Over a century of research has demonstrated that intelligence is associated with positive health outcomes (Terman, 1925). Nonetheless, some still doubt whether gifted children grow up to be (on average) healthy, well-adjusted... [ view full abstract ]
Over a century of research has demonstrated that intelligence is associated with positive health outcomes (Terman, 1925). Nonetheless, some still doubt whether gifted children grow up to be (on average) healthy, well-adjusted adults (e.g., Neihart, 1999). This study compares medical and psychological health outcomes of middle-aged adults from the general population (N = 3,652) to four SMPY cohorts. Cohort 1 (N = 1,159) score in the top 1% of ability and Cohort 2 (N = 491) score in the top 0.5% of ability. Four decades after identification, both cohorts were administered a comprehensive biographical survey, which included many health questions (Lubinski, Benbow, & Kell, 2014). Across 23 items, gifted males evinced more positive outcomes than males of average intelligence on 22 (96%). The mean odds ratio (OR) was 5.32, meaning males of average intelligence were over five times more likely to experience a negative health outcome than those in the top 1%. Gifted females evinced more positive outcomes in 65% of the categories, with a mean odds ratio of 2.52.
Comparisons of health outcomes within the top 1% are complicated by the higher mean age of Cohort 1 (53) relative to Cohort 2 (48). Only two statistically significant differences emerged between gifted females: Those in the top 1% were more likely than those in the 0.5% to have felt calm and peaceful and less likely to have had emotional or physical problems interfere with their activities recently (average d = .12). Results were less consistent for males. Males in the top 1% were significantly more likely to experience chest pains, hypertension, and arthritis (OR = 2.23), while males in the top 0.5% were more likely to experience asthma, depression, and non-depressive psychiatric problems (OR = 1.2).
As a replication, two additional SMPY samples were administered the same survey. Cohort 3 consists of young adolescents identified as being in the top 0.01% in the early 1980s (anticipated N > 300). Cohort 4 consisted of first- and second-year students attending top 15 U.S. math/science graduate programs in 1992 (anticipated N > 400). Health outcomes of these two cohorts will be compared not only to those of the general population, but to those of the top 1% and 0.5% as well. The size, scope, and quality of these data represent an unprecedented opportunity for examining the well-being of intellectually talent adults. Finally, these data also allow for the comparison of health outcomes between three high ability groups explicitly identified in young adolescence and a group of extraordinarily capable individuals identified as extraordinary achievers in early adulthood. Note: Preliminary data from Cohorts 3 and 4 are not ready for analysis, but the survey is well underway. Preliminary findings would be presented at ISIR 2017 for the first time.
