Trends in Psychology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-023-00313-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Psychological World of Highly Gifted Young Adults:

a Follow‑up Study

W. L. Frumau‑van Pinxten1 · J. J. L. Derksen1 · W. A. M. Peters1

Accepted: 19 June 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
In this exploratory qualitative case study, in-depth interviews were held with seven
highly gifted young adults (27–28 years). Thematic analyses of the interviews
revealed salient constellations of meaning: an “internal motor”—a metaphor for an
internal strength, a strong drive to grow, learn and develop, driven by their curios-
ity, a lack of goodness of fit (for the school years up, until the college years), feeling
“not okay to be me”, existential loneliness, stress due to multi-potentiality, perfec-
tionism, and spiritual needs (e.g., freedom to choose their own path). Based on the
answers of the participants, greater attention and support seem to be needed for the
holistic development of (highly) gifted students throughout their school careers. The
findings suggest that attention should be paid to stimulating their cognitive develop-
ment as well as their social, emotional, and spiritual development.

Keywords Gifted · Curiosity · Openness to experience · Goodness of fit ·

Asynchrony

Introduction

Gross (2000, 2003) and earlier on also Terman (1926) and Hollingworth (1942)
found clear differences between highly gifted and gifted children in multiple devel-
opmental domains, first cognitively but also in physical, emotional, and social devel-
opment. Although, there is still ambiguity about the wellbeing and functioning of
the gifted, highly gifted children are assumed to be more prone to adjustment prob-
lems and more limited in social acceptance, capacity to fit in, and experience of
close friendship than children who are not considered highly gifted (Gross, 2002;
Hollingworth, 1942; Rimm, 2002; Ruf, 2009). For highly gifted children, research
shows a less positive picture than for people whose abilities are less diverse from the
average: empirical evidence has been found that supports the assumption that gifted

* W. L. Frumau‑van Pinxten
[email protected]
1
Radboud University Nijmegen, Houtlaan 4, 6525XZ, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Trends in Psychology

individuals do not function well socially; that they would be qualitatively different;
that they would have a poorer social development, higher friendship expectations,
fewer social skills, more social problems, a (self)critical nature, and more loneli-
ness (Barber & Mueller, 2011; Jung & Gross, 2014; Lovecky, 1992; Vaivre-Douret,
2004; Van Gerven, 2009; Vialle et al., 2007). On the other hand, other findings sup-
port the opposite, namely, that gifted individuals function quite well socially, are
socially precocious (i.e., advanced in social knowledge, social skills, social behav-
ior, play interests, friendships), and in their emotional and personality development
more advanced, profound, and rich (Falck, 2020; Jackson et al., 2009; Janos & Rob-
inson, 1985; Papadopoulos, 2020; Piechowski, 1991; Robinson, 2009; Robinson &
Noble, 1991; Silverman, 1993). In the last decade, there seems to be a (more) posi-
tive view concerning the functioning and wellbeing of gifted people: “As a group,
gifted young people are inherently no more socially or emotionally vulnerable than
their age peers, and indeed, many appear even more robust, but they are immune to
none of the ills that befall their peers” (Robinson & Reiss, 2016, p. XIII; Kennedy &
Farley, 2018).
There are several views of giftedness, first we discuss a view, later in this paper
we will discuss different views. This is one view: The highly gifted represent the top
end of the IQ continuum and do, as other people do, “primarily what they are best
at” (p. 1004), which can lead to exceptional performance (Makel et al., 2016). So, it
does not seem assumable that the adjustment problems of the highly gifted children
stem from vulnerability. It is not the high IQ, that is a risk factor in the psychosocial
development of individuals with this high potential (Rost 1993, 2009; Plucker &
Callahan 2008; Wirthwein & Rost 2011; Bergold et al. 2015; Neihart et al., 2016).
However, being a member of an underrepresented population or a minority group
can cause adjustment problems for young people (Neihart et al., 2016). There are
two other external reasons why the highly gifted may have (more) adjustment prob-
lems: (1) negative stereotyping and (2) a lack of goodness of fit. Goodness of fit is
in this study defined as the search of a person for an optimal match with his environ-
ment. While the individual is constantly undergoing gradual change (development),
the environment changes as well. A new balance must then be found. This process
of change is dynamic and constantly evolving. In other words, the individual seeks
an optimal match between capacities, skills, strategies, characteristics of the child,
and contextual characteristics (Mönks, 1999; Van Vianen, 2018).
Among professionals like teachers and non-professionals or in mass media, more-
over, the negative stereotype of social impairment as a characteristic of the gifted
still predominates (Baudson & Preckel, 2016; Bergold et al., 2021; Carman, 2011;
Kimberly, 2010). Positive perceptions of intellectually gifted students but also a per-
vasive stereotype of social maladjustment were reported by O’Conner (O’Conner,
2005) of pre-service (in training) school counselors. A recent study also showed that
many student-teachers hold stereotypical views regarding gifted students (Weyns
et al., 2021). While stereotypes are not facts, they can nevertheless have very real
consequences, for example, leading toward a negative attitude toward gifted indi-
viduals (Bergold et al., 2021). There is another downside to negative stereotyping.
When one holds a wrong view on giftedness, it is hard to create an appropriate, sup-
porting learning environment.

13
Trends in Psychology

Jung and Gross (2014) recommended identification of giftedness and immediate

necessary adjustments in the school environment as, among others, radical accel-
eration and an environment to promote social and emotional development in a posi-
tive way compatible with the (life) values of highly gifted individuals. These rec-
ommended adjustments in the environment relate to the lack of goodness of fit that
highly gifted individuals often experience (Gross, 2000). For a child of average intel-
ligence, the personality becomes more stable as the environment—through interac-
tion with the child over time—gradually supplies a better goodness of fit (Caspi,
2002). In a dynamic, interactive process of development, both the child and the envi-
ronment determine the course of development. A child does not respond passively
to the surrounding environment, can challenge it at times, interprets events in their
own way, and may actively seek certain environments in line with their temperament
and personalities. Over time, an increased fit between personality and environment
creates a more stable personality. For the gifted child achieving a stable personality
can take more effort than for other children, because the school and other systems
are attuned to as well average cognitive, creative, and social levels as well as to aver-
age levels of aspiration, motivation, and intensity of thinking and behavior (Neihart
et al., 2015; Robinson, 2008). The highly gifted are least likely to experience good-
ness of fit, anywhere in their lives, due to fewer possibilities to challenge their envi-
ronment or to actively seek fitting environments (Gross, 2000). The consequences
of an insufficient goodness of fit can be reduced psychological wellbeing (Freeman,
1997, 2001; Gross, 2002; Jung & Gross, 2014; Mönks, 1999; Neihart et al., 2002;
Robinson, 2002), an existential crisis and both social and emotional stress (Silver-
man, 1993, 2012). This stress emerges and/or increases when it becomes clear that
a better fit between the person and the environment does not appear to be possible.
To determine whether it is already possible to form a proper view of gifted-
ness, following first is a brief summary of the history of (cognitive) intelligence
and then of the history of the continuously evolving field of giftedness. In the
field of intelligence, the focus changed from a single (general, g) factor to cogni-
tive intelligence. Later, cognitive intelligence (or the g-factor) alone seems to be
not sufficient. Other intelligences were included: multiple intelligences (Gardner,
1983), practical intelligence (Sternberg, 1985), and emotional intelligence (Bar-
On & Parker, 2000; Mayer & Salovey, 1995), all focusing to “individual predic-
tors of behavior and performance” (Bar-On, 2016, p. 104). Subsequent, physi-
cal and health factors are added (Bar-On, 2016). Other studies claim that these
other intelligences are not as robust as the g-factor, not (entirely) distinct from the
g-factor, or more like personality traits (Bucich & Maccann, 2019; Gottfredson,
2003; MacDaniel & Whetzel, 2005). For all these theories, it goes that empirical
evidence is still rather scarce or lacking.
The addition of other intelligences and factors to high cognitive intelligence is
recognizable within the field of giftedness: A well-known model is Renzulli’s model
(three ring conception—gifted people possess high intellectual abilities, task ori-
entation, and persistence combined with creative ability) (1978). Mönks made this
model of Renzulli interactive by adding environmental factors (1993). Moreover,
Mönks indicated that sufficient social competence is a necessary condition to speak
of “giftedness.”

13
 Trends in Psychology

Among others, there are the multidimensional models of Gagné (2003), Gard-
ner (1983), Heller (1991), and Sternberg (1985). These models include among many
other factors, chance, body-kinetic intelligence, creativity, and wisdom, respectively.
These models all clearly indicate that “giftedness” as a concept encompasses more
than having a high degree of intellectual ability (IQ > 130). Two more recent models
are the tripartite model of giftedness of Pfeiffer (2015) and the megamodel of Subot-
nik et al. (2018). Pfeiffer’s model assumes three perspectives and provides practical
tools for supervisors of gifted individuals in education. The first perspective views
giftedness as high intelligence, the second as outstanding accomplishments, and the
third as a high potential to excel.
Subotnik and colleagues integrated the most compelling components of already-
established models into a new model, intended to apply to all domains of endeavor.
They developed this model with roughly the following five principles: abilities,
developmental trajectories, opportunities, psychosocial variables, and eminence as
the intended outcome. Other aspects are discussed, such as leadership by Sternberg
and spirituality by Sisk. Sternberg’s model active concerned citizenship and ethical
leadership (ACCEL) can be used to develop transformational leadership to address
real-world problems for a common good. Sternberg identifies skills needed for trans-
formational leadership as analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom-based ethical
skills. Attention is increasingly being paid to the “mind, body, and soul” or psycho-
logical world of the gifted individual and the highly gifted individual specifically
(e.g., Sisk, 2019). Psychological world can be described as the mental characteris-
tics or attitude of a person, which contains the reactions, feelings, sensations, and
memories of the individual himself to things in the outer world.
There is no unified theoretical model that has been empirically adequately tested,
and too few comprehensive meta-analyses have been conducted (Carman, 2013; Dai
et al., 2011; David, 2017; Ogurlu & Özbey, 2021; Plucker & Callahan, 2014). The
formed ideas in this field have been shaped primarily by American and European
notions of “giftedness” (Stoeger, 2009). Making a comparison from one study to
another is virtually impossible due to many and varied definitions on what other
factors comprise giftedness. It is much more obvious to assume, as Borland (1996,
2021) and Smedsrud (2020) point out, that giftedness in all its vagueness is a social
construct with multiple meanings. Sak (2021) even introduced the fuzzy conception
of giftedness model defining giftedness as “a set of developing dispositions interact-
ing efficiently with stimulus conditions” (p. 376). However, there seems to be con-
sensus within scientific literature that giftedness concerns more than having a high
IQ.
In summary, the g-factor seems a stable factor when it comes to determining
intelligence. Other characteristics are also important to be able to speak of gifted-
ness. But, it is not yet clear which characteristics these are. Sensitivity is often
observed in gifted people (Mendaglio, 2008). However, a recent study found
(self-reported) gifted adults to score lower on sensory processing sensitivity com-
pared to a general population, especially on the negative higher-order dimension.
Also, they scored higher on the positive dimension of sensory processing sensi-
tivity, partly due to their higher score on the character trait openness to experi-
ence (De Gucht et al., 2023). In terms of personality development, research often

13
Trends in Psychology

describes openness to experience (one of the five identified personality factors of

the five-factor model of personality) (Vuyk et al., 2016; De Gucht et al., 2023)
and perfectionism (Rice & Ray, 2018) as character traits of the gifted. However,
studies on perfectionism in gifted people show varying results due to different
operationalizations and research designs also vary (Grugan et al., 2021). It does
become increasingly apparent that an inevitable lack of goodness of fit or mis-
match with the environment, being misunderstood, and not being able to find their
own niche may cause adjustment problems in highly gifted individuals. In other
words, the quality of their social experiences may be a risk factor. Giftedness is
operationalized in this study as high intelligence, as general cognitive ability
(the robust Spearman’s g-factor). The operationalization of highly giftedness
in this study is a reasonably replicable determination of giftedness: scores at the
top of the IQ continuum (< 2%) on two measures of cognitive intelligence (IQ).
Unfortunately, little systematic research has been done on people with intel-
ligence at the top of the IQ continuum. There are several reasons for this. First,
it is a very rare population. Second, research is complicated by the strikingly
uniqueness of these individuals. Accordingly, to Jung and Gross (2014) highly
gifted students are unique in their characteristics and developmental trajectories
compared to age peers of average ability and, probably, gifted students of more
moderate ability levels. Third, there is no consensus on a universal definition of
highly giftedness; many researchers in this field operationalize it as an IQ of at
least 145 which is a significant difference from the norm of what is considered to
be gifted (Jung & Gross, 2014). An IQ of 140 or lower than 140 is also used (Von
Karolyi, 2006). Gross (2000) indicated that IQ as a measure of highly gifted is
simplistic but at the same time can indicate a difference between mental age and
calendar age and between the gifted and the highly gifted.

The Present Research Study

The specific aim of the present study was to describe the similarities in patterns
of meaning in the psychological world of very highly (cognitive) intelligent
young adults. Another goal was direct research through interviews with the peo-
ple themselves because this research is about their perceptions and experiences.
Qualitative research on the meanings of the highly gifted people themselves
seemed quite appropriate for voicing the highly gifted people, because their
voices are hardly ever heard. Their social perception and experience were high-
lighted. Another aim of this longitudinal study was gaining greater understanding
about experiences of goodness of fit by highly gifted individuals over time.
The findings of this study can lead to more research, generate new questions,
and fine tune concepts. Looking for patterns of meaning we formulated the fol-
lowing overarching research question: What is the deep, rich, lived experience of
growing up and experiencing goodness of fit for highly gifted young adults?

13
 Trends in Psychology

Method

Study design

Following up on previous quantitative studies of the authors with above average intelli-
gent, gifted, and highly gifted adolescents, semi-structured qualitative in-depth interviews
were conducted with seven highly gifted young adults under the guidance of the Good-
ness-of-fit Dialogue Toolbox1 (Frumau, 2022). This toolbox was developed to identify,
visualize, and explore the strengths and weaknesses—both internal and external; the dif-
ferent domains of development and the experienced goodness of fit of gifted individuals.

Participants

In the previous study of the authors, highly gifted adolescents were compared with
gifted and above average intelligent adolescents (Frumau et al., in preparation).
A reasonably replicable determination of giftedness was chosen, two measures of
cognitive intelligence (IQ). Being highly gifted in this study was operationalized as
being the highest scoring participants in the study. This implied a very high score on
as well the IST (2–3+ SD), IQ at least > 139 (ceiling effect) (Amthauer et al., 2001)
as the RAVEN-APM for these participants (Raven & Court, 1998). Thirty-eight out
of 846 adolescents were considered highly gifted.
For the present study, 10 participants were randomly selected from this initial sample
of 38 highly gifted adolescents. Six participants of these 10 selected could be reached
and participated. All completed the highest possible level of secondary education in the
Netherlands (i.e., Dutch Gymnasium), which has compulsory Latin, Old Greek, and
ancient culture courses. These, currently young adults, participated in all three previous
measurements of this longitudinal study (Table 1). One person, similar in age and abili-
ties, but from another region in the Netherlands, was the seventh participant in the study.

Procedure

Selection Process

The initial contacts were generated by using the data (addresses and phone numbers of
parents) made available and by calling, emailing, or sending a message via LinkedIn to
the 10 chosen participants. Eventually, 6 of the 10 participants were contacted. They
received a short email with an explanation and question: “Dear ..., During your high
school years, you participated in our scientific study, in 8th and 10th grade. We are cur-
rently conducting a follow up study. We have selected you together with 9 other former

1
The Dialogue Toolbox on goodness of fit for gifted individuals is research based and intended for
exploring, visualizing, overviewing, and deepening four important aspects directly linked to (a lack of)
goodness of fit: internal strengths and weaknesses but also the way in which the environment appears to
stimulate or block these; the different domains of development; the experienced goodness of fit and “t”
trauma. These four aspects are depicted in worksheets and can in a dialogue be completed.

13
Trends in Psychology

Table 1  Characteristics of 6 (most) Highly Gifted adolescents: Gender, Capacity Test Results (IST meas-
ured grade 7-mean is the average of the grade 7 year group at the highest secondary level, Raven APM
36 items measured grade 8), Age, Present Career
Id. Gender Cognitive capacity test Age Present career
IST Raven- APM #
Z-score correct resp.
grade 7 grade 8

371 Female 2 34 27 VWO (G)/master and postmaster economics,

job
587 Female 2 30 28 VWO (G)/master medicine,
job
292 Male 3 30 28 VWO (G)/foreign master mathematics,
PhD
545 Male 2 32 27 VWO (G)/master engineering/job
629 Male 2 30 28 VWO (G)/master law, PHD
790 Male 2 31 27 VWO (G)/master medicine,
job

participants. That does not mean that you must participate of course but we would
really like it if you would like to do. The follow up research is a one-time interview. Are
you interested in participating? Please let me know. Kind regards, .” At the point when
the approached participants responded positively to the mail, telephone contact was
requested, and their phone numbers were asked for. During the ensuing telephone con-
versation, the participants were further informed, and their questions were answered.
After explanation and talking by phone, the commitment of all 6 participants
increased. All participated voluntary, and appointments were made. The par-
ticipants showed commitment during the interview, they behaved cooperatively,
wanted to keep going, and stayed on task.
We chose to stick with the initial procedure of choosing 10 participants at ran-
dom and not select 4 more participants. Given enormous psychological diversity
among gifted and certainly highly gifted individuals, surveying 7 participants
would provide not much less scientifically sound information than would be the
case with 10. Passow (1981) described this in the 1980s as follows: “the gifted
and talented come in a tremendous variety of shapes, forms, and sizes” (p. 8).
We did choose to ask another person to participate in the study. This person did not par-
ticipate in the previous study, he resided in a different province, but he was the same age as
the other participants. We chose someone who had ever applied for psychological help/psy-
chodiagnostics research at a younger age (need for care). We were interested whether this
person’s in-depth interview would reveal similar themes or completely different themes.

The Interview and the Interviewer

The interviews took the form of a dialogue and were semi-structured using the
worksheets and card tool from the specially developed Goodness-of-Fit Dialogue
Toolbox.

13
 Trends in Psychology

Fig. 1  Strengths and challenges: worksheet 1 of Goodness-of-fit Dialogue Toolbox

A dialogue as a form of conversation was chosen, with respect to the exchange

of insights and experiences of all involved. In addition, a dialogue is personal,
equivalent, requires careful listening, and strives for understanding, deepening, and
enrichment. Finally, it helps to create a free atmosphere in which rapport can arise,
because receiving attention, interest, and being attentive to themselves and others
leads to attachment to themselves and everything around them (Yalom, 2008). For
probing and engaging in dialogue (existential) phenomenology was the guiding
method of inquiry.
Three worksheets of the Goodness-of-Fit Dialogue Toolbox were used as a guid-
ing principle, but no more than a stimulus to which answers were given and which
were then further questioned (semi-structured). See Figs. 1, 2, 3.
Using worksheet 1, the participants first explored, visualized, and recorded their
perceived personal strengths, weaknesses, and challenges (both internal and exter-
nal) (Fig. 1). Thereafter, they were asked to select those cards from the POSI card
tool 2 (Frumau, 2022) that best matched these personal perceptions.
Using worksheet 2, which is intended to highlight any developmental a-synchro-
nicity, the participants reflected upon the physical, cognitive, emotional, social, and

2
The cards of the POSI card tool were developed in 2018. The POSI model is the basis of the POSI card
tool. All topics and terms that appear on the various cards are based on research on individuals with high
cognitive intelligence and real-world experiences with these individuals. As in the model, the topics are
divided into four categories: “potentials,” “openings,” “shackles,” “inadequacies” (POSI).

13
Trends in Psychology

Fig. 2  Developmental ages: worksheet 2 of Goodness-of-fit Dialogue Toolbox (adult version)

spiritual aspects of their functioning across the different stages in their development
(Berk, 2009; Wigglesworth, 2012) (Fig. 2).
Using worksheet 3, the possible marked experience of an insufficient goodness
of fit between individual and environment was explored across periods of 3 years
reflecting the psychosocial stages of development as identified by Erikson (1981):
the preschool years, the elementary school years, the high school years, and the
higher education years (Fig. 3). When an insufficient goodness of fit was reported,
the way this was experienced was explored further.
Guided by these worksheets, the participants provided topics and stories that
were self-directed depending on their own biography. Building on what was said,
the interviewer asked exploratory and probing questions in a dialogue. Using the
worksheets and the deck of cards, the participants were at first asked about their
strengths and weaknesses internally, and about where the environment supported
and hindered them (worksheet 1 and POSI card tool).
The interviewer showed the first worksheet and the card tool and explained:
“Potentials: these are the factors, you might say, within yourself, that are in your dis-
position and that have had a positive influence on your development. The openings
are also strengths. Positive external factors: those are the ones that you had as good
role models, people who inspired you, for example. But of course, there were also
setbacks, things that didn’t go so well. For example, maybe not given an opportunity
to have fun or to be able to do other things if you wanted to. There may also have
been factors within yourself, such as a DSM diagnosis, personality, problems, or dif-
ficulty performing.”

13
 Trends in Psychology

Fig. 3  Goodness of fit: worksheets 3 and 3.1 of Goodness-of-fit Dialogue Toolbox

Second, they were questioned about their perspective on their development within
the 4 domains described earlier. The interviewer asked: “Are we moving on to the
next worksheet? There you will see five lines of development. Physical, cognitive,

13
Trends in Psychology

intellectual, say emotional, social, and spiritual. You could say, for example, in your
physical development, you’re quite athletic.”
Finally, it was discussed to what extent they experienced goodness of fit: how
were they treated, how was their wellbeing, and to what extent did they feel con-
nected to their environment. The interviewer asked: “Here we have a sort of life
cycle. These are the years, and the question is if you can color them in, with green,
red, orange. Always a period of a year or three and how that has remained in your
memory. What you know of that, how you were treated and approached, how people
treated you around that time. If it was fine, then green, if it was not okay, then just
put a red cross. So how you felt at that time felt connected to the environment where
you were. If there are specifics, you can put them in those boxes with a key word.”
Here are some examples of the questions asked by the interviewer building on
what was said, with the topics and respective participant in parentheses. (Contact
with peers—multiple participants) “How did you see yourself compared to peers, the
kids you were among?” (Dares to rely on own judgment with whom he socializes—
participant 629) “Did you have that from yourself? Or did you learn that? Has it
gradually become clear to yourself: this works better for me this way, or I feel more
comfortable with this.” (Condemnation by the environment—629) “How could your
environment have been different?” (Curiosity—the interviewer’s underlying ques-
tion is whether the participant’s interest is already fixed or open-ended—790) “So
if someone suddenly came and told you that they were collecting stamps, you could
become curious in that also of what how then? And then what do you do?”
The interviewer was a trained counseling psychologist with extensive experience
with high potential individuals, from childhood into (young) adulthood. Further-
more, he had a background in research in this field, as a researcher and as a supervi-
sor of master and doctoral theses. A focal point in his counseling high potential indi-
viduals was the development of attitude and skills, needed to be able to deal with
difficult situations, in personal and daily life, and in (school)work. This used to be
a major impediment for which they sought help. In comparison to the interviewer’s
experience, the interviewees seemed to have had a harmonic development in their
lives so far.

Data Collection

The data were collected by a psychologist who attended all interviews as an

observer and note taker. She provided two parallel audio recordings and took pic-
tures of the cards of the POSI card tool that had been laid out and of the completed
worksheets. She also took notes of what was said. She did not actively participate in
the interview. She did discuss her observations with the interviewer afterward. The
audio recordings and all other materials were sent via secure mail (www.​zivver.​nl)
to the interviewer and researcher. A transcription was then made in two ways, by
hand by a trained psychologist and as a comparison using a specially purchased pro-
gram (www.​amber​script.​nl). All spoken words, sounds, hesitations, guggles, laugh-
ter, pauses, and strong emphasis by as well the interviewee as the interviewer were
noted. The explanation of the worksheets by the interviewer was excluded as well
as other explanations (designate way home, transfer travel money). By having two

13
 Trends in Psychology

audio recordings and by comparing both transcripts, the possibility of losing mate-
rial was reduced.

Thematic Analysis

To identify patterns of meaning within the interview data, thematic analyses were
conducted following the steps of thematic analysis as a data analysis, advised by
Braun and Clarke (2006).
First, the interviewer and a second psychotherapist—independent of each other—
read and re-read the interviews and noted initial observations and ideas for the cod-
ing of the interviews. All internal strengths and weaknesses as well as the obstacles
and opportunities from the environment as experienced by each individual partici-
pant were written down in a notebook. Then, for the other worksheets, it was also
noted which items were mentioned by the participant. These notes were observation
driven and not systematic or ordered.
They then—again independent of each other—wrote a descriptive summary
of what they considered crucial coding features for the entire data set. In this sec-
ond step, codes were exactly what the participants mentioned, e.g., “I want to go
in depth” or as interpretations of what was said, codes as, e.g., integrity, sensitiv-
ity. The interviewer and observer considered (independently) which issues that were
mentioned were crucial. All codes and later the clusters of codes were first writ-
ten down on a large sheet, then typed out by a psychologist. The interviewer and
researcher again discussed the codes to identify similar patterns or clusters and to
generate meaningful themes. Some codes as religion were meaningful to some par-
ticipants but to others not to all. However, there was a meaningful cluster which,
after much discussion and contemplation, clearly culminated in an interpreted
theme: spiritual needs.
Third, those aspects of the interviews identified as crucial in the descriptive sum-
maries were then compared, combined, and sorted into similarities and repeated
patterns of meaning (i.e., themes). We re-read the data and discussed the themes.
Three examples from the discussion were the following: (1) In one theme, partici-
pants mentioned an important characteristic of themselves, an internal strength. We
chose the label “internal motor” because this description was closest to how they
themselves described this present characteristic of themselves. The subtheme linked
to this is curiosity and eagerness to learn (a component of the trait openness to expe-
rience). (2) Perfectionism could be seen as part of this internal engine; however,
because the participants described perfectionism both as a positive drive (“to get
better”) and as a burden (“not being good enough,” “impostor syndrome”), i.e., both
positive and negative perfectionism, we chose, after consideration, to select perfec-
tionism as a separate theme. Perfectionism is also a personality trait. For several
participants, perfectionism was experienced as both positive and negative. In doing
so, perfectionism was clearly present in the participants’ lives and thinking; it was
described in detail among both strong and weak internal forces. (3) The feeling that
“it is not ok to be” me stemmed from the perceived lack of goodness of fit and thus
could be a subtheme of this. Yet we chose to let this be its own theme because it
is related to self-concept and self-confidence. Self-confidence was also named as a

13
Trends in Psychology

separate component by the participants. Despite the strong qualities of the partici-
pants, self-confidence had not always been strong with each participant.
Finally, themes that were mentioned by at least four of the participants in the pre-
sent research and judged to be of importance for the current research interest were
then defined and labeled.
The approach of this study was inductive and coded from the data: the subjective
experiences and perceptions of the participants as they expressed them were studied.
There was also a deductive element because the worksheets and our vision stemmed
from theoretical psychological constructs such as high developmental potential,
diversity, and uniqueness among the very highly intelligent, asynchronous develop-
ment, and Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development.

Validity

Our previous measurements in this longitudinal research were group designs and
appropriate for us to control for variability that existed among very highly intelli-
gent, highly intelligent, and above average intelligent adolescents. For this study, we
chose in-depth interviews with individuals. In doing so, we also aimed to increase
external validity. This study certainly does not claim to be representative of all
gifted young adults.
The following is a description of what was thought about and considered in the
process from which, through in-depth interviews and analysis, the themes emerged
as a result. The guiding principles of these reflections emerged from views of vari-
ous authors (Giorgi, 2002; Masoodi, 2017; Whittemore et al., 2001).
When it comes to commitment, we paid attention to the intrinsic motivation and
commitment of the participants, and we did expectation management. The partici-
pants indicated in advance that they were interested and/or familiar with conducting
research and were eager to participate. They were intrinsically willing to conduct the
interview with dedication and took co-responsibility for the smooth running of the
interview. It could also be seen and heard in their posture and tone of voice that they
had committed themselves to the interview. During the telephone consultation and
making the appointment and at the beginning of the interview, expectation manage-
ment was done to avoid misunderstandings. Instruction, agreements, and the pro-
cedure were clearly formulated to be as transparent as possible, also indicating that
within the framework of the worksheets and questions (semi-structured interview)
and dialogue, the participants were complete free to give their own perspective.
The plausibility and credibility of the results of the study were discussed and
expected to be increased by having multiple researchers with more than 30 years of
knowledge in this field analyze the data. However, this knowledge could also lead to an
implicit expectation that these very highly intelligent people lack goodness of fit, as a
professional often sees this in gifted clients, although research findings on this are not
yet unequivocal. Since the interviewer works in both practice and research, he is famil-
iar with entering into conversations from an inquiring not knowing attitude. Still, a bias
may have crept in. In addition, sensitive people such as these highly gifted people who
are good observers may pick up on this bias quickly and be inclined to conform to the
researcher’s expectations. The observant psychologist found no peculiarities in body

13
 Trends in Psychology

posture and tone of voice that could indicate anxiety or tension or other elements that
could affect the reliability of the interview in the participants during the interview. Her
opinion was that the interviewer established a safe climate and maintained a respectful
open attitude during the dialogue. She also was present to correct for possible bias and
value judgments of the interviewer. She did not have to intervene. Also, the partici-
pants were asked to verify if the selected themes accurately represented the interview.
A reaction was, “The themes of the interview that you describe does indeed evoke the
right feeling for me.” There was also attention for triangulation. We expect increased
reliability as this study is part of a longitudinal research, so there is prolonged engage-
ment by the participants. Data triangulation enhanced credibility through combining
data from worksheets, data from observation, and data from the in-depth questions.
Investigator triangulation increased by using multiple researchers analyzing and com-
paring the individual interviews. Peer debriefing with supervisors was implemented.
The interviewer was, from a scientific perspective, very interested in the topic and in
what highly gifted people wanted to talk about. The interviewer was also a clinician
and aware of these two very different perspectives and very able to switch to a scien-
tific perspective, with the required accuracy and precision, during this study.
The methodological choices such as by following a similar approach with each
participant as a framework (semi-structured interview) and by providing freedom
in type of answers were done to avoid bias. Bias in the interpretations was tried to
be prevented/reduced by having the listener/psychologist and the researchers inter-
pret independently of each other and by constantly rereading and re-discussing. The
choice to have experienced researchers in this field to interpret the data may partly
have prevented bias because they have no preconceptions but know the target group.
It may, however, also have caused bias because, e.g., they already expected that
openness to experience is a characteristic of the gifted.
An innovative way of conducting the interview was used by using the worksheets
as a framework. Thickness of the descriptions was achieved by choosing that at least
four participants brought up this theme of their own accord. Themes that were too
thin, how interesting they may be, were removed.
Congruence with the context outside this research situation was discussed. Liter-
ature corresponds to most of the central themes except one theme. Further research
is indicated on this theme (see the “Discussion” section). By using the worksheets as
a framework, the social and cultural context has been implemented. The interviewer
demonstrated his sensitivity to embedding the context through the following ques-
tion, e.g., “How did you see yourself compared to peers, the kids you were among?”

Results

Qualitative Analyses

Self‑Reported Strengths, Weaknesses, and Challenges

With the aid of worksheet 1 and the card tool from the Goodness-of-fit Dialogue
Toolbox, the self-perceived strengths and weakness of the six very highly intelligent

13
Trends in Psychology

young adults and the challenges they perceived for themselves could be identified
(Fig. 1). What they perceived as main strengths were an eagerness to learn and drive
to learn in depth; their logical reasoning capacities; a high concentration capacity;
a strong capacity to pay attention and quickly draw connections (e.g., “…you see
things faster, which is different, no?” (545)).
Reported weaknesses were “being overly perfectionistic” and “wanting to do
everything on your own” (to make sure that things get done well or right). In addi-
tion, “being introverted,” “underachieving combined with self-doubt,” and “overa-
chieving due to a persistent internalized fear of being exposed as an impostor”
(292) were mentioned as weaknesses.
Among the similar challenges reported by respondents were social isolation
and social stress (e.g., “intuitive feeling of not belonging but wanting to belong”;
being “a weird one,” 790) especially in the past; having too many possibilities
to choose from at times; constantly not being understood; and finding a suitably
challenging environment (e.g., “very precarious balance between being under-
challenged and experiencing pressure,” 292).

Themes that Were Too Thin

Some themes were too thin such as being easily overexcited (2 participants), mind-
set (growth or fixed) (3), internal focus or control (1), or fundamental imbalance (1).

Subtheme

In observation and during rereading the transcripts, it stood out that all participants
appeared to be people who can reflect with integrity about themselves and their own lives
within their specific context. A possibly better description might be “reflected honestly,”
their self-critical view stood out. There was a remarkable lack of externalizing respon-
sibility for the way their lives had been up to the moment of the interview, but a clear
awareness of the match between themselves and their social environments. This aware-
ness included a balance between what could have been better and what had been good.
The following part of two dialogues demonstrates this integrity: (Privileged in terms of
living conditions—790). “I was White and born in the Netherlands with sufficient finan-
cial resources. And that if you look at, if you look at the world, that’s really....What I mean
is that I think I have little.... I don’t have to deal with um... institution, or what do you
call those systems like racism or anything like that. I’ve always been able to eat well, eat
healthy food, be able to exercise always.” (Understanding that their parents have made
the effort even though the needs of the participants in the past were not fulfilled.) They
did not say their parents failed but they stated, “I was not ready to appreciate it yet.” They
blamed no one for the experienced lack of goodness of fit. Integrity could be a value of
very highly intelligent people given their often precociously moral development.

Key Themes Identified in the Interviews

Seven crucial themes for understanding the psychological world of highly gifted
individuals—in this case, young adults—were defined and labeled (see Table 2):

13
 Trends in Psychology

“internal motor,” driven by curiosity, lack of goodness of fit, okay to be me, existen-
tial loneliness, multi-potentiality, perfectionism, and spiritual needs.
The first theme maps the drive of the participants or their “internal motor.” They
mentioned all to be open to experience and driven by curiosity. The second theme is
the experienced lack of goodness of fit until university and especially in elementary
school. Due to this lack of goodness of fit, self-confidence, or the feeling that “it is
okay to be me” was under pressure (third theme). The following theme is an exten-
sion of this feeling combined with the feeling of continuously not being understood,
existential loneliness. All participants struggled with their multi-potentiality (fifth
theme), what among other things led to choice stress. Linked with this theme is the
sixth theme: perfectionism. Internalized high expectations for themselves but also
extreme perfectionism was reported to be the case. The last analyzed theme was the
spiritual needs of these very highly intelligent young adults or belief systems that
give their lives meaning, value, and purpose. These needs of the participants were
not necessarily religious. These young people explicitly indicated that they were
actively seeking their own values and standards, linked to making meaning of their
lives. They wanted to do things that were of value to them (or others).

“Internal motor,” Driven by Curiosity “Internal motor” focuses on the degree to

which the participants were open to experience and driven. They reported to be pas-
sionate in their willingness to learn, also “learn from people.” They reported being
very curious, eager to learn, and having an ongoing urge to develop themselves. “I
want to learn, want to know, am passionate and full of fire—everything interests
me” (545); “[I] have broad interests” (587), and “I have an underlying motor in me”
(629). “I need an environment in which I can learn, be challenged, and search for
solutions together with my team” (545). Compared to other people, they described
themselves as intense, “on fire.”

Lack of Goodness of Fit “No real interconnectedness up to university” focuses on the

experience of all participants reported feeling a lack of goodness of fit with the envi-
ronment on both the cognitive and social levels—in the past, but also in the present
at times. “I am able to see things faster, different” (545). All of them reported feel-
ing more like they fit during their college years and especially during their master
studies. Cognitively they still felt under-challenged (at times). “I wish I could do
something that is really worth pursuing” (629); “unchallenging level!” but “a pre-
carious balance between too little challenge and too much pressure in an egalitarian
system (built for people with (above) average intelligence)” (292). (371). Respond-
ent 292 reported regularly experiencing the dilemma of following his own plan or
trying to belong: “I want and need attention and appreciation for who I am and to
learn things instead of someone telling me it’s not possible” (629). “Not being able
to connect socially up to university, there were no models for me” (371). For 790 in
this matter “the first years of high school were the hardest.”

Okay to Be Me “It was not okay to be me, I was different and not in a cool way.” A
lack of self-confidence was experienced by 587, 1, and 292 but clearly not by 545

13
Trends in Psychology

Table 2  Themes
Theme Description and main quote

Personality trait open- A strong openness to experience is clearly a shared trait of these young adults.
ness to experience They describe being motivated by this trait. Openness to experience as a trait:
Internal motor intellectual curiosity, preference for novelty and variation, active imagination,
subtheme: driven by aesthetic sensitivity, intense absorption in activities, toleration and cultivation
curiosity of ambiguity, and awareness of inner emotions. All these aspects are indicated
as strengths and drives by the highly gifted young adults with an emphasis on
intellectual curiosity, preference for novelty and variation and intense absorp-
tion in activities.
“I’m full of fire, everything interests me”
Personality trait Internalized high expectations for themselves but also extreme perfectionism
Perfectionism was reported to be the case.
“Can I get things done well/perfectly?”
Environment All highly gifted young adults experienced a lack of goodness-of-fit until
Lack of goodness of fit university and especially in elementary school. This included a lack of the
provision of curriculum tailored and appropriate to one’s own pace but also
a lack of contact with like-minded or developmental peers. in college, the
social experience is different; they have a sense of belonging and acceptance.
They need an environment where they are given opportunities to learn, are
challenged, be able to work at their own level and where people can take them
further.
“That I could do something worth pursuing (a school subject)”and “No real
interconnectedness up to university”
Self-concept For these highly gifted people the feeling ‘it is not okay to be me’ was due to
Okay to be me the lack of goodness-of-fit. At its core, there was no lack of a positive sense
of self, and that sense was restored after the lack of goodness-of-fit was
reduced to eliminated. The feeling that it is not ok to be me was related to the
reactions of others to their being and especially during elementary and middle
school. This more often led to masking the self with a mask of normalcy.
“Above-average interest in study/science relative to peers was definitely not
always considered ‘cool’ at that age”.
Emotion The feeling of continuously not being understood because of different thinking,
Existential loneliness different interests, different needs than average. This led to a fundamental
internal imbalance.
“I guess I’m weird”
Goals It was mainly indicated that these individuals have too many opportunities and
Multi-potentiality too little time to do everything they would like to do. This is driven by broad
interests and by wanting (and being able) to do it very well.
“Having many options is not always easy.”
Spirituality The freedom and autonomy to set their own choices and values was central.
Spiritual needs Ideally follows own standards and values and actively seeks them out. For
example: “Feeling the need to live in silence”, or “being in tune with nature”.
Existential: They experienced that there was no room for their spiritual side
in high school.
Existential questions were asked and felt necessary for them to give meaning
to life.
“Learning to deal with pain and also own emotions.”

or 371 who mentioned following their own paths. An explanation for this difference
is that for 545, being rejected as a person made him very ambitious. Having “totally
different interests” contributed to the feeling of not being okay: “It was not (entirely)

13
 Trends in Psychology

okay to be me during high school because of my above-average interest in science

compared to age-peers, which was definitely not cool at that age” (292). “Being bul-
lied” was experienced by 371 and 1 and 292. “The label of nerd gave pressure and
misunderstanding” and made me feel “less connected to age-peers” (292).

Existential Loneliness “Feeling different from other kids” and “Not being under-
stood” outline the way these very highly intelligent young adults lacked the feeling
of belonging. The continuous feeling of not being understood and experiencing little
or no attention for who they really were during their early school years was reported
to lead to existential loneliness. “[I had an] intuitive feeling of not belonging but
wanting to belong, so I pulled back” and clearly thinking “I must be weird! although
I knew that adults liked me” (790).

Multi‑potentiality “There is too little time to do all the things I want to do. I want
to do more” focuses on the fact that all very highly intelligent young adults experi-
enced difficulties with the overabundance of possibilities open to them. “The fact
that one has so many possibilities is not always easy” (292) and can lead to experi-
encing stress because of multi-potentiality (587). The respondents reported feeling
insecure due to the many choices to be made: “Choosing one thing means not choos-
ing another thing” (587).

Perfectionism “I want to excel”: This theme outlines the need of the participants
to actualize their potential and to do things right and therewith avoid the anxiety
associated with potential failure. Most of the participants reported what they con-
sidered positive perfectionism and setting high standards for themselves (and oth-
ers). Respondent 292 specifically mentioned experiencing the so-called impostor
syndrome, namely, doubting his abilities, assuming that his intelligence is overes-
timated and fearing to be exposed as an impostor. Respondent 545 explicitly men-
tioned a desire to solve problems and improve himself: “I want to excel” and “I want
to do things right.” According to 790: “When something isn’t good enough, I per-
sist; otherwise, it feels like failure.”

Spiritual Needs “I need to be free to choose my own path and to follow my own
standards”: This theme of spiritual needs focuses on freedom. Most of the very
highly intelligent young adults mentioned freedom to choose and act as they want as
extremely important to them. “There is no inherent meaning to life, important is to
have a lot of freedom to choose for oneself” (1). One respondent (629) reported to
have mayor spiritual needs, his main need being living alone in silence. The motto
of 545 was different: to “have fun in life” while “keeping two feet on the ground.”
The life orientation 629 reported was “Learning to deal with pain and one’s emo-
tions” but also to be “understanding and understood.” Important for 292 is “being in
tune with nature.” He also asked a lot of questions: “Where does humanity go to and
where does it come from?,” “What are we doing with our lives here?,” “What differ-
ence does it make?,” and “Why do we listen to rules of a government?” And for 790,
life is about “making the best of it” as “we are just an insignificant immeasurable

13
Trends in Psychology

speck of dust.” These questions were urgent and necessary for the participants and
needed to be asked to give life meaning.
Wrapping the themes together: the themes clearly coalesce around the unique-
ness of these young adults and thus the lack of goodness of fit and what this in turn
does to them in their development. They did experience some hiccups, which they
were able to deal with well, so they did not become major issues, but friction that
ultimately made them stronger. As one participant put it: “I have become ambitious
because of rejections.” Hence, those balanced overall pictures.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to describe the rich and deep, lived experience of
the psychological world of highly gifted young adults. Another aim was a to provide
for a greater understanding about experiences of goodness of fit by highly gifted
individuals.
An important finding was that as young adults, all seven participants showed
lives that have gone in a clear and successful direction—either employed or work-
ing on a PhD. The young adults experienced ups and downs in their lives especially
while they lacked goodness of fit in times mainly in education. They seemed to be
resilient enough to eventually get on their feet partly because of good foundations
(home/region). More research on the relationship between good foundation, resil-
ience, and lack of goodness of fit in education is needed to further test the findings
in this study.
Any great conflicts in their lives appear to have been resolved by this phase of
their lives (i.e., since college). Only respondent 629 explicitly mentioned having to
learn to deal with past pain and emotions. The research mentioned consequences
of an insufficient goodness of fit as stress, adjustment problems, reduced wellbe-
ing, and existential crisis (Freeman, 1997, 2001; Gross, 2002; Hollingworth, 1942;
Mönks, 1999; Neihart et al., 2002; Rimm, 2002; Robinson, 2002; Ruf, 2009; Silver-
man, 1993, 2012) were mentioned but also diminished, when a better fit between
the person and the environment in university became possible. Participant 372
described this as “They could describe me as two different people—in high school
and university—I have been able to be myself more in university. I spread my wings
and belonged.” Consistent with literature is the expressed need of the highly gifted
participants of identification and adjustments in school environment and an environ-
ment that promotes social and emotional development in a positive way compatible
with their (life) values (Jung & Gross, 2014). All respondents reported a need for a
clearly stimulating environment in order to thrive, despite the friction and fear of
failure that a challenging environment can elicit.
Similarities in the strengths by the highly gifted young adults (worksheet 1) were
found—as might be expected—to be mostly cognitive. They showed an enhanced
ability to draw connections and strong logical reasoning abilities. The most com-
mon weakness/challenge reported by them was an inclination to be overly perfec-
tionistic. This seems to be due to the mentioned lack of goodness of fit especially
in elementary school. Given that the curriculum is usually not adapted to their level

13
 Trends in Psychology

(e.g., Lenvik et al., 2021), they reported to have faced little to no failure experiences
or learning by trial and error.
The highly gifted participants reported to have experienced that they were ahead
in their development (worksheet 2). They indicated a precocious cognitive and
(almost all) spiritual development consistent with the research findings of Gross
Gross (2000, 2003). The main reason they reported being ahead in spiritual develop-
ment is that they engaged in spiritual themes and existential questions while their
age peers did not. They felt alone in this and indicated that they could only exchange
thoughts about this with adults during elementary, middle, and high school time.
An insufficient goodness of fit with the environment was reported (worksheet 3),
combined with feeling that “it is not always okay to be me,” but also existential lone-
liness due to the feeling of continuously not being understood, up until university.
The following similarities in themes for the highly gifted young people were
further revealed by the qualitative analyses: “Internal motor,” driven by curiosity,
lack of goodness of fit, okay to be me, existential loneliness, multi-potentiality, per-
fectionism, and spiritual needs. The described “internal motor” driven by curiosity
appears to be compatible with the literature reviews of Vuyk et al. (2016), Ogurlu
and Özbey (2021), and De Gucht et al. (2023) on openness to experience.
This study suggests that highly gifted young adults experience troubles in child-
hood and adolescence due to a lack of goodness of fit but turn out all right and that
this outcome can be ensured and better facilitated along the way with the provision
of sufficiently broad and frequent support.
One of the most striking findings were the themes okay to be me and existential
loneliness both linked to the experienced lack of goodness of fit. These experiences
coincided with entry into the school situation and the lack of like-minded peers.
The experience of existential loneliness corresponds with the literature on limited
experience of close friendship by highly gifted children or a lacked access to like-
minded friends (Neihart & Yeo, 2018; Rimm, 2002; Rinn, 2018). The theme “ok
to be me” might correspond to a developmental phase in the psychosocial theory
of Erikson, Autonomy vs. shame and doubt (1981). Further research is indicated on
this phenomenon.
Two other themes were the struggle with multi-potentiality or often the existence
of too many possibilities and continued perfectionism and the setting of high stand-
ards. Both themes were in line with earlier research (refs). The purpose of this study
was not to further investigate perfectionism. Earlier research findings of Grugan
et al., (2021) indicate that a distinction should be made between perfectionist striv-
ing and concerns. This topic could be explored in further research.
Finally, another striking phenomenon was the participants’ emphasis on their
need for freedom to set their own choices and standards or values.

Limitations and Future Research

A potential weakness of this study relating to the choice of the participants is that
all participants had the same socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds and that they
all came from the same geographic region in the Netherlands. Only one came from

13
Trends in Psychology

another geographic region. Future research should include participants from multi-
ple regions. Another limitation regarding the participants is that we found a homo-
geneous group despite selecting an entire year group from various schools. This has
advantages as the data become more powerful than an N = 1 of a 7 very heterogene-
ous diverse group but also disadvantages, namely, a lack of cultural diversity. Further
research with a more heterogeneous group of participants is indicated, e.g., from vari-
ous regions, and from socioeconomic and ethnic, gender, and culture backgrounds.
Then, the earlier mentioned ceiling effect of one of the cognitive intelligence
measurements might provide limitations in our identification of the highly gifted
participants, e.g., maybe there are also highly gifted participants taking part in this
sample. Also, repetition of this study with larger groups and comparison of highly
gifted with profoundly gifted will give a broader picture.
There are also possible limitations regarding the interviewer and the working
sheets. The theoretical psychological knowledge and years of experience in provid-
ing therapy to people with high developmental potential of the interviewer could
have colored the interviewer’s questions and thus biased the findings. It is also pos-
sible that the goodness-of-fit worksheet with two colors for an inappropriate good-
ness of fit (orange and red) and one color for an appropriate goodness of fit (green)
may invite, just by offering it, to indicate a less positive goodness of fit.
Another limitation regarding the interview is looking back at memories. Ret-
rospective information can be biases and be influenced by incidents which linger.
It is possible that the memories are positively colored or that a socially desirable
bias occurs. Freeman (2013) found in her longitudinal research of gifted people that
the unreliability of memory even shortly afterward increases, especially in adults
remembering their youth. Future research can follow children as they develop and
conduct in-depth interviews at established times so that no reliance is placed on
memory.
Also, a possible constraint in the thematic analyses is that the similarities in
reports and themes in the psychological world of all seven highly gifted young
adults do not negate that much individuality was displayed. The uniqueness of
highly gifted individuals goes hand in hand with individuality. All kinds of diversity,
uniqueness, and combinations of mental and chronological ages have been found
to characterize gifted individuals (Borland, 1994, 2005; Cross & Cross, 2012; Dai,
2012; Frumau et al., 2011; Gross, 2000; Passow, 1981).
It was notable that a form of integrity as found in this study could be a value
of highly gifted people given their often-prescient moral development. This is an
interesting question for further research. Finally, this research can provide room
for hypothesis formation for other studies and thus be a steppingstone for further
research and theory formation.

Implications

Given that all highly gifted participants in our study attended high schools providing
the highest levels of education in the Netherlands and that the schools therefore had
students with the highest levels of cognitive capacity, it is conceivable that the grade

13
 Trends in Psychology

8 and 10 school environments may have been particularly well suited for gifted ado-
lescents. The experienced lack of goodness of fit during high school of our partici-
pants seems to confirm that even in this highest level of education, they are different
and have different needs.
Considering the insights provided by the seven highly gifted young adults partici-
pating in the present study, greater learning opportunities and possibilities to tackle
more in-depth challenges throughout their school careers but also later in life (e.g.,
opportunities to learn to deal with failure and friction) are recommended. The partic-
ipants explicitly indicated that they required independence, which include a capacity
to actively seek environments that fit with the abilities of the individual, an ability
to comply with these environments, and even an ability to productively challenge
these environments when appropriate. In addition to these cognitive challenges, they
need opportunities to connect with like-minded individuals, so they can engage in
spiritual themes and existential questions. Highly gifted children, adolescents, and
young adults should be offered the guidance that is needed to deal with their asyn-
chronous development and their multi-potentiality. Attention should thus be paid
to stimulating not only their cognitive development but also their development in
social, emotional, and spiritual developmental domains, e.g., “mind, body and soul.”
They need freedom to make their own choices and adhere to their own standards and
values (or not). Particularly regarding the overabundance of possibilities and thereby
overwhelming number of decisions confronting highly gifted individuals and ado-
lescents, they may need guidance in dealing with the dilemma of choosing to follow
their own path but not feeling that they belong or the opposite: not following their
own path but feeling that they nevertheless belong. More widespread attention and
genuine appreciation of who they are, as they are, is something the highly gifted
adults in our study reported needing in their youth, to bolster their sense of belong-
ing. Finally, let us radiate confidence from the beginning in the development of these
highly gifted young people.

Conclusion

By qualitatively analyses of in-depth interviews by seven very highly intelligent

young adults, the following similarities in themes emerged: “Internal motor,”
driven by curiosity lack of goodness of fit; okay to be me; existential loneliness:
multi-potentiality; perfectionism, and spiritual needs. All seven highly gifted young
adults in this study were curious, driven, multipotential, perfectionistic, and spirit-
ual. These highly gifted young adults experienced a lack of goodness of fit in their
youth which affected their development and wellbeing until university. Possibilities
to tackle more in-depth challenges on their own independent way and contact with
actual peers throughout their entire school careers are helpful.
Author Contributions W.L. Frumau-van Pinxten: conception of the work; data collection of question-
naires; data analysis and interpretation; drafting the article. J.J.L. Derksen: approval of the version to be
published. W.A.M. Peters and W.L. Frumau-van Pinxten: data collection of interviews; data analysis and
interpretation; critical revision of the article.

13
Trends in Psychology

Data Availability The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations
Ethics Approval The authors certify that the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards
as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the
study. Verbal informed consent as well as informed consent by email was obtained prior to the interview.
Written informed consent was obtained from the parents.

Consent for Publication Verbal informed consent was obtained to publish their data prior to submitting
their paper to a journal.

Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​
ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). Intelligence Structure Test 2000
(revised)
Barber, C., & Mueller, C. T. (2011). Social and self-perceptions of adolescents identified as gifted, learn-
ing disabled, and twice-exceptional. Roeper Review, 33, 109–120. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02783​
193.​2011.​554158
Bar-On, R. (2016). Beyond IQ and EQ: The Bar-On multifactor model of performance. The Wiley hand-
book of personality assessment, 104–118.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). Bar On emotional quotient inventory: Youth version. Multi-Health
system, Incorporated. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​t14077-​000
Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2016). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on
achievement-relevant dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 212–225.
Bergold, S., Wirthwien, L., Rost, D. H., & Steinmayr, R. (2015). Are gifted adolescents more satisfied
with their lives than their non-gifted peers? Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1623), 7. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3389/​fpsyg.​2015.​01623
Bergold, S., Hastall, M. R., & Steinmayr, R. (2021). Do mass media shape stereotypes about intellectu-
ally gifted individuals? Two experiments on stigmatization effects from biased newspaper reports.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 75–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00169​86220​969393
Berk, L. E. (2009). Child development (8th ed.). Pearson.
Borland, J. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 38, 164–171.
Borland, J. H. (1996). Gifted education and the threat of irrelevance. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 19(2), 129–147. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01623​53296​01900​202

13
 Trends in Psychology

Borland, J. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of gifted-
ness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1–19).
University Press.
Borland, J. H. (2021). The trouble with conceptions of giftedness. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 37–49). Macmillan.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psy-
chology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bucich, M., & Maccann, C. (2019). Emotional intelligence research in Australia: Past contributions
and future directions. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(1), 59–67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​
ajpy.​12231
Carman, C. A. (2011). Stereotypes of giftedness in current and future educators. Journal for the Edu-
cation of the Gifted, 34(5), 790–812.
Carman, C. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in
research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 52–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​19322​02X12​
472602
Caspi, A. (2002). In M. A. G. van Aken. Ontwikkeling in relaties [Development in relationships].
Kind en adolescent, 23(3), 170–187.
Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2012). Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents.
Prufrock Press.
Dai, D. Y. (2012). Excellence at the cost of social justice? Negotiating and balancing priorities in
gifted education. Roeper Review, 35(2), 93–101.
Dai, D. Y., Swanson, J. A., & Cheng, H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted educa-
tion: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998–2010 (April). Gifted Child Quarterly,
55(1), 126–138.
David, H. (2017). Giftedness: How does it work with sensitivities, learning disabilities, and disorders?
Jourmal of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 1(1), 61–75.
De Gucht, V., Woestenburg, D. H. A., & Backbier, E. (2023). Do gifted individuals exhibit higher
levels of sensory processing sensitivity and what role doopenness and neuroticism play in this
regard? Journal of Research in Personality, 104, 104376.
Erikson, E. H. (1981). Het kind en de samenleving [The child and society] ((9th. ed.). ed.). Het
Spectrum.
Falck, S. (2020). Extreme intelligence: Development, predicaments, implications. Routledge.
Freeman, J. (1997). The emotional development of the highly able. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, 12, 479.
Freeman, J. (2001). Gifted children grown up. David Fulton.
Freeman, J. (2013). Gifted lives: What happens when gifted children grow up. Routledge.
Frumau, M. (2022). Hoogbegaafdheid: emotionele ontwikkeling bij kinderen en (jong)volwassenen.
Toolbox voor de praktijk. [Giftedness: emotional development in children and (young) adults.
Toolbox for practice]. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Frumau, M., Derksen, J. J. L., & Peters, W. (2011). Hoogbegaafdheid: het label voorbij [Giftedness:
the label beyond]. GZ- Psychologie, 5, 32–37.
Gagné, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Col-
angelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60–74). Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (p. 1). NY: Basics.
Giorgi, A. (2002). The question of validity in qualitative research. Journal of Phenomenological Psy-
chology, 33(1), 1–18.
Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence. Intelli-
gence, 31(4), 343–397.
Gross, M. U. M. (2000). Exceptionally and profoundly gifted students: An underserved population.
Understanding Our Gifted, 12(2), 3–9.
Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues for exceptionally intellectually gifted students.
The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Routledge.
Gross, M. U. M. (2003). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Grugan, M. C., Hill, A. P., Mallinson-Howard, S. H., Donachie, T. C., Olsson, L. F., Madigan, D.
J., & Vaughan, R. S. (2021). Development and initial validation of the Perfectionistic Climate
Questionnaire-Sport (PCQ-S). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 56, 101997. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​psych​sport.​2021.​101997

13
Trends in Psychology

Heller, K. A. (1991). The nature and development of giftedness: A longitudinal study. European Jour-
nal for High Ability, 174–188.
Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children above IQ 180: Origin and development. New York: World Books.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​13574-​000
Jackson, P. S., Moyle, V. F., & Piechowski, M. M. (2009). Emotional life and psychotherapy of the gifted
in light of Dabrowski’s theory. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness.
Springer.
Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F.
D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspective (pp. 149–
195). American Psychological Association.
Jung, J. Y., & Gross, M. U. M. (2014). Highly gifted students. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.),
Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 305–314).
Prufrock Press.
Kennedy, K., & Farley, J. (2018). Counseling gifted students: School-based considerations and strate-
gies. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 10(3), 361–367. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
26822/​iejee.​20183​36194
Kimberly, E. (2010). Understanding the stereotypes against gifted students: A look at the social and emo-
tional struggles of stereotyped students. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(3), 56 https://​
schol​ars.​fhsu.​edu/​alj/​vol8/​iss3/​56
Lenvik, A., Hesjedal, E., & Jones, L. Ø. (2021). “We want to be educated!” A thematic analysis of gifted
students’ views on education in Norway. Nordic Studies in Education, 41(3), 219–238. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​23865/​nse.​v41.​262
Lovecky, D. V. (1992). Exploring social and emotional aspects of giftedness in children. Roeper Review,
15, 18–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​02783​19920​95534​51
MacDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2005). Situational judgment test research: Informing the debate on
practical intelligence theory. Intelligence, 33(5), 515–525. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​intell.​2005.​02.​
001
Makel, M. C., Kell, H. J., Lubinski, D., Putallaz, M., & Benbow, C. P. (2016). When lightning strikes
twice: Profoundly gifted, profoundly accomplished. Psychological Science, 27(7), 1004–1018.
Masoodi, M. (2017). A comparative analysis of two qualitative methods: Deciding between grounded
theory and phenomenology for your research. Vocational Training: Research and Realities, 28(1),
23–40. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2478/​vtrr-​2018-​0003
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings.
Applied & Preventive Psychology, 4, 197–208.
Mendaglio, S. (Ed.). (2008). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration. Scottsdale, AZ:
GreatPotentialPress.
Mönks, F. J. (1999). Das Optimal-Match-Modell und die Entwicklung hoch begabter Kinder und Jugenli-
cher [The optimal match model and the development of gifted children and youth]. In T. Fitzner, W.
Stark, H.-P. Kagelmacher, & T. Müller (Eds.), Erkenne, anerkennen und fördern von hochbegabten
[Recognize, acknowledge and promote highly talented people] (pp. 246–265). Ernst Klett.
Neihart, M., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Cross, T. L. (Eds.). (2015). The social and emotional development of gifted
children (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.
Neihart, M., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Cross, T. L. (2016). The social and emotional development of gifted chil-
dren. Prufrock Press.
Neihart, M., Reis, S., Robinson, N., & Moon, S. (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted
children: What do we know? Routledge.
Neihart, M., & Yeo, L. S. (2018). Psychological issues unique to the gifted student. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E.
Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 496–
510). American Psychological Association.
O’Conner, K. J. (2005). Stereotypes and beliefs regarding intellectually gifted students: Perceptions of
pre-service school counselors. University of Connecticut.
Ogurlu, U., & Özbey, A. (2021). Personality differences in gifted versus non-gifted individuals: A three-
level meta-analysis. High Ability Studies, 1–25. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13598​139.​2021.​19854​38
Papadopoulos, D. (2020). Psychological framework for gifted children’s cognitive and socio-emotional
development: A review of the research literature and implications. Journal for the Education of
Gifted Young Scientists, 8(1), 305–323. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17478/​jegys.​666308
Passow, A. H. (1981). The nature of giftedness and talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(1), 4–10.

13
 Trends in Psychology

Pfeiffer, S. (2015). Tripartite model of giftedness and best practices in gifted assessment. Revista de Edu-
cacion., 155–182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4438/​1988-​592X-​RE-​2015-​368-​293
Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A.
Davis (Eds.), A handbook of gifted education (pp. 285–306).
Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (Eds). (2008). Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What
the research says. Prufrock.
Plucker, J. A., & Callahan, C. M. (2014). Research on giftedness and gifted education: Status of the field
and considerations for the future. Exceptional Children, 80(4), 390–406. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
00144​02914​527244
Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Oxford psy-
chologists Press.
Rice, K. G., & Ray, M. E. (2018). Perfectionism and the gifted. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, &
M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 645–658). American Psycho-
logical Association. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​00000​38-​042
Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N.
M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What
do we know? (pp. 13–18). Prufrock Press.
Rinn, A. N. (2018). Social and emotional considerations for gifted students. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shau-
nessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 453–464).
American Psychological Association.
Robinson, A. (2009). Biography, eminence, and talent development: The lure of lives. In B. D. McFar-
lane & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Leading chance. The festschrift of Dr. Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp.
457–468). Prufrock Press.
Robinson, N. M. (2002). Individual differences in gifted students’ attributions for academic perfor-
mances. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional
development of gifted children (pp. 61–69). Prufrock Press.
Robinson, N. M. (2008). The social world of gifted children and youth. In S. I. Pfeifer (Ed.), Handbook
of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational Theory, Research, and Best Practices (pp. 33–51).
Springer.
Robinson, N. M., & Noble, K. D. (1991). Social-emotional development and adjustment of gifted chil-
dren. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education:
Research and practice (Emerging programs) (Vol. 4, pp. 57–76). Pergamon Press.
Robinson, N. M., & Reiss, S. (2016). Foreword. In M. Neihart (Ed.), The social and emotional develop-
ment of gifted children (pp. XIII–XVI). Prufrock.
Rost, D. H. (Ed). (1993). Lebensumweltanalyse Hochbegabter Kinder [Life-environmentanalysis of
gifted children]. Hogrefe.
Rost, D. H. (hrsg). (2009). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. [Gifted and High Performing
Youth]. Befunde aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt (2., erweiterte Auflage). Waxmann.
Zusätzlich zum Cover: Vorworte, Inhaltsverzeichnis, Kapitel 1.
Ruf, D. (2009). Self-actualization and morality of the gifted: Environmental, familial, and personal fac-
tors. In Morality, ethics, and gifted minds (pp. 265–283). Springer.
Sak, U. (2021). The fuzzy conception of giftedness. In D. Ambrose & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Conceptions
of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 371–392). Macmillan.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the needs and programs for the gifted. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks,
& A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and tal-
ent (pp. 631–647). Pergamon.
Silverman, L. K. (2012). Asynchronous development: A key to counselling the gifted. In T. L. Cross &
J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counsellors serving students with gifts and talents (pp. 261–279).
Prufrock Press.
Sisk, D. A. (2019). Spiritual Intelligence. Developing higher consciousness. In B. Wallace, D. A. Sisk, &
J. Senior (Eds.), The sage handbook of gifted and talented education (pp. 76–94). SAGE.
Smedsrud, J. (2020). Explaining the variations of definitions in gifted education. Nordic Studies in Edu-
cation, 40(1), 79–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​23865/​nse.​v40.​2129
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. CUP Archive.
Stoeger, H. (2009). The history of giftedness research. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook
on giftedness (pp. 17–38). Springer.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2018). Talent development as the most
promising focus of giftedness and gifted education. In S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M.

13
Trends in Psychology

Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 231–245). American Psychologi-
cal Association. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​00000​38-​015
Terman, L. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
Vaivre-Douret, L. (2004). Les caractéristiques développementales d’un échantillon d’enfants tout venant
à “hautes potentialités” (surdoués): suivi prophylactique [Developmental characteristics of a sample
of children while coming to “high potentialities”(gifted): prophylactic follow-up]. Neuropsychiatrie
de l’Enfance et de l’Adolescence, 52, 129–141.
Van Gerven, E. (2009). Handboek hoogbegaafdheid [Handbook of Giftedness]. Van Gorcum.
Van Vianen, A. E. (2018). Person–environment fit: A review of its basic tenets. Annual Review of Organi-
zational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 75–101.
Vialle, W., Heaven, P. C., & Ciarrochi, J. (2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social,
emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth Study. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 569–586.
Von Karolyi, C. (2006). Issue awareness in young highly gifted children: Do the claims hold up? Roeper
review, 28, 167–174.
Vuyk, M. A., Krieshok, T. S., & Kerr, B. A. (2016). Openness to experience rather than overexcitabili-
ties: Call it like it is. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 192–211.
Weyns, T., Preckel, F., & Verschueren, K. (2021). Teachers-in-training perceptions of gifted children’s
characteristics and teacher-child interactions: An experimental study. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 97, 103215.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health
Research, 11(4), 522–537.
Wigglesworth, C. (2012). SQ21: The twenty-one skills of spiritual intelligence. Selectbooks, Inc.
Wirthwein, L., & Rost, D. H. (2011). Giftedness and subjective well-being: a study with adults. Learning
Individual Differences, 21, 182–186.
Yalom, I. D. (2008). Tegen de zon inkijken [Staring at the Sun]. Balans.

13