Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
A Synthesis of Research
on Psychological Types
of Gifted Adolescents
Ugur Sak
University of Arizona
In this study, the author synthesizes results of studies about personality types of gifted adolescents. Fourteen studies were coded with
19 independent samples. The t otal number of identified participants in original studies was 5,723. The m ost common personality
types among gifted adolescents were “intuitive” and “perceiving.” They wer e higher on the Introversion, Intuition, Thinking, and
Perceiving dimensions of the personality scales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) when comp ared to general high school
students. Also, gifted adolescents differed within the group by gender and by ability. Based on the findings, the author discusses teach-
ing practices for gifted students according to their personality preferences.
T
he personality characteristics of highly able youth have tions of perception and judgment. Jung’s theory differentiates
been investigated extensively (Chiang, 1991; Cord re y, b e t ween two typological categories: attitude-related types and
1986; Ga l l a g h e r, 1987; Ge i g e r, 1992; Hawkins, 1997; function-related types. Jung port r a yed the two attitude types in
Jackson, 1989; McCarthy, 1975; McGinn, 1976; Mills, 1984, terms of directions or orientations in behaviors and intere s t s
Mills & Parker, 1998). In these studies, gifted adolescents were of people tow a rd the material world. These orientations bring
found to be different from the general adolescent population, about two attitude types: extraversion and introversion.
as well as different among themselves in personality types as In relation to the extraversion-introversion dimension, the
measured by the Mye r s - Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). relationship between individual and environment is to be
Personality dimensions have also been shown to be associated i n vestigated. Ex t r a ve rted types develop a strong awareness of
with academic achievement and intelligence. For instance, their environment for stimulation. The typical extravert has a
Myers (1980) asserted that the possibility of one’s being intu- s t rong propensity to influence others, but is likely to be influ-
itive- introverted increases as academic giftedness incre a s e s . enced by others, as well. Extraverts usually seem confident,
One might anticipate, then, that a high introve rt or intuitive accessible, and expansive in the manner in which they build
type may be related to high intellectual capacity and high aca- relationships with others (Jung, 1971; Lawrence, 1984; Spoto,
demic achievement in one or more areas. 1995). In t rove rts, on the contrary, are somewhat more inde-
pendent and idea-oriented than the extraverts, as they usually
get their excitement from the inner world. They may some-
Psychological Type Theory times seem lost in thought or maybe somewhat inaccessible in
the way they move around the world (Lawrence; Spoto).
In the 1920s, Jung developed the theory of psyc h o l o g i c a l The second typological category, function-related types,
types to elucidate natural differences in human behaviors. He refers to the specific manner or means of adaptation that pro-
postulated that apparently random behaviors of an individual duces a consciously differentiated psychological function. Jung
could be understood in terms of his or her use of the func- put forw a rd four possible functions: “sensation, intuition,
70
Psychological Types of Gifted Adolescents
thinking, and feeling” (Spoto, 1995, p. 33). Jung used “judg- types more than general high school students do. For instance,
i n g” to describe the polarity of thinking-feeling dimensions, re s e a rchers (De l b r i d g e - Pa rker & Robinson, 1989; Ga l l a g h e r,
which reflects an individual’s preference between two different 1990; Hoehn & Bi reley, 1988) reported that about 50% or
types of judgment. Feeling types usually value harmony and m o re of the gifted population is introve rted compared to the
human relationships in their judgments. They make decisions general population, whose pre f e rence for introversion is 25%.
subjectively with a consideration of society’s values. On the Si l verman (1985) found that 34% of 61 graduate students we re
other hand, Jung (1971) designated “thinking” as an opposite e x t r a ve rts, while 66% we re introve rts. Howe ver, some other
function to “feeling.” In contrast to feeling types, thinking studies have revealed different results about gifted adolescents’
types emphasize logic and objectivity in reasoning. This pre f- p re f e rences on the extrave r s i o n - i n t roversion dimension. For
e rence suppresses values and uses impersonal feelings in deci- example, Williams (1992) found that extraverts we re more
sion making (Spoto). frequent than introve rts in the gifted population. Yet,
Jung (1971) believed that “sensation and intuition” consti- C s i k s zentmihalyi (1997) has argued that cre a t i ve people have
tuted two perceiving types. Sensing types rely mostly on the both traits at the same time, while the general population tends
five senses while they perceive information, which makes them to be one or the other.
factual and observant. Sensing types usually approach a pro b- Research also reveals that most gifted adolescents are intu-
lem in a carefully deliberate way; hence, they perc e i ve appar- itive, as opposed to the general population, most of whom
ent aspects of the issue (Jung; Lawrence, 1984; Spoto, 1995). (70%) prefer sensing (Gallagher, 1990; Hawkins, 1997; Hoehn
Spoto stated that, unlike sensing types, intuitive types look at & Bi re l e y, 1988; Mills, 1983; Myers & Mc C a u l l e y, 1985a,
things holistically and critically to get a sense of the whole over 1985b; Ol s zewski-Kubilius & Kulieke, 1989; Williams, 1992).
the parts; hence, they are usually imaginative, speculative, and Since intuitive types are better at abstraction, symbols, theory,
analytical, and they can be more cre a t i ve. They are able to see and possibilities, they outperform sensing types on aptitude
abstract, theoretical, and global relationships. tests. For example, when MBTI types of 3,503 high school
Mo re ove r, Myers extended Jung’s theory, adding a perc e i v- male students in a college-preparatory curriculum we re com-
ing-judging polarity, which she considered to be connected with pared with the students’ IQ scores, all intuitive types had
the extraversion and introversion polarity (Spoto, 1995). Judging higher scores than sensing types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985b).
and perceiving refer to the process a person uses in dealing with Also, De l b r i d g e - Pa rker and Robinson examined the MBTI
the outer world. A judging type is well organized, systematic, and p re f e rences of 72 gifted junior high students who we re final-
orderly and has a planned way of life, while a perception type is ists in the Duke Talent Identification Program and found that
spontaneous, receptive, and understanding and has a flexible way the gifted students showed strong pre f e rences for intuition
of life (Myers & McCaulley, 1985a). (75%).
Fu rt h e r m o re, thinking and feeling functions seem to vary
in the pre f e rences of gifted adolescents. Bi reley (1991) has
Giftedness and Psychological Type asserted that gender and age can explain some of this variance.
For example, most females tend to prefer feeling in their judg-
Myers and McCaulley (1985b) proposed that psychologi- ments, while most males prefer thinking. Also, developmental
cal type is related to aptitude and achievement. People who t rends in thinking can bring about differences. For example,
p re f e r red introversion and intuition showed greater academic Bi reley stated that the adolescent movement tow a rd the more
aptitude than those who pre f e r red extraversion and sensing. logical and objective style may re flect the shift from a feeling to
Thinking types are thought to be better at some tasks that a thinking type. Se veral studies have demonstrated distribu-
re q u i re logical analysis, while feeling types are better at tasks tions of pre f e rences of gifted adolescents on the thinking-feel-
that re q u i re understanding of human relations. Mo re over, ing scale. For instance, Hoehn and Bi reley (1988) found that
Myers and McCaulley found that judging types perform bet- 67.5% of their gifted sample pre f e r red feeling, while there we re
ter on applications, which are thought to be related to higher important differences between elementary and secondary stu-
grades, while perceiving types outperform judging types on dents’ personality types. Most elementary students pre f e r re d
aptitude measures. There f o re, it might be hypothesized that feeling, while most secondary students preferred thinking.
gifted adolescents should prefer introve rted-intuitive thinking In addition, re s e a rchers (Ga l l a g h e r, 1990; Hawkins, 1997;
types, as they are precocious in intellectual deve l o p m e n t . Hoehn & Bi reley, 1988; Mills, 1984; Myers & Mc C a u l l e y,
Howe ver, their preference for judging-perceiving can show 1985b; Williams, 1992) have re p o rted that gifted learners gen-
more variance. erally have a stronger pre f e rence for perceiving over judging.
Although gifted adolescents demonstrate all personality Howe ve r, the Atlas of Type Tables (Ma c Daid, Kainz, &
types as measured by the MBTI, they tend to prefer certain McCaulley, 1986) indicates that most of the general population
p refers judging. Pi i rto (1990) found that 95% of 50 creative ado- Method
lescents we re intuitive - p e rc e p t i ve. De l b r i d g e - Parker and
Robinson (1989) compared type preferences of 72 gifted junior Sample
high students to those of 1,001 National Merit Finalists and
found that the percentage of the types in both groups were alike. Original studies constituted the sample in this re s e a rch
Myers and McCaulley (1985b) stated that, because perc e p t i ve synthesis (the studies included in the research synthesis are
types are more open to new information, they score higher on m a rked with an asterisk in the re f e rences). These studies were
aptitude measures, whereas judging types can be slightly higher re p o rted in published articles, books, technical re p o rts, and
in grades because they are well organized and focused. unpublished dissertations and re p o rts related to psychological
types of gifted adolescents as measured by the MBTI (see Table
1). Fourteen studies with 19 independent samples were coded.
Rationale for the Research Synthesis The reason for including unpublished re s e a rch was to avoid
missing valuable data. The norm group was composed of high
T h e re have been many studies about personality charac- school students in 11th and12th grades. Data for the norm
teristics of gifted adolescents. A substantial number of these group were adapted from the Atlas of Type Tables (MacDaid,
studies used the MBTI as a tool to explore personality types of Kainz, & McCaulley, 1986).
p recocious youth. Although the findings of most studies are
similar, some researchers found somewhat different re s u l t s Data Collection
about personality preferences of gifted adolescents in some
scales of the MBTI. In addition to differing results, the type The literature review was done by means of the online ver-
of data re p o rted in original studies varies. Although some of the sion of the Educational Re s o u rce Information Center (ERIC)
studies used just percentiles, others used continuous score s and D i s s e rtation Abstracts Intern a t i o n a l. Currently, ERIC con-
and self-selection ratio to re p o rt data. The studies also tains either abstracts, full texts of studies, or both indexed from
e m p l oyed different base populations or norm groups ava i l a b l e 1966 to the present. Keywords used in the search with various
in the manual of the MBTI and in the Atlas of Type Tables. combinations were gifted, talented, personality, personality char-
This caused va rying results in the difference between the psy- acteristics, personality types, psychological types, Myers-Briggs Type
chological types of the gifted adolescents and the general high Indicator, and MBTI. Four hundred and twe l ve studies either
school population. There f o re, lack of unity among processes in full-text or in abstract format we re found. After an exami-
and findings of the studies have caused difficulties in inter- nation of each abstract, 63 studies we re selected for further
p reting the results. Another problem arises from studies not re v i ew. The rest of the studies were excluded from further
re p o rting enough data by ability level, sex, age, and grade of the i n vestigation for three possible reasons: They we re completely
participants, even though it is well known that these va r i a b l e s irrelevant to this research, they did not use the MBTI, or they
help us to understand better the diversity of the gifted popula- were not original research.
tion. After 63 studies we re obtained, including articles, reports,
Therefore, an integration of the findings of these studies is books, and dissertations, they were coded in identification forms
essential to understanding the psychological types of gifted ado- for further review, which indicated that only 14 of them had
lescents. The purpose of this study was to empirically investigate enough data for inclusion. Each study had to report either the
personality types specific to gifted adolescents as measured by number of participants falling into each type, the eight basic per-
the MBTI. This investigation invo l ved re s e a rch integration for sonality types of the participants, or both to be included in this
the purpose of creating generalizations in four dimensions of the research synthesis. The 14 studies yielded 19 independent sam-
eight basic types—Ex t r a ve r s i o n - In t roversion (EI), Sensing- ples because some of them had more than one sample. Also, mul-
Intuition (SN), Thinking-Feeling (TF), and Judging-Perceiving tiple studies by an author we re carefully reviewed to avo i d
(JP)—and in 16 personality types, which re p resent combina- duplication in the synthesis. When sample characteristics
tions of the basic types: ISTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTP, ISFP, matched in different studies by an author that were published in
INFP, INTP, ESTP, ESFP, ENFP, ENTP, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, d i f f e rent journals and at different times, the one that had more
and ENTJ. The following questions guided this study. data about findings and sample characteristics was included in the
1. How do psychological types of gifted adolescents differ synthesis. Only two studies of one author (Mills, 1984; Mills &
from those of the general high school students as measure d Parker, 1998) were included because there were 14 years between
by the MBTI? these two studies and the sample characteristics were significantly
2. How do psychological types of gifted adolescents differ different. The 19 samples were then coded in sample character-
among themselves as measured by the MBTI? istics forms and type distributions forms for inclusion.
Table 3 Table 4
Table 5
Type N % % Type N % %
ence of the general high school students, they are ove r re p re- their psychological types. They differ within themselves as
sented on this dimension. This finding implies that introverted much as they differ from the general high school population
gifted adolescents prefer quiet learning environments and indi- concerning their perceptions and judgments. Gifted females
vidual work to group work. a re significantly higher than gifted males in the extrove r s i o n
This re s e a rch synthesis provided evidence that gifted ado- and intuition dimensions, but insignificantly higher in the feel-
l e s c e n t s’ preference of thinking is slightly higher than feel- ing and judging dimensions. The significant differences in
ing, which contradicts some of the studies included in this extraversion and feeling preferences between gifted females and
re s e a rch synthesis. This might be, on the one hand, because gifted males could be partially accounted for by the general
some studies with a much larger number of part i c i p a n t s sex differences in these scales according to the type theory.
found gifted adolescents to prefer the thinking type. A re a- Re g a rding type differences in ability groups, the Hi g h
son might be because developmental trends could have some Verbal Group is higher than the high math group in intuition;
influence on gifted adolescents’ judgments tow a rd more log- conversely, the high math group is higher than the high verbal
ical thinking. In other words, as Bi reley (1991) suggested, g roup in thinking. This finding indicates that both groups have
gifted adolescents might become thinking-oriented earlier d i f f e rent pre f e rences in perceiving information and making
than the general population. Gifted adolescents’ pre f e re n c e judgments. Verbally gifted students can be more interested in
for thinking in their judgments is also higher when compared and adept at comprehending the global aspect of a phenome-
to the preference of the general high school population. The non than mathematically gifted students, who can be more
implication of this finding might be that gifted adolescents i n t e rested in and adept at analyzing critical parts of the phe-
p refer analysis and putting things into logical order and are nomenon. However, the findings about the personality prefer-
m o re impersonal, fair, and firm-minded when compared to ences of these two ability groups should be interpreted with
general high school students. caution because the majority of the participants who were
Unlike general high school students, who usually pre f e r identified as mathematically or verbally gifted based on their
judging to perceiving, most gifted adolescents prefer perceiving SAT scores we re eighth graders and the youngest part i c i p a n t s .
to judging in planning their lives. Consequently, this pre f e r- It is a question of whether or not differences in abilities may
ence can make them more open to alternatives and more curi- account for differences in type pre f e rences. Also, whether or
ous about new situations. They also can have difficulties in not differences in psychological types account for differences in
finishing projects because perceiving types are usually unorga- specific abilities is a question to be further investigated.
nized according to the type theory. There f o re, future research to study relationships between per-
Significant trends were found in gender and ability groups sonality characteristics and intellectual abilities would prov i d e
in gifted adolescents in the intuition-sensing and thinking-feel- n ew insights into understanding the unique characteristics of
ing scales. Gifted adolescents are not homogeneous in re g a rdto gifted adolescents.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research Atlas of Type Tables. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Psychologists Press.*
Cordrey, L. J. (1986). A re p o rt on former MGM-GATE students Ma c Daid, G. P., McCaulley, M. H., & Kainz, R. I. (1986b).
at Fullerton College. Fullerton, CA: Fu l l e rton College.* High school students in Florida Fu t u re Scientist Pro g ram in
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychol- Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: Atlas of Type Tables. Palo Alto,
ogy of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.*
De l b r i d g e - Pa rk e r, L., & Robinson, D. C. (1988). Type and Ma c Daid, G. P., Kainz, R. I., & Mc C a u l l e y, M. H. (1986).
academically gifted adolescents. Jo u rnal of Ps yc h o l o g i c a l Mye r s - Briggs Type Indicator: Atlas of type tables. Palo Alto,
Type, 17, 66–72.* CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Devito, A. J. (1989). Re v i ew of Mye r s - Briggs Type Indicator. Mc C a u l l e y, M. H. (1985). The selection ratio type table.
In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements Journal of Psychological Type, 10, 45–56.
yearbook ( p p. 1030–1032). Lincoln: University of McCarthy, S. V. (1975). Differential V-Q ability: Twenty years
Nebraska Press. later. Review of Educational Research, 45, 263–282.
Gallagher, S. A. (1987). An analysis of visual-spatial ability, Mc Ginn, P. V. (1976). Verbally gifted youth: Selection and
intellectual efficiency, and learning style on mathematics description. In D. P. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent:
achievement of gifted male and gifted female adolescents. Re s e a rch and deve l o p m e n t. Ba l t i m o re: Johns Ho p k i n s
(Doctoral dissertation, The Un i versity of North Caro l i n a University Press.*
at Chapel Hill, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts In t e rn a t i o n a l, Mills, C.J. (1983, April). Personality characteristics of the gifted
48, 134. * adolescents and their parents: Comparisons and implications
Gallagher, S. A. (1990). Personality patterns of the gifted. for achievement and counseling. Paper presented at the
Understanding Our Gifted, 3, 11–13. annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Ge i g e r, R. W. D. (1992). Personality characteristics of highly Association, Montreal.
academically talented adolescents variations with ve r b a l Mills, C. J. (1984, April). Sex differences in self-concept and
or mathematical ability. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia self-esteem for mathematically precocious adolescents. Paper
University, 1992). D i s s e rtation Abstracts In t e rnational, 53, presented at the annual meeting of the American
156.* Educational Research Association, New Orleans.*
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of Mills, C. J., & Pa rk e r, W. D. (1998). Cognitive-psychological
research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8. p rofiles of gifted adolescents from Ireland and the U.S.:
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta analy- Cross-societal comparisons. In t e rnational Jo u rnal of
sis in social research. London: Sage. International Relations, 22, 1–16.*
Hawkins, J. (1997). Giftedness and psychological types. Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 57–67.* Psychologists Press.
Hoehn, L., & Birely, M. K. (1988). Mental processing pre f e r- Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985a). Manual: A guide to
ences of gifted children. Illinois Council for the Gifted the development and use of the Mye r s - Briggs Type Indicator.
Journal, 7, 28–31. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Jackson, C. M. (1989). A comparative study of Mye r s - Br i g g s Myers, I. B., & Mc C a u l l e y, M. H. (1985b). Gifted students
personality type, learning-style factors, and locus of con- from Arlington County: A guide to the development and use
trol of middle school achieving and underachieving intel- of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, CA:
lectually gifted students. (Doctoral dissert a t i o n , Consulting Psychologists Press.*
Un i versity of Alabama, 1989). D i s s e rtation Ab s t ra c t s Ol s zewski-Kubilius, P. M., & Kulieke, M. J. (1989). Personality
In t e rnational, 50, 123.* dimensions of gifted adolescents: A re v i ew of the empirical
Jung, C. G. (1971). Ps ychological types. In H. Read, M. literature. Gifted Child Qu a rt e rly, 32, 347–352.
Fordham, G. Ad l e r, & W. Mc Gu i re (Eds.), The collected Parnes, S. J. (1988). Visioning: State of the art processes for
w o rks of C. G. Jung, 6. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University encouraging innova t i ve excellence. East Au rora, NY: D.O.K.
Press. Piirto, J. (1990). Pro files of cre a t i veadolescents. Understanding
Ku d e r, G. F. (1968). Kuder Occupational In t e rest Su rvey: Our Gifted, 2, 10–12.
Manual. Chicago: Science Research Associates. Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for
Lawrence, G. (1984). A synthesis of learning style re s e a rch d e veloping defensible programs for the gifted and talented.
involving the MBTI. Jo u rnal of Ps ychological Type, 8, 2–15. Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Ma c Daid, G. P., Mc C a u l l e y, M. H., & Kainz, R. I. (1986a). Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent stud-
Gifted high school seniors in Mye r s - Briggs Type In d i c a t o r : ies. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185–193.
Schiever, S. (1991). A compre h e n s i veapproach to teaching think- Tre f finger, D. J. (1975). Teaching for self-directed learning. A
ing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. priority for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly,
Si l verman, L. K. (1985). Personality and learning styles of the 19, 46–59.
gifted children. In J. Van Ta s s e l - Baska (Ed.), Excellence in Wheelwright, J. B., Wheelwright, J. H., & Buehler, H. A.
educating the gifted and talented learners ( p p. 29–65). (1964). Jungian type theory: The Gray-Wheelwright Test
Denver: Love. (16th ed). San Francisco: Society of Jungian Analysts of
Spoto, A. (1995). Ju n g’s typology in perspective ( Re v. ed). Northern California.
Wilmette, IL: Chiron. Williams, R. (1992). Personality characteristics of talented
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Thinking styles. Cambridge: and gifted students as measured by the Myers-Briggs Type
Cambridge University Press. Indicator and Murphy-Meisgeir Type Indicator for chil-
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2000). Teaching for suc- d ren. (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University,
cessful intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight. 1992). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 111.*