The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know?

book!

SECTION I

SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS OF GIFTED CHILDREN

INTRODUCTION

There are many reasons that the social and emotional development of gifted children differs from that of children with average ability. Research over the past 10–15 years has changed the nature of the discussion on some of these needs. The field has moved away from dichotomous and linear perspectives to understandings that acknowledge the dynamic interplay of forces in development. Today, we believe that both ability and environment must be considered because social and emotional characteristics shape and are shaped by interactions with others. Also, development must be understood within a cultural context because many concepts (e.g., self, identity, achievement) are socially constructed. It is this interaction that makes growing up gifted a qualitatively different experience.

For example, in her chapter, Speirs Neumeister highlights how research on perfectionism, a common characteristic of gifted children, has moved from studies based on typologies to studies based on dimensions of positive strivings and evaluative concerns. Similarly, Freeman and Garces-Bacsal report on changing patterns of gender differences in gifted children, and Cross discusses how some characteristics of gifted children can present challenges for social relationships. As you read this section, watch for these and other examples of this shift in our understanding of the social and emotional characteristics and needs of gifted children. How do they confirm or modify your own ideas about gifted children’s development?

CHAPTER 1

THEORIES OF SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN GIFTED CHILDREN

KRISTOFOR WILEY

INTRODUCTION

When Lewis Terman used the newly developed Stanford-Binet intelligence scale to identify children with genius over a century ago, he took the opportunity to measure more than just cognitive ability in those children. Among the many characteristics he explored in Genetic Studies of Genius (Terman, 1926) were several regarding emotional maturity and affect. Terman came to the conclusion that his high-IQ subjects were, in general, socially and emotionally well-adjusted.

In the years following Terman’s 1926 publication, Leta Hollingworth (1926, 1942), then an instructor at Columbia University, drew on the work of Terman and others to study a handful of students with Stanford-Binet IQs above 180. Her conclusions, while largely in agreement with Terman, added a discussion of special perplexities on the part of the highly intelligent. Her concerns for these students included the social difficulties often provoked by a mismatch between physical and cognitive development (asynchrony), disadvantages in demonstrating leadership among older mental peers, and lack of close friendship among age peers.

These two scholars framed a discussion of affective characteristics by highlighting both the strengths and potential complications of high intelligence. Due to differences in their settings and the students with whom they worked, Terman and Hollingworth sometimes emphasized different aspects of the experience of these students, but neither could have anticipated the opposed viewpoints they would be summoned to represent. It is not difficult now to find claims that the gifted are somehow a population apart in their emotional state, either universally protected by their capabilities or uniquely vulnerable for the same reason. Neither, of course, is predictably the case. Rather, the students we identify as gifted are a vast array, as different from one another as they are from their nonidentified peers. The act of predicting social or emotional difference on the basis of gifted identification, whether it be unique vulnerability or boundless resilience, is neither supported by research nor logically consistent.

That said, advanced cognitive or academic abilities typically reflected by gifted identification can create unique challenges when it comes to peers and the environment. For some gifted students, school is an exercise in patience as material already learned is once again presented. For others, it represents a world in which constant effort is required to fit in. Asynchrony is a defining element of giftedness, and in some students, it provokes a qualitatively different social experience. Our mandate as professionals is to command the idea of asynchrony, not to predict social or emotional differences in gifted individuals, but to aid our understanding when those differences present themselves.

THEORY FOR UNDERSTANDING

The unique cognitive characteristics of the gifted, those by which they are identified, must be part of our discussion. They are not, however, enough to provide understanding. A host of variables (including asynchrony) impact social and emotional well-being. Understanding the relationships between these variables requires a theoretical framework. Theory links individual traits and outcomes in an attempt to escape mere correlation. A clear example of this comes in recent discussions of Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Researchers have demonstrated a correlation between overexcitability scores and giftedness, but it is only when we engage Dabrowski’s larger Theory of Positive Disintegration (e.g., Piechowski, 2014) that we are able to explore whether this relationship is meaningful.

The purpose of this chapter is not to catalog research on individual social or emotional traits associated with gifted individuals; such summaries will be found in subsequent chapters. Rather, it is to offer a survey of theoretical frameworks through which those traits can be more effectively understood and addressed. The following section highlights several theories of social or emotional development that have found use in recent years among gifted educators, as well as recent research drawing on those frameworks. It is not a comprehensive list, but it represents a cross-section of popular acceptance, recent development, and depth of application. The greater intent is to demonstrate how placing traits of giftedness in a theoretical context can help us formulate better service.

MAJOR FINDINGS

Research in gifted education typically draws upon one or more theoretical frameworks to explore a specific area of interest. Many theories from developmental psychology have been put to use over the years in the study of the social and emotional development of gifted children. The following theories can be applied to the unique development of gifted children, helping to explain outcomes and behaviors once we consider them in the context of giftedness.

ERIKSON AND IDENTITY

Erikson (1968) proposed that identity is developed through encountering and resolving eight consecutive crises attached to specific developmental life stages:

■trust or mistrust,

■autonomy or doubt,

■initiative or guilt,

■industry or inferiority,

■identity or diffusion,

■intimacy or self-absorption,

■generativity or stagnation, and

■integrity or despair.

The degree to which these challenges are successfully resolved helps define the psychological well-being of the individual. The theory is widely accepted and used, but it can have special implications in the context of gifted asynchrony.

Cross (2001) addressed potential differences in Erikson’s first five stages (those associated with the first 18 years of life) for gifted populations. His exploration focused on the possible experience of gifted students, who, for example, encounter a need to develop a sense of competence over inferiority in a world that presents little academic challenge. Without confirmation of effort, a sense of competence might never be developed. Cross also suggested that identity formation, already a sticky issue for adolescents, may be doubly confusing for gifted individuals receiving mixed messages about their role in society. Cross and Frazier (2010) extended this question of identity, in combination with social learning theorists, to explore the process of identity development among gifted adolescents at a residential camp.

Extending the application of Erikson to adulthood, Zuo and Cramond (2001) found a strong association between successful resolution of Erikson’s adolescent identity crisis and successful adult occupation (i.e., prestige, professional honors, etc.). Students with little direction or guidance regarding occupations reliably ended up in less prestigious positions. Thus, while a gifted student might have the potential to be a research physicist or classroom teacher, the lack of an early sense of occupational identity might result in less access to that career trajectory.

Cross (2004) also explored the potential interaction of developing technology with Erikson’s theory and gifted individuals, suggesting that the increased skill required for their use enhances the likelihood of competence development. The changing nature of personal interaction, however, remains an open question as adolescents continue to seek associations of identity. On one hand, physical and social anonymity can lead to the prioritization of cognitive ability, but Cross still questioned the impact of anonymous interaction on issues of self (p. 63). To be sure, the current state of social media does not promise the prioritization of cognitive ability, although it has generated an entirely new path for bullying those who are different. Putting the gifted, technology, and Erikson together can provide insight to such situations.

This is a convenient sample of studies employing Erikson, but it serves to highlight the importance of his theory. Zuo and Cramond (2001), for example, have taken a tentative difference in occupational outcome, suggested that it might have a theoretical basis in Erikson’s identity crisis, and tested that relationship. This proposed mechanism gives us the power to improve occupational outcomes and facilitate stronger identity formation on the basis of Erikson’s theory. It is important to note that later scholarship questions the specific sequence and timing of Erikson’s trajectory (Marcia, 1980), but the crises remain consistent.

KOHLBERG AND MORALITY

Kohlberg (1984) proposed a theory of moral development governing justice reasoning and involving six sequential stages at which value decisions are made in response to the following respective factors:

■authority,

■individual interest,

■interpersonal expectation and conformity,

■social systems and conscience,

■social contract and individual rights, and

■universal ethical principles.

Progress through the stages is motivated by social interaction, but it is fundamentally a process of cognitive development. Kohlberg suggested that high cognitive ability leads to more rapid moral development, but that everybody has access to all levels within a lifetime. Thus, those working with gifted youth and adolescents might expect to see higher levels of moral judgment in those identified as gifted, but adult populations are less likely to show difference as others catch up.

These results are supported in recent research by Lee and Olszewski-Kubilius (2006), who demonstrated that gifted adolescents score significantly higher on Kohlberg’s last two stages, known as the Post-Conventional stages, than the students in the norming sample: gifted students were more likely to rely on unanimous procedures, due process, defending basic human rights, and intuitively appealing ideas in making moral judgments (p. 55). Ruf (2009) agreed, but reminded us that gifted individuals will differ significantly in their moral development at the same age, and thus blanket generalizations are not supported.

Recent interpretations of Kohlberg have implications for gifted populations. Rest, Narvaez, Thoma, and Bebeau (2000) recommend a revision of Kohlberg’s theory on the basis of his disproportionate focus on justice, the limited nature of his diagnostic situations, and the philosophical difficulties of assuming an absolute moral truth. In their neo-Kohlbergian framework, the authors preserve the original stages of development, but move in the final stage from the idea of universal moral truths to that of common morality, a code of moral judgment emerging from community consensus in the context of specific circumstances. The authors incorporated this paradigm adjustment in their Defining Issues Test (DIT; Rest et al., 1999), a widely used instrument for assessing moral development.

The implications for gifted individuals of this shift from an abstract and absolute truth to an interpersonal consensus could be profound, and this emerging theoretical understanding is likely to change how we think of giftedness and morality. Traditionally, gifted students have been characterized as highly moral on the basis of tests that measured their ability to conceptualize morality, not on a longitudinal view of their behavior (Freeman, 2008). For an asynchronous adolescent, it may be comforting to know that moral conduct is not entirely in the hands of a distant peer group, but instead relies on abstract principle. However, if the highest levels of morality are to be increasingly associated with group consensus surrounding a situation, then counseling and affective curriculum may need to address this change in perspective.

DABROWSKI AND OVEREXCITABILITIES

In 1964, Kazimierz Dabrowski published his Theory of Positive Disintegration (TPD), which outlines a trajectory of personality development in which the individual matures through periods of psychological disintegration. The basic model involves an initial state of unitary integration, during which choices are made largely in response to individual desire and primitive impulse. As a result of internal or external conflict, one or more psychological structures inevitably fall apart, producing anxiety and neurotic behavior in response to the discomfort. Under the right circumstances, an individual undergoing this disintegration can experience secondary integration, arriving at a superior personality.

Dabrowski (1964) suggested that those who are prone to disintegration often exhibit one or more of five overexcitabilities (OEs): intellectual, emotional, sensual, imaginational, or psychomotor. Children exhibiting OEs are highly reactive or focused within the domain of their OE. It is on the basis of these OEs that the TPD has been the subject of a body of recent research with gifted children, as they seem consistent with the heightened sensitivities often observed in this population. Dabrowski himself suggested that talented individuals tend toward symptoms of disintegration, and research has supported this claim as it pertains to OEs.

The most popular instrument for measuring OEs is the Overexcitability Questionnaire II (OEQ2). Harrison and Van Haneghan (2011) used the OEQ2 to reveal higher sensual, imaginational, and intellectual OEs among gifted adolescents. By way of contrast, the emotional OE, historically believed to be higher in gifted samples, was the same for both groups. Bouchet and Falk (2001) found higher emotional and intellectual OEs among university students who self-identified as gifted. Carman (2011) used comparison groups of university students to test an alternative instrument to the OEQ2, the Sensory Profile, for its power to distinguish students identified for gifted programming. The author concluded that the Sensory Profile had nearly the same power to distinguish between students identified as gifted and nonidentified students as did a combination of grade point average, high school rank, and general intelligence scores. The relationship between gifted identification and scores on the OEQ2 is well established.

It is important to reiterate, however, that while OEs enjoy a substantial relationship with gifted identification, they are not a theory of development by themselves. Piechowski (2014) addressed the complexity and common misconceptions that surround the TPD, and other scholars on the subject advise caution when interpreting OE scores in isolation from the overall context of development potential (Kane, 2009, p. 74). In addition, while positive disintegration offers an alternative interpretation of several conditions often diagnosed as negative (i.e., anxiety and neurosis), sometimes the conditions are truly cause for concern. Periods of disintegration can evolve negatively, leading to regression or involution. They can also persist in the form of psychoses. Thus, the theory should never be used to explain away serious problems as positive transitions. Dabrowski’s TPD is an engaging model with potential utility, but until we establish a more complete understanding of how it works and what it successfully predicts in students, we should not apply it in pieces to the gifted.

MULTICULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Culture informs giftedness. Societal values are inevitably reflected in the entire gifted education process:

1.definition of giftedness (e.g., leadership or creativity as traits of the gifted),

2.identification (e.g., timed IQ testing or the weight of teacher recommendation), and

3.programming (e.g., separate schools and concerns for elitist accusations).

Although the frameworks described above are not presented as specific to one culture or values set, scholars focusing on minority and international populations often draw on alternative frameworks to supplement their work.

Frazier (2012), for example, outlined special considerations based on racial, sexual, and gender identity formation in gifted students. She suggested that research on identity formation among racial minorities should be informed by the work of Fordham and Ogbu, as the group memberships and processes of affiliation that form identity under Erikson’s theory are affected by race and ethnicity. Similarly, Peterson and Rischar (2004) called upon multiple theories of sexual identity development in their discussion of sexual identity in the gifted.

Internationally, research depends heavily on the frameworks discussed previously. Kohlberg, for example, provides the foundational theory in a line of research demonstrating advanced moral reasoning among gifted Finnish adolescents (Pehkonen, Inkeroinen-Huhta, & Tirri, 2003; Tirri, 2010; Tirri & Pehkonen, 2002). Alnabhan (2011) also draws on Kohlberg to demonstrate more developed moral reasoning among Kuwaiti 8th and 11th graders with high intelligence scores. By way of contrast, Nguyen, Jin, and Gross (2013) combined Kohlberg with Confucius to assess moral reasoning in Vietnamese students. Using both the DIT and the Confucian Value Scale (CVS), the authors again demonstrated that students identified as gifted show higher levels of moral reasoning on both measures.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH AND PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE STUDY

Many of the limitations surrounding research on social or emotional theories are the same limitations that plague studies of individual traits. Samples are often small and formed from convenience (e.g., a local summer camp or a set of self-selected clinical patients). Furthermore, the existence of multiple conceptions of giftedness limits generalization to the broader population. A study based on a high school for math prodigies, for example, might have little utility for a 2-week residential program.

In terms of research design, there is a persistent issue regarding traits or experiences deemed unique to gifted populations. We have every reason to believe that the gifted experience existence differently, but often the research we use to validate this belief is not designed for comparison of gifted and nongifted populations. When such a design is implemented, we sometimes find the predicted differences are not as great as we thought (Mueller, 2009).

Finally, there is the related question of whether a given social or emotional characteristic is a product of interaction with the environment or intrinsic to the gifted individual. Intelligence research increasingly suggests that these are not exclusive options, but rather that nurture plays upon nature in a way that makes distinguishing between them very difficult (Nisbett et al., 2012). As a result, addressing the needs of a gifted individual requires attention to both personal awareness and the nature of her environment.

Future research in this area needs to address the distinction between using a theoretical framework and evaluating it. By calling on Erikson and other theorists for predictions of difference, then assessing the strength of those differences, we can verify which frameworks offer the most use in terms of explanation. Researchers should also seek to broaden our understanding on the sources of difference by exploring environmental factors such as peers and school context as moderators of group differences. Although it may prove impossible to separate the traits of the student from those of her environment, a clearer picture of their relationship could only help.

IMPLICATIONS

The quality of our service to gifted individuals depends directly on the application of a theoretical basis to our observations. When we observe a difference in this population, we must also seek a possible explanation for that difference in the form of a theoretical framework. In doing so, we not only make it possible to test the relationship under other circumstances, but we add more meaningfully to our options for addressing the differences. Conversely, when we ignore this step, we open ourselves up to unfounded assumptions based on happenstance.

Cognitive ability is a broad construct, and a single IQ score can represent any number of different abilities. The individuals we call gifted vary widely on these and other criteria. Thus, while high cognitive ability should inform our interpretation of theory regarding our students or clients, we should not imagine that it predicts specific social or emotional traits.

REFERENCES

Alnabhan, M. (2011). How does moral judgment change with age and giftedness? Gifted and Talented International, 26, 25–30.

Bouchet, N., & Falk, R. F. (2001). The relationship among giftedness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 260–267.

Carman, C. A. (2011). Adding personality to gifted identification: Relationships among traditional and personality-based constructs. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 412–446.

Cross, T. L. (2001). Social/emotional needs: Gifted children and Erikson’s theory of psychosocial. Gifted Child Today, 24(1), 54–55.

Cross, T. L. (2004). Technology and the unseen world of gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 27(4), 14–15, 63.

Cross, T. L., & Frazier, A. D. (2010). Guiding the psychosocial development of gifted students attending specialized residential STEM schools. Roeper Review, 32, 32–41.

Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Frazier, A. D. (2012). Identity development and multipotentiality. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts & talents (pp. 281–295). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Freeman, J. (2008). Morality and giftedness. In T. Balchin, B. Hymer, & D. Mathews (Eds.), The Routledge international companion to gifted education (pp. 141–148). New York, NY: Routledge.

Harrison, G. E., & Van Haneghan, J. P. (2011). The gifted and the shadow of the night: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities and their correlation to insomnia, death anxiety, and fear of the unknown. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 669–697.

Hollingworth, L. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book Company.

Kane, M. (2009). Contemporary voices on Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration. Roeper Review, 31, 72–76.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). The psychology of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Lee, S.-Y., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2006). The emotional intelligence, moral judgment, and leadership of academically gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 29–67.

Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Mueller, C. E. (2009). Protective factors as barriers to depression in gifted and nongifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 3–14.

Nguyen, T. M. P., Jin, P., & Gross, M. U. M. (2013). Confucian values in Vietnamese gifted adolescents and their non-gifted peers. Gifted and Talented International, 28, 227–238.

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67, 130.

Pehkonen, L., Inkeroinen-Huhta, S., & Tirri, K. (2003). The moral reasoning of gifted adolescents. In F. Mönks & H. Wagner (Eds.), Development of human potential: Investment into our future: Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the European Council for High Ability (pp. 78–81). Bad Honnef, Germany: Verlag Karl Heinrich Bock.

Peterson, J. S., & Rischar, H. (2004). Gifted and gay: A study of the adolescent experience. In S. Baum & S. Reis (Eds.), Twice-exceptional and special populations of gifted students (pp. 81–108). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Piechowski, M. M. (2014). Rethinking Dabrowski’s theory: I. The case against primary integration. Roeper Review, 36, 11–17.

Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M., & Thoma, S. (1999). DIT-2: Devising and testing a new instrument of moral judgment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 644–659.

Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Thoma, S. J., & Bebeau, M. J. (2000). A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research. Journal of Moral Education, 29, 381–395.

Ruf, D. (2009). Self-actualization and morality of the gifted: Environmental, familial, and personal factors. In D. Ambrose & T. Cross (Eds.), Morality, ethics, and gifted minds (pp. 265–283). New York, NY: Springer.

Terman, L. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tirri, K. (2010). Combining excellence and ethics: Implications for moral education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 33, 59–64.

Tirri, K., & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted adolescents. Journal of Advanced Academics, 13, 120–129.

Zuo, L., & Cramond, B. (2001). An examination of Terman’s gifted children from the theory of identity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 251–259.

CHAPTER 2

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN GIFTED CHILDREN

JOAN FREEMAN AND RHODA MYRA GARCES-BACSAL

Research studies that address questions pertaining to significant differences between gifted boys and girls range from teachers’ stereotypes that influence identification and nominations for advanced programs (Barber & Torney-Purta, 2008) to an examination of external and internal factors contributing to eventual achievement (Reis, 2002). Do differences in achievement among gifted boys and girls still exist? Do gifted girls still fail to realize their potentials in adulthood? Are gifted boys still limited in their career choices because of sex-role stereotypes? This chapter explores the social and emotional factors that are reported to influence gifted girls’ and boys’ achievement and success.

MAJOR FINDINGS

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STEM PATHWAYS

Earlier research studies seemed to suggest that innate gender differences in aptitudes for the hard sciences is being overturned. Freeman (2004) reported that gifted girls in Britain were surpassing those of gifted boys in almost all areas of study across various ages. This was attributed to two factors: British girls are believed to demonstrate greater confidence in their abilities, and British curriculum and assessment incorporate styles and contents such as extended prose, written portfolios, and research projects that encourage female study patterns.

However, more recent studies indicate this view may have been premature. A 5-year United Kingdom study of more than 19,000 participants found that only 15% of 10–14-year-olds sought STEM subjects as a career (ASPIRES, 2013). Science was found to be socially constructed, in that teachers often favored boys, perceiving them to be more naturally able, even when girls’ school marks were higher. More recent investigations in the United States, however, show a