by Agnieszka Biedrzycka, Elena Chapkanovska, Marie Rousse et Carmen Heble Villegas
The “mad genius”! This notion has been anchored in history for many years and responds to the expectations of the population. It is the influence of the media that feeds the stereotype of “mad genius” since they characterize these people as “gifted”, i.e. having exceptional intellectual abilities. This article shows that the notion of “giftedness” is organized around two main hypotheses based on quantitative characteristics such as potential and success, but also qualitative characteristics such as socio-emotional characteristics. This study decided to focus on the adult population (1029 German adults) because the notion of “giftedness” is most often studied in children and/or adolescents. They then sought to assess the quality and prevalence of stereotypes of giftedness.
For researchers and the general population, the high ability is an essential characteristic of high potential. However, there is no consensus regarding socio-emotional characteristics. Indeed, the harmony hypothesis shows that people with high intellectual potential would not have difficulties concerning socio-emotional skills. On the contrary, the disharmony hypothesis emphasizes difficulties in these skills. This study shows that positively connoted characteristics (i.e., potential and achievement) and negatively connoted characteristics (i.e., social-emotional difficulties) are positively correlated. Latent class analysis (LCA) revealed two conceptions of gifted with twice as many raters favoring “disharmony” as “harmony.” Males, single parenthood, unemployed individuals, individuals with higher incomes, and negative attitudes toward giftedness predicted social-emotional difficulties for gifted individuals.
This study was carried out with financial support from Mensa, to support scientific research on giftedness. To collect data, a weekly online omnibus survey was conducted by a marketing research institute using INNOFACT AG, a provider specialized in representative surveys. A representative sample of 1029 German adults ages between 18 and 69 was gathered, concerning their age, gender, and regional distribution. The participants were distributed nine giftedness-related questions composed by the author and the strategic development team of the high-IQ society Mensa, consisting of five core dimensions: intellectual potential, achievement, social difficulties, emotional issues, and superiority in other domains besides intellect. The answers were rated on 5-point Likert scales from “do not agree at all” to “absolutely agree”. In addition, the participants rated their own intelligence (5-point scale from “substantially below average” to “substantially above average”), the feelings the term “giftedness” evoked in them (4-point scale from “very negative” to “very positive”), their interest in giftedness (4-point scale from “not interested at all” to “very interested”), and whether they knew any gifted persons (1 item each), with the added option of “cannot/do not want to answer”. Following the online survey, the collected data was analyzed quantitatively by using SPSS 22.0.0.1 and Mplus 7.11. The data collection method used in this study is quite standard for the field of psychology. Given that one big limitation of an online survey is not obtaining enough descriptive elements of the population that the study aims to explore, the sample gathers exhaustive information about the characteristics and background of the participants. However, another limitation can be the biased responses given by the participants. An auto-questionnaire and self-description may lead the participants to give out more socially acceptable answers and paint a more positive image of themselves. This study contributes to the increase of current knowledge we have of highly gifted people and allows us to further understand giftedness by applying it to a broader population of highly gifted people, not limiting itself to only children and/or adolescents. The authors have tried their best to break the barriers of stereotypes about gifted people, even so, the dimensions and concepts of the study barely scratch the surface of what is “giftedness”. Numerous studies have treated the concept more elaborately and have also had comparison groups besides having only gifted people as participants. Indeed, the idea of what giftedness is varies but there is consensus over the definition of it as well as personality traits often observed in gifted individuals. In addition, having an IQ of at least 130 is what is needed to be considered gifted in the eyes of the Mensa community, which is quite redundant as it risks limiting the concept of giftedness to an IQ score. The writing style of this article may seem quite adjusted to the general public, however, at least the bare minimum of knowledge of psychology is needed. Terms such as “standard deviation” or “non-representative sample” can easily confuse a naive reader, in these cases more detailed explanation is required.
It is a sheer pleasure to get the opportunity to write these few critical words concerning The Mad Genius Stereotype written by a German psychologist, Tanja Baudson. This is the first study that analyzed “giftedness” as a social construct conducted with adults. The author has confronted scientific theories and empirical findings to stereotypes running across our western society. These mental images, based on lay beliefs about gifted people are problematic. Being identified as an intellectually gifted person is a blessing that may also be a burden. Also, being labeled intellectually gifted could drive some individuals to face varied social expectations and often, jealousy. To avoid identification with the “Stigma of giftedness” some talented students try to hide their potential. This erroneous strategy could lead to underachievement as an adult. Furthermore, stereotypes affect not only gifted people themselves but also the perceptions and actions of others. Paradoxically, even if we are aware that our civilization depends on brainpower, many western societies still fail to correctly nourish the intellectual education of gifted students. A gifted person remains misunderstood in the classroom as well as in the community and the likelihood of future social benefits of giftedness is uncertain. Yet, encouraging and making proper adjustments to aid gifted people is important for both the individual and the society, promising the benefits from the creativity and talent of such individuals. The author addresses a call for action to researchers, practitioners, and the media, the goal being to construct knowledge and understanding about giftedness.