which is said to transform primitive level of human functioning, based on such matters as self-preservation to higher levels of functioning manifested in exemplars of humanity, then I would agree with replacing OE. The two articles provide evidence of how OE, which is only valid in the context of TPD, is not fully represented in research.
It is rare to encounter studies that do not investigate OE in the context of giftedness. There are rare studies investigating gender differences on OE and its effects on creativity. The paucity of studies of OE beyond giftedness is not surprising because TPD is only widely known in the fields of giftedness/gifted education.
The increase in research investigating OE and giftedness that I have witnessed over the years will continue. Overexcitability is an intriguing construct and it has become inextricably bound by many authors with giftedness. The increase in research in this area is the result of the availability of a questionnaire that is easily administered and scored by researchers. Despite my critique of such research, I have noticed that researchers have begun elaborating on the TPD context of OE in their articles. This is good news and bad news from my perspective. It is good news because research helps in the dissemination of TPD. It is bad news because increased popularity of the current approach to research reinforces inaccurate representation of TPD.
Though I predict the increase in such research, I do not think it will last. To be frank, I cannot see how the current research on OE and giftedness is sustainable. I wonder how long readers interested in Dąbrowski’s theory will tolerate publications noting that the gifted sample scores (3.2) were significantly higher than the nonidentified sample (2.8) on a form of OE. Given its complexity and association with other TPD constructs, I suggest that it is better to use qualitative rather than quantitative methods to investigate it.
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, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
