Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR®

Masters Theses & Specialist Projects Graduate School

5-1974 A Comparison of the Intellectually Gifted, Average, and Below Average High School Subjects on the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey Lyda Parker

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses Part of the Child Psychology Commons, and the Education Commons

Recommended Citation Parker, Lyda, "A Comparison of the Intellectually Gifted, Average, and Below Average High School Subjects on the Guilford- Zimmerman Temperament Survey" (1974). Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1809. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1809

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses & Specialist Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A COM PARISON OF THE INTELLI, CT UALLY GIFTlm.

AVEHAGIC. ANI) BELOW AVPHAGE UIG U SCUOOL SUBJ ECTS

ON T il E GUILFORD- ZIiVI MERMAN TEMPE RA l\'Il!: NT SUn VEY

A Thes is

P ,'escntcd to

the Faculty of th e Depa rtme nt of Psychology

W este rn K entucky Unive r sity

Bowling Green, K entucky

In P3rtial F ulfillment

of the Require me nts for th e Degree

Master of Arts

by

Lyda P. Parker

May 1974 A CO~ IP i\HI SON OF T il E INT ELLECT UALLY GIFTED,

AVEHAGIO, AND BELOW AVEHAGE I /IGH SC/looL S B.JECTS

ON THE GUILFOHD-ZIM:\H-:Ri\'I AN TEMPEHAi\'IENT SU nVEY

Approved ;/- 2 <2 · 14 (Date ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I gener ::t lly rind "Acknowledgements" to be J r amatic . som e wh a t

embal'rassi ng. just plnin old "corny , " a nd devoid of humor . So

it is Ilt the expense of presenting myself in s uch a manner that

I do acknowledge the following pel' sons a nd do so s incer e ly , but

hopefully , with hUlllor.

I would especially like to tI'ank my com m ittee c ha irman.

Or. David ~ \' 5 e k, fo r the contimml encour agement. patience. a nel

intere.st he has shown not o nly with I'cgar d to th is pape r . but a lso

throughout my under g r a d uate and gra duate training. lie has g iven f .. eely of his ti me. knowleclce. e nthusiasm, and suppor t thl'oughout these years; a nd his assis ta nce has been invuluable .

Dr. Le r oy lVletze has a lso been most he lpful through the pnst years. a nd especia n y in the produc tio n of this paper. He spent many long hours from a n extremely c r o wded sche dule in r eview and a ppreciated discussion of the s tudy.

For the invaluable contributio n of the da ta ba nk used in his docto r a l disserta tio n. J would like to acknowledge Dr . Albe r t Laird who a lso sel'ved a s a committee member. Without the lise of these data . the present s tudy would not have been 'D OS s ible .

iii I would like to tha nk my mothe r' for taking c art:! of the typing

of the m a nu script. my fathe r fo r ta king (,3re of the c opying of the

manuscript, a nd my hu s bn.nd-to-h ~ fo ro taking c are of m e! Without

the ir c ons t'lnt help and e ncoul"n. ge m e nt this pape r would neve r

have been c omplet ed,

Las tly . I wou ld like to tha nk myself fOJ" le arning. caring .

and being s tubborn a nt.! aggressive e nough to fina lly finis h this paper! TA U f E U F CONT EN'I'S Chaptc r

I. INTHODUCTION ......

II. llEV /F;1V OF THE L l'l' EHATUH r:: 8 Gu iJfo rd~Zimm e rman Tempe ramcnt Survey 8 GZ'l'S Fac tor Gencr'al Ac ti vit y 10 CZTS Fac tor' R C~ Ir '~l illt .. 12 CZ'l'S Facto r l\ scendancc . 1·1 CZTS Fac to r Sociabil ity 16 CZTS Factor Emotional S tab ility . 19 CZTS Factor Objcctivity . 2 1 GZTS Factor Friendliness 23 GZ1'S PactaI' Thoughtfulness 24 GZTS Fac tor Pe rsonal Hc la ti ons 26 GZTS Fac tor !\'TascuJinity . 27 Ove rv iew of the Litenllure 30 III. METHOD ANU pnOCEOUHE . 34 Selec tio n and Use o f Subjects. 34 l\luHiplc Groups Design. 36 Proc edure ...... 3P Statis tical Treatment of Data 39 v IV. HESULT S ...... 4 1

V. DISCUSSION AND I~IPLICATIO NS . 45

Disclission . 45

Implica tions 48

REFERENCES •...... 52

vi ;\ COi\l P All: lSON O F Til E INT ELLECTUA l LY G IFTED. ,I\VEHAGE, A 10 B ELO W AV EHAG I!: HI G II SCIIOOI SUBJECT S ON T il E GUl LFOHJ)· Z l i\l~ I E R Mj\N TEl\J PERAl\IENT SIJRV!:;Y

I yda p , !':lI'kCI' i\ lay l H7<1 56 pages

Uir'cctcd by: I). A . Shi c k. 1, 1' . :l.tel:l'.c . and A . W . I.aird

Depa l'lme nl of P sycho l ogy \Veste rn Ke ntucky lI nivel's ity

Thc plll' pose of the s tudy was to investiga tc the I' cla lionship

between inlc llt.'ctlla l ahility of 276 high schoo l s tude nts a nd pe r'sona lity

as measur ed by the GUiIrol'd-Z imrne r'lllnll ·,· ... "" pcl·amcnt SUI've}, (GZTS) '

fa c to r' s . The 10 GZTS tr:lits util ized WC I'C: G e ne r'al Ac tivity. Il c s tra int.

i\ sccndance. Sociability . Emotiona l St:,lbility. Objectiv ity . Friendliness.

Thollghtrulness. Per sona l Il e la ti ons . a nd l\'iasclIlinity. The study was

d esigned to t est for the r el a tionship be tween thl'ce IQ groups (high.

middle . and low) a nd each of 10 GZTS persona lity fa cto r s . 1\ multiple

g l'oups dpsign was used . in which the th,'ce g " oups of subjects we r c

blo c ked :.IC I'OSS inte llig(mce . Tcn one · way :1Ilalyses o f varia nce wer e

pC l'formed to d e te r nline if s ignific a nt diffe r ences be tween the IQ g,'ollps e xist ed o n the 10 GZTS fac tors. None of the a nalyses yielded

s ignific a n t findings . That is . no s ignificant diffe r ences in pe r sonality

;:\C I'OSS lQ g .,oups we r e obta ined . S even non- s i ~n ifi ea nt trends b (! tween in tellig e nce level and s pecific personnlity fa c to r s arc presented and d isc ussed. Chapter I

Introduction

In order that he might func tion. m an is self-cent el'ed.

lie does not live unless he eats. d rinks . a nd breathes. In his earliest

form . he did not live unless he could protect himself a nd had e nough

abil ity to find food a nd water. He had to and s tU1 has to be self- a ware.

for hi s awareness a nd self- concern t ell him when he s hou ld seck

food. dl'ink, or s leep, If man we r e 110t £I e lf-cente r ed, he could not survive.

These ve r y basic self-concerns ha ve l ed man to ques tion his needs. and through his r easoning to evaluate himself. Through the eons m an has progrC"ssed from merely evalua ting how he must find water fo r himself to exis te ntia l questioning or Jds own value .

1\-lal1 . then. rrom whatever eon, of wha te ver inte lligence . is a self­ e va lua ting bC'ing.

"Man is a socia l creatu re (Eertrand, 1967. p. 6J. " He seeks out th e companions hip o r other m e n--men who like himself al'e self- evalua ting. self-a ware b e ings. Early ma n began being

"other-aware" wh e n he had to battle humans for food a nd protec tio n. ane lat e r when he bec ame sociah ..:ed. living a nd e lUng together 2

with othCl'S, II c learne d to eva luat(' h Lq peer s --who was the s tronges t ,

the best hunter, the best food pre pare r, Man the n moved to mor e

s ophis tic ated methods of "othe r -evaluation." lie found it necessar y

lo establis h government s. laws. r e ligion. a nd values. The r e fore,

man is today pic tul'ed as n self- and othe r- evalua ting organism.

with h is e valuative processes falling o n a continuum from ba sic to

sophis ticated methods of e va luation.

Man has developed systems of investigating specia l abilities

o n social. intellectua l. a nd phys ical levels . He s peaks of his fellow

m;'ln as a "gr eat persona lity . " a " r eal IlI'ain." 0 " a "supe r a thelete . "

Kelly ( J 063) ~ t ated tha t m an cons ta ntly r. ':tluates himself and othe r s

through his own construc t syste m s . Often m a n a ccepts o r cons ider s

a s pecific syst em of e va luation o r m ode l as delineated by a nother' pe r­

son, ~ l a n y s uc h syste m s ha vC' been cons truc t ed r egal'ding manls

inte llige nce a nd persona lity .

Guil ford (1 959b) devised such a system of evaluaUng inte l­ lectual abilities, s ta ting that such functioning is dete rmined by five sepa rate abilities 01' operatio ns: m emory, cognition, convergent thinking, dive r gent thinking , and eval uating. Gu ilford conceptualized hi s model as a cubical composed of cells , each cell described in t erms or the oper a tions. products, and content involved in tha t intellectual c ndeavo l' , The oper a ti ons c ited above each resulted in produ.:ts of units. classes, r elations , systems, t ransformation, o r implications composed of cont ents which were figural, s y mbo li<... !'. emantic . 3

0 1' the th eol'el len) be ha vio ral. The r e fo r e , Guilfo rd saw, fo r exampl e .

tha t intellectua l dive r gent thinking (an ope r a tion) could pl'oduce

I' cl n. tions : .. product) in symbo lic te r ms (content>. Guilford used

this model to conceptua lize inte llectua l abilities . s pecific tasks

d etermine d ty the ope ration, produc t. a nd conte nt involved. T he

ability to adeq uat el y solve s uch inte llectual tasks under this model

was r e fe rred to as intelligence.

Social inte llige nce difre r s fr om a cademic inte llige nce in that

it is the capacity to maintain m a ture . p r oductive r e l ntions hips with

othe l's (Jar ecky , 1950). T he soc inlly g ifted p e l'son was secn by

J ;:t r ecky as being as impo rta nt to our socie ty as the s killed scientis t.

Gtlllfo r d O DS!}b ) conceptua lized socia l Inte lligence as the bchavio" rd

cat egor y unde r the conte nts s truc tu r e within his mo de l of the academic

intellect. lie c hose to r efer to this ability as IIsocia l cognition. "

T he socia lly intellige nt pe r son was seen as having a n unus ua l a bility

to cope with any social s itua tio n, s ti mul a ti:1g product ive be havior

in o the l's, m a inta ining e nduring r ela ti onsPips with othe r s , a nd

" policy m a ke r s" within the ir own g r oup (Jarecky . 19591.

~ I a n y thcordical viewpoints concerning m onls traits have

resulted in va ried models of pe r sonality . G uilfo rd 0 9590\ ) de fined

pe r'sona lity as "a pe r son's unique patte rn or tra its {p. 5J. " He saw d iffer e nt aspects of pe r sona lity as be ing represented by the moda lities of a ttitudes, te mpe r a m e nt, apt itudes, morphology , physiology , needs, a nd inte r ests . He fo und it useful to refe r to two m ~ el s of 4

P CI'sollolity. In deal ing with the gene r'a ! pe r sona l ity as a n n-dimens ional

s phe r e . he ,'ccommcndcd using factol' a nalysi s fo ,' p l'ovid ing informa tion

concerning t r ait dimc lH; i o ns . noting that such a method p r' o \'ides a

mOdCI"tHC numbel' of I l'aits while satisfying the " cqulrcmcnt s of

empiri cal verirication. He proposed anothe r model when con s ide ring

the individual pel'sonal ity. This model was in the (an n of a hierurchhll

scr'i es of tra its , composed of the mos t gene r a l syndr ome t)1lcS. th e

le a s t general hexes. a nd the intc l'media r'y !> r'imilry tra its.

By examining Gu iHonl ' s mode l s of inte llect, social inte llect.

and pe l'sanality . o ne notes th:tt he sow socia l intelligence as b e ing

abSOI'bccl by th e mor e gene r a l "acad emic" intellect. and the inte llcc-tua l

func tio ns in tUl'1l as a p.u't o f the mon.. genct'al model of the pcr son ot lity ,

i\ lany ha ve vi cwed these cons truc t s a s identical. seeing pe r sonality

as being composed of m a ny tra its . one of them being inte llectua l

ahilities (aptitudes). with social inte llige nce c ompos ing a po rt ion

of the intellect. Not e s h ould be made tha t Guilfol'd cons ider ed these

modaliti es to be func tioning aspec ts . wo rking in un intergruted whol e

of pe t' sona lity (i. e . the m odality o f attitude func tions. innue nc ing

the modality of a ptitude).

Whatcver' model of socia l intellect. acndemic intc llect, a nd

pe l'sonat Hy o ne chooses t o follow , there a r e hundreds of other m odels, e:tch maintaining differe nt conccptualizntions, d i ffe r ent methods of evaluating these cons truc ts . As if this conflic t over c hoice wer e not enough. furthe r di ssent OCC lIl'S whe n One cons ide .. s l 11 e r el ationship 5

amo ng whic h models he has c hosen. If. as Guitro r ,l iHIS Pl'oposcd ,

abilities ,H'C pal't of th e fun c tioning whule of pc r' sona lity. then how

diver'gently C~ln th e pa rts functiun and s till r e main p.:tI't of the wh ole?

Can socia l inte lligence fun c tio n we ll when a cnd e mic intelligence

cannot ?

Among th e firs t to p,'opose thnt social intelligence was

ctistinc lly diffe rent from traditional i:nclligencc Wrl S n, I . Thor'ndike

(1!l20). Shanl ey, Wnlkc r' , tv_ Foley 0 97!) staled that "social intelli-

gence" a s a concept has bee n define d nnd r esear che d in val'iOliS

ways, with mos t ins tr'uments IJI'opOI' ling to measu re it be ing invalid.

Othel's CA11pol,t. 193 7; Taft. ] !}55 ; Hothenbe l'g. 1!) 70) 11 , e s tated thnt socia l intell igence correla ted directly with a c ademic Ot' vCl'bal intclligence. Such differentiation is pe rhaps giving a eliffeT'ent Il a me to the same cons tr'uct . Cronbach ( In6 0) ~ta t ed:

No evidence of va lidity is yet a va ilable which wa l'ra nt s confidenc e in a ny present tec hnique foJ' mcasu l'ing ~ person's ability to judge oth" r s as indidclua ls •... Arte r fifty 'year s of inte rmittent invcstigntion ... socia l intellige nc e r Clnains lIndcrine d a nd unmens ured 11'1'. 3 I D-3201.

II.s noted earlier, GlIilfcrd elid r efer to his bclwvioral c ognition as a s pecific a bility of the intellect. O'Sullivan & C;uilford 09(6), us ing facto r 'Ina]ysis . established the construct validity of behavior cognition and indicated tha t their tests were not Oleasurin;r general int e lligence. However, Sha nley e t a1. (1971) in a study using the

O 'Sull ivan 3ml Gu ilford tests, found that the majority of correlation!" 6

between general ~I nd socia l intelligence W:l ~ ~ jg nifi ca nt (.,E <.025)

a nd ques tioned th e inde pe ndence o r the two types of intellige nce.

Hothcnbcl'g (1970) noted that social intelligence (dcrined as aceu l'ale

social PC I'ccp:ions) was a function of the contr-ibutions of :.Ige , int e r ­

pe l'sonttl adjustment , :.Ind inte llectual ability .

Conflict exis ts not o nly ovel' the !'ela ti onsillp between social

and a cademic inte lligence, but a lso Ovc r the relatio nship between

th e intellect and the per sona lity, i\ lyths arc e xlr'cllle ly ha ,'d to

document. and it is assum ed that a ll arc awar e of the stercotyped

intellec tua lly g ifted pe r son who is pigeonholed as a socia l misrit.

Barbe ( 1955) I' e por'ted tha t th e bas is fO!' the ec(' \; . 1 ric inte llectua lly

g irted could be found in writings of Nineteenth Ce llt ur ~l :.Iuthol's,

SII('h a utho r s believed th:.lt ovel'-devf'lopment of eer'ta in Ir'ait s was

a lways accompanie d by othe r de fect s . even to the po int of s toting that

instnbility was in direct pro portio n with genius .

T oday t.he gifted m isfit has been found in fol kl o r e . comic

SI1' ips. jokes. and gene r a l conve r sation. T his gifted individual is e nvisioned by m a ny as a small, thin. owlis h creature, complete with thick eye ghisscs. thin ha ir and totally lacki ng in social s kills .

Also commonly hea r d is this statement : "The r e 's only a thread' s diffcr'e nce between genius :lnd ins:lnity!" Does high inte lligence render

:l pe l'son a s ocia l !tdud, " misfit, or ina deq uate pe r suna lity ? Resc:lrch too voluminoll s to lis t he r e has thunde red fo rth a resounding " no" for th e last 40 years, yet this mytll seems to continue to thrive. 7

The "dumb little s mar·t kid" is all too well !

lt "good personality may fUnction inver"ticl), with extreme intellectual pro wess . Certainly the r c.l ations hip is o ne which has nurtured many conflic ting o pinions . Cha ptc t' "

Hc view o f thc I.itcr a tu r c

G uiHo r d - Z immerma n T e mpc rament Survey

Using his models of hum an functio ning, Guil for d became

intl!r cslcd in methods of assessing the pe r sona lity . Suc h ins tru­

m entatio n could possibly det e r m ine whe the l' the intell ectua lly girted

actually we r e lacking in certa in aspects of the persona lity . How wou ld '

the g ift ed misfit Scor e o n a n ins trument m easur ing his soc ia l prowess?

During the 1940's Guilford and colleag ues developed a series

of pe l-sona lHy invento ries conSis ting of Nebraska P e r sona lity Invento r y ,

Inventor y of Facto r s STnC n. P e r sonnc l Inve ntor y , a nd Invcnto r y

of FUctors GA l\'IIN. Through the year s the t endency g r e w to adnlinis tc r

the STDC H, GA i\ II N, and P e r sonnel invento ries in combina tio n, pro ­ viding a mor e compr e he ns ive assessment of individual b (Gun ford

& Zimmer man , 19·19), T he need e xis ted fo r a s ingle invento r y , pr oviding as comprehe ns ive info rmatio n in a more economical manne r.

Using rUc to r a nulysis . GuiUo r d & Zimme rmnn develope d the Gu ilf 01' d - Z imm c rm ~ n T e mpe r a m e nt Survey (G Z TS) in 1949 rrom the STDC H, C AM IN, nnd P e r sonne l inve nto ries. The sy mbols

8 and namcs fat' som e of the traits wCl'e 3i t "l'ed in thc ne w ins tru ment,

a nd tw o Il'aits wer e comple tely deleted. The instn lOlenl measured

10 tl,:t its , earh to be defined and discussed la te r , They we r c:

Gene ral Activity , Hesh 'a inl, J\ scenda nce. Sociab ility , Emot io na l

St3hility . Objectivity , r t'i cndl iness, Thoughlfu lness. P e r sonal

He latio ns . a nd i\ lnsculinity . The GZT S was designed to be used

by high school, college a nd aduH popUla tions a nd was no rmed (except

Thoughtfu lness) on 5 23 college men a nd 389 women nttc ndi ng o ne

southe r n Califo rnia univer s ity a nd two junior colleges.

The GZT S consisted of un invento l'y of 300 items to which

the subject was ins t r ucted to a nswer "yes" II 'he a gt'eed with it o r

it WC t'C h 'lIe, "no" H it wer e more fa ls e than tr ue or if he d isagl'eed

with it . o r " ?" if he could not decide b etween "yes" o r " no. " Scori ng

was done fro m a n a ns we r s h eet , e ithe r h.v ha nd o r mach ine. y ie lding

a I'aw scor e o n each of the 10 tra its . Inte rpreta tio n of r a w scor es

was made by noting the position of the r aw scor e in r e la ti on wit h the

.!... scm'e, the cenU le r a nk, a nd the ~ scor e (0 to J 0, used to facilitate discussio n, inte rpreta tio n). Publis he d r a nges of Scor es indic a t ing va l'ying degr ees of prom ise for SUCCCSli in ad minis tr a tive a nd s up e r­ visor y r oles we r e give n in the GZTS ma nual. Hanges of " most favor ­ able, " " neutr a l , " and " l ea s t fa vo r a ble " we r e delineated fo r e a ch t r a it.

As .\'lankeim ( 959 ) pointe d out. these r a nges we r e cons idered t o have a wi de r Hpplication tha n supe r visor y pro mise a nd we r e commo nly lI sed in c linical settings fo r ge ne ral pe r s o na lity assessm e nt. 10

Each of the 10 CZTS traits will now be considered in two

man lH~ I 'S : (a) the d e finition of the pe l' s a na lity tr"a it. taken from the

GZTS manual, and (b) a I'cview of th e r'cl cvant literature on the trait

in r e la tio ns hip with intellec tua l auility .

GZT S F act o r Gcn c r 31 A ctivit.Y

The tra it General Activity (,9) was de fined in t e rms of a

dichoto my of pos itive qualities vs . ne gative qualities. as we r e all

of the tra its. The 2..... positive qualities we r e : " Bapid pace of activities;

energy , vita lity ; keeping in motion; pr'oduclio n, effi c ie ncy; liking for

s peed; hun y ing; qu ickil.":;s of actio n; e nthusiasm, livliness [Guilfo rd

& Z immerman. 1949, p . 2]. " The negative 2..... q ualities were:

"Slow a nd deliberate pace; fatigability ; pausing for r est; low produ ction,

ineUicicncy; liking for s low pace; ta king time; s lowness of action

IGuilfo l'd & Z immerman. l D4!) . p. 21."

Comparatively little lite r aturc has dea lt wU h the r e latio nship

be tween this trait a nd intelligence. In a study by Wa tl ey & !I.'la rtin

(1!)62) £. was found to diffe r s ignificantly (E<. 01) be tween a group

of academically s ucccEs fu l a nd marginal college s tude nts in business

a dminis tra tio n. with thc successful s tude nts scoring h igher on the

trait. The acade mically successful group ranked in the top 250/0 o f the class aftcr the firs t year' s wo rk. Percentile r a nk in the c lass was de te rmined by t:.e grade point a \' e rage of the subjects' work during three qua rters. 11

O ne method of s tudy ing acti vitj lcvel in c hildre n has involved

thc actom e t ('- r. a modified self- winding catendO- I' w ris t wa tc h that

m easures activity in a na tul'ill se ttifl ~ . us ua lly wO l'n on the wris t

and ankle . Using the acto lll e tcr, various r esear c he r s Dlnccoby.

Dawley. I-Iagen. & Da ge rma n. 1965 ; Schul mali . Kas pe r, & TIlI'o ne .

1!)65) found no r ela tio ns hip between subjects ' activity le ve l a nd their

intelligence quotient OQ). In a s imilar s tudy lI s ing the acto meter.

L ao & Wenar C1 !) 71) a lso found tha t activity level was no t correla ted

with IQ . the ir' finding be ing suppo rted by obj ective (- . 10) and obser­

vtHional L 19 ) m easures. lI e re th e actometc r was a tt3ch cd to 20

g irl s ;'I nd 20 boys. ranging in age fr ol11 :' ,r :l r s . 7 months to 6 years,

5 month s . Theil' IQ s range d from 68 to 1 ~3 . a mean of 102; a nd they

\vOI' O' the ins trume nt fOr' I 1/2 to 2 hours during olle regula l' kindel' ­

gal't en sessio l1.

Although Q... dealt more with the manner of dealing with

activiti es than the type o r Illllnhe r of acti vitie s . it waS assumed tha t

positive qualities of enthus iasm and Hvliness as listed under ~ were directly a ssoc ia t ed with enthusiasm over a number of va ri('d a c tivities . dealing with them in a live ly way. In a s tudy dealing with

" , 52!) intellectually gifted c hildren, I.ewis (1 94 0) found tha t teacher s select ed as "ge niuses" those s tudents who we re active , participated in school life, and who had a large range of activities, interests, and varied hobbies. In this study ranllC of activity and va rie<1 inte rests seemed to lJe used by teac hers to differentiate the most g ifted from thc gifted. 12

G ZT S Fac to r Hcstrainl

Positive qualities oi the CZT S trait Heslra int (Il) we re de fined

as: "Sel' ioll s m indedness; delibe rate ; per sist e nt e ffort; self-control

ICuilfOl'd &. Z i mlllerm~ln. 1949, p. 21." as o pposed to the negative

13 qualities of: " lI a ppy-go-luc ky . ca r e free; impulsive; c xc itcmenl­

loving ICu ilfo nl & Z imme,'ma n, 1949. p, 21, "

In the Watley & Martin (I 962) study previ o u ~ l y noted. the

CZTS trait..!! was found to differentia te s ignifica ni.1 y (,E<. 01) be tween

aC:l dclllic;;llly s uccessful and academic a lly marginal business admini s­

tra tio n majOl's, with the .lcadem ically s uccessful STOU p scorin,:! highe r,

i'd' 'l oIs & Davis (J 964) in compnring a group of I, 184 National i\terit

S(;' lllifinalis ts to a g l'c up of "average" achieve r s found tha t th e :\1(>ri1

g r oup descrihcd themselves less freque ntly tha n the aver age s tudents

:lS fun - loving , ha ppy , and easy - going.

Cifted c hildre n oft e n a r e found to be highly creative ; thcl'efore.

s tudie s of c l'cativity in r e lat ion to r esh'a it were ncted. T o rrance

& Dauw (1 966) s tudied a group of 71 2 high school seniors to whom

the Torrance T ests of C r eativc Thinking we .. ~ adminis tered, F r om

this sample 115 highly c r eative s tudents we r e administered thc Runner

Studies of Attitude Pa tte ,'ns , a nd thc il' scorcs wCl'e c ompared with

a s imila r group of unsel ecled job applicants also tested by tile Runner

Studi('s of Attitude Patt erns. They found. us ing c lus te r s det e rmined

by fac tOl' a nalys is . that the c rea tive seni ors less irequently had high

Control O rienta tions tha n the control group. The Control Orientations 13

c iust<:I' cons is ts of "yes" or "no" a nswers to a n inventory dealing

p ~lI"ti a ll y with Hules Orientation a nd P lans a nd Strllctu l'C . with the high

s eO l' C indicating m o re of the attitude. In a nother s tudy Torrance

(1 971) s tudied s pecific cases of girted creati,. c ch ildren a nd I'cpo rtcd

that the c hildren s tated tha t finding the ir sense of identity was their

major problem. O ne s ubject s tudied ,'cpo rted tha t " Attempting

to gel. some control of my mind a nd emotions by lIsing my inte llect

(PP. 14 8- 14 !l J" was he l' mos t c l'cative achievement. T orrance reported

that a tocommon tllI'cad" of the 200 such subjects he s tudied was a

scT"ioli s -mindctl attempt to determine their idcntity--a persis t ent

e rro rt t " ,' nd the ir place" betwee n the duality of unique ness and

univc l'!;uli!y .

F"om n file s tudy of 24 c hild " cn of lQ 170 or highcr. Sheldon

(1959) noted that without exception these c hildren indicated a high

degree of constric tio n on the Hor schac h Test. Only two s ubjects'

responses we r e creative. free. a nd .... riginaL Cal!agher & Crowder

(J 957) s tudie d 20 boys a nd IS girls attending grades two through five.

a ll having Binet lQs of 150 or a bove a nd e nro lled in a r e gula r classr oom.

Two experie nced judges. us ing the Ho r schach Tes t . rated each subject o n the personality c haracteristic "ego control" as revealed by the Horschach. This trait meas ured the degree of r eality o rie n­ ta tion a nd control. The gifted Children s howed r elative ly good reality oricnt;o Uon and control, with only o ne child revealing vcry poor rc:tlity contac t. 14

Lewi s (I 940) found that o ne o f the p e r sona lity c ha roacte ris tics

teach e r" s we r e most like ly t o associate with inte llectua l s upe riol'ity

in e l e m e nta r y school s tudents was depe ndability . Dependability

was felt to b e determined by many facto r s , ccrt.:1i nly among ~Il c m

serious- mindedness. deliberateness. and Self - cont r o l - -all components

of lhe GZTS trait Hestra;nt.

GZTS F acto r Asccndancc

Ascendance (~) was p ositively d e fined as: "Se1f defense ;

l eader s hip habits ; s peaking with individuals; s peaking in pUblic ;

pel'suading othel's ; being con spic uous : bluffing /GuiHor'd ' Z i mmer man,

1949. p. 21. " Negative qualities o f the trait were: "SubmissIve ness:

h abits o f following; h esita tion to s peaking: aVOiding cons p iclIousness

IGu ilf01'd & Z i mmerman. I D4 9 , p. 2J."

Liddl e (l !)58) s tudied the overla p a m o ng desirable a nd undesir­ a ble c h a r act e ris tics in gifted c hildre n. using th e e ntire school popu­ lation of fourth a nd shih grades in a cit y o f 45, 000. F o r each subject the following characteris tics were measured: aggressive m a l adjust­ ment, withdrawn maladjustment. social l eader s hip a bility. a rti s tic talent. a nd inte llectua l o.bility. Then using the top )0% of each of the cha r' act e ris t ic scor e s, he used .1 Chi s quare procedur e t o dete rmine the s ta tis t ical sign ificance of the difference b e tween observ(d and exp ected frequ e nc i es of o verlapping, This oper a tion indicated that intellectua l a bility and social l eadersh ip al:ility were significantly 15

corrc};\ ted a nd that they we r e both negative ly r e la te d to withl! l'aw ~l l.

P astel'nack & Silvey (1 969) a lso used a Chi squar e procedure to

determine if leader s wCl'e like ly to be more intelligent than the a ve r a ge

or the group lcd, as I.eta lIollingwol'th had proposed (1 926 1. Using

a m easure of intelligence a nd leader s hip, they fou nd th at the highly

g ifted ti tudents were mor e often s igni ficontly (E (,025) chosen to be

g r'oup leader s tha n the other stude nt s ,

In a 7-year project r esear ching persona lity , s ocialization,

~l ll d menta l 11I'ocesses a t the LaboJ';itol'Y School, nive r'sity of C hicago,

lI aggard (1 057 ) s tudie d a c lass of 76 g ifte d childre n fr o m the third

through th e ninth g l'adcs, He found tha t by the time the high nc!. ! "/ers

r eiJched the seventh g r ade, they emel'ged ~IS the social leader s of th eir

peer s, he ld the impol'tant c lass offi ces, ;l nd ser ved on the im pol.ta nt

class committees. ila lTison. Bawls . & Hawls (1 07 1). using a popu­

la tion of 6 ,t!) children r a ng ing from 6- to ll-yeal's-old. aske d school

teacher's to 1' ::I te c hildre n o n the l eader s hip they s howed during school.

For' the ir sample th cy used only those frequently . s cldom. or ne ver

c hosen as l('aders. They r'e po rted that subjects identified by teache r s

as leader's licor ed Significantly higher on r a tings of int ellectua l

ability (,E<. 0011 a nd academic pe rformance (E, ( . 0011.

Lewis (1 94 0) r eported tha t ambition was one of the tra its

most like ly to be assoc iated by teachers with intellectual superiority, lie fu rthe l' s ta ted tha t the r e was a "mathematically significant difference or outs ta nding propo rtions (p. 31)" be tween the frequency with which 16

:lny othc l' t l'a it was assigncd to tlif' l" a mc s ubjec t . li e did not, howevcl' ,

s ta te the level of s ignific once used.

In predic ting academi C' s uccess of bus iness administr ation

studcnt f': , Wntlcy & :\ Ia rtin f l !l 62) fOllnd that th e GZT S tra it ~ s ig­

nificantly (,e <. 05) diffe r entiated Successful a nd nHlI'ginal s tude nt s .

with the s lI C'cpssful s tude nts scol' ing highe r on the tr;dt,

GZTS Faclol' Sociabil ity

The GZTS val'iable Sociability (.§.) also was defined. Positive

qualities were: " I la ving Ill ~l n y fd cnds a nd acquaintances ; e nt ~ I 'ing

into convc l'sation; liking s oc ial acti vi'" <; ; seeking socia l contacts;

s eeking li melight (Guilfo r d & Z im m e rman. 19,1!) , p. 21. " Ncga tive qU

VO I'5:1tion ; dis liking social a c ti v itif's ; a voiding social col ntacts ; syhncss: avoiding limelight (Guilford & Zimme rma n , 1949, p. 21 . ' I

Nichols & Davis ( 1!1 64), s tudy ing 1, 184 National ~ l c rit

i l Scm if n;ll ist s in compariso n with ";lVc l'agc ' collcge students , fou nd t1wt the :\ le rit s hldents r eported that they va lued security and oppo rtu­ nit y to work with people less frequently tha n did the a ve rage s tudent s.

No s tatistica l explanation of th e te rm " l ess frequently" was r eported.

Sheldon (I!)S!)) util ized sociometric s tudies. c lassr oom obser vatio ns by field workcl's , interviews with teachenl 6.nd s tudents, a nd the

Ha ggerly -Ol son-Wic kma n Scales to de termine the popularity of 28 girted Children. He dckrmine d tha t only 3 wer e po pular with their 17

c la ss m~ t cs , 19 we r e acccpt('d , :1 nd 6 WC I'C ,'cj ected, Witly & Lehma n

(1927) s tudied Ih c play behaviOf' of 50 gift ed c hildre n C1Qs 140 o r above )

in comparison with a m a tc he d gr oup (on age, s ex, environment)

of aver age int ~ lIi gc n cc in CI' ades three to eight. They r e po rted

that th e g ifte d ch ild e ngaged in social plays a nd ga m es less frequently

th a n the ~\Ve l 'age s tucl ent. T e l'ma n & Oden (1 947) s hldied 90 play

activiti es tha t we l' e rated by sever a l judges as to th e a mount of

pal'licipatio n and socia l orgnnizalio n e xhibited in each activity ,

A sociability 5CO I' e was computed for cn.ch c hild wh ethc r a me mber

of e ithe r the gifted or cont,'ol gl'OUp, They r epol' te d thn.t the contl'ol

group scol' cd higher on sociabilit· ' IHIn did the gifted gr oup at a ll

ages, Working with gifted i! o nol's a nd Non- llo nol's groups in compnrison

with a No r m g l'OUp , !\1.lson , Adams , & mood ( 96 8) also found that both g ifted groups showed less ne ed for a ffilia tio n a nd morc for

;\ ulonomy tha n the NO I'1ll g" o up,

Oth e r' s tudies suppo rted the high sociability of the gifted.

Gallaghe r' &,. C r owder (1957) s tudied :i5 g ifted children in comparison with a r a ndom sample g r oup. Th ~y r eport ed :

The r e was a s l "o ng indication tha t the girted group o r c hildre n were (s ic) quite s ocially po pula r. Over half of the c hildre n in the g"oup ranked in the top fou l' th of th e ir c lass in social popul arity (p. 309J.

G 1 ' ~lCC & Booth ( 1958) s tudied 294 intell ectually girted e l ementary

~ tu d e nt s using a sociometric devic e and found tha t the most gifted

WCI'I.' a"lo ng the best like d, a ne: the le ast gifted a mong the least liked.

None of the most popula r students wa s among the least girted. 18

Jones . Gottrt'icd, & Owens ( 9 66) s tudied 12 groups of exceptio nal

c hild r cn on seven inte rpe r' sona l dime ns io ns measuring accepta nce,

They found the g ifte d ancho r e d a t the favo l'able e nd of the continuum

of social acceptance a nd the menta lly I' e ta rded ancho r ed a t the

o pposite e nd of Ule continuum .

Ga llughe l' ( 1958) s tudied 54 highly gifte d c hildl'en in grades

two through five which VJ ere r Cbru la t' classes, When r a ted by the ir

peer s . 52% of the gifted group wc r e in the top qua rte t' of th e ir c lass

in t c rms of socia l choicc a nd o nly 11 % we r e in the lowest qu ~\ rt e r of

the il' class , lI a rrison e t a 1. fI 97l) s tudie d '116 leade r s and n OI1-

leade r s . The leade·... <; cor e d significuntly highe r' o n ratings of

inte llectua l ability . They a lso found that leade r s wer e also rated

as being more popular th:1O nonl eaders . well-like d (.E<, 05) , and

wer e c hos en firs t by the ir pee r s fo r "s ides" in game s (E: <' 001),

Williams (1958) dealt with accepta nce a mong 117 gifte d

e lementary school c hildren ~l/l d a l'andom sample of th e ir peer s .

Sociomeh ' ic da tu were gathe r ed us ing the C lassr oom Social Distance

Scale which y ie lded two scor es--one indicating the degree to wh ic h the individua l accepted the group and the othe r the degr ee to which the g r oup accepted the indiv idual. Williams found tha t the r e was no a pprec iable difference in inte lligence between those who scor ed high or lo w on acceptance, 19

GZTS F acto ,' Emotiona l Stability

Emotional St ability (E:) wns lis t ed as hav i ng the fo llo wing

positive quaJitic s : "Evcncss of mood, inte l'est s . e ne l'gy: optimis m,

c hccT"fulness ; composure ; feeling in good health [Guilfo rd & Z imme rman,

1949 , p. 2). " Negative qualities li s ted we r e: " F lt!c tuatio n of moods,

inte l'ests . e ne l'gy, c tc ,; pessimism, gloominess; pe r seve 'r a tion

of ideas a nd moods ; daydl"carning ; excitability ; feeling in ill health;

feclings of gu ilt, lonlincss 0 1" wor ry (G uilfoJ"d &. Zim m e r m an, 1949.

p. 2). "

In the L ewis ( 940) s tudy of g ifted e l cme nt ~t r y school c hild r e n.

t he data indicated that those c hildre n selected by inte l1 igcnce t ests

a nd teache r s as s upe rior w e t' C m Ol' ..,. ..:motionally s ta ble. as mea s ured

by th e B PC Persona l Inve nto r y. LewIs a lso noted that the Gifted

g il'Is wer e s lightly nl Ol'C s ta ble thu n the gifted boys. Ha rri son e t

a l. (19 71 ) d et e rmined that l e ade r s hip te nded t o inc r ease with IQ,

a nd tha t t hose chosen as lead e r s we r e I' ated by teach e r s Significantly

highe r on ove r-a ll a djus tme nt (,E<. DOl) than no nlead e r s .

l\ 1958 s t udy by Liddl e dealing with the top 10% Score r s

in inte llectunl ta l ent, soc in.l leaders hip a bility, a rtis tic talent,

aggr essive m a ladjus tme nt, and withdra wn m a l adjus tme nt found

tha t those who we r e gifted in one of the three talent a reas were quite unlikely to be ta l ented in other suc: h are as a nd were quite unlike ly to be seen ns ma ladjus ted both by their teac he rs a nd pe ers. Haggard

(1 957) s tudied a group of 76 child. en over a 7-yeal' pe riod. Ue 20

found that "high gene ral achievers Fl howccl a hi gh dc{:rcc of inner

l13 rmony, being r athe r adept at emotiona l control a nd a t o r ganizing

a nd intc r g r ating their experiences. ideas. ;:tnd feelings {p. 394 J. "

McEl wee (t 932) investigated th e personality tr aits of 3 00 accelerated,

normal. a nd retarded c hildre n. She noted that the accele rated children

possessed a greater' degr ee of a1l 1hc desirable tra its than did the

retarded childr en. Some of the desir able tra its wer e cal mness.

interes t in school wo rk. and rc ltcntive ncss as opposed to the ncg~ltive

excitableness. r estlessness. a nd lis tlessness.

In the Nicho ls & Davis ( 964) s tudy the Merit gToup described

themselves Significantly (e<. 01) more f · :,Juently th an aver age as

being impetuous. high-s trung . a'1d moody. l\hson et a1. ( 968)

used the Adjective Check List a nd compared groups of gifted Honors s tudent s . g ifte d Non-Honor s students a nd average s tuden~ s. They found that the Honors group had less satisfacto r y pe r sonal adjustme nt tha n the other two g r oups . although no level of s ignifica nce of this difference was noted. Watson ( 1060) evaluated the recor'ds of 126 s tudents who enter ed college in the top 330/0 of the ir class. In studying the honor s tudents from this sample . s he noted tha t they tended to be co mpu l s i v~ . driven, a nd having few 0 1' no satisfactory interpersonal relationships. The average achieve rs fro m this group were r eported as less driven and repressed than th e Honorq group.

Gottsdanker (1968) s tudied two groups of 75 gifted (total scor es on the School and C ? Ilege Ability Test over 325 1 and two groups 2 1

o f 75 "cr oss sectio na l tt r a ndomly selected s tudents fr om a college

fr eshma n population. Using the Omnibus Personality Invento r y ,

s he r e po rted th a t the r e was no significant differ e nce in the g r oups I

SCOI'CS r e la tive to pe r'sona lity adjus t ment.

GZT S F acto r Objectivity

"Being 'thicks ki nned' " was the sole positive q uality of the

GZl'S tra it Qbjectivity (9) IGuilfo r d & Z immer man, 1949. p, 3),

The negative q ua lities assoc iat cd with this trait wer e: " Hype r sens i­ tiveness: egoism, self- cente r e d ness; s us pic iousness, fa ncying of hostility ; having ideas of reference: getting into tr .... lI ble IC uilford

& Z immerma n. 1949. p. 31, "

1-la rriBon c t a I. (1 971) found. in compa ring 278 leadel's a nd

4 16 nonleader- s . that the leaders scor ed highe r o n r atings of inte l ­ lectua l ability a nd acade mic pe rfo r mance. However. they a lso noted that with !'espect to school pc rfo t'mance, the m o r c inte lligent l eaders a lso requ ired mo r e freque nt disciplina r y action (e<. 01). a negative 2... qua lity .

The I-laggar d ( 957) 7-year s tudy of achi e vement in g ifted c hildren found tha t hy gra de seve n both the gifted low achie ve r s a nd gifted high achie ve r s expe rie nc ed a nxiety, but dealt with it diffe r e ntly. The high achi ever s dealt with the anxie ty s omewha t more objective ly . c ontrolling a nd c hanneling it through inte lle ctua liza tion o r m aste ring ne w knowledges o r s kills . The high achieve r s a l ~o 22

becam e mO I'c aggr essive. pcrs is t c:1t. and hard driving. Thus (~ jr ­

fc r cnccs exist ed between the g ifted g r oups as to the degr ee of objec­

tivity demonstra ted , :tnd these differences seemed to be rela ted to

academic achie ve ment. T a ft (I 955) r epor ted tha t the ability to judge

peopl e seemed to be directly r e la ted to inte lligence. In reviewing

the lite r a ture of othe r S (Adams . 1927; Dymond. 195 0) he conc luded

that "The evidence s uppo Ms the cont e ntion tha t socia l dc tn chment is

a necessar y pre r e quis ite for making accurate judgements of others

[Taft, 1955. p. 19 ). " Therefor e , the ability to judge o thers seemed

to be related directly to high intellectual ability a nd socia l detachment.

the GZTS Q. trait. Willy & Lehman ( 1927), using a matc hed grow'

of 50 gifted children (t40 IQ o r above) found the school teacher's of

the groups testiried that the giftcd c hildren wer e morc sensiti ve to

c riti c i s l ~l. mor e s ucceptible to correction, obeyed ru1p'S with less

urging. and that probl ems of discipline disappear ed with the segre ­

gation of the gifted.

The negative qualities of Q. seemed t o be highly r ela ted to

tha t measur ed by a high score on the P a r:lnoi:l (Pa ) scal e of the

'\'ii nnesot3 .\Iultiphasic P e r sonality Inventory (i\'I MPI). Panton ( 1960)

s tudied 1\11\IP I profiles of 1. 07 9 prison inmat es with r espect to

intelligence. li e found that aC I'oss six l evel s of inte llectual ability

Pa scores r anged fr'om scale means of 56. 9 t o 62. 7, a nd the means were not conside r ed Significantly different. A scale score of 70

is c.:;; ns idcred indicative of psychopathology . The mentally superior 23

scor ed a scal e mean of 57.0, while the borderline mentally ':"e tardcd

scored a scale m ean 59, O. P rlnlon a ls o found th at no s ignificant

code r ank with Increase in Inte lligence '. ... as noted for Pu. Kennedy

(] 962) s tudied MMPI profiles of 100 gifted adolescents (mean lQ 1:i4. 9).

Tiletr mcnn scale scor e on ~ was 56, as compar ed with scale

scor e of 60 for Ul e normative sample . Using Pears o nian coefficients ,

Brower (1 947) compared the car l'clation between MMPI scores a nd

inte llig e nce of 48 undergraduates . The correl a tion coefficient o f

Pu a nd intelligence was not s ignificant {p<. 001).

GZTS F'u c to r Frie nd liness

T he variable Friendliness (F) was a lso desc ribed in p0 9 itiv~ qualities ns; "To l c r~l ti o n of hostile action; accepta nce o f domination; r espect for others (Guilfo rd & Z immerma n. 194D . p . 3 ). t. Negative qua lities associat ed with this trait inc luded : ItBelligel·ence. readiness to fight ; hostility . resent ment; desire to domina te; z'csista nce to dominatio n; contempt fo r othe r s IG uilfo rd & Zimmerman. 1949. p. 3). "

Note s houl d be made that trait S dea lt w ith the number of fri e nds a nd seeking a nd liking socia l contact. while t r a il !' dealt m a r c with

"agl'eeablencss. It a nd the s pec ific attitud es maintained by the individual.

Witty & Lehman ( 1927) r eported tha t the teachers o f the girt ed felt they we r e mo r e sens itive to c ritic ism and more s ucceptible to correctio n. seemingly accepting the domination by the teache r s 24

and respecting them. The teachers further reported that when lbC'

avernge and gifted groups were segregated. discipline pt'oblcllls

disappeared alllong the gifted. l-Io11in~,'w o rth (1 9G?) s tated tha t teachers

of gifted c hildren r e ported tha t the gifted s tude nt was mo r e courteous

than his intellec tually average pee l', C r eativity has been often dircctly

associated with intelle ctual ability, T o r-runce & Unuw ( 966) admin­

is le r'cd the Hunner Studies of Attitude Patterns to 115 c r eative high

school s cniOI'S. Wh en c ompared with a s imihll' group of un selected

job applicants . the c reative Reniors 11;Id less frequent high patterns

tha n the compa rison group o n Pass ive Compliant. a nd Hos tility and

Blame sclaes. A high scor e indicated "more" of the trait in each

pe l'son.

lI o we ve r . Nichols &: Davis ( 0 64) in their work with Nat ional

:\lerit Semifinalis ts noted that the gifted sllbjects described themselves

s ignificantly (,E (. 01) more frequently tha n aver'age as dominant.

focceful . impetuous. and r ebellious.

GZ TS Facto r Thoughtfulness

Thoughtfulness (.1') was defined by the positive qualities as :

I!n c n cctiveness. meditativeness: observing of behavior in oth ers: interested in thinking; philosophically inclined: observing of self: m e nta l poise (Guilford & Zimmerman. 1949. p. 21. II Negative qualities of T we r e : "Interested in overt activity; mental disconcertedness

(Guilford & Zimmerman. 1949. p. 31." 25

T he GZT S was found to significantly (.e <. 00 1) diffe rentiate

between acade mica lly Successful and academic ally marginal bus iness

cal1 cgc s tudents. The su ccessful s tudent s Iwd s i gnificantly h igher

scores on .:!.' (Watley & Martin, 1!:l 62L Gottsdanker ( 968) s tudied

intellectua l inte r est patte rns in girted colle ge s tude nts . She found

that the more able s tude nt s scor'cd s ignificantly highe r on the

sca le s indicative oi intellectual com m itments , desir'e for inde pe ndent

thought . and inte r est in a bs trac tions as measured by the Omnibus

Per'sonLi l ity Invento r y . L ewi s (J 940) investigated the hobbi es of

girte d a nd average "lInseleeted" students in grades four through e ight.

lie found tha t th e gifted c h ild r e n ha,' .' great er int er('st in s tudying .

whercas the "unsel ect ed" c hildr'cn deVoted more time working

in non-acade mic tasks .

In his 1040 book CalToll not cd tha t gifted c hildren we r e

charact el"ized by inithltive a nd independence in thinking, early de vel­

opment of self- c r iticism, and a bility to sec r e la tionships and m:lke

associatio ns . Taft's ( 1955) s tudy of the ability to judge people

s howed that there was a positive r e la tio ns hip between int e lle ctual

abilities no nd the ability to judge others . Obse rving behaviors of othe r s

was cons idered a p r e r equis ite to b e ing able to a nalytically pe r ceive

and judge others o n a social l evel. After r eviewing the literatur e.

Taft a lso s tated tha t those who we r e abl e to rat e their peer s accurately o n traits a l so s howed ins ight into the ir own s ta tu s with r espect to the ir' peer s . Acco r di ng to T aft. t he pe r son who judged othe r s well 26

a lso s howe d self-ins ight a nd te nde d to be of m o r e than a"f' r n;! c

int elligence.

In contrast. T e rman ( 1024) s tudie d the play act ivities of

90 gifted c hildren . hnv ing e ach c hild I'ate the pl ay activities with

r espect to the ir knowlcdge of them. their inte r est in thcm. a nd the

time de voted to the m. He concluded that "the gifted a r e som ewha t less

in te r es t ~ d tha n the c ontrol pupils in intc Uectua l a nd sedenta r y games

II'. 16 31. "

GZTS Facto r Persona l Rela tions

The GZTS ll'ait P e r sona l Il e intions (E) was de fined as :. ving

positive qua lities of: "Tole ranc e of peopl e ; fa ith in s oc ia l institutio ns

IGuilfo rd & Z immerman. 194!) . p. 31." Negative q ualities we r e

a lso defined as follows: " Hy pe r'criticalness of people , faultfinding

habits ; c ritic a lness of ins t itutions ; s us pic ious ness of othe r s ; s c lf-

pily IGuilfo rd & Zimmerma n. 1949. p. 3J." Little litera ture dealt

purely with this t r a i\- - "t ole r a nce of people" a nd "faith in social

ins titutions" with res pect to intellectual lev el evidently have not been the most inte resting of r esearc h topics.

The negative qualities o r ~ seem ed to be very c losely related to those of E a nd.2... and the pos itive qua lities to those of 1: and

~ . From the vi ewpoint or the negative E qua lities. Nichols & Davis

(1 964) repo rted tha t th eir gifted s ubject s described the mselves sig­ nificantly more fre quently th an average as domir.ant, forceful, 27

impetuous, a nd r ebcli!ous. Ilar,gat'd ( 1957) studied achievement

in ~ ift cd c hild r" c n a nd fou nd ltw t the gift ed s tudents we r e a ggressive .

pe r s istent and ha r d d r iving.

1I 0wever, concerning E posit ive q unlities. Witty & J I" h m a n

( 1927) I' cported tha t teac hers of the g ifted fclt tha t the ir students

wc r c tole r a nt a nd sens itive to c ritic ism fr om their teache r s.

J-I o!lingwo rth (1926) stated tha t th e g ifted wen" more courteoll S tha n

the average c hild ; however, one cannot aSSume tha t th e courtesy

was based on fa ith in social ins titutions or tolerance of people (positive

E factors), GnlJ agher & C r owder ( 1957), Crace & Booth ( 958),

J ones c t nt. (HI66) , a nd .-' J !:tghc r (1 958) 3 11 atteste d to the sociability

of the gift ed. It was assumed that having many fr iends and Hoc ial

dealings would !'equirc a large degree of tole l'ancc of people (E positive qua lity ),

GZTS Factor Masculinity

The trait Masculinity (Nl) WH S defined as:"lnte r est in m asculine

uc tivities and games; not easily disgusted; ha rdbo iled ; r esista nt to fear; inhibition of e m otional e xpressions; little interest in clothes and s ty les IGuilford & Z imme l'man. 1949. p. 3J." The negative qua lities of ~ (Supposedly the fe minine counte rpa rt) dealt with:

" Inte r est in feminine activities a nd avocations; easily disgusted; sympathe tic; fearful; r omantic interests ; ~rnotio n a l e xpr essive ness ; much interests in clothes a nd s tyles; dislike of vermin {Cuilford 28

& Z imme l'man, 1949, p . ~ i." The pUl'pose of this review was not

to validat e the c ha rac te risticR associ::Jted with th e two qu a lities

of ~, nOl' W ~lS it to inves t igate the difference between gifted c hildren

across sex. In s lead the purpose was to investigate the litc r'atul'('>

dealing with the differences in ~ fot, each sex. with r espect to

intell ige nce.

Witty & Lehman (927) inves tigated the pl ay a c tivities of

50 c hildren with IQs of 140 0 1' a bove in compa rison with those of

a control g l'OUp, O n the following activities the g ifted boys I frequency

of partic ipation as compar ed to the controlled boys' was: boxing

(290/0 less), I'lill ni ng r aces (2 '" less), jumping for height (33% l ess).

baseball with a ha rd ball (21 ~G less), and watc hing a th letic s ports

( 17'70 less), In dcnling with differences among the upper' I DOlo , upper

2%. nnd "genius" groups , Lewis ( 194 0) noled tha t as intellectual level ine r'cased, per centage of inte l'es t fO l' active games or s ports dec r ca sed. The fvllowing nctivities showed an in c r e~lsc in partiCipation b etween 10% nnd "genius " intel1cc-tua l levels: playing musical instru­ ments, playing make believe games. s ewing. and housework. It s hould be noted, however. that many other masculine uctivities

I'emained s tuble in interest m easures as intellige nce increased.

Kennedy (l962), Levy ( 952). Winfield (1953), and Panton (1 960) empirically determine d that more intelligent m a les s howed mor e devi Ol tio n towa rd femininity on the Minnesotn Multiphasic Personality

In ventory tha n did the no r mative population. 2D

1I 0weve r , T e r man & Ode n (J 947) computed a masc ulinity

scor e fo r e

of th e ;:lctivities which the c hildren expr'essed as pre fe l' r ed,

These indices s howed that in pl ay inte r ests gifted boys te nded to be r a the r more masculine than un selected boys a t a ll ages fl'om e ight to twelve year's , arter whi c h th e r e was li ttl e differenc e Ip. 351 .

Concel' ning the "faircr' sel\:. " C:otts cl a nkf":r (t068) studied four

groups of 75 s tudents , two g irte d groups (d ivided as to sex) ilnd

two (' I' oss-sectional groups (also divided as to s e x). She found tha t

the women' s scor es we r e significantly (.E: <. 01) d iffer e nt o n seven

intellectual s c a les, with the gifted women s ", ""ving the la rgest dirre r-

e!lces fl'om the typical women in expressed 'I d eas of independence,

a ttraction to self- initiated inte llectua l e ndeavor's, a nd inte r est in

theol'cHc a l pro blems. The g ifted women showed g r eate r lnt ,.. re5t

in activities gene l'ally cons ider ed m asculine than did th e typical

women. In Lewis ' s (1 940) s tudy of thl'ee gifted groups (top 10%.

2'70 . " g enius") it was no te d tha t as intelligence inc r ca sed. pe r cent

of intc l'es t in sewing, knitting, a nd housework decr eased . However.

othel' ma sculine-orie nted a nd feminine-oriented activities r emaine d

s table ;lcr oss inte llectua l level.

T e rman & Oden (1 9'17 ) c omputed a m asculinity index for

DO activities and measu r ed the differenc e of pa rticipation in the a~ tiv-

Hies acr oss groups . They r eported that the m ean activity scores

1'01" the gifted a nd unselected girls did not differ signirh:an c1 y be tween 30

ages 8 , n, o r 10, Ilowe\ ,:- ,' , a t ages II . J 2. a nd 13. Ih ~ gifted girl s

t e nded to pal'lir.ipa te in 1ll0l 'C masculine aC liv iticlS . Rac htoed ( 1068)

used the SlIl'VCY of Inte l'per' sonal Val ues to :I ppraisc differ e nces in

val ues between 12 - to 14-yc:.u'-old g ifted and aver'age g ir-I s . Sh" (ollnd

thnt til e gifted g i l"1 s gave higher valua tio n to inrle pcndcncc t han d id the

nvcl':lge g irls .

Overview of the Lit e r'at ure

In sumnulI'Y , ,'cscat'eh cle a ling with the tI'aits of facto" £. ha ve

s ta t ed b oth th;)t the girte d t e nded to be mor e active. pa rtic ipa ting ,

a nd enthus iast ic and tha t tht " was no ,'cl a tio ns h ip between level of

activ ity a nd IQ . Extr'cme " c$I,'al1\1 (Il) was noted as ~\ c' ha r act c ris t ic

of the g ifted in one s tudy. while a nothe ,' r e po rted that g irted students

Iwd well - adjuHtC'd l e ve ls of c ont r o l. G irt edness i s ofte n found w ith

c r eativity ; a nd a s tudy sho wed thai c r eative s tudents we,'C less cont r olled

than o the r' s . O n t r' a il!2.... the positive trait of leader'sh ip wa s shown to

be ;lsso<, j;lIed w iLh high intell ectual le vel. and teache r s associated ambi­ tion with hig h IQ. Some evidence was presented stating tha t the girted t e nded to b(' less socia bl e (~) . both by sel f- r e po l' l a nd s oc iomctl'ic s tudies. Othe r r esea l'ch supported thc high soc ia bility w ith the high lQ pe l'son. Ye t anoth e r s tudy s howed no r e lationship between acc ept­ nnee and IQ. Seve,';,} ! facto r E s tudies both s upported a nd negat ed the emotional s t ~\ hil ity of the intellect ually giJtcd. a nd a nothe r s tlidy r eported no r e l a tionship b e tween pe n ;ona lity adjus tme nt a nd inte llige nc e. 3 1

Pac ta I' 2.. s tudi es showed both tha t the g ifted wer'e mor e

objective and mor' e non-objective, as defined by the GZTS, Socia l

intell ige nc e was noted to correlate highly with ge neral intc lligence,

a nd th e belief tha t detach mcnt was n lll'Cl'equis ite fo,' social inte lligence

wa s presented, The position tha t th e g irted c hild was fJ' iendlie r

!.!:J was s upported by various s tudies; however, a self-r'eport s tudy

s ta ted that the gift ed were unfriendly , Fadm' T was found to be

a ssoc ia ted with g iftedness in seve r a ) s tudies. wh ile one s tudy s up­

port ed a negative .!... tra it associa ted wi th the gifted. The E s tudi es

wer e those c ite d for traits !"..Q.. a nd~, F actol' ~_ dea lt with the

m asculinity of e ach sex of H , t;!' high IQ per son , Connicting research

s upported hoth tha t non-gift:e d boys e ngaged more often in more

masculine activities und the converse of this s tatement . Gifted

women were s hown in oUler resear c h to be morc inte l'ested in activities

gener a lly considered masculine, Furthe r s tudies dealt with the age

at which suc h d;fferences in women seemed to occur ,

In r eviewing this literatul'e, gr'eat disc repancies we re noted.

For a lmosL a ll the peniOnality tra its here considered, one was faced

with contradic tion- -the gifted have more of a tra it, less of a tra.it,

0 1' the a mount of intelligence is not r e la t ed to that trait. Further

res ear c h was definitely in order he r e, both to a lleviate or expla in

the contra dic tions a nd to comp.:le furthe r knowledge of certa in trait s o n whic h little or no literature was fmlnd. 32

MOl'e s pec ifica lly , cer'tain : I""~ ! c it s were noted in the existing

lilet'alul'c, The definition of traits I' cviewed, and often the term

"inte llectually gifted" itself have dirrered cons iderably from Sludy

to s tudy . In c hecklists a nd other such resea r c h the tr'aits oft en were

not defined a t a ll . It was felt that s tudies tha t deal with u la r' ge numbe r

of often interr e lated ll'a ils function with the possibility of misinter­

pretation and g r eat over1ap of the personality val'iables, Il esear c h

appear ed to be needed on traits whi c h were dealt with oper ationally

and which fUn c tion independently.

Sim ila rly I'elated to the above point was the fact thut nlany

resear che r's have "bitten off more tha .. ~~ ey could c hew. " s tudying

l,u'ge number's of tI'oits o r activities in one s tudy. This often has

res ultcd in a vel'y global picture. without e ithe r s tatistic.al testing

for significance or consider a ti on of the inte r actions of the othel'

variables involved. Figuratively speaking, such s tudies leavc the r eader with a general view of the "woods," but without significantly tl knowinc wha t tltt'ees g r ow the r e . There existed a nee d for studies which IH'Ccisely measured a few indepe nde nt, stable, concise tra its

The Sampling techniques of many stud i. es have led to confusion

IIpo n interpl'ctation. They seemed to fall into two types . In o ne, two homogeneous groups, the inte llectually girted and the intellec­ tually non-girted (sub-normal. s low learner, etc.) werC' studied.

In l<.lking only the two "extremes" s uch authors were inOating their 33

data and ignoring the impo l' tant a nd i n te l'csUng r o l e of the inte l­

lectuallyavel'age, In the othe l', two gt·oups WCI'C a lso s tudi ed,

one :1 homogeneous group of the int e llectua lly girted a nd the oth er

a c ross- s cc tionnl, r n. ndom sample: whic h often included di s tributio ns

non- r' c prcsentntivc of the genc l'al population (i. c . college s tudents ).

Even if the sampl e group was l'epn~se ntativc of the gene r a l popula tion.

it was s till often heterogeneous, Thus girted subjects W C I'C compa r ed

with othe ,' gifted. aver age, and be low aver age subjects. There

waH a need fo ,' studi es compa ring pe r sona lity func tioning with

th" ec specific bloc ks of s lIbjects--lhc gift ed. the :wcl'agc . and the

belo w avcl'age.

Afte r ,'cviewing th e lite r at ur e a nd noting th ese dericiencies .

it was decided to undertake rescnrch which would hope fully y ie ld

s pecific knowledge in more a ppropriate ma nne r s tha n have exis ted

in the past. The problem cons ide r'ed was: To what degree do the

inte llectunlly gifted • ..Iv eragc. a nd below average diffe r in pe r sonaJity ',

The GZTS was used as a m easure of pe r sonality since it yielded

a compr'che ns ive yet independent measure of 10 operationally defined

pe r s onality tra its, Three groups composed of baS ically homogeneous

inte llectua l levels were used. inc luding the often omitted "middle

man," This study hopefully dealt with th e problem in s uc h a manne r as to more precisely determine the r ela tionship between Intelligence and the 10 s peci fi c pcrsonality factors . e nlightening th e contradictions of past lite l'aturc. Chapte r III

Method

Sel cction and Usc of Subject s

A total of 905 10th, lIth, and 12th g r ade s tudents at AI"clinore

lIigh School, Ardmore, Oklahoma, comprised the populatio n of the

present study. T his popula tion was given a battery of three ins tru­

ments consis ting of the Kinget Drawing-Completion Test, Kuder

Vocational P l'cference Becor d. a nd thc Guilford-Zimmerman

Temperament Survey. The baltery was administercd dul"ing th ~

fall of the school year 1963- 1964 in association with a doctoral

disser ation prepared on c r eativity a nd imagina tion across differ ent

intellectual levels (L.aird, 1964).

Cumulative r ecord files contained a n intelligence score

o n each subject as measurcd by the Otis Quick-Scoring Menta l

Ability T ests . Using these scor es, three gl'oupS of s ubjects were

det ermined based o n inte lligence. From the populatio n tha t had

compl et ed the above battery, 92 s ubject s C.§.s) were r a ndomly selected

from the c umula tive files in each of the following groups: the

inte llectually gift ed (G r oup I. IQ scor es of 130 o r above), the inte l­ lectually aver a ge (Group II , IQ scor es of 86-129), a nd the intellec tually

34 35

below aver age (Group Ill, IQ Scor es 85 a nd below). T his p:-oc'Cdu r e

J'csulted in thr ee r a ndomly c hosen cqual-n groups aCl'OSs three level s

Q~ intel1igcncc.

O the r fac to r s involved in the populatio n sumple were! age

a nd sex of the sample groups. T o e li m inate the possibility of mer'ely

measuring age differences, one can either strive La have a sample

as heterogeneolls or homogeneous as possible with r cg<1 rd to c hrono­

logical age. For the present s tudy <'I sample of differing ages was

mor e advnntagcous. a llowing for r andom selection of the g l'oup s

from the complet e school popula tio n of 905. Acr oss a ll three g r oups

ngcs r anged from 15 to 18 year s . In Group I the over- a ll mean _ ..: c

was 16.6 years. the fema le mcan age was 16.7 year s , and the m;:a le

mean ;:age was 16. 5 year"s. For G I' OU P II thc over -all mean chr o no­

logical age was 16. 4 year s , for the females a mean age of 16.3 years and for the males a m ean age of 16.5 year s . For Group I II the ovcr'-:Jll m ean c hronological age was 16.4 years, while the female m enn was 16.4 year !:! and the nlitle menn 16. 3 year s . All S8 in each group r ang cd in age from 15 to 18 years, and the mean ages, both between sexes a nd over-a ll group ages, were e xtremely c lose.

In keeping with th e r a ndomiz ..ltion pr ocedures, no specific controls were maintained for sex. Fro m a de velopmental vie wpoint, slich controls we l'c not particularly importa nt, s ince by the mean ages for g l'Olip S as s t a ted C16.6, 16.4. and 16. 4, r espectively), devolopmental discrimina tive abilities across sex !'or a ll practical 36

pur'poses have dissipated. T he age difrerences across sex ror cach

group ha ve a ll' cady been start ed a nd were vel'y c lose. In G r oup I

thcl'c wc" c 45 rcmalcs a nd 47 mp1eB ; in Group II there werc 4 1

m :~ l e s a nd 5 1 rf'males; and in (;roup III. a4 remales a nd 58 males,

Thl' over-a l1 rema lc:ma!e ratio W ~lS 130: 146. These were considel'ed

acceptable ratios aCross scx a nd rurther a lleviated possible dirrelocn ces

in scores due to sex.

i\lu ltiple G r oups Design

The pl'escnl s tudy used a multiple groups (h,.·:> ign with each

o r the thl'ce IQ gt'OUps b lockcd a ccording to intellec tua l level.

The inde pe ndent vat'iable was inte lligence as ntcasu l'cd by the

Otis Quick-Scoring Mcntal Ability Tests . The three levels used

weloe: IQs or 130 and above (G r oup I). IQs or 86 to 129 (G,'oup II),

::lnd IQs or 85 and below (Grollp III). with 92 E.s a t each level.

The Otis Quic k- Seo l'ing :l. lental Abiliti es Tests. (Olis. 1954)

were developed in a ser ies or thlo ee rorllls: the Alpha rO l' gr ades

o ne to rour. th e Beta ro ,' g ";.tdes raUl' to nine . and the Gamma ror

high schools and colleges. T he Gamma ro rm was the nne compil ed

in the files or th e 5 s lI sed. This rorm was c omposed or 80 items, eO~1s i s ting of analog ies, vocabulatoy . -.> ppos ites. mixed sentenc es, reason ing. and proverbs along with sever a l non-ve rbal items.

The ite ms WC"C 3 rr3nged in or'der or incr easing d irric ulty . The ma nu a l was some what V 3f:,'UC in discussing th e nor ms uscd : evidently :17

<1 11 no rm data \\ICI 'C obtained from sch ool s USI , g th e tes t. " lthough

the coefficient s of f'cl iability fO l' the Gamma ( orlll WCI'C not extremel y

high. they WCI'C accepta ble . The nw.jol' advantage of the Olis Quick­

St'oring was t h ~l l of case and quic-kness in s eol'ing . yiel d ing a gencl'al

mcnsut'C of over -nil inte llectual abilities . The IQ seol'c ycildcd

on this instrument was n deviati on IQ . based o n the subjec t 's deviation

fr om Ii mean scor e ,

The dependellt val'iahlcs used WCl 'e the Scores of the 55 on the 10

sc ales of th e Guilfo rd-Zin1ll1CI'IlHln T emper ament SU l'vcy (Gu ilford

& Z i mnll: I'lIw.n , I !l4!H . The r aw SCores on the Scales rongc ( r'om

o to 30. with the high 5(,01'C indic-3 livc of more s: ,.( t': ivc quolities

of the lJ'alt. These I'aw SCO ,'cR we,'e transformed into T sco,'cs

fl)r case in interpretation a nd comp:u'ison, These scal e scores

cuch "cIH'csentcd a factor' of pel'somtlity ,1$ m e ~lsUl'cd by the Gz:rs.

Guilford & Zimmer'man ( 1940) s taled that the factoria l va lidity

of the scales W:lS well aSSUI'cd by the foundation Ilf factor validity

s tudies pI llS the i ~e m - a n a l y:;cs directed toward interna l consistency of each scale. The validity o f th is ins tr'u ment W

10 first-ord e r centro id facto r s fro m t he matrix. He s tated: :w

l'!le :' nalysis of the subscalc intel'col' ,'elallons demonstrated the factoria l validity of the GZ'I'S scal es as each of th e subscnlcs lotlded 0 11 only (Jilt' factOl' and the s ubscalcs f,'onl :l given !'l("I ). ' l O:HI('(1 on the same factol'[p. :1 17 1.

In a corr e lational stuuy of the i\1(\ IPI and the (;;/.TS, ,\lu!"I':lY

& Galvin ( I D63) sU ppol'tcd the conCUrr e nt v ~l1idit y of tLL' C;ZTS,

finding tha t the ,'claliol1ship betwet'll the two was lH' cdulIlinanlly

ncgat ive. Such a relations hip was to be expcc ted, Sine ..: tilt' III SI,'u-

ll1ents sco,'c in oppos ite direc tions, iJcaling s pecifically with tilt'

mC ~ lsUI' e of Illasculinity-fcmininity , Btll'r ows & %.uc kc l'nw n (l!}GO)

s tUdi ed those sca les on the GZTS. aII'I ~ I (\ IPI . a nd the Stl'ong Vocation,,!

Inte l'cs t BbnJ', They faula.! that a ll tl1I' ec scales c m ' l'ela ted !'l ig nifk;lIltly

with each othel' in a positive direct ion. Linden & Olson ( 1!)59) t'OIll-

par ed the 1:: ond 2..- SC

Scale (,\IAS)' They found th

I1lC:lstlring the Same v:l t'i .. bl e o r vari

DUl'ing test c onstruc tion Guilford & Z immcl'mon (J 940)

applied Kudc l'-flich .. rdsofl fo rmulas to the data fo,' men and wnrnen,

sepal'atcly a nd combined. With the sexes combined. the reliability coeffic ients ranged fr om. 75 for scale 2..- to .87 for sca l e~. J ackson

( I D6 1) ~ tdmini s t e l 'ed the GZ1'S to 72 female "white-colla r" employees a nd 24 fema.i e supe rvisor s . The same group. som e wha t I' educed in number. was n tested 18 months Jater; :lnd Jackson found tha t the

GZTS demonst rated conSIderable s tability or high test-r e test r e liability. I ' I 'nc-( ' dll l ' ~ '

'I'hl' popu l atitlll or !I05 Heninl' high school s tudents was

; ~ drnin i s t cl'\'d a 1J :III CI'Y or th l'I't' i ns tl'ull1cnts : KingCl DI'awing-Completio n

T es t , l':'udl'l' V()c;ltion:d 1' I'I,rl'l 'Cllc-e H cco l'd . nnc! the GZTS, These

test s WC I'(' :ldlllinis tf' I'cd i n 75 I'{'CUlal' c lass sessi ons at variou s

ti mes dul'in/.! th e :;ch ool day , I\drniniiH l'a ti on or the G ZTS W

d onc accol'diug tn the l-I l andaI'Cl izcd !>I'occd u r cs ou tlined in the

manu:ll , Thc GZT S PI'oto("ol s WCI' C scor ed by mac h inc rl'OIll I B:\J

ans w e r' sh Cd s ,

Stati s ti c-a ] 'l' I'catllh'nt I,r 1):1 1:1

Thl' hy pnllH 'si s rO l' Ih h; s tudy was that thf' mC,HIS roJ' all

Ih,'(,(, IQ g " llIlpS 'Ill " (1 1'11 ( ;",],S s (':,II..' s would he equ:ll , T en one-way

alla l.v :-:cs I lr V:t l'!:tlll'" WI"'" IIsl ',1 ill Whit'll th e \'a"iunccs b c t wccr. rl nd

w it hi n /.l I'OIl Jl S WI'I'" hy putht's i7.l·d III lit' unhi ased cslinmtes or the

saHl" poplllallllll \'a l' lalll,':;, Till.' l-ol;': lIlr\(':lllc- C nr the dirrcr' enccs

b('lwccn Ihcs l' V : II'i : lIlC ' I~S W:I:; In I't' dd" I' mined hy us ing the E. test,

Wh en thc .t: ,'all u :': r'II' till..' " OI ' I , ,' :; p ( J1n"n~.!.!!.. WC' I'I' L' l']u :i1 10 nr less than a jl,'ohabi llly of • (I I (I? ~ , Ol) , Iht, dlfrl 'I'I'IH'(" s wc,'C con s idered s ignific rl nt. alHI lh,' null hy pn lhl'HH' wa ", " {'jc c' l l'd.

Bas ic to a n : ll YH h~ uf V:" 'ill ll C- " S W t ' I'(, th" (-'l' assu mptio ns of th e t l'cntmcnl (Do wni e F. 1I1 'lI th. I !I 70J. T he O I'SI W:lS that th e subjp.ct s com pl'is ing th e 111",-,(, ,,~ I I..·v t' !r; hr' ti L' l cc: l ed hy I'andom s a mpling fOl' ;. no r' mally di Mt l'ilwtl'd pOI,ul al ion. A ,'

t echnique was u sed to ch oose the sll~' ; ~ C I S i1 c r Ofl8 cuch l evel.

The popula tion used was not nOl'mally disL"ibllt cd; hOW(,VI' I', ullnl ysls

of variance proccdurr. was ussumcd l'ubU81 enough to a lluw Ow

v iola tion of this assumption without dctl'irncnt to th t' Ht lUJy .

The second as s umptio n was that th e 8 uh~ I ' lip v a l'lanC'L! be

h omogeneou s. For th e purpos e o f thi s s tudy. it wa s d thnl slic h

a c onditio n exi s t ed. If in fac t homogeneity of v n T"i nn C' c wen ,' not the

C;:l SC , it was felt t hat th e ::a nalys i s of va l'ianc(> 1" CHl m nl wa s " obus t

enough that this assumpt i on c(luld be viol ated w ithout a ln n ll .

The thi r d assumption of this I" calmcnl was th a t the s a mples

campl' i s ing the s ubgl'oups be indc pc nd '_')1 :. ( c;l eh OUlCl' , I\ s prevlOll s ly

note d, a ll of the s ubgroups in the pl' c s enl s t ll I f exis ted indcpc nrl e ntly

of each o th e r. No one.:! who was a membe r of one g,'oup WrlS a member

of ti lly othe r group, ilcsc3rch a lso cited in th e present s tudy noted that the 10 GZTS scal es exis te d independently of each o ther,

The null hy pothesis associa ted with each of the 10 one-way a na lysee of variance was tha t no s ig nificant diffe r e nce would be found between the three intellectual groups o n a ny of the 10 GZTS scales. C hapte r IV

n esults

The purpose of this s tudy was to investigate the r ela t ions hip between int e llectuul lev el of 276 high school s tudents a nd pe r sonality as measured by the 10 factor s of the Guilfo rd-Z immerma n T emper ament

Survey. The null hypothesis was that no s ignificant diffe rence wou ld be found be tween the three IQ groups on each of th e GZ T~ oer sona lity factors. T o specifically test this hypoth esis . 10 one -wa .... ana1yses of va riance procedures were utilized. The r esults of these procedures a r e prc:J cnted in T able 1.

The null hypothesis was accepted s ince none of the £ r a tios for the elf on each of the t en fa c to r s were Significa nt (.e '7 . 01). Although non-s ignificant. seve ral t endenc ies across groups on the 10 pe r sona lity facto r s m e rited attention.

41 42

TA BLE I

A nal yses or Va riance

Fuc lo r G Sour'cc elr 1\ 15 F Between 2 11 9 . 5 Within 273 97. 3 1. 2281) Factor R Source dr 1\ 15 F Between 2 377 . 8 W ithin 273 9 1. 7 4 . 118* Facto I' A Source dr 1\ 1:5 F Between 2 14. 4 W ithin 273 87 1. 5 . 202· Facto r S Sou rce dr MS F Between 2 67.4 Within 273 9 1. 3 .738* Fac tor E S ou rce dr illS F B etween 2 342. 7 ----- Within 273 74. 3 4.6 10 .... Factor 0 S ource df MS F B etween 2 369. 8 With in 27 3 106. 9 3.45D* Facto l' F SOll r ce dr MS F Between 2 258. 3 Within 273 104. 9 2.46 1· Fac to r T Source dr M!; F B etween 2 267.8 With in 273 121 . !) 2.0DS · Facte r P Sour' cc dr i\'lS F Between 2 476.1 Within 273 11 5.8 -t . 1 J O. F act Ol' ill Source dr 1\-15 F Between 2 209. 3 Within 273 120. 2 1,741 *

•E >. 01 43

As noted in Table 2, th e low and middle IQ !!:roups ' mean scor es

were almost identical on fac tOI' .!!.. wh e r eas the high IQ gr oup te nded to

score no n-significantly higher on th is It·ait. The same te nde ncy was

noted on facto r 1£. with the high IQ groups te nding again to sco,'c somewhat

non-significantly higher o n th e trait. Another non-significant trend

was noted with trait Q. He r e the high nnd middle IQ g l'oups' means

were ve ry close, while the low IQ group te nded to scan ' lower o n.Q.

The same non-significant tendency for the low IQ g r oup to score lowe r

than the middle and h igh groups was 31so not ed on fac tOl' E..

On faclor.! the m iddle group 's mean sco,'C was non- significantly

slightly highe r than those of the high a nd low IQ gr o·'; ... . As IQ leve l

incr'eascd, so did non-significantly the mean scor es on E., Concerning

factor ~ there wa s n slight non- s ignificant tendency fOt" the h i gh IQ

gr ooJp to Scor e higher tha n the almost id entical means o f th e middle a nd low IQ groups. 44

TABLE 2

JI'o'I cans ( 01' !I. X B Effects

GZT S Scales

I Q -G -n -A S -E 0 --F T -P \\'1

G I 19. ~ 44. 9 47 . 4 47 . 4 47. 2 42.1 46 . 0 <1. 3 46. 1 49.2 r

0 II ~1. 0 4 1. 5 41.1 48.1 43.8 42. 5 45.5 49.4 -14 . 6 46.4 u

P III ~8. 4 4 1. 3 46 . 9 47 . 2 43.9 39.2 4 2. 9 46.0 41.1 4F.8 Clwptel' v

D i sclissi on ~lnu Implications

Uiscussi on

T he l'csuIts of this study showed th a l there was no Significant

diffe ,'encc between the sC''''es of th,'e. IQ gr oups on the 10 Guilford_

Z imme,'man r empe ,'amenl SlI,'vey pe ,'sona lity facto r s , ( ;" Oll /> I,

G " Ollp II, and G ,'oup III had no Significan t diffe ,'enc cs between a ny of thc mcan sco,'cs rlJi ill c 10 factol'S ,

Concerning the "cview of the lite r atu l'c on th c I'cl ationship

between IQ a nd persunnlity , ,'elat ively few studies substant iated th e

r esults of th i s s tudy , FolJ owing a l'c those th at did suhs tantia te this

s tUd y . in accordancc with th e CZT S fac tol's. In studics disclissed

u" de,' GZTS facto ,' 2" various ,'esen 'T h"rs found no " e lations hip between

subject 's activity level as m eaSU r ed by the actomete r a nd th e it' !Qs

(. Ia coby e t a l .. I V65 ; Sehlli man e l a I., I V65 ), Loo & We na ,' (t nl),

using the actomete,', a ls o found tha t 'lctivity level was not correla ted

with IQ a nd s uppo"te d the ir fi nding with objective a nd obser vationa l m easur es .

H el cvant to facto r' ~ was., study by William s ( 958) on th e acceptance or giJtct.. children in th" ( l assroom. Using soci om ctric

4S 46 I IllCi StU'C 5 . he found lh at th e l'c was no appr'cciablc diffcl'encc ii ,

inte ll igence betwecn those who " 'n o'ed high o r low on acceptance.

Gottsdankcr f JtJ GB) r esea r' pil ed the PCI'SO:l alit)' adjustment

or girted :O nd "noo' mal" Colloge s tudenls in a Sludy whi c h c losely dcall

with GZ'I'S ractoo' E, Us ing two g irtcd g r oups " n" 1'1'0 o'"ndnm groups ,

" he o' e po o·t cd no s ignificant dirrc o'enc e in thc g O'ours ' s c oo' e s o' c la tivc to PCl'sonal ity adjus tmellt.

T he ncgati\,c GZTS..Q qualities wel'C highly I'elated to that

mcasu/'cd by ~l high~ scale on the :VIi\lPI . P anton Cl nGO) studied

~," Il ' l proriles or I , 07U PO'i snn in ma tes lV ith o'CSpecl to s ix intell ecl.ial levels , lie round no significanl dirr ..·cn.cs betwcen ~ scoo' cs

aco'oss the six intelleetu"l levels and no s ignifi cant rnde r a nk c hanges

fO l' Pn as intc n cctual le vel i l1 c ,'cnsed. Kenn edy (1 962) studi ed

,\I ~ Il > 1 Pl'oril es or 100 girted adoles !'Cn ls a nd round that thc il' m eau ~ Scnre wa s est o'emely c losc to th a t or the no rma ti ve pnpulation.

In ;, cO .... e ta tiona l Sludy Ho'ower Ct V4 7) o·c.car c hed the rela ti ons hip

o r ~ I " I P I seoo'es a nd inte ll igcnce o r ·IB undeo'go'adua tes, lie round

the COO'l'clation " e tween.!:!! a nd inl e ll igencc to be nOn -Significant.

,II.. Ith ough the d ifference between GZTS scores across IQ

l" ' c l was non-signific anl, va rious to'ends in Scoring aC r oss the th o'eo inle ll ectuol levels we r e nOled a s sholYn in Table 2. These

WCre, howevcl', only tendenCi es to 8CO I' C in Ce rtain ways and not significil nt difre,· cnccs. Nevertheless they were of inter est 10 the P I'eSCot study . 47

O n facto r.!! Group I tended to b .... IJ I·C highe r' than G r'oups " .'lnd

III . Thc f' c was a non -sig nifica nt t ende ncy for' the g ifted lP'ouP to SCOI'C

as being mOr'C ,'csl l'n i ncd than the m iddl e and l o w IQ g r'uups . B nnges

of " most favO I'able . " " least ravOl'abl e , " a nd a n Intc rmcdi.u 'Y bonlc r ­

line a r ea wel'c (iI's t devised by Guilfol'd & Z i llll1l~ I 'ma n (U)4 !» fo ,- pre­

dic ting supe rvisor y pro mise. but have s ince COI1l(, to be usC'd in ,Cl' c nCI'al

(' liniCH ] inte rpretations (M a nkeilll, I D5!) . All o f th e g r oups sCored in

th <" bOl'dcrline a l'ca on tl'ail H (Guilfo l'd &. Z iflllllc,'mnn, 104D) ,

On fa c to l'.E:. C " Oll P J t ended to SCor e high e r tha n G r oups " a nd

III. Th c n:~ was n non- s ig n ificant tendency for the g ifted g r oup to SCor. c

:18 mor e emotiona lly s table t ha n the m iddl!' • ,l ei l ow IQ g r' ollp5, Even

though the h igh IQ gr'oup t c nded to scor'c highe r' thnn th e othe r g r'ou ps

01l.!E . they did not !;Cor e hig h cnough to b e in the "most fnvo r a ble"

r'ange: wher'cas. the middl e nnd low IQ groups Scor ed ill the "Ienst

favor'a blc" " ::I nge (Guil ford &' Z illlme rm3n. 194 9)'

O n tl'ait Q G r'otlp III te nded 10 !=iCo r'e 10w(,I' Ih:.111 G r oups I and II,

Thu s th e low inte ll igen ce gr'o up Icndcd to nol Scor e ;"IS being as objec tive

as the high a nd m iddle let grou ps. I-' e r e again the SCO r'cs of the high

n nd middle gr'oups were bo rde r'line , not high e nough to b e in the "mos t

favor':lble" r' i.l nge; but the score of the lo w IQ group was in the " l east favor"blc" r' a nge (G uilfo rd & Z imme l'ma.n. 1949).

Till: s ame pattern was no ted in fact o r £:.. with Groups a nd " te nding to SCor e highe r tha n G r o up HI. 'I'he te ndency was fO l' the high a nd middl e JQ groups to scor e a s being friendli e r '" than the low IQ g r oup. Gener a lly s peaking, on E th e groups fell

within bOl'de rlinc I' unges (Guilford &. Z i mmer man, 19-1 9 >-

W ith h ·ait.!.. a diffel' c nt patte rn was not ed . Group II t ended

to scor e h ighe r thnn either G r oups I 0 1' III. T he middle IQ group

then tended to 5COI'C as rnol'c thoughtfu l than c Hher' th e high o r

low IQ g r oups , w ith the high g r oup scoring the h igh e r of the two.

These mean Scor e s placed the hig h and middle IQ g r ou ps ill the

"most favor'able" " :.t nge with the low IQ group borde ring the category

(Guilfo l'Ci & Z immerman, 1949).

There was a directiona l te ndency fo l' P Scor es to inc rease

with intellectual level. Such Scores "e ll within t h ~ " least favorable"

r a nge for' a ll three g r oups (GuiIrord & Z i mme rma • 1!)49).

1"01' fac to r ~ Group I scor ed hig he r t han G I" OU PS II a nd

I!I who scol"cd vcr y c losely to each o the l' , Therc was a tc ndency

for thc gifted g: r oup to res po nd in mO I"C masculine ways tha n the

m iddlc a nd low groups. The g ifted group, combined for sexes ,

sco r ed a t the nOl'mative m ean; wh ile the low and middle groups

Scored Slig htly below the mea n, in the "feminine " direc tio n,

F OI' the combined sexes, 0. 11 groups Scored in the " least favorable" r ange on tr·a it!!.. (Guilfo rd & Z immerma n, 1940).

Implicati ons

The most general implic ation from this s tudy was th a ~ the s tereotype of the gifted misfit who cannot function well in soc!al 4D

mattei'S was not found . On sen'I' sa.! of thc GZTS factol's the g iftcd

s tudent tcnde d to SCOI'(: higher. mor'c positive SCO I'CS when compal'cd

e ither separately o r conjointly with his middle and low IQ peer,

'rhese sCO r es. howcvcr', were only tendencies ~lOd were non-significant.

By the same token , any myth s concerning the "dumb"

kid who is bOI'ing, s low, a social "joke" wel'e not c onfil'med,

T he low in te lligence high school student did not sC Ol'e s ignificantly

lowel' than hi s gifted a nd average int('lIigence pee r on any of th e

GZTS pel'sonal ity faclol's.

In genel'a). what this s tudy sUPpo l'lcd was that "We' ,'e a ll

the same iHl imal" concerning pel'So ,_';.;Iy . r ega r dless of intell ectual

level. Based on a g iven intcil cctual level a lo ne . one cannot make

predictions cancel'ning pe r sonality fun c ti oning as measured by any

of the 10 GZTS (actors.

The sampl t:! mean fOl' a ll thl'cc g r ou ps' Scores a lso closely

apPl'oximated those of th e nOl'mative s ample . Only o ne menn score

deviated more tha n one s tandal'd deviati on ft'om the nor malive

m can, while m03t wer e extremely close to the normative m eans.

'I'hel'e(ol'e. the sample closely a pproximated tha t of the no n native

S::J. I1lpl c.' .

One weakness of this s tudy w",s the la c k of controls o r differentiation by scx. As Ga.llagher ( 966) r eported. when s tudy ing giftedness. sexes s hould not be combined. Significant d iffe r e nces across sex on certain <.: imens ions can be diluted by combining 50

sexes. Controls across sex OJ' diffe r entiation wml ld a lso have been

inte l'es ting ill this s tudy . especially on facto r s~. £. and!! whicl1

were inte rpreted in the GZTS manual CGuiHo rd & Z imme rma n . 194D)

differently for each sex, For this I'eason only general stateme nts

were give n r egarding ranges in discussion of these scores . dea ling

o nly specifically w ith means f ~)I' combined sexes o n these three

factors .

Group adm inis tered inte lligence tests generally do not

yield as reliable a nd va lid r esults as do individua lly adminis tered

ins truments (c. g ., Thol' nd ikc & I-laga ll, 1 D69)' P e rhaps the r esults

of this s tudy would have been dirfcr T-', ~ if the IQ s for the s tudents

had been b3sed on individual test administr a tions. Suc h a repli­

c ation of this study with this modification would be h ighly r e leva nt .

In reviewing the literature concerning the r e latio nship between intelligence a nd personality. it was fou nd that further r esearch was needed conce l'ning concise, independent, a nd little­ researched fac tors such as the GZTS 1:, O . a nd 1:. fa c tors. Such traits have been under-researched. a nd often have been assumed to be func tions of oth er facto r s fr om wh ieh Guilford & Zimmerman

(949) have s hown them to be independent. For exampl e. many researchers have assumed "being thic ks kinned" of facto r Q to be a pa rt of a m o r e gener a l t r a it C?f emotio'lal s ta bility , ignoring the p r ecise a nd indepe ndent func tioning of 0, Hope fully furthe r such research would a l so ir. c1ude the "average" p er~o n. if applicable . 5 1 s ince inc luding the middle r a nge rp.duc cs the e rror or inflated data a nd r e nders data more valid. Adams. I-I. F. The good judgc of pCI' s o nality . Jour'nal of Abnor'mal a nd Socia l P sychology, 1927. 22 , li2-181.

Allpo rt, G. W. P c r s onalitv: A psychologica l inte J'PI'Cla tion. New YO I'k: l-le nl',Y Ho lt. 1937.

Uachtocd. L. i\ 1. Intcl' pCl'sona l valucs of gifted junior high school s tu­ dents. P s ychology in th e Schools . 1968, 1.- 368 -370.

Ba l'be, W. D, Cha ,'acteristi cs of gifted childr'en, Educational Admin­ is lt'ation a nd Su pe rvis ion, 1955. i!...- 207-217.

BaITOWS. C . A .• & Zu c keJ'man. M. C" • .Ji': ru c t vl:l lidity of three rlla sculinity- fclllinity te s ts . J ournal of Consu lting Ps ycholOGY , 1060. ~. 441-445.

Bendig . A. W. The fac tol'ia l validity of thc Guilfol'{!4Zimme rman T e mperament Sur·vey. The Journa l of Genet'a! P s yc hOlogy, 1962 , 67. 309-317.

Ber' ll'a nd. A. L. Bas ic s ociology: An introduc tio n to theory and method. New York: Apple ton-Century-CI·ofts . 1967.

Dl'ower, D. The relationship between intelligence a nd Minnesota Multiphas ic Pers onality Inventory s~ores. The Journal of Social P Sychology, 1947.l§. 243-245,

Cal'roll, H. Genit:s in the making. New York: McGraw -liill, 1940.

C I'onbach. I.. J. Essentials of ps ychological tes ting. New York: l'la l'per & Row. 1960.

Downie. N, M .• & He ath. R. W, Bas ic statistical methods. (3rd cd.) New York: Harper & How. 1970,

Dy mond. R. F. P CI'sonality and empathy . Journa l lit Cons ulting Psy­ chology. 1!)5 0.~. 343 -350.

5>. 53

Gnllaghc r. J . J . P eer a cccpl:'ncc of highly gifted c hild l'cn in e lementary school. The Elementary School .Iournal. 1958. 58, 465-'170.

Gallagher. J. J . Sex diffCI'cnc cs in e xpressive thought o f g ifted c hildre n in the class r oom. Per sonnel and Guidance J oul'Oal. 1966. 45. 248-252.

Ga llaghe l', .1. J .• & Crowdel', T. The adjustme nt o f gifted children in the regular classroo m . Exceptio nal Children, 1951. E!. 306- 3 19 ,

Gotts dnnkc r. J . S . Intellectual intel'cst patte rns o f gifted college stu­ dents. Educational and Psychological roo l easul' 'menls, 1968, .!!!. 36 1-366.

Cl'ace, H. A . • & Booth, L . Is the 'girted' child it social isolate? Peabody Journal of Education, HI58, ~ . 195-196 .

Gu iHol'd. J. P . Personality. New Yor'k: \\\ CG 1" 3W lIill, 1959. (a)

Guilfonl, ,J. P . Thrce fa ces of inlell(!c t. Amol'kan PsycllOl ogist. 1959, 2.::. 469-479. (bl

GuiHord. J . P ., & Zimmerman, ' ;1 , The G\lilfo rd- Zimmerrnan Tcmpel'ament Suryey- -~ l a nu a l of ins truc tion and interpr e tations. Hcyel'l cy Tlills , Ca1ifo l' ni:l: Shel'jd:,y Supply , I 94!) .

Haggard, E. A. Socializatio n, persona li ty, a nd academic achievement in gWell child,·cn. The School Hcyiew, 1 957 , ~ . 388-414 .

II ~lI'1'is on, C . W .• Hawls, J. H .• & Hnwl s , D. J . Dirrerences between l eader s nnd nonleadc rs in six- to cleven-yeur -old children. The ,J ournal of Social Psychology, U)71, 84 , 269- 272.

Ilollingsworth, L. Gifted childr en: Their natur e a nd nurture. New York: McMillian, 1926 .

J ackson, J. M. The s tability of the Guilford-Zimmerman per'sonality m easu r es. Joul'nal of r'\pplied Psycho logy, 196 1, 45, 431-434.

J arecky, J. ~1. Identification of the socinlly gifted. Exceptional C hildren, 1 959, ~ . 415-4 19.

Jones , R. L., Gottfried. N. W • • & Owens . A. The social distance of the exccptiona l : A s tudy a t the hig~ school level. Exceptional Childr e n, 1966, 32, 551-556 .

Kelly, G . A. A theory o f perso;"

!':I in.!. A. W. DHft."l'c ntial a na lysis of c reativity and imagination betwcen g ifted a nd non- gifted high school s tudents as asceJ' tained by the Kinge t DJ'awing - Comple tion Test. Unpublished doclol'a l di3scr'lation. Univel's ity of Okl

l.evy. S. The outstand ing pers ona! ity fu c tors among the pIl pulations of a s tate pcnite nliury: A pl'climina r y repol't. Journal of C linical a nd Ex perimental P Sychopatho logy. 1952. ~ 117 - 130.

Lewis , W, D. A s tudy of s upc rio!' c hildl'cn in the f'l e mcntary school. Nas hville: Cullom & Ghc l'lney. 194 0.

Liddle . G, Ove l'la p among des irable and undes il'able c ha rac teris tics in gifted c hildl'en. Journal o f Educational Ps ychology. 1958. 4 9 . 219-223,

Lindell . J. D •• & Olson. H, \Y. A compal'alive analysis o f selected GlIilfOl'd-Zimmerma n T e mpe l'ament Survey sco.lcs with the Tay lor I\ lanife:H Anxiety Sca le . Journal of Clinical P Sycho logy. 1950. ~ 295-298,

Loo. C,. & We nur. C , Activity level and motor inhibitio n: The i!' I' e ­ la tions hip to inte lligence test per'fol'mance in nOl'mal c hildre n. C hild De velopment. 1!J 71. E. 067 -971.

\Iaccoby. E, E,. Do wl ey. E, 1\1 " lIagun •. J. W. • & DageJ'man, H.. Activity le vel a nd intellectua l func tioning in normal preschooi c hild­ ren, Child Development. 1965. 37. 761 770.

Manheim. H. l.. Pers onality differences of members of two political parties . The Journal of Social P sychology. 1!J5 9. 50,_ 261-268.

Mason, E, p, . Adams . I-I. L,. & Blood. D, F. Furthel' s tudy o f per­ sonality c har'acter is tics o f hright college freshmen. P s ychological Re ports . 1!J68. E. 395-400.

'lcElwee. E. W. A comparison of the personality traits of 300 accel­ e l'ateu , normal. and retarded Children. Journal of Educational Heseal'ch. 1932 , !Q. 31-34. l\lurray . J. lJ .• & Galvin. J. Corr e lational s tudy of the MMPI aud GZTS .. The J ournal of Ge nera l P s ychology, 1063. 60. 267-273. 55

Nic ho ls , n. C .• & Davis . J. 1\. Ch n l'ucl e ris tics .... r ~ I. u d e nt s of high acade mic aptitude . Per sonne l a nd Guida nce J ourna l. 1064. 42. 794-800. -

O 'Sulliva n, M .• &. Guilfo l'd. J. P. Six: facto r tests of social inte llige nce: Ma nual of ins tructions a nd interpre ta tio ns . Beve rl ey I-lills : She rida n P sychol ogical Ser v ices. 1066.

Otis . A. S. Otis Q uic k -Scoring l\ lc nta l Abilities T ests . New Yo rk: Harcourt, Brace & Wo rld. I D5 4.

Panto n. J . H. Ml\-lPI code configuratio ns a s r e la ted to m casul'cs of intelligence a mong a s ta te prison popula tion. The J OllI' nal o f Socia l P sycho logy , 1960. ~. 403-407.

Paste rnack. 1\1. . & Silvey, L . L ea der s hip patte r ns in gifted peer g r oups , Gifted Child Qua rte rly . 196 9.12. 126 - 133.

Hothc nbc rg. B. 13, Child r en' s s oc ia l sens itivity and the r elatio ns hip to inte rpe r sona l compe te nce, intra pe l'sona J comfo rt, a nd intcl1 ectual level. De velopme ntal P sychology, 107":. 1, 335·350,

Schul man. J. I ..• Kuspc r . J . C •• & 'I' h ,·one . n. lVI. IJI'ain damage a nd behaviOI' . Springri e ld. Illinois: Thomas. 1965.

S ha nl ey. L. 1-\ •• Walke r. R. E •• & F oley, J. 1\ 1. Soc ia l inte lligence: A concept in s e arch of data . P sycho lo gical He po rts . 19 71. 29.11 23-1132.

She ldo n, P . M . Isolation a s a c ha rac teristic of hig hly gifted c hildren. The J ournal of Educatio na l Sociology , I nS9, 3 2, 21 5 -22 1.

T a ft. n. T he ability to judge people . Psycho logical Bulle tin, 1955. ~ . 1-20.

T e rma n. L. M. T hc phys ic a l and m e nta l charact e ris tic s of girted c hil­ ch·c n. Twe nty-third Yearboo k of th e Natio nal Society for the Study of J::ducuti on. Bloomington. Illino is : Public School Publishing. 1924.

T e r man, I. 1\1.. & Oden, M . H. The gifted child grows up. Vol. IV. Genetic s tudies of g enius . T e rman. L. M. (c d.) Stanford. C alifo rnia : Sta nford Unive rsity P r e ss, 1947.

Tho rndike , H. L. Intellige nce and its use s . Harper's !\.Jagazine , 1920, ~. 227-235. 56

Thorndike, n. L •• &. Hagan, E. Measurement and e va luation in psychology a nd educatio n. (3rd cd.) New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1969.

Torrance. E. P . Ide ntity: The girted c hU d ' s major' pl'oblem, Gutcd C hild QU~lrlerly. 1971..,!,2,. 147-155.

T Ol'ra nce, E. P • • &. Dauw. D. C . Attitude patterns of c r eat ively gifted high school senio r s. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1966 • .!!!. 53-56.

Watley . D. J ., &. Ma rtin. H. T. P r ediction of academic Success in a college of business administr a lion. Personnel a nd Guidance Journal, 1962, .!!.. 147-154.

Watson, G . H. Emotional problems of gifted s tudents. P e r sonne l a nd Guidance J ourna l . 196 0, 39, 98- 105.

Williams. M. F . .t\ cceptance a nd pe l'formance a mong gifted e lementary­ schoC'1 childl'en. Educationa l Hesear c h Bulle tin. 1958, 37. 216 -220.

Winfie ld, D. The relationship be tween IQ scor es and l\'linnesota Multiphasic P e r sonality Inventory. J ou rna l of Social Psychology, 1953. 38. 299-300.

Witty, P. A" & Lehman, H. C . The play behavior of fifty gifted c hildren. J ournal of Ecuc a tional Psychology. 192 7, .!!!. 259- 265.