Content uploaded by Emily Mofield
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emily Mofield on Feb 07, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218758440
Gifted Child Quarterly
2018, Vol. 62(4) 327 –349
© 2018 National Association for
Gifted Children
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0016986218758440
journals.sagepub.com/home/gcq
Article
Introduction
In gifted education, much of our attention focuses on shaping
potential into achievement. For talent to be realized, ability is
necessary, but not sufficient. Other factors, including motiva-
tion, mindset, opportunity, creativity, task commitment, inter-
est, and passion, are associated with outstanding achievement
(Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011). Cognitive
and psychosocial factors not only matter in talent develop-
ment, they are also malleable in talent development.
Therefore, it is imperative to study the variables that can
either impede or progress potential and to examine the facility
of developing contexts that shape these abilities, beliefs, and
skills. In doing so, practitioners can guide students to follow
a trajectory toward outstanding achievement. Among these
variables of influence, implicit theories of intelligence
(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988) are impor-
tant determinants to positive achievement strivings. How one
views intelligence and effort can influence important behav-
iors, including how one responds to challenges, approaches
goals, and reacts to setbacks. Accordingly, these motivations
and behaviors relate to perfectionism and can impede achieve-
ment when manifested through procrastination, compulsive
behaviors, fear of failing, and avoidance of challenges (Enns
& Cox, 2002; Foster, 2007). So then, what do gifted students
think and believe about their abilities, particularly their intel-
ligence, and how might these thoughts and beliefs affect real-
ization of potential? How do these beliefs and attitudes differ
from other students, and what are the implications of these
differences? How do these variables relate to one another? In
the following literature review, we present an overview of
how mindsets, perfectionism, and attitude toward achieve-
ment relate to conceptions of intelligence in gifted students.
Mindsets
Dweck’s work on self-theories proposed that individuals hold
implicit beliefs about abilities (Dweck & Leggett, 1988):
They are either fixed (entity theory) or changeable (incremen-
tal theory). In several studies, Dweck’s self-theories have
been found to influence achievement and motivation (e.g.,
758440GCQXXX10.1177/0016986218758440Gifted Child QuarterlyMoeld and Parker Peters
research-article2018
1Sumner County Schools, Gallatin, TN, USA
2Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Emily L. Mofield, Sumner County Schools, 695 East Main Street, Gallatin,
TN 37066, USA.
Email: mofielde@gmail.com
Mindset Misconception? Comparing
Mindsets, Perfectionism, and Attitudes
of Achievement in Gifted, Advanced,
and Typical Students
Emily L. Mofield1 and Megan Parker Peters2
Abstract
The study compared mindset beliefs, perfectionism, and achievement attitudes among gifted, advanced, and typical
students in Grades 6 to 8 (N = 416) and explored the relationship between these variables. Welch’s F tests revealed no
statistically significant difference in growth or fixed mindset beliefs about intelligence among groups. Gifted and advanced
students scored higher on Personal Standards (gifted, d = 0.68; advanced, d = 0.62) and Academic Self-Perception (gifted,
d = 0.72; advanced, d = 0.58) compared with typical students. In hierarchical regression models, giftedness was a statistically
significant predictor for Concern over Mistakes (β = 0.20) and Personal Standards (β = 0.27); both gifted (β = 0.31) and
advanced (β = 0.17) status were statistically significant predictors for Academic Self-Perception. Various models showed a
positive association between growth mindset and Positive Strivings Perfectionism and achievement attitudes and a positive
association between fixed mindset and Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism. Findings suggest that gifted students are not more
vulnerable to develop fixed mindsets.
Keywords
gifted, mindset, perfectionism, achievement attitudes, achievement motivation, implicit theories of intelligence, conceptions
of ability
328 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
Ahmavaara & Houston, 2007; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, &
Dweck, 2007; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Grant & Dweck,
2003). Self-theories were later extended to the concepts of
fixed and growth mindsets, which include beliefs about effort
and challenges (Dweck, 2006). Those with fixed mindsets
believe that basic qualities, such as their intelligence, are
fixed traits, whereas those with growth mindsets hold the
incremental view that ability can change with effort and hard
work. Individuals with a growth mindset value new chal-
lenges, learning, and even failure, viewing their abilities as a
starting point to achieving success. On the contrary, those
with a fixed mindset avoid changes and challenges, believing
that talent alone creates success. Furthermore, they internal-
ize their ability as a measure of self-worth and avoid tasks
that may refute or challenge their abilities.
Mindsets are shaped, in part, by messages presented about
ability (Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & Dweck, 1998).
In a given classroom, students are likely to receive praise
based on ability —“Look what you did! You are so smart!”
Such person-centered praises have been linked to the devel-
opment of entity/fixed beliefs (Mueller & Dweck, 1998).
Given their high abilities, it is surmised that gifted students
may especially be vulnerable to receive praise based on intel-
ligence, influencing a potential preoccupation with maintain-
ing a smart identity and avoiding challenges that threaten
such identity (Dweck, 2012). Following, it has been argued
that the gifted label itself is a form of intelligence praise and
could influence challenge-avoidant behaviors (Mueller &
Dweck, 1998). However, such arguments are based on impli-
cations of studies (e.g., Mueller & Dweck, 1998) that did not
specifically examine samples of gifted students or the impact
of the gifted label. When referring to her praise studies and
fixed mindsets, Dweck (2012) explains, “. . . praising stu-
dents for their intelligence puts them in this mindset, with all
of its vulnerabilities. This research can help us understand
why so many students labeled gifted are so fragile and at risk
of not achieving their potential” (p. 16). Because Dweck’s
work has become mainstream, books, blogs, and other media
have portrayed assertions to imply that the label of “gifted-
ness” influences fixed mindsets (e.g., Boaler, 2018, 2016;
Matthews & Foster, 2013; Ricci, 2013; Scott, 2013); yet such
assertions are not based on empirical evidence aimed to
study this specific link.
On the contrary, many studies with samples of gifted stu-
dents indicate that gifted students hold beliefs about effort,
challenge, and malleability aligned with incremental theory
in various domains (e.g., Alexander, 1985; Esparza, Shumow,
& Schmidt, 2014; Feldhusen & Dai, 1997; Guskin, Okolo,
Zimmerman, & Peng, 1986; Makel, Snyder, Thomas,
Malone, & Putallaz, 2015). For example, Feldhusen and Dai
(1997) found that gifted adolescents participating in a gifted
summer program held incremental beliefs about personal
abilities and expressed preference for challenging academic
opportunities. In a more recent study, Esparza et al. (2014)
found that gifted middle school students were more likely
than nongifted students to agree that intelligence is malleable
(incremental) on pretests that were administered prior to
receiving an intervention to promote growth mindset in the
science content area. Worrell (2012) offered an explanation
for patterns of growth mindset beliefs among gifted by
hypothesizing,
Students who are classified as gifted are already benefiting from
the appropriate mindsets . . . the superior performance that
resulted in the gifted classification is the result of multiple
variables coalescing (Simonton, 2001), including a malleable
conception of ability . . . (p. 154)
Furthermore, it has been suggested that gifted students may
be able to hear entity messages about intelligence without it
negatively affecting their view of its role in talent develop-
ment, especially when the role of effort is emphasized with
ability (Siegle, Rubenstein, Pollard, & Romey, 2010).
Snyder, Barger, Wormington, Schwartz-Bloom, and Linnen-
brink-Garcia (2013) examined the link between identified
giftedness and implicit beliefs of intelligence finding that
higher ability college students who had been identified as
gifted held slightly higher entity beliefs than lower ability
college students. However, no differences were found
between higher ability students who had been given the
gifted label at any time and those who had not. Though it
might be tempting to interpret these findings to mean that
gifted identification is associated with entity views, Snyder
et al. (2013) were careful to emphasize,
there were no observable differences between identified and
nonidentified students in the current study and only a small
interaction effect between identification status and academic
ability was detected. This is consistent with prior research in that
gifted students seem to largely endorse incremental beliefs . . .
(p. 252)
When looking at the construct of giftedness, not just intel-
ligence, some research has implied that gifted students inter-
pret giftedness as a fixed trait. Seventy-two percent of the
participating adolescent gifted students in a 1994 study
reported that they believed giftedness to be stable (Manaster,
Chan, Watt, & Wiehe, 1994). Still, others have shown that
gifted students do not see giftedness as a fixed trait (Kerr,
Colangelo, & Gaeth, 1988), rather something that relates to
effort. More recently, Makel et al. (2015) worked with par-
ticipants at a summer program to investigate adolescent
gifted students’ beliefs regarding giftedness and intelligence.
The authors noted that because implicit beliefs about a con-
struct tend to be domain specific, it is common to have an
entity view of one construct and an incremental view of
another. Accordingly, it is possible to have an incremental
belief about either intelligence or giftedness and an entity
belief concerning the other construct. It is also, thus, impor-
tant to assess domains separately in order to yield accurate
findings concerning students’ implicit beliefs about a given
Mofield and Parker Peters 329
construct, whether intelligence, giftedness, or an academic
subject area (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Makel et al.,
2015; Quihuis, Bempechat, Jimenez, & Boulay, 2002). For
example, in Makel and colleagues’ (2015) study, gifted stu-
dents reported stronger fixed beliefs about giftedness com-
pared with the general intelligence domain; intelligence was
generally viewed as more malleable than giftedness.
In sum, most studies support the notion that gifted stu-
dents endorse incremental beliefs about intelligence as a
separate construct (general intelligence domain); however,
once conceptions of giftedness are introduced, the results
are not as decisive. More studies are needed to study the
mindsets of gifted students in school settings, not just resi-
dential summer programs or among college students.
Comparative studies are also needed to further examine
mindset orientations between gifted samples and other
groups (Worrell, 2012). It is also important to further explore
how mindset beliefs about intelligence may relate to other
variables that may interfere with achievement, such as per-
fectionism and attitude toward achievement, especially if
shifts in mindsets can accordingly alter maladaptive thoughts
and attitudes.
Perfectionism
Achieving personal goals and high standards of performance
are deemed desirable for many gifted students. As such, per-
fectionism is often linked with giftedness (Mofield & Parker
Peters, 2015a; Schuler, 2002; Silverman, 1997; Speirs
Neumeister, 2007; Speirs Neumeister & Finch, 2006), though
much of the literature suggests that gifted students display
only higher rates of adaptive/healthy perfectionism than non-
gifted comparisons (LoCicero & Ashby, 2000; Shaunessey,
Suldo, & Friedrich, 2011; Vandiver & Worrell, 2002) or sug-
gests that there are no differences in levels of perfectionism
between the groups (Parker & Mills, 1996; Parker, Portesova,
& Stumpf, 2001). While research is not conclusive on the
rates or amount at which gifted students experience perfec-
tionism, it is difficult to argue that perfectionism does not
have a presence among gifted students. Perfectionism is
associated with giftedness as gifted students are often capa-
ble of achieving high standards of excellence, even perfec-
tion. Second, gifted students are valued for their high
performance, often equating self-worth with performance
(Sowa, McIntire, May, & Bland, 1994). Third, gifted stu-
dents may strive for perfection as a means to challenge them-
selves in response to nonchallenging curriculum, as a lack of
challenge has been noted as a contributor to the manifesta-
tion of perfectionism (Speirs Neumeister, Williams, & Cross,
2009). Finally, their heightened intellectual and emotional
intensities in the form of over excitabilities may contribute to
the manifestation of perfectionism in some gifted students
(Cross, 1997; Mofield & Parker Peters, 2015b) though it is
acknowledged that not all gifted students exhibit over excit-
abilities, and recent work has supported understanding this
construct within the five-factor concept of openness (Vuyk,
Krieshok, & Kerr, 2016).
Most definitions of perfectionism relate the construct to
striving for excessively high standards; however, different
motivations, behaviors, and outcomes are associated with
how these high goals are approached. Hamachek (1978), an
early theorist of perfectionism, differentiated two types: neu-
rotic and normal perfectionists. Neurotic perfectionists
engage in harsh self-criticism and experience shame and
guilt when evaluating their behaviors against high standards,
whereas normal perfectionists can enjoy their work and
experience joy in the striving toward excellence. The idea of
a multidimensional theory of perfectionism was continued
by others (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990; Hewitt
& Flett, 1991).
A series of studies have been conducted with gifted popu-
lations to validate typologies of healthy, unhealthy, and non-
perfectionists (Chan, 2007, 2009; Mofield & Parker Peters,
2015a; Parker & Mills, 1996; Schuler, 2000). Most recently,
Speirs Neumeister (2016) has recommended that gifted edu-
cation research implement the common language of perfec-
tionism used in studies outside our field (e.g., Gaudreau &
Thompson, 2010; Stoeber & Otto, 2006). By deconstructing
typologies into two factors (Positive Strivings and Evaluative
Concerns), the field can be more consistent with measure-
ment and have a finer focus when addressing perfectionism
with students.
Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism and Positive Strivings
Perfectionism manifest from varied motivations and can
lead to positive or negative outcomes. If one’s striving for
perfection is motivated out of a fear of failure or to maintain
a sense of self-worth, achievement behaviors are likely to be
associated with avoiding challenging tasks. This maladap-
tive type of perfectionism is defined by the negative evalua-
tive concerns of the individual (Evaluative Concerns;
Stoeber & Rambow, 2007) and has been associated with eat-
ing disorders (Bardone-Cone et al., 2007), depression
(Brown & Beck, 2002), anxiety (Kawamura, Hunt, Frost, &
DiBartolo, 2001), and avoidance coping (Dixon, Lapsley, &
Hanchon, 2004; Mofield, Parker Peters, & Chakraborti-
Ghosh, 2016). However, if one’s achievement strivings are
rooted from a hope of success and the need to fulfill internal
needs of mastery and personal growth, behaviors are associ-
ated with positive outcomes such as conscientiousness, life
satisfaction, achievement, and active coping (Positive
Strivings; Chan, 2007; Slade & Owens, 1998; Stoeber &
Otto, 2006; Stoeber & Rambow, 2007). On the other hand,
if high adaptive perfectionism coexists with high levels of
maladaptive perfectionism, individuals continue to experi-
ence the negative affect associated with maladaptive perfec-
tionism, such as lower sense of security, poor self-image,
and dysfunctional coping (Dixon et al., 2004). This is con-
cerning since an individual may mask negative self-critical
tendencies behind the pursuit of seemingly healthy stan-
dards of excellence (Mofield et al., 2016).
330 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
Among a sample of gifted adolescents, Evaluative
Concerns Perfectionism has been found to be associated with
avoidance orientations away from an academic stressor (e.g.,
getting a B), whereas Positive Strivings Perfectionism has
been associated with constructively approaching a stressor
(Mofield et al., 2016). For those who avoid challenges,
behaviors such as choosing not to take an honors course for
fear of getting a B demonstrates the avoidance of risking
“failure,” resulting in missed opportunities for learning, criti-
cal feedback, and challenge, all necessary components for
actualizing achievement. Therefore, these missed opportuni-
ties may translate to underachievement, the discrepancy
between potential and performance (Whitmore, 1980). This
goes hand in hand with Dweck’s self-theories, as formerly
discussed. For students who endorse entity beliefs, chal-
lenges threaten one’s belief that he or she is competent, so
challenges are avoided. Given that these factors can poten-
tially inhibit achievement, it is important to study entity
beliefs, avoidance orientations, and maladaptive perfection-
ism as they relate to giftedness.
A number of studies demonstrate that types of perfection-
ism are linked to entity or incremental beliefs. Shih (2011)
studied perfectionism among Taiwanese eighth grade stu-
dents (not necessarily gifted), revealing that adaptive perfec-
tionism was positively associated with incremental beliefs,
positive emotions, and behavioral self-regulation, whereas,
maladaptive perfectionism was positively related with entity
beliefs, negative emotions, self-handicapping, and contingent
self-worth. A similar pattern was found among gifted Chinese
students in Grades 5 to 12; gifted students classified as healthy
perfectionists scored highest on happiness and life satisfac-
tion compared with unhealthy perfectionists and nonperfec-
tionists; they also earned higher scores on growth mindset
measures compared with nonperfectionists (Chan, 2012).
Accordingly, gifted students classified as unhealthy perfec-
tionists scored highest on the measure of fixed mindset.
Dweck’s work on self-theories has shown that those who
adopt incremental beliefs about intelligence are more likely
to adopt mastery goals, whereas, those who adopt entity
beliefs are more likely to adopt performance goals (Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). Using the trichotomous goal orientation
model (mastery, performance approach, performance avoid-
ance; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), Speirs Neumeister and
Finch (2006) found that gifted college students who score
highly on socially prescribed (maladaptive) perfectionism
adopted either performance approach goals, reflecting a
desire to appear competent to others, or performance avoid-
ance goals, showing a desire to avoid something in which
they may appear incompetent to others. Self-oriented (adap-
tive) perfectionists adopted more mastery or performance
approach goals.
Overall, these findings show a clear association between
perfectionism and beliefs about intelligence, effort, goals,
and approaches to challenge among adolescent populations
and populations of gifted students (including college
students). Self-theories (entity vs. incremental beliefs) have
an impact on achievement strivings, including the striving
toward perfection.
Attitudes Toward Achievement
As we pose the question, “What do gifted students think
and believe about their intelligence and how might these
thoughts and beliefs affect realization of potential?” it is
important to examine variables beyond mindsets and per-
fectionism, including those associated with underachieve-
ment. Specifically, these variables target attitude toward
achievement and include five psychological factors: aca-
demic self-perceptions, motivation/self-regulation, goal
valuation, attitude toward school, and attitude toward
teacher (McCoach & Siegle, 2003).
Gifted underachievers are often described as having low
academic self-concepts (see Reis & McCoach, 2000;
Whitmore, 1980), though McCoach and Siegle (2003) found
that self-concepts, measured as academic self-perception,
did not differentiate gifted achievers from gifted under-
achievers (underachievers defined as students with a severe
discrepancy between expected achievement and actual
achievement). Self-concept includes beliefs about one’s
abilities, competence, and associated self-worth, and aca-
demic self-concept can influence how one persists in chal-
lenges and activities (Ames, 1990). So then, is entity theory
related to low academic self-perception, and is incremental
theory related to high academic self-perception? Though the
relationship between self-theories and academic self-per-
ception has not been explored in research among gifted stu-
dents, self-perceptions and social comparisons are thought
to influence achievement. Relevant to self-theories, when a
student is concerned about being perceived as dumb or not
good enough, it is a threat to self-worth; therefore, opportu-
nities that rest on ability-based performance might be
avoided, resulting in underachievement (Byrne, 1996;
Covington, 1992).
Additionally, motivation and self-regulation are inter-
twined factors that influence achievement (McCoach &
Siegle, 2003). Self-regulation involves the active participa-
tion of one’s own learning and pursuit of goals, but students
must be motivated to use such self-regulatory strategies
(Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). Furthermore, motivation has
been found to be highly related to attitude toward school and
achievement goals (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2013; See
Tan, Kian Tan, & Surendran, 2016), and significant differ-
ences were found between gifted achievers and gifted under-
achievers on a measure of motivation/self-regulation
(McCoach & Siegle, 2003).
When studying samples of gifted achievers and gifted
underachievers, McCoach and Siegle (2003) found that goal
valuation and motivation/self-regulation substantially differ-
entiated gifted achievers from gifted underachievers. Gifted
underachievers set lower goals (McCoach & Siegle, 2003;
Mofield and Parker Peters 331
Mofield et al., 2016) and are less motivated to put forth effort
in achieving these goals. Goal valuation is relevant to moti-
vation because when one is committed to achieving a goal,
he or she is more likely to approach the task with intentions
to complete it (McCoach & Siegle, 2003; Pintrich &
DeGroot, 1990). Furthermore, when individuals believe that
a task is of value and believe that they will find success,
motivated behavior occurs (Clinkenbeard, 2012). It follows
then that those who do well in school are more likely to be
interested in what they are learning (Weiner, 1992).
While it is important to note that gifted students are
known to generally have high self-concepts (Hoge &
Renzulli, 1993; Neihart, 1999; Neihart, Pfeiffer, & Cross,
2016) and have high intrinsic motivation (Olszewski-
Kubilius, Kulieke, & Krasney, 1988), it would be valuable to
explore if and how gifted students differ from comparison
groups (advanced and typical students) on all five of the psy-
chological factors relating to underachievement. This would
help us understand if gifted students show specific areas of
vulnerability compared with other groups. Additionally, it is
worth exploring if implicit beliefs about intelligence relate to
these attitudes. Understanding if and how risk factors for
underachievement (academic self-perception, attitude
toward teacher, attitude toward school, motivation, and
goals) relate to entity or incremental views can potentially
offer direction and support for targeted intervention.
Gifted Identification and Labeling
This conversation regarding conceptions of intelligence and
achievement cannot be complete without mentioning the
impact of the gifted label. Historically, there has been an
argument that there are social–emotional impacts that stem
from labeling a child as gifted (Berlin, 2009; Cross, 1997;
Hertzog, 2003). There is research to support the use of the
gifted label, associating the label as a means to appropriate
programming (Berlin, 2009; Ford, 1978; Hickey & Toth,
1990; Kerr et al., 1988; Moulton, Moulton, Housewright, &
Bailey, 1998) also leading to positive self-concepts and
enjoyment of prestige (Feldhusen & Dai, 1997; Hotter,
1986). Additionally, however, there is a base demonstrating
that the label sends gifted students negative messages,
including assumptions, stereotypes (Berlin, 2009; Fox, 1976;
Halpern & Luria, 1989; Hertzog, 2003), and elitism (National
Association for Gifted Children, 2009; Quart, 2006). As
mentioned previously, some contend that the term gifted is
itself a form of intelligence praise (Mueller & Dweck, 1998).
The label conveys ability as a gift, implying the child did not
work for this ability or talent. Thus, it is not a far stretch for
some to argue that gifted students may be more likely to hold
a fixed mindset about their abilities. Dweck (2000) has
stated,
The term “gifted” conjures up an entity theory. It implies that
some entity, a large amount of intelligence, has been magically
bestowed upon students, making them special. Thus, when
students are so labeled, some may be overconcerned with
justifying that label and less concerned with seeking challenges
that enhance their skills. . . . They may also begin to react more
poorly to setbacks, worrying that mistakes, confusions, or
failures mean that they don’t deserve the coveted label. If being
gifted makes them special, then losing the label may mean to
them that they are “ordinary” and somehow less worthy. (p. 122)
Indeed, it can be concerning if a gifted student avoids
challenges to protect oneself from failure; thus, it would ben-
efit the field to know if gifted students adopt entity views
more than other groups of students.
Rationale
Those working with gifted students need to be aware of vari-
ables that thwart a child from achieving his or her potential.
The field would benefit from understanding how these vari-
ables manifest within the gifted population compared with
other populations. Dweck’s (2006) self-theories provide a
theoretical framework for exploring mindsets and related
constructs, such as perfectionism and achievement attitudes,
in the context of talent development (Subotnik et al., 2011).
Examining such factors advance our understanding and pre-
vention of underachievement. Given the presence of ability-
focused praise gifted children are likely to hear along with
the pressure to perform to maintain a “smart” identity
(Dweck, 2012), it would benefit the field to know how beliefs
about ability (particularly intelligence) and effort might
interfere with achievement among the gifted. While other
researchers have explored implicit theories of intelligence
among gifted populations using college students (e.g., Siegle
et al., 2010; Snyder et al., 2013; Snyder, Malin, Dent, &
Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014), students who attend residential
summer programs (e.g., Feldhusen & Dai, 1997; Guskin
et al., 1986; Makel et al., 2015), or students from other cul-
tures (Chan, 2012), very little research has been done with
gifted adolescents in American schools (cf., Esparza et al.,
2014). Additionally, the most recent studies have focused
only on implicit theories of intelligence (incremental vs.
entity beliefs of intelligence; Esparza et al., 2014; Siegle
et al., 2010; Snyder et al., 2013; Snyder et al., 2014) rather
than on the broader aspects of mindsets (e.g., intelligence
beliefs along with beliefs about challenge, hard work, and
mistakes) with the exception of Chan’s (2012) study.
The field is in need of comparative studies with students
in gifted and talented programs and students in regular edu-
cation (Worrell, 2012). We found only one study comparing
mindsets between gifted and regular education students (i.e.,
Esparza et al., 2014) and no studies that include K-12
“advanced” students who are not labeled as “gifted” as a
comparison group. Including the advanced cohort as a com-
parison would provide insight as to whether these students
believe that their abilities are limited because they do not
332 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
meet criteria for the gifted program. The present study
explored the following questions: What do gifted students
believe about abilities (specifically intelligence) and effort,
and how does this compare to other populations? Are gifted
students more likely to adopt fixed mindsets about intelli-
gence and display higher levels of perfectionism? What vari-
ables differentiate gifted learners from other student
populations regarding achievement attitudes (academic self-
perception, goal valuation, motivation/self-regulation, etc.)?
How do the constructs of mindset, perfectionism, and atti-
tude toward achievement relate to one another? An under-
standing of how mindset, perfectionism, achievement
attitudes, and giftedness relate to one another can guide prac-
titioners to develop interventions to address accordingly
social emotional issues (e.g., perfectionism) through the cul-
tivation of psychosocial skills.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the present study was to compare mindset
beliefs (about intelligence), perfectionism, and achievement
attitudes (e.g., academic self-perception, attitude toward
school, attitude toward teacher, goal valuation, and motiva-
tion regulation) among gifted, advanced, and typical students.
We hypothesized that there would be differences among the
three groups on mindset scores, perfectionism, and achieve-
ment attitudes, testing 11 hypotheses (for subscores of mind-
set, perfectionism, and achievement attitudes).
A secondary purpose of the study was to conduct a series of
analyses to explore (1) if and to what extent giftedness is asso-
ciated with mindset beliefs about intelligence and (2) if and to
what extent mindsets, group status, and their interactions are
associated with perfectionism and achievement attitudes. We
hypothesized that the associations between gifted status and
mindset beliefs about intelligence would be consistent with
results from the comparison tests. Second, we hypothesized
that the independent variables (mindset, group status, and their
interactions) would be useful for explaining variance in per-
fectionism and achievement attitude subscales and that signifi-
cant contributors within the models would be consistent with
effects found in our comparison tests. Specifically, we hypoth-
esized that growth mindset beliefs about intelligence would be
positively associated with Positive Strivings Perfectionism
and all five attitudes of achievement. Fixed mindset beliefs
about intelligence would be positively associated with
Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism and negatively associated
with Positive Strivings Perfectionism and all five attitudes of
achievement.
Method
Participants
The sample was drawn from a suburban school district in
southeast United States. All gifted students from 11 middle
schools (Grades 6 to 8) were invited to participate. In addi-
tion, 22 classrooms were selected for comparison groups.
These classrooms were chosen by randomly selecting regu-
lar education teachers from a pool of all district teachers who
teach both advanced language arts or math classes and non-
advanced language arts or math classes. To qualify for an
advanced class, students had to earn “advanced” scores on
the state language arts or math assessments. In the advanced
classes, the pace is faster, and students may go deeper into
content. It is important to note that advanced classes include
students who are identified gifted as well as other students
who are not identified as gifted. If gifted students were also
in advanced classes, they were only included in the gifted
sample (giftedness overrides advanced for sample selection).
Advanced students who are not identified as gifted have
demonstrated high levels of academic achievement but have
not been formally identified as gifted and, accordingly, have
not received the gifted label or participated in services for
gifted students. These differences were important and of
interest to the researchers desiring to establish any apparent
differences.
A total of 416 students participated in the study (49%
males, 51% females, 87% White, 3.6% African American,
3.6% Asian, 5.8% Hispanic, and 1.2% Other). This included
264 gifted, 66 advanced, and 86 typical students. The
response rate from the gifted sample was 59%. Twenty-two
classrooms were randomly selected for participation of
advanced and typical students. Unfortunately, 9 classroom
teachers chose not to distribute consent forms. Of the remain-
ing 13 classrooms (7 typical, 6 advanced), overall response
rates for typical and advanced students were 57% and 63%,
respectively.
To be eligible for gifted services, students must meet state
requirements that include criteria for achievement, creativity,
and cognition scores. Students must meet one of the three
options: (1) high intelligence quotient (IQ; 130 or higher)
and another component (96th percentile or above on one
standardized test composite score or 90% or higher on two
composite scores; (2) IQ of 123 to 129, two composite scores
above 95 percentile or three composite scores above 90th
percentile, and academic performance and/or creative think-
ing; or (3) IQ 118 to 122, three composite areas above 95th
percentile or four composite areas above 90th percentile, and
academic performance and/or creative thinking. Students
must also demonstrate that their high intellectual functioning
presents an adverse effect in the regular classroom without
individualized support. All identified gifted students in this
district are served with an Individual Education Plan since
gifted services are part of special education in the state where
the study was conducted. Gifted students attend a gifted pull-
out class in place of one of two related arts classes (e.g., com-
puter, health, art, etc.). In the gifted pull-out class, gifted
students are with other gifted peers and have opportunities to
investigate in-depth topics, apply problem solving to various
real-world issues, and pursue independent projects.
Mofield and Parker Peters 333
Procedures
Students in participating classrooms (gifted pullout,
advanced, and regular classes) were given an oral explana-
tion about involvement in the research study. They were told
that the purposes of the study were to explore the relation-
ships between goals, work habits, mindset, and achievement
of students. Students were given consent forms for parents to
sign, which were returned to the teacher, who administered
the surveys. Participating students were given three surveys:
Mindset Assessment Profile Tool (2012), The Goals and
Work Habits Survey (GWHS; Schuler, 1994), and The
SAAS-R (School Attitudes Assessment Survey–Revised;
McCoach, 2000). The questions were presented in this order
to all groups of students (mindset measures, perfectionism,
and school achievement attitudes). Teachers were asked to
check surveys for completion and ask students to fill in any
missed items.
Measures
Mindset. The Mindset Assessment Profile Tool (2012) mea-
sures a student’s belief about the malleability of intelligence,
attitude toward effort, attitude toward mistakes, and belief
about the importance of learning. It consists of eight ques-
tions, four of which relate to growth mindset beliefs with
parallel statements that reflect fixed mindset beliefs. The
participants indicate the extent to which they agree or dis-
agree with the statement using a 6-point scale (1 = disagree
a lot and 6 = agree a lot). A subscore on growth mindset
(Cronbach’s α = .84, 95% confidence interval [CI] [.81, .86])
was determined by adding the four growth mindset ques-
tions, while the subscore on fixed mindset (Cronbach’s α =
.80, 95% CI [.77, .83]) was determined by adding the four
fixed mindset questions. Growth mindset beliefs were mea-
sured by items such as “No matter how much intelligence
you have, you can always change it a good deal” and “When
something is hard, it just makes me want to work harder on
it, not less.” Fixed mindset beliefs were measured by items
such as “You can learn new things but you cannot really
change your basic level of intelligence” and “I like my work
best when I can do it really well without much trouble.”
Scale scores were calculated by calculating the mean of
scored items.
Perfectionism. Perfectionism was measured by the GWHS
(Schuler, 1994), a modified version of Frost’s Multidimen-
sional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990). For purposes
of the current study, only four of six dimensions were
assessed (Concern over Mistakes, Doubt of Action, Personal
Standards, and Organization). The other two dimensions,
Parental Criticism and Parent Expectations, were not mea-
sured since they measure students’ experiences with their
parents rather than their individual personal expectations.
The GWHS has been used in previous studies on perfection-
ism in the field of gifted education (e.g., Chan, 2009; Mofield
& Chakraborti-Ghosh, 2010; Mofield & Parker Peters,
2015a, 2015b; Schuler, 2000, 2002). The survey includes 25
questions in which the participants respond on a Likert-type
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It
includes eight items measuring one’s Concern over Mistakes
with items such as “people will probably think less of me if I
make a mistake.” Four items measured Doubt of Action with
statements such as “Even when I try to do something care-
fully, I often feel that it is not right.” Cronbach’s alpha coef-
ficients were calculated for each subscale: Concern over
Mistakes (α = .84, 95% CI [.82, .86]), Doubt of Action (α =
.67, 95% CI [.62, .72]), Personal Standards (α= .75, 95% CI
[.71, .78]), and Organization (α = .91, 95% CI [.90, .92]).
This internal consistency is somewhat consistent with previ-
ous findings. Frost and colleagues (1990) reported internal
consistency ranging from .77 to .93 on subscales (.88 for
Concern over Mistakes, .83 for Personal Standards, .84 for
Doubt of Action, and .93 for Organization) while Stumpf and
Parker (2000) found internal consistency ranging from .67 to
.90 (.83 for Concern over Mistakes, .74 for Personal Stan-
dards, .67 for Doubt of Action, .90 for Organization). High
scores for Concern over Mistakes and Doubt of Action are
associated with Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism, while
high scores for Personal Standards and Organization are
associated with Personal Strivings Perfectionism (Frost,
Heimberg, Holt, Mattia, & Neubauer, 1993; Stoeber & Otto,
2006; Stumpf & Parker, 2000), although high Personal Stan-
dards along with high Concern over Mistakes and Doubt of
Action can also be associated with maladaptive perfection-
ism when interpreting typologies (Dixon et al., 2004;
Hawkins, Watt, & Sinclair, 2006; Mofield & Parker Peters,
2015b). Scale scores were calculated by calculating the mean
of scored items.
Achievement Attitudes. Students’ achievement attitudes were
measured using the SAAS-R (McCoach, 2000). Participants
responded to 35 statements on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The scale was developed to
assess a student’s vulnerability to underachievement through
five subscales: academic self-perceptions (Cronbach’s α =
.90, 95% CI [.89, .91] e.g., “I am intelligent;” “I am capable
of getting straight A’s”) attitude toward teachers (Cronbach’s
α = .91, 95% CI [.90, .92]; e.g., “My classes are interesting;”
“I like my teachers”), attitude toward school (Cronbach’s α =
.95, 95% CI [.94, .96]; e.g., “This school is a good match for
me;” “I am proud of this school”), goal valuation (Cron-
bach’s α = .86, 95% CI [.84, .88]; e.g., “Doing well in school
is one of my goals;” “I want to do my best in school”), and
motivation/self-regulation (Cronbach’s α = .88, 95% CI [.86,
.90]; e.g., “I work hard at school;” “I put a lot of effort into
my school work”). Scale scores were calculated by calculat-
ing the mean of scored items.
334 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
Results
Mean Differences
Data were analyzed using StatView statistical software. For
subscale scores, mean scores were calculated and reported.
In the case of missing data, if a participant answered most of
the items (more than half of items within a subscale), the
researchers entered the sample mean subscale score for the
participant’s missing mean subscale score. If participants did
not complete more than half of the items within a subscale,
the missing means were not calculated within the analysis for
that subscale. Table 1 shows how missing data and substi-
tuted mean scores affected analyzed sample sizes per sub-
scale. Table 2 shows mean scores and standard deviations for
all subscale scores as well as correlations between them. To
decrease the likelihood of Type 1 error via multiple compari-
sons and tests, we set an alpha level to .01 to test our null
hypotheses that there would not be differences between
groups on mindsets, perfectionism, and achievement atti-
tudes among gifted, advanced, and typical students.
Although the assumption for homogeneity of variances
was met, the sample included unequal sample sizes between
three groups (gifted, advanced, typical students); therefore, a
Welch’s adjusted F ratio was used to examine the group dif-
ferences on mindset beliefs, perfectionism, and achievement
attitudes. Researchers examined the total subscores on
growth mindset beliefs (total score of four items) and fixed
mindset beliefs (total score of four items). At an alpha level
set at .01, there was not a statistically significant effect of
group membership on growth mindset beliefs about intelli-
gence, Welch’s F(2, 413) = 3.52, p = .03. Table 3 shows
mean differences among groups (gifted, advanced, and typi-
cal). There was no statistically significant effect of group
membership on fixed mindset beliefs, Welch’s F(2, 413) =
1.74, p = .18. Table 4 shows Cohen’s d effect sizes and 95%
confidence intervals for differences between all groups.
No statistically significant effect was found for group
membership on Concern over Mistakes scores. Consistent
with the literature that gifted students have higher adaptive
perfectionism (LoCicero & Ashby, 2000; Shaunessey et al.,
2011; Vandiver & Worrell, 2002), there was a statistically
significant effect of group membership on Personal
Standards, Welch’s F(2, 409) = 15.84, p < .0001, estimated
ω2 = .06, where 6% of the variance in Personal Standards is
accounted for by group membership. Games-Howell post
hoc analyses showed that both gifted (M = 3.74, SD = 0.64)
and advanced (M = 3.69, SD = 0.60) students have higher
Personal Standards than typical students (M = 3.33, SD =
0.57) at the p < .0001 and p < .001 levels, respectively.
Cohen’s d effect size values of 0.68, 95% CI [0.53, 0.82]
between gifted and typical and 0.62, 95% CI [0.47, 0.76]
between advanced and typical both suggest moderate practi-
cal significance. These findings were expected since the high
standards are indicative of achievement that must be demon-
strated to achieve gifted status (through state criteria) or par-
ticipate in an advanced class. Additionally, there was a
statistically significant effect on Organization, Welch’s F(2,
411) = 4.85, p = .009, estimated ω2 = .02, where 2% of the
variance in Organization is due to group membership. Gifted
students (M = 3.84, SD = 0.92, d = −0.45, 95% CI [−0.59,
−0.31]) had statistically significant lower Organization
scores compared with advanced students (M = 4.31, SD =
1.16), and advanced students had statistically significant
higher Organization scores compared with typical students
(M = 3.84, SD = 0.93, d = 0.45, 95% CI [0.31, 0.58]). Both
the comparisons suggest only small practical significance.
Finally, a Welch’s F test was used to compare three groups
on five subscales of achievement attitudes. A significant
effect was found only for Academic Self-Perception, Welch’s
F(2, 411) = 14.77, p < .001, estimated ω2 = .06, where 6% of
the variance in Academic Self-Perception is accounted for in
group membership. Games-Howell post hoc comparisons
Table 1. Missing Data per Subscale.
Subscale
Number of participants with
imputed mean subscale scores for
missing mean scores
Number of participants
excluded from subscale
analysisa
Total participants included in
analyzed sample of subscale
(total participants = 416)
Growth mindset 2 0 416
Fixed mindset 2 0 416
Concern over Mistakes 4 3 413
Doubt of Action 1 6 410
Personal Standards 4 4 412
Organization 10 2 414
Academic self-perception 6 2 414
Attitude toward teacher 5 2 414
Attitude toward school 2 2 414
Goal valuation 5 2 414
Motivation/self-regulation 2 7 409
aMissing more than half of items in subscale.
Mofield and Parker Peters 335
revealed that gifted students (M = 5.96, SD = 0.82, d = 0.72,
95% CI [0.57, 0.86]) had moderately higher scores on
Academic Self-Perception when compared with typical stu-
dents (M = 5.27, SD = 1.09). Advanced students (M = 5.81,
SD = 0.74) also had moderately higher scores compared with
typical students, d = 0.58, 95% CI [0.44, 0.72]. It is not sur-
prising that gifted and advanced students reported higher
Academic Self-Perception scores than typical students given
that gifted and advanced students had also demonstrated
higher academic achievement (by identification).
Hierarchical Regression Series
A series of multiple regression analyses was conducted to
test if and to what extent group status (dummy coded: gifted,
advanced, or typical) explains variance in mindset beliefs
about intelligence and to test if and to what extent mindset
beliefs, group status, and their interactions explain variance
in perfectionism and achievement attitudes. We dummy
coded by using two columns in the data set: one in which we
assigned 1 for gifted and 0 to advanced and typical; the other
we assigned 1 for advanced and 0 for gifted and typical.
Mindset scores were centered to account for any multicol-
linearity issues, especially since fixed mindsets and growth
mindsets were correlated (r = −.35). First, we conducted a
regression analysis to test the main effects of group member-
ship on fixed and growth mindsets. Consistent with findings
from Welch’s F tests, neither model was statistically signifi-
cant at the .01 alpha level (see Table 5).
Next, we tested a series of hierarchical models to explore
the association between a number of independent variables
(giftedness, mindsets, and their interactions) and the depen-
dent variables of perfectionism and achievement attitudes.
Hierarchical regression allowed us to further determine if
one or more of the predictor variables (mindset, group status,
and their interactions) are useful for explaining variability in
the criterion variables (perfectionism and achievement atti-
tude subscores; see Tables 6 and 7). One might argue that
perfectionism or achievement attitudes could serve as the
predictor variable with mindset as the criterion variable. We
acknowledge that the reversal of variables is possible, but we
chose for mindset beliefs to serve as the predictor variable
because, according to Dweck’s implicit theory of intelli-
gence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988), it is
one’s belief about ability that influences other attitudes,
goals, and behaviors. We emphasize that these regression
models are exploratory in nature. Overall, these models pro-
duced small to moderate effect sizes (adjusted R2 values
between .04 and .30).
First, the main effects of growth and fixed mindset scores
were entered to test their contribution to the variance in per-
fectionism and achievement attitudes. Several statistically
significant models emerged (see Tables 6 and 7 for F values
for each model and adjusted R2 effect sizes). Fixed mindset
was positively related to Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism.
Specifically, fixed mindset (β = 0.27, p < .0001) was a statis-
tically significant predictor for Concern over Mistakes, pro-
ducing a small effect. The overall model explained a small
amount of variance (10%) in Concern over Mistakes (R2 =
.10; adjusted R2 = .10). In a weaker model (R2 = .08; adjusted
R2 = .08), fixed mindsets yielded a small statistically signifi-
cant main effect for Doubt of Action (β = 0.21, p < .0001).
Growth mindset beliefs were positively related to Positive
Strivings Perfectionism. Specifically, growth mindset was a
statistically significant predictor for Personal Standards (β =
0.41, p < .0001), with a moderate influence in an overall
model explaining 15% of the variance in Personal Standards
(R2 = .15; adjusted R2 = 14). Growth mindset also emerged
as a statistically significant predictor for Organization (β =
0.23, p < .0001), a moderate influence in a weaker model
explaining only 5% of variance in Organization (R2 = .05;
adjusted R2 = .04). Fixed mindset was not statistically sig-
nificantly related to any of the five achievement attitudes.
However, growth mindset was positively related to all
achievement attitudes, producing statistically significant
beta weights with moderate effects (0.36-0.50) (academic
Table 2. Correlation Matrix for Dimensions of Perfectionism, Achievement Attitudes, and Mindset.
Factors M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Concern over Mistakes (−) 2.47 0.79 1.00 .49** .31** .01 −.07 −.24 −.30** .00 −.14* .31** −.19**
2. Doubt of Action (−) 2.74 0.80 1.00 −.02 −.08 −.30** −.21** −.20** −.08 −.23** .25** −.20**
3. Personal Standards (+) 3.64 0.64 1.00 0.38** .53** .22** .15* .38** .48** −.03 .37**
4. Organization (+) 3.91 0.98 1.00 .20** .17* .11 .28** .46** −.03 .23**
5. Academic self-perception 5.80 0.91 1.00 .48** .39** .41** .63** −.19* .46**
6. Attitude toward teacher 5.42 1.13 1.00 .69** .50** .61** −.18* .49**
7. Attitude toward school 5.62 1.40 1.00 .37** .48** −.17* .38**
8. Goal valuation 6.59 0.62 1.00 .57** −.05 .33**
9. Motivation/self-regulation 5.71 0.88 1.00 −.21** .50**
10. Fixed score 3.64 0.94 1.00 −.35**
11. Growth score 4.32 0.90 1.00
Note. (−) = Evaluative Concerns (maladaptive perfectionism); (+) = Positive Strivings (adaptive perfectionism).
*p < .01. **p < .001.
336 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
self-perception, β = 0.45, p < .0001; attitude toward teacher,
β = 0.50, p > .0001; attitude toward school, β = 0.37, p <
.0001; goal valuation, β = 0.36, p < .0001; motivation/self-
regulation, β = 0.48, p < .0001). The overall models for atti-
tude toward teacher (adjusted R2 = .25) and motivation/
self-regulation (adjusted R2 = .26) were strongest. These
adjusted R2 values are considered moderate effect sizes,
explaining 25% and 26% of the variance in attitude toward
teacher and motivation/self-regulation, respectively.
Then, in Step 2, we added the interaction of growth mind-
sets and fixed mindsets for each dependent variable. Adding
Table 3. Comparisons of Mean Differences Among Gifted, Advanced, and Typical Students.
Subscale Gifted M (SD) Advanced M (SD) Typical M (SD) F
Statistically significant
differencesa
Mindset
Growth score 4.37 (0.88) 4.42 (0.89) 4.10 (0.87) 3.52 G = A = T
Fixed score 3.58 (0.96) 3.80 (0.89) 3.69 (0.91) 1.74 G = A = T
Perfectionism
Concern over Mistakes (−) 2.53 (0.80) 2.52 (0.82) 2.26 (0.70) 4.66 G = A = T
Doubt of Action (−) 2.72 (0.81) 2.86 (0.77) 2.70 (0.78) 1.11 G = A = T
Personal Standards (+) 3.74 (0.64) 3.69 (0.60) 3.33 (0.57) 15.84** G > T, A > T
Organization (+) 3.84 (0.92) 4.31 (1.16) 3.84 (0.94) 4.85* A > G, A > T
Achievement attitudes
Academic self-perception 5.96 (0.82) 5.81 (0.74) 5.27 (1.09) 14.77** G > T, A > T
Attitude toward teacher 5.41 (1.09) 5.37 (1.23) 5.48 (1.17) 0.20 G = A = T
Attitude toward school 5.69 (1.31) 5.36 (1.71) 5.58 (1.36) 1.18 G = A= T
Goal valuation 6.59 (0.62) 6.63 (0.51) 6.56 (0.69) 0.28 G = A = T
Motivation/self-regulation 5.74 (0.88) 5.81 (0.75) 5.55 (0.97) 1.81 G = A = T
Note. (−) = Evaluative Concerns (maladaptive perfectionism); (+) = Positive Strivings (adaptive perfectionism).
aStatistically significant comparisons using Games-Howell post hoc analyses (p < .01) abbreviated by G = gifted; A = advanced; T = typical.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Table 4. Cohen’s d Effect Sizes and Confidence Intervals of Effect Sizes of Differences Between Groups.
Subscale
Gifted versus advanced d
[95% CI]
Gifted versus typical d
[95% CI]
Advanced versus typical d
[95% CI]
Mindset
Growth score −0.06 [−0.19, 0.08] 0.31 [0.17, 0.45] 0.36 [0.23, 0.50]
Fixed score −0.24 [−0.37, –0.10] −0.12 [−0.25, 0.02] 0.11 [−0.02, 0.25]
Perfectionism
Concern over Mistakes (−) 0.01 [−0.12, 0.15] 0.36 [0.22, 0.50] 0.34 [0.20, 0.48]
Doubt of Action (−) −0.18 [−0.31, −0.04] 0.03 [−0.11, 0.16] 0.21 [0.07, 0.34]
Personal Standards (+) 0.08 [−0.06, 0.22] 0.68 [0.53, 0.82] 0.62 [0.47, 0.76]
Organization (+) −0.45 [−0.59, −0.31] 0.00 [−0.14, 0.14] 0.45 [0.31, 0.58]
Achievement attitudes
Academic self-perception 0.19 [0.05, 0.33] 0.72 [0.57, 0.86] 0.58 [0.44, 0.72]
Attitude toward teacher 0.03 [−0.10, 0.17] −0.06 [−0.20, 0.07] −0.09 [−0.23, 0.05]
Attitude toward school 0.22 [0.08, 0.35] 0.08 [−0.05, 0.22] −0.14 [−0.28, 0.01]
Goal valuation −0.07 [−0.21, 0.07] 0.05 [−0.09, 0.18] 0.12 [−0.02, 0.25]
Motivation/self-regulation −0.09 [−0.22, 0.05] 0.20 [−0.07, 0.34] 0.30 [0.16, 0.44]
Note. (−) = Evaluative Concerns (maladaptive perfectionism); (+) = Positive Strivings (adaptive perfectionism).
Table 5. Regression Analysis Predicting Mindset From Group
Status.
Predictor B SE B βt p R2Adjusted R2
Growth
Gifted 1.10 0.44 0.15 2.49 .01
Advanced 1.31 0.58 0.13 2.26 .02 .02 .01
Fixed
Gifted −0.48 0.46 0.06 −1.03 .31
Advanced 0.40 0.61 0.04 0.66 .52 .01 .01
Note. The models are not significant with an alpha set at .01.
Mofield and Parker Peters 337
Table 6. Regression Models for Predicting Perfectionism From Mindsets and Group Status.
Steps Predictor Variable B SE B βt R2Adjusted R2ΔAdjusted R2F
Concern over Mistakes
Step 1 .10 .10 23.00**
Growth −0.08 0.05 −0.09 −.1.86
Fixed 0.23 0.04 0.27 5.46**
Step 2 .11 .10 .00 16.92**
Growth −0.06 0.05 −0.06 −1.23
Fixed 0.56 0.18 0.71 3.30*
Growth × Fixeda−0.08 0.04 −0.44 −2.09
Step 3 .13 .12 .02 14.96**
Growth −0.10 0.04 −0.11 −2.26
Fixed 0.23 0.04 0.27 5.53**
Gifted 0.33 0.09 0.20 3.55*
Advanced 0.27 0.12 0.13 2.23
Step 4 .13 .11 −.01 7.51**
Growth −0.09 0.10 −0.10 −.90
Fixed 0.21 0.10 0.25 2.18
Gifted 0.33 0.10 0.20 3.48*
Advanced 0.28 0.13 0.13 2.21
Gifted × Growth −0.02 0.12 −0.02 −0.20
Gifted × Fixed 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.33
Advanced × Growth 0.06 0.15 0.03 0.39
Advanced × Fixed −0.06 0.14 −0.03 −0.43
Doubt of Action
Step 1 .08 .08 17.43**
Growth −0.12 0.05 −0.13 −2.54
Fixed 0.18 0.04 0.21 4.10**
Step 2 .10 .10 .02 15.35**
Growth −0.08 0.05 −0.09 −1.69
Fixed 0.78 0.19 0.89 4.10**
Growth × Fixed −0.13 0.04 −0.68 −3.22*
Step 3 .11 .10 .00 9.82**
Growth −0.08 0.05 −0.09 −1.69
Fixed 0.78 0.19 0.92 4.21**
Growth × Fixed −0.14 0.04 −0.72 −3.37*
Gifted 0.05 0.10 0.56 0.57
Advanced 0.21 0.13 0.10 1.65
Step 4 .11 .10 .00 5.70**
Growth −0.14 0.10 −0.15 −1.31
Fixed 0.73 0.20 0.85 3.64*
Growth × Fixed −0.14 0.04 −0.75 −3.46*
Gifted 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.64
Advanced 0.20 0.13 0.09 1.54
Gifted × Growth 0.03 0.12 0.03 0.27
Gifted × Fixed 0.08 0.11 0.07 0.67
Advanced × Growth 0.18 0.15 0.08 1.22
Advanced × Fixed 0.12 0.15 0.06 0.84
Personal Standards
Step 1 .15 .14 35.14**
Growth 0.29 0.04 0.41 8.36**
Fixed 0.08 0.03 0.12 2.35
Step 2 .15 .14 .00 23.43**
Growth 0.29 0.04 0.40 7.93**
Fixed 0.03 0.14 0.04 0.17
Growth × Fixeda0.01 0.03 0.08 0.38
(continued)
338 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
Steps Predictor Variable B SE B βt R2Adjusted R2ΔAdjusted R2F
Step 3 .19 .19 .05 24.32**
Growth 0.28 0.04 0.38 8.00**
Fixed 0.08 0.03 0.12 2.45
Gifted 0.35 0.07 0.27 4.83**
Advanced 0.27 0.10 0.16 2.82
Step 4 .20 .18 −.01 12.37**
Growth 0.31 0.08 0.43 3.93*
Fixed 0.14 0.08 0.21 1.90
Gifted 0.35 0.07 0.26 4.71**
Advanced 0.28 0.10 0.16 2.91*
Gifted × Growth −0.02 0.09 −0.02 −0.20
Gifted × Fixed −0.06 0.09 −0.07 −0.66
Advanced × Growth −0.15 0.11 −0.08 −1.31
Advanced × Fixed −0.08 0.11 −0.04 −0.67
Organization
Step 1 .05 .04 10.50**
Growth 0.26 0.06 0.23 4.55**
Fixed 0.06 0.05 0.05 1.03
Step 2 .05 .04 .00 7.17**
Growth 0.24 0.06 0.22 4.17**
Fixed −0.11 0.23 −0.10 −0.47
Growth × Fixeda0.04 0.05 0.16 0.72
Step 3 .08 .07 .03 8.40**
Growth 0.24 0.06 0.22 4.37**
Fixed 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.69
Gifted −0.09 0.12 −0.05 −0.79
Advanced 0.36 0.16 0.14 2.31
Step 4 .08 .06 −.01 4.34**
Growth 0.24 0.06 0.22 4.37**
Fixed 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.69
Gifted −0.09 0.12 −0.05 −0.79
Advanced 0.36 0.16 0.14 2.31
Gifted × Growth −0.02 0.04 −0.04 −0.40
Gifted × Fixed −0.02 0.04 −0.05 −0.44
Advanced × Growth 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.27
Advanced × Fixed 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.14
aSince the interaction of growth and fixed mindset scores was not significant, it was removed from the subsequent models.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Table 6. (continued)
this interaction increased the amount of variance explained
in the overall model for Doubt of Action by 2%, producing a
relatively large effect (β = −0.68, p = .001) (see Table 6).
This interaction did not statistically significantly contribute
to the variance of all other dependent variables. With the
exception of Doubt of Action, this interaction was excluded
in subsequent models for the other subscales, given it did not
produce statistically significant effects.
In Step 3, we added the dummy coded variables of group
status membership into the models for each dependent vari-
able. When mindsets were accounted for, adding gifted and
advanced status explained 2% of additional variance for the
overall model for Concern over Mistakes. This model
accounted for 13% of explained variance (R2 = .13; adjusted
R2 = .12) on Concern over Mistakes. Gifted status was a sta-
tistically significant predictor for Concern over Mistakes,
producing a small influence (β = 0.20, p = .0004) on the
overall model. The addition of gifted and advanced status
explained an additional 5% of variance for Personal
Standards. Gifted status was statistically significantly related
to Personal Standards (β = 0.27, p < .0001), producing a
small-moderate effect when mindset beliefs were accounted
for. This overall model explained a small to moderate amount
of variance in Personal Standards (adjusted R2 = .19). The
Mofield and Parker Peters 339
Table 7. Regression Models for Predicting Achievement Attitudes From Mindsets and Group Status.
Steps Predictor Variable B SE B βt R2Adjusted R2ΔAdjusted R2F
Academic self-perception
Step 1 .22 .21 70.49**
Growth 0.47 0.05 0.45 9.74**
Fixed −0.03 0.05 −0.03 −0.69
Step 2 .23 .22 .01 40.07**
Growth 0.44 0.05 0.42 8.84**
Fixed −0.51 0.20 −0.52 −2.55
Growth × Fixeda0.11 0.04 0.49 2.45
Step 3 .28 .28 .06 40.30**
Growth 0.44 0.05 0.43 9.55**
Fixed −0.03 0.04 −0.03 −0.67
Gifted 0.61 0.10 0.32 6.19**
Advanced 0.43 0.13 0.18 3.73*
Step 4 .30 .28 .00 21.16**
Growth 0.54 0.11 0.52 5.03**
Fixed −0.18 0.10 −0.18 −1.70
Gifted 0.57 0.10 0.31 5.84**
Advanced 0.43 0.13 0.17 3.32*
Gifted × Growth −0.02 0.03 −0.05 −0.56
Gifted × Fixed 0.05 0.03 0.18 1.84
Advanced × Growth 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.78
Advanced × Fixed −0.06 0.04 −0.10 −1.60
Attitude toward teacher
Step 1 .25 .25 68.18**
Growth 0.63 0.06 0.50 10.89**
Fixed −0.02 0.06 −0.01 −0.30
Step 2 .25 .25 .00 45.72**
Growth 0.65 0.06 0.48 10.28**
Fixed −0.24 0.24 −0.20 −0.97
Growth × Fixeda−0.05 0.05 0.18 0.93
Step 3 .26 .25 .00 35.20**
Growth 0.65 0.06 0.51 11.07**
Fixed −0.01 0.06 −0.01 −0.21
Gifted −0.21 0.12 −0.09 −1.68
Advanced −0.29 0.16 −0.10 −1.80
Step 4 .27 .25 .00 16.20**
Growth 0.69 0.14 0.54 5.10**
Fixed −0.17 0.27 −0.14 −0.64
Gifted −0.21 0.13 −0.09 −1.69
Advanced −0.35 0.17 −0.11 −2.11
Gifted × Growth 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.78
Gifted × Fixed −0.14 0.16 −0.09 −0.91
Advanced × Growth 0.10 0.19 0.03 0.53
Advanced × Fixed 0.11 0.19 0.04 0.60
Attitude toward school
Step 1 .15 .15 37.16**
Growth 0.59 0.08 0.37 7.75**
Fixed −0.07 0.07 −0.05 −0.10
Step 2 .16 .15 .00 24.98**
Growth 0.58 0.80 0.36 7.27**
Fixed −0.33 0.32 −0.22 −1.02
Growth × Fixeda0.06 0.07 0.17 0.83
(continued)
340 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
Steps Predictor Variable B SE B βt R2Adjusted R2ΔAdjusted R2F
Step 3 .16 .15 .00 19.81**
Growth 0.61 0.08 0.38 7.89**
Fixed −0.05 0.07 −0.04 −0.74
Gifted −0.02 0.16 −0.01 −0.13
Advanced −0.38 0.21 −0.10 −1.79
Step 4 .18 .16 .01 11.00**
Growth 0.85 0.18 0.54 4.82**
Fixed 0.12 0.17 0.08 0.72
Gifted −0.07 0.16 −0.02 −0.40
Advanced −0.46 0.22 −0.12 −2.15
Gifted × Growth −0.11 0.05 −0.21 −2.08
Gifted × Fixed −0.07 0.05 −0.15 −1.44
Advanced × Growth −0.03 0.06 −0.03 −0.44
Advanced × Fixed 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.21
Goal valuation
Step 1 .12 .11 26.96**
Growth 0.25 0.04 0.36 7.28**
Fixed 0.05 0.03 0.08 1.51
Step 2 .12 .11 .00 18.13**
Growth 0.26 0.04 0.37 7.21**
Fixed 0.15 0.15 0.23 1.04
Growth × Fixeda−0.02 0.03 −0.16 −0.72
Step 3 .12 .11 .00 13.43**
Growth 0.25 0.04 0.36 7.21**
Fixed 0.05 0.03 0.07 1.49
Gifted −0.01 0.07 −0.01 −0.16
Advanced 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00
Step 4 .13 .11 .00 7.20**
Growth 0.23 0.08 0.33 2.83
Fixed 0.17 0.08 0.26 2.19
Gifted −0.01 0.08 −0.01 −0.13
Advanced 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.10
Gifted × Growth 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.32
Gifted × Fixed −0.04 0.02 −0.18 −1.68
Advanced × Growth −0.03 0.03 −0.08 −1.72
Advanced × Fixed 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.21
Motivation/self-regulation
Step 1 .26 .26 70.49**
Growth 0.48 0.05 0.48 10.56**
Fixed −0.05 0.04 −0.06 −1.20
Step 2 .27 .26 .00 48.81**
Growth 0.46 0.05 0.46 9.88**
Fixed −0.43 0.19 −0.46 −2.28
Growth × Fixeda0.09 0.04 0.41 2.08
Step 3 .26 .25 −.01 35.50**
Growth 0.48 0.05 0.48 10.56**
Fixed −0.05 0.04 −0.06 −1.20
Gifted 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.91
Advanced 0.14 0.13 0.06 1.06
Step 4 .27 .26 .01 18.71**
Growth 0.67 0.11 0.67 6.35**
Fixed 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.72
Gifted 0.06 0.10 0.03 0.59
Advanced 0.12 0.13 0.05 0.90
Gifted × Growth −0.19 0.12 −0.15 −1.59
Gifted × Fixed −0.15 0.12 −0.13 −1.31
Advanced × Growth −0.37 0.15 −0.15 −2.45
Advanced × Fixed −0.09 0.15 −0.04 −0.59
aSince the interaction of growth and fixed mindset scores was not significant, it was removed from the subsequent models.
*p < .01. **p < .001.
Table 7. (continued)
Mofield and Parker Peters 341
influence of gifted status on these models is of particular
interest, especially given that advanced status did not pro-
duce statistically significant main effects.
The addition of gifted and advanced status contributed to
an additional 3% of variance to the overall model for
Organization, though no new statistically significant main
effects emerged beyond growth mindset beliefs. Finally, for
Academic Self-Perception, gifted and advanced status added
in Step 3 explained an additional 6% of variance to an overall
model explaining a moderate amount of variance in Academic
Self-Perception (adjusted R2 = .28). Gifted status yielded a
moderate effect, producing a statistically significant main
effect for Academic Self-Perception (β = 0.32, p < .0001).
Advanced status was also a statistically significant predictor
in the model, though it had a much smaller effect (β = 0.18,
p = .0008). In sum, these results reveal a similar pattern as
the Welch’s F tests, specifically showing the relationship of
gifted status and high Concern over Mistakes, Personal
Standards, and Academic Self-Perception.
Finally, in Step 4, we tested the main effects of mindset,
group status, as well as the interaction of group membership
and mindset (gifted × growth, gifted × fixed, advanced ×
growth, advanced × fixed) for each dependent variable. The
added interactions produced no additional statistically sig-
nificant effects among all subscales of perfectionism and
achievement attitudes. Only in the case of Attitude Toward
Teacher and Motivation/Self-Regulation did the variability
in the models increase, each by 1%. The most robust overall
models for Step 4 were those explaining 30% of variance in
Academic Self-Perception (R2 = .30; adjusted R2 = .28) and
27% of variance in Motivation/Self-Regulation (R2 = .27;
adjusted R2 = .26). Growth mindset (β = 0.52; p < .0001),
gifted status (β = 0.31, p < .0001), and advanced status (β =
0.31, p = .001) produced statistically significant moderate
main effects for Academic Self-Perception. There was a rela-
tively large statistically significant main effect for growth
mindset beliefs (β = 0.67, p < .0001) on Motivation/
Self-Regulation.
Discussion
Our study contributes to the literature on achievement moti-
vation and talent development by comparing gifted,
advanced, and typical students on variables that are potential
barriers to achievement (mindset beliefs about intelligence,
perfectionism, and achievement attitudes) and by exploring
the relationship of mindset beliefs and group status on per-
fectionism and achievement attitudes. The study provides
comparisons among three groups within school-age popula-
tions in a public school district, whereas most research on
self-theories among gifted students includes populations
from college-age or residential summer program populations
with no comparisons. In sum, the results of our study show
no statistically significant differences between groups on
fixed or growth mindset beliefs about intelligence and highly
favorable comparisons for Personal Standards and Academic
Self-Perception for gifted (and advanced) students. Gifted
students exhibited higher Concern over Mistakes, Personal
Standards, and Academic Self-Perception than typical stu-
dents. Models also reveal insight as to how mindset beliefs
about intelligence relate to perfectionism and achievement
attitudes.
Mindset Beliefs
While it has been theorized that gifted students may be more
at risk for developing fixed mindsets (Dweck, 2000, 2012),
results of the present study do not support this assertion. It
has been argued that the gifted label and associated praise for
academic ability (Dweck, 2000, 2012; Mueller & Dweck,
1998) may promote challenge-avoidant beliefs and behav-
iors; this idea is discussed widely in popular media (Boaler,
2018, 2016; Matthews & Foster, 2013; Schulten, 2010; Scott,
2013). Our data indicate that gifted students do not display
higher fixed mindset beliefs (valuing entity views of intelli-
gence) compared with other groups. On the contrary, our
descriptive findings show that gifted students as a group dis-
play a mean score reflecting agreement toward growth mind-
set beliefs (M = 4.37, SD = 0.88; 1 = disagree a lot and 6 =
agree a lot), though there is still variability in these scores.
Our results are somewhat consistent with other studies that
have shown that gifted students endorse incremental beliefs
about intelligence, enjoy academic challenges, and value
hard work (e.g., Alexander, 1985; Esparza et al., 2014;
Feldhusen & Dai, 1997; Guskin et al., 1986; Makel et al.,
2015; Snyder et al., 2013). Responses associated with growth
mindsets go hand in hand with many classic characteristics
of giftedness, including intrinsic interest in challenges,
intense curiosity, and intellectual drive (e.g., Ward, 1961).
It was also important to compare gifted students with
advanced students because some have implied that students
who do not qualify for a gifted program may be likely to
adopt fixed mindsets (e.g., Boaler, 2016; Ricci, 2013). Our
data do not support this idea since advanced students’ fixed
mindset scores were not significantly higher than either typi-
cal or gifted students. Overall, our findings suggest that
group status (gifted vs. advanced vs. typical) does not relate
to a vulnerability for developing fixed mindset beliefs.
Perfectionism
Similar to other studies (LoCicero & Ashby, 2000; Shaunessey
et al., 2011; Vandiver & Worrell, 2002), our data show that
both gifted and advanced students have moderately higher
Personal Standards than typical students. Our results also
indicate positive associations of growth mindset beliefs about
intelligence with Positive Strivings Perfectionism and fixed
mindset beliefs with Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism, a
pattern consistent with other findings (e.g., Chan, 2012; Shih,
2011). Additionally, hierarchical models revealed that
342 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
giftedness and growth mindset beliefs about intelligence were
moderate predictors for Personal Standards. Because growth
mindset beliefs about intelligence positively relate to high
standards, this finding further supports the construct of an
“adaptive”-type of perfectionism. Those adopting incremen-
tal beliefs about intelligence are not concerned with maintain-
ing an identity of being smart but are more concerned with
mastery goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), which can translate
into a positive striving toward excellence. When Positive
Strivings Perfectionism can exist without negative self-
critical tendencies, these goal-oriented beliefs and behaviors
might be further cultivated to help students move toward
meeting high goals and accomplishment.
When mindsets were accounted for in hierarchical regres-
sion, gifted status was a predictor (β = 0.20) for Concern
over Mistakes, while advanced status was not. We acknowl-
edge that this yielded a small effect in an overall model
explaining only 10% of variance, but the effect is important
to note. A close examination of the statements on the GWHS
for Concern over Mistakes, such as “If I fail at school/work,
I am a failure as a person” and “I should be upset if I make a
mistake,” reveal self-worth contingency on performance
(Crocker & Wolfe, 2001). This illuminates that the motiva-
tion to achieve is rooted in a fear of failure rather than in a
goal to reach success (Slade & Owens, 1998; Stoeber &
Rambow, 2007). Given that fixed mindset beliefs were posi-
tively related to Concern over Mistakes, students who have
Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism may internalize personal
ability (e.g., intelligence) as a measure of self-worth.
Our data also show that high fixed mindset scores with
low growth mindset scores relate to doubting one’s actions.
Though we must be cautious in interpreting relationships
within regression models explaining only a small amount of
variance (e.g., Step 4, adjusted R2 = .11 for Concern over
Mistakes, adjusted R2 = .10 for Doubt of Action), under-
standing the association between entity beliefs and Evaluative
Concerns Perfectionism can possibly shape intervention
efforts to address the fear of failure within some gifted stu-
dents. If a student’s belief about intelligence can change
from the belief that intelligence is static to the belief that
intelligence is malleable, he or she may be more concerned
about improving ability rather than proving ability (Dweck
& Leggett, 1988). Mistakes are no longer a measurement of
self-worth but are considered feedback that can be used to
readjust a strategy to meet a set goal.
Altogether, our findings continue to support the notion that
self-theories (entity/fixed vs. incremental/growth) relate to
the motivation toward types of perfectionism. Understanding
the fixed or growth orientation associated with perfectionism
tendencies can help practitioners guide students toward
healthy achievement strivings. Additionally, the comparisons
between groups about perfectionism reveal a consistent pat-
tern with previous studies (LoCicero & Ashby, 2000;
Shaunessey et al., 2011; Vandiver & Worrell, 2002), espe-
cially that gifted students have higher adaptive perfectionism
compared with typical students.
Achievement Attitudes
We examined students’ achievement attitudes to better
understand gifted students’ vulnerability on various under-
achievement factors. Our results showed that gifted students
and advanced students have substantially higher academic
self-perceptions than typical students, while there were no
differences between the three groups on attitude toward
school, attitude toward teacher, goal valuation, and motiva-
tion/self-regulation. Given that gifted students and advanced
students display high achievement (to be identified as
“gifted” or “advanced”), it is not surprising that they would
have high perceptions of their abilities.
Overall, the gifted sample in our study demonstrated high
confidence in their skills and abilities as revealed by aca-
demic self-perception, an aspect of academic self-concept
found to be linked to academic achievement (Marsh, Chessor,
Craven, & Roche, 1995; McCoach & Siegle, 2003). As
exhibited by the positive association to growth mindsets,
academic self-perception is significant to motivational pro-
cesses within gifted students: “The perceptions students have
about their skills influence the types of activities they select,
how much they challenge themselves at those activities, and
the persistence they exhibit once they are involved in those
activities” (McCoach & Siegle, 2003, p. 416). Many of the
statements on the SAAS-R (McCoach, 2000) relate to how a
student perceives his or her ability (e.g., “I am smart at
school” and “I am intelligent”). An interesting pattern
emerges: While gifted students in our study view themselves
as intelligent, they are not more vulnerable to developing
fixed mindset beliefs, which is contrary to the concerns por-
trayed about the gifted label being linked to entity views
(Boaler, 2018; Dweck, 2000, 2012). Our results are consis-
tent with research that shows gifted students adopt healthy
academic self-concepts (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Neihart,
1999; Neihart et al., 2016). Though our results must be inter-
preted in light of the study’s limitations, findings imply that
gifted students are not more vulnerable to the underachieve-
ment factors compared with other groups.
Correlations showed that growth mindset beliefs about
intelligence were positively related to all attitude toward
achievement, and fixed mindsets were negatively related
(though the latter relationships are weak). We should note
that the strongest models in our hierarchical analyses
revealed growth mindset beliefs about intelligence as predic-
tors for Academic Self-Perception (β = 0.52; adjusted R2 = 28
for overall model in Step 4) and Motivation/Self-Regulation
(β = 0.67; adjusted R2 = .26 for overall model in Step 4) with
moderate to large effects. This positive relationship contin-
ues to support the idea that an incremental view about intel-
ligence relates to beliefs about effort (as measured by
Motivation/Self-Regulation); for the hallmark of incremen-
tal theory is the belief that ability grows from effort (Dweck,
2000). Similarly, Ommundsen, Haugen, and Lund (2005)
found that implicit theories of intelligence and academic
self-concept are positively related to motivation among
Mofield and Parker Peters 343
college students. Their findings imply the importance of
strengthening academic self-concept and fostering an incre-
mental view of intelligence to prevent self-handicapping
(Ommundsen et al., 2005). Our data also indicate a positive
relationship between academic self-perceptions and growth
mindset beliefs (r = .46) and a slightly negative relationship
with fixed mindset beliefs (r = −.19). This finding is consis-
tent with research by Schmidt, Shumow, and Kackar-Cam
(2017) who found that ninth grade students who participated
in growth mindset training had higher perceptions of their
academic skills as compared with a control group that did not
receive the mindset intervention. Additionally, among col-
lege students who participated in growth mindset training,
Wiersema et al. (2015) found that the students reported
greater knowledge about mindset’s affect on their abilities to
learn and greater beliefs that they could understand more
content in their most difficult courses. Overall, our findings
show that one’s perception of ability, challenge, and effort
relates to one’s perception about academic performance. If
one believes that intelligence is malleable and challenges are
embraced, then it logically follows that he feels confident in
his abilities to pursue such challenges.
Context
Our findings must be interpreted in light of the context of
gifted programming. In exploring the question regarding
how gifted students differ from advanced and typical stu-
dents, we cannot conclude it is the gifted label that creates
these differences. Rather, these differences may result from
other factors, including internal dispositions of gifted learn-
ers or the educational context (Makel et al., 2015). In the
present study, students attend a gifted pull-out class that
allows them to be challenged beyond what is offered in the
regular classroom and to interact with like-ability peers.
Interestingly, even though they receive grades for the gifted
class (contrary to emphasizing the value of process over per-
formance), this did not seem to negatively affect beliefs
about challenging work and effort. It is important to note that
gifted students in the present study have Individual Education
Plans that appropriate specialized services and intervention;
gifted education teachers also collaborate with teachers of
advanced classes to suggest and implement challenging les-
sons and assignments. It is likely that the attention to indi-
vidual needs and the provision of special services are
contributors to the positive differences found. Additionally,
having a safe place to be smart in an educational context
might foster a positive sense of self-concept and belonging-
ness to the intellectual group. Since some have proposed that
a talent development model is more likely to protect students
from the pitfalls of fixed mindsets (e.g., Good, 2012;
Renzulli, 2012), it is important to note that the gifted pro-
gram in the present study does not adopt a specific talent
model. The program is guided by the state eligibility require-
ment that students’ needs cannot be met in the regular
classroom. In sum, it appears that gifted identification and
programming in the present context do not influence an
adoption of fixed mindset or negative achievement attitudes.
Rather, our findings imply that gifted classes can be used to
guide students to appreciate their unique abilities and charac-
teristics while also promoting positive achievement motiva-
tion (Siegle, 2012).
Implications and Future Directions
Many assume that the gifted label promotes challenge avoid-
ance (Dweck, 2000, 2012; Matthews & Foster, 2013; Mueller
& Dweck, 1998; Ricci, 2013), but our findings suggest that
gifted students are not more vulnerable to adopting fixed
mindsets (about general intelligence) than other groups.
Using the assumption that the gifted label or ability grouping
promotes fixed mindsets, some have made sweeping conclu-
sions to eliminate separate gifted classes, formal identifica-
tion, and ability grouping (e.g., Boaler, 2016; Matthews &
Foster, 2013; Scott, 2013). The unintended consequence for
gifted students might mean fewer services and less access to
challenging curricula beyond what is offered in the regular
classroom. Exemplary practices such as ability grouping
with differentiated instruction for gifted learners (Fiedler,
Lange, & Winebrenner, 2002; Kulik, 1992; Steenbergen-Hu,
Makel, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2016; Tieso, 2003) should
not be called to question simply because of the assumption
that fixed mindset beliefs result from gifted labeling or ser-
vices. Our findings in the present sample clarify the associa-
tion of giftedness and fixed mindsets about general
intelligence by indicating no evidence of such vulnerability.
Nevertheless, Dweck’s work clearly affirms that gifted
students need to be appropriately challenged so that they
experience productive struggle in the learning process
(VanTassel-Baska, 2012). It is imperative that rigorous work
is provided early on so that gifted students can develop posi-
tive attitude toward effort and making mistakes (Speirs
Neumeister, 2016; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2009).
Gifted students’ beliefs about abilities and effort are likely
influenced by the messages conveyed to them. Of course,
educators, parents, and practitioners must be mindful of the
effects of ability praise and excessive use of the word
“gifted;” but perhaps, they can orient gifted students to a
self-understanding of their high abilities while also empha-
sizing that abilities are further developed from effort (Siegle
et al., 2010). Snyder and colleagues (2014) found that when
college female students heard an entity-focused message
about giftedness—“A lot of research suggests that giftedness
is strongly fixed through genetics. It’s either something you
have or you don’t have” (p. 233)—versus an incremental-
focused message about giftedness—“We’ve found that
achieving at such a high level like you have requires not just
high ability but also hard work and persistence . . . effort is
still important, even for gifted students like you” (p. 234), the
students claimed handicaps such as test anxiety, fatigue, and
344 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
illness when failure occurred to protect their self-worth. Self-
handicapping was not seen in female students who were
given incremental messages. Future studies could determine
the effects of giving explicit messages of giftedness with
entity and incremental messages to determine if their results
are generalizable to school-age populations. For gifted stu-
dents to understand the dynamic qualities of their abilities
and even giftedness, Siegle (2012) suggests, “the key is to
distinguish between recognition of talent with the recogni-
tion of how the talent came to fruition, with the latter being
crucial” (p. 235). Those working with gifted students should
be very clear in their message that achievement requires
effort, but they should also not be afraid to explain that gift-
edness is not just a function of effort (Silverman, 2011).
Since the students in the present study were labeled as gifted
but were no more vulnerable to fixed mindsets about intelli-
gence than other groups, they might already perceive
dynamic qualities of giftedness. Future studies should exam-
ine how various messages about giftedness affect mindsets
(in varied domains) and related variables more so than the
label itself. Undoubtedly, the conveyed message must be that
intellectual giftedness is further developed through task
commitment and persistence through challenges (Subotnik
et al., 2011).
Educators and practitioners should continue to be con-
cerned with any underlying factor that might play a role in
the failure of a gifted student to reach his or her potential.
Our findings reveal that Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism
could be an issue for some gifted students (though the asso-
ciation between giftedness and Concern over Mistakes was
small). This type of perfectionism can impede creativity,
motivation, and risk taking, all of which are involved in qual-
ity learning (Adelson & Wilson, 2009; Speirs Neumeister,
2016). Those working with maladaptive perfectionists should
help them develop self-awareness regarding how they inter-
nalize pressure to perform (from self-expectations or from
others). In line with fostering growth mindset, students
should be guided to value mistakes as opportunities to learn
and grow. Additionally, bibliotherapy, goal setting, approach-
oriented problem solving, self-awareness, and relaxation
techniques are evidence-based approaches that have been
shown to be successful in decreasing Concern over Mistakes
in a treatment versus control group study (Mofield &
Chakraborti-Ghosh, 2010). Since our findings are not consis-
tent with previous studies regarding the prevalence of
Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism, we recommend similar
comparison studies with larger and broader samples to
uncover if perfectionism trends are changing in light of
excessive pressures to perform in high-stakes school cli-
mates (Mofield & Parker Peters, 2015a).
The field must continue to view gifted children as indi-
viduals and not overlook the range of variabilities among the
population. “Gifted children do not fall into a single pattern
but into an infinite variety of patterns” (Terman & Oden,
1947, p. 57). Some gifted students adopt a fixed mindset.
Some gifted students display unhealthy perfectionism. Some
gifted students are at risk for underachieving, but we must be
cautious not to overgeneralize. Furthermore, many individu-
als have a mixture of fixed and growth mindsets (Ablard &
Mills, 1996; Dweck, 2015); and so, different educational con-
texts may produce different beliefs about intelligence, chal-
lenge, effort, and mistakes among varied academic domains.
As in any comparative study, we cannot infer direct
cause–effect relationships between independent (group) and
dependent variables (mindset, perfectionism, and achieve-
ment attitudes). It is unclear whether the gifted label, gifted
programming, or inherent traits of giftedness explain the
equalities and differences between groups. Comparing gifted
students with other cohorts among samples in which gifted
programming is different would offer insight into how edu-
cational context might play a role in shaping mindset beliefs
about intelligence, healthy strivings toward excellence, and
positive achievement attitudes. Though our study and other
studies examined mindsets as a general domain of intelli-
gence (e.g., Chan, 2012; Shih, 2011; Snyder et al., 2013),
future studies on mindsets with gifted students should con-
sider exploring conceptions of ability through specific
domains (e.g., creativity, math, musical talent, science, gift-
edness, etc.).
Limitations
While we contribute important findings regarding the
achievement motivation processes of gifted students com-
pared with other cohorts, our findings must be interpreted in
light of limitations. Since we did not randomly assign indi-
viduals to groups, causal inferences cannot be implied. Our
sample is not culturally diverse; the external generalizability
of our findings is limited only to samples with similar
demographics. Because nine teachers chose not to distribute
consent forms for participation in the study, comparisons
were made between three unequal groups. This increased
sampling error and compromised the representation of regu-
lar and advanced students. Though statistical procedures
were used to account for these differences, findings should
be interpreted with caution. We should also note that the
internal reliability of some of the scales, particularly Doubt
of Action (α = .67) and Personal Standards (α = .75) weakens
inferences that can be made about our data. Furthermore,
results from the hierarchical regression analyses must be
interpreted cautiously as they produced only small to moder-
ate effect sizes (adjusted R2 values were between .04 and
.30). Since implicit beliefs about intelligence (entity vs.
implicit views) are theorized to influence beliefs and behav-
iors relating to the fear of mistakes and avoidance of chal-
lenges (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), we tested mindsets as the
independent variable explaining the variance in the depen-
dent variables of perfectionism and achievement attitudes;
however, it is possible that perfectionism or achievement
attitudes could have explained the variance in mindset
Mofield and Parker Peters 345
beliefs. Though our approach was guided by theory, readers
must be aware that the direction of our regression models
may work in the reverse direction as well.
Students were presented the questions in the order of
mindset beliefs, perfectionism, and school achievement atti-
tudes. This could have established an ordering effect in
which students were more careful in their responses at the
beginning of the survey and more lackadaisical toward the
end of the survey questions; thus, beliefs may not be accu-
rately reflected in the collected data. Additionally, to decrease
the likelihood of Type I error, we established an alpha level
of .01. Still, because we tested 11 dependent variables and
used multiple statistical tests, we must be cautious in infer-
ring that differences were not due to chance.
Readers should also keep in mind that implicit theories of
intelligence are applicable across specific domains, though
our study only measured implicit beliefs concerning general
intelligence. Since students were not prompted to think about
ability/intelligence within a specific domain (e.g., creativity,
math, science, psychomotor skills, etc.), this could have
influenced the results of our study. As alluded to previously,
the results could have also been influenced by the educa-
tional context of the district’s gifted programming. Caution
must be taken in generalizing beyond the present sample to
students served in other types of gifted services and talent
models.
Finally, our data relied solely on self-reported measures.
Social desirability and concern over self-presentation could
have influenced the student responses. Student responses on
the surveys may reflect a “false growth mindset,” claiming a
growth mindset without producing the actions to reflect it
(Dweck, 2015), akin to social desirability. Certainly, beliefs
noted on a survey instrument may not be reflected in real
behaviors; perhaps, this is why a contrast exists between stud-
ies done in a laboratory setting (Mueller & Dweck, 1998;
Snyder et al., 2014) and those done with surveys (Snyder
et al., 2013). Observations and qualitative follow-up would
enhance our understanding of whether attitudes translate into
actions.
Conclusion
Because psychosocial factors such as motivation and mind-
set are critical in talent development (Subotnik et al., 2011),
it is important to know what gifted students think about
their intelligence and how this affects the realization of
potential. While some argue that the gifted label and associ-
ated praise may make gifted students susceptible to adopt-
ing fixed mindsets, this may be a misconception. Educators
may not need to be overly concerned about this vulnerabil-
ity in most gifted students, especially fixed mindset beliefs
about intelligence. Our findings showed no significant dif-
ferences between groups on fixed or growth mindset. This
suggests that educators may be able to orient gifted stu-
dents to a self-understanding of their high abilities without
a fear of promoting entity views, especially if they empha-
size that abilities are further developed from effort. Our
data also reveal that gifted students (and advanced students)
have high confidence in their abilities (compared with typi-
cal students), while no differences were found for other risk
factors relating to underachievement (i.e., attitude toward
school, attitude toward teacher, goal valuation, and motiva-
tion/self-regulation). Given that our findings suggest that
giftedness is associated with Concern over Mistakes (to a
small degree), efforts should be made to identify the stu-
dents who are most vulnerable in order to address unhealthy
aspects of perfectionism and associated psychological dis-
tress. Because our models revealed that growth mindset
beliefs are positively associated with Positive Strivings
Perfectionism and constructive attitudes of achievement,
practitioners might explore the value of promoting growth
mindset as a means to promote healthy strivings toward
high standards of excellence. By nurturing the incremental
belief that intelligence is something that can change and
grow, one’s focus is reframed from upholding a smart iden-
tity (i.e., performance goals) to a focus on learning and
improvement (i.e., mastery goals). In this reframing, stu-
dents still strive for their personal best, but the ultimate
goal and drive fueling the students’ efforts change. When
we provide challenges that necessitate sustained effort and
rechannel the fear of failure toward a passionate pursuit of
learning, we can shift the trajectory of talent development
to elevated heights.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ablard, K. E., & Mills, C. J. (1996). Implicit theories of intelligence
and self-perceptions of academically talented adolescents and
children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 137-148.
doi:10.1007/BF01537340
Abu-Hamour, B., & Al-Hmouz, H. (2013). A study of gifted high,
moderate, and low achievers in their personal characteristics
and attitudes toward school and teachers. International Journal
of Special Education, 28, 5-15.
Adelson, J. L., & Wilson, H. E. (2009). Letting go of perfect:
Overcoming perfectionism in kids. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Ahmavaara, A., & Houston, D.M. (2007). The effects of selective
schooling and self-concept on adolescents’ academic aspira-
tion: An examination of Dweck’s self-theory. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 77, 613-632. doi:10.1348/000709
906x120132
Alexander, P. (1985). Gifted and nongifted students’ percep-
tions of intelligence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 137-143.
doi:10.1177/001698628502900307
346 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
Ames, C. A. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know.
Teachers College Record, 91, 409-421. doi:10.1080/0022895
8.2003.10516388
Bardone-Cone, A. M, Wonderlich, S. A., Frost, R. O., Bulik,
C. M., Mitchell, J. E., Uppala, S., & Simonich, H. (2007).
Perfectionism and eating disorders: Current status and future
directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 384-405. doi:10.
1016/j.cpr.2006.12.005
Berlin, J. (2009). It’s all a matter of perspective: Student percep-
tions on the impact of being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper
Review, 31, 217-223. doi:10.1080/02783190903177580
Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. (2007). Implicit theories
of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transi-
tion: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development,
78, 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
Boaler, J. (2018). Rethinking giftedness film [Web page]. Retrieved
from Youcubed at Stanford University. https://www.youcubed.
org/rethinking-giftedness-film/
Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’
potential through creative math, inspiring messages and inno-
vative teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, G. P., & Beck, A. T. (2002). Dysfunctional attitudes, per-
fectionism, and models of vulnerability to depression. In G. L.
Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research,
and treatment (pp. 231-251). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Byrne, B. (1996). Academic self-concept: Its structure, measure-
ment, and relation to academic achievement. In B. A. Bracken
(Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 287-316). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Chan, D. W. (2007). Positive and negative perfectionism among
Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong: Their relationships
to general self-efficacy and subjective well-being. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 77-102. doi:10.4219/jeg-
2007-512
Chan, D.W. (2009). Dimensionality and typology of perfection-
ism: The use of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism
Scale with Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53, 174-187. doi:10.1177/001698620933496
Chan, D.W. (2012). Life satisfaction, happiness, and the growth
mindset of healthy and unhealthy perfectionists among Hong
Kong gifted students. Roeper Review, 34, 224-233. doi:10.108
0/02783193.2012.715333
Clinkenbeard, P. (2012). Motivation and gifted students:
Implications of theory and research. Psychology in the Schools,
49, 622-630. doi:10.1002/pits.21628
Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth per-
spective on motivation and school reform. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth.
Psychological Review, 108, 593-623. doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.108.3.593
Cross, T. L. (1997). Psychological and social aspects of educating
gifted students. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 180-200.
doi:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681873
Dixon, F. A., Lapsley, D. K., & Hanchon, T. A. (2004). An empiri-
cal typology of perfectionism. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 95-
106. doi:10.1177/001698620404800203
Dweck, C. (2015, September 22). Carol Dweck revisits the “Growth
Mindset.” Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.ed
week.org/ew/articles/2015/09/23/carol-dweck-revisits-the-
growth-mindset.html
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, per-
sonality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindsets. The psychology of success. New
York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets and malleable minds: Implications
for giftedness and talent. In R. F. Subotnik, A. Robinson,
C. M. Callahan, & P. Johnson (Eds.), Malleable minds: Trans-
lating insights from psychology and neuroscience to gifted edu-
cation (pp. 7-18). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and
their roles in judgement and reactions: A world from two per-
spectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social–cognitive approach
to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-
273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance
achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
968-980.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to moti-
vation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 5-12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
Enns, M., & Cox, B. (2002). Nature and assessment of perfec-
tionism. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism:
Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 33-62). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Esparza, J., Shumow, L., & Schmidt, J. (2014). Growth mindset of
gifted seventh grade students in science. NCSSSMST Journal,
19, 6-13.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Dai, D. Y. (1997). Gifted students’ attitudes and
perceptions of the gifted label, special programs, and peer rela-
tions. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 15-20. doi:10
.1177/1932202X9700900103
Fiedler, E. D., Lange, R. E., & Winebrenner, S. (2002). In
search of reality: Unraveling the myths about tracking, abil-
ity grouping, and the gifted. Roeper Review, 24, 108-111.
doi:10.1080/02783190209554142
Ford, B. (1978). Student attitudes toward special programming
and identification. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 489-497.
doi:10.1177/001698627802200414
Foster, J. (2007). Procrastination and perfectionism: Connections,
understandings, and control. Gifted Education International,
23, 132-140. doi:10.1177/026142940702300307
Fox, L. (1976). Sex differences in mathematical precocity:
Bridging the gap. In D. Keating (Ed.), Intellectual talent,
research, and development. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Frost, R. O., Heimberg, R. G., Holt, C. S., Mattia, J. I., & Neubauer,
A. L. (1993). A comparison of two measures of perfection-
ism. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 119-126.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90181-2
Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The
dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
14, 449-468. doi:10.1007/bf01172967
Gaudreau, P., & Thompson, A. (2010). Testing a 2 × 2 model
of dispositional perfectionism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 48, 532-537. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.001
Mofield and Parker Peters 347
Good, C. (2012). Reformulating the talent equation: Implications
for gifted students’ sense of belonging and achievement. In
R. F. Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. M. Callahan, & P. Johnson
(Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychol-
ogy and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 37-54). Storrs:
University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and
their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
541-553. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541
Guskin, S. L., Okolo, C., Zimmerman, E., & Peng, C. J. (1986).
Being labeled gifted or talented: Meanings and effects per-
ceived by students in special programs. Gifted Child Quarterly,
30, 61-65. doi:10.1177/001698628603000203
Halpern, J., & Luria, L. (1989). Labels of giftedness and gender-
typicality: Effects on adults’ judgments of children’s traits.
Psychology in the Schools, 26, 301-310. doi:10.1002/1520-6807
Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic
perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27-33.
Hawkins, C. C., Watt, H. M. G., & Sinclair, K. E. (2006). Psychometric
properties of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale
with Australian adolescent girls: Clarification of multidimension-
ality and perfectionist typology. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 66, 1001-1022. doi:10.1177/0013164405285909
Hertzog, N. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the stu-
dents’ perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 131-143.
doi:10.1177/001698620304700204
Hewitt, P., & Flett, G. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social
contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with
psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psycho-
logy, 60, 456-470. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456
Hickey, M., & Toth, L. (1990). The effects of labeling children
gifted: A review of the literature. Early Child Development and
Care, 63, 149-151.
Hoge, R., & Renzulli, J. (1993). Exploring the link between gift-
edness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63,
449-465.
Hotter, S. (1986). A study of the self-concept and attitude toward
gifted and general students and of teacher attitude toward
these students. Unpublished manuscript, The University of
Iowa. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.
Kamins, M., & Dweck, C. (1999). Person vs process praise and
criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping.
Developmental Psychology, 35, 835-847. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.35.3.835
Kawamura, K. Y., Hunt, S. L., Frost, R. O., & DiBartolo, P. M.
(2001). Perfectionism, anxiety, and depression: Are the rela-
tionships independent? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25,
291-301. doi:10.1023/A:1010736529013
Kerr, B. A., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’
attitudes toward their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32,
245-247. doi:10.1177/001698628803200201
Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability group-
ing: Historical and contemporary perspectives (RBDM 9204).
Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research Center on
the Gifted and Talented.
LoCicero, K. A., & Ashby, J. S. (2000). Multidimensional perfec-
tionism in middle school age gifted students: A comparison to
peers from the general cohort. Roeper Review, 22, 182-185.
doi:10.1080/02783190009554030
Makel, M. C., Snyder, K. E., Thomas, C., Malone, P. S., & Putallaz,
M. (2015). Gifted students’ implicit beliefs about intelligence
and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 203-212. doi:10.
1177/0016986215599057
Manaster, G., Chan, J., Watt, C., & Wiehe, J. (1994). Gifted
adolescents’ attitudes towards their giftedness: A partial
replication. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 176-178. doi:10.1177/
001698629403800404
Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The
effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-con-
cept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research
Journal, 32, 285-319. doi:10.3102/00028312032002285
Matthews, D., & Foster, J. (2013, January 7). Mindsets and gifted
education: Transformation in progress. Mindsetworks (Growth
Mindset Blog and Newsletter). Retrieved from http://commu
nity.mindsetworks.com/blog-page/home-blogs/entry/mindsets-
and-gifted-education-transformation-in-progress
McCoach, D. B. (2000). The School Attitude Assessment Survey–
Revised (SAAS-R). Unpublished instrument.
McCoach, B., & Siegle, D. (2003). The School Attitude Assessment
Survey–Revised: A new Instrument to identify academically
able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 63, 414-429. doi:10.1177/0013164403063003005
Mindset Assessment Profile Tool: Educator Kit Module 1
Toolkit. (2012). Retrieved from http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/
lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/173/MindsetAssessment
Profile.pdf
Mofield, E. L., & Chakraborti-Ghosh, S. (2010). Addressing multi-
dimensional perfectionism in gifted adolescents with affective
curriculum. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 479-
513. doi:10.1177/016235321003300403
Mofield, E. L., & Parker Peters, M. (2015a). Multidimensional per-
fectionism within gifted suburban adolescents: An exploration
of typology and comparison of samples. Roeper Review, 37,
97-109. doi:10.1080/02783193.2015.1008663
Mofield, E. L., & Parker Peters, M. (2015b). The relationship
between perfectionism and overexcitabilities in gifted adoles-
cents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 405-427. doi:
10.1080/02783193.2015.1008663
Mofield, E. L., Parker Peters, M., & Chakraborti-Ghosh, S. (2016).
Perfectionism, coping, and underachievement in gifted ado-
lescents: Avoidance vs. approach orientations. Education
Sciences, 6, 1-22. doi:10.3390/educsci6030021
Moulton, P., Moulton, M., Housewright, M., & Bailey, K.
(1998). Gifted & talented: Exploring the positive and nega-
tive aspects of labeling. Roeper Review, 21, 153-154.
doi:10.1080/0278319980955395
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can
undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52. doi:10.1037//
0022-3514.75.1.33
National Association for Gifted Children. (2009). Myths about
gifted students. Retrieved from https://www.nagc.org/resources-
publications/resources/myths-about-gifted-students
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-
being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review,
22, 10-17. doi:10.1080/02783199909553991
Neihart, M., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Cross, T. (2016). What have we
learned, what should we do next? In M. Neihart, S. Pfeiffer,
& T. Cross (Eds.), The social and emotional development of
348 Gifted Child Quarterly 62(4)
gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 283-298). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Kulieke, P., & Krasney, N. (1988).
Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents: A review of
the empirical literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 347-352.
doi:10.1177/001698628803200403
Ommundsen, Y., Haugen, R., & Lund, T. (2005). Academic self-
concept, implicit theories of ability, and self-regulation strat-
egies. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 49,
461-474. doi:10.1080/00313830500267838
Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. J. (1996). The incidence of perfection-
ism in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 194-199.
doi:10.1177/001698629604000404
Parker, W. D., Portesova, S., & Stumpf, H. (2001). Perfectionism in
mathematically gifted and typical Czech students. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 25, 138-155.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-
regulated learning components of classroom academic per-
formance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Quart, A. (2006). Hothouse kids: The dilemma of the gifted child.
New York, NY: Penguin Press.
Quihuis, G., Bempechat, J., Jimenez, N., & Boulay, B. (2002).
Implicit theories of intelligence across academic domains: A
study of meaning making in adolescents of Mexican descent.
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 96, 87-
100. doi:10.1002/cd.45
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. doi:10.1177/001698620004400302
Renzulli, J. (2012). A theory of giftedness based on the antici-
pated social roles of high potential youth. In R. F. Subotnik,
A. Robinson, C. M. Callahan, & P. Johnson (Eds.), Malleable
minds: Translating insights from psychology and neurosci-
ence to gifted education (pp. 119-140). Storrs: University
of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and
Talented.
Ricci, M. C. (2013). Mindsets in the classroom: Building a cul-
ture of success and student achievement in schools. Waco TX:
Prufrock Press.
Schmidt, J., Shumow, L., & Kackar-Cam, H. (2017). Does mindset
intervention predict students’ daily experience in classrooms?
A comparison of seventh and ninth graders’ trajectories.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 582-602. doi:10.1007/
s10964-016-0489-z
Schuler, P. (1994). Goals and work habits survey. Unpublished
instrument, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 183-196.
doi:10.1177/0272431613487603
Schuler, P. A. (2002). Perfectionism in gifted children and adoles-
cents. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M.
Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted
children: What do we know? (pp. 71-79). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Schulten, K. (2010, March 12). Does the “gifted” label get in the
way of developing real potential? The New York Times (The
Learning Network). Retrieved from http://learning.blogs.
nytimes.com/2010/03/12/teacher-q-does-the-gifted-label-get-
in-the-way-of-developing-real-potential/
Scott, C. (2013, January 10). Our obsession with “natural” talent is
harming students [Web log post]. The Conversation. Retrieved
from http://theconversation.com/our-obsession-with-natural-
talent-is-harming-students-11549
See Tan, L., Kian Tan, K., & Surendran, D. (2016). Gifted under-
achievement. In M. Neihart, S. Pfeiffer, & T. Cross (Eds.), The
social and emotional development of gifted children: What do
we know? (pp. 91-92). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Shaunessey, E., Suldo, S. M., & Friedrich, A. (2011). Mean levels
and correlates of perfectionism in International Baccalaureate
and general education students. High Ability Studies, 22, 61-67.
doi:10.1080/13598139.2011.576088:
Shih, S. (2011). Perfectionism, implicit theories of intelligence,
and Taiwanese eighth-grade students’ academic engagement.
Journal of Educational Research, 104, 131-142. doi:10.1080/
00220670903570368
Siegle, D. (2012). Recognizing both effort and talent: How do
we keep from throwing the baby out with the bathwater? In
R. F. Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. M. Callahan, & P. Johnson
(Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology
and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 233-244). Storrs:
University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.
Siegle, D., Rubenstein, L., Pollard, E., & Romey, E. (2010).
Exploring the relationship of college freshman honors students’
effort and ability, attribution, interest, and implicit theory of
intelligence with perceived ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54,
92-101. doi:10.1177/0016986209355975
Silverman, L. K. (1997). The construct of asynchronous develop-
ment. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 36-58.
Silverman, L. K. (2011). Beliefs about ability. Images: Michigan
Alliance for Gifted Education Newsletter, 21, 1-13.
Simonton, D. D. (2001). Talent development as a multidimensional
multiplicative, and dynamic process. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 10, 39-43.
Slade, P. D., & Owens, R. G. (1998). A dual process model of
perfectionism based on reinforcement theory. Behaviour
Modification, 22, 372-390. doi:10.1177/01454455980223010
Snyder, K. E., Barger, M. M., Wormington, S. V., Schwartz-
Bloom, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). Identification as
gifted and implicit beliefs about intelligence: An examination
of potential moderators. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24,
242-258. doi:10.1177/1932202x13507971
Snyder, K. E., Malin, J. L., Dent, A. L., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L.
(2014). The message matters: The role of implicit beliefs about
giftedness and failure experiences in academic self-handi-
capping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 230-241.
doi:10.1037/a0034553
Sowa, C., McIntire, J., May, K., & Bland, L. (1994). Social and
emotional adjustment themes across gifted children. Roeper
Review, 17, 95-98. doi:10.1080/02783199409553633
Speirs Neumeister, K. (2007). Perfectionism in gifted students: An
overview of current research. Gifted Education International,
23, 122-131.
Speirs Neumeister, K. (2016). Perfectionism in gifted students. In M.
Neihart, S. Pfeiffer, & T. Cross (Eds.). The social and emotional
development of gifted students: What do we know? (pp. 29-40).
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Speirs Neumeister, K., & Finch, H. (2006). Perfectionism in
high-ability students: Relational precursors and influences on
Mofield and Parker Peters 349
achievement motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 238-251.
doi:10.1177/001698620605000304
Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Williams, K. K., & Cross, T. L. (2009).
Gifted high-school students’ perspectives on the devel-
opment of perfectionism. Roeper Review, 31, 198-206.
doi:10.1080/02783190903177564
Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P.
(2016). What one-hundred years of research says about the
effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K-12 stu-
dents’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order
meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 86, 849-899.
doi:10.3102/0034654316675417
Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfec-
tionism: Approaches, evidences, challenges. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 10, 295-319.
Stoeber, J., & Rambow, A. (2007). Perfectionism in adolescent
school students: Relations with motivation, achievement, and
well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1379-
1389. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.015
Stumpf, H., & Parker, W. D. (2000). A hierarchical structural
analysis of perfectionism and its relation to other personality
characteristics. Personality and Individual Differences, 28,
837-852. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00141-5
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C.
(2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A pro-
posed direction forward based on psychological science.
Psychological Sciences in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54.
doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows
up: 25 years’ follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Tieso, C. (2003). Ability grouping is not just tracking anymore.
Roeper Review, 26, 29-36. doi:10.1080/02783190309554236
Vandiver, B. J., & Worrell, F. C. (2002). The reliability and validity
of scores on the Almost Perfect Scale–Revised with academi-
cally talented middle school students. Journal of Secondary
Gifted Education, 13, 108-119. doi:10.4219/jsge-2002-372
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2012). Case analysis of issues. In R. F.
Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. M. Callahan, & P. Johnson (Eds.),
Malleable minds: Translating insights from psychology
and neuroscience to gifted education (pp. 257-266). Storrs:
University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.
Vuyk, M. A., Krieshok, T. S., & Kerr, B. A. (2016). Openness
to experience rather than overexcitabilities. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 60, 192-211. doi:10.1177/0016986216645407
Ward, V. (1961). Educating the gifted: An axiomatic approach.
Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Weiner, J. B. (1992). Psychological disturbance in adolescence
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, Conflict, and Underachievement.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wiersema, J. A., Licklider, B., Thompson, J. R., Hendrich, S.,
Haynes, C., & Thompson, K. (2015). Mindset about intelli-
gence and meaningful and mindful effort: It’s not my hardest
class any more! Learning Communities Research and Practice,
3, 1-15. Retrieved from http://washingtoncenter.evergreen.
edu/lcrpjournal/vol3/iss2/3
Worrell, F. C. (2012). Mindsets and giftedness: Assumptions and
implications. In R. F. Subotnik, A. Robinson, C. M. Callahan,
& P. Johnson (Eds.), Malleable minds: Translating insights
from psychology and neuroscience to gifted education (pp.153-
164). Storrs: University of Connecticut, National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Author Biographies
Emily L. Mofield, EdD, is the Consulting Teacher for Gifted
Education for Sumner County Schools, Tennessee. She is a National
Board Certified Teacher and serves as Chair-Elect for the National
Association for Gifted Children’s (NAGC) Curriculum Studies. She
has won multiple NAGC curriculum awards (with Tamra Stambaugh)
and has received the NAGC Hollingworth Award (with Megan Parker
Peters). Her research focuses on perfectionism, achievement motiva-
tion, and psychosocial variables that influence talent development.
Megan Parker Peters, PhD, is an assistant professor and the
Director of Teacher Assessment at Lipscomb University. She is a
licensed psychologist and school psychologist who focuses on the
needs of intellectually gifted and twice-exceptional children. She is
on the editorial advisory board of the National Association for
Gifted Children’s (NAGC) Teaching for High Potential publica-
tion. With Emily Mofield, Megan was the 2016 corecipient of the
NAGC Hollingworth Award. Her current research interests include
examining the impact of perfectionism on coping, the relationships
among socioemotional factors and giftedness, and the academic and
external factors that predict student success.
