Introduction

Gross (2000, 2003) and earlier on also Terman (1926) and Hollingworth (1942) found clear differences between highly gifted and gifted children in multiple developmental domains, first cognitively but also in physical, emotional, and social development. Although, there is still ambiguity about the wellbeing and functioning of the gifted, highly gifted children are assumed to be more prone to adjustment problems 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 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 loneliness (Barber & Mueller, 2011; Jung & Gross, 2014; Lovecky, 1992; Vaivre-Douret, 2004; Van Gerven, 2009; Vialle et al., 2007). On the other hand, other findings support the opposite, namely, that gifted individuals function quite well socially, are socially precocious (i.e., advanced in social knowledge, social skills, social behavior, play interests, friendships), and in their emotional and personality development more advanced, profound, and rich (Falck, 2020; Jackson et al., 2009; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Papadopoulos, 2020; Piechowski, 1991; Robinson, 2009; Robinson & Noble, 1991; Silverman, 1993). In the last decade, there seems to be a (more) positive 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 problems: (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 environment. 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, moreover, 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 pervasive 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 individuals (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, supporting learning environment.

Jung and Gross (2014) recommended identification of giftedness and immediate necessary adjustments in the school environment as, among others, radical acceleration and an environment to promote social and emotional development in a positive way compatible with the (life) values of highly gifted individuals. These recommended 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 intelligence, the personality becomes more stable as the environment—through interaction 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 environment 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 average levels of aspiration, motivation, and intensity of thinking and behavior (Neihart et al., 2015; Robinson, 2008). The highly gifted are least likely to experience goodness of fit, anywhere in their lives, due to fewer possibilities to challenge their environment 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 (Silverman, 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 giftedness, 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 cognitive 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 predictors of behavior and performance” (Bar-On, 2016, p. 104). Subsequent, physical 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 orientation, 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.”

Among others, there are the multidimensional models of Gagné (2003), Gardner (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 Subotnik 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 transformational leadership as analytical, creative, practical, and wisdom-based ethical skills. Attention is increasingly being paid to the “mind, body, and soul” or psychological world of the gifted individual and the highly gifted individual specifically (e.g., Sisk, 2019). Psychological world can be described as the mental characteristics 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 interacting efficiently with stimulus conditions” (p. 376). However, there seems to be consensus 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 giftedness. 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 compared to a general population, especially on the negative higher-order dimension. Also, they scored higher on the positive dimension of sensory processing sensitivity, partly due to their higher score on the character trait openness to experience (De Gucht et al., 2023). In terms of personality development, research often 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 mismatch 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 intelligence 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 people 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 highlighted. 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 following overarching research question: What is the deep, rich, lived experience of growing up and experiencing goodness of fit for highly gifted young adults?

Method

Study design

Following up on previous quantitative studies of the authors with above average intelligent, gifted, and highly gifted adolescents, semi-structured qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with seven highly gifted young adults under the guidance of the Goodness-of-fit Dialogue ToolboxFootnote 1(Frumau, 2022). This toolbox was developed to identify, visualize, and explore the strengths and weaknesses—both internal and external; the different 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 abilities, but from another region in the Netherlands, was the seventh participant in the study.

Table 1 Characteristics of 6 (most) Highly Gifted adolescents: Gender, Capacity Test Results (IST measured 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
Full size table

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 currently conducting a follow up study. We have selected you together with 9 other former 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 conversation, 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 participants 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 random 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 participate 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/psychodiagnostics 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.

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 guiding 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. 

Fig. 1
figure 1

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

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

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

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

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

Full size image

Using worksheet 1, the participants first explored, visualized, and recorded their perceived personal strengths, weaknesses, and challenges (both internal and external) (Fig. 1). Thereafter, they were asked to select those cards from the POSI card tool Footnote 2 (Frumau, 2022) that best matched these personal perceptions. 

Using worksheet 2, which is intended to highlight any developmental a-synchronicity, the participants reflected upon the physical, cognitive, emotional, social, and 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 disposition 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 difficulty performing.”

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, 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 connected 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 question 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. Furthermore, he had a background in research in this field, as a researcher and as a supervisor of master and doctoral theses. A focal point in his counseling high potential individuals 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 pictures 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 program (www.amberscript.nl). All spoken words, sounds, hesitations, guggles, laughter, 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 audio recordings and by comparing both transcripts, the possibility of losing material 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 coding of the interviews. All internal strengths and weaknesses as well as the obstacles and opportunities from the environment as experienced by each individual participant 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 second 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, sensitivity. The interviewer and observer considered (independently) which issues that were mentioned were crucial. All codes and later the clusters of codes were first written 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 participants 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 summaries 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, participants 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 experience). (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 perfectionism 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 separate component by the participants. Despite the strong qualities of the participants, self-confidence had not always been strong with each participant.

Finally, themes that were mentioned by at least four of the participants in the present 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 development, 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 intelligent, 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 various 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 participants 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 management was done to avoid misunderstandings. Instruction, agreements, and the procedure 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 familiar 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 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 participants 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 engagement 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 comparing 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 scientific 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 interpret 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. Literature 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 question, 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 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 addition, “being introverted,” “underachieving combined with self-doubt,” and “overachieving 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), mindset (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 responsibility 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 awareness 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 financial 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): “internal motor,” driven by curiosity, lack of goodness of fit, okay to be me, existential loneliness, multi-potentiality, perfectionism, and spiritual needs.

Table 2 Themes
Full size table

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 extension 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 passionate 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 environment 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 feeling 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 precarious balance between too little challenge and too much pressure in an egalitarian system (built for people with (above) average intelligence)” (292). (371). Respondent 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 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) 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 bullied” 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 understood” 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 experienced 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 experiencing stress because of multi-potentiality (587). The respondents reported feeling insecure due to the many choices to be made: “Choosing one thing means not choosing 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 considered positive perfectionism and setting high standards for themselves (and others). Respondent 292 specifically mentioned experiencing the so-called impostor syndrome, namely, doubting his abilities, assuming that his intelligence is overestimated and fearing to be exposed as an impostor. Respondent 545 explicitly mentioned 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 persist; 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 emotions” 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 difference 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 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 uniqueness 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 working 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, resilience, 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 wellbeing, and existential crisis (Freeman, 1997, 2001; Gross, 2002; Hollingworth, 1942; Mönks, 1999; Neihart et al., 2002; Rimm, 2002; Robinson, 2002; Ruf, 2009; Silverman, 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 environment 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 common weakness/challenge reported by them was an inclination to be overly perfectionistic. 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 (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 development 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 loneliness 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, perfectionism, 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 childhood 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 standards. 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 striving 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 another geographic region. Future research should include participants from multiple regions. Another limitation regarding the participants is that we found a homogeneous 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 heterogeneous 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 various 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 providing 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 possible that the goodness-of-fit worksheet with two colors for an inappropriate goodness 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. Retrospective 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 8 and 10 school environments may have been particularly well suited for gifted adolescents. The experienced lack of goodness of fit during high school of our participants 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 participating 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 participants 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 asynchronous 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 adolescents, 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 belonging. 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 spiritual. 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.