ArticlePDF Available

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



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.
Wilma!Vialle*,!Patrick!C.!L.!Heaven,!and!Josep h !Cia rr o ch i!!
significantly!higher!academic!outcomes!for!all!subject!areas!except!Geography!and !Physical!Edu cation.!
sample,!the!research!found!that!the!students!who!were!m ost!likely!to!get!poor!grades!were!those !who!
Introduc tio n**
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!
research!literature.!What!is!not!as!clear,!howeve r,!is!how!giftedness!interacts!with!the!
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,!
There! is! also! a! need! for! longitudinal! research! to! more! clearly! understand! 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.!!
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 !
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 .!
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!
given! to! gifted! students’! affective! needs! in! full_time! gifted ! settings ! (e.g.,! Craven ! &! M a rsh,!
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!
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;!
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!
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!
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,!
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!
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 !
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)!
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;!
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 !
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!
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;!
Despite!some!arguments!linking!self_concept!and!academ ic!achievem ent! in!gifted! students!
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!
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!
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 !
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!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!
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,!
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!
2. Trait!hope!was!measured!with!the!Children’s!Hope!Scale!(Lopez,!Ciarlelli,!Coffman,!
It!has!demons trated !reliab ility!an d!con cu rren t!va lidity!an d!yield ed!a !Cron ba ch ’s!
3. To!measure!positive!(joviality)!and!negative!affect!(fear,!sadness,!and!hostility),!we!used!
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!
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 !
6. Attitudes!to!school!were!assessed!by!using!a!scale!developed!by!Furnham!and!Gunter!
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!
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.’’!!
&! 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!
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!
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.!!
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!
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!
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! 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!
nature! of! the! Design! and! Physical! Education! subjects,! the! lack! of! significance! in! those!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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!
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! psychoticism! and! academic! grades! and! strong! positive! correlations! between! the!
remaining! variables! and! academic! grad es,! further! analyses! revealed! no! significant!
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!
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,!
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!
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!
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).!
in!soc ia l! skills,!how ! to!cope! with!stress ,! and!so!on.!In!a! pilot!interv e n tio n! we!conducted!at!
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 .!!
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!
the!psychological!w ell_being!of!the!gifted!students.!!
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,!
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!
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!
F.!A.!Dixon,!&!S.!M.!Moon!(Eds.),!The!handbook!of!secondary! gifted!education!(pp.!65 !–!86).!W aco,!TX :!
Australian! Bureau! of! Statistics.! (2005).! Yearbook! Australia:! Population.! Canberra,! Australia:! Government!
Bireley,!M .,!&!Genshaft,!J.!(Eds.).!(1991).!Understanding!the!gifted!adolescent.!Ne w!Yor k :! Te a chers!C o lle g e !
Bracken,! B.!A.!(1980).! Comparison!of!self_attitudes!of!gifted!children!and!children!in!a!no ngifted!normative!
Brody,!L.!E.,! &! Benbow,! C.! P.! (1987).!Accelerative!strategies:!How! effective!are! they! for!the! gifted?! Gifted!
Brody,! L.! E.,!Lupkowski,! A.! E.,! &! Stanley,! J.!C.! (1988).!Early! entrance! to! college:! A! study! of! academic! and!
W.! T.! Southern!&!E.! D.!Jones!(Eds.),! The!academic! acceleration!of!gifted!children! (p p.!102!–!132).!New!
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,!
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!
Colangelo,! N.,!Kerr,!B.,!Christensen,!P.,!&!Maxey,!J.!(1993).!A!comparison!of!gifted! underachievers!and!gifted!
Colangelo,!N.,!&!Pfleger,!L.!R.!(1978).!Academic!self_concept!of!gifted!high! school! stude nts.!Roeper!Review,!1,!
Coleman,!L.!J.!(1995).!The!power!of! specialized!environment!in!the!development! of!giftedness:!The!need!for!
Coleman,!M.,!&!Fults,!B.!(1982).!Self_concept!and!the!gifted!classroom:!The!role!of! social! com parisons.! Gifted!
Corulla,! W.! J.! (1990).! A!revised! version! of! the! psychoticism! scale! for!children.! Personality! and! Individual!
Csikszentmihalyi,! M.,! Rathunde,! K.,! &! Whalen,! S.! (1993).! Talented! teenagers:! The! roots! of! success! and!
Dauber,! S.! L.,! &! Benbow ,! C.! P.! (1990).! Aspects! of! personality! and! peer! relations! of! extremely! talented!
Delisle,! J.,!&!Galbraith,!J.!(2002).!When! gifted! kids!don’t! have!all!the!answers:!How!to!meet!their! social!and!
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!
Dwairy,!M.!(2004).! Parenting!styles! and!mental!health!of!Arab!gifted!adolescents.!Gifted!Child! Quarterly,!48,!
Filozof,!E.!M.,!Albertin,!H.!K.,!Jones,!C.! R.,!Steme,!S.!S.,!M yers,!L.,!&! McDermott,!R.!J.!(1998).!Relationship!of!
Forsyth,!P.!(1987).!A! study!of!self_concept,!anxiety,!and!security! of!children!in!gifted,! F rench!immersion,!and!
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!–!
intelligence!as !p re d icto rs !o f!ac ad e mic!performance .!Learning!and!Individual!Differences,!14,!49!–!66.!!
Gagne´,! F.! (1985).! Giftedness! and! talent:! Re_examining! a! re_examination! of! the! definitions.! Gifted! Child!
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!
Gross,!M.!U.!M.!(1989).!The!pursuit!of!excellence!or!the!search!for!intimacy?!The!forced_choice!dilemm a!of!
Gross,! M.! U.! M.! (1997).! How! ability! groups! turns! big! fish! into! little! –! or! does! it?! Of! optical! illusions! and!
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,!
He´bert,! T.! P.! (2000).! Defining! belief! in! self:! Intelligent! young! men! in! an! urban! high! school.! Gifted! Child!
He´bert,!T.!P.,!&!Kelly,!K.!R.! (2006).!Identity!and! career! development!in! gifted!students.!In! F.!A.!Dixon!&!S.!M.!
ability!during! elementary! school:! A!longitudinal!study.! Journal!of! Educational! Psychology,! 87,!624! –!
Janos,!P.!M.,!Fun g,!H.!C.,! & !Robinso n ,!N.!M.!(1985).!Self_concept,!self_esteem,!a nd!peer! relations!among! gifted!
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).!
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.!!
(RBDM! 9204).! Storrs,! CT:! The! National! Research! Center! on! the! Gifted! and! Talented,! University! of!
Lau,!K.!L.,!&!Chan,!D .!W.!(2001).!M otivational!characteristics!of!underachievers!in!Hong!Kong.!Educational!
Lea_Wood,! S.! S.,! &! Clunies_Ross,! A.! (1995).! Self_esteem! of! gifted! adolescent! girls! in ! Australian! schools.!
Lehman,!E.!B.,!&!Erdwins,!C.!J.!(1981).!The!social!and!emotional!adjustment! of! young,! intellectually!gifted!
hope!building! blocks.!In!C.! R.!Snyder!(Ed.),! Handbook! of! hope:! Theory,!measures,!and!applications!(pp.!
Maddux,!C.!D.,! Scheiber,!L.!M.,!&!Bass,!J.!E.!(1 982).!Self_concept!and!social!distance!in!gifted!children.!Gifted!
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!
Marsh,!H.!W.,! &! Craven,!R.!G.!(1994).!Who!benefits!from!selective!schools?!The!role!of!academic!self!concept!
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:!
McCoach,! D.! B.,! &! Siegle,! D.! (2003).! Factors! that! differentiate! underachieving! gifted! students! from! high!
Milgram,!R.!M.,!&!Milgram,! N.!A.!(1976).! Personality!characteristics! of!gifted!Israeli!children.! The!Journal!of!
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).!
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,!
Plucker,! J.! A.,! &! Stocking,! V.! B.! (2001).! Looking! outside! and! inside:! Self_concept! development! of! gifted!
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.!
Reis,!S.!M.,!&!McCoach,!D.!B.! (2000).!The!underachievement!of!gifted!students:!What!do! we!know!and! where!
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 .!!
Robinson,!N.!M .,!Lanzi,!R.!G.,!Weinberg,!R.!A.,!Ramey,!S.!L.,!&!Ramey,!C.!T.!(2002).!Family!factors!associated!
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!
Rosenberg,! M.! (1989).! Society! and! the! adolescent! self_image! (Rev.! ed.).! M iddletown,! CT:! Wesleyan!
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,!
Senate! Employment,! Workplace! Relations,! Sm all! Business! and! Education! References! Committee.! (2001).!
Senate! Select! Committee.! (1988).! The! education! of! gifted! and! talented! children.! Canberra,! Australia:!
Sheldon,!P.!M.! (1959).! Isolation!as! a!characteristic!of!highly!gifted!children.!Jo u rn a l!of!Edu ca tio n al!Sociology,!
Shilkret,!R.,! &!Nigrosh,!W .!E.!(1997).!Assessing!students’!plans!for!college.!Journal!of!Counselin g!Psychology,!
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!
Tannenbaum,! A.! J.! (1983).! Gifted! children:! Psychological! and! educational! perspectives.! New! York:!
Tong,!J.,!&!Yewchuk,!C.!(1996).!Self_concept! and! sex_role! orientation!in! gifted! high! school!students.! Gifted!
Van!Boxtel,!H .! W.,! &! Monks,!F.!J.!(1992).!General,! social,!and!academic!self_concepts! of! gifted!adolescents.!
Vaughn,! V.! L.,! Feldhusen,! J.! F.,! &! Asher,! J.! W.! (1991).! M eta_ an alyses! and! review! of! research! on! pull_out!
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!
(1995).!Personality!as!a!predictor!of!college!perfo rm anc e.!Educational!and!!
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!
Zuo,! L.,! &! Cramond,!B.! L.! (2001).! An! examination!of! Terman’s! gifted! children!from! the! theory!of! identity.!
Zuo,! L.,! &! Tao,! L.! (2001).! Importance! of! personality! in! gifted! children’s! identity! formation.! Journal! o f!
... Because intellectually gifted individuals constitute a special population, and one that was not systematically studied, a great deal of information is still to be provided regarding related specificities. Many people have very different ideas about giftedness, including stereotypes or simply external perceptions that are not necessarily accurate, which can affect the way gifted youth are treated at school and in their everyday life (Barbier et al. 2022;Baudson 2016;Bergold et al. 2021;Carman 2011;Manaster et al. 1994;Subotnik et al. 2011;and Vialle et al. 2007). ...
... First, there is the question of whether there are differences between intellectually gifted children and intellectually gifted adolescents. According to Mouchiroud (2004), intellectually gifted children report on average being closer to their friends than peers of the same age, but this result was not replicated among intellectually gifted junior high school students, who reported being less satisfied with their social support than peers of the same age (i.e., poorer quality of friendships- Masden et al. 2015;Vialle et al. 2007). The same trend was observed by a number of researchers. ...
... The same results are found when the scales are filled in by teachers: both children and intellectually gifted adolescents are described as having similar or better functioning than their peers (Czeschlik and Rost 1994;Eklund et al. 2015;Field et al. 1998;Gallucci 1988;Gallucci et al. 1999;and Vialle et al. 2007). Gifted children and adolescents were also perceived by their teachers to be as (Bain and Bell 2004) or more (Košir et al. 2015; partial η 2 = 0.02, p < 0.002) socially accepted by their classmates than their non-gifted peers. ...
Full-text available
For several years, there was a growing interest in intellectual giftedness and in particular in the non-cognitive specificities of gifted individuals. This topic attracted much public attention and sometimes led to contradictions with the scientific literature. The current review synthesizes a broad set of results related to non-cognitive specificities of intellectual gifted in children and adolescents. This synthesis of scientific research on giftedness and its associated non-cognitive features does not support the conclusion that there is a stable profile across gifted individuals that would consistently separate them from non-gifted individuals. A few specificities in some areas are noted, but they are not necessarily being systematic. These specificities often turn out to be in favor of gifted youth, contrary to the view sometimes defended in the general public that gifted individuals suffer from major everyday difficulties. Finally, methodological issues are listed regarding the designs of existing studies, with recommendations for future research in the field.
... On the other hand, the results indicated an insufficient adaptation of gifted students, which manifested in the greater presence of behavioural disorders in gifted students as opposed to non-gifted ones (Guénolé et al., 2013). Moreover, gifted students tend to have a greater sense of isolation and are less satisfied with social support (Vialle, Heaven and Ciarrochi 2007). When it comes to comparisons in terms of well-being, the data indicated a relatively small difference concerning lower self-esteem and social acceptance in gifted students (Kroesbergen, van Hooijdonk, Van Viersen, Middel-Lalleman and Reijnders, 2015). ...
Full-text available
The research results suggest that teachers find potentially gifted children to be academically more competent and sociable as opposed to students without the same potential. Likewise, potentially gifted children tend to have better academic achievements. When it comes to their socio-demographic profile, there seem to be more female students than male, and they often live in urban areas. Additionally, both parents of potentially gifted children show higher levels of education when compared to parents of non-potentially gifted children. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis point to significant effects by gender, place of residence and parental education have in explaining children’s academic competence and sociability; results also reveal significant incremental validity in the assessment of cognitive ability, motivation, and creativity.
... First, several views on giftedness take into account social and emotional characteristics, such as motivation, locus of control, anxiety, and relations with individuals in the environment (Gagné, 2004(Gagné, , 2009Heller, 2004Heller, , 2009Piirto, 2000;Ziegler et al., 2013). Second, although the basic social needs of children with high intellectual abilities are the same as the needs of typically developing children Robinson, 2008) and several studies show that children with high abilities on average are not more susceptible to social and emotional problems than typically developing children (Altman, 1983;Vialle et al., 2007), individual children with high intellectual abilities can still experience social-emotional problems (Blaas, 2014). This is especially true when they experience a mismatch between their educational needs and the educational environment (Bakx, 2019;Rinn, 2018). ...
Full-text available
The present study aimed to determine whether exceptional items in human figure drawings (HFDs) can serve the identification process of talents and (educational) needs of children with high intellectual abilities. Participants were 152 children aged 4 to 6 years at the time of drawing. After 2 years, 85 had received regular curriculum (the typically developing group) and 67 had received enriched curriculum (the potentially gifted group). Analyses of item categories suggested that HFDs can serve as a screener for giftedness for 4- and 5-year-olds, but not for 6-year-olds. For 4- and 5-year-olds, the presence of items that indicated what is drawn or indicated deliberate abnormalities in shape and size predicted the likelihood of being in the potentially gifted group. No such predictive relation was found for items that indicated how good drawings look.
Full-text available
In this exploratory qualitative case study, in-depth interviews were held with seven highly gifted young adults (27–28 years). Thematic analyses of the interviews revealed salient constellations of meaning: an “internal motor”—a metaphor for an internal strength, a strong drive to grow, learn and develop, driven by their curiosity, a lack of goodness of fit (for the school years up, until the college years), feeling “not okay to be me”, existential loneliness, stress due to multi-potentiality, perfectionism, and spiritual needs (e.g., freedom to choose their own path). Based on the answers of the participants, greater attention and support seem to be needed for the holistic development of (highly) gifted students throughout their school careers. The findings suggest that attention should be paid to stimulating their cognitive development as well as their social, emotional, and spiritual development.
Abstract Aim: The purpose of this study was studying the effectiveness of creative problem-solving program training on life satisfaction and social adjustment of male gifted adolescent students. Method: This research was a quasi-experimental study including pre & post-test design with control group. The population of the study was 452 first-grade male high school students of exceptional talents schools of Ardabil city. The sample included 46 in first-grade male students who were selected using cluster random sampling method and they were assigned to two groups of 23. Research Tools were Raven's Matrices (1938), Tehran-Stanford-Binet's Intelligence Test (Afrooz and Kamkari, 2011), Hubner's Life Satisfaction (2001) and Bell Social Adjustment Inventory (1962). Participants in the experiment group participated in a problem solving training program during 13 sessions (75 minutes per session). In order to control the effect of pre-tests, data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). Results: The results showed that in subscales of genera life satisfaction, friends satisfaction, environment satisfaction, self-satisfaction, social adjustment and emotional adjustment, the mean scores of the experiment and control groups are mincingly different. Conclusion: According to the results, applying creative problem-solving program training for improving social adjustment and life satisfaction of talented male adolescents was effective. Based on the results of this study, using a creative problem-solving training program to improve life satisfaction and social adjustment for gifted students is recommended. Keywords: Creative problem -solving, gifted student, life satisfaction, social adjustment
8 ‫ﺷﻤﺎرة‬ ، 4 ‫ﭘﯿﺎﭘﯽ‬ ، 25 ‫زﻣﺴﺘﺎن‬ ، 1396 ‫ﺻﻔﺤﮥ‬ 119-105 ‫ﺣﻞ‬ ‫آﻣﻮزش‬ ‫اﺛﺮﺑﺨﺸﯽ‬ ‫اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ‬ ‫ﺳﺎزﮔﺎري‬ ‫و‬ ‫زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ ‫از‬ ‫رﺿﺎﯾﺖ‬ ‫ﺑﺮ‬ ‫ّﺎﻗﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺧﻠ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﮥ‬ ‫داﻧﺶ‬ ‫ﺗﯿﺰﻫﻮش‬ ‫ﭘﺴﺮ‬ ‫آﻣﻮزان‬ ‫ﻧﯿﮑﻨﺎم‬ ‫ﮐﺮﯾﻢ‬ 1 ‫ﺑﻨﺎب‬ ‫ﻏﺒﺎري‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻗﺮ‬ 2 ‫ﺣﺴﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻌﯿﺪ‬ ‫زاده‬ 3 4 ‫ﭼﮑﯿﺪه‬ ‫ﺣﻞ‬ ‫آﻣﻮزش‬ ‫اﺛﺮﺑﺨﺸﯽ‬ ‫ارزﯾﺎﺑﯽ‬ ‫ﻫﺪف‬ ‫ﺑﺎ‬ ‫ﺣﺎﺿﺮ‬ ‫ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‬ ‫رﺿـ‬ ‫ﺑـﺮ‬ ‫ّﺎﻗﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺧﻠ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ‬ ‫داﻧـﺶ‬ ‫اﺟﺘﻤـﺎﻋﯽ‬ ‫ﺳـﺎزﮔﺎري‬ ‫و‬ ‫زﻧـﺪﮔﯽ‬ ‫از‬ ‫ﺎﯾﺖ‬ ‫ﭘﺴـﺮ‬ ‫آﻣـﻮزان‬ ‫ﭘﯿﺶ‬ ‫ﻃﺮح‬ ‫ﺑﺎ‬ ‫و‬ ‫آزﻣﺎﯾﺸﯽ‬ ‫ﻧﯿﻤﻪ‬ ‫ﺷﯿﻮة‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‬ ‫اﯾﻦ‬ ‫ﺷﺪ.‬ ‫اﻧﺠﺎم‬ ‫ﺗﯿﺰﻫﻮش‬ ‫ﭘﺲ‬ ‫آزﻣﻮن‬ ‫آﻣﺎري‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﮥ‬ ‫ﺷﺪ.‬ ‫اﺟﺮا‬ ‫ﮐﻨﺘﺮل‬ ‫ﮔﺮوه‬ ‫ﺑﺎ‬ ‫آزﻣﻮن‬ 452 ‫از‬ ‫ﻧﻔﺮ‬ ‫داﻧﺶ‬ ‫دﺑﯿﺮﺳﺘﺎن‬ ‫آﻣﻮزان‬ ‫ﻧﻤﻮﻧـﮥ‬ ‫ﺑـﻮد.‬ ‫اردﺑﯿـﻞ‬ ‫ﺷـﻬﺮ‬ ‫ﭘﺴـﺮاﻧﻪ‬ ‫درﺧﺸـﺎن‬ ‫اﺳﺘﻌﺪادﻫﺎي‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﻪ‬ ‫اول‬ ‫دورة‬ ‫ﻫﺎي‬ ‫ﭘـﮋوﻫﺶ‬ ‫اﯾـﻦ‬ ‫آﻣـﺎري‬ 46 ‫از‬ ‫ﻧﻔـﺮ‬ ‫داﻧﺶ‬ ‫دﺑﯿﺮﺳﺘﺎن‬ ‫در‬ ‫ﺗﺤﺼﯿﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﻐﻮل‬ ‫ﭘﺴﺮ‬ ‫آﻣﻮزان‬ ‫ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‬ ‫روش‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﮐﻪ‬ ‫ﺑﻮدﻧﺪ‬ ‫اردﺑﯿﻞ‬ ‫ﺷﻬﺮ‬ ‫درﺧﺸﺎن‬ ‫اﺳﺘﻌﺪادﻫﺎي‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﻪ‬ ‫اول‬ ‫دورة‬ ‫ﻫﺎي‬ ‫ﮔﯿﺮي‬ ‫ﺧﻮﺷﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﺼﺎدﻓﯽ‬ ‫ﮔﺮوه‬ ‫دو‬ ‫در‬ ‫و‬ ‫اﻧﺘﺨﺎب‬ ‫اي‬ 23 ‫ﻣﺎﺗﺮﯾﺲ‬ ‫آزﻣﻮن‬ ‫ﭘﮋوﻫﺸﯽ‬ ‫اﺑﺰارﻫﺎي‬ ‫ﺷﺪﻧﺪ.‬ ‫ﺟﺎﯾﮕﺰﯾﻦ‬ ‫ﻧﻔﺮي‬) ‫رﯾـﻮن‬ ‫روﻧـﺪه‬ ‫ﭘﯿﺶ‬ ‫ﻫﺎي‬ 1938 ‫و‬ (‫اﺳﺘﻨﻔﻮرد‬ ‫ﻫﻮش‬ ‫آزﻣﻮن‬-‫ﺑﯿﻨﻪ‬-‫ﮐﺎﻣﮑﺎري،‬ ‫و‬ ‫)اﻓﺮوز‬ ‫ﺗﻬﺮان‬ 1390 ‫ﻫـﻮﺑﻨﺮ)‬ ‫زﻧـﺪﮔﯽ‬ ‫از‬ ‫رﺿـﺎﯾﺖ‬ ‫آزﻣـﻮن‬ ،(2001 ‫اﺟﺘﻤـﺎﻋﯽ‬ ‫ﺳـﺎزﮔﺎري‬ ‫آزﻣـﻮن‬ ‫و‬ (‫ﺑﻞ)‬ 1962 ‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖ‬ ‫ﺑﻮد.‬ (‫ﻃﯽ‬ ‫آزﻣﺎﯾﺶ‬ ‫ﮔﺮوه‬ ‫ﮐﻨﻨﺪﮔﺎن‬ 13 ‫ﺟﻠﺴﻪ‬ ‫)ﻫﺮ‬ ‫ﺟﻠﺴﻪ‬ 75 ‫ﺣﻞ‬ ‫آﻣﻮزش‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﮥ‬ ‫در‬ ‫دﻗﯿﻘﻪ(‬ ‫ﺑـﻪ‬ ‫ﮐﺮدﻧﺪ.‬ ‫ﺷﺮﮐﺖ‬ ‫ّﺎﻗﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺧﻠ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﮥ‬ ‫ﭘﯿﺶ‬ ‫اﺛﺮ‬ ‫ﮐﻨﺘﺮل‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻈﻮر‬ ‫آزﻣﻮن‬ ‫داده‬ ‫ﻫﺎ،‬ ‫ﺷـﺪ.‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿـﻞ‬ ‫ﻣـﺎﻧﮑﻮا‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻐﯿـﺮي‬ ‫ﭼﻨـﺪ‬ ‫ﮐﻮارﯾـﺎﻧﺲ‬ ‫ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ‬ ‫از‬ ‫اﺳﺘﻔﺎده‬ ‫ﺑﺎ‬ ‫ﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﺧـﺮده‬ ‫در‬ ‫ﮐـﻪ‬ ‫داد‬ ‫ﻧﺸـﺎن‬ ‫ﻧﺘـﺎﯾﺞ‬ ‫ﻣﻘﯿﺎس‬ ‫ﺑﯿﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﯽ‬ ‫ﺳﺎزﮔﺎري‬ ‫و‬ ‫اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ‬ ‫ﺳﺎزﮔﺎري‬ ‫ﺧﻮد،‬ ‫از‬ ‫رﺿﺎﯾﺖ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﯿﻂ،‬ ‫از‬ ‫رﺿﺎﯾﺖ‬ ‫دوﺳﺘﺎن،‬ ‫از‬ ‫رﺿﺎﯾﺖ‬ ‫زﻧﺪﮔﯽ،‬ ‫از‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ‬ ‫رﺿﺎﯾﺖ‬ ‫ﻫﺎي‬ ‫ﻣﻌ‬ ‫ﺗﻔﺎوت‬ ‫ﮔﻮاه‬ ‫و‬ ‫آزﻣﺎﯾﺶ‬ ‫ﮔﺮوه‬ ‫ﻧﻤﺮات‬ ‫ﻣﯿﺎﻧﮕﯿﻦ‬ ‫ﺣﻞ‬ ‫آﻣﻮزش‬ ‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﮥ‬ ‫از‬ ‫اﺳﺘﻔﺎده‬ ‫ﭘﮋوﻫﺶ‬ ‫اﯾﻦ‬ ‫ﻧﺘﺎﯾﺞ‬ ‫اﺳﺎس‬ ‫ﺑﺮ‬ ‫دارد.‬ ‫وﺟﻮد‬ ‫ﻨﺎداري‬ ‫ّﺎﻗﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﺧﻠ‬ ‫ﻣﺴﺄﻟﻪ‬ ‫داﻧﺶ‬ ‫ﺑﺮاي‬ ‫اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ‬ ‫ﺳﺎزﮔﺎري‬ ‫و‬ ‫زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ ‫از‬ ‫رﺿﺎﯾﺖ‬ ‫ﺑﻬﺒﻮد‬ ‫ﻣﻨﻈﻮر‬ ‫ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﯽ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺻﯿﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﯿﺰﻫﻮش‬ ‫آﻣﻮزان‬ ‫ﺷﻮد.
Full-text available
Özel yetenekli bireyler, duygusal açıdan yoğun ve hassas, mükemmeliyetçi, kendinden ve başkalarından yüksek beklentilere sahip, yaşıtlarına göre daha olgun olan, yüksek düzeyde ahlaki olgunluk ve adalet duygularına ve güçlü bir mizah anlayışına sahip, liderlik özellikleri sergileyen ve yüksek düzeyde empati yeteneğine sahiplerdir. Bu özelliklerinin BİLSEM’lere devam eden özel yetenekli öğrencilerin problem davranış sergileme durumlarını ve bu konuda yapılan rehberlik ve psikolojik danışma çalışmalarının neler olduğunun incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Bu araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden olgubilim deseni kullanılmıştır. NVIVO programıyla yapılan görüşmeler analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında psikolojik danışmanlar tarafında İfade edilme sıklığının en çok olduğu kategori “Okulunuzdaki özel yetenekli öğrencilerde ne tür davranış problemleriyle karşılaşıyorsunuz?” kodunun altında yer alan “mükemmeliyetçilik (f=16)” olarak görülmektedir. İfade edilme sıkılığının en az olduğu kategori ise “Rehberlik ve psikolojik danışma çalışmaların etkililiği ile ilgili neler söyleyebilirsiniz?” görüşme sorusunun altında yer alan “Çalışmalar etkili değil (f=1)” olarak görülmektedir. Kodlar, kategoriler ve alt kategoriler şeklinde bulgularda yer verilmiştir. Alanyazın ışığında sonuçlar tartışılmıştır.
In this study, the relationship between clusters of hope and a psychosocial profile of academic talent development is examined in a sample of 466 academically gifted adolescents. First, cluster analysis is leveraged to examine whether interpretable three- and four-cluster hope solutions can be found in the sample. Second, differences among a group of psychosocial variables that predict academic talent development were examined to assess whether hope clusters were meaningfully related to different psychosocial profiles of academic talent development. This study had several notable findings: (a) an interpretable three-cluster hope solution was found with the hope clusters exhibiting meaningfully different profiles of academic talent development, (b) the high hope cluster reported the psychosocial profile most conducive to academic talent development, followed by the average hope cluster and the low hope cluster, respectively, and (c) this study did not find an interpretable four-cluster hope solution. These findings have implications for both academic talent development and hope theory.
Full-text available
The literature relevant to the combined area of personality and education and learning is summarized, covering almost a century of research and theorizing. Different topics considered important from the aspect of education and learning or from the aspect of personality are represented. For personality this means that broad domains such as motivation and disposition are represented, and that reference is made to topics such as achievement motivation, character education, and goal orientation. The first few decades of the century are coloured by the unitary character-derived construct persistence of motives (Webb, 1915), which has an inherent connection to learning and education. The last three or four decades are characterized by a growing consensus in the personality field about basic constructs such as those represented by the Big-Five factors. In addition, emerging issues covering the relationship between personality and intelligence and personality, motivation, and achievement-orientation are described. This review is necessarily incomplete, but most of the central topics in the field of personality and education have been given a place.
Describes the Social Support Questionnaire (SSQ) and 4 empirical studies employing it. The SSQ yields scores for (a) perceived number of social supports and (b) satisfaction with social support that is available. Three studies (N = 1,224 college students) dealt with the SSQ's psychometric properties, its correlations with measures of personality and adjustment, and the relation of the SSQ to positive and negative life changes. The 4th study (40 Ss) was an investigation of the relation between social support and persistence in working on a complex, frustrating task. The research reported suggests that the SSQ is a reliable instrument and that social support is (a) more strongly related to positive than negative life changes, (b) more related in a negative direction to psychological discomfort among women than men, and (c) an asset in enabling a person to persist at a task under frustrating conditions. Clinical implications are discussed. (47 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
This research monograph describes the findings of a study examining the perceptions of culturally diverse students and other stakeholders about contextual mediators of achievement and underachievement.
Based on a contemporary cognitive-psychoanalytic theory (control-mastery theory; J. Weiss, H. Sampson, & Mount Zion Psychotherapy Research Group, 1986), this study proposed that college students have plans for college that consist of conscious and unconscious goals and obstructions to be overcome in meeting those goals. The construct of unconscious guilt was used to mediate the dual goals of autonomy and attachment. The idiographic plan-formulation method was adapted to derive plans for 12 sophomore women. Acceptable interjudge reliabilities and criterion validity were demonstrated, and several themes in the goals and obstructions were illustrated. Students worried more about mothers than about fathers, particularly when they perceived the mother as weak or needy. The potential of the method for generating inferences about unconscious process for normative development is discussed.
The study explored several issues respecting the self-concept in children categorized as gifted; (a) the relative independence of specific components of self-perceptions; (b) the way in which these factors relate to global self-esteem; and (c) the extent to which a developmental process operates in the evolution of the self-concept. Data were collected from a sample of pupils enrolled in enrichment classes, grades 5 through 8. Measures included the Self-Perception Profile for Children and a teacher-rating measure of pupil attributes. The results confirmed the relative independence of the specific components and showed that self-perceptions of social and scholastic competence and of physical appearance were the major contributors to the self-concept. There was no evidence, however, for the operation of a developmental process.