645407

research-article2016
GCQXXX10.1177/0016986216645407Gifted Child QuarterlyVuyk et al.

Article

Gifted Child Quarterly

Openness to Experience Rather Than

2016, Vol. 60(3) 192­–211
© 2016 National Association for
Gifted Children
Overexcitabilities: Call It Like It Is Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0016986216645407
gcq.sagepub.com

M. Alexandra Vuyk1, Thomas S. Krieshok1, and Barbara A. Kerr1

Abstract
Openness to experience is a personality factor in the five-factor model of personality, and it is composed of six facets. Facets
of openness appear conceptually analogous to overexcitabilities (OEs), which are displays of inner energy guiding individuals
toward advanced potential according to the theory of positive disintegration. This study examined the similarity of OEs to
corresponding openness to experience facets in a sample of 149 creative adolescents and adults and 312 adults from the
general population (total N = 461). Exploratory structural equation modeling tested competing models in which each OE
and corresponding openness facet were modeled as separate factors and as joint factors. The separate-factor model had
acceptable fit but uninterpretable loadings, while the joint-factor model had acceptable fit and interpretable loadings; thus,
openness seems to encompass OEs. Accordingly, the field should align with well-researched psychological theories like the
five-factor model of personality and begin to talk about openness rather than OEs.

Keywords
openness to experience, overexcitabilities, five-factor model of personality, structural equation modeling, quantitative
methodologies, social and/or emotional development and adjustment

A controversy exists in gifted education regarding certain psychological science remains largely underrepresented. This
personality traits that appear to be related to giftedness, yet insufficient representation occurs especially in resources for
when describing those traits the majority of the literature parents and educators; for example, the award-winning and
does not use known personality theories. Psychology can popular book A Parent’s Guide to Gifted Children (Webb,
provide an answer to this problem with the five-factor model Gore, Amend, & DeVries, 2007) does not mention well-
of personality (FFM). This is a well-researched and general- researched personality theories such as the FFM, but includes
izable personality model that is valid across ages and cul- a section devoted to OEs.
tures (McCrae, 2010; McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005). Openness to experience, one of the personality factors in
Gifted education would benefit from adopting this interdisci- the FFM, closely relates to and may in fact explain OEs.
plinary stance in scientific studies. According to Costa and McCrae (1992), individuals who are
Overexcitabilities (OEs) describe heightened intensity and open to new experiences enjoy both outer and inner worlds,
sensitivity in five areas, namely imaginational, sensual, emo- are curious, and hold novel ideas. They have high aesthetic
tional, psychomotor, and intellectual, that according to their sensitivity, intellectual curiosity, vivid imagination, and
original theory, the theory of positive disintegration (TPD; evolving value systems. This description appears extraordi-
Dabrowski, 1967), indicate a heightened activity of the ner- narily analogous to descriptions of OEs, which describe
vous system (Mendaglio, 2012; Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006) active imaginations, enjoyment of sensory pleasures such as
and might lead to advanced moral and emotional develop- art and beauty, intensity of feelings, love of learning, and a
ment (Piechowski, 1979, 2006). However, other personality pull for action (Piechowski, 1979, 2006). The bulk of OE
theories describe similar traits. For example, the most impor- research appears to be atheoretical, thus misrepresenting
tant personality theory in psychology is the FFM, a theory Dabrowski’s original TPD (Mendaglio, 2012) and making it
that has strong generalization across cultures and ages more plausible to say that the behaviors called OE are in
(McCrae, 2010; McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005). The FFM
can provide an explanation of behaviors described by OEs in 1
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
a more parsimonious theory. In their seminal article, Subotnik,
Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2011) strongly argued for Corresponding Author:
M. Alexandra Vuyk, Department of Educational Psychology, The
the need to incorporate constructs from psychological science University of Kansas, 1122 West Campus Road, Room 621, Lawrence,
into the gifted education literature. Despite the potential to KS 66045, USA.
inform the field with empirically well-established constructs, Email: alexvuyk@ku.edu

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

Vuyk et al. 193

reality openness to experience. In this study, we will explore We will describe these facets, highlighting the conceptual
the potential connection between OEs and facets of openness similarity found in OEs and supporting the claim that open-
to experience, suggesting that they represent similar or ness can explain behaviors seen in OEs. Given the strong
equivalent constructs. research support for the FFM and its parsimonious nature,
we propose that the FFM should be favored.
O1 Fantasy describes people with an active and detailed
OEs and TPD
imagination who believe in the power of fantasy and day-
The few published empirical studies focus primarily on dreaming and engage vividly in those activities (Costa &
OEs without connecting them to Dabrowski’s larger TPD McCrae, 1992), analogous to imaginational OE (Piechowski,
and the role they play in achieving one’s developmental 1979, 2006). High O2 Aesthetics indicates an ability to
potential (Mendaglio, 2012). Despite the popularity of OEs, become absorbed in beauty and arts, with strong enjoyment
empirical evidence supporting their existence is scant, and of these activities (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Sensual OE,
patterns of OEs in gifted individuals are inconsistent aesthetics’ corresponding OE, refers to being moved by
(Mendaglio, 2012; Winkler, 2014). Many studies have low sensory experiences and a need for pleasure and beauty
sample sizes (e.g., Gallagher, 1986; Schiever, 1985), and (Piechowski, 1979, 2006). Openness to a full range of feel-
not all studies are published in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., ings, both in variety and in intensity, defines the O3 Feelings
Falk, Yakmaci-Guzel, Chang, Pardo de Santayana Sanz, & facet (Costa & McCrae, 1992) as well as the emotional OE
Chavez-Eakle, 2008). Even with these problems, the OE (Piechowski, 1979, 2006). O4 Actions describes a love of
literature continues to cite them. novelty and moving out of one’s comfort zone (Costa &
Certain proponents of OEs even claim that personality- McCrae, 1992), while psychomotor OE refers to high
based measures, especially ones based on OEs, should be at energy and even restlessness to take action (Piechowski,
the basis of identification for giftedness (Carman, 2011). 1979, 2006). O5 Ideas describes extraordinary curiosity, a
This becomes a problematic circular definition of giftedness. passion for learning, and a need to understand theories and
TPD states that the five OEs must be present for a person to reasoning (Costa & McCrae, 1992), similar to the intellec-
reach their full developmental potential (Mendaglio, 2012), tual OE (Piechowski, 1979, 2006). People who do not place
yet only some studies found that gifted individuals surpassed importance on authority or tradition score high on O6
the general population on the five OEs (C. M. Ackerman, Values. They do not support dogmas and can revise rules
1997; Siu, 2010; Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997), and other whenever needed (Costa & McCrae, 1992). There does not
studies found differences only in one or two OEs (Wirthwein, seem to be a clear overlap of O6 Values and any OE, though
Becker, Loehr, & Rost, 2011; Yakmaci-Guzel & Akarsu, it might relate to emotional OE as Piechowski (2006)
2006). However, empirical evidence does not support identi- claimed that people with emotional OE have a strong sense
fication based on personality or OEs (Mendaglio, 2012; of social justice, but this theoretical correspondence is the
Wirthwein & Rost, 2011), and the usefulness or even exis- weakest connection in the two sets of constructs.
tence of the OE construct is debated (Rost, Wirthwein, & Studies find a relationship between openness to experi-
Steinmayr, 2014). ence and intelligence in the general population, mostly with a
small to medium effect size (P. L. Ackerman & Heggestad,
1997; DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson, & Gray, 2014; Gignac,
Openness to Experience and the FFM
Stough, & Loukomitis, 2004; Harris, 2004; Moutafi,
Along with intelligence, personality is the construct that Furnham, & Crump, 2006). Studies with gifted samples show
most consistently predicts a wide variety of human behav- similar results. McCrae et al. (2002) as well as Zeidner and
iors, including achievement, job success, well-being, and life Shani-Zinovich (2011) found a small to medium effect size
satisfaction (DeYoung, 2011). The FFM is the most widely on openness to experience when comparing gifted adoles-
accepted personality theory in psychology (McCrae, 2010) cents with the general population, and Altaras Dimitrijević
and has support across the lifespan and in various cultures (2012) found that a composite factor, mainly constituted of
(McCrae, 2010; McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005). This per- facets of openness, could discriminate among gifted and non-
sonality theory encompasses five major factors or domains: gifted samples. Cross, Speirs Neumeister, and Cassady (2007)
extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), openness to experience or and Sak (2004) found their gifted samples had a stronger pref-
openness/intellect (O), agreeableness (A), and conscien- erence for intuition over sensory information, a preference
tiousness (C). Each of these domains is divided into six fac- that relates to openness to experience (Costa & McCrae,
ets or subscales, with the openness facets reporting the aspect 1992). Openness to experience is high in creative individuals
of life in which a person remains open. The six openness regardless of creative domain (Feist, 1998; Gorman & Feist,
facets are labeled O1 Fantasy, O2 Aesthetics, O3 Feelings, 2014; Ivcevic & Mayer, 2007; Kerr & McKay, 2013) and can
O4 Actions, O5 Ideas, and O6 Values, and are backed by predict creative performance and participation in creative
theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and empirical studies activities (Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Furnham, 2010;
(Furnham, Guenole, Levine, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013). Kaufman, 2013). Not surprisingly, the literature shows a

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

194 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(3)

relationship between openness to experience at the domain Act, 2002) and thus represent the population that is consid-
level and OEs (Botella et al., 2015; Limont, Dreszer- ered pertinent to proponents of OE.
Drogorób, Bedyńska, Śliwińska, & Jastrzębska, 2014; Rost
et al., 2014), yet no studies to date have explored this relation- Sample 1: Creative Adolescents and Adults. Participants in the
ship at the facet level, where we would expect to see the first sample were 149 creatively and intellectually gifted
strongest relationships as each OE appears to correspond to adolescents and adults from the Midwest identified via a
an openness facet. profiling technique developed by Kerr and McKay (2013;
see the appendix). They were recruited via invitations to
high schools (in particular their gifted programs), as well as
The Present Study creative programs at universities (e.g., arts, creative writing,
Two hypothesized models tested the hypothesis that open- graphic, and industrial design). Schools received profiles
ness facets and their corresponding OEs represent the same that described eminent adults who achieved high creativity
latent constructs. In the separate-factor model, indicators of in their domains when they were younger, and school per-
OEs and indicators of openness facets were modeled as two sonnel selected students who fit the profiles. Previous
separate constructs expected to show a very strong correla- research indicated the promise of this identification method
tion. Openness facets and their corresponding OEs are as fol- as many of these adolescents and adults already had creative
lows: O1 Fantasy and imaginational OE, O2 Aesthetics and accomplishments, and their personalities resembled those of
sensual OE, O3 Feelings and emotional OE, O4 Actions and creative individuals (Kerr & McKay, 2013). Demographic
psychomotor OE, O5 Ideas and intellectual OE, and O6 information can be found in Table 1.
Values on its own. The joint-factor model made this hypoth- Data collection for the first sample took place in the con-
esized relationship more explicit by having all openness and text of a larger project approved by the institutional review
OE items belonging to each combination load into one single board in 2007. Schools received informed consent forms and
latent variable. Different personality tests measuring the distributed them to potential participants. Participants
exact same constructs have correlations ranging between .70 younger than 18 years signed and turned in their own assent
and .80 (Goldberg, 1999). Therefore, if OEs show similar forms along with consent forms signed by their parents or
relationships with openness facets, or if items of OEs and legal guardians. Participants aged 18 years or older signed
openness load onto the same factor, it could be assumed that their own informed consent form before participating in the
they are measuring very similar or equivalent constructs. study. Recruitment of participants and completion of ques-
tionnaires occurred between February 2014 and May 2015.

Method Sample 2: Adults From the General Population. The second sam-
ple included 312 adults recruited via Amazon Mechanical
Participants and Procedure Turk or MTurk, a crowdsourcing platform, by posting a
For this study, 461 participants from two distinct samples request for completion of the study via a screener survey with
were recruited. This was to ensure the inclusion of the pop- demographic information and a follow-up survey with the
ulation of interest, creatively gifted individuals, yet prevent assessments. MTurk members typically perform tasks such as
restriction of range due to their expected high scores on completing surveys posted on the platform and receive pay-
openness to experience facets and OEs. Therefore, one ment for completion of those surveys. MTurk only allows
sample was composed of persons judged to be creatively adults to use its services, and no other prerequisite for partici-
gifted, and the second sample was composed of adults from pation was requested. Research has shown that results
the general population. According to FFM theorists, per- obtained with MTurk participants are similar to those obtained
sonality traits are normally distributed in the population in college and community samples, and thus MTurk is gain-
(DeYoung, 2015; McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005), yet ing acceptance in the behavioral sciences (Shapiro, Chandler,
OEs are not supposed to be normally distributed (Mendaglio, & Mueller, 2013). Demographic information is in Table 1.
2012). Including two samples expected to have a wide For the second sample, institutional review board approval
range of scores on openness and OEs would allow testing was secured, and both questionnaires were set up in Qualtrics.
for normal distributions. A Human Intelligence Task was posted on MTurk with a
The decision to select highly creative individuals was request for participants, the information statement, and a
based on the literature reviewed, in which creatively gifted screener survey asking for demographic information. First,
individuals generally score higher than the general popula- 472 potential participants completed the screener survey for
tion on OEs (Falk et al., 2008; Yakmaci-Guzel & Akarsu, which they received a payment of $0.02. After we approved
2006), while intellectually gifted individuals show an incon- the screener survey, those 472 potential participants received a
sistent pattern of scores. Both creatively gifted and intellec- $0.01 bonus payment with an embedded custom link to the
tually gifted are covered under the umbrella of the federal assessments in Qualtrics via a private message. This custom
giftedness definition (Elementary and Secondary Education link was related to that MTurk unique Worker ID, and was a

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

Vuyk et al. 195

Table 1. Demographic Information.

Sample 1: Creative adolescents and adults (n = 149) Sample 2: Regular adults (n = 312)
Gender, n (%)
Female 83 (55.7) 144 (46.4)
Male 62 (41.6) 166 (50.0)
Other (e.g., nonbinary, transgender) 4 (2.7) 2 (0.6)
Age, M (SD) 17.12 (4.83) 35.92 (10.88)
Highest education level, n (%)
Some high school 134 (89.9) 0 (0)
High school/GED diploma 0 (0) 37 (11.9)
Some college or technical training 14 (9.4) 60 (19.4)
2-year college graduate 0 (0) 25 (8.1)
4-year college graduate 0 (0) 130 (41.9)
Master’s degree 1 (0.7) 54 (17.4)
Doctorate or professional degree 0 (0) 4 (1.3)
Race/ethnicity, n (%)
African American 4 (2.7) 10 (3.2)
Asian American 5 (3.4) 102 (32.7)
Latino/Latina 4 (2.7) 6 (1.9)
Native American 3 (2.0) 3 (1.0)
Other race/ethnicity or multiracial 9 (6.0) 8 (2.6)
Caucasian 123 (82.6) 183 (58.7)
Country of origin, n (%)
United States 149 (100) 217 (70.5)
India 0 (0) 86 (27.9)
Other 0 (0) 4 (1.6)

one-time use link. We checked which participants completed & Silverman, 1999) is at present the only quantitative instru-
the assessments in Qualtrics using the custom links and paid ment available to assess OEs, for which reason it was used in
those participants an additional bonus of $1.97, for a total pay- this study. The OEQ-II measures psychomotor, sensual,
ment for $2.00. In total, 312 participants completed the instru- imaginational, intellectual, and emotional OEs on a 5-point
ments on Qualtrics. These additional steps were part of the Likert-type scale (50 items) for group comparison purposes
license agreement for online use of the NEO PI-3, while abid- only. Copyright prevents the inclusion here of sample items.
ing by terms of service of MTurk. Recruitment of participants Psychometric quality might be a concern with the OEQ-II, as
and completion of questionnaires occurred in March 2015. one published confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) found that
OE models did not fit and did not hold measurement invari-
ance across genders (Warne, 2011), and a later study using
Instruments exploratory structural equation modeling within a CFA
NEO Personality Inventory-3. The NEO Personality Inven- framework (ESEM-within-CFA or EWC; Morin, Marsh, &
tory-3 (NEO PI-3 (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005) is a 240- Nagergast, 2013) found acceptable fit only with model modi-
item measure based on the FFM. Five domain scales of 48 fications and partial measurement invariance across genders
items per domain, each corresponding to a personality trait, (Van den Broeck, Hofmans, Cooremans, & Staels, 2013).
make up six facet subscales of eight items in each subscale.
The facet scales for openness to experience are openness to
Data Analysis
fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values.
Copyright prevents the inclusion here of sample items. Items in the NEO PI-3 were converted to a 1-to-5 Likert-type
Results are presented as raw scores that can be converted to scale as used by the OEQ-II for ease of interpretability. Data
T scores to compare results with the suitable norming group. were screened with normality tests. Measurement models
The normative sample of the NEO PI-3 included adolescents were designed including each openness/OE pair as separate
and improved readability compared with previous iterations latent factors or as a single latent factor. Kline (2010) stated
(McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005). that latent variable modeling studies could be advantageous
to gifted education research to test relationships among
Overexcitabilities Questionnaire–Two. The Overexcitabilities hypothetical constructs such as openness or OEs. Latent
Questionnaire–Two (OEQ-II; Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski, variable models define constructs with multiple indicators

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

196 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(3)

correcting for measurement error, and can separate reliable to be included in one model without compromising model fit
and unreliable indicators (Little, 2013). Population parame- as in CFA (Gignac et al., 2007), as indicators can load on
ters estimated in latent variable models are unbiased and thus multiple factors. Researchers are increasingly applying
more exact and generalizable. ESEM when working with personality instruments as the
Models were tested using CFA in the R package lavaan methodology is more flexible to manage the minor cross-
(Rosseel, 2012) using the robust maximum likelihood (MLR) loadings that are expected in these personality tests (Morin
estimator to account for the ordinal nature of data. ESEM et al., 2013; Van den Broeck et al., 2013).
was conducted in MPlus 7.1.3 (Muthén & Muthén, 2013)
with MLR estimation and Geomin rotation, as CFA is not Model Fit. Model fit statistics followed Hu and Bentler’s
always suitable for personality tests (Marsh et al., 2010). The (1999) and Little’s (2013) suggested definitions of accept-
appropriateness of CFA for personality instruments is able fit if comparative fit index (CFI) > .90, root mean square
debated in the literature, with several FFM researchers sup- error of approximation (RMSEA) < .08, and standardized
porting the position that CFA is not the optimal choice for root mean square residual (SRMR) < .11, or very good fit if
these instruments (Gignac, Bates, & Jang, 2007; Marsh et al., CFI > .95, RMSEA < .05, and SRMR < .06, following com-
2010; McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond, & Paunonen, 1996; binational rules based on SRMR and other fit indices’ rejec-
Morin et al., 2013). McCrae et al. (1996) stated that person- tion rate of Type I and Type II errors. The combination rules
ality instruments have many correlated residuals and cross- of RMSEA and SRMR presented by Hu and Bentler indicate
loadings due to the nature of the constructs and the manner in that with a sample size close to 500, the combination of
which instruments are created, and thus would have poorer RMSEA between .05 and .08 and SRMR between .06 and .11
fit indices in CFA or would need multiple modifications to yields an acceptable ratio of Type I and Type II errors and
achieve good fit. This need for modifications ultimately thus can be used to select useful models. However, these val-
results in data-driven models, which go against the basic ues were used as guides rather than stringent cutoff values as
rationale of CFA that relies on theory-driven models (Gignac advised by Fan and Sivo (2005), particularly because instru-
et al., 2007). Facing this dilemma, ESEM was introduced as ments with 5 to 10 factors and 5 to 10 items per factor will
a theory-driven alternative to CFA to assess structure of per- inherently have difficulties achieving restrictive fit conven-
sonality instruments (Marsh et al., 2010). tions (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Two competing measurement

models indicated the possible relationships among each Results
openness/OE combination. In the separate-factor model, Initial Analyses
each openness facet and each OE were represented as sepa-
rate latent variables, with indicators corresponding to test There were no missing data as all items required a response
items of each openness facet and OE. To be able to observe in the Qualtrics environment as we set it up. All indicators in
correlations among constructs, the fixed-factor method set the models appeared normally distributed with skewness
the scale. In the joint-factor model, each openness facet/OE <|1.5| and kurtosis <|2|. To calculate descriptive statistics,
combination represented a single construct, with O6 Values item scores of openness facets and OEs on a Likert-type
not matching with any OE. Again, the scale setting method scale of 1 to 5 were added to create a subscale score.
fixed the factor variance. However, previous studies using Reliability was good for all subscales with Cronbach’s alpha
pure CFA models for personality tests and the OEQ-II greater than .70. Means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s
resulted in poor fit for the instruments (Gignac et al., 2007; alpha can be found in Table 2.
Van den Broeck et al., 2013; Warne, 2011), and this poor fit
might stem from excessive correlated residuals and cross- Correlations of Openness Facets and OEs
loadings found in personality instruments (Gignac et al.,
2007), thus, we elected to conduct additional ESEM analyses Intercorrelations among openness facets and OEs can be
to address these problems. found in Table 3. Below the diagonal are the subscale Pearson
correlations calculated according to the manuals’ instruc-
Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Models of openness tions for subscale scores; however, these correlations must
facets and their corresponding OEs as separate or joint fac- be interpreted carefully as they contain measurement error
tors were tested using ESEM. ESEM differs from traditional from treating latent variables as manifest variables (Little,
exploratory factor analysis in that it incorporates advanced 2013). Above the diagonal are the interfactor latent correla-
methodological estimation procedures for latent variables tions from the Model 1 CFA.
used in SEM and CFA that exploratory factor analysis cannot Target correlations among openness facets and their cor-
estimate (Morin et al., 2013). Unlike CFA, ESEM permits responding OEs were in the expected range, with the excep-
small cross-loadings for indicators; thus, models using tion of psychomotor OE and O4 Actions. Subscale
ESEM (Morin et al., 2013) allowed openness facets and OEs correlations include measurement error and were slightly

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

Vuyk et al. 197

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics on Openness Facets and OEs.

Sample 1: Creative adolescents and adults (n = 149) Sample 2: Regular adults (n = 312)
Cronbach’s
Measure M SD M SD α
Openness Domain 180.03 20.01 165.84 20.36 .902
O1: Ideas 30.47 5.31 26.56 5.56 .815
Imaginational OE 31.39 8.11 26.59 8.00 .887
O2: Aesthetics 29.64 6.66 27.58 5.90 .839
Sensual OE 36.28 8.44 34.85 8.21 .905
O3: Feelings 30.32 4.74 28.76 4.79 .742
Emotional OE 35.54 7.30 32.51 6.80 .820
O4: Actions 24.77 4.64 23.49 4.55 .729
Psychomotor OE 30.96 8.25 28.28 8.30 .891
O5: Ideas 32.55 4.82 29.83 5.62 .831
Intellectual OE 38.61 5.85 36.81 7.31 .883
O6: Values 32.28 5.02 29.62 5.89 .831

Table 3. Subscale and Interfactor Correlations Among Openness Facets and OEs (N = 461).

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 MOE SOE EOE POE TOE

O1 — .375*** .328*** .261*** .384*** .354*** .761*** .332*** .229*** −.106* .225***
O2 .330*** — .569*** .355*** .477*** .113* .397*** .865*** .526*** .218*** .338***
O3 .290*** .479*** — .182** .392*** .194*** .208*** .523*** .826*** .156** .302***
O4 .243*** .351*** .182*** — .400*** .378*** .077 .288*** .015 .186*** .214***
O5 .340*** .389*** .317*** .347*** — .400*** .200*** .396*** .191*** .179*** .813***
O6 .323*** .120* .201*** .309*** .360*** — −.061 .030 –.131* −.370*** .051
MOE .629*** .339*** .169*** .113* .143** −.019 — .476*** .461*** .188*** .334***
SOE .287*** .782*** .463*** .314*** .334*** .062 .409*** — .620*** .335*** .434***
EOE .199*** .443*** .623*** .036 .133** −.050 .407*** .524*** — .355*** .320***
POE −.086 .188*** .127** .169*** .141** −.307*** .182*** .297*** .291*** — .380***
TOE .190*** .294*** .272*** .226*** .682*** .075 .294*** .398*** .252*** .325*** —

Note. O1 = O1 Fantasy; O2 = O2 Aesthetics; O3 = O3 Feelings; O4 = O4 Actions; O5 = O5 Ideas; O6 = O6 Values; MOE = Imaginational OE; SOE
= Sensual OE; EOE = Emotional OE; POE = Psychomotor OE; TOE = Intellectual OE. Correlations below the diagonal correspond to subscale scores,
calculated according to the NEO PI-3 and OEQ-II scoring manuals. Correlations above the diagonal correspond to interfactor scores, calculated from the
CFA for Model 1 with 11 factors. Target correlations among openness facets and their corresponding OEs are marked in boldface.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

lower than interfactor correlations. O1 Fantasy and imagina- OEs were modeled as separate latent constructs, had indices
tional OE had correlations of .76 and .63, O2 Aesthetics and that varied; χ2(4600, N = 461) = 11971.632; CFI = .688,
sensual OE had correlations of .87 and .78, O3 Feelings and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) = 120854.264, SRMR
emotional OE had correlations of .84 and .62, and O5 Ideas = .086, RMSEA = .059 (.058-.060). The Model 2 CFA, with
and intellectual OE had correlations of .81 and .682. These indicators loading on a single latent construct for each open-
correlations suggest that these could be equivalent constructs ness facet and corresponding OE combination, yielded a
from different instruments (Goldberg, 1999). O4 Actions and relatively worse fit, χ2(4640, N = 461) = 13400.236; CFI =
psychomotor OE had correlations of .19 and .17. O6 Values .629, BIC = 122037.532, SRMR = .095, RMSEA = .064
was not expected to correlate to OEs or perhaps to emotional (.063-.065).
OE, yet the only significant correlation was a negative cor-
relation of −.307 with psychomotor OE. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. When testing with
ESEM, the first model did not converge, as three variables
were uncorrelated to all other variables in the model. These
Latent Variable Analyses variables were from the NEO PI-3; one was a part of O5
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. First, CFA models were tested Ideas (Q143), and the other two part of O6 Values (Q178
with the entire sample using MLR estimation. The CFA for and Q238R). A prerequisite of ESEM is having variables
Model 1, where openness facets and their corresponding that correlate with all other variables in the model and thus

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

198 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(3)

those three variables were removed from further ESEM .05). O1 Fantasy, imaginational OE, O2 Aesthetics, and O4
analyses. Model 1 in ESEM, with openness facets and OEs Actions had one item each that did not load on the expected
as separate latent constructs, fit the data; χ2(3475, N = 439) factor based on significance testing. Moreover, O1 Fantasy
= 5944.441; CFI = .875, BIC = 117579.070, SRMR = .028, had two meaningful loadings from imaginational OE, and
RMSEA = .040 (.038-.042). The Model 2 ESEM, with indi- O2 Aesthetics had three meaningful loading items from sen-
cators loading on a single latent construct for each openness/ sual OE. O3 Feelings and emotional OE items appeared to
OE combination, yielded worse fit, χ2(3910, N = 439) = load onto a single factor based on significance tests, yet with
8457.564; CFI = .790, BIC = 117491.513, SRMR = .041, two expected items not loading for O3 Feelings and four
RMSEA = .051 (.050-.053). expected items for emotional OE. Additionally, emotional
OE loaded onto a separate factor with two expected items
Comparison of CFA Versus ESEM. Indices showed fit that that did not load based on significance, and one meaningful
ranged from very good to acceptable for both CFA and loading from O3 Feelings. Items for O5 Ideas and intellec-
ESEM, except CFI which fell below the guideline of .90 tual OE loaded onto one single factor based on significance
(Little, 2013) for all models. All fit indices performed better tests, with one expected item not loading. Thus, Model 1,
with ESEM analyses, in accordance with claims of Morin despite appropriate fit indices, was not useful in interpreting
et al. (2013) regarding personality tests. With the exception the relationship of OEs and openness given the discrepancy
of CFI, other indices were very good in ESEM while barely between theory and actual results.
reaching acceptable guidelines in traditional CFA; moreover, Model 2, in which openness facets and their correspond-
CFI seemed consistently worse in the CFA models compared ing OEs were specified as joint factors, fit the data well
with ESEM models. For those reasons, ESEM analyses were with the exception of CFI, and results were interpretable.
selected for interpretation of the results. Every openness facet except O6 Values loaded onto one
Marsh et al. (2004) cautioned against conventional fit factor in combination with their equivalent OE (see Table
guidelines being too restrictive for models with numerous 5). O2 Aesthetics and sensual OE, O3 Feelings and emo-
factors and numerous indicators. In fact, Kenny and McCoach tional OE, and O5 Ideas and intellectual OE loaded onto
(2003) demonstrated empirically that CFI may worsen in the same factor; all expected items loaded based on signifi-
models with more indicators per factor, which adds a caveat cance tests and most with high loadings. O1 Fantasy and
to interpretation. This problem of lower CFI in models with imaginational OE loaded onto the same factor, with one
multiple factors and indicators can be seen in McCrae et al. expected item not loading based on significance. O4
(2002) where RMSEA showed excellent fit while CFI Actions and psychomotor OE loaded onto the same factor
appeared poor. The present study has even more factors and even though this combination was the most diverse based
indicators than McCrae et al. (2002), which warrants caution on theory, with two expected items not loading based on
in interpreting the overall impact of CFI. High sensitivity to significance and O4 items having lower loadings than psy-
misspecified factor loadings is another drawback of CFI chomotor OE items. O6 Values was a single factor with no
(Sun, 2005), and FFM measurement models are particularly OEs loading in conjunction as a block, though with several
prone to this issue due to the cross-loadings that naturally items from other openness facets and OEs. Theory sup-
exist in FFM instruments (McCrae et al., 1996), which can ports the results in this model, and most fit indices are
explain the significantly lower CFI indices in CFA compared good. Therefore, this model was selected as the best one
with ESEM. Additionally, CFI appears to favor models that and was used to interpret the results obtained.
are more complex (Sun, 2005), which can explain why in
this study Model 1 had relatively better fit compared with
Discussion
Model 2 both for CFA and ESEM.
Based on the results, openness to experience and OEs seem
Selection of ESEM Model. Both proposed models fit the data to represent largely the same construct. O1 Fantasy and
in an acceptable manner. However, one model could not be imaginational OE, O2 Aesthetics and sensual OE, O3
meaningfully interpreted based on theory. Model 1, in which Feelings and emotional OE, O4 Actions and psychomotor
each openness facet and each OE were presented as separate OE, and O5 Ideas and intellectual OE appear to be equivalent
constructs, did not follow the expected factor structure (see to each other as they loaded onto the same factor. O6 Values
Table 4). One factor that was among the first ones extracted did not load with any OEs per ESEM analyses. Subscale
was uninterpretable, as it did not have meaningful item Pearson correlations among openness facets and OEs, even
loadings. Items mostly loaded on their openness facet or though containing measurement error because they do not
OE, with some expected items not loading on their expected treat constructs as latent, as well as interfactor correlations
factor. Items for sensual OE, psychomotor OE, and O6 Val- from Model 1 CFA, show that intercorrelations between each
ues all loaded on the expected factors based on significance openness facet and its corresponding OE are high enough
tests, with sensual OE having two items from O2 Aesthetics that they can be considered as an equivalent construct mea-
with meaningful loadings (higher than .3 with p less than sured by different instruments (Goldberg, 1999).

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

 Table 4. ESEM Loadings for Openness Facets and OEs as Separate Factors (N = 461).
Item O1 MOE Unint SOE O3/EOE O2 POE EOE O5/TOE O4 O6

NEO-O1-1 0.344* −0.063 0.403*** 0.134* 0.058 0.064 0.070 0.020 0.102 0.020 −0.026
NEO-O1-2 0.446*** 0.104 0.090 0.022 0.131 0.068 −0.052 −0.092 −0.094 0.236** 0.143
NEO-O1-3 0.656*** 0.125 0.352 0.025 0.058 0.022 −0.114* 0.039 −0.020 −0.001 0.012
NEO-O1-4 0.358* −0.229* 0.208 −0.003 0.209 0.103 −0.069 −0.027 −0.065 0.093 0.194
NEO-O1-5 0.409 0.127 0.663** −0.013 0.007 0.081 0.024 −0.055 0.024 −0.036 −0.035
NEO-O1-6 0.496*** 0.168 0.071 −0.122 −0.009 0.012 −0.032 −0.068 −0.086 0.076 0.275**
NEO-O1-7 0.455*** −0.175* −0.065 0.020 0.114 0.076 0.052 0.079 −0.131* 0.054 0.251*
NEO-O1-8 0.850*** −0.035 0.089 −0.022 0.010 0.039 −0.133*** 0.018 −0.043 0.082 0.200***
OEQ-MOE-1 1.000*** 0.069 0.043 0.056 0.059 0.041 −0.007 −0.020 0.067 0.136*** 0.000
OEQ-MOE-2 0.275 0.581* 0.516 0.020 −0.030 0.145* −0.038 0.031 0.048 −0.159 −0.140
OEQ-MOE-3 0.956*** 0.196* 0.060 −0.012 0.029 −0.101* −0.009 −0.005 0.044 0.037 0.021
OEQ-MOE-4 0.157* 0.792*** 0.119 0.015 −0.002 −0.013 −0.062 −0.080 0.025 0.100 −0.003
OEQ-MOE-5 0.324* 0.445** 0.335 0.148* 0.011 0.042 0.012 0.137 0.085 −0.081 −0.094
OEQ-MOE-6 0.146 0.734*** 0.422 −0.039 0.055 0.129 0.025 −0.050 −0.025 −0.061 −0.007
OEQ-MOE-7 0.090 0.706*** 0.199 −0.046 0.175 −0.013 0.207** −0.028 −0.018 0.004 0.097
OEQ-MOE-8 0.044 0.558*** 0.220 0.032 0.098 0.047 0.069 0.114 −0.059 −0.085 −0.126
OEQ-MOE-9 0.239** 0.483*** 0.068 0.305*** 0.132 0.046 0.017 0.097 0.084 0.072 0.006
OEQ-MOE-10 0.438 0.330 0.555 0.093 0.026 0.040 −0.016 −0.031 0.118 0.002 −0.100
NEO-O2-1 0.074 −0.094 0.150 0.367*** 0.038 0.405*** −0.071 −0.002 −0.074 0.121 0.120
NEO-O2-2 0.046 0.095 0.052 0.191 0.063 0.218* 0.123 0.125 −0.197** −0.030 0.133
NEO-O2-3 −0.035 −0.002 0.045 0.143 0.045 0.811*** −0.031 0.160 −0.166 0.085 −0.019
NEO-O2-4 −0.045 0.113 0.207* 0.197* 0.067 0.704*** −0.015 0.265** −0.171* 0.083 −0.050
NEO-O2-5 −0.065 −0.065 0.032 0.172* −0.018 0.487*** −0.033 0.322*** −0.102 0.237** −0.104
NEO-O2-6 0.048 0.109 0.064 0.214* 0.130 0.183 0.084 0.065 −0.104 −0.096 0.155
NEO-O2-7 0.118* −0.040 −0.004 0.527*** 0.045 0.273*** −0.041 −0.039 0.064 0.159** 0.039

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

NEO-O2-8 −0.125 0.063 0.165 0.129 0.005 0.715*** −0.009 0.214* −0.116 0.073 −0.267*
OEQ-SOE-1 0.012 0.013 0.080 0.514*** 0.078 0.117 0.063 0.193** −0.023 0.040 0.108
OEQ-SOE-2 −0.076 0.155** 0.106 0.493*** 0.011 0.525*** −0.018 0.058 0.005 0.188** −0.102
OEQ-SOE-3 −0.075 0.146* 0.158* 0.478*** −0.003 0.429*** −0.013 0.145* 0.036 0.105 0.000
OEQ-SOE-4 0.003 0.301** −0.003 0.327*** 0.219 0.317* 0.174 0.171 −0.098 −0.073 0.006
OEQ-SOE-5 0.006 0.190** 0.127 0.753*** 0.047 0.146 0.110* 0.105 0.061 0.048 0.008
OEQ-SOE-6 0.055 −0.116 0.032 0.543*** 0.077 0.107 0.112 0.195* 0.042 0.068 −0.054
OEQ-SOE-7 −0.044 −0.176* 0.136 0.606*** 0.217* 0.142 −0.110 0.006 −0.046 0.071 0.165
OEQ-SOE-8 −0.010 0.136* 0.071 0.777*** 0.059 0.060 0.020 0.098 0.032 0.009 0.047
OEQ-SOE-9 0.002 0.042 0.062 0.552*** 0.071 −0.005 0.004 0.111 0.091 0.035 −0.024
OEQ-SOE-10 0.047 −0.136 0.023 0.571*** −0.005 0.012 0.089 0.200* 0.103 0.056 −0.034

(continued)

199
 200
Table 4. (continued)

Item O1 MOE Unint SOE O3/EOE O2 POE EOE O5/TOE O4 O6

NEO-O3-1 −0.034 −0.001 0.085 0.004 0.595*** −0.006 −0.068 0.076 0.031 0.047 −0.007
NEO-O3-2 0.167* −0.132 −0.138 −0.112* 0.664*** 0.041 −0.050 0.089 −0.065 0.032 0.077
NEO-O3-3 0.013 0.130 0.050 0.260*** 0.345*** 0.047 −0.070 0.093 −0.051 0.078 −0.014
NEO-O3-4 0.042 −0.395*** 0.042 −0.025 0.374* 0.229** 0.052 0.066 0.003 −0.073 0.156
NEO-O3-5 −0.057 −0.045 0.190 −0.033 0.471** 0.031 0.173** 0.135 −0.094 0.029 0.023
NEO-O3-6 0.169 −0.258* −0.176 0.060 0.242 0.137 −0.091 0.177 0.088 0.119 0.133
NEO-O3-7 0.076 −0.134** −0.017 −0.088 0.042 0.047 −0.042 0.801** −0.005 0.007 0.105
NEO-O3-8 0.015 −0.139 0.035 0.071 0.291** 0.050 0.039 0.040 0.088 −0.022 0.001
OEQ-EOE-1 0.026 0.016 0.021 −0.016 0.013 0.051 0.030 0.892*** 0.061 −0.106* −0.053
OEQ-EOE-2 0.434* 0.376 −0.431* −0.015 0.350 0.052 −0.089 −0.044 −0.129 −0.238* 0.073
OEQ-EOE-3 0.027 −0.034 −0.133 0.095 0.110 0.001 0.115 0.538*** −0.083 −0.012 0.086
OEQ-EOE-4 −0.013 0.320 −0.107 0.065 0.428** −0.008 0.121 0.279*** 0.001 0.215** −0.144
OEQ-EOE-5 0.031 0.360* 0.023 0.127* 0.589*** 0.034 0.147** 0.076 0.073 −0.067 −0.012
OEQ-EOE-6 −0.062 0.089 −0.079 −0.001 0.073 −0.013 0.079 0.695*** 0.116* −0.001 0.070
OEQ-EOE-7 −0.130 0.391* −0.053 0.073 0.569*** 0.048 −0.175** 0.286*** 0.002 0.001 −0.193*
OEQ-EOE-8 0.028 0.376* −0.145 0.137 0.442** −0.105 0.007 0.134* 0.147* 0.050 0.070
OEQ-EOE-9 0.004 −0.195* 0.164 −0.061 0.518*** −0.002 −0.038 0.433*** −0.110 0.018 −0.036
OEQ-EOE-10 0.045 0.176 0.003 0.035 0.332*** −0.007 0.041 0.288*** 0.053 −0.160* −0.127
NEO-O4-1 0.083 0.001 −0.016 0.046 −0.152 −0.030 −0.123* 0.109 −0.014 0.372*** 0.229*
NEO-O4-2 −0.170 −0.025 0.283 0.176** 0.130 −0.072 0.173** 0.034 −0.075 0.285*** 0.091
NEO-O4-3 0.076 −0.044 −0.066 −0.008 0.055 0.004 0.087 −0.083 0.014 0.638*** 0.009
NEO-O4-4 −0.142 0.113 0.242 0.012 0.119 0.049 0.084 −0.085 0.071 0.430*** 0.047
NEO-O4-5 0.015 0.052 −0.097 −0.085 0.023 0.048 0.058 −0.089* −0.029 0.754*** −0.019
NEO-O4-6 −0.075 −0.107 0.126 0.111 0.022 0.066 0.112* 0.015 0.091 0.061 0.181*
NEO-O4-7 −0.060 0.076 0.078 −0.012 −0.095 0.020 −0.051 0.054 0.065 0.426*** 0.212**
NEO-O4-8 0.063 −0.032 0.006 0.018 −0.050 −0.029 −0.027 0.036 −0.058 0.641*** −0.145*
OEQ-POE-1 −0.067 0.053 0.194 −0.209* 0.192 0.043 0.577*** −0.015 0.128 0.008 −0.164

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

OEQ-POE-2 −0.005 −0.082 −0.048 −0.088 0.001 0.111 0.765*** 0.019 0.143* 0.070 −0.071
OEQ-POE-3 −0.012 −0.033 0.028 0.094* −0.014 0.016 0.796*** 0.120 0.008 0.124 −0.051
OEQ-POE-4 −0.052 −0.016 −0.112 0.068 0.040 0.013 0.882*** 0.085 0.009 0.010 0.037
OEQ-POE-5 −0.142 0.065 0.223* −0.029 −0.126 −0.048 0.758*** 0.193** 0.031 0.191** −0.093
OEQ-POE-6 0.124 0.227* −0.107 0.099 0.078 −0.122 0.524*** 0.014 −0.103 0.057 −0.036
OEQ-POE-7 −0.085 0.188*** 0.115 0.046 0.070 0.070 0.643*** 0.079 0.052 0.005 −0.187**
OEQ-POE-8 0.173 0.108 −0.297** 0.186* 0.029 −0.017 0.609*** 0.011 0.061 0.003 −0.075
OEQ-POE-9 −0.076 −0.098 0.180 0.132* −0.055 −0.041 0.742*** 0.164* −0.012 −0.017 −0.177*
OEQ-POE-10 −0.095 0.014 0.205 −0.109* 0.029 0.000 0.963*** −0.031 0.034 0.025 −0.054

(continued)
 Table 4. (continued)

Item O1 MOE Unint SOE O3/EOE O2 POE EOE O5/TOE O4 O6

NEO-O5-1 0.033 −0.013 0.181 −0.137* 0.047 0.367*** 0.040 −0.006 0.547*** 0.124* 0.107
NEO-O5-2 0.092 −0.040 −0.225 −0.196** 0.051 0.653*** 0.043 −0.119 0.276 0.172 0.214*
NEO-O5-3 −0.063 −0.131 0.223 −0.014 0.057 −0.020 0.019 0.032 0.375*** 0.028 0.111
NEO-O5-4 0.217* −0.176 −0.200 −0.050 0.047 0.467*** −0.025 0.009 0.301* 0.136 0.219*
NEO-O5-5 0.040 −0.040 −0.017 −0.172** −0.016 0.699*** 0.048 −0.069 0.335* 0.053 0.252**
NEO-O5-6 0.068 −0.059 0.008 0.059 0.099 0.109 0.036 −0.084 0.370*** 0.046 0.159*
NEO-O5-7 0.027 −0.082 0.084 0.063 0.096 0.069 0.093* 0.002 0.434*** 0.039 0.118
OEQ-TOE-1 0.071 −0.057 0.117 0.072 0.020 0.013 0.001 −0.009 0.288*** 0.027 0.035
OEQ-TOE-2 −0.005 0.066 0.054 0.008 −0.088 0.016 0.010 0.148* 0.625*** 0.079 −0.045
OEQ-TOE-3 0.144 0.068 −0.131 0.062 0.088 0.158 0.101 −0.013 0.495*** −0.012 0.006
OEQ-TOE-4 −0.073 0.099 0.182 0.034 −0.089 −0.019 0.050 0.162** 0.656*** 0.121 −0.041
OEQ-TOE-5 0.048 0.029 0.016 0.143** 0.072 0.061 0.107* −0.003 0.537*** −0.102 −0.059
OEQ-TOE-6 0.072 0.207** −0.030 0.049 0.040 0.186 0.087 −0.049 0.636*** 0.009 0.153*
OEQ-TOE-7 −0.128 −0.085 0.257 0.004 0.047 0.027 0.093 0.083 0.746*** 0.041 0.023
OEQ-TOE-8 0.067 0.044 −0.166 0.076 0.142 0.139 −0.019 0.097 0.564*** 0.060 0.080
OEQ-TOE-9 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.028 0.104 0.067 0.081 0.067 0.463*** −0.108 −0.016
OEQ-TOE-10 0.034 −0.049 0.193 0.082 −0.011 0.061 0.096* 0.008 0.672*** 0.031 −0.017
NEO-O6-1 0.145 0.058 −0.144 0.030 −0.011 −0.005 −0.201*** −0.267*** −0.034 0.175* 0.652***
NEO-O6-2 −0.155* 0.066 0.140 0.008 0.030 −0.036 −0.047 0.003 0.011 0.023 0.482***

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

NEO-O6-3 0.175 −0.082 −0.230* −0.002 −0.035 0.025 −0.052 0.096 −0.127 0.046 0.571***
NEO-O6-4 −0.107* 0.033 0.068 0.085 −0.026 −0.016 0.000 0.152** 0.066 −0.034 0.586***
NEO-O6-5 0.063 0.039 −0.077 −0.039 −0.009 0.013 −0.045 0.058 −0.095 0.162* 0.755***
NEO-O6-6 0.138 −0.057 −0.162 0.033 0.023 0.105 −0.096* −0.138 0.090 0.108 0.518***

Note. ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling; O1 = O1 Fantasy; O2 = O2 Aesthetics; O3 = O3 Feelings; O4 = O4 Actions; O5 = O5 Ideas; O6 = O6 Values; MOE = Imaginational OE; SOE = Sensual OE; EOE = Emotional
OE; POE = Psychomotor OE; TOE = Intellectual OE; Unint = Uninterpretable Factor. Loadings greater than .4 are noted in boldface. Factors appear in the order in which they were extracted.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

201
202 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(3)

Table 5. ESEM Loadings for Openness Facets and OEs as Joint Factors (N = 461).

Item O1/MOE O2/SOE O3/EOE O6 O4/POE O5/TOE

NEO-O1-1 0.432*** 0.184*** 0.000 0.100 0.100* 0.189***
NEO-O1-2 0.456*** 0.070 0.015 0.475*** −0.030 −0.059
NEO-O1-3 0.761*** 0.035 0.072 0.233 −0.111** 0.028
NEO-O1-4 0.212* 0.071 0.101 0.453*** −0.090 0.046
NEO-O1-5 0.757*** 0.136* −0.120* −0.015 0.052 0.150**
NEO-O1-6 0.500*** −0.135** −0.035 0.464*** −0.084 −0.056
NEO-O1-7 0.142 −0.020 0.199** 0.564*** −0.012 −0.078
NEO-O1-8 0.623*** −0.092 0.065 0.635*** −0.194*** −0.007
OEQ-MOE-1 0.806*** −0.090 0.093 0.586*** −0.029 0.057
OEQ-MOE-2 0.912*** 0.192*** −0.003 −0.340** −0.007 0.113**
OEQ-MOE-3 0.872*** −0.241*** 0.108* 0.455** −0.046 −0.004
OEQ-MOE-4 0.745*** 0.071 −0.028 −0.126 −0.002 −0.024
OEQ-MOE-5 0.739*** 0.192*** 0.133** −0.179 0.055 0.103*
OEQ-MOE-6 0.862*** 0.154* 0.012 −0.243* 0.062 0.033
OEQ-MOE-7 0.673*** 0.002 0.143 −0.103 0.238*** −0.013
OEQ-MOE-8 0.557*** 0.136* 0.189** −0.329*** 0.122* −0.060
OEQ-MOE-9 0.561*** 0.303*** 0.230*** −0.007 0.063 0.067
OEQ-MOE-10 0.883*** 0.173*** −0.055 −0.078 0.044 0.181***
NEO-O2-1 0.060 0.655*** −0.006 0.245*** −0.070 0.075
NEO-O2-2 0.100* 0.348*** 0.174** 0.110* 0.105 −0.121*
NEO-O2-3 −0.036 0.726*** 0.134* 0.152* −0.023 0.064
NEO-O2-4 0.116* 0.786*** 0.195*** 0.021 0.047 0.044
NEO-O2-5 −0.136* 0.641*** 0.134 0.095 0.077 0.017
NEO-O2-6 0.136** 0.293*** 0.213*** 0.078 0.039 −0.029
NEO-O2-7 0.074 0.619*** 0.020 0.215*** −0.023 0.127**
NEO-O2-8 0.023 0.710*** 0.098 −0.153** 0.076 0.069
OEQ-SOE-1 0.042 0.570*** 0.222*** 0.060 0.090* 0.029
OEQ-SOE-2 0.115** 0.885*** 0.008 −0.020 0.059 0.125**
OEQ-SOE-3 0.117** 0.817*** 0.067 −0.038 0.044 0.156***
OEQ-SOE-4 0.211*** 0.483*** 0.382*** −0.053 0.179** −0.035
OEQ-SOE-5 0.222*** 0.773*** 0.145** −0.081 0.163*** 0.094
OEQ-SOE-6 −0.024 0.544*** 0.214*** 0.035 0.164** 0.067
OEQ-SOE-7 −0.059 0.662*** 0.169** 0.163** −0.096 0.043
OEQ-SOE-8 0.148** 0.711*** 0.176** −0.066 0.057 0.037
OEQ-SOE-9 0.080 0.485*** 0.167** −0.073 0.053 0.081
OEQ-SOE-10 −0.054 0.498*** 0.158* 0.004 0.137* 0.100
NEO-O3-1 0.055 0.032 0.500*** 0.045 −0.011 0.073
NEO-O3-2 −0.022 −0.149** 0.635*** 0.337*** −0.058 −0.029
NEO-O3-3 0.149** 0.303*** 0.361*** 0.017 −0.014 −0.034
NEO-O3-4 −0.228*** 0.064 0.349*** 0.291*** −0.013 0.151**
NEO-O3-5 0.031 0.065 0.425*** 0.040 0.228*** −0.012
NEO-O3-6 −0.180 0.085 0.339*** 0.407*** −0.095* 0.136**
NEO-O3-7 −0.182 0.122 0.557*** 0.090 0.028 0.036
NEO-O3-8 −0.052 0.047 0.272*** 0.061 0.036 0.138*
OEQ-EOE-1 −0.085 0.176** 0.620*** −0.176*** 0.126* 0.074
OEQ-EOE-2 0.389*** −0.258*** 0.500*** 0.217 −0.226** −0.212**
OEQ-EOE-3 −0.166** 0.143* 0.516*** 0.070 0.150** −0.089
OEQ-EOE-4 0.149* 0.127 0.540*** −0.022 0.268*** −0.051
OEQ-EOE-5 0.330*** 0.078 0.593*** −0.069 0.172** 0.084
OEQ-EOE-6 −0.141 0.110 0.553*** −0.064 0.159** 0.110*
OEQ-EOE-7 0.179** 0.166** 0.704*** −0.271*** −0.070 −0.029
OEQ-EOE-8 0.221 0.012 0.519*** 0.017 0.047 0.091
OEQ-EOE-9 −0.073 0.082 0.658*** 0.038 0.055 −0.045
(continued)

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

Vuyk et al. 203

Table 5. (Continued)

Item O1/MOE O2/SOE O3/EOE O6 O4/POE O5/TOE

OEQ-EOE-10 0.162 −0.008 0.548*** −0.209*** 0.065 0.042
NEO-O4-1 −0.012 0.177** −0.137* 0.369*** −0.047 −0.009
NEO-O4-2 −0.004 0.308*** −0.009 0.065 0.291*** −0.015
NEO-O4-3 −0.024 0.129* −0.165** 0.454*** 0.242*** 0.012
NEO-O4-4 0.100 0.250*** −0.143 0.137* 0.236*** 0.137
NEO-O4-5 −0.026 0.149** −0.219*** 0.439*** 0.239*** −0.029
NEO-O4-6 −0.088* 0.174*** −0.012 0.122** 0.107** 0.177***
NEO-O4-7 −0.008 0.198*** −0.169** 0.282*** 0.053 0.107*
NEO-O4-8 0.007 0.213*** −0.192** 0.283*** 0.181** −0.086
OEQ-POE-1 0.105 −0.177** 0.077 −0.138* 0.635*** 0.183**
OEQ-POE-2 −0.114* −0.108* −0.012 0.082 0.781*** 0.184***
OEQ-POE-3 −0.055 0.070* 0.029 0.072 0.870*** 0.026
OEQ-POE-4 −0.144*** −0.051 0.119** 0.083 0.876*** 0.025
OEQ-POE-5 0.002 0.065 −0.094 −0.106* 0.897*** 0.056
OEQ-POE-6 0.192*** −0.072 0.123 0.056 0.552*** −0.170**
OEQ-POE-7 0.130** 0.071 0.089* −0.207*** 0.721*** 0.069
OEQ-POE-8 0.047 −0.057 0.133* 0.106 0.584*** −0.011
OEQ-POE-9 −0.050 0.095* 0.022 −0.188*** 0.813*** 0.009
OEQ-POE-10 0.035 −0.128** −0.075 −0.060 1.004*** 0.098**
NEO-O5-1 0.085* 0.108* −0.051 0.161*** 0.049 0.707***
NEO-O5-2 −0.111 0.138 −0.041 0.496*** −0.036 0.447***
NEO-O5-3 −0.032 −0.003 −0.006 0.002 0.032 0.454***
NEO-O5-4 −0.111 0.137* 0.060 0.524*** −0.097 0.433***
NEO-O5-5 −0.049 0.220*** −0.069 0.362*** −0.044 0.561***
NEO-O5-6 0.014 0.023 0.024 0.202*** −0.001 0.441***
NEO-O5-7 −0.001 0.032 0.055 0.114*** 0.086** 0.506***
OEQ-TOE-1 0.077* 0.038 −0.015 0.042 0.006 0.327***
OEQ-TOE-2 0.043 −0.011 0.002 −0.102** 0.068 0.631***
OEQ-TOE-3 0.090* −0.026 0.124* 0.085 0.064 0.518***
OEQ-TOE-4 0.080 0.053 −0.037 −0.164*** 0.145*** 0.675***
OEQ-TOE-5 0.085* 0.003 0.106* −0.116** 0.085* 0.556***
OEQ-TOE-6 0.174*** 0.018 0.035 0.089 0.047 0.691***
OEQ-TOE-7 −0.033 0.008 0.007 −0.129*** 0.144*** 0.832***
OEQ-TOE-8 −0.025 0.022 0.232*** 0.131** −0.032 0.590***
OEQ-TOE-9 0.014* −0.059 0.177*** −0.104* 0.054 0.497***
OEQ-TOE-10 0.092 0.038 −0.051 −0.063 0.121** 0.738***
NEO-O6-1 0.042 −0.010 −0.166 0.655*** −0.325*** 0.018
NEO-O6-2 −0.043 0.079 0.003 0.189*** −0.098 0.100*
NEO-O6-3 −0.135 −0.020 0.107 0.597*** −0.171*** −0.083
NEO-O6-4 −0.101* 0.125* 0.100 0.253*** −0.083 0.162***
NEO-O6-5 −0.067 0.044 0.039 0.642*** −0.144* 0.003
NEO-O6-6 −0.063 0.018 −0.033 0.576*** −0.212*** 0.162**

Note. ESEM = exploratory structural equation modeling; O1 = O1 Fantasy; O2 = O2 Aesthetics; O3 = O3 Feelings; O4 = O4 Actions; O5 = O5 Ideas;
O6 = O6 Values; MOE = Imaginational OE; SOE = Sensual OE; EOE = Emotional OE; POE = Psychomotor OE; TOE = Intellectual OE. Loadings greater
than .4 are noted in boldface. Factors appear in the order in which they were extracted.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

These results were obtained with our data set that included Booth, Patel, & Lozinskaya, 2011; Furnham, Hughes, &
two different samples; one of the samples was composed of cre- Marshall, 2013; Gorman & Feist, 2014; Ivcevic & Mayer, 2007;
ative individuals, and the other included individuals from the Kaufman, 2013; Kerr & McKay, 2013; Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001;
general population. Creative individuals were expected to score Yakmaci-Guzel & Akarsu, 2006) and thus are a helpful criterion
higher on openness and OEs based on previous research (Batey for studies such as this one. Considering these findings, all five
et al., 2010; Falk et al., 2008; Feist, 1998; Furnham, Batey, OEs can be entirely represented by a facet of openness.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

204 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(3)

Conceptual Similarity alternative ways of doing things (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
O4 Actions negatively predicts depression (Quilty et al.,
Openness to fantasy and imagination, which is measured in 2013), likely due to the adaptability and willingness to
O1 Fantasy, seems to encompass the construct measured by change until satisfying alternatives emerge, and is less
imaginational OE as evidenced by their joint factor in ESEM, related to cognitive abilities than the other facets of open-
correlations, and conceptual descriptions. Individuals open ness (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005). Psychomotor
to fantasy are prone to daydreaming, which likely is of adap- OE refers to increased general activity and expression
tive value to them and serves personal goals (McMillan, through motor modes as well as an excess of physical energy
Kaufman, & Singer, 2013). Piechowski (2006) agreed that (Piechowski, 2006). People who continually seek novel
daydreaming and using imagination in general opens a myr- alternatives are probably in constant motion, yet these two
iad possibilities. Fantasy, along with aesthetics, feelings, and can be mutually exclusive for some individuals.
actions, is related to creative potential (Nusbaum & Silvia, Intellect is one of the most widely studied aspects of
2011), creative achievement in the arts (Kaufman, 2013), and openness to experience, with many theorists calling the
implicit learning (Kaufman et al., 2010). domain Openness/Intellect rather than simply openness
Openness to sensory pleasures and aesthetic experiences (DeYoung, 2015). The model measuring O5 Ideas and
is measured by O2 Aesthetics and sensual OE. From their intellectual OE as a single construct fit the data in ESEM,
conceptual descriptions to the results of this study from and correlations were high. O5 Ideas and intellectual OE
ESEM and correlations, these two factors appear undifferen- appeared to describe the same construct of intellect, which
tiated. One single factor fit the data even though items in the has been previously linked with working memory
NEO PI-3 focus more on enjoyment of the arts, while items (DeYoung, Shamosh, Green, Braver, & Gray, 2009), fluid
on the OEQ-II focus on everyday sensorial experiences. intelligence (DeYoung et al., 2005; Nusbaum & Silvia,
Aesthetics, just like fantasy, relates to implicit learning 2011), and crystallized intelligence (DeYoung et al., 2005).
(Kaufman et al., 2010) and creativity (Kaufman, 2013; Intellect serves as a predictor of creative achievement in the
Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011). Individuals high in openness to sciences (Kaufman, 2013).
aesthetic experiences tend to be strongly moved by beauty Openness to revising one’s values and conceptions of the
found in nature and in arts, and often experience aesthetic world as measured by O6 Values was not a part of OEs, and
chills in their bodies in response to these stimuli (McCrae, in correlations had a moderate negative relationship with
1997; Silvia & Nusbaum, 2011). psychomotor OE. Openness to values should theoretically
Regarding personal emotional life, O3 Feelings and emo- relate in a positive way to OE descriptions of Piechowski
tional OE also appeared as a single factor in ESEM and had (2006) about self-examination and moral awareness, which
high correlations. Both seem to describe the same openness should be encompassed in the OEQ-II under the emotional
to a wide variety and depth of feelings that individuals have OE subscale. Perhaps said items do not adequately capture
related to creative achievement and potential (Kaufman, the vastness of Piechowski’s descriptions, or perhaps items
2013; Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011), as well as to the experience that related to that construct were left out during the devel-
of aesthetic chills (McCrae, 1997; Silvia & Nusbaum, 2011). opment of the OEQ-II. Theory cannot feasibly explain the
Individuals who are open to feelings value emotions as an negative relationship of O6 Values with the energy described
important part of life and are in tune with their emotional in psychomotor OE. An alternative explanation would
states; both their positive and negative emotional experi- involve the findings of DeYoung et al. (2005) who found
ences are more intense than those of others (Costa & McCrae, that O6 Values and O5 Ideas more closely related to fluid
1992). Piechowski (2006) also describes extremes from intelligence and dorsolateral prefrontal functions than the
ecstasy and emotional aliveness to fears and preoccupation other openness facets did, and explored a potential relation-
with death. Although one might consider that such a wide ship between intellectual curiosity, intelligence, moral rela-
range could render individuals vulnerable to mood disorders, tivism, and rejection of dogmatic beliefs. In this case, O6
particularly bipolar types, openness to feelings does not pre- Values would be related to intellectual OE, given that O5
dict either unipolar or bipolar mood disorders (Quilty, Ideas and intellectual OE were practically indistinguishable
Pelletier, DeYoung, & Bagby, 2013). in this study. Thus, further research is needed to empirically
O4 Actions and psychomotor OE loaded onto the same elucidate this question.
factor, with the exception of two reverse-scored items refer-
ring to enjoying one’s old ways of doing things. In ESEM
Problems With OEs and TPD
analyses, items of O4 Actions had lower loadings when
compared with psychomotor OE items; correlations were Research on OEs and TPD has two elemental problems.
also in the low range. O4 Actions describe an openness to According to Dabrowski’s TPD, OEs serve a purpose within
change in general, adaptability to novel situations, and a larger theory and are meaningless on their own (Dabrowski,
refusal of routines (Costa & McCrae, 1992). These individu- 1967; Dabrowski, Kawczak, & Piechowski, 1970;
als continuously revise their actions, trying to find Mendaglio, 2012). TPD and OEs supporters appear to imply

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

Vuyk et al. 205

that the scarce OEs research validates the existence of OEs Rating Forms (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005) will add to
and therefore supports TPD. However, this link is missing in these findings. Additionally, if the relationship of openness
the literature. First, OEs research is atheoretical and does not to OEs is robust it should hold with different personality
connect OEs to the original theory (Mendaglio, 2012), and instruments such as the IPIP (Goldberg, 1999). Future stud-
second, TPD presently lacks sufficient empirical support ies could include large-scale samples to confirm these results.
(Mendaglio, 2012). No studies have yet validated the Samples in this study had a disparity in age; means in one
assumptions of the overactive nervous systems, the different sample did not overlap with the other sample’s range. It was
brain wirings, and the enhanced experiences attributed to not possible to find comparable samples of the same age for
people presenting with OEs. In fact, neural efficiency theory this study, though sample comparison was not the principal
and corroborating studies indicate that intelligence is associ- aim in this study. Covarying age would be particularly
ated with less brain activity to accomplish tasks (Langer important in studies with the main focus of comparing sam-
et al., 2012). The enactment of personality-related behaviors ples. Future studies could include age as a covariate in a
is also associated with lower brain activity (Knyazev, multiple indicators multiple causes or MIMIC model in
Pylkova, Slobodskoj-Plusnin, Bocharov, & Ushakov, 2015). structural equation modeling, to prevent spurious effects
The only study that used brain imaging for OEs (Kuo due to age differences.
et al., 2012, as cited in Chang & Kuo, 2013) found similar Replications of this same study in other samples will
results as brain imaging studies of openness (Adelstein et al., facilitate further generalization. This study included a cre-
2011; DeYoung, 2010; DeYoung et al., 2010). Mendaglio atively gifted sample as a criterion sample, as creative indi-
(2012) suggested that assuming a normal distribution for viduals tend to score highest on openness to experience, and
OEs would be incongruent with TPD; however, all OE items a sample of adults from the general population. However, OE
and subscales had a reasonably normal distribution in this research has largely focused on intellectually gifted individ-
study, which is more consistent with the FFM (Costa & uals. Thus, the inclusion of intellectually gifted individuals
McCrae, 1992). Thus, at present, OEs merely describe as a separate group would be advantageous. If proponents of
behaviors and cannot be linked to any biological etiology. OEs continue to believe that OEs and openness to experience
Parsimony is the reason to avoid a complicated theory if a are separate constructs, then it is on them to conduct future
simple one provides better explanations for the phenomena studies to validate the conceptual differences in deeper detail,
studied. The relationships among OEs and openness indicate as well as empirically support Dabrowski’s TPD.
that they are the same underlying construct with different
names. As Wirthwein et al. (2011) posited, OEs are possibly
Conclusion
“old wine in new bottles” (p. 150) instead of a distinct and
useful personality construct that can describe characteristics Openness facets and OEs appear to represent the same con-
of gifted and creative individuals. Researchers such as Rost struct, and thus the giftedness field would benefit from dis-
et al. (2014) and Winkler (2014) concluded that the relation- cussing the construct as the personality trait of openness to
ship between giftedness and OEs is unclear and thus the use- experience. Subotnik et al. (2011) urged gifted education to
fulness of the construct is limited. use the vast body of psychological research to inform prac-
tice. In this case, the FFM is the personality model with the
strongest research support and professional acceptance in the
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies present day (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1999).
Choice of instruments, sample size, and sample selection The reason for this change from OEs to openness to expe-
can improve in future studies. Quality of instruments has rience goes beyond a mere change in names; the change will
likely affected results of this study, as the OEQ-II has positively affect interpretation of behaviors. Adding the FFM
shown inadequate fit in the literature (Van den Broeck and openness to experience to the daily vocabulary of gifted
et al., 2013; Warne, 2011); however, it is thus far the only education researchers, teachers, counselors, and parents can
instrument available in English to measure OEs in adoles- connect these behaviors seen in creatively and intellectually
cents and adults. With poor fit for the instrument it would gifted individuals to the vast literature base on personality. It
be difficult to obtain adequate fit for other models that will provide a sounder explanation of the behaviors linked to
included this instrument. Inspecting both instruments openness facets. The literature also can predict a develop-
showed that the NEO PI-3 had overall longer items than the mental trajectory of openness for most individuals (McCrae
OEQ-II. This might be a purely psychometric reason that et al., 2002). Openness as a personality trait can even affect
could differentiate among openness facets and OEs that career choice as it relates to artistic and investigative voca-
would not relate to the constructs themselves, but would be tional interests, and working within realms of one’s voca-
an artifact of measurement tools. tional interests leads to higher career satisfaction (Larson,
Self-report instruments rely on participants for accuracy Rottinghaus, & Borgen, 2002).
of results, which is a major limitation. Studies with observ- Another reason to favor openness to experience and the
ers’ reports of personality such as the NEO PI-3 Observer FFM is the leap one might make based on the explanation

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

206 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(3)

for the behaviors seen. OEs have a place in a theory, TPD, to learn other languages. The student should have outstand-
which has insufficient empirical support. When reading ing verbal accomplishments. He or she may be witty and
about OEs, parents and practitioners can gravitate toward expressive. Verbal precocity may get him or her in trou-
the theory and make assumptions that go beyond the descrip- ble. The student is likely to have excellent grades in Lan-
tion of openness- or OE-related behaviors. Such a leap is guage Arts/English/Foreign language when interested, and
dangerous as it might present individuals who are open to have high scores on verbal achievement tests. May have
experience as more moral following the original tenets of mood swings, ranging from expansive, energetic, optimism
TPD (Dabrowski, 1967), an assumption not rooted in sci- when he or she works day and night with intensity on a
ence. The leap becomes even more dangerous when OE is project, to periods of self-doubt, low energy, and cynicism
presented as an identification tool for giftedness, when stud- (Andreasen, 1987; Barron, 1969; Jamison, 1989; Kaufman,
ies have consistently shown that intelligence and openness 2001, 2002; Piirto, 2002; Valdés, 2003; VanTassel-Baska,
have correlations in the .20 to .40 range (P. L. Ackerman & Johnson, & Boyce, 1996).
Heggestad, 1997; Austin, Deary, & Gibson, 1997; Austin
et al., 2002; Moutafi et al., 2006; Moutafi, Furnham, & Mathematical and scientific inventiveness. The student may
Crump, 2003; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). be a natural mathematician with an ability to perform com-
Gifted education researchers and practitioners would plex computations in his or her head or who possesses an
benefit from the adoption of the FFM of personality as used advanced understanding of mathematical and scientific con-
by psychologists across the globe. The FFM of personality cepts. The student loves science, experimentation, and new
is a better option as it will permit meta-analyses and further technology. In addition, the student enjoys manipulating
generalization of findings. In addition, it will allow practi- materials and information, tinkering, adjusting the designs
tioners and parents to have a shared vocabulary with other of objects, apparel, hardware and software. Intense curiosity
sciences to describe a personality trait commonly seen in and fascination with enigmas and unsolved problems leads
creatively and intellectually gifted individuals, such as this student to read widely and in depth. If challenged, the
openness to experience. student has good grades in math, science, and laboratory
classes; if not, the student may expend little effort. Most sci-
entists and inventors had significant accomplishments such
Appendix as winning regional or national math and science competi-
Profiles for Selection of Participants (From Kerr & tions, or having patentable inventions or designs that are
income producing. These students are usually well adjusted,
McKay, 2013) but are likely to have just a few like-minded friends (Assou-
Core Creativity Characteristics. Creatively gifted students may line & Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2005; Innamorato, 1998; Park,
be spontaneous, expressive, intuitive, and perceptive, with Park, & Choe, 2005; Simonton, 1988; Sriraman, 2005; Sub-
evidence of intellectual sophistication and childlike playful- otnik, Maurer, & Steiner, 2001).
ness. They are very likely to be curious, open to new experi-
ences, and innovative in many areas of their lives. They may Interpersonal/emotional creativity. These students are char-
express originality in thoughts, and are probably unafraid of acterized by emotional intelligence, meaning they have the
what others might think of their ideas. Most likely, these stu- ability to understand and manage their own emotions and
dents have a wide range of interests and abilities, and may be those of others. The student may be a natural mimic, able
comfortable with ambiguity and disorder. Likely to be to do impressions, absorb accents, and “get inside another’s
unconventional, creatively gifted students are imaginative, skin.” The student may be the kind of helper that other stu-
and may challenge the status quo. By late adolescence, truly dents seek out for help and or a natural leader who is usually
creative individuals usually have significant creative accom- selected by peers to lead in both formal and informal situa-
plishments that have earned them recognition by experts in tions. They are extraverted and people-oriented, able to form
their domain. Most important, many of these students may relationships across cultures and age groups; agreeable and
not have qualified for gifted education programs because of friendly toward all. They thrive on connection, and experi-
their concentration on their areas of interest rather than being ence deep empathy. They may have excellent grades in social
“well-rounded” students (Amabile, 1983; Csíkszentmihályi, sciences, debate, rhetoric, and leadership courses, as well as
1996; Goertzel, Goertzel, Goertzel, & Hansen, 2004; Runco, recognition for performance, leadership, or volunteerism
2004; Simonton, 1999; Torrance, 1984). (Bolton & Thompson, 2004; Daloz, Keen, Keen, & Parks,
1996; Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994; Salovey & Grewal,
Specific Domain Characteristics 2005; Simonton, 2008).
Language; verbal/linguistic creativity; potential writers, jour-
nalists, translators, and linguists. The student is likely to be a Musical and dance creativity. The student has the ability to
precocious and avid reader with an extensive knowledge of sing or play instruments—usually multiple instruments—or
literature; a sophisticated writer; may have advanced ability to dance with technical expertise and imagination. She or he

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

Vuyk et al. 207

may have an intuitive understanding of music or movement, Daloz, L. P., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S. D. (1996).
and often has perfect pitch, excellent rhythm, and musical Common fire: Lives of commitment in a complex world.
memory. The student can compose or choreograph; his or Boston, MA: Beacon.
her own creations have won the recognition of experts. The Dudek, S. Z., & Hall, W. (1991). Personality consistency: Eminent
architects 25 years later. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 213-
student dances, sings, and performs as often as possible—
232. doi:10.1080/10400419109534395
but may be defensive, anxious, or perfectionistic, sometimes
Goertzel, M., Goertzel, V., Goertzel, T., & Hansen, A. (2004).
leading to denial of coveted roles while in school. These stu- Cradles of eminence. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
dents possess excellent musical knowledge in one or more Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know
genres, such as hip hop, jazz, pop, or classical, and may about leadership. American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.
have sought out rare and little known pieces for inspiration. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.6.493
Although more introverted than extraverted, the student is Innamorato, G. (1998). Creativity in the development of scientific
likely to be transformed on stage into an expressive, creative giftedness: Educational implications. Roeper Review, 21, 54-
performer, entering a flow state that conquers shyness or 59. doi:10.1080/02783199809553932
anxiety (Oreck, Owen, & Baum, 2003; Sloboda, 1988, 2005; Jamison, K. (1989). Mood disorders and seasonal patterns in British
Van Rossum, 2001). writers and artists. Psychiatry, 52, 125-134. doi:10.1521/00332
747.1989.11024436
Kaufman, J. C. (2001). The Sylvia Plath effect: Mental illness in
Spatial visual creativity. The student has a powerful ability eminent creative writers. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 37-
to visualize designs, colors, and to manipulate 3D images in 50. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01220.x
mind and an ability to draw models and designs with techni- Kaufman, J. C. (2002). Dissecting the golden goose: Components
cal skill. The student is imaginative and original in think- of studying creative writers. Creativity Research Journal, 14,
ing, conversation, and attire. He or she creates cartoons, 27-40. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1401_3
websites, paintings, graphic art, sculpture, photography, Kay, S. I. (2000). On the nature of expertise in visual art. In R. C.
video, or architecture that has already earned the recogni- Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.), Talents unfolding: Cognition
tion of experts. The student may have excellent grades in art, and development (pp. 217-232). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
photography, shop, drawing, or other course emphasizing
MacKinnon, D. W. (1961). Creativity in architects. In D. W.
spatial/visual ability, but may underperform in other classes.
MacKinnon (Ed.), The creative person (pp. 291-320).
Like writers, artists are likely to have mood swings, but those Berkeley: Institute of Personality Assessment and Research,
students who lean more toward design and architecture may University of California.
be more stable in mood. The student is more introverted than Oreck, B., Owen, S., & Baum, S. (2003). Validity, reliability and
extroverted, reflective, and easily enters flow states (Barron, equity issues in an observational talent assessment process in
1972; Csíkszentmihályi & Getzels, 1971; Dudek & Hall, the performing arts. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27,
1991; Kay, 2000; MacKinnon, 1961; Pariser & Zimmerman, 62-94. doi:10.1177/016235320302700105
2004; Stohs, 1992). Pariser, D., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Learning in the visual arts:
Characteristics of gifted and talented individuals. In E. W.
Eisner & M. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy
References from Appendix
in art education (pp. 379-405). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A Erlbaum.
componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Park, S. K., Park, K. H., & Choe, H. S. (2005). The relationship
Psychology, 45, 357-376. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 between thinking styles and scientific giftedness in Korea.
Andreasen, N. (1987). Creativity and mental illness: Prevalence rates Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 87-97. doi:10.4219/
in writers and their first-degree relatives. American Journal of jsge-2005-475
Psychiatry, 144, 1288-1292. doi:10.1176/ajp.144.10.1288 Piirto, J. (2002). “My teeming brain”: Understanding creative
Assouline, S., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2005). Developing math writers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
talent: A guide for educating gifted and advanced learners in Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
math. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. 657-687. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Barron, F. (1969). The psychology of the creative writer. Salovey, P., & Grewal, D. (2005). The science of emotional intel-
Explorations in Creativity, 43(12), 69-74. ligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 6-14.
Barron, F. (1972). Artists in the making. New York, NY: Seminar doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00381.x
Press. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science.
Bolton, B., & Thompson, J. (2004). Entrepreneurs: Talent, tem- Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
perament, technique. Boston, MA: Elsevier. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Significant samples: The psychologi-
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology cal study of eminent individuals. Psychological Methods, 4,
of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins. 425-451.
Csíkszentmihályi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented Simonton, D. K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and perfor-
behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with mance: Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review
artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47- of General Psychology, 12, 28-46. Retrieved from http://
52. doi:10.1037/h0031106 dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.28

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

208 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(3)

Sloboda, J. A. (Ed.). (1988). Generative processes in music. Oxford, Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Fowkes, F. G.
England: Oxford University Press. R., Pedersen, N. L., Rabbit, P., . . . McInnes, L. (2002).
Sloboda, J. A. (2005). Exploring the musical mind. Oxford, Relationships between ability and personality: Does intel-
England: Oxford University Press. ligence contribute positively to personal and social adjust-
Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in ment? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1391-1411.
mathematics? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 20- doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00129-5
36. doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-389 Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010).
Stohs, J. H. (1992). Intrinsic motivation and sustained art activ- Individual differences in ideational behavior: Can the
ity among male fine and applied artists. Creativity Research Big Five and psychometric intelligence predict creativ-
Journal, 5, 245-252. doi:10.1080/10400419209534438 ity scores? Creativity Research Journal, 22, 90-97.
Subotnik, R. F., Maurer, K., & Steiner, C. L. (2001). Tracking the doi:10.1080/10400410903579627
next generation of the scientific elite. Journal for Secondary Botella, M., Furst, G., Myszkowski, N., Storme, M., Pereira Da
Gifted Education, 13, 33-43. Costa, M., & Luminet, O. (2015). French validation of the
Torrance, E. P. (1984). The role of creativity in identification of Overexcitability Questionnaire 2: Properties and factorial
the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 153-156. structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97, 209-220.
doi:10.1177/001698628402800403 doi:10.1080/00223891.2014938750
Valdés, G. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of Carman, C. A. (2011). Adding personality to gifted identification:
young interpreters from immigrant communities. Mahwah, NJ: Relationships among traditional and personality-based con-
Lawrence Erlbaum. structs. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 412-446. doi:10
Van Rossum, J. A. (2001). Talented in dance: The Bloom stage .1177/1932202X1102200303
model revisited in the personal histories of dance students. High Chang, H. J., & Kuo, C. C. (2013). Overexcitabilities: Empirical
Ability Studies, 12, 181-197. doi:10.1080/13598130120084320 studies and application. Learning and Individual Differences,
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Boyce, L. (Eds.). (1996). 23, 53-63. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.010
Developing verbal talent: Ideas and strategies for teachers of Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
elementary and middle school students. Boston, MA: Allyn & Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory
Bacon. (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Cross, T. L., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Cassady, J. C. (2007).
Psychological types of academically gifted adolescents. Gifted
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Child Quarterly, 51, 285-294. doi:10.1177/0016986207302723
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality-shaping through positive disin-
tegration. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Funding Dabrowski, K., Kawczak, A., & Piechowski, M. M. (1970). Mental
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support growth through positive disintegration. London, England:
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This Gryf.
investigation was supported through awards from the University of DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology
Kansas Office of Graduate Studies Doctoral Student Research of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1165-
Fund, University of Kansas School of Education Graduate Student 1180. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00327.x
Research Fund, and University of Kansas School of Education DeYoung, C. G. (2011). Intelligence and personality. In R. J.
Copwood-Hill Dissertation Scholarship. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook
of intelligence (pp. 711-737). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
References DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic Big Five theory. Journal
Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using per- of Research in Personality, 56, 33-58. doi:10.1016/j.
sonality characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper jrp.2014.07.004
Review, 19, 229-236. doi:10.1080/02783199709553835 DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris,
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personal- X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predic-
ity, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological tions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure
Bulletin, 121, 219-245. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219 and the Big Five. Psychological Science, 21, 820-828.
Adelstein, J. S., Shehzad, Z., Mennes, M., DeYoung, C. G., Zuo, doi:10.1177/0956797610370159
X. N., Kelly, C., . . . Milham, M. P. (2011). Personality is DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, H. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Sources
reflected in the brain’s intrinsic functional architecture. PLoS of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological cor-
One, 6(11), e27633. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027633 relates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal of Personality,
Altaras Dimitrijević, A. (2012). A faceted eye on intellectual gifted- 73, 825-858. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00330.x
ness: Examining the personality of gifted students using FFM DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B., & Gray, J. R.
domains and facets. Psihologija, 45, 231-256. doi:10.2298/ (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive abil-
PSI1203231A ity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 46-52. doi:10.1080
Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., & Gibson, G. J. (1997). Relationships /00223891.2013.806327
between ability and personality: Three hypotheses tested. DeYoung, C. G., Shamosh, N. A., Green, A. E., Braver, T. S.,
Intelligence, 25, 49-70. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90007-6 & Gray, J. R. (2009). Intellect as distinct from openness:

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

Vuyk et al. 209

Differences revealed by fMRI of working memory. Journal of Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2007). Creative types and person-
Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 883-892. doi:10.1037/ ality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 26, 65-86.
a0016615 doi:10.2190/0615-6262-G582-853U
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2002 § 901, 20 U.S.C. Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Opening up openness to experience: A
§ 7801 (2002). four-factor model and relations to creative achievement in the
Falk, R. F., Lind, S., Miller, N. B., Piechowski, M. M., & Silverman, arts and sciences. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 233-255.
L. K. (1999). The Overexcitability Questionnaire–Two doi:10.1002/jocb.33
(OEQII): Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire. Denver, Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jimenez, L., Brown,
CO: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development. J. B., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit learning as an ability,
Falk, R. F, Yakmaci-Guzel, B., Chang, A., Pardo de Santayana Cognition, 116, 321-340. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.011
Sanz, R., & Chavez-Eakle, R. A. (2008). Measuring overex- Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003) Effect of the number
citability: Replication across five countries. In S. Mendaglio of variables on measures of fit in structural equation model-
(Ed.), Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (pp. 183- ing. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 333-351. doi:10.1207/
199). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. S15328007SEM1003_1
Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005) Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspeci- Kerr, B. A., & McKay, R. (2013). Searching for tomorrow’s inno-
fied structural or measurement model components: Rationale vators: Profiling creative adolescents. Creativity Research
of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, Journal, 25, 21-32. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752180
12, 343-367. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_1 Kline, R. B. (2010). Promise and pitfalls of structural equation
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of the impact of person- modeling in gifted research. In B. Thompson & R. E. Subotnik
ality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and (Eds.), Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness
Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309. doi:10.1207/ (pp. 147-169). Washington, DC: American Psychological
s15327957pspr0204_5 Association.
Furnham, A., Batey, M., Booth, T. W., Patel, V., & Lozinskaya, D. Knyazev, G. G., Pylkova, L. V., Slobodskoj-Plusnin, J. Y.,
(2011). Individual difference predictors of creativity in art and Bocharov, A. V., & Ushakov, D. V. (2015). Personality and
science students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 114-121. the neural efficiency theory. Personality and Individual
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2011.01.006 Differences, 86, 67-72. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.002
Furnham, A., Guenole, N., Levine, S. Z., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. Langer, N., Pedroni, A., Gianotti, L. R., Hänggi, J., Knoch, D., &
(2013). The NEO Personality Inventory–Revised factor struc- Jäncke, L. (2012). Functional brain network efficiency pre-
ture and gender invariance from exploratory structural equa- dicts intelligence. Human Brain Mapping, 33, 1393-1406.
tion modeling analyses in a high-stakes setting. Assessment, doi:10.1002/hbm.21297
20, 14-23. doi:10.1177/1073191112448213 Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, R. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-
Furnham, A., Hughes, D. J., & Marshall, E. (2013). Creativity, OCD, analyses of big six interests and Big Five personality factors.
narcissism and the Big Five. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217-239. doi:10.1006/
91-98. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2013.05.003. jvbe.2001.1854
Gallagher, S. A. (1986). A comparison of the concept of overexcit- Limont, W., Dreszer-Drogorób, J., Bedyńska, S., Śliwińska,
abilities with measures of creativity and school achievement in K., & Jastrzębska, D. (2014). “Old wine in new bottles”?
sixth-grade students. Roeper Review, 8, 115-119. Relationships between overexcitabilities, the Big Five per-
Gignac, G. E., Bates, T. C., & Jang, K. L. (2007). Implications rele- sonality traits and giftedness in adolescents. Personality
vant to CFA model misfit, reliability, and the five-factor model and Individual Differences, 69, 199-204. doi:10.1016/j.
as measured by the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual paid.2014.06.003
Differences, 43, 1051-1062. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.024 Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling.
Gignac, G. E., Stough, C., & Loukomitis, S. (2004). Openness, New York, NY: Guilford Press.
intelligence, and self-report intelligence. Intelligence, 32, 133- Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules:
143. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2003.10.005 Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, per- values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and
sonality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11,
five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. Marsh, H. W., Ludtke, O., Muthen, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A.J.,
7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the Big
Gorman, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Five structure through exploratory structural equation mod-
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 30-43. eling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491. doi:10.1037/
doi:10.1037/a0034828 a0019227
Harris, J. A. (2004). Measured intelligence, achievement, McCrae, R. R. (1997). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of
openness to experience, and creativity. Personality and openness to experience. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 5-11.
Individual Differences, 36, 913-929. doi:10.1016/S0191- doi:10.1007/s11031-007-9053-1
8869(03)00161-2 McCrae, R. R. (2010). The place of the FFM in person-
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes ality psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 57-64.
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria ver- doi:10.1080/10478401003648773
sus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3:
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 A more readable revised NEO personality inventory. Journal

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

210 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(3)

of Personality Assessment, 84, 261-270. doi:10.1207/ Rost, D. H., Wirthwein, L., & Steinmayr, R. (2014). Wie brauchbar ist
s15327752jpa8403_05 der Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two (OEQ-II)? Entwicklung
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, und psychometrische Analyse einer reduzierten deutschsprachi-
C. J., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Personality trait gen Version (Übersensibilitätsfragebogen OEQ-D) [How useful is
development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross- the Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two (OEQ-II)? Development
sectional, and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and psychometric analysis of a shortened German language ver-
and Social Psychology, 83, 1456-1468. doi:10.1037//0022- sion (Overexcitability Questionnaire OEQ-D)] . Diagnostica, 60,
3514.83.6.1456 211-228. doi:10.1026/0012-1924/a000102
McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & 78 Members of the Personality Sak, U. (2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types of
Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal features of per- gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15,
sonality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 70-79. doi:10.4219/jsge-2004-449
cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, Schiever, S. W. (1985). Creative personality characteristics and
547-561. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547 dimensions of mental functioning in gifted adolescents. Roeper
McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., Bond, M. H., Review, 7, 223-226. doi:10.1080/02783198509552901
& Paunonen, S. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using
in the revised NEO personality inventory: Confirmatory fac- Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical
tor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality Psychological Science, 1, 213-220. doi:10.1177/21677026
and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566. doi:10.1037/0022- Silvia, P. J., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2011). On personality and piloerec-
3514.70.3.552 tion: Individual differences in aesthetic chills and other unusual
McMillan, R. L., Kaufman, S. B., & Singer, J. L. (2013). Ode to aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
positive constructive daydreaming. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, and the Arts, 5, 280-241. doi:10.1037/a0021914
626. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00626 Siu, A. F. Y. (2010). Comparing overexcitabilities of gifted and
Mendaglio, S. (2012). Overexcitabilities and giftedness research: non-gifted school children in Hong Kong: Does culture make
A call for a paradigm shift. Journal for the Education of the a difference? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30, 71-83.
Gifted, 35, 207-219. doi:10.1177/0162353212451704 doi:10.1080/02188790903503601
Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski’s theory of posi- Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011).
tive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction
findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 68-87. forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science
doi:10.4219/jeg-2006-253 in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagergast, B. (2013). Exploratory Sun, J. (2005). Assessing goodness of fit in confirmatory factor
structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course Development, 37, 240-256.
(2nd ed., pp. 395-436). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Tucker, B., & Hafenstein, N. (1997). Psychological intensities
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographics and in young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 66-75.
personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the NEO doi:10.1177/001698629704100302
Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Van den Broeck, W., Hofmans, J., Cooremans, S., & Staels,
European Journal of Personality, 17, 79-94. doi:10.1002/ E. (2013). Factorial validity and measurement invariance
per.471 across intelligence levels and gender of the Overexcitabilities
Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2006). What facets of open- Questionnaire–II (OEQ-II). Psychological Assessment, 26, 55-
ness and conscientiousness predict fluid intelligence score? 68. doi:10.1037/a0034475
Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 31-42. doi:10.1016/j. Warne, R. T. (2011). An investigation of measurement invariance
lindif.2005.06.003 across genders on the Overexcitability Questionnaire–Two.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus user’s guide (7th Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 578-593. doi:10.1177/1
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. 932202X11414821
Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are openness and intellect Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. R., & DeVries, A. R. (2007).
distinct aspects of openness to experience? A test of the O/I A parent’s guide to gifted children. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
model. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 571-574. Potential Press.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.013 Winkler, D. L. (2014). Giftedness and overexcitability: Investigating
Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. the evidence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Louisiana
Colangelo & R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
the gifted (pp. 25-57). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Wirthwein, L., Becker, C. V., Loehr, E., & Rost, D. H. (2011).
Piechowski, M. M. (2006). Mellow out, they say. If I only could: Overexcitabilities in gifted and non-gifted adults: Does sex
Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison, matter? High Ability Studies, 22, 145-153. doi:10.1080/1359
WI: Yunasa Books. 8139.2011.622944
Quilty, L. C., Pelletier, M., DeYoung, C. G., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). Wirthwein, L., & Rost, D. H. (2011). Focusing on overexcit-
Hierarchical personality traits and the distinction between uni- abilities: Studies with intellectually gifted and academically
polar and bipolar disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, talented adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 51,
147, 247-254. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.012 337-342. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.041
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation Wolfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in cre-
modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. Retrieved ativity: Personality, story writing, and hobbies. European
from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/ Journal of Personality, 15, 297-310. doi:10.1002/per.409

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016

Vuyk et al. 211

Yakmaci-Guzel, B., & Akarsu, F. (2006). Comparing overexcitabili- Thomas S. Krieshok, PhD, is a professor in the Department of
ties of gifted and non-gifted 10th grade students in Turkey. High Educational Psychology at the University of Kansas, a Fellow of the
Ability Studies, 17, 43-56. doi:10.1080/13598130600947002 American Psychological Association and of the American
Zeidner, M., & Shani-Zinovich, I. (2011). Do academically gifted Educational Research Association, and a founding member of the
and nongifted students differ on the Big-Five and adap- Society for Vocational Psychology. He is a Kemper Teaching Fellow
tive status? Some recent data and conclusions. Personality and a Budig Teaching Professor at the University of Kansas. His
and Individual Differences, 51, 566-570. doi:10.1016/j. teaching and research interests include decision making, vocational
paid.2011.05.007 assessment and career counseling, process and outcome of counsel-
ing interventions, and training issues in professional psychology.
Author Biographies Barbara A. Kerr, PhD, holds an endowed chair as Distinguished
M. Alexandra Vuyk, MS, is a doctoral candidate in Counseling Professor of Counseling Psychology at the University of Kansas
Psychology with a specialty area in Quantitative Psychology at the and is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association. Her
University of Kansas, and has an MS in Special Education with a research focuses on the development of talent, creativity, and opti-
concentration in Gifted, Talented and Creative from Emporia State mal states, while training psychologists and counselors to be talent
University. She applies her quantitative and statistical expertise to scouts who provide positive, strengths-based services. She authored
study the social and emotional development of intellectually and several books and more than 200 articles, chapters, and articles in
creatively gifted individuals. She has won several student research the field of psychology of giftedness and creativity. She currently
awards from the National Association for Gifted Children Research directs the Counseling Laboratory for the Exploration of Optimal
and Evaluation Network. She is a native of Paraguay and hopes to States (CLEOS) at the University of Kansas, a research-through-
advance gifted education in her home country. service program that identifies and guides creative adolescents.

Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at UNIV CALGARY LIBRARY on June 29, 2016