Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults Linda Wirthwein ⁎, Detlef H. Rost Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Psychology, Gutenbergstr. 18, 35032 Marburg, Germany abstract article info Article history: Received 20 September 2010 Received in revised form 13 December 2010 Accepted 5 January 2011 Keywords: Giftedness Intelligence Subjective well-being Life satisfaction Adults Studies on the well-being of gifted adults are rare, and the available studies are often limited by methodological shortcomings. In a longitudinal project 101 intellectually gifted adults (mean IQ = 136) were compared to 91 adults of average intelligence (mean IQ = 103). Subjective well-being was operationalized by positive and negative affectivity, general life satisfaction and satisfaction with life in specific domains (work, spouse/partner, self and friends, health, and leisure). Gifted and nongifted respondents did not differ statistically significantly in any of the components of subjective well-being. However, gifted adults reported somewhat lower satisfaction with the domain of leisure (d =-.28). In the gifted group satisfaction with the domain of work accounted for a statistically significant amount of the variance in the criterion of general life satisfaction; in the nongifted group both work and self and friends were relevant. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Drawing on data from the well-known longitudinal study initiated by Terman in the 1920s, Holahan and Sears (1995) and Sears (1977) found gifted individuals to show high levels of well-being. Contrasting findings have also been reported. Indeed, it has been suggested that unfavorable developmental conditions lead to gifted individuals developing lower psychosocial well-being (e.g., Neihart, 1999). Yet studies with gifted adults are rare and the available studies are often flawed by methodological shortcomings (imprecise definitions of giftedness; use of preselected groups; small samples; lack of adequate comparison groups; cf. Clasen, 2006; Davalos & Haensly, 1997; Hebert & McBee, 2007; Jacobsen, 1999; Lovecky, 1986; Rogers, 1998). The term “intellectual giftedness” is not used consistently (see Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). Whereas some authors advocate multidimensional models (e.g., Gagné, 2005; Renzulli, 2005), other approaches define giftedness in terms of high general intelligence g (Rost, 2009a; Roznowski, Reith, & Hong, 2000; Terman, 1925). Both theoretical reasons (e.g., strong associations of g with academic achievement; occupational success; success in life; see Deary, Strand, Smith, & Fernandez, 2007; Gottfredson, 2002) and methodological considerations (e.g., Robinson, 2005; Rost, 2009b) argue for the conceptualization of giftedness as a high level of g. In the present study, we therefore adopted the definition of “intellectual giftedness” as being characterized by a high level of g, following for example Roznowski et al. (2000) and Thompson and Oehlert (2010). The conceptual approaches to “subjective well-being” are just as varied as are those to giftedness (e.g., Eid & Larsen, 2008; Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999). Most authors regard “subjective well-being” as a multidimensional construct. Well-being has been described as “people's emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and global judgments of life satisfaction” (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999, p. 277). Although many questionnaire measures have been developed to gauge subjective well-being (e.g., Pavot, 2008; Schumacher, Klaiberg, & Brähler, 2003), it is often assessed globally by single-item measures that fail to do justice to the multidimensional nature of the construct (see Diener et al., 1999). Terman's longitudinal study indicated that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and subjective well-being. As early as 1967, however, Wilson demonstrated that—with the exception of individuals whose intelligence was so far below average that they were no longer able to live a self-determined and independent life— intelligence was not significantly associated with subjective well-being (Wilson, 1967). Diener (1984, p. 559), in contrast, regarded intelligence “to relate strongly to subjective well-being because it is a highly valued resource in this society.” Further, Diener and Fujita (1995) suggested that individuals with relevant “resources” (e.g., mental ability, but also various personality traits) are better able to fulfill their needs and thus to achieve their personal goals. Therefore, they can be expected to experience greater well-being. To date, however, only weak correlations have been found between intelligence and components of subjective well-being (Huebner & Aldermann, 1993; Pinquart & Sörensen, 2000; Rode et al., 2008; Sigelmann, 1981; Watten, Syversen, & Myhrer, 1995; Wulff, Bergman, & Sverke, 2009). Only a few studies have explicitly examined the subjective well- being of gifted adults. Rather, many of the investigations supposedly Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 182–186 ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 49 6421 2823892; fax: + 49 6421 2823910. E-mail address: Wirthwein@staff.uni-marburg.de (L. Wirthwein). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif