Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality assessment of intellectually gifted adults: A dimensional trait

approach
⁎
Michael Mattaa, , Emanuela Saveria Grittia, Margherita Langa,b
a
Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
b
Association for the Research of clinical Psychology (A.R.P.), Milan, Italy

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Personality is often assessed by measuring the severity of dimensional traits regardless of intellectual func-
Intellectual giftedness tioning. However, extreme deviations from average cognitive abilities affect biological, psychological, and social
Adults characteristics, to the extent that they may lead to atypical trajectories of development. The present study
Personality traits examined subclinical personality traits of intellectually gifted adults who unlikely fulfill traditional criteria for
Livesley's dimensional model
psychopathological diagnosis.
DAPP-BQ
Seventy-five intellectually gifted individuals (i.e., at least one WAIS-IV Index > 130) completed the DAPP-
Developmental psychopathology
Risk factors BQ. Their scores were compared to a control group. Age range was the same across the two groups (18–45 years).
Gender differences were then examined within the gifted group.
The group of gifted individuals reported significant higher scores on eight DAPP-BQ scales. A large effect size
was found on Rejection trait; medium effect sizes on Narcissism and Low Affiliation traits. Identity Problems,
Callousness, Restricted Expression, Compulsivity, and Suspiciousness were associated with small effect sizes.
Moreover, gifted women reported higher scores than gifted men.
Dysfunctional traits of gifted adults may contribute to interpersonal maladjustments. This may be the con-
sequence of poor emotional attunement and inappropriate support that they received in childhood for their
superior intellectual abilities. Sociocultural issues may maintain these psychological vulnerabilities, especially
within gifted women.

1. Introduction dysregulation, depression, bipolar disorder, attentional and hyper-

activity deficits, autism spectrum disorders, and immune disorders
1.1. Giftedness and psychological functioning (Karpinski, Kinase Kolb, Tetreault, & Borowski, 2017). Thus, atypical
trajectories may lead to develop individual strengths and weaknesses,
Most of the literature has focused on the unique psychological ex- even demonstrating that some domains (i.e., cognitive abilities) may
perience of gifted children, whereas few studies have examined what evolve at higher level than typical individuals (Thomas & Karmiloff-
happens when gifted individuals enroll in college, are involved in long- Smith, 2002).
term relationships or get a job (Rinn & Bishop, 2015). Indeed, “it's not Multiple reasons may explain contradictory findings on psycholo-
as though these former children slough off their giftedness like dis- gical functioning of gifted adults: a) correlational studies (which in-
carded skin at the age of eighteen. Gifted children do grow up, and they volve general population) vs. group differences (which compare general
become gifted adults” (Jacobsen, 1999, p. 9). population and gifted group); b) different inclusion criteria for gifted
Over the past century, empirical studies and meta-analytic reviews samples (e.g., IQ score ≥ 130, superior scholastic achievements, or
supported the idea that gifted individuals achieve desirable psycholo- extraordinary verbal abilities as children, or Mensa members as adults);
gical outcomes (Martin, Burns, & Schonlau, 2010; Terman & Oden, c) absence of theoretical background. The present paper aims at over-
1959), such as high educational level, socioeconomic status (Warne, coming these limitations, examining personality vulnerabilities of in-
2016) and system integrity (i.e., well-functioning body and efficiency to tellectually gifted adults. Livesley's dimensional model was used spe-
face environmental challenges). However, other studies have found cifically for its capability to assess subclinical symptoms which
opposite evidences, arguing that high Intelligence Quotient (IQ) may traditionally do not fulfill criteria for psychopathological diagnosis.
represent a potential risk factor for the development of affective

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Matta), [email protected] (E.S. Gritti), [email protected] (M. Lang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.009
Received 30 December 2017; Received in revised form 8 May 2018; Accepted 9 May 2018
0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Matta, M., Personality and Individual Differences (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.05.009
M. Matta et al. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

1.2. Livesley's model: assessing severity of personality traits Table 1

Distribution of socio-demographic variables of both groups.
Categorical personality assessment aims to identify one or more Gifted group Comparison group
psychopathological classes that match set of symptoms displayed by
clients. Some authors have questioned this idea, claiming that psy- N 75 166
Sex men, n (%) 60 (80.00) 132 (79.51)
chological traits are in fact dimensional (Clarkin & Livesley, 2016);
Age in years (mean ± SD) 30.31 ± 7.52 26.24 ± 5.74
categorical diagnoses tend to reify disorders rather than describe them as Age range 18–45 18–45
the result of interactions among personality traits and multiple en- Education, n (%)
vironmental levels. In such a perspective, severity of personality traits 0–12 (Less than high school) 1 (1.33) 0
represents a core feature of psychological assessment where traditional 13–15 (High school) 28 (37.33) 89 (53.61)
16–17 (Bachelor's degree) 10 (13.33) 34 (20.48)
classifications are replaced by assessing areas of dysfunctions and pat-
18+ (More than Master's degree) 35 (46.66) 31 (18.67)
terns of impairments. This results particularly appropriate for complex WAIS-IV index ≥130, n (%)a
personality constructs (e.g. narcissism), for which recent examinations Full-scale IQ 42 (56.00)
postulate a continuum between healthy and pathological presentations, Verbal comprehension 17 (22.66)
Perceptual reasoning 49 (65.33)
with the latter representing maladaptive exasperations of adaptive
Working memory 20 (26.66)
personality traits (Miller, Lynam, Hyatt, & Campbell, 2017). Processing speed 22 (29.33)
Livesley's dimensional model defines personality disorders as
a
adaptive failures to achieve solutions to universal life tasks. Personality The sum exceeds gifted sample size because each participant can obtain
pathology issues can affect the: (a) representation of self, and others; (b) 130 in one Index or more.
sense of intimacy, affiliation, and attachment; and/or (c) functioning
with social groups (i.e., cooperative and prosocial behaviors). This 2.2. Measures and procedures
model is based on three assumptions. First, personality is the result of
complex relations among relative stable and permanent traits. Second, After collecting socio-demographic data, the WAIS-IV and the
personality traits are dimensional; one extreme represents personality DAPP-BQ (Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic
dysfunctions, whereas the other extreme consists of optimal adaption. Questionnaire) were individually administered by licensed psycholo-
The more individuals have severe personality traits, the more their gists specifically trained.
behavior, cognition, and emotional patterns will be influenced by that The WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008) is an intelligence test which mea-
trait. Third, personality dysfunctions differ from personality disorders. sures the Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) and four intellectual Indexes, i.e., Verbal
Indeed, dysfunctions in specific components may cause occasional dif- Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Proces-
ficulties and do not necessarily lead to severe psychological impair- sing Speed (Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013).
ments. For instance, if someone is extremely shy, this single trait may The DAPP-BQ (Livesley & Jackson, 2009) is a 290-item self-report
not have great impact on general life but may cause discomfort in questionnaire to assess personality traits based on Livesley's dimen-
certain social situations. sional model. The DAPP-BQ requires the respondent to evaluate feel-
Based on these considerations, in the present study we assessed ings and behaviors on a five-point Likert scale. The questionnaire ex-
differences in personality traits between intellectually gifted and amines 18 personality traits grouped into 4 second-order Clusters. A
average-intelligence adults. Secondly, we explored the dimensional validity scale measures the level of impression management and social
differences in personality traits based on gender within the gifted desirability. Each scale has a mean of 50 T-score and a standard de-
group. According to previous studies, we hypothesized that gifted viation of 10.
adults will report specific vulnerabilities related to concerns for others'
feelings (Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011), and general social detach-
ment (Schmidt, 2014). Moreover, we hypothesized that gifted women 2.3. Ethical statement
will show higher vulnerabilities than men (Reis, 2004).
All participants were recruited on a voluntary basis and they gave a
written informed consent before testing. The study was approved by the
2. Method IRB of the University.

2.1. Participants
2.4. Data analysis
Two hundred and forty-one individuals (192 men) participated in
this study. 75 of them (60 men) were identified as intellectually gifted. A preliminary Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with Principal Axis
Descriptive statistics of both samples are reported in Table 1. Partici- factoring and Oblimin rotation was conducted to test if DAPP-BQ scales
pation in the study was proposed to all Mensa members via the Asso- group into meaningful factors. Then, we performed a MANCOVA to test
ciation's newsletter, whereas to college students via SONA System. differences in personality traits between gifted and non-gifted adults.
Thus, inclusion criteria for the gifted group were to be part of Mensa Age was used as a covariate because it was statistically significant be-
Association (i.e., the High IQ Society) and to have obtained a score tween the two groups, t(247)5.29, p < 0.001. Eta Partial Square (η2)
equal to or higher than 130 on at least one WAIS-IV (Wechsler Adult was calculated for each comparison to estimate the magnitude of the
Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition) Composite Score. The comparison effects. Mcdonald's omega (ωt) was computed to test internal con-
group consisted of college students and young adults. Extra credits were sistency of each scale. Finally, multiple t-tests were conducted to
assigned for their participation in the study. Additionally, it was re- measure gender differences within the gifted group. Since the gifted
quired that controls were not Mensa members. Thus, the two groups women group was small (N = 15), a descriptive approach was used and
were mutually exclusive. The mean age was 30.31 years (SD = 7.52) for only the effect sizes were reported. Indeed, an inferential approach
the gifted group, and 26.24 years (SD = 5.74) for the comparison would have required a higher number of women within the gifted
group. Gifted participants reported a level of education distributed group. Because many comparisons were made, Type I error must be
between high school and college. considered.

2
M. Matta et al. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis of the DAPP-BQ. The longer the bars, the stronger the loading on Factors. Fit measures: Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) of factoring
reliability = 0.806; RMSEA Index = 0.121 [90% CIs = 0.105, 0.131]; BIC = −87.08.

3. Results for DAPP-BQ, Λ = 0.67, F(18, 227) = 6.24, p < 0.001. Results for the
post hoc univariate ANOVAs are showed in Table 2.
DAPP-BQ four-factor structure was established based on eigenva- All DAPP-BQ scales were normally distributed. Mean differences for
lues > 1 (7.02, 2.00, 1.47, and 1.37), parallel analysis (which suggested eight scales were statistically significant. Gifted group obtained con-
to extract four components), and second-order Clusters proposed in the sistently higher scores than the comparison group. A large effect size
test manual (Fig. 1). Overall, the four factors were consistent with the was found on Rejection scale (η2 = 0.15). Medium effect sizes were
original structure, except for Low Affiliation scale which had a stronger noted on Narcissism (η2 = 0.10) and Low Affiliation (η2 = 0.07) scales.
loading on Emotional Dysregulation than on Social Avoidance. Mean differences on Identity Problems (η2 = 0.02), Callousness
Differences between gifted and non-gifted adults were tested with a (η2 = 0.03), Restricted Expression (η2 = 0.04), Compulsivity
multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) on all DAPP-BQ scales. (η2 = 0.04), and Suspiciousness (η2 = 0.05) were also statistically sig-
All assumptions were met and analyses revealed a main effect of group nificant and they showed small effect sizes.

Table 2
DAPP-BQ Group Differences. Main effect of Group was controlled for age.
Scales Intellectually gifted comparison group

M SD ωt M SD ωt F pa η2

Emotional dysregulation
Anxiousness 50.35 14.39 0.95 49.28 10.96 0.92 2.09 NS 0.01
Submissiveness 47.57 11.73 0.90 49.23 9.93 0.88 0.53 NS 0.00
Insecure attachment 43.62 10.70 0.92 46.68 9.78 0.91 1.93 NS 0.01
Affective lability 47.61 13.38 0.92 47.01 10.28 0.87 0.63 NS 0.00
Oppositionality 50.64 13.38 0.93 50.26 10.38 0.89 1.32 NS 0.00
Identity problems 52.22 12.64 0.95 49.73 9.80 0.91 5.55 < 0.05 0.02^
Cognitive dysregulation 47.74 11.29 0.92 47.91 9.62 0.88 0.65 NS 0.00
Dissocial behavior
Callousness 53.69 9.53 0.86 50.94 9.10 0.89 8.33 < 0.01 0.03^
Narcissism 56.70 10.62 0.90 50.73 10.23 0.91 28.28 < 0.001 0.10*
Conduct problems 50.04 8.02 0.86 49.94 7.60 0.87 0.71 NS 0.00
Stimulus seeking 50.31 11.80 0.91 49.78 9.82 0.89 1.10 NS 0.00
Rejection 57.35 10.92 0.87 49.59 8.85 0.82 42.88 < 0.001 0.15**
Social avoidance
Low affiliation 56.11 12.48 0.92 50.44 10.10 0.90 18.34 < 0.001 0.07*
Restricted expression 56.28 12.40 0.91 51.91 10.98 0.90 9.05 < 0.1 0.04^
Intimacy problems 50.22 11.07 0.90 49.28 10.12 0.89 0.53 NS 0.00
Compulsivity 53.73 10.94 0.91 48.81 10.12 0.90 9.13 < 0.01 0.04^
Suspiciousness 53.76 10.88 0.91 49.67 8.25 0.85 11.68 0.001 0.05^
Validity 48.19 8.88 0.69 46.28 7.13 0.61 1.46 NS 0.01

Effect size’ interpretations: η2 > 0.01 small (^); η2 ≥ 0.06 medium (*); η2 ≥ 0.14 large (**).
a
NS = Not Significant.

3
M. Matta et al. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3 Social isolation has been already linked with Rejection traits within the
Gender differences on the DAPP-BQ within the Gifted Group. gifted population (Dijkstra et al., 2012). Because of the fear of being
Scales Gifted men Gifted women hurt or embarrassed in social situations, gifted individuals may have
repeatedly adopted behavioral strategies for hiding their needs which in
M SD M SD Cohen's d turn may have increased the likelihood to develop an inward-oriented
personality (Hollingworth, 1942). This tendency might also imply that
Emotional dysregulation
Anxiousness 48.78 14.04 57.23 14.62 −0.61* gifted individuals prefer investing on their thoughts and ideas rather
Submissiveness 46.41 11.26 52.43 13.10 −0.53* than obtaining gratification from interpersonal interactions and emo-
Insecure attachment 43.39 10.72 44.98 12.35 −0.15 tional contact with others. Thus, they are more likely to be loners and
Affective lability 46.43 13.80 54.01 8.64 −0.59* tend to spend time with people of the same level of intelligence (F.
Oppositionality 49.69 13.83 52.55 12.39 −0.21^
Schmidt, personal communication, November 2017). Also, repetitive
Identity problems 51.16 12.41 57.34 12.92 −0.50*
Cognitive dysregulation 46.68 11.25 51.77 11.28 −0.46^ interpersonal failures may temporary interfere on their intellectual ef-
Dissocial behavior ficacy which in turn could impact on cognitive performances. This may
Callousness 54.23 10.08 50.78 5.78 0.37^ represent a risk factor because it may decrease the sense of mastery and
Narcissism 57.32 10.82 54.66 10.60 0.25^
self-efficacy that they mainly experience in these activities.
Conduct problems 49.91 7.47 50.70 10.55 −0.10
Stimulus seeking 50.21 12.40 50.35 10.58 −0.01
On the other hand, introversion has been found positively related to
Rejection 57.75 10.70 56.27 10.13 0.14 typical intellectual engagement (TIE), domain-specific knowledge and
Social avoidance crystallized intelligence, as well as adult academic and occupation at-
Low affiliation 54.89 12.02 61.80 13.39 −0.57* tainments. Introverts and high TIE people tend to increase their level of
Restricted expression 55.43 12.06 59.25 13.56 −0.31^
knowledge in specialized disciplines to a greater extent than people
Intimacy problems 49.50 11.33 52.03 9.30 −0.23^
Compulsivity 53.62 10.80 54.35 13.47 −0.06 with different personality traits and attitudes. Gifted individuals may
Suspiciousness 53.48 10.80 54.12 13.15 −0.06 cultivate their abilities, spending more time in reading, thinking, and
reasoning, rather than joining social relationships. Yet, an isolated life-
Effect size’ interpretations: Cohen's d ≥ 0.20 small (^); d ≥ 0.50 medium (*); style associated with conscientiousness and perfectionism (assessed by
d ≥ 0.80 large (**). higher levels of Compulsivity trait) may predict better adult academic
and job performances (Schmidt, 2014).
Cohen's d was used to assess gender differences on the DAPP-BQ Finally, gifted participants showed higher levels of Narcissism traits
scales within the gifted group (Table 3). Generally, gifted women had as measured by the DAPP-BQ scale, that includes grandiose manifes-
higher scores than gifted men. Medium effect sizes were found on An- tations of narcissism but has been associated also to more vulnerable
xiousness (0.61), Submissiveness (0.53), Affective Lability (0.59), aspects (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). Individuals with narcissistic traits
Identity Problems (0.50), and Low Affiliation (0.57). By contrast, men are likely to feel a strong sense of “entitlement” which reflects their
showed higher scores on Callousness and Narcissism (d = 0.37 and beliefs to be special and to be treated differently from other people
0.25, respectively). (Miller, 1981) and to emphasize their personal achievements and in-
tellectual abilities. According to processual models of narcissism (Morf
4. Discussion & Rhodewalt, 2001) and to current views on the possible presentations
of narcissism, grandiosity-related manifestations, such as for example
The present study investigated differences in personality traits be- rivalry, are likely to be common to the two different forms of grandiose
tween a group of gifted adults and non-gifted controls. The main ob- and vulnerable narcissism (Geukes et al., 2017) and might reflect re-
jective was to examine if gifted individuals report personality dys- actions to the environment in form of self-regulatory strategies. These
functions to a greater extent than non-gifted people. In addition, the traits in gifted individuals possibly represent important protective fac-
study explored individual personality differences between men and tors because moderate inflation of self-esteem may prevent them from
women within the gifted group. being hurt by others' failures in recognizing and supporting their needs.
The findings are consistent with the “disharmony hypothesis” which However, differences on narcissistic traits have not been found con-
states that gifted individuals may face unique social challenges and sistently in empirical studies, neither on the Minnesota Multiphasic
have specific emotional needs which may increase psychological vul- Personality Inventory−Adolescents (Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams,
nerabilities. The latter may represent risk factors to develop and 2008) nor on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Baggette &
maintain dysfunctional personality traits (Preckel, Baudson, Krolak- Tobacyk, 1988). It must be noted nonetheless that such inconsistencies
Schwerdt, & Glock, 2015). might be due to specific differences in the variants of narcissism mea-
Generally, gifted individuals showed higher scores on DAPP-BQ sured by different studies, such as adaptive and maladaptive, and to the
scales compared to non-gifted participants. The large effect size made challenges of assessing a multidimensional and complex construct such
Rejection the most distinctive personality trait of gifted individuals. As as narcissism relying exclusively on self-reports (Gritti, Marino, Lang, &
such, individuals with higher intellectual functioning may perceive Meyer, 2017).
themselves as interpersonally dominant, hostile, and characterized by a Overall, high levels of narcissism, callousness (which is good in-
rigid cognitive style. Similar results in other studies were related to the dicator of psychopathy), and suspiciousness (which might be a good
need for competition and perfectionism of gifted individuals (Dijkstra, indicator of Machiavellianism) might lead to interpret the personality
Barelds, Ronner, & Nauta, 2012; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). characteristics of gifted adults in the light of the Dark Triad of per-
Others' support and openness can reduce feelings of unfamiliarity, and sonality (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). However, we suggest that these
“out-of-sync” of gifted people. Thus, this trait can be used productively traits, combined with the higher levels of introversion, could be better
whether interpersonal relationships and society provide an appropriate understood as a reaction of lack of security and trust in others rather
environment. However, our sample reported also higher levels of Cal- than an actual manipulative and exploitative attitude.
lousness and Suspiciousness, and those may be interpreted more ap- Moreover, intellectual giftedness should not be classified as a psy-
propriately as personality maladjustments (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). chopathological category. We do not agree with authors who have
Gifted individuals reported higher scores on Low Affiliation and suggested the concept of a “gifted personality” (Wellisch & Brown,
Restricted Expression traits. High levels of these traits are associated 2013). It seems unlikely that a rigid set of personality traits is associated
with difficulties in establishing affective relationships, emotional ex- with gifted individuals. In light of the developmental psychopathology
periences and expressions, and poor conversational and social skills. theory, individual personality results from a complex interaction of

4
M. Matta et al. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

multiple processes (i.e., cognitive, biological, social and emotional) Secondly, the gifted group was composed of Mensa members only.
over the lifespan. Personality outcomes reflect the level of adaptation to Although they were selected on their WAIS-IV performances, they re-
the environment in order to face significant challenges at specific ages present one specific type of giftedness. Yet, MENSA members might be
(Cicchetti, 2016). intellectually gifted individuals who need some external validation for
Additionally, high intellectual abilities may be related with risk being gifted, who are willing to be tested and pay annual dues, and
factors (such as minority distress, stereotypes, and sociocultural dis- their everyday social environment does not satisfy their intellectual
criminations) which maintain personality vulnerabilities. As a minority, aspirations. Furthermore, MENSA members constitute only a small
they can struggle to develop their own psychological identity which in percentage of the total 2% in the population. Future studies should
turn can increase perceived psychosocial distress (Baudson & Ziemes, involve other groups, such as adults who received gifted education,
2016). People who are not aware of their group identity are more likely twice-exceptional (i.e., gifted individuals who suffer from psychological
to report psychosocial maladjustments than others. Indeed, “when disorders), etc. This would improve the generalizability of the findings
giftedness is denied or ignored, the gifted individual is unable to in- and would increase scientific knowledge about complex relationships
tegrate it into his/her understanding of who he/she is” (Amend & between intelligence and personality, and variables that influence these
Beljan, 2009, p. 141). How giftedness is integrated with the overall psychological aspects across development.
functioning depends on personality traits, home support, society, and Finally, the results on gender differences must be interpreted care-
culture (Freeman, 2005). fully because the group of gifted women was small. The uneven number
Recent studies have examined stereotypes about gifted individuals. of women has been found in several gifted samples. Men are over-
On one side, they were described as more open-minded, intelligent, and represented both at the low and high extremes of cognitive abilities.
involved in scholastic activities; on the other side, the same informants Multiple hypotheses have been suggested to explain this phenomenon
reported that they were more antagonistic, less emotionally competent, (e.g., biological, educational, and/or cultural) (Lang, Matta, Parolin,
socially withdrawn, and less motivated in prosocial behaviors (Baudson Morrone, & Pezzuti, 2017).
& Ziemes, 2016). Group stereotypes can affect others' reactions and Although the aforementioned limitations, the present study re-
expectations which in turn may influence negatively the quality of in- presents the first attempt to describe personality traits of gifted adults
terpersonal relationships. using a dimensional approach. Furthermore, the study included in-
Cognitive overqualification (i.e., “possession of a higher level of dividuals from a population (i.e., gifted) that can be troublesome to
cognitive ability than is required for a given job”; Fine & Nevo, 2008, p. recruit for its minority status. The study also made use of assessment
346) may have negative implications for job search, attitudes and methods different from self-reports, measuring intellectual functioning
performances. For instance, in 1999 a man who obtained an IQ score of through the WAIS-IV, implying a more elaborate data collection but
125 was turned down for a job in the police forces. He sued the city also a more accurate performance-based assessment.
(Jordan v. City of New London and Harrigan, 1999) and he lost the case
because the judge stated that “a body of professional literature con- 6. Conclusion
cludes that hiring overqualified applicants leads to subsequent job
dissatisfaction and turnover”. The findings of this study have confirmed the clinical utility of
Gender differences on personality traits were found within the Livesley's dimensional model of personality traits. The assessment of
gifted group, with women obtaining higher scores than men on most of subclinical symptoms is important in clinical practice because it allows
the scales of the questionnaire. Gifted women tended to report greater to collect useful data on subtle but crucial psychological maladjust-
vulnerabilities in emotion regulation and social isolation, and effect ments. While there are gifted individuals who fit appropriately with
sizes were mostly medium or large. Individuals who score higher on their environment, others may be particularly vulnerable to develop
these domains may feel poorer emotional stability, fragmented sense of specific dysfunctional personality traits, such as social avoidance, nar-
the Self, and struggle in expressing their emotions (Reis, 2004). Psy- cissism, perfectionism, and problems with authority. Some of them may
chological conflicts between strong needs of others' proximity and the be “twice-exceptional”, others may mimic symptoms similar to other
fear to be rejected and abandoned can increase the level of submis- disorders, such as relational difficulties, inappropriate behaviors in
siveness or the tendency to be alone and have a withdrawn life-style. By social contexts, or unusual and monotonous hobbies. These features are
contrast, gifted men had higher levels of callousness and narcissism. not always present in the same person − hence they would not be a
Men may be slightly more self-centered and have an egocentric per- part of the giftedness per se – but they might be the result of poor
spective of the world, ignoring others' needs, interests, and worries. For emotional attunement in childhood and inappropriate responses of
this reason, they may be perceived as adults with poor empathy and environment and society. Sociocultural issues, such as cognitive over-
little emotional sensitivity. qualification in workplace, minority stress, stereotypes, may maintain
Moreover, cultural stereotypes and fixed gender roles may have lead these psychological vulnerabilities throughout adulthood.
women not to be effectively supported during their educational and
professional development, decreasing the likelihood to fully express Acknowledgments
their intellectual potential in adulthood (Lovecky, 1993). Gifted women
have often negative feelings about themselves, to the extent that they This work was supported by Hogrefe which is the Italian editor of
may at times experience the “imposter syndrome”, which refers to the the DAPP-BQ.
tendency not to attribute personal attainments to one's abilities but to
external events, or by chance. For this reason, personal achievements References
are often perceived as undeserved (Reis, 2004).
Amend, E. R., & Beljan, P. (2009). The antecedents of misdiagnosis: When normal be-
5. Limitations and strengths of the study haviors of gifted children are misinterpreted as pathological. Gifted Education
International, 25, 131–143.
Baggette, W., & Tobacyk, J. (1988). Mensa membership and narcissism. Psychological
The findings of the study are preliminary and present some limita- Reports, 62, 434. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.2.434.
tions that warrant further examinations. Firstly, we could not use broad Baudson, T. G., & Ziemes, J. F. (2016). The importance of being gifted: Stages of gifted
identity development, their correlates and predictors. Gifted and Talented
domains of personality traits because four-factor structure of the DAPP- International, 31, 19–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1194675.
BQ has not shown good measures of fit neither in the original manual Cicchetti, D. (2016). Developmental psychopathology. Maladaptation and psychopathology.
nor in our sample. This makes hard to compare our findings with those Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Clarkin, J. F., & Livesley, W. J. (2016). Diagnosis and assessment. In W. J. Livesley, G.
obtained by administering different tests.

5
M. Matta et al. Personality and Individual Differences xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Dimaggio, & J. F. Clarkin (Eds.). Integrated treatment for personality disorder: A modular narcissism. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 291–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.
approach. New York, NY: Guikford Press. 1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045244.
Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Adams, C. M. (2008). The psychology of gifted Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
adolescents as measured by the MMPI-A. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 326–339. self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–196. http://dx.doi.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321810. org/10.1207/s15327965pli1204_1.
Dijkstra, P., Barelds, D. P. H., Ronner, S., & Nauta, A. P. (2012). Personality and well- Orsini, A., & Pezzuti, L. (2013). WAIS-IV contribution to the Italian standardization.
being: Do the intellectually gifted differ from the general population? Advanced Florence, IT: Giunti O.S.
Development, 13, 103–118. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Fine, S., & Nevo, B. (2008). Too smart for their own good? A study of perceived cognitive Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–568.
overqualification in the workforce. The International Journal of Human Resource http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.
Management, 19, 346–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190701799937. Preckel, F., Baudson, T. G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and mal-
Freeman, J. (2005). Permission to be gifted. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.). adjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children.
Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 80–97). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1160–1184. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., Dufner, M., Küfner, A. C. P., Egloff, B., & Back, M. D. 0002831215596413.
(2017). Puffed-up but shaky selves: State self-esteem level and variability in narcis- Reis, S. M. (2004). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special
sists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 769–786. http://dx.doi.org/10. needs of gifted females. In S. Baum (Ed.). Twice-exceptional and special populations of
1037/pspp0000093. gifted students (pp. 67–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gritti, E. S., Marino, D. P., Lang, M., & Meyer, G. J. (2017). Assessing narcissism using Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted adults. A systematic review and analysis of the
Rorschach-based imagery and behavior validated by clinician-reports: Studies with literature. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 213–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
clinical and nonclinical adults. Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0016986215600795.
1073191117715728. Schmidt, F. L. (2014). A general theoretical integrative model of individual differences in
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and development. interests, abilities, personality traits, and academic and occupational achievement.
Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 211–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
Jacobsen, M.-E. (1999). The gifted adult: A revolutionary guide for liberating everyday genius. 1745691613518074.
New York, NY: Ballantine Books. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius. Vol. V. The gifted group at
Karpinski, R. I., Kinase Kolb, A. M., Tetreault, N. A., & Borowski, T. B. (2017). High mid-life. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
intelligence: A risk factor for psychological and physiological overexcitabilities. Thomas, M. S. C., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2002). Modeling typical and atypical cognitive
Intelligence. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.INTELL.2017.09.001. development: Computational constraints on mechanisms of change. In U. Goswami
Lang, M., Matta, M., Parolin, L., Morrone, C., & Pezzuti, L. (2017). Cognitive profile of (Ed.). Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 575–599). Malden, MA, USA:
intellectually gifted adults: Analyzing the Wechsler adult intelligence scale. Blackwell Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470996652.ch26.
Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191117733547. Warne, R. T. (2016). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness. The Gifted Child
Livesley, W. J., & Jackson, D. (2009). Manual for the dimensional assessment of personality Quarterly, 60, 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360.
pathology-basic questionnaire. Port Huron, MI: Sigma System Assessment. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale - Fourth edition. San Antonio, TX:
Lovecky, D. V. (1993). The quest for meaning: Counseling issues with gifted children and Pearson.
adolescents. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.). Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 29–47). Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2013). Many faces of a gifted personality many faces of a gifted
Denver, CO: Love Publishing. personality: Characteristics along a complex gifted spectrum. Talent Development &
Martin, L. T., Burns, R. M., & Schonlau, M. (2010). Mental disorders among gifted and Excellence, 5, 43–58.
nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. The Gifted Child Zeidner, M., & Shani-Zinovich, I. (2011). Do academically gifted and nongifted students
Quarterly, 54, 31–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986209352684. differ on the big-five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions.
Miller, A. (1981). Prisoners of childhood: The Drama of the gifted child and the search for the Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 566–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.
true self. New York, NY: Basic Brooks. PAID.2011.05.007.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Controversies in