Multigenerational Giftedness:

Perceptions of Giftedness Across

Three Generations
Kristin M. Perrone and Tracy M. Ksiazak
Ball State University
Stephen L. Wright
University of Northern Colorado
Aarika Vannatter, Amy L. Crane, and Angela Tanney
Ball State University
The focus of this study was on gifted adults perceptions of multigenerational giftedness in their families. Participants have been surveyed annually since their high school
graduation in 1988. The purpose of the longitudinal study is to gain insight into the
career and life development of gifted individuals post-high school. For the present follow-up study, data were collected via the Internet and mailed surveys and analyzed by
a 5-member research team. Participants reported their perceptions of whether or not
their parents and children were gifted and the areas of giftedness. The number of participants who perceived both parents to be gifted was roughly equal to those stating that
neither parent was gifted. Areas of perceived giftedness differed between mothers and
fathers. The majority of participants identified at least one of their children as gifted.
Specific areas of giftedness perceived in participants children and parents are described.
Implications of the findings are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to learn more about multigenerational

aspects of giftedness. Participants were gifted adults who provided
their perceptions regarding giftedness in their parents and in their
children. Both theoretical literature and prior empirical research
suggest that giftedness likely occurs within multiple members of the
same family across multiple generations (e.g., Albert, 1980; Jacobsen,
Kristin M. Perrone is a professor at Ball State University. Tracy M. Ksiazak is a doctoral student at Ball
State University. Stephen L. Wright is an assistant professor at the University of Northern Colorado.
Aarika Vannatter is a doctoral student at Ball State University. Amy L. Crane is a doctoral student at
Penn State University. Angela Tanney is a doctoral student at Ball State University.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted. Vol. 33, No. 4, 2010, pp. 606627. Copyright 2010 Prufrock
Press Inc., http://www.prufrock.com

606

Multigenerational Giftedness

607

1999; Landau & Weissler, 1993; Robinson, Lanzi, Weinberg, Ramey,

& Ramey, 2002). However, the exact contributions of both genetics and environment to multigenerational giftedness are unknown.
It is possible that giftedness is predisposed by a genetic component,
but research also supports the assertion that certain environmental
conditions nurture the development of giftedness (e.g., Weissler &
Landau, 1993). It is likely that people inherit genetic predispositions
toward giftedness, and factors in their environments either encourage
or inhibit the development of giftedness.
Prior studies have found that intelligence is linked to heredity.
Galton (1869) explored the connection between genetics and intelligence in his book Hereditary Genius and proposed that intelligence,
like any physical trait, is inherited. Galton studied people who had
achieved eminence and operated under the assumption that eminence was an indicator of superior intellectual abilities. His method
of studying the genetic contributions to intelligence consisted of
measuring the frequencies of eminence among relatives of eminent
men and comparing that data to the frequency of eminence in the
general population (Galton, 1869). Galton found that eminent men
had higher frequencies of eminent relatives than did the general population and concluded that intelligence was influenced by heredity.
Galtons Hereditary Genius was a major influence on conceptions of
intelligence and future research on gifted individuals.
Terman (1925) conducted a large-scale longitudinal study of 1,528
California children identified as gifted by the criterion of an IQ score
of 135 or greater. Burks, Jensen, and Terman (1930) investigated the
IQ scores of 130 siblings of gifted children in the Terman sample and
found that the siblings mean IQ score was 123, which is still more than
one standard deviation above the average IQ score of 100. The children in Termans gifted sample, for comparison, had a mean IQ of 151
when they were originally tested. It is noteworthy that, although the
identified gifted childrens group had a significantly higher mean IQ
score, their siblings mean IQ score was still above-average. This finding
suggests that intelligence has a genetic component. Many years later,
Terman and Oden (1947) compared the IQ scores of the original gifted
sample with the scores of the samples own offspring. They found that
the mean IQ score of the Terman samples children was 127.7, which
was approximately 23 IQ points below that of their parents (Terman

608

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

& Oden, 1947). However, the Terman samples children still had a significantly above-average mean IQ score, which again suggests that IQ is
heritable. Terman and Oden (1947) discussed the discrepancy between
the IQ scores of the original gifted sample and their offspring as being
due to Galtons law of filial regression, which they stated explained that
only half of ones heredity comes from the two parents while the other
half is from more remote ancestry. The regression is about the same as
that found for height of offspring from exceptionally tall parents (p.
236). In follow-up studies in 19391940 and 19511952, the IQ scores
of the Terman gifted samples offspring were again measured using the
Stanford-Binet (Terman & Oden, 1959). At that time, the mean IQ
score for offspring was 132.7 (Terman & Oden, 1959). This finding
lent additional support to the notion of a hereditary component of
intelligence.
Landau and Weissler (1993) conducted a study in Israel that compared the parents of identified gifted children who attended a special
school for the gifted to parents of children who had not been identified as gifted. They found that parents of identified gifted children
had a high level of academic achievement, had more cognitive interactions with their children, and had more positive attitudes toward
their childrens intelligence and school achievements. Similarly, Gross
(2004) found that most of the parents of Australian students with IQ
scores greater than or equal to 160 had high education levels and highprestige, professional occupations. In Gross sample, 86% of gifted students fathers and 50% of gifted students mothers had at least a 4-year
college degree. Many of these parents were recognized as eminent
contributors to their fields of employment, such as science, medicine,
and literature. In a study of mathematically and intellectually gifted
students, Albert (1980) found that both parents and grandparents of
mathematically gifted students had higher education levels than the
national norms, which suggests that a love of learning and high educational aspirations may be multigenerational family characteristics.
In a more recent study of high-achieving third-grade students who
were former Head Start participants, researchers found that parents
of high-achieving students also had higher education levels than parents of students of average achievement (Robinson et al., 2002). In
another study, Weissler and Landau (1993) compared three types of
Israeli parents: those with no gifted children, those with one gifted

Multigenerational Giftedness

609

child, and those with two or more gifted children. They found that
parents with a gifted child had more discussions with their children,
discussed family issues and problems with the educational system
more often with their children, and engaged in more verbal problemsolving activities with their children. Parents of a gifted child also differed in their verbal behaviors: they used more correct grammar, used
more analogies and examples in their speech, and used more images
and metaphors when communicating with their children. Again, the
characteristics of the parents of gifted children mirrored theoretical
literature on adult giftedness. Jacobsen (1999) also noted that gifted
adults enjoy problem solving, tend to be idealistic and have high standards, enjoy having frequent discussions and debates, and are often
highly creative.
In Gross (2004) longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted children (those with an IQ score greater than or equal to 145) in Australia,
the majority of participants who had siblings had one or more siblings
who also met criteria for giftedness, with IQ scores ranging from 127
to 175+. The tendency for families to have multiple gifted children
makes sense in light of Weissler and Landaus (1993) finding that parents of gifted children tend to provide their children with environments that encourage the development of intellectual abilities. The
homes of identified gifted children in Weissler and Landaus study,
relative to the homes of nongifted children, contained more concrete environmental stimuli such as books, toys, and works of art
(p. 145). In addition, parents of gifted children took their children
on more family trips. Such early exposure to a variety of stimulating
experiences and objects, especially in conjunction with frequent intellectually stimulating verbal interactions with parents, may promote
the development of giftedness in all children in a family. However,
research into the lives of hundreds of eminent people has found that
not all gifted individuals home environments are havens full of intellectual stimulation (Goertzel, Goertzel, Goertzel, & Hansen, 2004).
Goertzel et al. (2004) found that some gifted individuals came from
family backgrounds characterized by problems such as emotional
strife, alcoholism, family conflicts, and poverty. They concluded
that while not all families of gifted people were able to provide their
children with concrete environmental stimuli or great emotional sta-

610

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

bility, each of the families nurtured giftedness through promoting

independence and persistence.
In addition to family history of giftedness and the availability
of environmental stimuli, birth order may have a significant impact
on the occurrence of giftedness in children. In Gross (2004) study
of exceptionally gifted Australian children, 55.5% of the participants
were the oldest children in their families, 20% were only children,
and 24.5% were the youngest children in their families. These birth
order trends are consistent with studies by Hollingworth (1942)
and Silverman and Kearney (1989), who found that the majority of
identified gifted children in their respective samples were first-born
children. It is possible that the disproportionate representation of
first-born children among the identified gifted population may be
due to first-born childrens greater exposure to interaction with parents and other adults, as well as a greater number of years of undivided attention from parents. Parkers (1998) research into birth order
effects in academically talented students found that a significantly
higher percentage of gifted students are first-born children than in
the general population. However, the percentage of only children is
higher in the general population than in the gifted population. Parker
found a tendency for gifted individuals to come from smaller families
than the average in the general population. Results of an analysis of
the relationship between birth order and achievement indicated that
when family size is statistically controlled for, birth order does not
significantly impact academic abilities as measured by performance
on SAT verbal or math scores. Similarly, Robinson et al. (2002) found
that families of high-achieving former Head Start students had significantly fewer children and more financial resources than families
of students of average achievement levels. It is likely that smaller families have more resources to devote to each of their children, which
increases the likelihood that giftedness could be nurtured in their
home environments.
Although there is currently no single universally accepted definition of giftedness, federal omnibus definitions of giftedness offer a
glimpse of the variety of types of giftedness that an individual can possess. One such prominent definition comes from the 1972 Marland
Report to Congress on the effectiveness of the United States educa-

Multigenerational Giftedness

611

tional system in meeting the needs of gifted students. Marland (1972)

stated that:
Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified people who, by virtue of outstanding abilities, are capable of high performance. These are children who
require differentiated educational programs and/or services
beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society.
Children capable of high performance include those with
demonstrated achievement and/or potential ability in any
of the following areas, singly or in combination: (1) general
intellectual ability; (2) specific academic aptitude; (3) creative or productive thinking; (4) leadership ability; (5) visual
and performing arts; and/or (6) psychomotor ability. (p. 2)
Additionally, Marland stated that, It can be assumed that utilization
of these criteria for identifying the gifted and talented will encompass a minimum of 3 to 5 percent of the school population (p. 2).
The Marland Reports definition of giftedness has informed many
state definitions of giftedness, as well as policies regarding the education and identification of the gifted. This definition also emphasizes
that giftedness can occur in many domains, and that a person can
be gifted in one area, a few areas, or many areas. Our study investigates gifted adults perceptions of their parents and childrens abilities
across many domains, most of which are consistent with the Marland
definition. Specifically, our categories included: general intellectual
ability; specific academic aptitude (e.g., math and science or reading,
language, and writing); creative thinking (i.e., problem solving, critical thinking); artistic abilities; athletic abilities or psychomotor skills;
and leadership skills.
Purpose of This Study and Research Questions
The purpose of the present study was to learn about gifted adults
perceptions of gifts and talents in their parents and in their children
in order to better understand their perceptions regarding multigenerational giftedness. This information can help provide a deeper

612

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

understanding of giftedness across generations for counselors, educators, or others who work with gifted individuals. The research questions were as follows:
1. Will participants perceive one or both of their parents as
gifted, and if so, in what areas?
2. Will participants perceive any of their children to be gifted,
and if so, in what areas?
Method
Participants
Participants were 89 gifted adults (34 male, 55 female) who have
participated in an ongoing longitudinal study of academically talented students who graduated high school in 1988. At the time of
data collection, participants ages ranged from 35 to 38 (M = 36.73,
SD = .62). Most participants were employed full-time outside the
home (85%), whereas 11% were full-time homemakers, 1% were fulltime students, 1% were looking for work, and 2% did not provide
information regarding employment status. In terms of family roles,
83% of participants were married, 9% of participants were single, 5%
responded that they were divorced, and 3% of participants indicated
that they were living with a partner. Most participants had children
(78%). There were 22% of respondents with no children, 12% had
one child, 43% had 2 children, 21% had 3 children, 1% had 4 children, and 1% had 5 children. In terms of educational level 20 years
post-high school, 33% of participants had completed a bachelors level
degree, 5% had completed some graduate school, 37% had completed
a masters level degree, and 25% had completed a doctoral level degree.
Procedures
Participants were initially recruited by asking all school counselors at
private and public high schools in a Midwestern state to identify the
top two graduates in schools graduating less than 250 students, and
the top five graduates in schools graduating more than 250 students.

Multigenerational Giftedness

613

In addition, National Merit scholars and the two students in each

school with the highest ACT scores were asked to participate and
to complete surveys. Annual follow-up studies have been conducted
since 1989.
For the present follow-up study, data were collected via two different methods. Individuals who had provided their e-mail addresses
in the previous years survey were asked to complete surveys online.
Specifically, participants were electronically mailed an introductory
letter with a hyperlink to an electronic version of the survey. Data
were collected individually via the Internet from each participant
by administering surveys online using InQsit, which is a survey service at the authors university. In the introductory letter, participants
were given a choice to complete the survey online or to have a paper
copy mailed to them. If participants indicated a preference for mailed
surveys, they were mailed paper surveys and asked to return them in
the stamped, addressed envelopes provided. Additionally, for those
participants who had not provided their e-mail addresses in the previous years survey, we mailed surveys via the postal service. We sent
71 e-mails and received 60 electronically completed surveys (85%
response rate). Additionally, we mailed 35 surveys via the postal service and received 27 paper copies (77% response rate).
The survey consisted of a demographic information page and four
open-ended items: (1) Were either or both of your parents identified
as gifted when they were children and/or did you notice any signs of
giftedness in either of your parents?; (2) If you perceive your parents
as gifted, in what areas are they gifted?; (3) For those of you who have
children, have you seen any signs of giftedness in your children or have
they been identified as gifted by others? If so, please describe; and (4)
Please indicate the age at which you first noticed your child or children had advanced abilities and in what areas. Participants responded
in a narrative format.
Data Analysis
A research team consisting of a psychologist, three doctoral students,
and two masters students analyzed responses to open-ended questions using Miles and Hubermans (1994) qualitative method of
organizing data into categories. The first step of this method is to

614

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

discuss the purpose of the analysis, which in this case was to identify major themes among responses to questions about giftedness in
participants parents and children. The next step is for at least two
researchers to independently generate categories and meet to determine consensus. In the present study, the six researchers generated
categories of responses independently and then convened to determine specific categories based on consensus among members. The last
step is assignment of data to categories. The researchers each independently assigned responses to categories and then met to determine
consensus of assignment to categories.
Results
Participants were asked if either or both of their parents were identified as gifted or if they had noticed signs of giftedness in either parent. Thirty-seven percent of participants stated that neither of their
parents were gifted, 34% stated that both parents were gifted, 14%
reported that only their mother was gifted, 14% reported that only
their father was gifted, and 1% said they were unsure if either parent
was gifted. This is interesting because the number of participants who
thought neither of their parents were gifted was roughly equal to the
number of participants who thought both their parents were gifted;
and the number of participants who thought only their mother was
gifted was exactly equal to those who thought only their father was
gifted. However, participants perceived their mothers and fathers to
be gifted in slightly different areas.
Those participants who saw their parents as gifted were asked to
describe the areas in which their parents were gifted. The research
team, using the method described above, arrived at 10 categories of
giftedness among participants responses. These areas were: math and
science; exceptional memory; mechanical or spatial ability; interpersonal skills; language and writing; problem solving and critical
thinking; athletic ability; leadership, business, or organizational
skills; creative or artistic abilities; and general academic abilities. Of
the participants who reported their mothers were gifted, the three
most frequently cited areas of giftedness for mothers were creative
or artistic abilities (22%), language and writing (20%), and general

Multigenerational Giftedness

615

academic abilities (15%). In contrast, the most frequently cited areas

of giftedness for fathers were math and science (25%), mechanical or
spatial ability (17%), and in third place was a three-way tie (10% in
each category) for interpersonal skills, creative or artistic skills, and
general academic abilities. A side-by-side comparison of percentages
of responses for each area is provided in Table 1.
When asked about giftedness in their children, 70% of participants identified at least one of their children as gifted whereas 30%
did not identify giftedness in their children. Of those who did not
identify giftedness in their children, a few of them noted that their
children might be too young (e.g., 4 months old) to be able to determine giftedness. For those parents who identified giftedness, we asked
in what areas they perceived them to be gifted. The team classified
participants responses regarding giftedness in their children using
similar, but slightly modified, categories as those used in Table 1.
These were: math and science; exceptional memory; mechanical or
spatial ability; interpersonal skills; reading, language, and writing;
problem solving and critical thinking; athletic ability; early achievement of developmental milestones; creative or artistic abilities; and
quick learner or general intelligence. The three most commonly cited
areas of giftedness noted in participants children were: reading, language, and writing (28%); math and science (21%); and quick learner
or general intelligence (16%). The percentages for all 10 categories can
be found in Table 2.
Finally, participants were asked the age at which they first noticed
their child or children had advanced abilities and in what areas. The
team used the categories that were determined for the previous question (see Table 2) and reviewed the data to determine the ages and
areas of giftedness for participants children. In Table 3, the age that
parents first noticed giftedness in their children and area of giftedness
for each age is reported. The frequency of responses is listed below
each age.
Discussion
This study was designed to gain a deeper understanding of giftedness
across generations. In particular, there were four questions we sought

616

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

Table 1
Participants Perceptions of Areas of Giftedness for Their
Mothers and Fathers
Area/Examples

Mothers

Fathers

Math and science

Both parents have scientific minds and are strong in math and
science.
My mother shows signs of giftedness in math.

11%

25%

Exceptional memory
My father has always had an exceptional memory, which I
inherited.
My father has a sharp memory and can memorize almost every
phone number he comes across.

2%

3%

Mechanical or spatial ability

My father can repair anything. He is good at taking things apart,
determining how they work, and putting them back together.
My father is gifted in the mechanical area.

0%

17%

Interpersonal skills
Both my parents are gifted socially. They are very kind and caring.
My mom is very in tune to others thoughts, feelings, and
perspectives.

11%

10%

Language and writing

They are both excellent with vocabulary, reading, and writing skills.
My mom is very bright linguistically.

20%

8%

Problem solving and critical thinking

My father is gifted in his ability to solve problems and work through
anything.
My mom is gifted in her critical thinking skills.

3%

7%

Athletic ability
My mother is gifted athletically.
My dad is gifted at sports.

2%

2%

Leadership, business, or organizational skills

My mother is an excellent leader. As my father puts it your mother
goes to a meeting and comes home president.
My mom is gifted in entrepreneurism.

14%

8%

Creative or artistic abilities

My mother is very musically versatile. She played accordion when
she was young, adapted to the piano, and played clarinet well.
My dad is gifted at creativity.

22%

10%

General academic abilities or intelligence

My mother was in the upper 10% of her high school class.
My father was valedictorian of his graduating class.

15%

10%

Multigenerational Giftedness

617

Table 2
Participants Perceptions of Areas of Giftedness
for Their Children
Area/Examples
Math and science
My first grader is doing fifth-grade math.
He is taking advanced classes in math and science.

Percent of
responses
21%

Exceptional memory
My daughter remembers words to stories and books after hearing them one
time and memorizes movies.
He has an ability to recall statisticsespecially football or sports related
information.

3%

Mechanical or spatial ability

He has exceptional eye-hand coordination.
He has good spatial abilities and likes puzzles.

2%

Interpersonal skills
She has a remarkable ability to connect with people, particularly children with
special needs. She intuitively knows what they need and how to interact with
them.
Our oldest daughter appears to be very socially intelligent and empathic.

3%

Reading, language and writing

Our oldest was saying several words clearly by 6 months and knew a few
hundred by 1 year.
My son is gifted in reading. He has been place in advanced reading program by
his teacher.

28%

Problem solving and critical thinking

She demonstrates unique problem-solving skills. She will figure out a way to
get what she wants, even if it is not the conventional method.
My daughter has advanced reasoning skills for her age.

8%

Athletic ability
He has been throwing balls the correct way since age 2 and loves just about
every sport.
My son is a very gifted athlete.

3%

Early achievement of developmental milestones

Early walking and language development.
She started walking at 9 months.

5%

Creative or artistic abilities

My son has an artistic streak and his drawings and sculptures seem advanced.
My daughter is gifted in her musical abilities.

11%

Quick learner/general intelligence

My two older children are strong students all-around.
The concepts, topics, and answers to questions in the classroom come easy for
her.

16%

618

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

Table 3
Age That Parents First Noticed Giftedness in Their Children
and Area of Giftedness for Each Age
Age That Signs of Giftedness Were First Noticed in Area
Area

<1

Math and science

Exceptional memory

Mechanical or spatial
ability

Interpersonal skills

Reading, language, and

writing

10

Problem solving and

critical thinking

Athletic ability

Early achievement of
developmental milestones

Creative or artistic abilities

Quick learner/general
intelligence

Note. Frequency of responses listed below age.

to answer with our study. Interestingly, we found that the categories

of ability that we developed on the basis of participants responses
concerning their parents and childrens areas of talent had substantial
overlap with the areas of giftedness identified in the Marland Report
(1972). The first area of giftedness identified by Marland was general
intellectual ability, and we derived a general academic abilities or
intelligence category from participants descriptions of their parents
areas of giftedness and a quick learner/general intelligence category
from participants descriptions of their childrens areas of giftedness.
Marland also listed specific academic aptitude as an area of giftedness, and our participants described their parents and children as
having giftedness in the specific academic areas of math and science,
exceptional memory, mechanical or spatial ability, and language and
reading. Marlands third area of giftedness was creative or productive thinking, and from our participants responses, we developed a

Multigenerational Giftedness

619

category for problem solving and critical thinking for both children
and parents. Marlands area of leadership ability was echoed in our
category of leadership, business, or organizational skills giftedness
in participants parents. Marlands fifth area of giftedness, visual and
performing arts, corresponded to our category of creative or artistic abilities that participants described their parents and children
possessing. Finally, Marlands sixth area, psychomotor ability, was
echoed in our category of athletic ability in participants parents and
children. The similarity of our categories of giftedness derived from
participants responses and the categories of giftedness described in
the Marland Report suggests that gifted adults in the general public
(a) may believe that giftedness can occur in a variety of areas and (b)
believe they can detect the expression of above-average abilities in several domains in people with whom they have frequent contact.
Through our analysis, we found that around one third of participants indicated that either both of their parents were gifted or both
parents were not gifted. Furthermore, an equal number of participants (14%) reported that only their mother or only their father was
gifted. Underestimation of abilities could be one potential explanation of why some participants did not view their parents as gifted. Just
as teachers sometimes underestimate and fail to identify gifted children (Hodge & Kemp, 2006), participants may have not effectively
identified either of their parents area(s) of giftedness. Additionally,
gifted adults are less frequently identified as gifted than are children
(Perrone, Perrone, Ksiazak, Wright, & Jackson, 2007). An early study
could provide clarification for the reason some participants viewed
both of their parents as gifted. As previously mentioned, Weissler and
Landau (1993) found that parents with gifted children tend to discuss more problems with their children and help children solve problems in a step-by-step manner; parents asked more questions and gave
extensive answers to their questions; and provided more examples and
analogies. It is possible that our participants parents demonstrated a
greater openness in conversations and used a more complex language
style that provided participants with information about their parents
being gifted. We did not ask about the amount or quality of interaction that participants had with their mothers or fathers, but based
on traditional gender roles it is likely that participants spent more
time with their mothers in the home. Thus, more interaction with

620

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

their mothers than their fathers throughout childhood would likely

have provided opportunities for participants to observe their mothers
demonstrating their giftedness, which may explain why some participants viewed their mothers as gifted but not their fathers. This could
also provide a plausible explanation for the specific domains of giftedness participants perceived in their mothers. Comparing families
with multiple gifted children to families with only one gifted child,
fathers with more than one gifted child showed a greater tendency to
provide explicit answers and encourage children to seek out sources of
information so they could learn more about the subject (Weissler &
Landau, 1993). This may provide some insight as to why some of our
participants only viewed their fathers as gifted.
To further understand the specific domains of giftedness, we
examined the areas of perceived gifted abilities that participants
reported in their parents. Previous research supports our view that
giftedness can occur in many forms or areas (e.g., intellectual, social,
artistic, athletic), which provides a more complex multitrait view of
giftedness (Blanger & Gagn, 2006). However, we found that of the
10 categories identified to describe giftedness, almost half (42%) of
parental giftedness fell into two categories for each parent. Participants
described their mothers as gifted primarily in either creative/artistic
abilities or language and writing, while they described their fathers
giftedness primarily in either math and science or mechanical/spatial ability. These four categories are consistent with Gardners theory
on multiple intelligences that include eight areas: linguistic, logicalmathematical, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, naturalistic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal (Gardner & Moran, 2006). A conceivable
explanation for the categories that participants viewed their parents
areas of giftedness could be based on their parents career decisions.
On the basis of gender roles, women report more artistic and social
learning experiences and men report more realistic, investigative, and
enterprising learning experiences (Tokar, Thompson, Plaufcan, &
Williams, 2007), which often lead toward occupational pursuits in
the corresponding areas. This is consistent with our findings that participants found their mothers to be gifted in creative/artistic abilities
and language/writing abilities, while participants found their fathers
gifted math/science abilities and mechanical/spatial abilities.

Multigenerational Giftedness

621

As noted earlier, we were interested in the generational trends of

giftedness. Therefore, after examining giftedness with participants
parents, we investigated participants perceptions of giftedness in their
children. One interesting finding was that nearly half (49%) of the
participants children were gifted in one of the two categories of (1)
reading, language, and writing or (2) math and science. These two
categories were also the most commonly identified areas of giftedness
for participants mothers and fathers. If you account for overall parental giftedness by combining both parents of the participants, the top
four categories are: math and science; language and writing; creative
or artistic abilities; and general academic abilities or intelligence. One
finding that is relevant to generational trends is that these four categories of parental giftedness are the same top four categories that participants also identified as gifted abilities in their children. This finding
can be partially explained with the emergenic-epigenetic theoretical
model (Simonton, 2005). This model assumes the manifestations of
giftedness do not depend on the inheritance of just one trait; rather, it
consists of multiple traits that are inherited (Simonton, 2005).
Considering that the area of mechanical or spatial abilities was
the second highest category of giftedness that participants identified
in their fathers, it was surprising that the same category was the least
identified gifted area in the participants children. However, individuals who are gifted in the area of spatial abilities are often missed
in identification of giftedness (Webb, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2007).
Perhaps a more plausible explanation of our finding is that the area of
the brain that represents and executes mechanical or spatial abilities
and complex cognitive functioning, the prefrontal cortex, does not
fully develop until closer to puberty (Teeter-Ellison, 2005). The latest
age of giftedness that our participants identified among their children
was 9; therefore, it is likely that these areas have not fully developed
for gifted identification in our participants children.
The emergenic-epigenetic model considers giftedness as a dynamic
process in which individuals gifted areas are continuously developing
throughout childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood (Simonton,
2005). This dynamic process provides an understanding for and
explanation of why participants have noticed signs of giftedness in
their children at various ages. Only a few participants identified their
child as gifted before the age of one. However, a longitudinal study on

622

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

infant giftedness first identified giftedness in 8-, 10-, and 11-montholds who subsequently achieved IQ scores above 130 when the children were tested at the age of 4 (Morelock, Brown, & Morrissey,
2003). Similarly, in the Fullerton longitudinal study of giftedness, a
cohort of 130 one-year-old infants and their parents were studied for
24 years (Gottfried, Gottfried, & Guerin, 2006). Mothers reported
significantly higher early advancement in intelligence, verbal, and
social functioning between the ages of 1 and 3.5 years for the 19% of
children in the Fullerton study who were identified at age 8 as having
IQ scores greater than or equal to 130 on the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children-Revised than for the control group of children who
were not identified as gifted at age 8 (Gottfried, Gottfried, Bathurst,
& Guerin, 1994). Additionally, nearly all of the children who were
identified as gifted at age 8 had developmental index scores of 130
or higher at the ages of 1.5 or 2 years on the Bayley Scales of Infant
Development (Gottfried et al., 2006). Children in the control group,
those who were not identified as gifted at age 8, were not reported
by parents to have early advancement, and they had significantly
lower developmental index scores. This suggests that early advancement is predictive of later identifiable giftedness. Findings from the
Fullerton study also support the notion that evidence of giftedness
can be observed in infancy and early childhood.
In actuality, there may have been more children in our study who
displayed signs of giftedness prior to the age of one without the participants recognizing their childrens gifted abilities. As the recognition
of giftedness can be difficult, participants may have underestimated
their childrens abilities, particularly in the early years. Research has
confirmed the difficulty of identifying gifted children, as one study
found less than a 60% effectiveness rate of teachers identification of
giftedness in their students (Hodge & Kemp, 2006). Accurate identification of gifted traits may be particularly difficult for parents who
are not familiar with characteristics of giftedness.
Giftedness seemed to be more easily recognized by our participants as their children aged. By the age of 2, participants identified
numerous areas of giftedness in their children. The area of reading,
language, and writing was the most frequently noticed area of giftedness in participants children. Our finding is consistent with another
qualitative study that assessed parental identification of multiple areas

Multigenerational Giftedness

623

of giftedness in children. In particular, Hodge and Kemp (2000)

found early advanced language and interest in words to be the two
areas of giftedness in children that were most often identified by their
parents. The results of our study further aligned with the findings of
Hodge and Kemp. By excluding the categories of mechanical/spatial
ability and athletic ability, the remaining eight categories of identified
giftedness in our participants children were very similar to Hodge
and Kemps categories or characteristics of identified giftedness in
their participants children. Across studies, there appears to be consistency in parental identification of the areas or categories of giftedness in their children.
Implications for Counselors and Educators
The findings of the present study add to the body of knowledge for
the study of multigenerational giftedness in a few important areas,
which have specific implications for both counselors and educators.
As mentioned above, the accuracy of identification by teachers has
been found to be less than 60% (Hodge & Kemp, 2006). This rate
might be improved if counselors and educators consider the multigenerational link suggested by the present findings and use this information as a point of potential identification of giftedness.
Second, the results of this study indicated a high percentage of
multiple individuals from within the same family were perceived by
participants as showing signs of giftedness (i.e., the parents and/or
children of the participants) or were previously identified as gifted
(e.g., the participants were identified by guidance counselors based on
their achievements). Once again, this multigenerational link should
be considered when working with children who come from families
with gifted parents and/or grandparents. To the same degree, as a
counselor working with an adult who has been identified as gifted or
whose partner or partners parents were identified or believed to be
gifted, it may be helpful to educate the individual on the multigenerational link so that the individuals child(ren) might be assessed for
giftedness.
Finally, although the research has been limited in the area of
multigenerational giftedness, this study has helped pave the way for

624

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

more qualitative and quantitative data to be gathered. Counselors

and educators should be aware that specific questions have yet to be
answered before much can be said about the multigenerational aspect
of giftedness. Counselors and educators alike can be confident from
the present findings that there is a linkwhether genetic or environmental has yet to be determinedthat should help guide their work
in counseling and in the classroom.
Limitations
One limitation of the study is the moderate sample size of participants, which could impact the generalizability of the results. Further,
the participants were all recruited from a Midwestern state so there
was only one geographic area sampled. Additionally, this study relied
on participants perceptions and self-report. The participants may have
overestimated or underestimated the giftedness of their parents and
children, which could impact the results of the study. In addition, the
majority of participants had children under age 9. The participants
children may be too young to notice signs of giftedness. Conducting
a follow-up study to see if parents notice more signs of giftedness as
their children grow older would further our understanding of multigenerational giftedness.
Future Research
Future research is needed to establish generalizability of the findings
from the present study to larger and more diverse populations. Future
research could also directly survey children and parents of gifted individuals instead of relying on individuals perceptions of their family
members. Future research could examine the amount of time that
participants spent with each parent and the quality of interaction
with that parent. A limitation in the gifted literature is the lack of
strong empirical scales available to identify adult giftedness, which
could have been used to improve the identification of the participants
parents. Therefore, further research is needed in the development
of adult gifted scales. Subsequently, by having such measures more

Multigenerational Giftedness

625

sophisticated analysis could be performed, which would help quantify

the experiences and characteristics that our participants described.
Further research could also explore how participants communicate or
share their gifted characteristics with their children. This may impact
their childrens knowledge and recognition of areas of their parents
giftedness. Investigating giftedness among participants spouses is
another area of research that could enhance our understanding of
relationships among gifted individuals. Additionally, examining
gifted characteristics among extended family members and possibly
among social networks would add to the literature base on multigenerational giftedness.
References
Albert, R. S. (1980). Exceptional gifted boys and their parents. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 24, 174179.
Blanger, J., & Gagn, F. (2006). Estimating the size of the gifted/
talented population from multiple identification criteria. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 131163.
Burks, B. S., Jensen, D. W., & Terman, L. M. (1930). The promise
of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted children: Genetic
studies of genius, Vol. III. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and
consequences. London, England: Macmillan.
Gardner, H., & Moran, S. (2006). The science on multiple intelligences theory: A response to Lynn Waterhouse. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 227232.
Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M., Goertzel, T. G., & Hansen, A. M. (2004).
Cradles of eminence: Childhoods of more than 700 famous men and
women (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., Bathurst, K., & Guerin, D. W.
(1994). Gifted IQ: Early developmental aspects. The Fullerton longitudinal study. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Gottfried, A. W., Gottfried, A. E., & Guerin, D. W. (2006). The
Fullerton longitudinal study: A long-term investigation of intellectual and motivational giftedness. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 29, 430450.

626

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.).

London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
Hodge, K. A., & Kemp, C. R. (2000). Exploring the nature of giftedness in preschool children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
24, 4673.
Hodge, K. A., & Kemp, C. R. (2006). Recognition of giftedness in
the early years of school: Perspectives of teachers, parents, and
children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 164204.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ, Stanford-Binet:
Origin and development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Books.
Jacobsen, M. E. (1999). Arousing the sleeping giant: Giftedness in
adult psychotherapy. Roeper Review, 22, 3642.
Landau, E., & Weissler, K. (1993). Parental environment in families
with gifted and nongifted children. Journal of Psychology, 127,
129143.
Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report
to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of
Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of
Education, 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. (Government Documents Y4.L 11/2:G36)
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis:
An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morelock, M. J., Brown, P. J., & Morrissey, A. M. (2003). Pretend
play and maternal scaffolding: Comparisons of toddlers with
advanced development, typical development, and hearing impairment. Roeper Review, 26, 4151.
Parker, W. D. (1998). Birth-order effects in the academically talented.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 2938.
Perrone, K. M., Perrone, P. A., Ksiazak, T. M., Wright, S. L., & Jackson,
Z. V. (2007). Self-perception of gifts and talents among adults in a
longitudinal study of academically talented high-school graduates.
Roeper Review, 29, 259264.
Robinson, N. M., Lanzi, R. G., Weinberg, R. A., Ramey, S. L., &
Ramey, C. T. (2002). Family factors associated with high academic competence in former Head Start children at third grade.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 278290.
Silverman, L. K., & Kearney, K. (1989). Parents of the extraordinarily
gifted. Advanced Development, 1, 4156.

Multigenerational Giftedness

627

Simonton, K. (2005). Giftedness and genetics: The emergenic-epigenetic model and its implications. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 28, 270286.
Teeter-Ellison, P. A. (2005). School neuropsychology of Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. In R. C. DAmato, E. FletcherJanzen, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school neuropsychology (pp. 460486). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted
children: Genetic studies of genius, Vol. I. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up:
Twenty-five years follow-up of a superior group: Genetic studies of
genius, Vol. IV. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life:
Thirty-five years follow-up of a superior group: Genetic studies of
genius, Vol. V. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tokar, D. M., Thompson, M. N., Plaufcan, M. R., & Williams, C.
M. (2007). Precursors of learning experiences in social cognitive
career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 319339.
Webb, R. M., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Spatial ability:
A neglected dimension in talent searchers for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397420.
Weissler, K., & Landau, E. (1993). Characteristics of families with
no, one, or more than one gifted child. The Journal of Psychology,
127, 143152.

Meet the Authors

Don Ambrose is professor of graduate education at Rider University
in Lawrenceville, NJ; editor of the Roeper Review; and past chair of
the Conceptual Foundations Division of the National Association for
Gifted Children. He has published several books and numerous journal articles and book chapters, most of which are theoretical syntheses
and philosophical analyses based on a wide-ranging, interdisciplinary
search for theories, philosophical perspectives, and research findings
that challenge, refine, and expand thinking about the development
of creative intelligence.
Sumita Chakraborti-Ghosh is an associate professor at Tennessee
State University. She has taught courses in gifted education for the
past 7 years at Tennessee State University and serves on the Gifted
Advisory Board for the Tennessee Department of Education. Her
research interest areas are cross-cultural special education, multicultural/bilingual special education, technology in special education,
gifted education, inclusive education, and emotional disturbance/
behavior disorders. She is an active advocate for social, cultural, linguistic, and emotional needs of gifted minority populations with the
Council for Exceptional Children.
Laurence J. Coleman is Daso Herb Professor of Gifted Education in
the Department of Early Childhood, Physical and Special Education
at the University of Toledo, OH. A special education teacher who
became a teacher educator, he is past editor of the Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, coauthor of the book Being Gifted in School:
An Introduction to Development, Guidance and Teaching, and recipient of the Distinguished Scholar Award from NAGC. His expertise
and professional activities include qualitative inquiry, designing summer programs for the gifted, and creating innovative teacher preparation programs.
Amy Crane is a doctoral student in the Department of Counselor
Education, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Services at
The Pennsylvania State University. She earned her masters degree

628

Meet the Authors

629

from Ball State University and her undergraduate degree from

Western Michigan University. Her research interests include: gifted
adults, relationship quality, and spirituality.
Tracy L. Cross is the Jody and Layton Smith Professor of Gifted
Education at the College of William and Mary. For 9 years he
served as the executive director of the Indiana Academy for Science,
Mathematics and Humanities, a public residential school for academically gifted adolescents. Dr. Cross has published numerous articles
and book chapters, and a coauthored textbook Being Gifted in School:
An Introduction to Development, Guidance and Teaching. He is the
editor of the Journal for the Education of the Gifted and editor emeritus of the Roeper Review, Gifted Child Quarterly, and the Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education.
Thomas P. Hbert is professor of educational psychology in the
College of Education at The University of Georgia in Athens, GA,
where he teaches graduate courses in gifted education and qualitative
research methods. His research interests include social and emotional
development of gifted students, culturally diverse gifted students,
underachievement, and problems faced by gifted young men.
Laurie A. Hyatt is a consultant on womens issues in Georgia and a
writer and public speaker. She was an assistant professor and chair
of the Psychology Department at Barton College in North Carolina
from 20072010. Until 2003, when she began her doctoral studies at
The University of Georgia, she was a Licensed Professional Counselor
in private practice. She is the author of the self-help book, Tools for
Living: Taking Control of Your Life (2001) and is currently writing
a memoir.
Tracy M. Ksiazak is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at Ball State University. Her research interests are in social and
emotional issues of the gifted, adult giftedness, and gender issues. She
will begin a career as assistant professor of psychology at Converse
College this August, after completing her predoctoral internship at
the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Counseling Center.

630

Journal for the Education of the Gifted Vol. 33, No. 4

Emily Lynne Mofield is a gifted education teacher for Sumner

County Schools in White House, TN, and an adjunct instructor
at Tennessee State University (TSU) and Belmont University. She
completed her doctoral studies in curriculum and instruction from
TSU in 2008 and holds a masters degree in special education from
Vanderbilt University. She has taught graduate courses in curriculum
theory and research methodology at TSU and currently teaches special education classes at Belmont University. Her interests focus on
addressing emotional needs of the gifted, reversing underachievement,
and developing appropriate curriculum for gifted learners.
Kristin M. Perrone is a professor in the Department of Counseling
Psychology at Ball State University and a Licensed Psychologist.
She also serves as the director of masters programs in community
and mental health counseling at Ball State University. Her research
interests include gifted adults, career development, and work-family
interface.
Roland S. Persson is a professor of educational psychology at
Jnkping University in Sweden. His research focuses widely on
giftedness and talent, but with an emphasis on social context and
the gifted individual in society. Current aspects within this frame
are equity issues, gender, music behavior, and social perception. Dr.
Persson is a member of the World Council for Gifted and Talented
Children and is a lifetime honorary member of the European Council
for High Ability.
Catherine A. Schreiber earned her doctoral degree in educational psychologygifted and creative education in the College of
Education at The University of Georgia in Athens, GA. She is an elementary gifted resource teacher in Henry County Public Schools in
Stockbridge, GA. Her research interests include dual exceptionalities,
gifted males, and therapeutic adventure.
Angela Tanney is a doctoral student in the Department of Counseling
Psychologyat Ball State University. She is interested in research on
gifted and talented individuals.

Meet the Authors

631

Aarika Vannatter is a doctoral student in the Department of

Counseling Psychologyat Ball State University. She earned her masters degree from Ball State and her undergraduate degree from Purdue
University. In addition to research with gifted adults, her other areas
of interest include mood disorders, suicide prevention, counseling
with older adults, and trauma response.
Joyce VanTassel-Baska is the Smith Professor Emerita at The
College of William and Mary in Virginia where she developed a
graduate program and a research and development center in gifted
education. Formerly, she initiated and directed the Center for Talent
Development at Northwestern University. She has also served as the
state director of gifted programs for Illinois, as a regional director of
a gifted service center in the Chicago area, as coordinator of gifted
programs for the Toledo, OH, public school system, and as a teacher
of gifted high school students in English and Latin. Dr. VanTasselBaska has published widely including 27 books and more than 500
refereed journal articles, book chapters, and scholarly reports. Her
major research interests are on the talent development process and
effective curricular interventions with the gifted.
Stephen L. Wright is an assistant professor in counseling psychology
at the University of Northern Colorado. He received his Ph.D. from
Ball State University with a specialization in assessment. His research
interests are in gifted adults, career development, work-family interface, and attachment.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.