Print or print to save as PDF.
⚂ 9.1.1 Openness to experience versus overexcitability.
⚂ 9.1.1 Openness to experience versus overexcitability.
⚃ 9.1.1.1 Overview.
In 2016, M. A. Vuyk and Barbara Kerr, (senior author) published two
articles that presented the case that overexcitability could be subsumed
under the five factor model construct of openness to experience.
≻ In making this claim, they suggested that the construct of
overexcitability/TPD no longer be pursued in the field of gifted
education, rather, the field should utilize the five factor model to
analyse the personality of students.
≻ In 2021, Grant published a rejoinder that was followed by a
comment by Vuyk and Kerr.
⚃ 9.1.1.2 Background.
The approach we see today of using traits to describe personality
owes its history to the idea that the words we use in everyday language to
describe personality should have some explanatory power – these
words ought to reflect personality in real life.
≻ This so-called lexical hypothesis was based on making a list of
all the words in the dictionary that describe personality.
≻ Wikipedia tells us that in 1884, Sir Francis Galton investigated
the hypothesis that it is possible to derive a comprehensive taxonomy of
human personality traits by sampling language.
≻ This initiative was followed up by Gordon Allport who reported his
results in 1936.
≻ In 1943, Raymond Cattell, then used factor analysis to eventually
derive 16 factors that he felt were descriptive of personality, and he
developed a very a successful test (16 PF questionnaire).
Another thread was based on the work of Carl Jung and developed into
the popular Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
≻ Timothy Leary developed an approach that was the basis of the
subsequent development of the popular circumplex models (and circumflex
models have also been integrated with the five factor model).
≻ Goldberg developed the lexical big five (BF), introduced in 1981.
The five factor model approach is also based on a lexical analysis
using factor analysis to arrive at five major factors that appear to be
descriptive of personality.
≻ The current iteration was promoted by Costa and McCrae (see:
McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & John, 1992).
≻ For a balanced introduction, see Dignan, 1990.
It is not my intention to review trait theory or the five factor
model here.
≻ Suffice to say, there are many criticisms and variations of the
five factor model.
≻ One significant critical article appeared in 1992 written by Dan
McAdams.
There are many different trait models in the psychological
literature, usually based on different assumptions made in the statistical
analysis used.
≻ For example, Eysenck, proposed a three trait solution using:
Extroversion, Neuroticism (or Emotional Instability) and Psychoticism.
≻ The HEXACO model uses a six factor solution including honesty
– humility.
Eysenck's hierarchical model (above)
DeYoung 2010
⚃ 9.1.1.3 Details.
"In TPD, OEs represent manifestations of inner energy indicating potential for advanced moral and emotional development and might be common in gifted individuals (Dąbrowski, Kawczak & Piechowski, 1970)" (Vuyk, Kerr, & Krieshok, 2016, p. 61).
"Mendaglio and Tillier (2006) called imaginational,
intellectual, and emotional OEs the Big Three based on Dąbrowski et
al.’s (1970) claim that these OEs might screen for giftedness and
early emergence of talents and interests" (Vuyk, Kerr, & Krieshok,
2016, p. 63).
≻
I do not see in our article where we claimed that OEs have any role in
screening for giftedness.
"Openness to experience is the personality domain or factor that appears equivalent to OEs when comparing conceptual descriptions" (Vuyk, Kerr, & Krieshok, 2016, p. 64).
"For example, the most important personality theory in
psychology is the FFM, a theory that has strong generalization across
cultures and ages (McCrae, 2010; McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005).
≻ The FFM can provide an explanation of behaviors described by OEs
in a more parsimonious theory" (Vuyk, Krieshok, & Kerr, 2016,
p.192).
"Openness facets and OEs appear to represent the same
construct, and thus the giftedness field would benefit from discussing the
construct as the personality trait of openness to experience.
≻ Subotnik et al. (2011) urged gifted education to use the vast body
of psychological research to inform practice.
≻ In this case, the FFM is the personality model with the strongest
research support and professional acceptance in the present day"
(Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1999) (Vuyk, Krieshok, & Kerr, 2016,
p. 205).
"OEs and facets of OtE are similar constructs.
≻ The literature Vuyk et al. (2016a) reviewed shows this.
≻ This similarity is noted by proponents of the TPD and others
(e.g., Gallagher, 2013; Limont et al., 2014; Silverman, 2016).
≻ But, the Vuyk et al. (2016a) study does not support claims to
'call it like it is,' as they subtitle the first of their
papers.
≻ The claims include: OEs and facets of OtE 'are the same
underlying construct with different names' (p. 205); 'all five
OEs can be entirely represented by a facet of openness(p. 203)'"
(Grant, 2021, p. 129).
"But the FFM is just one model in the field of personality
studies, and the TPD is just one theory used in gifted education.
≻ Any descriptions that either can provide about the characteristics
of gifted students are just some of many possible descriptions.
≻ Personality psychology does not have a single paradigm (Weiss,
2018)" (Grant, 2021, p. 132).
"The FFM is not a theory and cannot replace the TPD, which is a theory" (Grant, 2021, p. 133).
"We cannot stand by and watch a theory gain wider and uncritical acceptance while knowing that many children will not receive the educational interventions necessary to develop their talent or the psychological interventions necessary to alleviate their suffering" (Vuyk & Kerr, 2021, p. 140).
"If the author believes that our claim that OEs should be replaced by Openness to Experience and the FFM is too strong because it is based on one study, we want to remind readers that we make this claim not alone but built upon previous studies of both constructs. We must also admit to actually intending to make a strong claim. While we acknowledge that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, we are also aware that as female scholars, we often must make bold claims in order to be heard and cited. Our keen awareness of gender and privilege also inform our approach to OEs; the strong sense that one has when reading a theory that 'this does not apply to people of my (gender) (ethnicity) (social class)' is often the motivation for a critique of a theory" (Vuyk & Kerr, 2021, p. 140).
"Our keen awareness of gender and privilege also inform our approach to OEs; the strong sense that one has when reading a theory that 'this does not apply to people of my (gender) (ethnicity) (social class)' is often the motivation for a critique of a theory (Vuyk & Kerr, 2021, p. 140).
⚃ 9.1.1.4 Editorial comment.
Conceptually, lexical trait personality models, like the big five,
are focused on describing the different facets (or factors) of
personality.
≻ On the other hand, Dąbrowski was concerned with trying to
create a theory that could explain the lowest and most vicious behaviours
he observed, and, as well, behind the highest and most noble behaviours.
≻ This hierarchical stratification reflected his multilevel
approach.
≻ But, Dąbrowski was not simply interested in description: he
wanted to understand the difference between the lower and higher
personalities.
≻ His conclusion was that at the lower level, there was no true
individual personality, behaviour reflected either biologically governed
instinctual impulses or, socially governed and promoted behaviours.
≻ Then, he set about using his observations to create a theory to
explain how individual, authentic personality develops.
≻ This led to the conceptualization of the theory of positive
disintegration.
≻ Dąbrowski’s approach, from a conceptual point of view,
is extraordinarily different than a mere lexical description of
personality.
In my opinion, the various hypotheses that the constructs of the
theory of positive disintegration generate that may help understand gifted
individuals have not been adequately tested.
≻ No valid test has been created to examine psychoneuroses in the
gifted, or positive disintegration in the gifted.
More research needs to be conducted.
≻ Ideological arguments are not an adequate basis upon which to
suggest abandoning overexcitability, or for that matter, the theory of
positive disintegration.
I would also note that Vuyk & Kerr seem to have a fairly myopic
vision of the five factor model and are overconfident in their estimation
of its applications in modern psychology.
≻ The approach has a number of critics and there are also a number
of alternative approaches that appear to be as legitimate.
One of the criticisms that Vuyk & Kerr observed, is that
overexcitabilities have been taken out of context of the theory of
positive disintegration.
≻ As I read their articles, I suggest that they also have not
expanded their views to look at the whole theory, and what it may offer in
analysis of personality in the gifted.
Their comment about interventions necessary to alleviate suffering
do not give me confidence that they fully understand Dąbrowski's
approach.
≻ Strong overexcitability represents an opportunity to contribute
to, and, in conjunction and coordination with the other elements of the
theory, to lead to personality growth and not to simply
"suffering".
Finally, the authors do not seem to realize that if their hypothesis
is correct, it would also apply to the major application of the theory of
positive disintegration – the application to the general population.
≻ This should have at least been mentioned, but again, the authors
appear myopic and only see overexcitability in the gifted context.
⚂ 9.1.2 References.
Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dąbrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19 (4), 229-236.
Colangelo, N. & Zaffrann, R. T. (Eds.) (1979). New voices in counseling the gifted. Kendall/Hunt.
Dąbrowski, K. (1929). Les conditions psycholopique du suicide . Geneva.
Dąbrowski, Casimir (1937). Psychological basis of self mutilation. (W. Thau, Trans.) Genetic Psychology Monographs, 19 , 1-104.
Dąbrowski, K. (1967). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration. Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Dąbrowski, K. (1970). Multilevelness of Instinctive and Emotional Functions. Edmonton: Department of Psychology, University of Alberta.
Dąbrowski, K. (1974). Multilevelness of Emotional and Instinctive Functions Vol. I: Theory and Description of Levels of Behavior. Edmonton: Department of Psychology, University of Alberta.
Dąbrowski, K. with Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of Levels of Emotional Development: Volume 1 - Multilevelness And Positive Disintegration. Oceanside, New York: Dabor Science Publications.
Dąbrowski, K. (1996). Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions. Part 1: Theory and description of levels of behavior. Lublin, Poland: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. [Published in English with a new preface by Czeslaw Cekiera. 446 pages. ISBN # 83-86668-51-2. Published in one soft cover binding along with Part 2.]
Dąbrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. (1972). Multilevelness of Instinctive and Emotional Functions Vol. 2: Types and Levels of Development. Edmonton: Department of Psychology, University of Alberta.
Dąbrowski, K. & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of Levels of Emotional Development: Volume 2 - From Primary Integration To Self-Actualization. Oceanside, New York: Dabor Science Publications.
Dąbrowski, K. & Piechowski, M. M. (with Marlene [Rankel] and Dexter R. Amend). (1996). Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions. Part 2: Types and Levels of Development. Lublin, Poland: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. [Published in English with a new preface by Czeslaw Cekiera. 446 pages. ISBN # 83-86668-51-2. Published in one soft cover binding with Part 1.]
De Bondt, N., De Maeyer, S., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2019). A rationale for including overexcitability in talent research beyond the FFM-personality dimensions. High Ability Studies, 32 (1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2019.1668753.
DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Personality Neuroscience and the Biology of Traits: Personality Neuroscience. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4 (12), 1165-1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00327.x.
Gallagher, S. (2021). Openness to experience and overexcitabilities in a sample of highly gifted middle school students. Gifted Education International, 026142942110532. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211053283.
Grant, B. (2021). Overexcitabilities and openness to experience are not the same: A critique of a study and reflections on theory, ethics, and truth. Roeper Review, 43 (2), 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1881852.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52 (5), 509-516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60 (2), 175-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.
Mendaglio, S. S. (2019). Overexcitability and Giftedness Research: Whose Constructs Are Being Investigated and How? In S. R. Smith (Ed.), Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 1-18). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_16-1.
Piechowski, M. M. (1975). A theoretical and empirical approach to the study of development. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 92, 231-297.
Piechowski, M. M. (1978). Self-actualization as a developmental structure: A profile of Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 97, 181-242.
Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N. Colangelo and R. Zaffrann (Eds.), New Voices in Counseling the Gifted (25-57). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt.
Piechowski, M. M. (1991). [Invited commentary.] Characteristics of the self-actualized person: Visions from the east and west. Counseling and Values, 36, 19-20.
Piirto, J. (1997, November). Twelve issues: Implications of post-modern curriculum theory for the education of the talented. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children Conference, Little Rock, AR.
Pyryt, M. C. (2008). The Dąbrowskian lens: Implications for understanding gifted individuals. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.). Dąbrowski’s Theory of Positive Disintegration (pp. 175-182). Scottsdale AZ: Great Potential Press, Inc.
Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (1993a). Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver: Love Publishing.
Silverman, L. K. (1993b). Counseling needs of the gifted. In K. Heller, F. Monks & A. H. Passow (Eds.), The international handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 631-647). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Stupak, R., & Dyga, K. (2018). Postpsychiatry and postmodern psychotherapy: Theoretical and ethical issues in mental health care in a Polish context. Theory & Psychology, 28 (6), 780-799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318802973
Tylikowska, A. (2000) Teoria dezintegracji pozytywnej Kazimierza Dąbrowskiego. Trud rozwoju ku tożsamości i osobowości. (Kazimierz Dąbrowski’s theory of positive disintegration. A struggle to develop towards identity and personality.) In: Gałdowa, A. (ed.) Tożsamość człowieka. (The human identity.) Kraków: Wydawnictwo UJ.
Vuyk, M. A., & Kerr, B. (2021). Openness to experience and overexcitabilities, a jangle fallacy with ethical implications: A response to Barry Grant. Roeper Review, 43 (2), 139-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1881749.
Vuyk, M. A., Kerr, B. A., & Krieshok, T. S. (2016). From overexcitabilities to openness: Informing gifted education with psychological science. Gifted and Talented International, 31 (1), 59-71. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15332276.2016.1220796.
Vuyk, M. A., Krieshok, T. S., & Kerr, B. A. (2016). Openness to experience rather than overexcitabilities: Call it like it is. Gifted Child Quarterly. http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0016986216645407.
Wells, C., & Falk, R. F. (2021). The origins and conceptual evolution of overexcitability. Psychologia Wychowawcza, 62 (20), 23-44.
Winkler, D., & Voight, A. (2016). Giftedness and overexcitability: Investigating the relationship using meta-analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60 (4), 243-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216657588.
