On Being Gifted, but Sad and Misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth Study

Abstract

This research examined the relationships among personality factors, social support, emotional well¬being, and academic achievement in 65 gifted secondary students, a sample drawn from a longitudinal study of over 950 students. The research demonstrated that, compared to their nongifted peers, gifted students had significantly higher academic outcomes for all subject areas except Geography and Physical Education. Teachers rated the gifted students as being well-adjusted and less likely to have behavioural or emotional problems than nongifted students. The gifted students, however, reported feeling more sad and less satisfied with their social support than their nongifted counterparts. There were no significant differences in terms of self-esteem, trait hope, problem orientation, or attitudes towards education. Within the gifted sample, the research found that the students who were most likely to get poor grades were those who scored high in psychoticism and low in conscientiousness, trait hope, joviality, and in attitudes towards schools. Interestingly, self-esteem was entirely unrelated to gifted performance.

Full text

!
On!Being!Gifted,!but!Sad!and!Misunderstood:!
Social,!emotional,!and!academic!outcomes!of!
gifted!students!in!the!Wollongong!Youth!Study!!
Wilma!Vialle*,!Patrick!C.!L.!Heaven,!and!Josep h !Cia rr o ch i!!
University!of!Wollongong,!Australia!!
!
Educational!Research!and!Evaluation!Vol.!13,!No.!6,!December!2007,!pp.!569!–!586!!
!
*Corresponding!author.!Faculty!of!Education,!University!of!Wollongong,!Wollongong!NSW!2522,!Australia.!
Email:!wvialle@uow.edu.au!!
!
!

This!research!examined!the!relationships!among!personality!factors,!social!support,!emotional!wellbeing,!
and!academic!achievement!in!65!gifted!secondary!students,!a!sample!drawn!from!a!longitudinal!study!of!
over!950!students.!The!research!demonstrated!that,!compared!to!their!nongifted!peers,!gifted!students!had!
significantly!higher!academic!outcomes!for!all!subject!areas!except!Geography!and !Physical!Edu cation.!
Teachers!rated!the!gifted!students!as!being!well_adjusted!and!less!likely!to!have!behavioural!or!emotional!
problems!than!nongifted!students.!The!gifted!students,!however,!reported!feeling!more!sad!and!less!
satisfied!with!their!social!support!than!their!nongifted!counterparts.!There!were!no!significant!differences!in!
terms!of!self_esteem,!trait!hope,!problem!orientation,!or!attitudes!towards!education.!Within!the!gifted!
sample,!the!research!found!that!the!students!who!were!m ost!likely!to!get!poor!grades!were!those !who!
scored!high!in!psychoticism!and!low!in!conscientiousness,!trait!hope,!joviality,!and!in!attitudes!towards!
schools.!Interestingly,!self_esteem!was!entirely!unrelated!to!gifted!performance.!!
!

Introduc tio n**
Adolescence!is!characterised!as!a!time!of!great!change!and!upheaval!in!both!the!academic!
and!popular!literature.!Poised!between!childhood!and!adulthood,!adolescents!undergo!a!
range!of!physical,!psychological,!social,!and!emotiona l!change s!that!can!m ake !it!a!difficult!
time!for!the!young !peo ple!th em selve s,!as!w ell!as!for!the!ad ults!w h o!car e!for!them .!Th e!
developmental!issues!that!face!all!adolescents!are!comprehensively!documented!in!the!
research!literature.!What!is!not!as!clear,!howeve r,!is!how!giftedness!interacts!with!the!
pressures!of!adolescence.!Does!giftedness!act!as!a!protective!factor!for!young!people!or!does!
it!exacerb a te !th is!c ritic a l!de v e lop mental!ph as e ?!!
The! specific! issues! for! gifted! adolescents! have!not! been! fully! explored! in! the! literature,!
because!most!research!on!giftedness!has!focused!on! younger!children!(Bireley!&!Genshaft,!
1991;!Dixon!&! M oon,!2006).!Without!undermining!the!importance!of!the!research!on!gifted!
children,!there!is!a!need!to!expand!our!u nderstand ing!of!th e!pa rticular!experiences!of!gifted!
adolescents!as!it!is!another! critical! developm ental!point! in!the!translation! of!gifted!potential!
into! perform a n ce ! or! talent! (Gag n e ´,! 1985 ,! 200 3) .! Over ! the! last! 2! decade s,! ther e! has! bee n !
growing!acceptance!in!Australia!of!the!developmental!conceptions! of!giftedness!proposed!by!
Tannenbaum!(1983,! 2003)!and!Gagne´!(1985,!1995,! 2000,! 2003),! which! highlight!the! role!of!
a!range!of!catalysts!that!are!both!internal!and! external! to!gifted!individuals!in! the!realisation!
of! their! talents.! Gagne´’s! model! also! draws! a ttention! to! the! im portan ce! of! catalysts! in! th e!
realisation! of! potential,! which! a re! categ orised! under! the! broad ! he ading s! of! intrap ersona l!
factors! and! environm e n ta l! factors.! More! specific ally ,! Gagne ´’s! (2000,! 2003) ! model!
emphasises! the! critical! role! played! by! factors! such! as! physical! characteristics,! motivation,!
effort,!personality,!milieu,!people,!and!chance!in!the!development!of!talent.!!
There! is! also! a! need! for! longitudinal! research! to! more! clearly! understand! the!
developmental!trajectories!of!gifted!youth!into!adulthood.!There!have!been!a!small!number!
of!longitudinal!studies!of!gifted!students!that!have!demonstrated!the!interplay!of!personality!
and!educational!interventions!in!their!emerging!talent,!but!most!of!these!have!focused!on!the!
highly! gifted! (e.g.,! Brody! & ! Benbow,! 1987;! Brody,! Lupkowski,! & ! Stanley,! 1988;! Brody! &!
Stanley,!1991;!Gross,! 2004;! H ollingworth,!1942).! The!Wollongong!Youth!Study!was!designed!
to! track! a! cohort! of! 950! ado lesce nts! from ! the ! 1st! year! of! high ! scho ol! (Yea r! 7)! throu gh ! to!
their! final! years! of! schooling! and! early! adulthood! and,! as! such,! will! provide! valuable!
longitudin al!d a ta!o n !the !de ve lo pment!of!the!gifted !stu d en ts !w h o!a re !pa rt!o f!tha t!co h or t.!!
Social!and!Emotional!Outcomes!!
Moon!and!Dixon!(2006)!describe!adolescence!as! the!time!when!identity!development!and!
relationship! building! are! critical.! The refore,! a! focu s! on ! social! an d! em o tional! ou tcom es! for!
gifted!adolescents!is!warranted.!Several!researchers!have!singled!out!identity!fo rmation!as !
being!as!important!a!consideration!for!gifted!adolescents!as!it!is!for!all!adolescents!(Coleman!
&!Cross,!2001;!He´bert,!2000;!Zuo!&!Cramond,!2001;!Zuo!&!Tao,!2001).!The!importance!of!
gifted! adolescents! developing! healthy! identity! status! was! emphasised! by! the! researchers,!
but! Coleman!and!Cross!(2001)!argued!further!that! giftedness! added!to!the!stresses! faced!by!
gifted! adolescents! as! they!had! to! deal! with! conflicting!societal! expectations! and!demands.!
He´bert! and! Kelly! (2006)! proposed! that! the! successful! resolution! of! these! challenges! to!
identity! formation! may! disting u ish ! betw e e n ! gifted! achie v er s! and! und e ra ch ie v er s:! ‘‘If! an!
intelligen t!yo u n g !pe rs on !is!ab le !to !res o lve !th e !qu e stio n !of!‘Who!am!I?’,!the n !it!see ms!logical!

that!stud ent!will!also!be!able!to !resolve!the!que stion!of!‘W h ere !do!I!want!to!go !in!life?’’’!(p .!
46).!!
Neihart!(1999)!posited!that!the!psychological!well_being!of!gifted!adolescents!is!a!function!of!
the!educational!setting,!the!nature!and!degree !of!giftedness,!and!person ality!characte ristics.!
Although! there! are! many! features! of! educational! settings! that! have! been! the! topic! of!
research,!a!large !p ropo rtion! of!th e! literature! in! gifted! edu cation! h as! bee n! ded icated! to! ab ility!
grouping.!Meta_analyses! of! this! research! cond ucted! by!Rogers!(1991)!and! K ulik! (1992)!have!
demonstrated!positive!academic!outcomes!for!gifted!students,!particularly!when!the!ability!
grouping!includes!a!differentiated!curriculum.!The!research!on!the!gifted!students’!affective!
outcomes!is!not!as!strong,!and!some!researchers!have!suggested!that!attention!needs!to!be!
given! to! gifted! students’! affective! needs! in! full_time! gifted ! settings ! (e.g.,! Craven ! &! M a rsh,!
1997).!!
Interacting!w ith!th e!e du catio na l!settin g,!the !na tur e!an d!degree!of!giftedn ess !also !ha ve!an!
impact!on!the!social!and!emotional!outcomes!for!gifted! adolescents.!The!literature!suggests,!
for! exa mple,! tha t! the! h ig hly ! gifted! are! more! lik ely ! to! fee l! socially! isolated ! (Gross,! 2004;!
Hollingworth,! 1942;! Neihart,! 1999;! Sheldon,! 1959;! Silverman,! 1993).! Other! research! has!
found! that! students! who! are! verbally! gifted! are! lower! in! self_esteem! than! those! who! are!
mathematically! gifted! (Dauber! &! Benbow,! 1990;! Neihart,! 1999).! By! contrast,! research! by!
Baker! (1995)! and! Cross,! Cassady,! and! M iller! (2006)! found! no! differences! between! gifted!
adolescents! and! their! nongifted! peers! on! depression,! stress,! and! suicide! ideation.!
Worryingly,! though,! approximately! 10%! of! Baker’s! gifted! and! nongifted! participants!
reported!that!they!experience d!serious!levels!of!depre ssion.!!
The! third! factor! that! is! significant! for! th e ! social! and! e motional! outcom es ! of! gift ed !
adolescents!relates!to! personality!characteristics.!It! is!clear! that!gifted!adolescents!are!not!
only!different!from!each!other!in!the!type!and!degree!of!their!giftedness!but!also!in!various!
aspects!of!their!personality.!Although!personality!may!seem !to!be!more!closely!linked!with!
social! an d! emotional! outcomes,! researchers! are ! also! d em onstrating! how! ability! m ay ! be!
translated! into! achievement! (Chamo rro_Premuzic! &! Furnham,! 2003).! The! research!
consistently! demonstrates! that! Psych otic ism ! (Gigan tic! Thre e)! and! Con scie ntio u sn es s! (Big!
Five)!are! the!m ost! significant!personality!domains!associated!with!academic! performance.!
High! levels! of! psychoticism! have! been! consistently! associated! with! poor! work! habits! and!
lower!academic!performance!(Eysenck!&! Eysenck,!1985;!Heaven,!Mak,!Barry,!&! Ciarrochi,!
2002;! Petrides,! Chamorro_Premuzic,! Frederickson,! &! Furnham,! 2005),! whereas!
conscientiousness! is! associated! with! positive! attributes! and! higher! academic! performance!
(De! R aad ! &! Schouwenburg,! 1996;! Furnham,! Chamorro_Premuzic,! &! M cDougall,! 2003;!
Heaven!et!al.,!2002;!Wolfe!&!Johnson,!1995).!!
The!interplay!of! these! three! factors!argues! for! different!educational!responses!to! different!
‘‘types’’! o f! g ifte d ! a d o le s c ents,! and! a! g o o d n e s s_of_fit! hypothesis! may! be! more! appropriate!
given!the!contradictory!evidence!in!the!research.!Coleman!(1995),!for!example,!argues!that!
there! is! n o! single! b est! way! to! cater! for! gifted! individuals.! T he! notion! of! good nes s_of_fit,!
however,!is!complicated!by!the!fact !that!socia l_em otional!outcomes!and!academ ic!outcomes!
may!be!differentially! affected! by!the! three! factors!of!educational!setting,! type!and!degree!of!
giftedness,!and!personality.!!

Academic!Outcomes!!
The! academic! underachievement! of! gifted! students! is! also! of! con cern! to! educators! and!
researchers.! Although! the! literature! on! gifted! underachievers! indicates! that! the! pattern! of!
underachievement!begins!in!the!elementary!or! primary!school!years,!it!is!well_established!
by! high! school! (Assouline! &! Colangelo,! 2006;! Lau! &! Ch a n ,! 2001;! M cC o a c h ! &! Siegle,! 20 0 3 ;!
Reis! &! McCoach,! 2000;! Richert,! 1991;! Whitmore,! 1980)! and! therefore! an! important!
consideration! in! the! education! of! gifted! ado lescents.! The! etiology! of! underachievement! is!
complex!with!individual,!family,!and!school!factors!contr ibu tin g !va rio us ly!to !its!ex p re ssio n .!!
Researchers!have!emphasised!the!importance! of!social! support!in!academic!outcomes!for!
gifted! adolescents.! Csikszentmihalyi,! Rathunde,!and!W halen! (1993),! for! example,! explored!
the! patterns! of! sup po rt! in! the! families! of! talented! teenagers! and! delineated! three! types:!
supportive! (nu rturing! and! respon sive),! autonomous! (encouraging! independence),! and!
complex! (providing! support! and! encourag ing! autonom y).! They! found ! that! students! w ho!
performed! best! at! school! w ere! those! with! supportive! families.! By! contrast,! the! talented!
teenagers!from!a uto no m ou s!families!d id!not!a ttain!high!grades!b ut!were!often!h ighly !rated!
for! their! talen t! b y ! te ac he rs .! Th e! t hir d! g ro u p ! of! ta le nt ed ! tee n ag e rs! fr om! comple x! fa milies!
expended! the! most! effort! on! schoolw o rk! an d! o n! de velop ing ! their! talen t.! The! re sea rche rs!
concluded!that!the!com bination!o f!familial!support!an d!au tonom y!leads! to!po sitive!outcome s!
for!gifted!ado le sce n ts.!!
Conversely,! Shilkret! and! Nigrosh! (1997)! demonstrated! that! family! dynamics! can!
negatively! impact! academic! performance.! They! found! that! talented! young! w omen! may!
underperform! in! college! because! of! their! perceptions! that! their! success! would! negatively!
impact!o th e r!fa mily!mem be r s.!!
In!term s! of!social!supp or t,! pee rs! a re!vitally!important!in!adolescence!and!play!a!significant!
role! in! both! positive! and! negative! academic! outcomes! for! students! generally! (Clasen! & !
Clasen,! 1995;!Reis,!He´bert,!Diaz,!Maxfield,!&!Ratley,!1995).!In!relation!to!gifted! adolescents,!
Betts!and!Neihart!(1988),!proposed!that!some!gifted!students!may!‘‘go!underground’’!to!fit!in!
with!same_age!peers,!whereas! Gross! (1989)! drew!attention!to!the! ‘‘forced!choice’’!that!gifted!
students!often! face ! in! either!pursuing!ex cellence! at!the!cost! of! friendships!or!sacrificing! their!
own! interests! to! gain! acceptance! from! chronological! peers.! It! w ould! seem,! then,! that! the!
source! and! effectiveness! of! social! support! is! an! important! dimension! to! consider! in! the!
academic!outcomes!of!gifted!adolescents.!!
Self_esteem!has!an! im pact! on! students!from! the !earliest! d ay s!of!hig h!school.! T h e!transition !
to!high!scho ol!is!an!exciting!time!for!yo un g!people,!bu t!it!also!presents !n ew !challenges.!For !
many!students,!the!new!culture!of!high!school!may!be!associated!with!stress!and!loss!of!self_
esteem!(Yates,!1999).!The!qu estion!of!interest! is!w hether!gifted!adolescents! encounter!such!
declines!in!self_esteem!and,!if!so,!w hat!impact!these!have!on!their!acad emic!outcomes.!The!
self_esteem!and! self_concept!of!gifted!students! are!areas!that!have!received! a!g reat!deal!of!
research! attention,! particularly! since! the!1980s!(Neihart,!1 99 9;! Plucker! &! Stocking,! 2001)!
and!have!often!resulted!in!diametrically!opposed!conclusions.!!

At!the!centre!of!the!debate!in!Australia!has!been!the!w ork!of!Marsh!and!colleagues,!who!
argue!that!a!decline!in!self_concept,!termed !th e!‘‘big_fish_little_pond_effect’’!(BFLPE),!occurs!
when! high_ability! students! are! placed! in! homogeneous! settings! (Craven! &! Marsh,! 1997;!
Marsh,!Chessor,!Craven,!&!Roche,!1995;!Marsh!&!Craven,!1994,!1997).!The!counterposition!
was! presented! by! Gross! (1997),! whose! research! in! academically! selective! and!
comprehensive! high! scho ols! in! N ew! South! Wales! indicated! that! any! drops! in! self_esteem !
were!more!closely!aligned!to!the!motivational!orientations!of!the!gifted!students!than!their!
being! in! a! selective! environment.! Other! research! has! produced! similarly! disparate!
conclusions.! Zeidner! and! Schleyer! (1999),! for! exam ple,! reported! h igher! academic! self_
concepts!for!gifted!stu dents!in!mainstream !educational!settings!compared!to!hom oge neous!
settings!but!also!emphasised!that!the!gifted!stu dents!did!not!hav e!lower!self_concepts!than !
their! nongifted! peers.! Howeve r,! Vaugh n,! Feldhu sen ,! and! Asher’s! meta_an alysis! (1991)!
revealed! that! program! placement! had! no! effect! on! self_conce pts,! either! positively! or!
negatively.!!
Comparisons!between!the! self_concepts!of!gifted!a nd!nongifted!students!have!also! yielded!
inconsist en t ! fi nd in g s! with! sev e ra l! st u d ies ! fi n d ing ! n o ! d iffer e nc e s! ( B ra ck e n ,! 1 98 0 ;! H o g e ! & !
McSheffrey,! 1991;! Maddux,! Scheiber,! &! Bass,! 1982;! Tong! &! Yewchuk,! 1996)! a nd! o thers!
revealing!stron ger!self_concepts!for!gifted!studen ts!(Ablard,!1997;!Chan,!1988 ;!Colangelo!&!
Pfleger,! 1978;! Dwairy,! 2004;! Janos,! Fung,! &! Robinson,! 1985;! Janos! &! Robinson,! 1985;!
Milgram! &! Milgram,! 1976).! Finally,! a! small! number! of! researchers! reported! lower! self_
concepts! for! gifted! students! compared ! to! non gifted! students! (Co leman ! &! Fults,! 1982;!
Forsyth,!1987;!Lea_Wood!&!Clunies_Ross,!1995).!!
Despite!some!arguments!linking!self_concept!and!academ ic!achievem ent! in!gifted! students!
(Kelly!&!Jordan,!1990;!Supplee,!1990;!Van!Boxtel!&!Monks,!1992),!there!does!not!appear!to!
be!evidence!of!a!causal!connection.!It!may!be,!as!Helmke!and!Van!Aken!(1995)! suggest,!that!
academic! achievement! affects! self_concept! more! th an! the! rev erse! (see! also! Filozof! et! al.,!
1998).! In! a! previous! paper! (see! Vialle,! Heaven,! &! Ciarrochi,! 2005),! we! examined! the! self_
esteem!da ta!for!the!gifted!students!in!the!W ollongong !Youth!Study.!Our!research!concluded!
that,!although!self_esteem!may!be!an!important!goal!in!itself,!it!does!not!directly!imp act!the!
school!grades!of!the!gifted!students!in!our!sample.!Rather!than !focu sing!on !the !resolution !of!
this! deba te,! Delisle! and! Galbraith! (2002)! argue! that! educators! should! attend! to! both! the!
academic!outcomes!and!self_esteem!of!gifted!students.!!
Purpose!of!the!Current!Study!!
Based!on!a! thorough! review! of!the! literature! on!adolescents,!we!have! identified!a!number! of!
factors! that! are! po ten tia lly ! imp o rta n t! in! pre dic tin g! ps yc ho lo gic a l! we llbeing! and! academic!
success.!In!the!Wollongong!Youth!Study,!we!intend!to!focus!on!the!relationships!among!this!
range! of! personal! factors,! social!su ppo rt,! and! academic! performa nce ! data! collected! over! a!
period!of!8!years!from!a!cohort!of!950!secondary!students! to!determine!the!combination!of!
variables!that!best!predict!their!emotion al!we ll_being!and! academic!outcomes.! In!this!paper,!
we!examine!the!outcomes!for!the! 65!gifted! students!in!this! cohort! in!the!first! 2!years!of!the!
longitudin al! s tu dy ! to ! det ermine! any! differ en ce s! b etween! gifted! ad o les cen ts ! an d ! the ir!
nongifted! peers.! We! were! also! interested! in! determining! what! fac tors! differentiated! high !
achievers!from!low!achievers!within!the!gifted!group.!!

Method**
Participants!!
The!gifted!students!in!this!study!were!drawn!from!a!cohort!of!over!950!students!attending!
five!high!schools!in!a!Catholic!Diocese!in!New!South!Wales,!Australia.!The!schools!are!located!
in!re g ion a l!and!me tro p o lita n !areas!and !includ e!stud e nt s!from !divers e!cultu ra l!back g ro u n ds .!
Socioeconomic!indicators,! such!as!family!occupation!and!structure,!pertaining!to!our!sam p le!
were! compared! with! information! from! the! Australian! Bureau! of! Statistics! (2005)! and!
revealed!that!our!sample!is!represen tative!of!national!trend s.!!
In!the!absenc e!of!a n y!formal!identifica tion !measu res!of!giftedness,!we!se lected !the!gifted!
students!by!utilising!the!data!from!the!ELLA!and!SNAP!standardised!tests!undertaken!by!all!
students!in!their!first!year!of!high!school!(Year!7 ).!Although!these!tests!are!not!measures!of!
intelligen ce ,!they! measure!students ’!aptitude s!in!lite ra cy !and! n u m e ra c y.!In!line! with!Gag n e´’s!
(2000)!model!of! g iftednes s,!we!selected!the! s tude nts!who!scored!in!the!top! 10 % !on!both!the!
ELLA!and! SNAP!tests.!As!a!result,!w e! obtained!a! sample!of!71! students,!30! of!w hom! were!
male!and!41! female.!This!sample!reduced!to! 65! students!when!missing!data!were!taken! into!
account.!!
Measures!!
Giftedness! measures.! As!indicated!above,! the!ELLA!and! SNAP!tests! w ere! administered!w hen!
the!stud ents !were!in!the!first!term !of!Yea r!7.!ELLA !is!the!acronym !for!En glish!Langua ge!and!
Literacy! Assessment,! which! is! routinely! adm inistered! in! N ew! South! Wales! Department! of!
Education!schools!and! many!Catholic!and!Independent!schools!in!Years! 7!and!8.! Designed!
originally!as! a!diagnostic!tool! for!schools,! it!measures! students’!literacy!skills,!particularly!
those!d eem e d!essential!for!a cad em ic!success!in!seco nd ary !schools.!SNAP!is!the!acronym!for!
the!Secondary!Nu m era cy!Asse ssm en t!Prog ram.! Also !design ed!as!a!diagn ostic!tool!to!identify!
students’! skills! in! the! aspects! of! nu m eracy! required! for! academic! success! in! secon dary!
schools,! SNAP! measu res! studen ts’! num eracy! skills! in! problem_solving,! number,!
measurement,!data,!and!space.!!
Personality!measures.!The!following!scales!were!utilised.!!
1. Psychoticism! (also! known! as! toughmindedness)! was! measured! with! Corulla’s! (1990)!
revision! of!the!junior!psychoticism!scale.! It!has!12!items!and!yielded!an! alph a!coefficient!
of!.73.!!
2. Trait!hope!was!measured!with!the!Children’s!Hope!Scale!(Lopez,!Ciarlelli,!Coffman,!
Stone,!&!Wyatt,!2000;!Snyder,!Rand,!&!Sigmon,!2002).!The!scale!contains!six!items,!
which!measure!agency!and!pathways!aspects!of!hope,!and!utilises!a!6_point!Likert!scale.!
It!has!demons trated !reliab ility!an d!con cu rren t!va lidity!an d!yield ed!a !Cron ba ch ’s!
coefficient!alpha!of!.82.!!
3. To!measure!positive!(joviality)!and!negative!affect!(fear,!sadness,!and!hostility),!we!used!
the!PANAS_X!(Watson!&!Clark,!1994).!Students!identified!their!feelings!and!emotions!
over!the!previous!month.!We!obtained!the!following!internal!consistency!coefficients:!
hostility!=!.82;!fear!=!.85 ; !sa dness!=!.91;!and!j o v ia li ty !=!.94.!!
4. Problem_solving!orientation!(Frauenknecht!&!Black ,!1995)!was!included!to!determine!
how!the!students!generally!think!and!feel!about!problems!in!living,!as!well!as!their!own!
problem_solving!ability.!!

5. Conscientiousness!was!measured!with!a!16_item!sc al e!d e ve lo p e d!b y !M a k ,!H e av e n ,!an d !
Rummery!(2003).!It!has!good!internal!consistency!and!validity.!!
6. Attitudes!to!school!were!assessed!by!using!a!scale!developed!by!Furnham!and!Gunter!
(1989).!!
!
Self%esteem) measure.! The! Rosenberg! Self_Esteem! Scale! (1965,! obtained! from! Rosenberg,!
1989)! w as! selected! b ecause! it! has! been! widely! used! in! other! research! reporting! high!
reliability!with!test_retest!c orrelations!in!the!range! of!.82!to! .88 !and!C ronb ach’s!alphas!in!the!
range!of!.77!to!.88.!The!scale!includes!10!items!that!are!answered!on!a!4_point!Likert!scale,!
ranging!from!strongly!agree!to!strongly!disagree.!Exa mples!of!ite ms!includ e !‘‘I!am!able!to!do!
things!as!well!as!m ost!oth er!pe op le’’!and!‘‘At!tim es!I!think !I!am !no!go od !at!all.’’!!
Social)support)measure.!We!used!the!Social!Support!Questionnaire!(Sarason,!Levine,!Basham,!
&! Sarason,! 1983)! to! assess! students’! perceptions! of! who! is! providing! them! w ith! social!
support!and!how!satisfied!they!are!with!that!support!across!a!num ber!of!dom ains.!The!scale!
has!yielded!excellent!reliability!of!approximately!.85.!!
Teacher) rating) measure.! We! utilised! the! multidimensional! teacher! rating! form! from! the!
Jyvaskyla ! Lon git ud in a l! Stud y! of! Perso n alit y! and ! Soc ial! Dev e lop ment! (Pulkkin en ,! Kap r io,! &!
Rose,! 1999).! The! scale,! comprising! 34! items! to! assess! overall! emotional! adjustment,!
behavioural! problems,! and! emotional! problems,! was! com pleted! by! each! student’s! ‘‘home!
room’’! teach er.! It! has! demonstrated! concurrent! and! discrim inative ! validity! and! yielded!
coefficient!alphas!of!.90,!.93,!and!.85!on!the!three!subscales.!!
Academic) grades.!The!students’!academic!grad es!were!obtained!by!collecting!the!e ndof_year!
results!for!each !studen t!in!each!of!their!subjects.!These!subject!results!were!entere d!into!a!
database! separately,!and,! additionally,!an! average! grade!across! all!subjects! was! calculated!
for!each!stu de n t.!!

Procedure!!
Having!obtained!consent!from!schools!and!parents,!we!invited!students!to!participate!in!a!
study!on!‘‘Youth!Issues’’.!The! student!qu estionna ires! were!adm inistered! in!the! first!half!of!
the!school!year!during!regu lar!classes!un der !the!superv ision!of!one!of!the!researchers!or!a!
teacher! who! had! b een ! briefed! by! th e! researchers .! Students! completed ! the! questionnaires!
individua ll y! ov er ! a! perio d ! of! app ro x im a te ly ! 40 ! min .! Th e! stu d e n ts! w e re ! tha nk e d ! for! the ir!
participation! and! debriefed! at! the! conclusion! of! this! session.! T eachers! completed! the!
behavioural!checklist!at!the!end!of!each!school!year!and!student!grades!were!also!collected!
at!that!time.!Data!were!entered!into!a!database!and!analysed!through!SPSS.!!
Results**
Gender!Distribution!!
As! indicated! previously,! the! gifted! group! was! selected! by! tak ing! the! top! 1 0% ! of! students!
based!on! their!performance! in!the! ELLA!and! SNAP! standardised!tests! administered!at! the!
beginning!of! Year!7.! This! yielded! a!gifted!group!comprising!31!males! (from!351! males!in!the!
total!c oho rt!for!who m!the !entire !data se t!is!com p let e)!an d!41 !fem a les!(fro m !34 8!fem a le s!in!
the!total! co ho rt).! Alth ou gh!this!distribution ! fa vou rs! fe m ales,! th e! d ifferenc e! is! n ot!statistically!
significant.!!
Academic!Grades!!
To! analyse! the!performance! of! the! gifted! group!compared! to! the! nongifted! group! in! their!
academic!grades! at!the! end!of!Year! 8,!som e! initial!calculations!were!required.!Each!school!
subject!reported!the!students’!perform an ce!on!a!nu mb er!of!learning!outco me s,!w hich!were!
identical! acros s! the! various ! school ! sites,!on ! a! 5point!scale.!These! learning!outcome! scores!
were!added!and!averaged! to!produce!a! score!for!each!student!for!each!subject.!These!scores!
were!entered!into!the!database!and!means!and!standard!deviations!computed.!These!data!
were! then! subjected! to! an! analysis! of! variance! (ANOVA).! As! Table! 1! indicates,! the! gifted!
group!outperformed!the! nongifted!group! in!every! subject.!To!correct!for!Type!1 ! error,!the!
Bonferroni! adjustment!was!used!with! the! alpha!set! at!.004.!Significant!differences!pertained!
for!m ost!subjects,!w ith!the!exceptio ns!being!D esign !(practical!sub jects!such!as!Cooking!a nd !
Woodwork),! Human! Society! and! its! Environment! (HSIE),! Geography,! and! Physical!
Education.! However,! the! num bers! of! gifted! students! enrolled! in! HSIE,! Geography,! and!
Physical!Education!were!quite!small,!which!may!explain!that!discrepancy.!Given!the!practical!
nature! of! the! Design! and! Physical! Education! subjects,! the! lack! of! significance! in! those!
subjects!is!not!surprising.!!

!
Affective!Outcomes!!
The!four!affect!variables!measured!were!fear,!hostility,!sadness,!and!joviality.!Compared!to!
their!n on gifted!peers ,!the!gifted!s tude nts!had!higher!mea ns !on!the!negative!affect!measures!
and!a!lower!m ean! on! the!positive!measure.!This! suggests!that!the!gifted!students!w ere!lower!
in!their! overall!affective!states.!A !multivariate!an aly sis !o f!variance!was! conducted!w ith! the!
gifted/nongifted! group! as! the! independent! variable! and! the! four! affect! measures! as! the!
dependent!variables.!There! was!a! significant!multivariate!effect,!Pillai’s!Trace! =! .016,! F!(4,!
596)! =! 2.447,! p! 5! .05.! In dividual! ANOVAs! i n d ic a t e d ! that! only! the! sadness! variab le ! was!
significant!(see!Table!2).!!
Social!Support!!
The!social!support!questionnaire!asked!students!to!nominate!to!whom!they!w ould!look!for!
social! support! in! a! rang e! of! situation s! (q ua ntity)! and! then! to! indicate! ho w ! sa tisfied ! the y!
were! with! the! support! they! received! (quality).! Examination! of! the! means! indicated! that,!
although!the! gifted!students! tended!to!have!more! social!support,!they! reported!feeling!far!
less! satisfied! w ith ! the! support! they! received! than!did! the! nongifted!students.! Multivariate!
analyses!showed!there!was!a!significant!effect!of!the!quantity!and!quality!of!social!support!
by! group,! Pillai’s! Trace! =! .020 ,! F! (2,! 490)! =! 5.040,! p! 5! .01 .! Ind iv id ual! ANOVA S ! we r e ! only !
marginally!significant,! however,! indicat ing ! that! the! multivaria te ! effect! could! not! be! clearly!
pinpointed! to! either! the! quality! or! quantity! component! of! social! support! (see! Table! 3).!
Nevertheless,! this! pattern! of! lower! satisfaction! with! social! support! reinforces! the! poo rer!
affective!outcomes,!indicated!above,!for!the!gifted!students.!!

!
Teacher!Ratings!
!
Teachers!rated!all!the!students!on!the!likelihood!of!behaviour!problems,!overall!adjustment,!
and!emotional!problems.!The!multivariate!analyses!revealed!that!a!significant!effect!was!
attained,!Pillai’s!Trace!=!.04 3 ,!F!(3,!680)!=!10.232,!p!5!.001.!As!Table!4!illu s t ra t e s ,!te a c hers!
believed!that!gifted!students!were!less!likely!to!cause!behaviour!problems!or!to!experience!
emotional!problems!than!their!nongifted!peers.!Concomitantly,!teachers!believed!the!gifted!
students!were!better!adjusted!overall!than!the!nong ifted!students.!The!individual!ANO VA s!
revealed!that!significant!effects!were!attained !for!behaviour!problems!and!for!overall!
adjustment.!!
!
Variables!Associated!With!Academic!Outcomes!!
Based! on! our! reading! of! the! literature,! we! had! anticipated! that! self_esteem,! psychoticism,!
conscientiousness,!trait! hope,!problem _solving!orienta tion,! and!attitudes! toward!education!
would! be! related! to! students’! academic! outcomes.! We! conducted! Pearson! Correlations!
between!each!of!these!variables!and!the!total!academic!grade!score!for!the!gifted!students!
and!the!nongifted!students!(see!Table!5).!Although!there!was!a!strong!negative!correlation!
between! psychoticism! and! academic! grades! and! strong! positive! correlations! between! the!
remaining! variables! and! academic! grad es,! further! analyses! revealed! no! significant!
differences!between!the!gifted!group!and!the!nongifted!group!on!any!of!these!variables.!!
Gifted!Achievers!and!Underachievers!!
In! order! to! determ ine! characteristics! th at! would! d ifferen tiate! high! achieve rs! and! low!
achievers! within! the! gifted! group,! we! utilised! the! Pearson! Correlations.! As! Table! 5!
illustrates ,! the ! gifte d ! students! who! were! mo st! likely! to! get! poor! academic! outcomes! were!
those! who! also! score d! high! in! psy cho ticism,! low ! in! conscien tiou snes s! (largest! effect! size),!
low!in! tr ait!hope ,!low!in!joviality,!and!low!in!attitudes!tow ard s!scho ols .!Of!particular !interest!
is! the! finding! that! self_esteem! is! entirely! unrelated! to! academic! grades! for! this! sample! of!
gifted!students.!!
!
!

!
Discussion!and!Conclusions!!
The!picture!of!gifted!students!that!emerged!from!this!study!was!one!in!w hich!these!capable!
young! people! w ere! performing! well! ac ad e mically! compa re d ! to! their! peers ,! but! repor te d !
feeling!s ad d er !and!more!alon e .!Howev er ,!their!tea ch er s!were!oblivious!to!thes e!feelings!and!
rated!them!as!superior!in!adjustm ent!and !less!likely!to!experience!em otion al!problem s!or!to!
present! behaviour! problems.! The! findings! of! this! research,! therefore,! have! borne! out! our!
contention!that!the!social! and!emotional! needs!of!gifted! adolescents!warrant!th e! atten tion! of!
researchers!and!educa tors!(see!also!Mo on!& !Dixon,!200 6).!!
Our!data! indicate!that!the!gifted! students ! are! academ ic a lly ! outpe rfo rming! the! nongifted!
students,! but! the! qu estion! rema ins! as! to! whether! they! are! performing! at! a! rate!
commensurate!with!their!ability.!The!students!in!this!study !all!attend!Catholic!schools!that!
adhere! to! a! policy! of! catering! for! gifted! students! within! h etero gen eo us! classes! an d! not!
implementing!any!sch oo l_wide!formal!procedures!to!identify! such!students.!In!practice,!this!
may!mean!that!gifted!students!may!be!performing!at!a! level!well!below!their!abilities!but,!
because!they!fall!within!an!accepted!range!in!a!heterogeneous!class,!the!underachievement!
is! ove rlo o k ed ! by! their! teache rs .! Colang e lo ,! Kerr,! Christe n se n ,! and! Maxe y ! (1993 ) ! mad e! a!
similar!observa tion!in!their! resea rch!of!gifted! high ! a nd!low! achievers.!Given!the!potential!for!
gifted!students! to!be! underachievers!who! ‘‘stay! under!the! radar,’’! it!would! seem!appropriate!
for! the! schools! in! our! study! to! implem en t! proc ed u re s! for! the! identific at ion ! of,! and!
programming!for,!gifted!students.!!
Although! most! of! the! gifted! group! is! performing! well! academically,! the! social! and!
emotional!data!from!our!research!suggest!that!some!may!be!a t!risk.!The!gifted!students!as!a!
group! reported! more! sense! of! isolation! and! dissatisfaction! with! the! social! support! they!

receive!and!reported!highe r!levels!of!sadness.!It!would!see m !that,!again,!these!lower!ratings!
are! not! serious! enough! to! draw! the! attention! of! their! teachers.! However,! these! may! be!
precursors! to!more!serious!social!and!emotional! problems!as!they!progress!through!schoo l.!
Research!on! gifted!adolescents!has! demonstrated!that!anxiety!and! isolation!become! more!
intense! as! s tu d e n ts! continu e! through ! their! secondary ! schooling ! (Assoulin e ! &! C o la ng e lo ,!
2006).! Suicide! statistics! show! increasing! levels! across! the! entire! p op ula tion,! and! it! is! the!
second! largest! ca use! of! death! for! adolescents! (Cross,! 2005 ).! A s! a ! n ote! of! caution,! though ,!
there!is!no!evidence!that!gifted!adolescents!are!more!prone !to!depression!and!suicide!than!
the! gener al! adolescent! popu lation ! (Baker,! 1995;! Cross! et! al.,! 2006),! as! w e! indicated!
previously.!!
Therefore,!the!findings!of!our!research!point!to!the!need!for!educators!to!be!sensitive!to!
the! social! and! emotion al! states! of! gifted! adolescents! an d! recognise! their! vulnerabilities.!
Again,! our! data! would! lead! us! to! conclude! that! schools! should! consider! identifying! gifted!
students!an d! grouping!them! together!for!at!least! some!of!their!time,! because!research! has!
shown!that!this!is!an!effective!w ay!to!reduce!the!stress!and!feelings!of!isolation!that!m an y!
gifted! stud en ts!expe rienc e!(Cross,!200 5;!Gross ,!2004;!Holling w or th,!1942 ;!Silverma n,!199 3).!
We!would!also!recommend!that!gifted!students!be!given!the!opportunity!to!undergo!training!
in!soc ia l! skills,!how ! to!cope! with!stress ,! and!so!on.!In!a! pilot!interv e n tio n! we!conducted!at!
one!of!our!school!sites,!for!example,!the!students!identified!their!desire!to!develop!skills!to!
interact!with!others!more!effectiv ely ,!cit in g!b u lly in g!a s!t h eir !m a jo r!ca u se !fo r!co n ce rn .!!
Our!finding!that!teachers!rated!the!gifted!students!as!being!better!adjusted!concurs!with!
much!of!the!research!literature,!which!has!found!adjustment!to!be!similar!or!superior!to!that!
of!nongifted!students!(Baker,!1995;!Cornell,!1990;!Lehman!&!Erdwins,!1981;!Neihart,!2002;!
Robinson,!Lanzi,! Weinberg,!Ram ey,! &! Ramey,! 2002;! Sayler! &! Brookshire,!1993).! Although!
the! discrepancy! betw een ! teache rs’! assessm en ts! and ! the! studen ts’! self_reported! affect! may!
not!be!large,!it!nevertheless!suggests!that!educators!need!to!remain!vigilant!in!monitoring!
the!psychological!w ell_being!of!the!gifted!students.!!
Our!analyses!showed!that!gifted!students!did!not!differ!significantly!from!their!nongifted!
peers!in!self_esteem,!trait!hope,!problem!orientation,!or!attitudes!to!education.!This!finding!
emphasises! the!reality!that!gifted!a dolescents!are!also!ad olesc ents !and !pro ba bly!sh are !mo re!
similarities! tha n! differences! w ith! their! no ngifted! pe ers.! In! pa rticular,! we! fou nd! th at! the!
strongest! relationships! with! academic! performance! w ere! psychoticism,! conscientiousn ess,!
hope,!and!attitudes!to!school,!and!this!wa s!con s is te nt!ac ross!b o th!gro u ps!of!stu d e n t s .!The se!
were! the! variables,! then,! that! most! strongly! discriminated! between! gifted! students! who!
were! high!achievers! and!those! who!were!low!achievers.! Given! there! are!more!within_group!
differences!than!between_group!differences,!we!are!rem inded!of!the!heterogeneity!of!gifted!
students!and!how!impo rtant!it!is!for!educators!to!understand!those!individual!differences.!!
!
The! recommendations! that! we! have! drawn! from! our! data! are! that! effort! needs! to! be!
directed!to!the!ide ntifica tion !of!gifted!stu den ts!and!con sidera tion!of!specialist!programm ing !
to! meet! th eir!social,!emotio na l,!and!acade m ic!needs.!This!also!imp lies!that!there!w ill!need!to!
be!ongoing!professional!development!of!teachers!to!equip!them!with!the!necessa ry!skills!to!
identify! a n d ! d iffe re n tia te ! for! these ! studen ts.! Current ly ! in ! Australia ,! very! little ! preservic e !
teacher! training ! de als! w ith! gifted! students,! a ! situa tion! that! continue s! de spite! the!
recommen dation s! of! tw o! govern m ent! reports! (Senate! Employ m ent,! Workplace! Relations,!
Small!Business!and!Education!References!Committee,!2001;!Senate!Select!Committee,!1988).!!
Limitations!!
Although!the!findings!reported!in!this!paper!are!congruent!with!other!research!with!gifted!

adolescents,! there! are! some! limitations! that! m ean ! tha t! cautio n! m u st! be! ex ercised ! w hen !
generalising! the! findings.! The! research! was! conducted! solely! in! Catholic! schools! and!
therefore! m ay ! not! be! representative ! of! gifted! stu de nts! in! other! educationa l! settings.! The!
method!of!selecting!the!gifted!group!was!a lso!not!ideal.!Our!u se!of!the!ELLA!and!S NA P!test!
data! may! have!skewed! the! sample! toward!a!more! highly! achieving!group! of! students!and!
therefore!misse d!p oten tially!g ifted!stu de nts!who!w ere!chronic!un dera chiev ers.!Fin ally,!ou r!
reliance! on! survey! research! has! some! limitations! with!regard! to! understanding!individual!
differences!among!the!gifted!respondents.!!
Acknowledgements!!
We! acknowledge! the! financial! support! of! the! Australian! Research! Council! and! the!
Wollongong! Catholic! Diocese.! We! also! thank! the! school! principals,! teachers,! and! stu den ts!
whose!support!made!this!study!possible.!!

References**
Ablard,!K.!E.!(1997).!Self_perceptions!and!needs!as!a!function!of!type!of!academic!ability!and!!
gender.!Roeper!Review,!20,!110!–!115.!Assouline,!S.!G.,!&!Colangelo,!N.!(2006).!Social_emotional!
development!of!gifted!adolescents.!In!!
F.!A.!Dixon,!&!S.!M.!Moon!(Eds.),!The!handbook!of!secondary! gifted!education!(pp.!65 !–!86).!W aco,!TX :!
Prufrock!Press.!!
Australian! Bureau! of! Statistics.! (2005).! Yearbook! Australia:! Population.! Canberra,! Australia:! Government!
Printer!(Document!1301.0).!!
Baker,!J.!A.!(1995).!Depression!and!suicide!ideation!among!academically!talented!adolescents.!Gifted!Child!
Quarterly,!39,!218!–!233.!!
Betts,!G.!T.,!&!Neihart,!M.!(1988).!Profiles!of!the!gifted!and!talented.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!32,!248!–!253.!!
Bireley,!M .,!&!Genshaft,!J.!(Eds.).!(1991).!Understanding!the!gifted!adolescent.!Ne w!Yor k :! Te a chers!C o lle g e !
Press.!!
Bracken,! B.!A.!(1980).! Comparison!of!self_attitudes!of!gifted!children!and!children!in!a!no ngifted!normative!
group.!Psychological!Reports,!47,!715!–!718.!!
Brody,!L.!E.,! &! Benbow,! C.! P.! (1987).!Accelerative!strategies:!How! effective!are! they! for!the! gifted?! Gifted!
Child!Quarterly,!31,!105!–!110.!!
Brody,! L.! E.,!Lupkowski,! A.! E.,! &! Stanley,! J.!C.! (1988).!Early! entrance! to! college:! A! study! of! academic! and!
social!adjustment!during!the!freshman!year.!College!and!University,!63,!347!–!359.!!
Brody,!L.!E.,!&!Stanley,!J.!C.!(1991).!Young!college!students:!Assessing!factors!that!contribute!to!success.!In!
W.! T.! Southern!&!E.! D.!Jones!(Eds.),! The!academic! acceleration!of!gifted!children! (p p.!102!–!132).!New!
York:!Teachers!College!Press.!!
Chamorro_Premuzic,!T.,!&!Furnham,!A.!(2003).!Personality!predicts!academic!performance:!Evidence!from!
two!longitudinal!university!samples.!Journal!of!Resea rc h!in !Pe rs on a lity ,!37,!3 1 9 !–!338.!!
Chan,!L.!K.!S.!(1988).!The! perceived!competence!of!intellectually!talented!students.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!
32,!310!–!314.!!
Clasen,!D.!R.,!&!Clasen,!R.!E.!(1995).!Underachieve ment!of!highly!able!stude nt s!and!the!p ee r !s oc iet y.!Gifted!
and!Talented!International,!10(2),!67!–!75.!!
Colangelo,! N.,!Kerr,!B.,!Christensen,!P.,!&!Maxey,!J.!(1993).!A!comparison!of!gifted! underachievers!and!gifted!
high!achievers.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!37,!155!–!160.!!
Colangelo,!N.,!&!Pfleger,!L.!R.!(1978).!Academic!self_concept!of!gifted!high! school! stude nts.!Roeper!Review,!1,!
10!–!11.!!
Coleman,!L.!J.!(1995).!The!power!of! specialized!environment!in!the!development! of!giftedness:!The!need!for!
research!on!social!context.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!39,!171!–!176.!!
Coleman,!L.!J.,!&!Cross,!T.!L.!(2001).!Being!gifted!in!school:!An!introduction!to!development,!guidance,!and!
teaching.!Waco,!TX:!Prufrock!Press.!!
Coleman,!M.,!&!Fults,!B.!(1982).!Self_concept!and!the!gifted!classroom:!The!role!of! social! com parisons.! Gifted!
Child!Quarterly,!26,!116!–!119.!!
Cornell,!D.!G.!(1990).!High!ability!students!who!are!unpopular!with!their!peers.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!34,!
155!–!160.!!
Corulla,! W.! J.! (1990).! A!revised! version! of! the! psychoticism! scale! for!children.! Personality! and! Individual!
Differences,!11,!65!–!76.!!
Craven,!R.!G.,!&!Marsh,!H.!W.!(1997).!Threats!to!gifted!and!talented!student’s!self_concepts!in!the!big!pond:!
Research!results!and!educational!implications.!Australasian!Journal!of!Gifted!Education,!6(2),!5!–17.!!
Cross,!T.!L.!(2005).!The!social!and!emotional!lives!of!gifted!kids.!Waco,!TX:!Prufrock!Press.!!
Cross,!T.!L.,!Cassady,!J.!C.,!&!Miller,!K.!A.!(2006).!Suicide!ideation!and!personality!characteristics!among!gifted!
adolescents.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!50,!295!–!306.!!
Csikszentmihalyi,! M.,! Rathunde,! K.,! &! Whalen,! S.! (1993).! Talented! teenagers:! The! roots! of! success! and!
failure.!Cambridge,!UK:!Cambridge!University!Press.!!
Dauber,! S.! L.,! &! Benbow ,! C.! P.! (1990).! Aspects! of! personality! and! peer! relations! of! extremely! talented!
adolescents.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!34,!10!–!14.!!
Delisle,! J.,!&!Galbraith,!J.!(2002).!When! gifted! kids!don’t! have!all!the!answers:!How!to!meet!their! social!and!
emotional!needs.!Minneapolis,!MN:!Free!Spirit!Publishing.!!
De! Raad,! B.,! &! Schouwenburg,! H.! C.! (1996).! Personality! in! learning! and! education:! A! review.! European!
Journal!of!Perso n ality ,!10,!3 0 3 ! –!336.!!

Dixon,!F.!A.,!&!Moon,!S.!M.!(Eds.).! (2006).!The!handbook!of!secondary!gifted!education.!Waco,!T X:!P rufrock!
Press.!!
Dwairy,!M.!(2004).! Parenting!styles! and!mental!health!of!Arab!gifted!adolescents.!Gifted!Child! Quarterly,!48,!
275!–!286.!!
Eysenck,!H.!J.,!&!Eysenck,!M.!W.!(1985).!Personality!and!individual!differences:!A!natural!science!approach.!
New!York:!Plenum.!!
Filozof,!E.!M.,!Albertin,!H.!K.,!Jones,!C.! R.,!Steme,!S.!S.,!M yers,!L.,!&! McDermott,!R.!J.!(1998).!Relationship!of!
adolescent!self_esteem!to!selected!academic!variables.!The!Journal!of!School!Health,!68(2),!68!–!72.!!
Forsyth,!P.!(1987).!A! study!of!self_concept,!anxiety,!and!security! of!children!in!gifted,! F rench!immersion,!and!
regular!classes.!Canadian!Journal!of!Counseling,!21(2–3),!153!–156.!!
Frauenknecht,! M.,! &! Black,! D .! R.! (1995).! Social! problem_solving! inventory! for! adolescents! (SC SIA):!
Development!and!preliminary!psychometric!evaluation.!Jo u rn al! of!Personalit y!Asses sment,!64,!522!–!
539.!!
Furnham,!A.,!Chamorro_Premuzic,!T.,!&!McDougall,!F.!(2003).!Personality,!cognitive!ability,!and!beliefs!about!
intelligence!as !p re d icto rs !o f!ac ad e mic!performance .!Learning!and!Individual!Differences,!14,!49!–!66.!!
Furnham,!A.,!&!Gunter,!B.!(1989).!The!anatomy!of!adolescence.!London:!Routledge.!!
Gagne´,! F.! (1985).! Giftedness! and! talent:! Re_examining! a! re_examination! of! the! definitions.! Gifted! Child!
Quarterly,!29,!103!–!112.!!
Gagne´,!F.!(1995).!From!giftedness!to!talent:!A!developmental!model!and!its!impact!on!the!language!of!the!
field.!Roeper!Review,!18,!103!–!111.!!
Gagne´,! F.! (2000).!Understanding! the! complex! choreography! of! talent! development! through! DMGT_based!
analysis.!In!K.!A.!Heller,!F.!J.!Monks,!R.!J.!Sternberg,!&!R.!F.!Subotnik!(Eds.),!International!handbook !of!
giftedness!and!talent!(2nd!ed.,!pp.!67!–!79).!Oxford:!Elsevier!Science.!!
Gagne´,!F.!(2003).!Transforming!gifts!into!talents:!The!DMGT!as!a!developmental!theory.!In!N.!Colangelo!&!G.!
A.!Davis!(Eds.),!Handbook!of!gifted!education!(3rd!ed.,!pp.!60!–!74).!Boston:!Allyn!&!Bacon.!!
Gross,!M.!U.!M.!(1989).!The!pursuit!of!excellence!or!the!search!for!intimacy?!The!forced_choice!dilemm a!of!
gifted!youth.!Roeper!Review,!11,!189!–!194.!!
Gross,! M.! U.! M.! (1997).! How! ability! groups! turns! big! fish! into! little! –! or! does! it?! Of! optical! illusions! and!
optimal!environments.!Australasian!Journal!of!Gifted!Education,!6(2),!18!–!30.!!
Gross,!M.!U.!M.!(2004).!Exceptionally!gifted!children!(2nd!ed.).!London:!Routledge!Falmer.!!
Heaven,! P.! C.! L.,! Mak,! A.,! Barry,! J.,! &! Ciarrochi,! J.! (2002).! Personality! and! family!influences! on! adolescent!
attitudes!to! school! and! self_rated!academic! performance.! Personality! and! Individual! Differences,! 32,!
453!–!462.!!
He´bert,! T.! P.! (2000).! Defining! belief! in! self:! Intelligent! young! men! in! an! urban! high! school.! Gifted! Child!
Quarterly,!44,!91!–!114.!!
He´bert,!T.!P.,!&!Kelly,!K.!R.! (2006).!Identity!and! career! development!in! gifted!students.!In! F.!A.!Dixon!&!S.!M.!
Moon!(Eds.),!The!handbook!of!secondary!gifted!education!(pp.!35!–!64).!Waco,!TX:!Prufrock!Press.!!
Helmke,!A.,!&!Van!Aken,!M.!A.!G.!(1995).!The!causal!ordering!of!academic!achievement!and!self_concept!of!
ability!during! elementary! school:! A!longitudinal!study.! Journal!of! Educational! Psychology,! 87,!624! –!
637.!!
Hoge,!R.,!&!McSheffrey,!R.!(1991).!An!investigation!of!self_concept!in!gifted!children.!Exceptional!Children,!
57,!238!–!245.!!
Hollingworth,!L.!S.!(1942).!Children!above!I.Q.!180!Stanford_Binet.!New!York:!World!Books.!!
Janos,!P.!M.,!Fun g,!H.!C.,! & !Robinso n ,!N.!M.!(1985).!Self_concept,!self_esteem,!a nd!peer! relations!among! gifted!
children!who!feel!‘‘different’’.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!29,!78!–!82.!!
Janos,!P.!M .,! &!Robin so n,! N.!M.!(1985).!Psycho log ic al! deve lop ment!in! intelle ctu a lly !gifted! studen ts .! In!F.!D.!
Horowitz!&! M.!O’Brien! (Eds.),!The! gifted!and! talented:! Developmental! perspectives!(pp.! 149 ! –!195).!
Washington,!DC:!American!Psychological!Association.!!

Kelly,!K.!R.,! &!Jordan,! L.!K.!(1990).!Effects! of!academic! achievement! and!gender!on! academic!and! social!self_
concept:!A!replicat io n !st u d y.!Jo u rn al!o f!Co u n se ling !a nd !D ev e lop ment,!69,!173!–! 177.!!
Kulik,!J.!A.!(1992).!An!analysis!of!the!research!on!ability!grouping:!Historical!and!contemporary!perspectives!
(RBDM! 9204).! Storrs,! CT:! The! National! Research! Center! on! the! Gifted! and! Talented,! University! of!
Connecticut.!!
Lau,!K.!L.,!&!Chan,!D .!W.!(2001).!M otivational!characteristics!of!underachievers!in!Hong!Kong.!Educational!
Psychology,!21,!417!–!430.!!
Lea_Wood,! S.! S.,! &! Clunies_Ross,! A.! (1995).! Self_esteem! of! gifted! adolescent! girls! in ! Australian! schools.!
Roeper!Review,!17,!195!–!197.!!
Lehman,!E.!B.,!&!Erdwins,!C.!J.!(1981).!The!social!and!emotional!adjustment! of! young,! intellectually!gifted!
children.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!25,!134!–!137.!!
Lopez,!S.,!J.,!Ciarlelli,!R.,!Coffman,!L.,!Stone,!M.,!&!Wyatt,!L.!(2000).!Diagnosing!for!strengths:!On!measuring!
hope!building! blocks.!In!C.! R.!Snyder!(Ed.),! Handbook! of! hope:! Theory,!measures,!and!applications!(pp.!
57!–!85).!San!Diego,!CA:!Academic!Press.!!
Maddux,!C.!D.,! Scheiber,!L.!M.,!&!Bass,!J.!E.!(1 982).!Self_concept!and!social!distance!in!gifted!children.!Gifted!
Child!Quarterly,!26,!77!–!81.!!
Mak,! A.,! Heaven,! P.! C.! L.,! &! Rummery,! A.! (2003).! The! role! of! group! identity! and! personality! domains! as!
indicators!of!se lf_reported!delinquency.!Psychology,!Crime!&!Law,!9,!9!–!18.!!
Marsh,! H.!W.,! Chessor,! D.,! Craven,! R.! G.,! &!Roche,! L.! (1995).! The! effects! of! gifted! and!talented!setting!on!
academic!self_concept:!The!big!fish!strikes!again.!American!Education!Research!Journal,!32,!285!–!319.!!
Marsh,!H.!W.,! &! Craven,!R.!G.!(1994).!Who!benefits!from!selective!schools?!The!role!of!academic!self!concept!
and!a!call!for!further!research.!Forum!of!Education,!49,!3!–!13.!!
Marsh,! H.!W.,!&!Craven,!R.! (1997).!Academic!self_concept:!Beyond!the!dustbowl.!In!G.!Phye!(Ed.),!Handbook!
of! classroom! assessment:! Learning,! achievement,! and! adjustment! (pp.! 13 1! –! 198).! Orlando,! FL:!
Academic!Press.!!
McCoach,! D.! B.,! &! Siegle,! D.! (2003).! Factors! that! differentiate! underachieving! gifted! students! from! high!
achieving!students.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!47,!144!–!154.!!
Milgram,!R.!M.,!&!Milgram,! N.!A.!(1976).! Personality!characteristics! of!gifted!Israeli!children.! The!Journal!of!
Genetic!Psychology,!129,!185!–!194.!!
Moon,!S.!M.,!&!Dixon,!F.!A.!(2006).!Conceptions!of!giftedness!in!adolescence.!In!F.!A.!Dixon!&!!
S.!M.!Moon!(Eds.),!The!handbook!of!secondary!gifted!education!(pp.!7!–!34).!
Waco,!TX:!Prufrock!Press.!Neihart,!M.!(1999).!The!impact!of!giftedness!on!
psychological!well_being:!What!does!the!empirical!literature!say?!Roeper!
Review,!22,!10!–!17.!!
Neihart,!M .!(2002).!Delinquency!and!gifted!children.! In!M.!Neihart,! S.!M.!Reis,!N.!M.!Robinson,!&!S.!M.!Moon!
(Eds.),!The!social!and!emotional!development!of!gifted!children:!W hat!do!we!know?!(pp.!103!–!112).!
Waco,!TX:!Prufrock!Press.!!
Petrides,! K.! V.,! Chamorro_Premuzic,! T.,! Frederickson,! N.,! &! Furnham,! A.! (2005).! Explaining! individual!
differences! in! scholastic! behaviour! and! achievement.! British! Journal! of! Educational! Psychology,! 75,!
239!–!255.!!
Plucker,! J.! A.,! &! Stocking,! V.! B.! (2001).! Looking! outside! and! inside:! Self_concept! development! of! gifted!
adolescents.!Exceptional!Children,!67,!535!–!548.!!
Pulkkinen,!L.,!Kaprio,!J.,! &!Rose,!R.! J.! (1999).! Peers,! teachers! and!parents!as! assessors! of!the!behavioural!and!
emotional!prob le ms!of!twins!and !their!adjustm e nt :!T h e !Multidimension al !P e er !N o mination!Invent or y.!
Twin!Research,!2,!274!–!285.!!
Reis,!S.!M.,!&!McCoach,!D.!B.! (2000).!The!underachievement!of!gifted!students:!What!do! we!know!and! where!
do!we!go?!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!44,!152!–!170.!!
Reis,!S.!M.,!He´bert,!T.!P.,!Diaz,!E.P.,!Maxfield,!L.!R.,!&!Ratley,!M.!E.!(1995).!Case!studies!of!talented!students!
who! achieve! and! underachieve! in! an! urban! high! school! (Rese arch! Monograph ! 95114).! Storrs,! CT:!
University!of!Connecticut,!National!Rese a rc h !C e nter!for!the!Gifted!and!Talen te d .!!
Richert,!E.!S.!(1991).!Patterns!of!underachievement!among!gifted!students.!In!M.!Bireley!&!J.!Genshaft!(Eds.),!
Understanding!the!gifted!adolescent!(pp.!139!–!162).!New!York:!Teachers!College!Press.!!
Robinson,!N.!M .,!Lanzi,!R.!G.,!Weinberg,!R.!A.,!Ramey,!S.!L.,!&!Ramey,!C.!T.!(2002).!Family!factors!associated!
with!high!academic!competence!in!former!Head!Start!children!at!third!grade.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!
46,!278!–!290.!!
Rogers,! K.! B.! (1991).! The! relationship! of! grouping! practices! to! the! education! of! the! gifted! and! talented!
learner!(RBDM!9102).!Storrs,!CT:!The! N ational!Research!Center!on!the!Gifted!and! Talented,!University!

of!Connecticut.!!
Rosenberg,! M.! (1989).! Society! and! the! adolescent! self_image! (Rev.! ed.).! M iddletown,! CT:! Wesleyan!
University!Press.!!
Sarason,! I.! G.,! Levine,! H.! M.,! Basham,! R.! B.,! &! Sarason,! B.! R.! (1983).! A ssessing! social! support:! The! social!
support!questionnaire.!Journal!of!Pe rs on a lity !an d!S o cia l!Ps yc ho lo gy,!44,!127!–!139.!!
Sayler,! M.! F.,! &! Brookshire,! W.! K.! (1993 ).! Social,! emotio nal,! and! beh a v i o ra l ! adjustment ! of! a c c e le r a te d !
students,! students! in!gifted! classes,! and!regular! students!in! eighth! grade.!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,! 37,!
150!–!154.!!
Senate! Employment,! Workplace! Relations,! Sm all! Business! and! Education! References! Committee.! (2001).!
The!education!of!gifted!children.!Canberra,!Australia:!Commonwealth!of!Australia.!!
Senate! Select! Committee.! (1988).! The! education! of! gifted! and! talented! children.! Canberra,! Australia:!
Australian!Government!Publishing!Service.!!
Sheldon,!P.!M.! (1959).! Isolation!as! a!characteristic!of!highly!gifted!children.!Jo u rn a l!of!Edu ca tio n al!Sociology,!
32,!215!–!221.!!
Shilkret,!R.,! &!Nigrosh,!W .!E.!(1997).!Assessing!students’!plans!for!college.!Journal!of!Counselin g!Psychology,!
45,!222!–!231.!!
Silverman,!L.!(1993).!Counseling!the!gifted!and!talented.!Denver,!CO:!Love!Publishing.!!
Snyder,!C.!R.,!Rand,!K.!L.,!&!Sigm on,!D.!R.!(2002).!Hope!theory:!A!mem ber!of!the!positive!psychology!family.!
In!C.!R.!Snyder!&!S.!J.!Lopez! (E d s.),!Handbook!of!positive!psychology!(pp.!257!–!276).!New!York:!Oxford!
University!Press.!!
Supplee,!P.!L.!(1990).!Reaching!the!gifted!underachiever.!New!York:!Teachers!College!Press.!!
Tannenbaum,! A.! J.! (1983).! Gifted! children:! Psychological! and! educational! perspectives.! New! York:!
Macmillan.!!
Tannenbaum,!A.!J.!(2003).!Nature!and!nurture!of!giftedness.!In!N.!Colangelo!&!G.!A.!Davis!(Eds.),!Handbook!
of!gifted!education!(3rd!ed.,!pp.!45!–!59).!Boston:!Allyn!&!Bacon.!!
Tong,!J.,!&!Yewchuk,!C.!(1996).!Self_concept! and! sex_role! orientation!in! gifted! high! school!students.! Gifted!
Child!Quarterly,!40,!15!–!23.!!
Van!Boxtel,!H .! W.,! &! Monks,!F.!J.!(1992).!General,! social,!and!academic!self_concepts! of! gifted!adolescents.!
Journal!of!Youth!and!Adolescence,!21,!169!–!188.!!
Vaughn,! V.! L.,! Feldhusen,! J.! F.,! &! Asher,! J.! W.! (1991).! M eta_ an alyses! and! review! of! research! on! pull_out!
programs!in!gifted!education,!Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!35,!92!–!98.!!
Vialle,! W.,! H eaven,! P.! C.! L.,! &! Ciarrochi,! J.! (2005).! The! relationship! between! self_esteem! and! academic!
achievement!in!high! ability! students:!Evidence!from!the!Wollongong!Youth!Study.!Australasian!Journal!
of!Gifted!Education,!14(2),!39!–!45.!!
Watson,!D.,!&!Clark,!L.!A.!(1994).!The!PANAS_X:!Manual!for!the!positive!and!negative!affect!schedule!!
–!expanded!form.!Unpublished!manuscript,!Department!of!Psychology,!University!of!Iowa.!Whitmore,!
J.R.!(1980).!Giftedness,!conflict!and!underachievement.!Boston:!Allyn!&!Bacon.!Wolfe,!R.,!&!Johnson,!S.!
(1995).!Personality!as!a!predictor!of!college!perfo rm anc e.!Educational!and!!
Psychological!Measurement,!55,!177!–!185.!!
Yates,! L.! (1999).! Transitions! and! the! Year! 7! experience:! A! report! from! the! 12! to! 18! project.! Australian!
Journal!of!Educ at ion ,! 43,!2 4 !–!41.!!
Zeidner,!M.,! & ! Schleyer,!E.! J.!(1999).!The! effects! of! educational! context! on!individual!difference! variables,!
self_perceptions! of! giftedness,! and! school! attitudes! in! gifted! adolescents.! Journa l! of! Youth! and!
Adolescence,!28,!687!–!703.!!
Zuo,! L.,! &! Cramond,!B.! L.! (2001).! An! examination!of! Terman’s! gifted! children!from! the! theory!of! identity.!
Gifted!Child!Quarterly,!45,!251!–!259.!!
Zuo,! L.,! &! Tao,! L.! (2001).! Importance! of! personality! in! gifted! children’s! identity! formation.! Journal! o f!
Secondary!Gifted!Education,!12,!212!–!223.!!