running head: personality attributes of talented … · similar to regular females in great britain...

Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 1 -

Running head: PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES OF TALENTED TEENAGERS

Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers

Jane Piirto

[email protected]

George Johnson

[email protected]

Ashland University

Ashland, OH, USA 44805

A Study Presented At The European Council for High Ability Conference

Pamplona, Spain

September, 2004

This is a Draft. Do not cite without permission.


Abstract

Using the theoretical framework of the Piirto Pyramid of

Talent Development, which posits that personality attributes

are extremely important in the development of talent, the

researchers administered the High School Personality

Questionnaire (N=474, M=158, F=316) and the Myers Briggs

Type Indicator (N=667, M=223, F=442) to gifted and talented

high school students ages 14 to 16. Results on the HSPQ

showed gender differences on Factors B (Intelligence), E.

(Dominance), I. (Sensitivity), and in Second Order Factors

(Independence, Tough-Mindedness, Creativity, and

Leadership). Results on the MBTI showed a preference for

Intuition (N) and Perception (P), with gender differences in

Feeling (F) and Thinking (T). Comparisons with similar

studies showed that the gifted and talented females were

similar to regular females in Great Britain on the HSPQ in

terms of high Boldness and Dominance, and that the gifted

and talented females and males were similar on the MBTI to

other gifted and talented high school students.

PERSONALITY ATTRIBUTES OF TALENTED

TEENAGERS

The Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development (Piirto,1994;

1998; 1999; 2004) has, at its base, Personality Attributes.

Many studies have emphasized that successful creators in all

domains have certain personality attributes in common. These

make up the base of the model (See Figure 1). These

personality attributes are the affective aspects of what a person

needs in order to develop talents fully.

Figure 1: Place Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development About

Here

These rest on the foundation of genes. Among these

personality attributes are androgyny, creativity, imagination,

insight, intuition, motivation, naivete, or openness to

experience; overexcitabilities, passion for work in a domain,

perceptiveness, persistence, preference for complexity,

resilience, risk-taking, self-discipline, self-efficacy, tolerance

for ambiguity, and volition, or will. Here is research support

for the personality attributes: androgyny (Barron, 1968, 1995;

Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, & Whalen, 1993; Piirto & Fraas,

1995); creativity (Renzulli, 1978; Tannenbaum, 1983);

imagination (Dewey, 1934; Langer, 1957; Plato; Santayana,

18996); insight (Sternberg and Davidson, 1985; Davidson,

1992); intuition (Myers and McCaulley, 1985); motivation

(Amabile, 1873; Rothenberg, 1990); naiveté, or openness to

experience (Ghiselin, 1952; Cattell, 1971); the presence of

overexcitabilities, called OEs (Dabrowski, 1964; 1967; 1972;

Dabrowski and Piechowski, 1977); Piechowski,1979;

Silverman, 1993); passion for work in a domain (Benbow,

1992; Block & Kremen, 1996; Bloom, 1985; Piirto, 1994);

perceptiveness (Myers and McCaulley 1985); perfectionism

(Silverman, 1993); persistence (Renzulli, 1978); preference

for complexity (Barron, 1968; 1995); resilience (Jenkins-

Friedman 1992; Block & Kremen,1996); risk-taking

(MacKinnon 1978; Torrance 1987); self-discipline (Renzulli

1978); self-efficacy (Zimmerman, Bandura and Martinez-

Pons 1992); Sternberg and Lubart 1992); tolerance for

ambiguity (Barron, 1968; 1995); and volition, or will. (Corno

and Kanfer, 1993). The consolidation of personality traits into

the Big Five (McCrae & Costa, 1999) is noted here, but earlier

work on creative people has noted these other traits as listed,

and so I include them here.

The Instruments

High School Personality Questionnaire

The High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) was

developed by Cattell in the 1970s (Cattell, 1973). It has 142

items in a forced-choice format, measuring 14 personality

scales called factors. These are 14 of the 16 in the adult

version, the 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (Cattell).

These factors are scored on a continuum from Low (a standard

score of 1 to 4) to High (a standard of 7 to 10). The standard

scores are called stens (meaning a ten point scale). The mean

is 5.5 and the standard deviation is 2.0. Raw scores are

converted, by gender, into sten scores). Factors are these:

Factor A, Warmth; Factor B, Intelligence; Factor C, Emotional

Stability; Factor D, Excitability; Factor E, Dominance; Factor

F, Cheerfulness; Factor G, Conformity; Factor H, Boldness,

Factor I, Sensitivity; Factor O, Withdrawal; Factor Q2, Self-

sufficiency; Factor Q3, Self-discipline; Factor Q-4, Tension.

These factors are combined in various ways, into second-order

factors of Extraversion, Anxiety, Tough-poise, Independence,

School Achievement, Creativity, and Leadership. Here are the

adjectival descriptions from the manual (Cattell, Cattell, &

Johns, 1984; Cattell, 1973).

Factor A, Warmth: A-minus is cool, reserved, impersonal,

detached, formal, aloof, critical, stands by his own ideas,

precise, objective, distrustful, skeptical, rigid, cold, and prone

to sulk. Factor A-+ is good natured, easygoing, ready to

cooperate, likes to participate, attentive to people, softhearted,

casual, trustful, adaptable, careless, ―goes along,‖

warmhearted, and laughs readily.

Factor B: Intelligence. B-minus is concrete-thinking, less

intelligent, low mental capacity, unable to handle abstract

problems, apt to be less well organized. B-+ is abstract

thinking, more intelligent, bright, high general mental


capacity, insightful, fast-learning, intellectually adaptable,

inclined to have more intellectual interests.

Factor C: Emotional Stability. C-minus is affected by

feelings, emotionally less stable, easily annoyed, gets

emotional when frustrated, changeable in attitudes and

interests, easily perturbed, evasive of responsibilities, tending

to give up, worrying, gets into fights and problem situations.

C-plus is emotionally stable, mature, faces reality, calm,

emotionally mature, constant in interests, does not let

emotional needs obscure the realities of the situation, adjusts

to facts, unruffled, shows restraint in avoiding difficulties.

Factor D: Excitability. D-minus is phlegmatic,

undemonstrative, deliberate, placid, inactive, stoical,

complacent, deliberate, not easily jealous, self-effacing,

constant, not restless. D-plus is excitable, impatient, attention-

getting, show-off, excitable, overactive, prone to jealousy,

self-assertive, egotistical, distractible, and shows many

nervous symptoms.

Factor E: Dominance. E-minus is submissive, humble, mild,

easily led, accommodating, submissive, dependent,

considerate, diplomatic, expressive, conventional, conforming,

easily upset by authority, and humble. E-plus is dominant,

assertive, aggressive, stubborn, competitive, bossy, assertive,

self-assured, independent-minded, stern, hostile, solemn,

unconventional, rebellious, headstrong, and admiration

demanding.

Factor F: Cheerfulness. F-minus is sober, restrained,

prudent, taciturn, serious, silent, introspective, full of cares,

concerned, reflective, incommunicative, sticks to inner values,

slow, and cautions. F-plus is cheerful, enthusiastic, impulsive,

heedless, expressive, talkative, cheerful, happy go-lucky,

frank, expressive, reflects the group, quick and alert.

Factor G: Conformity. G-minus is expedient, disregards the

rules, self-indulgent, quitting, fickle, frivolous self-indulgent,

slack, indolent, undependeable, and disregards obligations to

people. G-plus is conforming, conscientious, persistent,

moralistic, staid, rule bound, persevering, determined,

responsible, emotionally disciplined, consistently ordered,

conscientious, dominated by a sense of duty, concerned about

moral standards and rules.

Factor H: Boldness. H-minus is shy, threat-sensitive, timid,

hesitant, intimidated, shy, withdrawn, retiring in the face of

the opposite sex, emotionally cautious, apt to be embittered,

restrained, rule-bound, restricted in interests, careful,

considerate, quick to see dangers. H-plus is bold,

venturesome, unhibited, can take stress, adventurous, likes

meeting people, active, has an overt interest in the opposite

sex, responsive, genial, friendly, impulsive, has emotional and

artistic interests, and is carefree and does not see danger signs.

Factor I: Sensitivity. I-minus is tough-minded, self-reliant,

no-nonsense, rough, realistic, unsentimental, expects little,

self-reliant, takes responsibility, hard to the point of cynicism,

has few artistic responses but is not lacking in taste, unaffected

by ―fancies,‖ acts on practical, logical evidence, keeps to the

point, does not dwell on physical disabilities. Factor I-plus is

tender-minded, sensitive, overprotected, intuitive, refined,

fidgety, expecting affection and attention, clinging, insecure,

seeking help and sympathy, kindly, gentle, indulgent to self

and others, artistically fastidious, affected, theatrical,

imaginative in inner life and in conversation, acts on sensitive

intuition, attention-seeking, and flighty.

Factor J: Withdrawal. The J-minus scorer is vigorous, goes

readily with the group, is zestful, given to action, likes

attention, sinks personality into group enterprise, and accepts

common standards. The J-minus individual is withdrawn,

guarded, internally restrained, circumspecttly individualistic,

guarded, wrapped up in self, fastidiously obstructive,

neurasthenically fatigued, and evaluates coldly.

Factor O: Apprehension. The O-minus scorer is self-assured,

secure, feels free of guilt, untroubled, self-satisfied, self-

confident, cheerful, resilient, impenitent, placid, expedient,

insensitive to people’s approval or disapproval, does not care,

rudely vigorous, has no fears, and is given to simple action.

The O-plus scorer is apprehensive, self-blaming, guilt-prone,

insecure, worrying, anxious, easily touched, overcome by

moods, has a strong sense of obligation, sensitive to people’s

approval and disapproval, scrupulous, fussy, hypochondriacal

and inadequate, has phobic symptoms, is lonely and brooding.

Factor Q2: Self-Sufficiency. Q2-minus scorers are group-

oriented, ―joiners,‖ followers, listen to others, and socially

group dependent. Factor Q2-plus scorers are self-sufficient,

resourceful, and prefer their own decisions.

Factor Q3: Self-Discipline. Q3-minus scorers have

undisciplined self conflict, are lax, careless of social rules,

uncontrolled, and follow their own urges. Q3-plus scorers are

self-disciplined, controlled, socially precise, compulsive, self-

respecting, exacting will power, and follow their own self-

image.

Factor Q4: Tension. Q4-minus scorers are relaxed, tranquil,

composed, have low drive, and are unfrustrated. Q4-plus

scorers are tense, frustrated, overwrought, and have high

drive.

Second Order Factors:

Extraversion. This factor is made up of Q2-minus, A, F, H,

and J-minus. Extraversion-minus scorers are self-sufficient,

cool, sober, shy, and withdrawn. Extraversion-plus scorers are

group-oriented, warm, cheerful, bold, and vigorous.


Anxiety. This factor is made up of D, Q4, C-minus, O, H-

minus, and Q3-minus. Anxiety-minus scorers are phlegmatic,

relaxed, emotionally stable, self assured, bold, and self-

disciplined. Anxiety-plus scorers are excitable, tense, affected

by feelings, apprehensive, shy, and undisciplined.

Tough Poise. This factor is made up of I-minus, E, and A-

minus. Tough poise-minus scorers are tender-minded,

submissive, and warm. Tough poise-plus scorers are tough-

minded, dominant, and cool.

Independence. This factor is made up of J, E, and Q2.

Independence-minus scorers are subdued, virous, submissive,

and group-oriented. Independence-plus scorers are withdrawn,

dominant, and self-sufficient.

Though formulas were provided in the Manual (Cattell,

Cattell,. & Johns, 1984) for School Achievement, Leadership,

and Creativity, adjectival descriptions were not provided. We

did calculate these second order factors (See Table 1).

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) Form G is a

forced-choice instrument of 126 items. Based on the Jungian

theory of personality type, the MBTI provides data on four

sets of preferences, Introversion-Extraversion, Sensing-

Intuition, Feeling-Thinking, and Judging-Perceiving. These

preferences result in 16 learning styles, or types. A type is a

combination of the four preferences.

The MBTI has been widely used in education, in

business, and in counseling. A literature also exists on the

MBTI and gifted students. Mills and Parker (1998) described

cross-cultural similarities and differences between gifted

students studying with the Center for Talented Youth at Johns

Hopkins University, and with similar Irish students. These

students were highly gifted, scoring in the top 1 % on

measures of cognitive ability. Myers and McCaulley (1985)

described studies of National Merit Finalists (INFP), of gifted

seventh to ninth grade males (ENTP) and females (ENFP); of

creative men (INTP) and creative women (INFP), and of

schoolteachers (ESFJ). N’s received higher grades than S’s

and J’s received higher grades than P’s.

The MBTI has been found to be associated with

academic aptitude: Myers and McCaulley (1985) said, ―To

the extent that academic work requires the ability to deal with

concepts and ideas (Introversion—I), and with symbols and

abstractions (Intuition—N), academic aptitude should be, and

is, associated with a preference for introversion and intuition‖

(p. 123). The Extraversion-Introversion measure indicates

preference of how a person prefers to relate to the outer world.

Extraverts prefer action and sociability. Introverts prefer

contemplation and are interested in ideas. On the Sensing and

Intuition continuum, people who prefer Sensing are interested

in the concrete, and with the known. Intuition preferers like to

work with the unknown, the abstract, and with symbols. On

the Thinking and Feeling measure, Feeling (F) types score

higher when verbal strengths are called for, and Thinking (T)

types get higher scores when analysis is in order. Perceptive

(P) types have greater breadth of knowledge, and are more

adaptable and impulsive than judging (J) types and usually

score higher on aptitude tests. However, J types get higher

grades than would be expected by their aptitude scores

because they organize their work and meet deadlines.

Procedure

Ninth and tenth graders, ages 14 to 16 (N=474; M=158;

F=316) were administered the HSPQ and the MBTI while

attending a summer honors institute at a small midwestern

university. Human Subjects Research Permission was obtained

and permission was granted by both the students and their

parents. Ninth and tenth grade students eligible to attend the

16 Ohio Summer Honors Institutes are identified as gifted and

talented by the Ohio Rule for the Identification of Gifted

Students. Ohio identifies gifted students in four areas:

Superior Cognitive; Specific Academic; Creativity; and Visual

and Performing Arts.1 Identification is mandatory in Ohio.

Notification of parents is mandatory. Service is not. The Ohio

Legislature has financed the tuition-free 16 Ohio Summer

Honors Institutes to any freshman and sophomore high school

students who have been identified as gifted and talented in any

of the four areas.

Demographics

Ohio is a state with 11,373,541 people, the 7th

largest

populated in the U.S., located in the Great Lakes Area, with its

center 500 miles from New York City and 400 miles from

Washington, DC. Eighty-five percent of Ohioans are white,

11.5 percent are black, 1.9 percent are Latino, and 1.5 percent

are Asian.

The Participants

Students ranged in age from 14 to 17. Most students had

been identified as gifted in the Superior Cognitive and

Specific Academic areas of the Ohio Rule for the

Identification of Gifted and Talented Students, SHB 282.

Their GPAs ranged between 3.0 and 4.0, with the majority

having a GPA of 4.0. They had all passed all five sections of

the Ohio Proficiency Test. Recommendation letters for the

students used descriptors such as ―outstanding work ethic,‖

―natural born leader,‖ ―mature,‖ ―enthusiastic,‖ ―dedicated,‖

and ―conscientious.‖ The students’ ethnicities and

demographics of residence (rural, urban, suburban) were

commensurate with the state demographics. The application

form does not ask for parent income or other financial

information, but about 1/3 of the students attended on


scholarship. (Ball & Starkey, 2000; Shadle & Shadle, 2001).

Students came from 36 of the 88 counties in Ohio, with most

from Cuyahoga County (the Cleveland area), Franklin County

(the Columbus area), and Stark County (the Akron area). Most

(45%) were from suburban areas, with 19% from urban areas

and 35% from rural areas.

Results

HSPQ:

A recent study done in Great Britain (Bourke, 2002), provided

data about the norms that is more up to date than that in the

norms manual (Cattell, Cattell, & Johns, 1984; Cattell, 1973).

Thus, a table was constructed that includes the recent Great

Britain population. (See Table 1).

Gender Differences

The results mirrored those in an earlier study (Piirto & Fraas,

1995). Gender differences were calculated. Most sten scores

were within one standard deviation of the mean, with no

significant differences. As expected for an academically

talented group, Factor B (Intelligence) was higher for both

genders, with males (7.5) being significantly higher than

females (7.2) . On Factor E (Dominance), females were

significantly higher than males. The males scored right at the

mean (5.5) , and the females were above the mean (6.6;

p<.001). On Factor I (Sensitivity), males were significantly

higher (6.9; p<.05) than the females (6.1). This factor seems to

be similar to the MBTI Sensing and Intuition. The finding on

the MBTI that the students preferred intuition seems to be

related to this I-plus score here. Cattell, Cattell, and Johns

(1984) stated that those who score I+ ―avoid rough and

adventurous situations, like to depend on the teacher, are

artistic and neat but not organized‖ (p. 16). They don’t seem to

like to play physical games. Neurotics score very high on I.

Occupationally, those who score high on I tend to be artists or

people in the helping professions.

Females were significantly higher on the Second Order

Factors of Tough-Poise and Independence. (F=5.3; p<.05;

M=4.8) Of Tough Poise, Cattell, Cattell, and Johns (1984)

said, that tough poise ―describes a person who views the world

objectively and makes decisions from cool, rational thought.‖

Since both the Ohio gifted and talented females and males

scored below the mean, with the males scoring significantly

lower than the females, this finding seems to uphold the

androgyny personality attribute. ―Low tough-poised

individuals tend to receive higher ratings of creativity‖ (p. 21).

High scorers on Independence (both males and females scored

well above the mean, with the females scoring significantly

higher than the males) have ―a very strong preference for

being in control and doing things his or her own way‖ (p. 21).

Males were significantly higher on the Second Order

Factors of Creativity and Leadership. Creativity was derived

from teacher ratings of demonstrated creative ability of 146

eighth-graders in one Midwest school, at an undisclosed time,

perhaps in the early 1980s (Cattell, Cattell, and Johns, 1984).

This criterion might be insufficient to conclude that the

students were creative, and thus this finding that the students

in this population are high in creativity might not hold.

Likewise, the formula for leadership was derived from a study

of 641 sixth to eighth graders. The study was never published

(Johns, 1982). These findings are confusing, as their validation

does not seem to be adequate.

Similar results were found in Great Britain, and so the

finding that gifted girls are more dominant and more tough-

minded than gifted boys, is only partially true, because the

gifted girls are similar to the regular girls in Great Britain.

Bourke (2002) said, ―the most striking gender differences

occur in the case of factors E (submissive v. dominant) and I

(toughminded v. tenderminded). While the boys are above

average in dominance, the girls are significantly higher‖ (p.

36). The Ohio youth, both males and females, were higher on

dominance than the Great Britain youth, but the Ohio females

were significantly higher than the Ohio males, just as were the

Great Britain females higher than the Great Britain males..

Factor E indicates that a high scorer can ―exert one’s will over

others. High scorers tend to express their views forcefully,

subjugating the wishes of others to their own‖ (Bourke, p. 36).

The girls are ―more dominant, assertive, and competitive‖ (p.

36) than the boys, which was not true for the original norm

sample of U.S. students (Cattell, Cattell, & Johns, 1984).

Cattell (1973) said that those high in dominance demonstrate

―the extent to which the individual has the confidence and

need to pit himself against social and material opposition‖ (p.

163).

General findings

Findings that are more than one sten from the mean

(above 6.5 and below 4.5) will be mentioned here, since an

increase in number of participants brings findings closer to the

mean, this seems a reasonable way of discussing these.

The group scored 7.33 on Factor B, Intelligence, as

would be expected.

The group scored 6.5 on Factor J, Withdrawal. Cattell,

Cattell, and Johns (1984) stated that J+ people ―like to act on

reasoned grounds, but are apt to be rigid, or at least,

uncompromising, as seen from the standpoint of easy

acceptance of group feelings and actions‖ (p. 17). Cattell

(1973) said, that J+ ―has been well described as the Hamlet

factor. . . cagey and wary of people and careful not to involve

himself with them‖ (p. 179). The high J scorer ―shows more

than average behavioral control by the mother and less than

average by the father.‖ The person with high J might be

accused of laziness and nonparticipation, but ―has confidence

in his own thinking and is willing to stand by his decisions‖


(p. 179). This factor is also related to the finding of

Independence, which is 7.66.

Likewise, they scored above the mean on School

Achievement ((6.97), which would be expected of this

population. School Achievement was defined with correlations

to the Stanford Achievement Test, Metropolitan Achievement

Test and the Stanford Achievement Test (Cattell, Cattell, &

Johns, 1984) with many studies of diverse groups, and so this

finding seems to be more robust than could be concluded from

the Creativity and Leadership finding.

They scored below the mean in Factor O, Apprehension,

or Guilt Proneness. O-minus people make good administrators

(Cattell, 1973). Occupations of those with Low O were

―military airmen, competitive athletes, administrators,

physicists, mechanics, airline hostesses, psychologists,

domestic help‖ (p. 173). They are often selected as leaders.

This would be related to the leadership finding of 6.61.

Myers Briggs Type Indicator

The main finding in this study confirms other findings

we have made (Piirto, 1998; Piirto, Rogers, Beabout, Hall,

Swonger, Fraas, 2000), and those made by others (see the

many studies by Mills of the CTY students). That is, that

gifted and talented teenagers, like creative and high achieving

adults, prefer Intuition and Perception (NP). Piirto

(1992/1998;1999; 2004)in her research on creativity in

domains, has shown that the preferred N and P is universal in

the MBTI studies done on visual artists, creative writers,

scientists, mathematicians, inventors, entrepreneurs, actors,

dancers, and musical composers. See Tables 2, 3, and 4. A

look at the intensity of the preference indicates that this

finding is robust (See Table 4).

What do these studies mean? The personalities of

talented youth are different from those of regular and

vocational youth in significant ways – they are more

intelligent, more creative, display more leadership. The males

are more extreme than the females, especially in their

tendermindedness, which suggests an androgynous aspect.

The females resemble other females, except in the dimension

of Thinking, where the gifted girls preferred thinking to a

greater extent than other girls (Piirto, 1998).

Implications for teaching should become part of the

pedagogy for the gifted and talented.

How does one teach intuitive and perceptive students? Since

most students prefer Sensing, classrooms have been designed

around concrete, hands-on, constructivist experiences that

appeal to Sensing students. Students who prefer Introversion

and Intuition prefer to work alone and may not volunteer, even

though they do well academically. Since the classrooms are

designed around the other students, they may underachieve,

rebel, and lose self esteem. Students who have the IP

preference are always seeking to learn, but they are also likely

to procrastinate and not complete their work. They seek

novelty, are unconventional, and like to look at old ideas in

new ways. They are resistant to strictures and easily bored

with routines. Teachers do not appreciate their approach to

learning and their seeking of the new. They don’t do all the

problems if they know how to do the procedure. They turn in

sloppy work about great ideas.

Implications for teacher training are obvious.

References

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York:

Springer-Verlag. Barron, F. (1968). Creativity and personal freedom. New York: Van

Nostrand.

Barron, F. (1995). No rootless flower: An ecology of creativity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Benbow, C. P. (1992). Mathematical talent: Its nature and consequences. In

N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambroson, Eds. Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn

Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 95-123). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Block, J., & Kremen, A.M. (1996). IQ and ego resiliency. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (2), 346-361. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (l985). Developing talent in young people. New York:

Ballantine.

Bourke, R. (2002). Gender differences in personality among adolescents. Psychology, Evolution, & Gender, 4 (1), 31-41.

Cattell, R.D., Cattell, M.D., & Johns, E. (1984). Manual and norms for the

High School Personality Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Corno, L., & Kanfer, R. (1993). The role of volition in learning and

performance. In L. Darling-Hammond, Ed. Review of research in education, 19, (pp. 301-342). Washington, DC: American Educational

Research Association.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. New York: Cambridge. Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented

teenagers: The roots of success and failure. New York: Cambridge

University Press. Davidson, J.E. (1992). Insights about giftedness: The role of problem solving

abilities. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambroson, Eds.

Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp.

125-142). Unionville, NY: Trillium Press.

Feldman, D.H. (1982). A developmental framework for research with gifted children. In D. Feldman (Ed.), New directions for child development:

Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity, 17, (pp. 31-46).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Feldman, D.H., & Piirto, J. (1995.) Parenting talented children. In Handbook

of parenting, ed. M. Bornstein, 285-304. NJ: Erlbaum.

Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process. New York: Bantam. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence. Boston: Little,

Brown.

Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M. G. & Goertzel, T. (1978). Three hundred eminent personalities: A psychosocial analysis of the famous. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Jenkins-Friedman, R. (1992). Zorba's conundrum: Evaluative aspect of self-concept in talented individuals. Quest, 3(1): 1-7.

Johns, E.F. (1982). The relationship of personality and achievement to

creativity and leadership behaviors. Unpublished manuscript.

Personality Attributes of Talented Teenagers - 7 - MacKinnon, D. W. (1975). IPAR’s contribution to the conceptualization and

study of creativity. In I.A. Taylor and J.W. Getzels (Eds.),

Perspectives in creativity (pp. 60-89). Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing

Company. MacKinnon, D. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Buffalo, NY:

Bearly.

Mills, C. J., & Parker, W.D. (1998). Cognitive-psychological profiles of gifted adolescents from Ireland and the U.S.: Cross-societal comparisons.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22 (1), 1-16.

Myers, I.B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Pearce, C. (1968). Creativity in young science students. Journal of Exceptional Children, 35, 121-126.

Piechowski, M.M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo and

R.T. Zaffrann, Eds. New voices in counseling the gifted, pp. 25-57. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Piirto, J. (1992/1998). Understanding those who create. Tempe, AZ: Gifted

Psychology Press. Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and

education. New York: Macmillan.

Piirto, J. (1995a). Deeper and broader: The Pyramid of Talent Development in the context of the giftedness construct. In M.W. Katzko and F.J.

Mönks (Eds.), Nurturing talent: Individual needs and social ability (pp.

10-20). Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the European Council for High Ability. The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, Assen.

Plato, The Ion. In Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 7. (1952)

Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica. Plomin, R. (1997). Genetics and intelligence. In N. Colangelo and G. Davis

(Eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education, 2nd Ed. (pp. 67-74).

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi

Delta Kappan, 60: 180-184, 261.

Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and madness. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Silverman, L. K.,(Ed). (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver,

CO: Love.

Simonton, D. K. (1984). Genius, creativity, and leadership: Historiometric inquiries. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1986). Biographical typicality, eminence and achievement

styles. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20 (1), 17-18. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius. New York: Harvard University

Press.

Simonton, D. K. (1992). The child parents the adult: On getting genius from giftedness. in N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, and D. L. Ambroson

(Eds.)., Talent Development: Proceedings from 1991 Henry and

Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 278-297). Unionville, NY: Trillium.

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New

York: The Guilford Press. Simonton, D. K. (1999). The origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on

creativity. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sternberg, R., & Davidson, J. (1985). Cognitive development in the gifted and talented. In F. Horowitz and F. O'Brien.(Eds.), The gifted and

talented: A developmental perspective (pp. 37-74). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association. Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T.I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and

its development. Human Development, 34: 1-31.

Tannenbaum, A. (1983). Gifted children. New York; Macmillan. Taylor, C. W. (1974). Multiple talent teaching. Today’s Education. 71-74.

Torrance, E. P. (1987). Teaching for creativity. In S. Isaksen (Ed.),

Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics, pp. 190-215. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Ltd.

Wiggins, J. (Ed.). (1996). The five-factor model of personality. New York:

Guilford Press. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children. New York: Basic.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-

motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research

Journal, 29(3): 663-676.

Table 2: Number and Preference of Talented 9th

and 10th

Graders in Ohio on the MBTI

IST

J

ISFJ INFJ INTJ ISTP ISFP INFP INTP ESTP ESFP ENTP ENF

P

ESTJ ESFJ ENFJ ENTJ

F N=442 25

5%

12

2.7%

34

7%

19

4%

4

1%

8

2%

58

13%

33

7%

6

1.5%

12

2.7%

36

8%

106

24%

21

4.7%

13

3%

29

6.5%

26

5.8%

M

N=223

20 8%

3 1.3%

6 2.6%

17 7.5%

7 3.1%

2 ,08%

22 9.7%

45 20%

6 2.6%

4 1.7%

30 13.3%

39 17.3%

8 3.5%

2 .08%

1 .004%

13 5.7%

Total

N=667

45

6.7%

15

2.2%

40

6%

36

5%

11

1.6%

10

1.4%

80

12%

78

11.6%

12

1.7%

16

2.4%

66

9.8%

145

21.7%

29

4.3%

15

2.2%

30

4.4%

39

5.8%

Table 3: Comparison of Ohio Talented Youth with

Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth on MBTI (based on Mills & Parker, 2002)

Types CTY Male

N=668

Ohio Male

n=225

CTY Female

N=559

Ohio Female

N=442

CTY Total

N=1,247

Ohio Total

N=667

ISTJ 10.8% 8.8% 6.8% 5% 9% 6.7%

ISFJ 2% 1.3% 2.3% 2.7% 2.2% 2.2%

INFJ 2.3% 2.6% 7.3% 7% 4.6% 5.9%

INTJ 10.5% 7.5% 7.9% 4% 9.3% 5.3%

ISTP 4.7% 3.1% 2.5% 1% 3.7% 1.6%

ISFP 1.7% .08% .7% 2% 1.4% 1.5%

INFP 6.5% 9.7% 14.7% 13% 10.2% 12%

INTP 17.7% 20% 11.3% 7% 14.8% 11.7%

ESTP 5.1% 2.6% .9% 1.5% 3.2% 1.7%

ESFP .4% 1.7% 3% 2.7% 1.6% 2.4%

ENFP 9.9% 13.3% 18.2% 24% 13.6% 21.7%

ENTP 14.4% 17.3% 8.6% 8% 11.8% 9.9%

ESTJ 3.2% 3.5% 3.8% 4.7% 3.4% 4.3%

ESFJ .7% .08% 3.4% 3% 1.9% 2.2%

ENFJ 2.2% .004% 3.6% 6.5% 2.8% 4.5%

ENTJ 7.8% 5.7% 4.8% 5.8% 6.5% 5.8%

Table 4: Intensity of Preferences for Ohio Talented Youth on the MBTI

Preference Males: Mean Total Intensity=95 Females; Mean Total Intensity=92 Combined Total =93

18377+35854=54231/582=94

Mean Intensity Percent Mean Intensity Percent

Extraversion 20.5 47% 22.7 53%

Introversion 16 53% 46 47%

Sensing 20.8 26% 38 25%

Intuition 23 74% 26 75%

Thinking 57.1 73% 18 39%

Feeling 15 27% 19 61%

Judging 22.6 31% 22 39%

Perception 28 68% 16 59%

Table 1: Mean and (standard deviation) sten scores by gender on the HSPQ

F

act

o

r Low description High description Ohio gifted

male

N=158

Ohio gifted

female

N=316

All

Ohio

N=474

British

regular male

(Bourke,

2002)

N=464

British regular

female

(Bourke, 2002)

N=606 A reserved outgoing 5.92 (2.44) 6.02 (1.90) 5.97 6.32 (1.76) 6.17 (1.61)

B less intelligence more intelligent 7.54 (1.49) *** 7.13 (1.76) 7.33 6.15 (1.83) 5.63 (1.99) ***

C affected by feelings emotionally stable 6.62 (2.18) 6.31 (1.94) 6.46 5.89 (1.92) 5.87 (1.68)

D phlegmatic excitable 5.00 (2.07) 5.30 (1.94) 5.15 5.40 (1.89) 5.15 (1.58)

E submissive dominant 5.54 (2.32) 6.60 (2.07)*** 6.07 6.01 (1.20) 6.54 (1.83) ***

F serious cheerful 6.59 (2.29) 6.30 (2.13) 6.44 6.27 (2.11) 6.14 (1.90)

G expedient conforming 5.93 (2.05) 5.85 (2.04) 5.89 5.36 (2.00) 5.30 (1.84)

H shy adventurous 6.47 (2.32) 6.48 (2.25) 6.47 5.78 (1.82) 6.01 (1.93)*

I toughminded tenderminded 6.87 (2.32) ** 6.10 (2.12) 6.48 5.49 (1.91) 4.91 (1.84) ***

J vigorous withdrawn 6.69 (2.39) 6.62 (2.04) 6.65 5.35 (1.81) 5.70 (1.80) **

O self-assured apprehensive 4.23 (2.30) 4.60 (2.12) 4.41 4.95 (1.89) 5.31 (1.83)**

Q2 group-oriented self-sufficient 6.33 (2.38) 6.24 (1.97) 6.28 5.30 (2.00) 5.68 (1.79)**

Q3 undisciplined self

conflict

self-disciplined 5.37 (2.19) 5.38 (2.19) 5.38 5.14 (2.09) 5.29 (1.87)

Q4 relaxed tense 4.84 (2.21) 5.19 (2.14) 5.01 5.38 (1.83) 5.38 (1.76)

Second order factors

introversion extraversion 6.05 6.25 6.15 6.41 (2.02) 6.20 (1.73)

adjustment anxiety 4.37 4.70 4.64 5.37 (1.81) 5.32 (1.63)

emotionality tough poise 4.78 5.27 ** 4.02 6.04 (2.11) 6.17 (1.94)

subduedness independence 7.42 7.89** 6.97 5.95 (1.83) 6.58 (1.88) ***

low creativity high creativity 7.90** 6.99 7.44

low leadership high leadership 6.90** 6.33 6.61

low school achievement high school achievement

7.09 6.84

1. The Ohio Rule for the Identification of Gifted Students states that students identified for (1) Superior

Cognitive Giftedness must score two standard deviations above the mean minus the standard error of

measurement on an approved individual or group intelligence test; (2) Specific Academic Giftedness must score

above the 95th

percentile on an academic area on an approved individual or group achievement test; (3) Creative

thinking must score one standard deviation above the mean minus the standard error of measurement and at a

certain level on an approved checklist; (4) Visual and Performing Arts must show by display or audition and

must score at a certain level on an approved checklist.

running head: personality attributes of talented … · similar to regular females in great britain...

Documents