Overexcitabilities reconsidered: what intensity does and does not say about giftedness

In care settings, professionals often encounter children, adolescents, and adults who, alongside fast thinking, also react intensely, appear restless, or seem to feel “too much.” In such cases, reference is frequently made to overexcitabilities (OEs), a popular concept within the field of giftedness that describes intensities on emotional, imaginative, sensory, intellectual, or psychomotor levels. For quite some time, these OEs have been presented as typical characteristics of gifted individuals. However, recent scientific research paints a very different, more nuanced picture. For professionals who seek every day to understand what lies beneath behavior, that nuance is essential.

Why definitions matter

One key reason why the debate around OEs remains so complex is that giftedness is not defined in the same way everywhere. These differences in definition have a clear impact on both research and practice, and they largely determine which groups become visible and which remain under the radar.

At Hoogbloeier®, for example, we work from a developmental model such as Gagné’s (2004), in which giftedness is understood as cognitive potential that can develop into talent when the right context and support are in place. From this perspective, cognitive abilities, learning characteristics, and developmental dynamics are central, with a strong focus on how someone thinks, learns, and approaches problems. This does not mean that non-cognitive personal characteristics—such as emotional, sensory, or psychomotor intensity—are considered unimportant. On the contrary: these characteristics can clearly influence how smoothly or how laboriously cognitive potential develops into visible talent. Within this framework, they are seen as factors that shape and influence the developmental process, but not as an essential or defining component of giftedness itself.

Other approaches place the emphasis differently and do consider intensity to be an essential component of giftedness. Within those frameworks, cognitive strength and intensity are often taken together, meaning that individuals who are cognitively strong but show less pronounced intensity are sometimes categorized under a different label, such as “highly intelligent.” This distinction says less about the person themselves than about the theoretical starting point that is being used.

These differences in perspective inevitably have consequences for research. When studies primarily include participants who meet a definition in which intensities are central, it is only logical that intensities also feature prominently in the findings. This does not necessarily point to a universal characteristic of giftedness, but rather highlights how selection criteria help determine what becomes visible.

The same mechanism also operates in practice. Every organization, research group, and care professional works from a particular framework. Those who primarily focus on cognitive characteristics will mainly encounter cognitively strong profiles; those who treat intensity as a core criterion will more often meet individuals for whom such intensities are foregrounded. This is therefore not a matter of right or wrong, but of different perspectives, each illuminating only part of the whole.

The recent meta-analysis by Olszewski-Kubilius and colleagues (2025) makes this very clear. Once giftedness is defined strictly in cognitive terms, the statistical relationship between OEs and giftedness disappears. Only intellectual OE shows a moderate association with giftedness—and even then, only in studies where students had already been identified for program selection. When giftedness is measured purely cognitively, the relationship disappears entirely.

This does not mean that intensities cannot occur in cognitively strong individuals, but it does mean that intensity in itself is not a reliable criterion for identifying giftedness. These findings invite nuance: OEs may play a role in how some gifted individuals experience the world, but they are neither a necessary nor a universal building block of giftedness. For care and education professionals, this means that intensity is not a diagnosis and not a signal of giftedness. It is a way of experiencing the world that can occur in anyone, with or without high cognitive abilitie

When intensity is misunderstood

This does not mean that intensity is unimportant, as we have already noted. On the contrary. When a gifted person struggles with emotions, experiences overstimulation, or frequently ends up in conflict, professionals understandably look for explanations. When intensity is used as an all-encompassing explanatory concept, without further differentiation between cognitive, contextual, and developmental factors, there is a risk that behavior is interpreted too broadly and not described with sufficient precision.

A child who becomes angry because instructions sound illogical is not necessarily being defiant. A young person who questions everything is not always doing so out of resistance, but because they are searching for meaning. An adult who withdraws intensely does not have to be “too emotional”; they may simply be thinking deeply or becoming quickly overwhelmed.

In all of these cases, the behavior calls for interpretation, not labels. Intense reactions tell us something about how someone processes and experiences situations, but they should not automatically be seen as a characteristic of giftedness in itself. Only when intensity is considered separately from the label can it be meaningfully interpreted as a signal that guides support, rather than as proof for or against giftedness.

What you can do as a professional instead

Psycho-education remains a powerful tool in this context, provided it is grounded in realistic and scientifically supported frameworks. Rather than presenting intensity as a typical or defining characteristic of giftedness, it is more helpful to focus the conversation on how someone processes information, how they make meaning of their experiences, and where the limits of their capacity lie. This includes jointly exploring which situations trigger or overwhelm someone, and which skills—such as emotion regulation, planning, or dealing with sensory input—are still developing. By making these aspects explicit, intensity can be placed within the broader picture of someone’s functioning, without elevating it to a criterion for giftedness.

In this way, a child can discover that it makes sense they think faster than they write, because those skills do not develop at the same pace. An adolescent can learn to see that their critical questions are valuable, while also understanding that timing and context help preserve relationships. An adult who has spent years seeing themselves as “too sensitive” can come to realize that intensity in itself says nothing about their worth or ability.

A new lens for practice

The greatest risk of the traditional approach to OEs is that meaning is too quickly assigned to behavior. Intense reactions are then readily interpreted as an indication of giftedness: this child is intense, therefore probably gifted. Such reasoning may feel validating, but in practice it rarely leads to effective support. It merely shifts the perspective from one framework to another, drawing attention away from a careful analysis of what is actually going on.

The recent meta-analysis invites a far more precise and thoughtful perspective. It shows that intensity in reactions is highly individual and occurs across a wide range of profiles, independent of cognitive abilities. Giftedness, by contrast, is primarily expressed through cognitive complexity: in the way someone processes information, makes connections, and approaches problems—not in how emotionally, psychomotorically, or sensorily intense they are. This distinction is essential, because effective support must start from concrete needs and observations, not from assumptions tied to a label.

This shift does not make support more complicated, but rather more honest and effective. By disentangling intensity from cognitive giftedness, space is created to better align support with what a client truly needs. Intense behavior is not ignored or minimized, but repositioned: it is examined in relation to context, coping capacity, and development.

This means that professionals need to ask different, more targeted questions. For example: Is there a mismatch between the task and the person’s cognitive capacity? Is there overstimulation due to sensory factors, independent of cognitive strength? Is there a pronounced need for logic, predictability, or structure that is not being sufficiently met? Or does frustration arise because someone thinks faster than they can execute, for instance due to limitations in planning, motor skills, or processing speed?

By placing such questions at the center, practitioners come closer to the client’s true profile—not by immediately labeling behavior, but by understanding it in relation to cognitive, non-cognitive, and contextual factors. This insight makes it possible to tailor interventions very precisely to what someone actually needs. That may involve targeted skills training when certain executive functions are still developing, support with emotion regulation when tension escalates quickly, adjustments in sensory load in cases of overstimulation, or clear and explicit communication when implicit expectations lead to misunderstandings. Where appropriate, additional cognitive challenge can also be introduced—not as a reward, but as a necessary adjustment to the person’s level of thinking. It is precisely this level of specificity that makes support not only more effective, but also more humane and better aligned with the lived reality of the individual in front of us.

Conclusion

Overexcitabilities can offer valuable points of entry for understanding behavior, but they are not a compass for identifying or guiding giftedness. The strength of good care lies in careful observation, nuanced interpretation, and thoughtful alignment with what someone truly needs.

When care professionals adopt this nuance, space opens up for an approach that is less driven by labels and more grounded in actual needs. Intensity then loses its status as a defining trait that “makes” or “characterizes” someone, and is instead understood as a variation in human experience.

References

• Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813042000314682

• Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Steenbergen-Hu, S., Calvert, E., Richert Corwith, S., & Bright, S. (2025). A meta-analysis of research on the relationship between overexcitabilities and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862251370377

Copyright © 2026 Dr. Sabine Sypré – All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author. Sharing online is permitted provided the author is credited and a link to this article is included.