2020/07/28 by David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow, Camilla Persson Benbow
Psychology · #Cognitive Abilities and Testing #Cognitive psychology #Developmental psychology #Diversity (politics) #Education, Achievement, and Giftedness #Psychological and Educational Research Studies #Psychological intervention #Psychology #Social psychology #Value (mathematics)
paper · doi:10.1177/0016986220925447
crossref issued 2020/07/28 · crossref published 2020/07/28 · crossref published-online 2020/07/28 · openalex publication_date 2020/07/28 · crossref created 2020/07/29 · crossref published-print 2021/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref deposited 2026/04/29 · crossref indexed 2026/07/27 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Over the past 50 years, eight robust generalizations about intellectual precocity have emerged, been empirically documented, and replicated through longitudinal research. Within the top 1% of general and specific abilities (mathematical, spatial, and verbal) over one third of the range of individual differences are to be found, and they are meaningful. These individual differences in ability level and in pattern of specific abilities, which are uncovered by the use of above-level assessments, structure consequential quantitative and qualitative differences in educational, occupational, and creative outcomes. There is no threshold effect for abilities in predicting future accomplishments; and the concept of multipotentiality evaporates when assessments cover the full range of all three primary abilities. Beyond abilities, educational/occupational interests add value in identifying optimal learning environments for precocious youth and, with the addition of conative variables, for modeling subsequent life span development. While overall professional outcomes of exceptionally precocious youth are as exceptional as their abilities, educational interventions of sufficient dosage enhance the probability of them leading exceptionally impactful careers and making creative contributions. Findings have made evident the psychological diversity within intellectually precocious populations, their meaningfulness, and the environmental diversity required to meet their learning needs. Seeing giftedness and interventions on their behalf categorically has held the field back.