A Scoping Review on Meaning in Life and in Work for Giftedness: Towards Sustainable Talents

Abstract

Meaning in life and meaning in work are increasingly recognized as relevant for gifted individuals’ careers, even if they remain underexplored in the literature. This article presents a scoping review examining studies on meaning in life and/or work among gifted populations across multiple databases. Fourteen studies were included from 854 records, encompassing both quantitative and qualitative studies. This scoping review mapped the theoretical frameworks used, identified how giftedness was operationalized, examined methodological approaches, highlighted key themes and gaps in existing literature about meaning in life and meaning in work among gifted individuals. The findings provide perspectives for better understanding meaning in life and meaning in work in gifted populations, also offering research directions for career development studying sustainable talents.

Keywords

Meaning in life meaning in work well-being giftedness sustainable talent career development scoping review

Introduction

The notion of talent has been examined from multiple disciplinary perspectives, remaining a multifaceted construct understood as a dynamic interplay of potential, ability, motivation, and contextual influences enabling individuals to achieve excellence (Di Fabio, 2022; Maree, 2019; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2025a, 2025b).

According to Nijs et al. (2014), talent relates to excellence both interpersonally (performing better than others), and intrapersonally (achieving one's personal best). Talent is not considered as a fixed trait but as a continuous process through which individuals realize their potential over time (Dixson et al., 2024; Olszewski-Kubilius et al., 2022, 2024). Building on Dweck and Leggett's (1988) distinction between entity and incremental theories, Di Fabio (2022) underlines two perspectives: the entity approach sees talent as inherent and stable, while the incremental approach considers it malleable and improvable through learning and effort. Meyers et al. (2013) propose a continuum from natural aptitude to acquired skill, highlighting the interplay between biological predispositions and developmental experiences. Context also shapes how talent is expressed and recognized. Micro-level influences (mentors, peers, relationships) and macro-level factors (cultural norms, societal expectations) affect how potential is cultivated (Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1986; Feldman, 1986). Thus, talent can be understood as a dynamic synthesis of innate potential, learned skills, and environmental influence (Worrell et al., 2025), encompassing not only performance excellence but continuous growth and adaptation (Di Fabio, 2022; Maree, 2019, 2024b; Subotnik et al., 2023, 2022).

Building on this, Di Fabio (2022) offers an integrated framework on talent within the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development (Di Fabio, 2017a, 2017b; Di Fabio & Cooper, 2023; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018, 2023; Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018, 2020; Rosen & Di Fabio, 2023). This framework on talent pays attention to educational, organizational, social, positive, and counseling psychology contributions, also introducing sustainable talent. In educational psychology, talent is seen as innate giftedness (Gagné, 2004; Meyers et al., 2013); in organizational psychology, as individual differences enabling high performance (Hough & Oswald, 2000; Boyatzis, 2008); in social psychology, as a socially constructed phenomenon shaped by recognition and context (Dominick & Gabriel, 2009); in positive psychology as a set of personal strengths (creativity, wisdom, gratitude) that nurture intrinsic motivation (Peterson & Seligman, 2004); in counseling psychology as an expression of identity drawing on Guichard's (2013) Subjective Identity Form System (SIFS), emphasizing the evolving, multifaceted nature of the purposeful identitarian awareness (Di Fabio, 2014) for the twenty-first century for career success.

The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development broadens the discussion by introducing sustainable talent. Within Sustainability Science (Sahle et al., 2025; Takeuchi et al., 2017), the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development offers a psychological perspective that highlights the role of psychological processes in fostering sustainable development goals. Sustainable talent, in this view, is connected to the authentic self (Di Fabio, 2014) and grounded in personal values and interests. A critical component is the Self-attunement process (Di Fabio, 2014) that allows individuals to identify both objective talents “What am I able to do?” and subjective talents “What energizes and motivates me?” aligning them with meaningful goals (Guichard, 2013; Di Fabio, 2014). Sustainable talent also requires regenerative resources to be nurtured over time (Di Fabio, 2017b; Di Fabio & Maree, 2016), and supports the construction of sustainable personal and career projects grounded in meaning as the basis for an authentic self (Di Fabio & Blustein, 2016). An advancement on sustainable talent on conceptual definition is introduced by the sustainable development as a fourth paradigm for twenty-first century careers (Hartung & Di Fabio, 2024). The fourth paradigm underlines the need of advancing sustainable careers (De Vos et al., 2020; Van der Heijden & De Vos, 2015) considering “an inclusive perspective of respect for nature as a whole (animals, plants, and the planet) incorporating future generations and future life on the Earth” (Hartung & Di Fabio, 2024, p. 207). It is also promising to consider these aspects of the fourth paradigm for careers in the twenty-first century when taking care of sustainable talent, in terms of sustainability of my own talent as well as other peoples’ talent near and far in space and time (Di Fabio & Tsuda, 2018) and the Planet. This conceptualization of talent underlines long-term realization of individuals’ potential in authentic, value-driven, and socially beneficial ways (Di Fabio, 2022), not only in a selfish perspective but in an inclusive perspective including the Planet as a whole and the responsibility for current and future generations.

For gifted individuals, meaning in life and meaning in work constitute crucial dimensions that support psychological well-being, the realization of personal potential, and meaningful engagement in professional and social contexts (Schnell, 2009; Steger et al., 2012; Maree, 2019, 2024b; Di Fabio, 2022; Rodríguez-Fernández & Sternberg, 2024).

Existing research has examined meaning in life and, to a lesser extent, meaning in work among gifted individuals across educational, occupational, and counseling contexts (Maree, 2019, 2024b; Vötter & Schnell, 2019a; Di Fabio, 2022). However, this body of literature remains fragmented and heterogeneous. Studies draw on diverse theoretical frameworks and adopt varying operationalizations of giftedness (Vötter & Schnell, 2019a; Yuen et al., 2023a). As a result, a comprehensive mapping of theoretical and methodological trends is currently lacking, highlighting the need for a scoping review to explore this emerging field.

The aim of this scoping review was to identify what is known from the existing literature about meaning in life and meaning in work among gifted individuals.

The overall questions being addressed were:

Which theoretical frameworks have been used to study meaning in life and meaning in work within gifted populations?

How is giftedness operationalized in studies examining meaning in life and/or meaning in work?

What methodological approaches (quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods) are employed in the literature?

What key themes, research gaps, and future directions emerge from the literature regarding the development of talent in gifted individuals?

Consistent with established guidance on scoping review methodology, scoping reviews are particularly suitable for addressing broad research questions and for mapping the extent, range, and nature of research activity in complex or heterogeneous fields (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2015, 2020).

Method

This scoping review was conducted following established methodological frameworks for scoping reviews (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010; Peters et al., 2015, 2020) and considering PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018).

Search Strategy

A comprehensive search strategy was developed to identify the breadth of literature addressing meaning in life and meaning in work among gifted individuals. Electronic searches were conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO. These databases were selected for their interdisciplinary coverage and their relevance to psychological constructs of meaning, giftedness, and career-related research. In the search we also include grey literature sources (e.g., dissertations, conference proceedings, conference papers). For grey literature, search was also conducted in ProQuest, which is a specific database for dissertations.

In accordance with scoping review methodology, no restrictions were applied regarding study design or methodological approach. No limits on publication date were imposed in order to capture the development of the literature over time; the final search covered publications from 2005 to 2025.

The search strategy combined terms related to giftedness with terms related to meaning in life and meaning in work. Search strings were adapted to the specific requirements of each database, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Keywords and Search Strategy.

Database	Search Strategy	Keywords
Scopus	Article title, abstract and keywords	(“Gifted” OR “Giftedness”) AND (“Meaning” OR “Meaning in life” OR “Meaning in work” OR “Life meaning” OR “Work meaning”)
Web of Science	All Fields	(“Gifted” OR “Giftedness”) AND (“Meaning” OR “Meaning in life” OR “Meaning in work” OR “Life meaning” OR “Work meaning”)
PubMed	All Fields	(“Gifted” OR “Giftedness”) AND (“Meaning” OR “Meaning in life” OR “Meaning in work” OR “Life meaning” OR “Work meaning”)
PsycINFO	All Fields	(“Gifted” OR “Giftedness”) AND (“Meaning” OR “Meaning in life” OR “Meaning in work” OR “Life meaning” OR “Work meaning”)
ProQuest	Abstract	(“Gifted” OR “Giftedness”) AND (“Meaning” OR “Meaning in life” OR “Meaning in work” OR “Life meaning” OR “Work meaning”)

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility criteria was defined in accordance with the objective and guided by the Population–Concept–Context (PCC) framework (Peters et al., 2015, 2020).

Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

Population

- Studies involving gifted individuals or addressing giftedness.

Concept

- Studies explicitly addressing meaning in life and/or meaning in work in relation to giftedness.

- Both empirical quantitative and empirical qualitative studies were included in order to capture both measurable outcomes and lived experiences and perspectives.

Context

- Studies conducted in any educational or occupational context were eligible.

Types of Sources

- Articles and chapters, dissertations, conference proceedings, conference papers.

- Studies published in English, Spanish, Italian, or French were considered, as these languages were accessible to the research team.

Exclusion Criteria

Studies were excluded if they met any of the following criteria:

Studies not involving gifted individuals or not clearly addressing giftedness.

Studies that did not explicitly examine meaning in life or meaning in work in relation to giftedness.

Studies focusing solely on academic achievement, performance, or ability without reference to meaning-related constructs.

Studies not available in full text.

Data Extraction

Studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. First, duplicate records were removed from the databases. Titles and abstracts were then screened to identify studies relevant to the objectives of the review. Finally, when eligibility or relevant information could not be determined from the title and abstract alone, the full texts were examined to capture additional details. This approach allowed for a comprehensive mapping of the available evidence and identification of research gaps.

Data Synthesis Strategy

The selection process of the studies is illustrated in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1). Key characteristics and information from the included studies are summarized in Table 2, highlighting population, theoretical frameworks, methodology, operationalization of giftedness and main results. This presentation provides a descriptive overview of the available evidence and helps to identify research gaps and areas for future investigation.

Figure 1.

Study selection flow chart according to the PRISMA statement (Page et al., 2021).

Table 2.

Characteristics of the Included Studies in the Scoping Review Presented in Alphabetical Order.

ID	Article	Country	Study Participants	Theoretical Framework	Methodology	Operationalization of Gifted/giftedness	Focus on Meaning (life/work/both)	Meaning Measures/data Sources	Main Findings
ID1	Armstrong et al. (2018)	Canada	45 gifted children aged 6 to 12	Positive Psychology approach called R.E.A.L. (Rational Emotive Attachment Logotherapy)	Qualitative	Gifted children with an IQ above 130, identified by parents as exceptionally talented in one or more domains such as music, visual arts, mathematics, and others.	Meaning in life	The Ch.I.P. (long form) for children Survey – questions	The D.R.E.A.M. program, designed for gifted individuals, was shown to strengthen their sense of meaning in life and improve mental health. It fostered resilience and supported the development of their potential.
ID2	Di Fabio et al. (2024)	Italy	311 gifted adult workers	Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development	Quantitative (cross-sectional)	Talent-Development-Achievement-Domains (TAD) Framework and the Talent Development Mega-Model Performance is conceived as an indicator of giftedness.	Meaning in life Meaning in work	Meaningful Life Measure (MLM) Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI)	A three-profile model (A, B, C) was identified, with Profile C emerging as an “eminence” profile. These individuals showed high job performance, engagement, emotional intelligence, positive emotions, life and job satisfaction, meaning, flourishing, adaptability, and civility at work, along with low negative affect.
ID3	Dikaya & Ryzhova (2024)	Russia	280 gifted students aged 12 to 18	Meaning-in-Life Orientations psychological framework by Leont’ev	Quantitative (cross-sectional)	Admission to supplementary and gifted education centers relies on evaluating student portfolios alongside subject-specific and psychological assessments.	Meaning in life	Meaning-in-Life Orientations Test	Students attending gifted education centers reported a greater sense of meaning in life compared to their peers in regular secondary schools.
ID4	Maree (2019)	South Africa	A 17-year-old gifted young woman	Career Construction Theory	Qualitative	Potential or promise is initially the key criterion for giftedness. Later, actual achievement and, ultimately, eminence are the key criteria.	Meaning in life Meaning in work	Individual case study design. Naturalistic inquiry, situated in an interpretive paradigm	Career construction counseling can support gifted learners in uncovering central life themes that guide them toward meaningful and purposeful career decisions.
ID5	Maree (2024b)	South Africa	A 17-year-old gifted female student	Career Construction Theory	Qualitative	Potential or promise is initially the key criterion for giftedness. Later, actual achievement and, ultimately, eminence are the key criteria.	Meaning in life Meaning in work	Individual case study design. Individual case study design. Naturalistic inquiry, situated in an interpretive paradigm	The intervention supported the participant in choosing a career path that offered a sense of meaning, purpose, and hope in her professional life.
ID6	Pollet & Schnell (2017)	Austria	198 Intellectually Gifted, 141 academically High Achievers, and 136 control participants	Positive Psychology	Quantitative (cross-sectional)	“Giftedness as potential” Intellectually gifted adults (HIQ): IQ of 130 or higher “Giftedness as manifested talent” Academically high-achieving adults (HAA). All members of this group had earned a doctorate under the auspices of the President of the Republic.	Meaning in life Meaning in work	Meaningfulness scale from the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe) Meaningful Work Scale (MWS)	The intellectually gifted reported significantly lower values in both facets of well-being. Intellectually gifted individuals and high achievers pursue different routes to attain meaning and subjective well-being. For the intellectually gifted, generativity plays the most significant role in fostering a sense of meaning, while for high achievers, it is meaningful work that serves as the primary source.
ID7	Poirier et al. (2025)	Canada	219 identified as intellectually gifted adults	Not explicitly stated. Study of individual and environmental determinants.	Quantitative (cross-sectional)	To accurately reflect the gifted-as-potential model, only individuals officially identified as intellectually gifted through cognitive testing by a qualified psychologist were included.	Meaning in life	Meaning in Life and Crisis of Meaning scales of the Source of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire	Being twice-exceptional and having a lower socioeconomic background are associated with increased risk for developing psychological disorders. In contrast, being married or in a civil union, along with perceiving oneself as having high potential for achievement, serve as protective factors that support both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
ID8	Tirri & Ubani (2005)	Finland	Two girls, Ninety-five sixth-grade students (12-13 years of age).	Not explicitly stated but the authors refer to spirituality and morality as key components in the search for meaning	Qualitative	These students attend a specialized gifted school in Helsinki with a unique curriculum. Admission to third grade involves an entrance exam assessing linguistic, logical, and spatial skills.	Meaning in life	Interview - Phenomenological analysis	The cases of Jean and Susan illustrate that students with comparable academic abilities may hold distinctly different worldviews and life orientations. These variations influence their spiritual awareness and moral reasoning. Moreover, such worldviews may play a greater role than academic performance in shaping the career decisions of gifted girls.
ID9	van Casteren et al. (2021)	Netherlands	16 gifted adults were interviewed	Capability approach perspective	Qualitative	Intellectual giftedness is defined as having an IQ score within the 98th percentile.	Meaning in work	Qualitative approach. in-depth semi-structured interviews. Reflexive thematic analysis	Having the chance to make a meaningful contribution was highly important to the participants. They expressed a strong wish to apply their talents toward causes such as environmental protection, technological advancement, or the well-being of others. When their work environment did not support these values, participants often felt frustrated and sought opportunities to fulfill this need outside of work or even considered changing jobs.
ID10	Vötter (2020)	Austria and Germany	Two groups of gifted adults. The intellectually gifted adults HIQ group (N = 100) corresponds to the concept of “giftedness as potential.” The academically high-achieving adults HAA group (N = 52) corresponds to the concept of “giftedness as manifested talent."	Positive Psychology	Quantitative (longitudinal)	“Giftedness as potential” Intellectually gifted adults (HIQ): IQ of 130 or higher “Giftedness as manifested talent” Academically high-achieving adults (HAA): all members of this group earned a doctorate sub auspiciis praesidentis rei publicae, the highest academic distinction attainable for a Ph.D. student in Austria.	Meaning in Life	Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire	Individuals with high intellectual quotient (HIQ) reported greater crises of meaning and lower self-control compared to high-achieving adults (HAA). In the HIQ group, resilience mediated the relationship between meaning crises and subjective well-being, whereas in the HAA group, self-control fulfilled this mediating role.
ID11	Vötter & Schnell (2019a)	Austria and Germany	Gifted adult Two groups: high IQ group (HIQ): 100 participants; high academic achievers (HAA): 52 participants	Positive Psychology/Existential Psychology	Quantitative (longitudinal)	“Giftedness as potential” Intellectually gifted adults (HIQ): IQ of 130 or higher “Giftedness as manifested talent” Academically high-achieving adults (HAA) all participants of this group had obtained a doctorate sub auspiciis praesidentis rei publicae.	Meaning in Life	Meaningfulness scale from the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe)	Engaging in generative life orientations increased the sense of meaningfulness for both groups of gifted individuals, which in turn led to improvements in their subjective well-being over time.
ID12	Vötter & Schnell (2019b)	Austria and Germany	100 gifted adult	Positive Psychology/Existential Psychology	Quantitative (longitudinal)	“Giftedness as potential” Intellectually gifted adults (HIQ): IQ of 130 or higher (Highly intellectually gifted adults)	Meaning in life	Meaningfulness Scale from the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe)	Gifted adults reported notably lower levels of meaningfulness, subjective well-being, and self-compassion than the general population. Additionally, a strong sense of meaningfulness was found to be an important predictor of subjective well-being over time.
ID13	Yuen et al. (2023a)	China	264 upper primary and secondary school gifted students	Frankl's meaning triangle that has dimensions of Attitude, Creativity, and Experience	Quantitative (cross-sectional)	Academically high-achieving	Meaning in Life	Meaning in life in children questionnaire	Meaning in life served as a bridge linking social connectedness with both the experience of meaning in life and the pursuit of meaning.
ID14	Yuen et al. (2023b)	China	Upper primary and secondary school students: 540 regular students and 389 gifted students	Frankl's meaning triangle that has dimensions of Attitude, Creativity, and Experience	Quantitative (cross-sectional)	Academically high-achieving	Meaning in life	Meaning in Life Questionnaire- Short Form (MLQ-SF)	Gifted students demonstrated significantly higher underlying levels of agency, pathways, and presence of meaning in life compared to regular students. Additionally, there were positive correlations observed between hope and meaning in life.

Results

Study Selection

Figure 1 illustrates the PRISMA flowchart. The database search yielded a total of 854 records. After removal of duplicates, 436 records were screened based on titles and abstracts. Following this process, 81 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, 14 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final synthesis of this scoping review: ID1: Armstrong et al. (2018); ID2: Di Fabio et al. (2024); ID3: Dikaya & Ryzhova (2024); ID4: Maree (2019); ID5: Maree (2024b); ID6: Pollet & Schnell (2017); ID7: Poirier et al. (2025); ID8: Tirri & Ubani (2005); ID9: van Casteren et al. (2021); ID10: Vötter (2020); ID11: Vötter & Schnell (2019a); ID12: Vötter & Schnell (2019a); ID13: Yuen et al. (2023a); ID14: Yuen et al. (2023b).

Study Characteristics

Table 2 outlines the key characteristics of the studies, including year of publication, country, methodological approaches, theoretical framework, operationalization of gifted, employed measures, and main findings.

The included studies were conducted between 2005 and 2025 and were predominantly conducted in Europe: Austria (ID6, ID10, ID11, ID12), Germany (ID10, ID11, ID12), Netherlands (ID9), Italy (ID2), Canada (ID1, ID7), China (ID13, ID14), South Africa (ID4, ID5), Russia (ID3).

Regarding the participants, seven studies focused on gifted adults/workers (ID2, ID6, ID7, ID8, ID10, ID11, ID12), and seven studies involved gifted students or children (ID1, ID3, ID4, ID5, ID8, ID13, ID14).

Concerning the methodological approach, nine studies were quantitative (ID2, ID3, ID6, ID7, ID10, ID11, ID12, ID13, ID14) (among them three ID10, ID11, ID12 were longitudinal), and five studies were qualitative (ID1, ID4, ID5, ID8, ID9). Meaning in life was present in all studies; in two studies, also the meaning in work was present (ID2, ID6).

Regarding the theoretical frameworks used to study meaning in life and meaning in work in gifted populations, the majority of the studies utilize the positive psychology framework (D1, D6, D10, D11, D12). For the other studies the theoretical framework was heterogeneous, until the recent psychology of sustainability and sustainable development framework (ID2).

Among quantitative studies, regarding the used instruments, there is heterogeneity in the measurements. Different measures were used for meaning in life, and the most used is the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe; Schnell, 2009) (ID6, ID7, ID10, ID11, ID12). In the two studies that considered meaning in work, two different instruments were used: Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI) (Steger et al., 2012) (ID2); Meaningful work scale (Schnell et al., 2013) (ID6).

With regards to the operationalization of giftedness in quantitative studies, essentially two approaches are recognized: “Giftedness as potential” in terms of high IQ (for example IQ of 130 or higher), and “Giftedness as manifested talent” in terms of results obtained (scholastic/academic/job performance).

With a focus on gifted adults, the quantitative studies focusing on gifted adults primarily examined meaning in life in relation to indicators of well-being, such as positive mood and vitality (ID10, ID11, ID12); meaning in work is fundamental to meaning in life (ID6); meaning in work was considered in relation to self-rated job performance and work engagement (ID2).

With a focus on qualitative articles, the qualitative studies mainly explored how gifted individuals experience and construct meaning in life and in work across different contexts. These studies addressed themes such as resilience-building interventions (ID1), career construction counseling (ID4, ID5), spirituality and moral sensitivity (ID8), and the role of personal contribution and purpose in shaping meaningful life and career trajectories (ID9).

Discussion

This discussion is structured according to the four questions that guided the present scoping review, with the aim of synthesizing and interpreting the existing literature on meaning in life and meaning in work in gifted populations.

Which Theoretical Frameworks Have Been Used to Study Meaning in Life and Meaning in Work Within Gifted Populations?

The reviewed studies revealed a heterogeneous landscape of theoretical frameworks used to examine meaning in life and meaning in work in gifted populations. Quantitative studies predominantly drew on meaning-centered and positive psychology frameworks, considering meaning in terms of purpose, coherence, and significance (Dikaya & Ryzhova, 2024; Pollet & Schnell, 2017; Vötter, 2020; Vötter & Schnell, 2019a, 2019b; Yuen et al., 2023a, 2023b). Furthermore, the quantitative study by Di Fabio et al. (2024) framed the analysis of meaning in life and meaning in work in gifted populations within the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development perspective (Di Fabio, 2017b, 2022; Di Fabio & Cooper, 2023; Di Fabio & Peiró, 2018, 2023; Di Fabio & Rosen, 2018, 2020; Rosen & Di Fabio, 2023), considering talent grounded in meaning as the basis for an authentic self, and opening theoretical perspectives towards sustainable talents.

Regarding qualitative studies, they mainly adopted phenomenological, constructivist, and narrative approaches, emphasizing the subjective experience of meaning-making of gifted individuals across educational and career trajectories (Armstrong et al., 2018; Maree, 2019, 2024b; Tirri & Ubani, 2005; van Casteren et al., 2021). Frameworks such as career construction theory (Savickas, 2005) and life design (Savickas et al., 2009) were employed to explore how gifted individuals integrate personal values, aspirations, and contextual factors into meaningful life and work narratives (Maree, 2019, 2024b). For qualitative research it is highlighted the value of meaning-making as a central process in career development of gifted individuals, best captured through constructivist and narrative approaches.

How is Giftedness Operationalized in Studies Examining Meaning in Life and/or Meaning in Work?

Across the reviewed studies, giftedness was principally defined and operationalized in two main ways (Pollet & Schnell, 2017; Vötter, 2020; Vötter & Schnell, 2019a, 2019b). The first approach “Giftedness as potential” conceptualizes giftedness as cognitive potential, typically operationalized through high intellectual ability, such as an IQ score of 130 or above. The second approach “Giftedness as manifested talent” considers giftedness as demonstrated talent, focusing on manifested achievement or performance in academic, educational, or occupational contexts. These different operationalizations reflect the debate within giftedness research, contributing to variability in research outcomes. Few studies explicitly discussed the implications of their chosen operazionalization of giftedness, suggesting a need for greater conceptual clarity and theoretical integration in future research. Furthermore, the question about how to operationalize and measure sustainable talent (Di Fabio, 2022) does not appear to be considered, and remains open for future research on talent.

What Methodological Approaches (Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed-Methods) are Employed in the Literature?

Regarding methodological approach, in the literature there is a predominance of quantitative, cross-sectional studies, with fewer longitudinal or qualitative studies. Quantitative studies used different instruments to assess meaning in life, and the most frequently used was the Sources of Meaning and Meaning in Life Questionnaire (SoMe; Schnell, 2009). In the two studies that examined meaning in work, two different instruments were used (Work and Meaning Inventory, WAMI, Steger et al., 2012; Meaningful work scale, Schnell et al., 2013). This heterogeneity limits comparability across studies.

Qualitative research is mainly based on interviews, narrative analyses, and counseling-based interventions to explore subjective meaning-making processes. Even if these studies offered rich, contextualized insights of gifted individuals, they remain limited in the literature.

What key Themes, Research Gaps, and Future Directions Emerge from the Literature Regarding the Development of Talent in Gifted Individuals?

Overall, quantitative studies highlight that meaning in life and meaning in work are fundamental aspects of the well-being of gifted individuals but it is necessary to consider individual differences, social environments, and existential challenges (Dikaya & Ryzhova, 2024; Yuen et al., 2023a, 2023b). For promoting personal and professional meaning of gifted people, it emerged as important to enhance engagement, emotional intelligence, and resilience (Di Fabio et al., 2024), and generativity (Pollet & Schnell, 2017; Vötter & Schnell, 2019a). Regarding qualitative studies, they showed how gifted individuals find meaning in life and in work through purpose-driven careers and contributing to something valuable, which enhances their well-being and resilience. Furthermore, when meaning is lacking, they may experience frustration and seek more fulfilling paths (Armstrong et al., 2018; Maree, 2019, 2024b; Tirri & Ubani, 2005; van Casteren et al., 2021). These findings underscore that meaning-related constructs are central to both personal and professional development in gifted populations. At the same time, the same gaps emerge from the literature. Longitudinal research examining how meaning in life and meaning in work of gifted people evolve over time is very scarce, and thus it could be important to carry out longitudinal studies in the future. Moreover, the concept of sustainable talent remains largely implicit rather than explicitly theorized. The question of the operationalization of sustainable talent (Di Fabio, 2022) still remains open and asks also for including recent perspectives in career development such as sustainable development as a fourth paradigm for twenty-first century career (Hartung & Di Fabio, 2024). Furthermore, future research would benefit from integrating meaning-centered frameworks with sustainability-oriented models of talent development also considering the current perspective of the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development, expanding cultural and contextual diversity, and adopting longitudinal and mixed-methods designs to capture the dynamic and contextual nature of meaning-making in gifted populations.

This scoping review has limitations that should be considered. It emerges that the majority of the studies were conducted in European countries. Large regions of the world remain unexplored, with no research examining this theme. Future studies conducted in a wider range of countries would help broaden the understanding of the phenomenon more globally. Furthermore, the number of studies included (14) is relatively small, reflecting the current stage of research in this area. This limited number of studies underlines the novelty and emerging nature of this research field, but it limits the possibility to draw comprehensive conclusions. Moreover, the heterogeneity in the theoretical frameworks, operationalization of giftedness, and instruments used to assess meaning in life and meaning in work, makes it difficult to compare the different studies. The analysis of the literature suggests the necessity in future research of more clearly articulated theoretical models and the development of standardized measures, also for sustainable talents.

This scoping review provides a map of the existing literature on meaning in life and meaning in work among gifted individuals, offering research directions, including the need of studying sustainable talents in gifted individuals, in different contexts and specifically for their career development. Meaning emerges as a central construct, supporting the development and expression of gifted individuals’ abilities and potentials in ways that are personally fulfilling and socially impactful for life and career (Di Fabio, 2022; Maree, 2019, 2024b; Sak, 2021, 2023). The concept of sustainable talent, rooted in authenticity, personal values, and alignment with deep interests, motivations, self-efficacy (Di Fabio & Rosen, 2020), provides a useful lens for understanding how gifted individuals navigate their potential in contemporary contexts of rapid social and environmental change (Di Fabio, 2022; Maree, 2024a). Sustainable talent considers also the value to support the design of active lives that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century and contribute to sustainable and fair human development (Guichard, 2022). The fourth paradigm (Hartung & Di Fabio, 2024) of sustainable development for careers in the twenty-first century moves forward in this direction considering both individuals (their identity, purpose, and hope), and others, in space and time, including future generations and the planet. The sustainable talent is also promising for counseling perspectives of eco-awareness (Maree, 2024a) and new life-design interventions in the anthropocene context (Cohen-Scali et al., 2025) aligned with the fourth paradigm. Finally, the findings highlight the need for further research to develop theoretically grounded, culturally diverse, and methodologically varied studies that examine how gifted individuals construct meaning across life stages and work contexts and careers. Mapping research can inform interventions to promote the flourishing of talent for gifted people, also in terms of sustainable talent, contributing to the flourishing of healthier individuals, organizations, and societies (Di Fabio et al., 2020; Peiró et al., 2019, 2021).

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Annamaria Di Fabio

Letizia Palazzeschi

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Annamaria Di Fabio is Editor of Australian Journal of Career Development (AJCD) and did not participate in the editorial handling or peer review process of the article.

Letizia Palazzeschi is a member of the Editorial Board of Australian Journal of Career Development (AJCD) and did not take part in the peer review or decision-making process for this submission and has no further conflicts to declare.

* References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in this scoping literature review.

References

Arksey

O'malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

* Armstrong

L. L.

Desson

St. John

Watt

(2018). The DREAM program: Developing resilience through emotions, attitudes, & meaning (gifted edition)–a second wave positive psychology approach. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 32(3-4), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2018.1559798

Boyatzis

R. E.

(2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840730

Cohen-Scali

Drabik-Podgórna

Podgórny

Duarte

M. E.

Guichard

Aisenson

Di Fabio

Maree

Masdonati

Nota

Pouyaud

Ribeiro

M.A.

San Antonio (2025). New perspectives for life-design interventions in the anthropocene context. Australian Journal of Career Development, 34(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162241307964

Csikszentmihalyi

Robinson

R. E.

(1986). Culture, time, and the development of talent. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 264–284). Cambridge University Press.

De Vos

Van der Heijden

Akkermans

(2020). Sustainable careers: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 117, 103–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.011

Di Fabio

(2014). The new purposeful identitarian awareness for the twenty-first century: Valorize themselves in the life construction from youth to adulthood and late adulthood. In Di Fabio

Bernaud

J.-L.

(Eds.), The construction of the identity in 21st century: A festschrift for jean guichard (pp. 157–168). Nova Science Publishers.

Di Fabio

(2017a). Positive healthy organizations: Promoting well-being, meaningfulness, and sustainability in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01938

Di Fabio

(2017b). The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development for well-being in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1534. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01534

10.

Di Fabio

(2022). Introduction. Well-being and sustainability in organizations through the flourishing of talents. In Di Fabio

(Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives on well-being and sustainability in organizations (pp. xvii–xxv). Springer.

11.

Di Fabio

Blustein

D. L.

(2016). Editorial. In Di Fabio

Blustein

D. L.

(Eds.), Ebook research topic “from meaning of working to meaningful lives: The challenges of expanding decent work” in frontiers in psychology. Organizational Psychology, vol. 7, 1119. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01119

12.

Di Fabio

Cheung

Peiró

J.-M.

(2020). Editorial Special Issue Personality and individual differences and healthy organizations. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110196

13.

Di Fabio

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.). (2023). Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003212157

14.

* Di Fabio

Imbimbo

Svicher

(2024). A latent profile analysis in Italian workers: Crucial ingredients of career construction counseling for enhancing gifted and talented learners? Gifted Education International, 40(3), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294241268296

15.

Di Fabio

Maree

J. G.

(2016). A psychological perspective on the future of work: promoting sustainable projects and meaning-making through grounded reflexivity. Counseling. International Journal of Research and Intervention, 9(3), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.14605/CS931619

16.

Di Fabio

Peiró

J. M.

(2018). Human capital sustainability leadership to promote sustainable development and healthy organizations: A new scale. Sustainability, 10(7), 2413. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072413

17.

Di Fabio

Peiró

J. M.

(2023). Human capital sustainability leadership and healthy organizations: Its contribution to sustainable development. In Di Fabio

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations (pp. 93–103). Routledge Taylor & Francis.

18.

Di Fabio

Rosen

M. A.

(2018). Opening the Black Box of Psychological Processes in the Science of Sustainable Development: A New Frontier. European Journal of Sustainable Development Research, 2(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejosdr/3933

19.

Di Fabio

Rosen

M. A.

(2020). An exploratory study of a new psychological instrument for evaluating sustainability: The sustainable development goals psychological inventory. Sustainability MDPI, 12(18), 7617. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187617

20.

Di Fabio

Tsuda

(2018). The psychology of harmony and harmonization: Advancing the perspectives for the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainability, 10(12), 4726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124726

21.

* Dikaya

L. A.

Ryzhova

V. S.

(2024). Meaning-in-life orientations and characteristics of communication and motivation of students studying at gifted education centers. Russian Psychological Journal, 21(1), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.21702/rpj.2024.1.7

22.

Dixson

D. D.

Jansen

Gentzis

E. A.

Worrell

F. C.

(2024). Gifted profiles of hope: Being hopeful is associated with a talent development psychosocial profile in gifted students. High Ability Studies, 35(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2023.2206114

23.

Dominick

P. G.

Gabriel

A. S.

(2009). Two sides to the story: An interactionist perspective on identifying potential. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 430–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01168.x

24.

Dweck

C. S.

Leggett

E. L.

(1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256

25.

Feldman

D. H.

(1986). Giftedness as a developmentalist sees it. In Sternberg

R. J.

Davidson

J. E.

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 285–305). Cambridge University Press.

26.

Gagné

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

27.

Guichard

(2013). Forms of reflexivity and transformations of systems of subjective identity forms during life designing dialogues. Lecture presented at the SIO International Conference—Life Designing and career counseling: Building hope and resilience, Padova, Italy.

28.

Guichard

(2022). How to support the design of active lives that meet the challenges of the twenty-first century (economy, ecology and politics)? Australian Journal of Career Development, 31(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162221090815

29.

Hartung

Di Fabio

(2024). Sustainable development: A fourth paradigm for 21st century careers. Australian Journal of Career Development, 33(3), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162241287739

30.

Hough

L. M.

Oswald

F. L.

(2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future-remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 631–664. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.631

31.

Levac

Colquhoun

O'brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

32.

* Maree

J. G.

(2019). Self-and career construction counseling for a gifted young woman in search of meaning and purpose. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 19(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-018-9377-2

33.

Maree

J. G.

(2024a). Exploring innovative career counselling strategies for universal relevance and sustainability in the anthropocene era. Australian Journal of Career Development, 33(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/10384162241236418

34.

* Maree

J. G.

(2024b). In search of career-life meaning: Enhancing the existential experience of a gifted learner. Gifted Education International, 40(3), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294241254914

35.

Meyers

M. C.

Van Woerkom

Dries

(2013). Talent-Innate or acquired? Theoretical considerations and their implications for talent management. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.05.003

36.

Nijs

Gallardo-Gallardo

Dries

Sels

(2014). A multidisciplinary review into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent. Journal of World Business, 49(2), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.11.002

37.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

(2025a). Introduction to teachable components of talent development in academic domains. Gifted Child Quarterly, 69(2), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241309909

38.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

Assouline

S. G.

Stoeger

Ziegler

(2024). Extending research on psychosocial skills and appropriate instruction in developing talents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 47(4), 335–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532241281566

39.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

Assouline

S. G.

Stoeger

Ziegler

(2025b). International research perspectives on talent: Part 2. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 48(4), 331–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532251372948

40.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Subotnik

R. F.

Worrell

F. C.

Thomson

(2022). Talent development as a framework for the delivery of services to gifted children. In Introduction to gifted education (pp. 267–286). Routledge.

41.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, 160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

42.

Peiró

J. M.

Kozusznik

Molina

I. R.

Tordera

(2019). The happy-productive worker model and beyond: Patterns of wellbeing and performance at work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(3), 479. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030479

43.

Peiró

J. M.

Montesa

Soriano

Kozusznik

M. W.

Villajos

Magdaleno

Djourova

N. P.

Ayala

(2021). Revisiting the happy-productive worker thesis from a eudaimonic perspective: A systematic review. Sustainability, 13(6), 3174. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063174

44.

Peters

M. D.

Godfrey

C. M.

Khalil

McInerney

Parker

Soares

C. B.

(2015). Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050

45.

Peters

M. D.

Marnie

Tricco

A. C.

Pollock

Munn

Alexander

Khalil

(2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

46.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.

47.

* Poirier

Brault-Labbé

Brassard

(2025). Living with the gift of giftedness: An exploratory study on the well-being of intellectually gifted adults. Gifted Child Quarterly, 69(4), 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862251347293

48.

* Pollet

Schnell

(2017). Brilliant: But what for? Meaning and subjective well-being in the lives of intellectually gifted and academically high-achieving adults. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 18(5), 1459–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9783-4

49.

Rodríguez-Fernández

M. I.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2024). The search for meaning in the life of the gifted. Gifted Education International, 40(2), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294231189923

50.

Rosen

M. A.

Di Fabio

(2023). Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations: Empirical evidence from environment to safety to innovation and future research. In Di Fabio

Cooper

C. L.

(Eds.), Psychology of sustainability and sustainable development in organizations (pp. 20–41). Routledge Taylor & Francis.

51.

Sahle

Lahoti

S. A.

Lee

S.-Y.

Brundiers

van Riper

C. J.

Pohl

Chien

Bohnet

I. C.

Aguilar-Rivera

Edwards

Pradhan

Plieninger

Boonstra

W. J.

Flor

A. G.

Di Fabio

Scheidel

Gordon

Abson

D. J.

Andersson

Takeuchi

(2025). Revisiting the sustainability science research agenda. Sustainability Science, 20, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01586-3

52.

Sak

(2021). The fuzzy conception of giftedness. In Sternberg

R. J.

Ambrose

(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 371–392). Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_21

53.

Sak

(2023). Identification and education of students with gifts and talents based on the fuzzy conception of giftedness. Education Sciences, 13(6), 562. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13060562

54.

Savickas

M. L.

(2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In Brown

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42–70). Wiley.

55.

Savickas

M. L.

Nota

Rossier

Dauwalder

J.-P.

Duarte

M. E.

Guichard

Van Vianen

A. E. M.

(2009). Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21th century. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.004

56.

Schnell

(2009). The sources of meaning and meaning in life questionnaire (SoMe): Relations to demographics and well-being. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903271074

57.

Schnell

Höge

Pollet

(2013). Predicting meaning in work: Theory, data, implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830763

58.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160

59.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Corwith

Calvert

Worrell

F. C.

(2023). Transforming gifted education in schools: Practical applications of a comprehensive framework for developing academic talent. Education Sciences, 13(7), 707. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070707

60.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Worrell

F. C.

(2022). Channeling gifted abilities into transformative creative productivity. In Sternberg

R. J.

Ambrose

Karami

(Eds.), The palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education (pp. 373–385). Springer International Publishing.

61.

Takeuchi

Osamu

Lahoti

Gondor

(2017). Growing up: 10 years of publishing sustainability science research. Sustainability Science, 12, 849–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0484-7

62.

* Tirri

Ubani

(2005). How do gifted girls perceive the meaning of life? Gifted Education International, 19(3), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940501900310

63.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O'Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

64.

* van Casteren

P. A.

Meerman

Brouwers

E. P.

van Dam

van der Klink

J. J.

(2021). How can wellbeing at work and sustainable employability of gifted workers be enhanced? A qualitative study from a capability approach perspective. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 392. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10413-8

65.

Van der Heijden

B. I. J. M.

De Vos

(2015). Sustainable careers: Introductory chapter. In De Vos

Van Der Heijden

B. I. J. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on sustainable careers (pp. 1–19). Edward Elgar Publishing.

66.

* Vötter

(2020). Crisis of meaning and subjective well-being: The mediating role of resilience and self-control among gifted adults. Behavioral Sciences, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10010015

67.

* Vötter

Schnell

(2019a). Cross-lagged analyses between life meaning, self-compassion, and subjective well-being among gifted adults. Mindfulness, 10(7), 1294–1303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1078-x

68.

* Vötter

Schnell

(2019b). Bringing giftedness to bear: Generativity, meaningfulness, and self-control as resources for a happy life among gifted adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1972. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01972

69.

Worrell

F. C.

Bayazitli

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2025). Investigating the insider knowledge of STEM-talented adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 48(4), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532251371739

70.

* Yuen

Chan

R. T.

Zhang

Fung

Chan

(2023a). Assessing meaning in life for gifted learners: Validation of a Chinese version of meaning in life in children questionnaire. Gifted and Talented International, 38(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2022.2150589

71.

*Yuen, M., Tsz-Hong Chan, R., Wong, S. W., Yau, J., Zhang, J., Ho, E. Y. F., Fung, E., Chan, S., & Wu, F. (2023b). Appropriateness of the dispositional hope scale (DHS) and meaning in life questionnaire: Short form (MLQ-SF) for use with regular and gifted students in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 34(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2022.2159336