Systematic review and meta-analysis uncover no general emotional intelligence advantage in gifted individuals, highlighting dimension-level variance.
Differences in emotional intelligence (EI) between gifted and non-gifted peers are commonly proposed, yet available evidence remains equivocal, likely reflecting heterogeneity in EI conceptualization and assessment. We conducted a preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative observational studies conducted since 1990 and available in English, French, Italian, Turkish, Portuguese, or Spanish (OSF registration DOI: blinded). ERIC, MEDLINE, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, PsycInfo, ResearchGate, and TESEO were searched on 8 June 2023 and updated, plus Scopus and WoS, on 26 May 2025; additionally, specialist journals were hand-searched, and reference lists were screened. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and resolved disagreements by consensus (third-reviewer adjudication). Of 684 records screened, 61 full texts were assessed, and 29 studies met the inclusion criteria. We synthesized group differences using 28 dimension-specific random-effects meta-analyses, estimating standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals and prediction intervals to gauge expected effects in new samples. EI outcomes were classified by theoretical framework (ability vs. trait-mixed) and measurement modality (performance-based vs. self-report). Across dimensions, pooled effects provided no evidence of systematic EI differences between gifted and nongifted students. Adaptability was the sole dimension favoring gifted students; however, its prediction interval included negative values, indicating limited generalizability and context-dependent effects. Overall, the evidence does not support a generalized EI advantage associated with giftedness, underscoring the importance of dimension-level synthesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferrándiz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: