Personality predicts academic achievement above and beyond intelligence. However, studies investigating the possible interaction effects between personality and intelligence when predicting academic achievement are scarce, as is the separate investigation of broad personality factors versus narrow personality facets in this context. Two studies with 11th grade students (Study 1: N = 421; Study 2: N = 243) were conducted to close this research gap. The students completed the Intelligence-Structure-Test 2000 R measuring general reasoning ability, and a well-established personality inventory based on the Five Factor Model. Academic achievement was operationalized via Grade Point Average. Using hierarchical regression and moderation analyses, Study 1 revealed that Conscientiousness interacted with intelligence when predicting academic achievement: there was a stronger association between intelligence and academic achievement when students scored higher on the Conscientiousness scale. Study 2 confirmed the findings from Study 1 and also found a moderation effect of Neuroticism (stronger association between intelligence and academic achievement with lower values on the Neuroticism scale). Analyses at the facet level revealed much more differentiated results than did analyses at the domain level, suggesting that investigating personality facets should be preferred over investigating personality domains when predicting academic achievement.

Studies investigating the life satisfaction of intellectually gifted and nongifted students are scarce and often suffer from methodological shortcomings. We examined the life satisfaction of gifted and nongifted adolescents using a rather unselected sample of N = 655 German high-school students (n = 75 gifted), adequate comparison groups of nongifted students, and a clear definition of giftedness (general intelligence g > 2 SD above the mean). There was no difference in life satisfaction between gifted and nongifted adolescents (d < |0.1|). Girls reported somewhat lower life satisfaction scores than boys (d = 0.24). However, this result was not specific to giftedness but was instead found across the entire sample. Thus, gifted girls were not found to be especially unsatisfied with their lives. Our findings support previous research showing that giftedness is not a risk factor for impaired psycho-social well-being of boys or girls.

Negative stereotypes about intellectually gifted individuals prevail among teachers and in society although empirical research has debunked them. They are also dominant in mass media representations of gifted individuals such as newspaper reports. The present study investigated whether stereotypic representations in newspaper articles contribute to the stigmatization of gifted individuals and whether nonstereotypic, evidence-based representations might help destigmatize gifted individuals. Two randomized controlled studies with N = 431 and N = 432 university students, respectively, were conducted. In both experiments, the stereotypic representation caused more negative attitudes toward gifted individuals (d = 0.86/0.81), whereas the evidence-based representation caused more positive attitudes (d = −0.54/−0.58), compared with a control group. Quality of previous relationships with gifted persons moderated both effects to some extent; however, both effects were quite robust against potential moderators. Results indicate that the media should be aware of their influence on recipients’ attitudes. Giftedness researchers should more actively join in the public debate to counteract stigmatization of intellectually gifted individuals.

Evidence-based knowledge about intellectual giftedness is important for identifying, counseling, and fostering intellectually gifted students. How much teachers actually know about intellectual giftedness is unclear because previous studies have relied solely on self-reports. This study aimed to: (a) develop a test for the assessment of teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness defined as an intellectual capacity significantly above average, the identification of giftedness, and characteristics of gifted students; and (b) inspect some correlates of teachers’ performance on a knowledge test. The final version of the test comprised 38 items and a true–false–do-not-know response format. Sixty-three German secondary school teachers completed the test. On average, teachers answered 26.8% of the items correctly, 34.7% incorrectly, and 38.1% with “do not know.” The higher teachers’ rate of misconceptions, the more negative was their attitude toward fostering gifted students. Personal contact with the gifted was correlated with subjective knowledge but not with assessed knowledge. The results stress the importance of intellectual giftedness as a psychological topic to be addressed during teacher education.