Content uploaded by Emily Mofield
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emily Mofield on Feb 07, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted
2015, Vol. 38(4) 405 –427
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0162353215607324
jeg.sagepub.com
Article
The Relationship Between
Perfectionism and
Overexcitabilities in Gifted
Adolescents
Emily L. Mofield1 and Megan Parker Peters2
Abstract
Overexcitabilities and perfectionism are often discussed within the context of gifted
education, given that both are observed among gifted individuals. The present research
(a) explored the relationships between overexcitabilities and dimensions of healthy
and unhealthy perfectionism and (b) determined the extent to which overexcitabili-
ties are predictor variables for perfectionism among 130 gifted adolescents. Findings
revealed a significant relationship, especially between Emotional overexcitabilities and
dimensions of perfectionism. High Emotional, high Intellectual Overexcitabilities, and
low Imaginational Overexcitability were also predictor variables for dimensions of
healthy perfectionism. Findings shed insight into the relationship of overexcitabilities
and perfectionism in light of Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration, particu-
larly the notion of overexcitabilities propelling one to achieve higher levels and over-
coming negative dynamisms (e.g., guilt, shame, and self-criticism) associated with per-
fectionism. The study also provides validation of the relationship between emotional
vulnerabilities such as heightened sensitivities, intensities, and perfectionism.
Keywords
perfectionism, overexcitabilities, Dabrowski, gifted, multidimensional perfectionism,
adolescents
The past few decades have brought increased attention to the topic of emotional devel-
opment of gifted individuals. According to clinical observations, sensitivity, perfec-
tionism, and introversion have been cited as the most common personality traits among
1Sumner County Schools, Gallatin, TN, USA
2Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Emily L. Mofield, Sumner County Schools, 695 E. Main St., Gallatin, TN 37066, USA.
Email: mofielde@gmail.com
607324JEGXXX10.1177/0162353215607324Journal for the Education of the GiftedMoeld and Parker Peters
research-article2015
406 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
gifted students (Silverman, 2007), despite a lack of empirical validation that perfec-
tionism exists more so in gifted populations than nongifted (Parker & Mills, 1996). A
common claim in the literature is that heightened sensitivity to self, increased sensitiv-
ity to expectations imposed by others, and self-criticism of performance may influence
perfectionism (Cross, 1997; Rimm, 2007; Silverman, 1994; Tieso, 2007). The height-
ened sensitivities experienced by some gifted students in the form of overexcitabilities
(OEs) could influence the manifestation of perfectionism (Piechowski, 1997;
Silverman, 1990), yet there is little empirical investigation to validate this assumption.
The concept of Dabrowski’s OEs offers a lens through which we can examine the
interaction of intensities, sensitivities, and perfectionism. An empirical investigation
aimed to explore the relationship between heightened sensitivities (particularly OEs)
and perfectionism would strengthen claims that these constructs are related.
Understanding the interactions of OEs and perfectionism would also help the field
understand the role of the negative emotions associated with these constructs and the
potential for them to be channeled toward positive elements of self-awareness and
higher levels of personality development.
OEs and Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration
(TPD)
Social and emotional characteristics of gifted students have been studied through the
lens of Dabrowski’s (1967) TPD. This theory emphasizes the unique role of emotions
in personality shaping along a multilevel continuum from primitive development
(characterized by biological instincts) to advanced levels of development (character-
ized by authenticity, autonomy, and altruism; Mendaglio, 2008). Within his theory,
Dabrowski recognized five levels of development, starting with initial integration.
Then, there are three levels showcasing an increasing complexity of disintegration:
unilevel, spontaneous multilevel, and organized multilevel. The highest level, the fifth
level, is known as secondary integration (Mendaglio, 2008). Positive disintegration
takes place when lower levels of personality structures are shattered and replaced by
higher level personality structures (Dabrowski, 1972). Dabrowski (1964) explained,
“the disintegration process, through loosening and even fragmenting the internal psy-
chic environment, through conflicts within the internal environment and with the
external environment, is the ground for the birth and development of a higher psychic
structure” (pp. 5–6). Emotions such as anxiety, depression, guilt, and despair result
from inner conflicts, which begin the loosening of integrated mental organization
(Mendaglio, 2008). This positive disintegration allows one to move upward to higher
levels (Levels IV and V) through a process that includes “positive maladjustment.”
This involves the conflict that surfaces from rejecting the attitudes of an individual’s
social environment as one develops more awareness of higher values (Dabrowski,
1972). Dabrowski noted that individuals with heightened OEs are particularly capable
of moving upward on the continuum to achieve developmental potential (see
Mendaglio, 2008, for description of levels within TPD).
Mofield and Parker Peters 407
Dabrowski’s term nadpobudliwosc or superstimulation (translated in English as
hyperexcitability or overexcitability) is most commonly known as overexcitability,
conceptually defined by five forms: psychomotor, intellectual, sensual, imaginational,
and emotional OEs. OEs have been described as “expanded awareness, intensified
emotions, and increased levels of intellectual physical activity” (Cross, 1997, p. 184).
In addition, Daniels and Piechowski (2009) have defined the construct as follows:
Overexcitability is an innate tendency to respond in an intensified manner to various
forms stimuli, both external and internal . . . It means that persons may require less
stimulation to produce a response, as well as stronger and more lasting reactions to
stimuli. (pp. 8–9)
Individuals with higher OE experience both internal and external realities differently,
with greater intensity (Mendaglio, 2008). Individuals who experience multiple OEs
view the world differently, perhaps with greater clarity (Dabrowski, 1972).
Researchers have investigated TPD to expand awareness of gifted students’ emo-
tional and social domains (e.g., Gross, Rinn, & Jamieson, 2007; Mendaglio, 1995,
2003; Piirto, 2010; Tieso, 2007). OEs have been described by Piechowski (Dabrowski’s
major translator) as a release of tension or flow of excess energy (Piechowski, 2006;
Shavinina, 2009). If one is a quick thinker, then a repetitive class may lead to the
buildup of excess intellectual energy, for example. This energy awaits and demands a
final release. Psychomotor OE is manifested from a surplus of energy and nervous-
ness. This may be translated as nail biting, tics, impulsive behavior, animated gestures,
taking on self-improvement tasks, driveness, rapid talk, restlessness, fidgeting, prefer-
ence for sports, delinquent behavior, and even self-mutilation (Dabrowski &
Piechowski, 1977; Daniels & Piechowski, 2009; Mika, 2002; Piechowski, 1975).
These behaviors are a psychomotor method for releasing emotional tension
(Piechowski, 2006; Shavinina, 2009).
Sensual OEs are heightened experiences of sensory pleasures. This is expressed in
“seeking sensual outlets for inner tension” (Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006, p. 70). This is
manifested in heightened refinement or an intense interest in clothes and appearance,
an affection for jewelry, the need for comfort, luxury, overeating, excessive sexual
stimulation, an increased need to be touched or given affection, a dislike of loneliness,
and heightened aesthetic interests (Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977; Daniels &
Piechowski, 2009; Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006; Mika, 2002).
Intellectual OE is “an intensified and accelerated activity of the mind” (Mendaglio
& Tillier, 2006, p. 70). Those individuals with high Intellectual OEs strive for under-
standing, value learning over achievement, probe for answers, and enjoy analysis,
theoretical thinking, and logic (Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977; Mika, 2002;
Piechowski, 1975).
Imaginational OE is the release of emotional tension through the imagination, as
manifested in daydreaming, wandering attention, animism, and distraction. The indi-
vidual with high Imaginational OE will be highly inventive, use metaphors in verbal
language, and have strong visualizations and associations of images and impressions
408 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
(Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977; Daniels & Piechowski, 2009; Mika, 2002; Piechowski,
1991).
Finally, Emotional OE is characterized by a range of behaviors that may include
strong anxieties; fears; depression; extreme feelings; strong attachments to people,
animals, or objects; intense shyness or enthusiasm; a strong need for security; an
intense empathy for others; strong compassion; great depth and complexity of emo-
tions; heightened sense of responsibility; and scrupulous self-examination (Dabrowski
& Piechowski, 1977; Mendaglio, 2002; Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006; Piechowski, 1975,
1991). For Dabrowski, Emotional OE is considered to be the central OE in which the
other OEs are generated (Mendaglio, 2008).
The notion of OEs has been embraced by gifted education because it explains some
of the unexpectedly sensitive responses to stimuli observed by parents and teachers of
gifted children. Given that OEs are the excessive responses to stimuli, a gifted child’s
oversensitivity, hyperactive behavior, intense curiosity, and/or avid interest in fantasy
are explained by Dabrowski’s concepts (Mendaglio, 2002). The manifestation of
Psychomotor OE in gifted children has sparked a heated debate on whether gifted
children are misdiagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or
whether Psychomotor OE is synonymous with the construct (e.g., Baum, Olenchak, &
Owen, 1998; Mika, 2006). Dabrowski’s concept of positive maladjustment also
explains the feelings of gifted students not fitting in with peers and experiencing con-
flicts with social mores (Mendaglio, 2002), but to Dabrowski, intense sensitivities,
anxieties, and perfectionism are “symptoms” of high developmental potential (Tillier,
2006). Pyryt (2008) noted that because of the emotional sensitivities of gifted indi-
viduals, they suffer from internal conflicts when they experience the disparity between
“what is” and “what ought to be”; these conflicts set the stage for positive personal
growth.
Gifted individuals are reported to be more intense and sensitive than nongifted
cohorts (O’Connor, 2002; Pyryt, 2008), although significant differences on OE pro-
files between the gifted and nongifted have varied (see Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006;
Piirto, 2010). Emotional OEs may be displayed through intense sensitivity. Mendaglio
(1995) has proposed a multifaceted definition of sensitivity:
sensitivity refers to an awareness of one or more of the following: thoughts, feelings, and
behavior of self or others. This awareness has potential of prompting a greater
understanding and increased emotional responsiveness to the feelings of self and others.
(p. 3)
Mendaglio (2003) further asserted that heightened multifaceted sensitivity could
influence negative emotionality within the gifted individual. Relevant to the nature of
perfectionism (to be discussed), sensitivity can lead the individual to create inaccurate
perceptions of others and self.
The effects of high levels of sensitivity and OE can lead to both negative and posi-
tive consequences. Although OEs, particularly Emotional OE, may influence the student to
feel isolated and different, experiencing self-doubt, fear, anxiety, self-judgment, and
Mofield and Parker Peters 409
feelings of inadequacy (Piechowski, 1997), to Dabrowski, this is an opportunity to grow
psychologically, toward Levels IV and V. Piechowski noted “to varying degrees, these five
dimensions give talent its power” (Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977, p. 366). It is impera-
tive that Dabrowski’s OEs are understood within the broader context of TPD, not as iso-
lated constructs (Kane, 2009). Within Dabrowski’s TPD, heightened OEs, particularly
Emotional, Intellectual, and Imaginational OE, are theorized to allow persons to have the
capability to reach the highest levels of personality development (Dabrowski, 1964).
Relevant to the purpose of the present study, both the positive and negative conse-
quences of OEs (especially Emotional, Intellectual, and Imaginational OEs) are inher-
ently related to some of the underlying notions of healthy and unhealthy perfectionism.
The Intellectual OE relates to perfectionism’s associated excessive critical self-evalu-
ation, Emotional OE relates to the emotional sensitivity of meeting expectations
imposed by others (or self) as motivation for achieving perfection, and Imaginational
OE relates to the ability to imagine and visualize perfection (Piechowski, 1997).
Although this connection between OEs and perfectionism has been referenced (Kane,
2009; Piechowski, 1997; Silverman, 1990, 1997; White, 2007), at present, there has
been minimal empirical justification of this link.
Perfectionism
Perfectionism has long been considered a characteristic of gifted students (e.g.,
Adderholdt-Elliott, 1991; Clark, 2002; Rimm, 2007; Schuler, 2002; Silverman, 1997;
Speirs Neumeister, 2007; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006), despite empirical inves-
tigation showing that perfectionism is not necessarily more prevalent among gifted
students when compared with nongifted students (e.g., Parker & Mills, 1996).
Nevertheless, perfectionism does exist among gifted students, and the heightened sen-
sitivity, intensity, and vulnerability to criticism (Cross, 1997; Gere, Capps, Mitchell,
Grubbs, & Dunn, 2009; Peterson, 2009; Silverman, 1997), as well as their ability to
mask emotional distress from others (Gross, 1998), could augment the experience of
perfectionism in gifted students.
The construct of perfectionism has been debated for decades, and researchers have
yet to come to consensus on its definition. Some view perfectionism as only inherently
destructive (i.e., Burns, 1980; Pacht, 1984). Perfectionists, according to Burns (1980),
measure self-worth based on accomplishment and will strive toward unrealistic goals.
Researchers have noted that perfectionism has been associated with a number of nega-
tive outcomes including anxiety (Delegard, 2004; Frost & DiBartolo, 2002), low self-
esteem (Delegard, 2004), eating disorders (Goldner & Cockell, 2002), depression
(Brown & Beck, 2002), and personality disorders (Pacht, 1984), although no causal
inferences can be made. On the contrary, others caution that we should be careful not
to conclude that all perfectionism is maladaptive (Parker, 2002; Schuler, 2002; Speirs
Neumeister, 2004a, 2004b, 2007). Instead, some adopt a multidimensional definition
of perfectionism and purport that there are positive aspects of perfectionism that
should be enhanced and supported (Chan, 2012; Parker, 1997; Speirs Neumeister,
2004a, 2004b, 2007). Along the same vein, personality theorists such as Maslow
410 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
(1970) and Adler (1973) view perfectionism as a positive trait necessary for human
development.
Multidimensional perfectionism theory has been adopted by many in the field of
gifted education (Chan, 2009, 2010, 2012; Parker, 1997; Parker & Mills, 1996;
Portesova & Urbanek, 2013; Roberts & Lovett, 1994; Schuler, 2000; Siegle & Schuler,
2000). Hamachek (1978) was one of the pioneers in this area and described neurotic
(unhealthy) perfectionists as driven to perform out of the fear of failure and never feel-
ing satisfied with their performance because it is never good enough. Nevertheless,
normal (healthy) perfectionists are able to enjoy their work, recognize their perfor-
mance limitations, and are motivated to achieve perfection via striving for excellence
(Hamachek, 1978). Depression, a nagging “I should” feeling, feelings of shame and
guilt, face-saving behavior, shyness, procrastination, and self-depreciation were over-
lapping behaviors that Hamachek associated with both normal and neurotic perfec-
tionists, but the neurotic perfectionists exhibited greater intensity of these behaviors
for longer time periods. A debate exists in the literature whether there is a true con-
struct of “healthy perfectionism” as asserted by Hamachek; some such as Greenspon
(2000) have argued that perfectionism can only be viewed negatively and should not
be equated with striving toward excellence (Greenspon, Parker, & Schuler, 2000).
However, in the main, researchers contend that perfectionism is multidimensional
with both healthy and unhealthy aspects (Chan, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012; Parker, 1997;
Schuler, 2000; Speirs Neumeister, 2004a, 2004b).
Frost, Marten, Lahart, and Rosenblate (1990) used Hamachek’s (1978) construct of
perfectionism to create the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (F-MPS) as a means
to assess six dimensions of perfectionism:
Concern Over Mistakes (CM): equating mistakes with failure and having nega-
tive reactions to failure,
Personal Standards (PS): setting excessively high expectations,
Parental Criticism (PC): the perception of how parents criticize,
Doubt of Actions (DA): doubting the quality of one’s performance,
Parental Expectations (PE): perception of parent expectations, and
Organization (O): preference for order and organization.
The positive constructs of perfectionism, including conscientiousness, order, and
endurance (Stumpf & Parker, 2000), are linked to high scores in PS and O. However,
high PS partnered with unhealthy dimensions of perfectionism (CM, DA, PE, PC) has
also been linked to negative, maladaptive behaviors (e.g., Dixon, Lapsley, & Hanchon,
2004; Parker, 1997). CM, DA, PE, and PC are understood as unhealthy dimensions of
perfectionism because they have been correlated with maladaptive behaviors (Frost,
Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1991).
Linking Perfectionism and OEs
Although Dabrowski does not include a definition of perfectionism in his explanation
of TPD, the negative emotions associated with multidimensional perfectionism can be
Mofield and Parker Peters 411
viewed as a context for positive disintegration to occur. Dabrowski’s theory includes
“self-perfection” as a dynamism that can be experienced at the higher levels of devel-
opment, but this is different from healthy/unhealthy perfectionism in the context of
this manuscript. Piechowski (1997) and Silverman (1994) noted that from a
Dabrowskian perspective, perfectionism is a dimension of OEs that can drive the indi-
vidual to move toward self-perfection and higher levels of development. Silverman
(1990) shared,
Within the context of Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration, perfectionism takes
on a whole new meaning. It becomes understood as an early form of the drive toward
self-perfection, and it is closely allied with the multi-level dynamisms: positive
maladjustment, feelings of guilt, feelings of shame, inferiority toward oneself, disquietude
with oneself, and dissatisfaction with oneself (Piechowski, 1975). (p. 39)
It has been hypothesized that perfectionism begins as a facet of Emotional OE and
evolves into a drive for self-perfection (Silverman, 1990). Although the healthy/
unhealthy perfectionism constructs are not synonymous with Dabrowski’s “self-
perfection” (a dynamism experienced at highest levels of TPD), the negative emotions
associated with perfectionism at lower levels can be transformational catalysts for
higher levels (Kane, 2009; Silverman, 1990). When one uses these negative emotional
experiences related to perfectionism for self-examination, the soil is fertile for the
context of positive disintegration.
This link between perfectionism and OEs can be further clarified through an under-
standing of Dabrowski’s dynamisms. Within the context of TPD, dynamisms are central
autonomous forces that drive disintegration. Mendaglio (2002) summarized them as
forces, biological or mental in nature, that control behavior and its development.
Dabrowski (1972) described them as instincts, drives and intellectual processes combined
with emotions. Some dynamisms refer explicitly to a person’s experiencing intense
negative emotions, such as guilt and shame. (p. 17)
Ackerman (2009) noted Dabrowski’s theory regarding the development of dyna-
misms, explaining that OEs are primary contributors in the development of dyna-
misms. Dabrowski believed that the tension between dynamisms included
maladjustment and transformation that were positive for the individual. Relevant to
perfectionism, through the dissatisfaction with oneself and self-critical attitude, these
dynamisms may spark a new perspective on life, transcending self-centered instincts
toward achieving higher levels of being an altruistic human being (Mendaglio, 2002,
2008). Silverman (1990) explained how perfectionism may interact with negative
dynamisms:
The consistent messages that perfectionists receive throughout life convince them that
there is some basic flaw in their personality that must be eradicated. This greatly
exacerbates the amount of inner conflict with which they must cope. Not only do they
feel shame, guilt and inferiority for not meeting their own standards; in addition, they feel
shame, guilt and inferiority for having all this inner conflict. (p. 40)
412 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
Because OEs are primary contributors of dynamisms (Ackerman, 2009), and nega-
tive dynamisms relate to the inherent emotions of perfectionism (Kane, 2009;
Silverman, 1990, 2007), we can deduce and hypothesize with Silverman (1990; Kane,
2009) and Piechowski (1997) that OEs relate to perfectionism.
Silverman (2007) explained this reasoning in a discussion of perfectionism within
Dabrowski’s five levels. She noted that unhealthy perfectionism might manifest in
Level II within TPD. Here, the individual experiences distress when he does not live
up to the expectations of others, magnifies his mistakes over strengths, and relies on
self-affirmation from others for validation of worth. The dynamisms associated with
this level include the beginning of shame, temperamental adjustment, and changeable
identification with others (Mendaglio, 2008). Silverman’s (2007) descriptions of Level
III explain the qualities often described about healthy perfectionists (e.g., Frost et al.,
1991; Schuler, 2000). In Level III, the individual desires to do his very best, motivated
by a drive to fulfill one’s potential, not to fulfill the expectations of others (Silverman,
2007). The dynamisms in Level III reveal the development of an inner conflict and
positive maladjustment. This includes feelings of guilt, disquietude (e.g., self-
criticism), dissatisfaction with oneself, and inferiority toward oneself (Ackerman,
2009; Silverman, 2007). Negative self-critical tendencies emerge, creating a platform
for heightened self-awareness (Mendaglio, 2008). In Level IV, perfectionism thrusts
one toward self-actualization. The individual is motivated toward self-perfection by
self-acceptance and commitment in making “one’s vision a reality.” The dynamisms of
self-control, self-awareness, self-education, and creativity surface in this level. Finally,
in the highest level of development, Level V (also known as secondary integration), the
individual no longer struggles with inner conflict, doubt, or striving toward perfection.
“One consistently acts in accordance with one’s highest principles, in harmony with
universal good” (Silverman, 2007, p. 110). Dynamisms of empathy, autonomy, and
authenticity are the driving developmental forces (see Ackerman, 2009).
We know that perfectionism is manifested by an intense awareness of expectations
(Cross, 1997). Relevant to gifted individuals and perfectionism, heightened intelli-
gence may also cause complex interactions with self-referent feedback from the social
environment (Pyryt, 2008), which may influence negative emotions such as feelings of
inferiority and inadequacy (Piechowski, 1997). However, in light of Dabrowski’s the-
ory, this sets a context for burgeoning developmental potential. Pyryt (2008) explained,
“Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration would suggest that perceived positive or
negative aspects of perfectionism would be intricately linked with levels of develop-
ment” (p. 181). Dabrowski described psychoneuroses as expressive symptoms of one’s
internal and external conflicts, including the dynamisms described above such as dis-
satisfaction with oneself, guilt, and feelings of inferiority, all related to perfectionism.
In sum, the interaction of OEs with the dynamisms is relevant to the discussion of per-
fectionism and capacity to move along the continuum of development. OEs in context
of Dabrowski’s theory of TPD and recent investigations on multidimensional perfec-
tionism go hand in hand. Perfectionism need not be eliminated, rather, positive aspects
should be enhanced; within TPD, negative emotions associated with OE need not be
eliminated, but channeled to propel one toward growth and development.
Mofield and Parker Peters 413
Statement of the Problem
It has been noted in the literature that gifted students who display OEs, particularly
Emotional OE, experience heightened self-perceptions of criticism and expectations
of others or self (Silverman, 1997). This increased awareness is highly relevant to the
interpersonal and intrapersonal aspects of perfectionism. Piechowski (1997) noted that
Emotional OE could speed the process of self-evaluation, whereas Intellectual and
Imaginational OEs can magnify self-criticism. On a related note, gifted individuals’
self-analytic abilities and high intelligence can influence them to harshly criticize
themselves (Reis & Moon, 2002). Tieso (2007) noted that OEs may “intensify emo-
tional and intellectual insight, creating a tendency toward perfectionism, unrealistic
expectations, and social and intellectual asynchrony” (p. 12). Several authors who are
well-versed in the theoretical elements of Dabrowski’s theories (e.g., Piechowski,
1997; Silverman, 1994; Tillier, 2006) posit that perfectionism is a manifestation of
OE, but there is minimal empirical validation. There have been claims that a relation-
ship exists between sensitivity, intensity, and perfectionism (e.g., O’Connor, 2002;
Pyryt, 2008; Silverman, 1994; Tieso, 2007), although there remains a paucity of quan-
titative research exploring the relationship of these constructs through the lens of OEs
and Dabrowski’s TPD. White (2007) examined the link between perfectionism and
OEs among 98 gifted and nongifted teenagers. Using instruments designed by the
researcher, she found significant positive correlations between all OEs (except
Psychomotor) and perfectionism. She also determined that participants with the high-
est levels of perfectionism also had at least four high-level OEs, especially Intellectual,
Emotional, and Imaginational. Additional research is needed to further explore con-
clusions that perfectionism finds its roots in the intensities of OEs. Moreover, investi-
gating the interaction of OEs with dimensions of healthy and unhealthy perfectionism
would extend our understanding of perfectionism as it relates to developmental poten-
tial. Using other instruments with proven technical adequacy related to the constructs
of multidimensional perfectionism would also further our understanding of how spe-
cific healthy and unhealthy perfectionism dimensions might interact with OEs.
Purpose of the Study
The present study explored the connection of OEs and facets of perfectionism in gifted
students. Perfectionism includes the manifestation of sensitively responding to self or
other-imposed expectations. Silverman (1990) noted that perfectionism could be a key
factor in emotional OEs and relate to various dynamisms. Using Dabrowski and
Piechowski’s (1977) ideas on TPD and recommendations made by White (2007), it
was hypothesized that emotional vulnerability to expectations, intellectual drive
toward a standard, and the capacity to imagine perfection would extend to perfection-
ism. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perfectionism
and OEs in gifted adolescents. In addition, the study examined the extent to which OEs
were predictors for healthy and unhealthy dimensions of perfectionism. It was hypoth-
esized that Emotional OE would have the strongest relationship with perfectionism
414 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
and be the strongest predictor, given that it relates to heightened awareness of self and
sensitivities of expectations. It was also hypothesized that Intellectual and Imaginational
OEs would interact with Emotional OE to predict dimensions of perfectionism, given
that these three OEs are significant in Dabrowski’s TPD to move one to higher levels
of development. The researchers did not expect to find significant relationships
between Sensual and Psychomotor OEs with dimensions of perfectionism because
these constructs are not as relevant to the underlying aspects of perfectionism.
Method
Sample
Participants included 130 gifted students in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. These
students were identified as gifted based on the state’s eligibility criteria, which
includes an evaluation of cognition, academic achievement, and creativity.
Participants were volunteers from three public suburban schools in the Southeast.
All students participated in the district’s gifted and talented program. In all, 115
(88.5%) of these students were ethnically identified as Caucasian, 5 (4%) as African
American, 5 (4%) as Asian, 4 (3%) as Hispanic, and 1 as Other. The sample con-
sisted of 68 (52%) females and 62 (48%) males. Findings from this study are only
generalizable to populations with similar demographics. Participants completed
both the Goals and Work Habits Survey (GWHS; Schuler, 1994) and the
Overexcitability Questionnaire–Two (OEQ-II; Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski, &
Silverman, 1999) in a pull-out class for gifted and talented students. Researchers
obtained parental consent from participants to take the surveys. Participants were
given 30 min to complete both instruments.
Instrumentation
Assessment of perfectionism. We evaluated levels of perfectionism with the GWHS
(Schuler, 1994). The GWHS is a modified version of the Frost MPS (Frost et al., 1990)
that includes items with a different verb tense (past to present) for some of the response
items. Schuler (1994) changed the title in an attempt to reduce the likelihood that stu-
dents would show bias in their responses based on the title alone. The modified instru-
ment has been validated (Schuler, 1997; Schuler & Siegle, 1994), and it was normed
using gifted middle school students with a nationwide population representing broad
racial, social, and economic levels. The GWHS consists of 35 response items using a
5-point Likert-type scale. The response ranges are on a continuum from strongly agree
to strongly disagree. The subscales include CM, PS, PE, PC, DA, and O (Organiza-
tion). Higher scores indicate higher levels of that measured dimension of perfection-
ism. Schuler and Siegle (1994) found an overall coefficient alpha of .87 (as cited in
Schuler, 1997). Unhealthy perfectionism was noted by CM, PE, PC, and DA scores,
whereas healthy perfectionism was noted by PS and O dimensions (Frost, Heimberg,
Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Stumpf & Parker, 2000).
Mofield and Parker Peters 415
Assessment of OEs. OEs were assessed by the OEQ-II (Falk et al., 1999). This self-
report measure consists of 50 items with a 5-point Likert-type scale. Each response
ranges on a continuum from not at all like me to very much like me. Sensual OE is mea-
sured by responses to items such as “the varieties of sound and color are delightful”;
Imaginational OE response items include “things that I picture in my mind are so vivid
that they seem real to me”; Intellectual OE response items include “theories get my mind
going”; Psychomotor OE response items include “if an activity is physically exhausting,
I find it satisfying”; and Emotional OE response items include “I worry a lot.” Internal
reliability Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were reported as .86 for Psychomotor OE, .89 for
Sensual OE, .85 for Imaginational OE, .89 for Intellectual OE, and .84 for Emotional OE.
Results
Pearson product–moment correlations were used to determine the strength and direc-
tion of relationship between OEs and dimensions of perfectionism. The OE and per-
fectionism means, standard deviations, and correlations are shown in Table 1.
Step-wise multiple regression procedures were used to determine the extent that each
OE score and their interactions (as measured by the OEQ-II) predicted six outcome
variables: CM, PS, PE, PC, DA, and O (as measured by GWHS). In instances of miss-
ing data, participant scores were removed from the analysis.
A forward step-wise regression method was used to determine which specific OEs
make meaningful contributions to the overall prediction. F values were inspected to
determine the significance of each model. Standardized regression coefficients (beta
weights) were inspected to determine the contribution of each variable within each
significant model. Adjusted R2 was inspected to determine the magnitude of the asso-
ciations (effect size) within each significant model. Several regression equations were
tested. Order of variables added to the equation was determined by statistical software
(StatView™), which entered the OE with the highest semipartial correlation to the
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Dimensions of Perfectionism and
Overexcitabilities.
Emotional Intellectual Imaginational Psychomotor Sensual
3.28 (.70) 3.50 (.75) 3.12 (.87) 3.60 (.82) 3.26 (.78)
CM 21.58 (6.80) .27** .18* .08 .17 .16
DA 11.36 (3.14) .26** .19* .27** .23* .07
PE 17.31 (3.49) .14 .06 .07 .11 .14
PC 10.09 (3.66) .07 .07 .26** −.01 .12
PS 24.33 (4.94) .32** .29** −.07 .17 .15
O 21.14 (5.81) .28** .14 −.12 −.05 .17
Note. CM = Concern Over Mistakes; DA = Doubt of Actions; PE = Parental Expectations; PC = Parental
Criticism; PS = Personal Standards; O = Organization.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
416 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
dependent variable first. For example, to determine predictors for CM, the following
equations were tested for significance:
Step 1: Y + +.=
CM 0Emotional OE
ββ ε
Step 2: Y = + + +.
CM 0Emotional OE Intellectual OE
ββ βε
Step 3: Y = + + +
CM 0Emotional OE Intellectual OE Imaginat
ββ ββ
iional OE +.ε
Step 4: Y = + + +
CM 0Emotional OE Intellectual OE Imaginat
ββ ββ
iional OE Psychomotor OE
++
.
βε
Step 5: Y = + + +
CM 0Emotional OE Intellectual OE
Imaginat
ββ β
βiional OE Psychomotor OESensual OE
+++.ββε
In predicting CM, one significant model was produced (see Table 2). In Step 1 of
the tested models, Emotional OEs accounted for 7% of the variance in students’ CM
perfectionism scores, R2 = .07, F(1, 122) = 9.29, p = .003, adjusted R2 = .06 (small-
moderate). There was a significant positive correlation between Emotional OE and
CM, indicating that students with higher Emotional OE had higher CM (r = .27,
p = .003). Although not a significant predictor in the model, there was also a positive
correlation between Intellectual OEs and CM (r = .18, p = .04).
When predicting PS, three significant models were produced. The first model revealed
Emotional OEs accounted for 10% of the variance in students’ PS perfectionism scores,
R2 = .10, F(1, 123) = 14.15, p < .0003, adjusted R2 = .10 (moderate). There was a signifi-
cant positive correlation between Emotional OE and PS (r = .32, p = .0002). Step 2
showed that Emotional OE and Imaginational OE combined accounted for 15% of the
variance in PS scores, R2 = .15, F(2, 123) = 10.92, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .14 (large),
adjusted R2 = .04. There was a positive correlation between Intellectual OE and PS
(r = .29, p = .001). Finally, Step 3 of the regression model showed a three-variable
model: a combination of Emotional, Imaginational, and Intellectual OEs accounted for
20% of the variance in students’ PS perfectionism scores, R2 = .20, F(3, 123) = 10.21,
p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .18 (large), adjusted R2 = .04. The slope of the regression line
for Imaginational OE was negative (β = −.32) in the three-variable model, although the
bivariate correlation was not statistically significant (r = −.07, p = .44).
In predicting PE scores, no models were significant. However, in predicting PC scores,
the first model was significant. In Step 1, Imaginational OEs accounted for 7% of the
variance in PC, R2 = .07, F(1, 122) = 8.63, p = .004, adjusted R2 = .06 (small to moderate);
there was also a positive correlation between the two variables (r = .26, p = .004).
When predicting DA, two models were significant. First, Imaginational OEs
accounted for 9% of the variance in DA scores, R2 = .09, F(1, 123) = 11.28, p = .001,
adjusted R2 = .08 (moderate to large). In the second model, a combination of
Imaginational and Psychomotor OEs predicted DA scores, R2 = .13, F(2, 123) = 8.75,
p = .0003, adjusted R2 = .11 (large), adjusted R2 = .03. There was a significant positive
relationship between Imaginational OEs and DA (r = .27, p = .002) and between
Mofield and Parker Peters 417
Psychomotor OEs and DA (r = .23, p = .01). Moreover, there was a significant correla-
tion between Emotional OEs and DA (r = .26, p = .003) and Intellectual OEs and DA
(r = .19, p = .03), although not significant predictors in the model.
In predicting Organization, two significant models were produced by Step 1 and
Step 2. First, Emotional OEs accounted for 8% of the variance in students’ Organization
scores, R2 = .08, F(1, 123) = 10.25, p = .002, adjusted R2 = .07 (small-moderate). Step
2 revealed that a two variable model (combination of Emotional OEs and Imaginational
OEs) accounted for 15% of the variance on Organization scores, R2 = .15, F(2, 123) =
10.50, p < .0001, adjusted R2 = .13 (approaching large), adjusted R2 = .06. The slope
of the regression line for Imaginational OEs in this model was negative (β = −.29).
There was also a positive correlation between Emotional OEs and Organization (r =
.28, p = .002); a negative correlation was noted between Imaginational OEs and
Organization, although not significant (r = −.12, p = .18).
Discussion
The results enhance our understanding of the relationship between OEs and perfec-
tionism in addition to showing how OEs are predictors for specific dimensions of
perfectionism. In the context of Dabrowski’s TPD, high sensitivities, anxieties, and
perfectionism are characteristic of high developmental potential (Tillier, 2006).
Dabrowski (1972) believed that individuals with high levels of OE have strong develop-
mental potential and are thus predisposed to higher levels of personality development.
Dabrowski (1967) also noted that three OEs (Emotional, Intellectual, and Imaginational)
Table 2. The Prediction of Overexcitabilities on Perfectionism Scores: Results of Step-Wise
Multiple Regression Analyses (Significant Models Only).
Criterion variable Predictor variable B SE B F R2
Adjusted
R2
ΔAdjusted
R2
Concern Over
Mistakes
Step 1 Emotional OE 2.49 .81 .27 9.29* .07 .06
Doubt of Action Step 1 Imaginational OE 1.04 .31 .29 11.28*** .09 .08
Step 2 Imaginational OE × 1.01 .31 .28 8.75*** .13 .11 .03
Psychomotor OE .78 .32 .20
Parental Criticism Step 1 Imaginational OE 1.06 .36 .26 8.63* .07 .06
Personal Standards Step 1 Emotional OE 2.26 .60 .32 14.15*** .10 .10
Step 2 Emotional OE × 2.95 .64 .42 10.92*** .15 .14 .04
Imaginational OE −1.38 .52 −.24
Step 3 Emotional OE × 2.21 .68 .32 10.21*** .20 .18 .04
Intellectual OE × 1.78 .64 .27
Imaginational OE −1.81 .53 −.32
Organization Step 1 Emotional OE 2.30 .72 .28 10.25*** .08 .07
Step 2 Emotional OE × 3.28 .76 .40 10.50*** .15 .13 .06
Imaginational OE −1.95 .62 −.29
Note. OE = overexcitability.
*p < .01. ***p < .001.
418 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
are necessary for the highest levels of personality development and creativity. The
present study’s findings reveal how the OEs interact and relate to both unhealthy and
healthy perfectionism.
Healthy Perfectionism and OEs
The relationship between high PS and Emotional OE explains that gifted individuals
with high PS have heightened awareness of self-imposed expectations. The scrupulous
self-examination and intensified sense of responsibility in Emotional OE (Daniels &
Piechowski, 2009) are manifested in high PS. Items targeting PS included “It is impor-
tant to me that I be thoroughly competent in everything I do” and “I expect higher
performance in my daily tasks than most people.” Thus, the intensity of feeling as
expressed in Emotional OEs is related to intense personal expectations. In addition,
Emotional OEs were positively related to preference for organization and order, sug-
gesting that a higher awareness of self and self-imposed expectations also relates to a
higher awareness of the need for order in pursuing set goals.
Healthy dimensions of perfectionism (PS and Organization) were both predicted by
high Emotional OE, in addition to its interaction with low Imaginational OE. PS was
also predicted by an interaction of high Emotional OE, low Imaginational OE, and
high Intellectual OE, suggesting an interaction of sensitivity, lower preference for
imagination (Imaginational OE), and high preference for learning and analysis
(Intellectual OE) predict the priority for setting high standards of excellence. The neg-
ative predictive relationship between Imaginational OE and healthy perfectionism is
not a surprise because the striving toward perfection hinders creativity (Imaginational
OE). If one is too concerned about making mistakes, he will be unlikely to entertain
the risks involved in creativity, as expressed in Imaginational OEs. Perhaps students
who are most imaginative and creative are less concerned with achieving a lofty stan-
dard and more concerned with the process of creating. This finding, however, is only
noted with the interaction with Emotional OE (and Intellectual OE for PS); bivariate
correlations between Imaginational OE and PS and Organization were not significant.
Intellectual OEs were positively correlated with PS, suggesting that the higher the
preference for analysis, theorizing, and learning, the higher the student’s need to
achieve a high standard.
Unhealthy Perfectionism and OEs
Unhealthy aspects of perfectionism were significantly predicted by Emotional OEs
and Imaginational OE. Emotional OE predicted CM, explaining that an individual
may be highly concerned about avoiding failure because he or she is so sensitive to
self-evaluations and self-criticism. This individual may experience intense emotions
as a result of potential failure (Emotional OE). Furthermore, a positive correlation
exists between Emotional OE and CM, as well as DA (although it was a small correla-
tion for DA). Imaginational OE, the release of emotional tension through the imagina-
tion, as manifested in daydreaming, wandering attention, animism, and distraction,
Mofield and Parker Peters 419
was a positive predictor for DA scores, the insecurities of not feeling good enough.
This finding is somewhat consistent with C. M. Gross et al. (2007), who found that
Imaginational OE was negatively correlated with 10 out of 11 self-concept subscores.
It is plausible that these students can imagine perfection, but they question their per-
formance ability to attain it. Their imaginational tendencies can magnify self-criticism
(Piechowski, 1997), as they might imagine their flaws are more than they actually are
or imagine themselves to be less capable than they truly are. Those with high
Imaginational OE may mix fantasy with reality and are highly creative. Perhaps they
feel they are too “outside the box” to perform to the level of society’s idea of a high
standard of perfection. Therefore, they doubt and question their performance abilities.
Imaginational OEs also predicted PC scores. Perhaps these students imagine more
criticism than exists, or perhaps parents are critical of students’ imaginational
tendencies.
A small positive correlation between Intellectual OEs and DA suggests that those
who have high preference for analyzing, solving problems, strive for understanding,
value learning over achievement, probe for answers, and enjoy analysis, theoretical
thinking, and logic (Daniels & Piechowski, 2009) also have insecurities about their
daily performance and tasks. The strong intellectual power to analyze can be translated
to self-criticism (Piechowski, 1997). These students may feel that their performance is
not commensurate with their abilities, which is inherent in the very nature of perfec-
tionism of never feeling good enough for what’s expected. In addition, Imaginational
and Psychomotor OEs interacted to predict DA. This was somewhat surprising to the
researchers because there is practically no discussion (to our knowledge) of
Psychomotor OE and its relationship with perfectionism in the existing literature,
although Psychomotor OE is positively correlated with self-concept subscores in C.
M. Gross et al.’s (2007) study. Nevertheless, this finding illuminates how a child char-
acterized as hyperactive (manifested through Psychomotor OE) and highly creative
(manifested through Imaginational OE) may question his abilities and feel like he is
not adequate enough when pursuing set standards.
It is interesting that the socially prescribed aspects of perfectionism (PC and PE)
were not predicted by Emotional OEs, suggesting that the sensitivities of expectations
for perfection are manifested from the self, not from perceived socially imposed
expectations of parents. Although other correlations were found (Intellectual OE and
CM, and DA), they were quite small (less than .20) and were not noted in regression
models.
Significance of Findings
In sum, the findings consistently suggest that Emotional OEs (characterized by strong
and wide-ranging emotions and thorough self-examination) may influence healthy
perfectionism and some unhealthy perfectionism (i.e., CM). Healthy perfectionism is
also influenced by a combination of Emotional OE, Intellectual OE, and low
Imaginational OE. Unhealthy perfectionism is influenced by high Emotional OE (CM)
and high Imaginational OE (DA/PC). This study supports the connection between OEs
420 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
and perfectionism, especially the role of Emotional OEs. This may help explain the
unique manifestation of perfectionism in gifted students because their intense emo-
tional awareness of their own personal expectations can translate into perfectionism.
However, through a Dabrowskian lens, this is not entirely negative, especially because
Emotional OEs are most highly related and predictive of healthy perfectionism. The
relationship of Emotional OEs to healthy perfectionism supports the idea that those
with higher Emotional OEs envision high personal goals to be achieved and are self-
aware of the order and organization necessary to achieve them.
Dabrowski’s theory notes that dynamisms and the interaction of Imaginational,
Emotional OE, and Intellectual OEs raise one to higher levels of personality develop-
ment. The present findings, however, show that low Imaginational OEs (not high)
were significant in the regression models for healthy perfectionism. Imaginational OE
is the release of emotional tension through the imagination, as manifested in day-
dreaming, wandering attention, animism, and distraction. Perhaps the factor that
healthy perfectionists need to help them move from Level III to Levels IV and V is the
ability to engage in more creative, imaginational thinking. Inherent in perfectionism is
fear of failure; thus, perfectionism can inhibit creativity and risk-taking in learning.
But, what if students could embrace their endowed intensities for creativity, risk-tak-
ing, fantasy, and imagination? What if students could be less concerned about avoid-
ing failure and more focused on the joys of pursuing an ideal, absent egocentric
motivations? Only then can they can break through to higher levels where there is
complete self-acceptance and available energy for constructive work in pursuing
“what should be” (Silverman, 2007). If different aspects of perfectionism come out as
varied dynamisms at different levels of TPD, then when coupled with OEs, an indi-
vidual has great potential to move toward higher levels of development.
It seems that role of Imaginational OE is what differentiates influences of healthy
and unhealthy perfectionism. Hypothesizing that the capacity to imagine the ideal would
translate into perfectionism, White’s (2007) findings showed that high Imaginational
OEs were related to perfectionism. On the contrary, the current study supports these
claims by revealing Imaginational OE’s role in predicting unhealthy perfectionism and
its inverse predictive relationship with healthy perfectionism. In the context of TPD,
students in the present study with higher healthy perfectionism scores may not have the
profile of having the big three (Emotional, Intellectual, and Imaginational OE) compo-
nents of developmental potential to move toward higher levels. This finding, however, is
only suggestive because results are not from categorical investigations of types of per-
fectionists, only continuous scores of subtests. Perhaps once individuals are free to be
more creative risk-takers (which may be revealed in Imaginational OEs), they will be
better positioned for growth. It is important to keep in mind that Dabrowski asserted that
OEs are hereditary. So, we are not suggesting that Imaginational OEs can be developed,
but perhaps social environments can be chosen or adapted to better nurture what’s already
there, creating a safe context for creative talent to emerge. Those working with the gifted
can help them understand that by embracing their OEs through self-awareness and under-
standing the value of perfectionism beyond self-serving interests, these intensities and
strivings may be channeled constructively toward achieving developmental potential.
Mofield and Parker Peters 421
Findings show a glimpse of breaking through negative self-critical tendencies asso-
ciated dynamisms in the lower levels on to higher realms of development. We must
clarify, however, that the negative emotions associated with OEs themselves are not
what moves one toward higher development. Tillier (2009) explained some of the
common misconceptions of Dabrowski’s theory, including
it is not the experience of pain or suffering of the intensity of emotions per se that leads
to growth, it is the individual’s consequent self examination and emerging insight into
day-to-day life and a deeper, more conscious and multilevel understanding of his or her
reactions. (p. 125)
It is the OEs and other factors, which can create the stress for this internal conflict to
occur, setting the stage for reflective growth and a changed worldview (Tillier,
2009).
Limitations and Future Directions
Although our results are valuable and add to the existing literature, there are some
important limitations. Our research is limited by selection bias, relatively small
sample size, and the lack of random selection of students. The sample included 130
students, who generally lacked ethnic diversity. The sample’s representation from a
suburban school district also limits external generalizability. The instruments were
entirely self-report in nature; thus, students’ responses may have been influenced
by social desirability. Specific to this study, perfectionists concerned with self-
presentation might be unwilling to disclose honest responses on self-reported sur-
veys. Doing so would be an open indication of distress or an open admission of
failure (Habke, Hewitt, & Flett, 2001, as cited in Flett & Hewitt, 2002). Moreover,
it has been documented that gifted students try to shield others from knowing about
their personal distress (Gross, 1998), pointing to the fact that responses on survey
instruments may not reflect a true picture of a gifted student’s perfectionistic ten-
dencies. Future studies should consider use of instruments beyond self-report
measures to eliminate this confound. Perhaps future research could implement mul-
tiple stakeholders’ observations and perceptions regarding student thoughts and
behaviors.
In addition, the present study is purely quantitative. Although we have correlations,
data, and significance to share, there is certainly a need for additional qualitative mea-
sures to further understand the connections between the OEs and perfectionism.
Moreover, although the study sheds light into the relationships of OEs and perfection-
ism, we do not know specifically at what levels of the hierarchy the interactions are
taking place. Qualitative investigation would be needed to decipher these details. As
echoed in Sondergeld, Schultz, and Glover (2007), solely focusing on quantitative
data will likely lead to missed components of the measured construct, OEs and perfec-
tionism in this case. A mixture of qualitative and quantitative measures should be
implemented to gain the benefits of each method.
422 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
In interpreting our data, we notice that although many correlations are significant,
they are relatively small correlations. Additional caution should be made in interpret-
ing results from step-wise regression models since there is an increased risk for mak-
ing a Type I error (Mundry & Nunn, 2009). We should also be careful in translating
findings from the use of parametric statistics because it is argued that OEs should not
be conceptualized as continuous variables with a normal distribution (Mendaglio,
2012).
Given these limitations, we are hesitant to make the conclusion that OEs influence
perfectionism until researchers employ both qualitative and additional quantitative
studies to further examine these relationships. However, these findings offer an initial
glimpse into the way in which intensities and perfectionism interact. The study is valu-
able in showing how OEs relate to and predict specific dimensions of perfectionism,
illuminating insight into the role of imaginational OE, especially. With the understand-
ing that perfectionism (both healthy and unhealthy) is a tendency to work through and
manage, those working with the gifted can help them embrace the virtues and vices of
perfectionism, beyond an egocentric pursuit of self-interest to a more humanitarian
ideal of what ought to be. Although the interaction of OEs themselves can influence
both internal and external conflicts, they can also be used to help overcome these con-
flicts (Mendaglio, 2012). Thus, it is promising that the emotional tension associated
with unhealthy and healthy perfectionism can create a context to “disintegrate” lower
personality structures with their interaction of OEs, as one pursues more autonomous
ideals.
Conclusion
The findings help us glean deeper insight into the relationships of OEs and perfection-
ism. Educators and practitioners can encourage the gifted individual to embrace OEs
in the context of Dabrowski’s TPD (Mendaglio, 2002) and help the child become
aware of self-expectations and the expectations of others. Through this awareness, the
dynamisms associated with perfectionism such as shame, guilt, and inferiority can be
replaced by the dynamisms of self-awareness, creativity, and authenticity. Findings
continue to support the idea to not eliminate perfectionism altogether, but to embrace
perfectionism, the good and the bad, with the self-awareness to move toward achiev-
ing developmental potential. Perhaps when parents, students, and educators more fully
understand the concept of OEs and its impact on students, all parties will be able to
point these behaviors toward a more functional pattern, rather than one that may be
labeled as disruptive. A greater understanding could also lead to the development of
targeted coping strategies, specific to OEs. These could help students to control and
channel said intensities and sensitivities in a positive, productive, and meaningful way
(Alias, Rahman, Majid, & Yassin, 2013). What if, instead of thinking about these
intensities as liabilities, educators viewed them as assets (Alias et al., 2013)? As poten-
tial to be developed? We should not fight or squelch the unique strengths manifested
as OEs in some of our gifted students. Rather, we should work with these intensities to
see what can evolve. Why fix something that is already so uniquely beautiful?
Mofield and Parker Peters 423
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
Ackerman, C. (2009). The essential elements of Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration
and how they are connected. Roeper Review, 31, 81–95.
Adderholdt-Elliott, M. R. (1991). Perfectionism and the gifted adolescent. In M. Bireley & J.
Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, development, and mul-
ticultural issues (pp. 65–75). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Adler, A. (1973). Superiority and the social interest: A collection of later writings. New York,
NY: Viking Press.
Alias, A., Rahman, S., Majid, R., & Yassin, S. (2013). Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities profile
among gifted students. Asian Social Science, 9, 120–125.
Baum, S. M., Olenchak, F. R., & Owen, S. V. (1998). Gifted students with attention deficits:
Fact and/or fiction? Or, can we see the forest from the trees? Gifted Child Quarterly, 42,
92–104.
Brown, G. P., & Beck, A. T. (2002). Dysfunctional attitudes, perfectionism, and models of
vulnerability to depression. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory,
research, and treatment (pp. 231–252). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Burns, D. D. (1980, November). The perfectionist’s script for self-defeat. Psychology Today,
pp. 34–52.
Chan, D. W. (2007). Positive and negative perfectionism among Chinese gifted students in
Hong Kong: Their relationships to general self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 77–102.
Chan, D. W. (2009). Dimensionality and typology of perfectionism: The use of the Frost
Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale with Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 53, 174–187.
Chan, D. W. (2010). Perfectionism among Chinese gifted and nongifted students in Hong Kong:
The use of the Revised Almost Perfect Scale. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34,
68–98.
Chan, D. W. (2012). Life satisfaction, happiness, and the growth mindset of healthy and
unhealthy perfectionists among Hong Kong Chinese gifted students. Roeper Review, 34,
224–233.
Clark, B. (2002). Growing up gifted (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Cross, T. L. (1997). Psychological and social aspects of educating gifted students. Peabody
Journal of Education, 72, 180–200.
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality shaping through positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness: Neuroses and psychoneuroses from the
perspective of positive disintegration. London, England: Gryf.
424 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
Dabrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of levels of emotional development (Vols.
1 & 2). Oceanside, NY: Dabor Science.
Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M. (Eds.). (2009). Living with intensity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Delegard, D. K. (2004). The role of perfectionism in anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and inter-
nalized shame (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI.
Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Hanchon, T. A. (2004). An empirical typology of perfectionism
in gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 95–106.
Falk, R. F., Lind, S., Miller, N., Piechowski, M. M., & Silverman, L. (1999). The Overexcitability
Questionnaire-Two (OEQII): Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire. Denver, CO:
Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoreti-
cal, definitional, and treatment issues. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M. (2002). Perfectionism, anxiety, and obsessive-compulsive dis-
order. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment
(pp. 341–371). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer, A. L. (1993). A comparison
of two measures of perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119–126.
Frost, R. O., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1991). The development of perfectionism: A study of
daughters and their parents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.
Gere, D., Capps, S., Mitchell, W., Grubbs, E., & Dunn, W. (2009). Sensory sensitivities of
gifted children. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 288–295.
Goldner, E. M., & Cockell, S. J. (2002). Perfectionism and eating disorders. In G. L. Flett
& P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 319–340).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Greenspon, T. S. (2000). “Healthy perfectionism” is an oxymoron! Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 11, 197–208.
Greenspon, T. S., Parker, W. D., & Schuler, P. A. (2000). The author’s dialogue. Journal of
Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 209–215.
Gross, C. M., Rinn, A. N., & Jamieson, K. M. (2007). Gifted adolescents’ overexcitabilities and
self-concepts: An analysis of gender and grade level. Roeper Review, 29, 240–248.
Gross, M. U. M. (1998). The “me” behind the mask: Intellectually gifted students and the search
for identity. Roeper Review, 20, 167–175.
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology,
15, 27–33.
Kane, M. (2009). Contemporary voices on Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration.
Roeper Review, 31, 72–76.
Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Mendaglio, S. (1995). Sensitivity among gifted persons: A multi-faceted perspective. Roeper
Review, 17, 169–172.
Mendaglio, S. (2002). Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration: Some implications for
teachers of gifted. AGATE, 15(2), 14–22.
Mendaglio, S. (2003). Heightened multifaceted sensitivity of gifted students: Implications for
counseling. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 72–84.
Mofield and Parker Peters 425
Mendaglio, S. (2008). Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration: A personality theory for
the 21st century. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration (pp.
13–40). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Mendaglio, S. (2012). Overexcitabilities and giftedness research: A call for a paradigm shift.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 207–219.
Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration and gifted-
ness: Overexcitability research findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 68–87.
Mika, E. (2002). Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration. Retrieved from http://www.
talentdevelop.com/articles/DTOPD.html
Mika, E. (2006). Research commentary point-counterpoint: Diagnosis of giftedness and ADHD.
Roeper Review, 28, 237–242.
Mundry, R., & Nunn, C. (2009). Stepwise model fitting and statistical inference: Turning noise
into signal pollution. American Naturalist, 173, 119–123.
O’Connor, K. J. (2002). The application of Dabrowski’s theory to the gifted. In M. Neihart, S.
M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of
gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 51–60). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Pacht, A. R. (1984). Reflections on perfectionism. American Psychologist, 39, 386–390.
Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children.
American Educational Research Journal, 34, 545–562.
Parker, W. D. (2002). Perfectionism and adjustment in gifted children. In G. L. Flett & P. L.
Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 341–372). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. J. (1996). The incidence of perfectionism in gifted students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 40, 194–199.
Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and
emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280–282.
Piechowski, M. M. (1975). A theoretical and empirical approach to the study of development.
Genetic Psychology Monographs, 92, 231–297.
Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. Colangelo
& G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285–306). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Piechowski, M. M. (1997). Emotional giftedness: The measure of intrapersonal intelligence. In
N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 366–381).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Piechowski, M. M. (2006). “Mellow out,” they say. If I only could: Intensities and sensitivities
of the young and bright. Madison, WI: Yunasa Books.
Piirto, J. (2010). 21 years with the Dabrowski theory: An autoethnography. Advanced
Development Journal, 12, 68–90.
Portesova, S., & Urbanek, T. (2013). Typology of perfectionism in a group of mathemati-
cally gifted Czech adolescents over one decade. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33,
1116–1144.
Pyryt, M. (2008). The Dabrowskian lens: Implications for understanding gifted individuals.
In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration (pp. 157–173).
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Reis, S. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). Models and strategies for counseling, guidance, and social
and emotional support of gifted and talented students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M.
Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children:
What do we know? (pp. 251–265). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
426 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(4)
Rimm, S. (2007). What’s wrong with perfect? Clinical perspectives on perfectionism and under-
achievement. Gifted Education International, 23, 114–121.
Roberts, S., & Lovett, S. (1994). Examining the “F” in gifted: Academically gifted adolescents’
physiological and affective responses to scholastic failure. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 17, 241–259.
Schuler, P. A. (1994). Goals and work habits survey. Unpublished instrument. Storrs: University
of Connecticut.
Schuler, P. A. (1997). Characteristics and perceptions of perfectionism in gifted adolescents
in a rural school environment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Storrs: University of
Connecticut.
Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 11, 183–196.
Schuler, P. A. (2002). Perfectionism in gifted children and adolescents. In M. Neihart, S. M.
Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of
gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 71–79). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Schuler, P. A., & Siegle, D. (1994). [Analysis of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale with
middle school adolescents]. Unpublished data.
Shavinina, L. (Ed.). (2009). International handbook on giftedness. New York, NY: Springer.
Siegle, D., & Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism differences in gifted middle school students.
Roeper Review, 23, 39–45.
Silverman, L. K. (1990). The crucible of perfectionism. In B. Holyst (Ed.), Mental health in a
changing world (pp. 39–49). Warsaw, Poland: The Polish Society for Mental Health.
Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society.
Roeper Review, 17, 110–116.
Silverman, L. K. (1997). The construct of asynchronous development. Peabody Journal of
Education, 72(3–4), 36–58.
Silverman, L. K. (2007). Perfectionism: The crucible of giftedness. Gifted Education
International, 23, 101–113.
Sondergeld, T., Schultz, R., & Glover, L. (2007). The need for research replication: An example
from studies on perfectionism and gifted early adolescents. Roeper Review, 29, 19–25.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004a). Factors influencing the development of perfectionism in
gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 259–274.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004b). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism and
achievement motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 219–231.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2007). Perfectionism in gifted students: An overview of current
research. Gifted Education International, 23, 122–131.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Finch, W. H. (2006). Perfectionism in high ability students:
Relational precursors and implications for achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50,
238–251.
Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural analysis of perfectionism and its
relation to other personality characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
837–852.
Tieso, C. L. (2007). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and their parents:
A hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 11–22.
Tillier, B. (2006). Kazimierz Dabrowski: The theory of positive disintegration and education.
Retrieved from http://www.positivedisintegration.com/
Tillier, W. (2009). Dabrowski without the Theory of Positive Disintegration just isn’t Dabrowski.
Roeper Review, 31, 123–126.
Mofield and Parker Peters 427
White, S. (2007). The link between perfectionism and overexcitabilities. Gifted and Talented
International, 22, 55–65.
Author Biographies
Emily L. Mofield, EdD, is a consulting teacher for gifted education in Sumner County Schools,
TN. She has taught as a gifted education teacher for 10 years. Her research interests are on the
social-emotional needs of gifted students and the impact of appropriate differentiated curricu-
lum for gifted learners.
Megan Parker Peters, PhD, is an assistant professor and the director of Teacher Assessment at
Lipscomb University. She is co-editor of the National Association for Gifted Children’s
(NAGC) Teaching for High Potential publication. Her current research interests include exam-
ining the impact of perfectionism on coping, the relationships among socioemotional factors
and giftedness, and the academic and external factors that predict student success.
CopyrightofJournalfortheEducationoftheGiftedisthepropertyofSagePublicationsInc.
anditscontentmaynotbecopiedoremailedtomultiplesitesorpostedtoalistservwithout
thecopyrightholder'sexpresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,or
emailarticlesforindividualuse.
