13
Click here to load reader
Click here to load reader
The social competence of highly gifted math and scienceadolescents
Seon-Young Lee • Paula Olszewski-Kubilius •
Dana Thomson
Received: 14 August 2011 / Revised: 20 March 2012 / Accepted: 23 March 2012 / Published online: 29 April 2012
� Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2012
Abstract Involving 740 highly gifted math and science
students from two different countries, Korea and the United
States, this study examined how these gifted adolescents
perceived their interpersonal ability and peer relationships
and whether there were differences between these two
groups by demographic variables. Based on the survey
data, results showed that our gifted students perceived their
interpersonal ability and peer relationships at levels com-
parable to or higher than those of their non-gifted coun-
terparts. They were satisfied and confident with their peer
relationships and did not identify negative effects of being
gifted when forming and maintaining friendships. Differ-
ences were found between Korean and American students
by gender in their profiles of interpersonal ability and peer
relationships. Positive self-portrayal of social competence
found for our sample disputed previous studies suggesting
that highly gifted students tend to struggle with social
relationships. Given that each group of students had dif-
ferent educational, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds, the
results should also be interpreted with caution.
Keywords Gifted math and science adolescents �Social competence � Specialized gifted school
and program � Cultural differences
Background
Despite growing interest in the affective dimension of
gifted students’ experiences, empirical research in this area
is still relatively rare, and the research that is available
often presents an inconsistent picture, particularly with
respect to gifted students’ social competence and peer
relationships. However, regardless of whether the effects of
giftedness on social development and relationships are
positive or negative, it is becoming clear that gifted stu-
dents have unique social and emotional needs (Peterson
2009) and that their ability to navigate social situations and
form good relationships with peers are extremely important
to their academic success (Mendaglio 2006).
Because giftedness, as well as a child’s social needs and
abilities, changes and develops over time and experiences
of giftedness are influenced by cultural, familial, and
individual differences, it is unsurprising that some studies
on the affective development of gifted students have
reported differential results for subpopulations of gifted
students, specifically with respect to age, domain and level
of giftedness, and educational experiences.
Overall social competence of gifted students
Overall, the empirical literature indicates that gifted stu-
dents tend to be average or above average in some or most
of the social skill areas assessed (McCallister et al. 1996;
Neihart 1999) and generally well-received by peers (Austin
and Draper 1981; Neihart 1999). Some research even
Part of this study was presented at the 11th Asia Pacific Conference
on Giftedness in Sydney, Australia in 2010 and at the 2011 National
Association for Gifted Children in New Orleans in the United States.
S.-Y. Lee (&)
Department of Education, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
e-mail: [email protected]
P. Olszewski-Kubilius
School of Education, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL,
USA
D. Thomson
Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL, USA
123
Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2012) 13:185–197
DOI 10.1007/s12564-012-9209-x
suggests that being intellectually gifted is an asset in terms
of psychosocial adjustment (Janos and Robinson 1985;
Neihart 2002; Robinson 2008), due perhaps to gifted stu-
dents’ advanced problem-solving and abstract reasoning
skills, which may aid them in navigating adverse situations.
However, there is also evidence that supports the view
that gifted children are vulnerable to psychosocial diffi-
culties such as greater levels of stress (Coleman and Cross
2005; Mendaglio 2006; Silverman 1993, 2002), difficulty
finding compatible peers (Gross 1989, 2001; Janos et al.
1985a, b; Robinson 2002), pressure to be like age-peers
(Reis and McCoach 2000; Robinson 2002), lower social
self-concepts (Brody and Benbow 1986), underachieve-
ment (Reis and McCoach 2000), as well as anxiety and
depression (Mendaglio 2006). These difficulties are
thought to stem from a lack of fit between a gifted student’s
interests or abilities and those of his/her peers (Gross 1989;
Neihart 2006; Rimm 2003; Robinson 2008; Silverman
1993), the educational opportunities and programing
available (Gross 2004), and/or school, family, or cultural
environments (Cross 2007; Eddles-Hirsch et al. 2010;
Neihart 2006; Robinson 2008). Asynchrony between a
gifted individual’s intellectual development and his/her
social and emotional development, which may be more
advanced than expected for his/her chronological age but
less advanced than expected for his/her mental age, also
has the potential to be a source of internal stress (Robinson
2002; Silverman 1993, 2002). Further, a gifted students’
subjective experience of normal developmental challenges
may be qualitatively different from that of others, due to
the characteristics often associated with giftedness (Dixon
1998; Peterson 2009; Peterson et al. 2009).
While reviews of the literature (Austin and Draper 1981;
McCallister et al. 1996; Neihart 1999) present an overall
picture of the emotional and social abilities of gifted stu-
dents more positively than negatively, there is considerable
evidence that gifted students feel different from others,
which have a real effect on their social interactions (Cross
et al. 1993; Delisle 1984; Janos et al. 1985a, b; Rimm et al.
1999; Robinson 2008; Swiatek and Dorr 1998). For
example, gifted students report difficulties creating peer
relationships and general feelings of unease or lack of
competence in social situations (Bickley 2002; Cross et al.
1993; Gross 1989; Janos et al. 1985a, b; Silverman 1993,
2002). Consequently, they may withdraw, choosing to
work independently; seek out older companions whose age
corresponds more closely to their mental age; or attempt to
mask their giftedness in order to conform to the expecta-
tions of their peer group (Austin and Draper 1981; Davis
and Rimm 1998; Gross 2001, 2004; Swiatek 1995, 2001;
Swiatek and Cross 2007).
By contrast, when high-achieving students perceive their
friends to value academics, they may feel less of a conflict
between social and academic goals, be more likely to engage
in pro-social behavior, experience less emotional distress,
and be more motivated to succeed in school (Wentzel et al.
2004; Wentzel and Caldwell 1997). Wentzel et al. (2004)
highlighted the ways in which cohesive social groups can be
influential in promoting and enforcing norms and values that
can either undermine or facilitate academic achievement.
Such research suggests that gifted students are likely to
thrive both academically and psychosocially in environ-
ments that are conducive to the development of rewarding
social relationships, especially with peers who share their
academic values and interests, and that this in turn will help
them develop the social competence required to successfully
navigate the social world of schools.
Social competence among subpopulations of the gifted
Gender
Gender differences with respect to social relationships
were identified in a number of studies (Luftig and Nichols
1990; Rimm et al. 1999). Findings are mixed with some
studies reporting higher social self-concepts for girls
(Worrell et al. 1998) and others reporting lower popularity
for gifted girls among peers their age (Luftig and Nichols
1990). Gifted girls were also found to be more likely to
hide or minimize their intelligence, intentionally do poorly
on tests, or not hand in assignments (Rimm et al. 1999).
Age
Studies (see Austin and Draper 1981) indicate that during
the early years of schooling, there tends to be a positive
correlation between IQ and social acceptance. Young gif-
ted children tend to be well-liked and sometimes more
popular than their peers. However, by age 13, the popu-
larity advantage that bright students may have experienced
seems to disappear (Austin and Draper 1981; Rimm 2002;
Schneider 1987). With adolescence, the academically gif-
ted students lost status and their academic achievements
were increasingly devalued over the high school years
(Leroux 1988). Gifted adolescents also reported difficulty
maintaining friendships with classmates (Brown and
Steinberg 1990; Cross 2007), experienced general feelings
of social isolation in regular classrooms (Cross et al. 1991,
1993), and denied their giftedness (Foust et al. 2006).
Level of giftedness
Terman (1925) noted that children with IQs higher than 170
had more difficulty in making social adjustments than did
moderately gifted students. Hollingworth (1942) also
reported that students with an IQ above 155 were prone to
186 S.-Y. Lee et al.
123
special problems of social adjustment that were correlated
with social isolation due to the absence of a suitable peer
group (Gross 2004). Researchers (Brody and Benbow 1986;
Dauber and Benbow 1990; Gross 2002, 2004; Janos et al.
1985a, b; Robinson 2008) also revealed that extremely gif-
ted students perceived themselves as more introverted, less
socially adjusted, and less popular among their peers.
Educational environments
Educational programs that provide gifted students with
appropriate academic challenge and access to compatible
peers have been shown to have positive effects on their
social as well as academic development (Kulik 2004; Rinn
2006; Rogers 2007). Research showed that summer resi-
dential programs helped to meet gifted students’ social and
psychological needs (Enersen 1993) and that gifted students
experienced more positive perceptions of their peer rela-
tionships through their 3-week summer program (Rinn
2006). Olszewski et al. (1987) also found that among ado-
lescents who participated in the summer program, there was
an increase in social acceptance over the 3-week session.
Positive social outcomes were found for students who
attended a specialized gifted school. Gifted students who
attended a residential science school were, on average,
similar to their peers who did not attend specialized schools
with respect to psychological health (Cross et al. 2004). In
Coleman’s (2001) study, gifted adolescents endorsed the
social system at their residential high school to be more
open, inclusive, and fluid than at their local high school.
In summary, gifted students, on the whole, are perceived
socially as capable as their non-gifted counterparts, while
asynchronous development between their advanced intel-
ligence and moderate social competence is well docu-
mented in the literature (Cross 2007; Robinson 2002;
Rogers 2007; Silverman 2002). Reasons for this uneven
development can be ascribed to various factors, and the
lack of the supportive learning environment, such as
homogeneous grouping by ability in specialized gifted
programs or residential schools, is one of the many. In light
of the gap in research on the affective dimension of gifted
students’ experiences in educational settings, it is worth
investigating how gifted students attending specialized
gifted programs or schools perceive their social compe-
tence compared to their non-gifted peers and how these
highly gifted students feel about their peer relationships.
About this study
The present study examined the social competence, partic-
ularly interpersonal ability, peer relationships, and social
coping skills in association with giftedness, of two distinct
groups of highly gifted students: One who attended a resi-
dential specialized school in Korea and the other who par-
ticipated in a university-based summer program for gifted
students in the United States. The main goal of this study was
to explore how our sample of gifted students differed from
their age or grade equivalent to non-gifted, heterogeneous
students. We were also interested in exploring differences
between these Korean and American students by factors,
such as gender, levels of giftedness, and experiences with
gifted programs. The foci of this study included the fol-
lowing: How did our sample of highly gifted students per-
ceive their interpersonal ability and peer relationships
compared to non-gifted students? How did these gifted
students perceive the quality of their relationships with
others, particularly same-aged peers? Were there differences
in social competence between American and Korean stu-
dents? Did our gifted students perceive their interpersonal
ability and peer relationships more positively than moder-
ately gifted students? Were there differences between
socially capable students and less socially capable students?
Method
Participants: KSA and CTD students
A total of 740 students participated in this study. Of these
students, 50.4 % (N = 373) had previously participated in
accelerated academic programs between 2005 and 2008 at
the Center for Talent Development (CTD) at Northwestern
University in the United States and 49.6 % (N = 367) were
students of the Korea Science Academy (KSA) in Korea.
Seventy-one percent (71.2 %) of the students were boys
and 28.8 % of the students were girls, with 81.9 % of the
students aged 12–15 and 18.1 % aged 16–18.1
As for experiences with academic gifted programs,
three-fourths (75.2 %) of the students had participated in
in-school gifted programs mostly in grades 6 through 8
(85.1 %). A slightly larger proportion of the students had
never participated in outside-of-school gifted programs
(no = 53.2 % vs. yes = 46.8 %). Overwhelmingly, stu-
dents had never accelerated by a whole grade (88.0 %) or
had an early entrance to school (91.8 %); however, most of
them had accelerated in a subject matter at school
(73.6 %). See Table 1 for more information.
Both KSA and CTD students were academically gifted
in math and science based on the admission criteria of each
learning environment. Students who are eligible for KSA
are extremely gifted in the nation by meeting multiple
requirements for admission. Rising high school students
1 Since we did not ask specifically about ages of the students, no
specific information is available for each student’s age.
Social competence of the highly gifted 187
123
who have great potential in math and science and are
identified as academically gifted in those subject matters by
their classroom teachers, student advisors, and/or principals
are eligible to apply to KSA. Our sample of 367 KSA
students obtained an average IQ of 139 (SD = 6.34), and
their academic standing was conceived to be ranked within
the top 3 % nationwide following the entire selection
procedure (J. Kwon, personal communication, December
11, 2009).
Three hundred and seventy-three students from CTD
had previously participated in the Northwestern University
Midwest Academic Talent Search (NUMATS) and/or its
accelerated academic programs from 2005 to 2008. The
students took off-level tests (EXLORE, SAT or ACT) as
6th, 7th, or 8th graders through NUMATS, a talent search
program for academically gifted students. Students must
score in the top 90–99th percentile on a nationally normed
in-grade achievement test or a state achievement test, be
nominated by teachers or parents, and/or have qualified for
in-school gifted programs to participate in NUMATS. Our
sample of CTD students were identified as highly gifted
according to their test scores2 on the subtests of math and
science, ranking in the top 3 % compared to their age-
equivalent gifted students who took the same tests.
Survey
Both online and paper surveys were used. An online survey
was emailed to CTD students, while a paper survey was
administered to students at KSA. The surveys consisted of
identical items measuring students’ social competence and
Table 1 Student demographicsTotal (%) KSA (%) CTD (%)
Gender
Male 71.2 89.1 53.6
Female 28.8 10.9 46.4
Age
12–15 81.9 96.0 67.6
16–18 18.1 4.0 32.4
Number of household
3 or below 19.5 13.1 22.8
4 57.1 75.4 48.0
5 17.1 10.7 20.3
6 or above 6.3 .8 8.9
Participation in in-school gifted programs
Yes 75.1 76.4 74.5
No 24.9 23.6 25.5
Participation in outside-of-school gifted programs
Yes 46.8 56.9 42.3
No 53.2 43.1 57.7
Early entrance to school
Yes 8.2 5.0 9.7
No 91.8 95.0 90.3
Whole grade acceleration
Yes 12.0 12.5 11.7
No 88.0 87.5 88.3
Acceleration in subject matters
Yes 73.6 69.2 75.7
No 26.4 30.8 24.3
Type of school
Public – 100.0 78.6
Private – – 16.9
Homeschooled – – 2.0
Other – – 2.4
2 The cut-off scores for the top 3 % on each subtest were as follows:
ACT-M C 16 (grade 6), 17 (grade 7), 19 (grade 8), 23 (grade 9);
ACT-S C 17 (grade 6), 19 (grade 7), 20 (grade 8), 23 (grade 9); SAT-
M C 410 (grade 6), 450 (grade 7), 490 (grade 8), 540 (grade 9).
188 S.-Y. Lee et al.
123
peer relationships using four questionnaires and one survey
developed by CTD and other gifted institutions in the
United States. For KSA students, survey items were
translated into Korean. A group of researchers in education
and educational psychology, including one who was versed
in the measures used in this study and had a high level of
English proficiency, were involved in translating the sur-
vey. After several revisions, the survey was pilot-tested by
a group of Korean high school students to verify that the
wording was appropriate and understandable for target
population. The survey consisted of the six sections.
First, the survey included all of the items of the Inter-
personal Competence Questionnaire-Revised (ICQ: Buhr-
mester et al. 1988). ICQ comprises 40 total items with 8
items on each of the five subscales measuring individuals’
ability to (1) initiate relationships (.86), (2) provide emo-
tional support (.83), (3) assert influence (.75), (4) disclose
their feelings or opinions (.78), and (5) resolve conflicts
(.81). Cronbach’s alphas were generated as internal consis-
tency estimates of reliability and ranged from .75 (asserting
influence) to .86 (initiating relationships) on the subscales
for our sample of gifted students. These were slightly lower
to the reported values of alpha coefficients involving the
total items, which were .93 for preadolescents and .92 for
adolescents (see Buhrmester 1990 for details). Pearson’s
correlation coefficients revealed positive relationships
among the subscales of ICQ, 15 B r (640) B .60, p \ .01.
Five subscale scores were computed using the 8 items of
each subscale and represent individuals’ interpersonal
competence with higher scores representing a greater like-
lihood to display each of the variables (1 = ‘‘poor at this’’ to
5 = ‘‘extremely good at this’’).
Second, one of the four subscales of the Socioemotional
Survey (SS: Buhrmester 1989) that measures sociability
was used. The sociability subscale consists of 10 items
each using a five-point response category from ‘‘never or
not true’’ (1) to ‘‘quite often or very true’’ (5), and exam-
ples of the items were having fun with and working well
with other people, being popular among peers, saying
things that make other people laugh, getting involved with
other people (sociability). The other three subscales–
depression, anxiety, and hostility–were not included in our
survey because the main purpose of this study was to assess
students’ social competence in relation to other people. Our
students yielded an alpha of .88 for sociability, slightly
higher than the normal: alphas of .72–.82, involving all
four subscales for students aged 13–16.
Third, two domains of self-concept on the Self-Percep-
tion Profile for Adolescents (SPPA: Harter 1988) were
included. SPPA consists of 9 domains of self-concept, and
items of the two domains measuring students’ ability to
form and maintain relationships with other people (social
acceptance) and close friends (close friendship) were used
in this study. Cronbach’s alphas were .81 for social
acceptance and .82 for close friendship for our sample,
comparable to those for a norming sample (.81 and .79,
respectively). Based on a four-point response category
(1 = ‘‘incompetent’’ to 4 = ‘‘competent’’), mean scores on
each domain were computed with reverse coding for items
worded negatively. Pearson’s correlation coefficients
showed a positive correlation between these two self-con-
cepts, r (620) B .42, p \ .01.
Fourth, one subscale regarding peer acceptance of the
Social Coping Questionnaire (SCQ: Swiatek 2001) was
included as another dimension of social competence. There
are 6 items on the scale measuring how students perceive
that the labeling of giftedness affects their peer relationships
(Cross and Swiatek 2009). Reported reliability coefficients
were relatively lower compared to the other scales, ranging
from a = .63 to .71 for samples of gifted adolescents
(Swiatek 2001; Swiatek and Dorr 1998), and a far lower
range of alphas (a C .27) were even reported on the peer
acceptance subscale than other SCQ subscales (Cross and
Swiatek 2009). This was also true for our sample of gifted
students (a = .19). Higher scores indicated a higher likeli-
hood (7 = ‘‘strongly true’’ to 1 = ‘‘strongly false’’) of
labeling effects of being gifted on peer acceptance. There
were positive correlations between the items about hiding
giftedness from other students, preferring doing things
alone, and fitting in better at school if not gifted,
.17 B r (639) B .23, p \ .01, while all these items were
negatively correlated with the one stating that being gifted
does not hurt popularity, -.37 B r (637) B -.12, p \ .01.
Lastly, 12 items from a survey developed by CTD and
other gifted institutions in the United States were included to
assess how students perceive their overall peer relationships.
The items specifically asked students about friendships, such
as the number of friends at school, satisfaction with their
number of friends and overall friendships, and difficulties
finding friends at school. In addition, questions about student
demographics, experiences with academic acceleration, and
early entrance to school were included.
Data collection
From January to February 2010, data were collected using
emails (for CTD sample) and via on-site administration
(for KSA sample). A total of 740 students from both groups
responded to the survey that made up of a 37.6 % response
rate out of 1,968 total cases, preceded by a few soliciting
emails sent out to both groups of students.
Scoring and data analysis
Descriptive statistics were referenced for each of the mea-
sures and were compared to the norming group, if reported in
Social competence of the highly gifted 189
123
the literature. Students’ social competence was analyzed for
their interpersonal ability and peer relationships, specifi-
cally. Also, a composite score representing a broader con-
cept of students’ interpersonal ability and peer relationships
was computed to create a social competence index to
examine the profiles of students of varying levels of social
competence. In consideration of the highly stable internal
consistency estimates of reliability and high correlations
between the items involved in the survey, the social com-
petence index was generated by using all of the ICQ sub-
scales, the sociability subscale of SS, and the social
acceptance and close friendship subscales of SPPA. Stu-
dents who ranked in the top 25 % on the social competence
index were identified as ‘‘highly socially capable,’’ while
those who ranked in the bottom 25 % were identified as
‘‘less socially capable.’’ Items of SCQ were not included in
this index due to a very low reliability coefficient of the
measure and the content of the peer acceptance subscale,
dealing with the labeling effect of giftedness. A Cronbach’s
alpha of .86 was obtained with strong, positive correlations
between the subscales comprising the social competence
index, .15 B r (639) B .62, p \ .01. One hundred and forty-
two students were identified as highly socially capable, and
140 students were identified as less socially capable.
In addition to our gifted sample, 1,153 students who had
previously participated in the CTD research study were
included as a comparison group for some analyses. The
students were identified as gifted by qualifying for CTD
gifted programs, thereby ranking in the top 5–10 % aca-
demically compared to grade-equivalent peers. They were
included as a ‘‘moderately’’ gifted group to compare with
our CTD students who were highly gifted (ranked within
the top 3 % on the same criteria used to qualify for CTD’s
gifted programs3). When including both highly and mod-
erately gifted students, 308 students were identified as
highly socially capable and 306 students were identified as
less socially capable based on the social competence index.
The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA),
cross-tabulation analysis, and independent t tests were
conducted to compare students’ social competence by
group (KSA vs. CTD), gender, experiences with acceler-
ated programs in and outside of school, level of giftedness
(highly vs. moderately gifted), and social competence
(highest vs. lowest 25th percentile). In order to control for
the inflated Type I error, the Bonferroni method was used,
thereby dividing .05 by the number of dependent variables
or the number of comparisons.
Results
Overall perceived social competence: interpersonal
ability
Ratings of the items on the subscales of the two measures
(ICQ-R and SS) were analyzed to assess students’ per-
ceived interpersonal ability. The initiating relationships,
providing emotional support, asserting influence, self-dis-
closure, conflict resolution subscales of ICQ-R, and the
sociability subscale of SS were included as measures to
assess students’ perceived interpersonal competence. The
multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was con-
ducted to examine the effects of the group, gender, and
levels of giftedness factors on the six dependent variables
comprising the ICQ-R and SS subscales, followed by post
hoc analyses.
The entire sample of KSA and CTD students
Generally, our sample of gifted math and science students
perceived their overall interpersonal ability as above
average. Mean scores on each subscale of ICQ-R were
from 3.22 (self-disclosure) to 3.71 (providing emotional
support), indicating that the students were fairly positive in
rating their abilities to initiate relationships with other
people and taking charge; providing emotional support to
others when they are sad or unhappy; helping people to
handle pressure or upsetting events; asserting influences or
convincing others to agree with them; resolving and deal-
ing with conflicts or disagreements in ways that make
things better; and disclosing their private thoughts, opin-
ions, emotions, or feelings when interacting with others.
When compared to the norming sample in grade 8, negli-
gible to small effect sizes (.03 B d B .29) were found,
favoring our gifted students.
On the sociability subscale of SS, a mean of 3.66 was
obtained, indicating that overall, KSA and CTD students
positively rated their sociability skills. They particularly
highly rated that they work well with other people (76.3 %
generally or very true), that others have fun when they are
with them (68.3 % generally or very true), that they say
things that make people laugh (68.1 % generally or very
true), and that other people like to be with them (65.8 %
generally or very true).
Differences between KSA and CTD students
The results of the MANOVA tests showed that Wilks’ k of
.64 was significant, F (6, 574) = 52.96; p \ .001, sug-
gesting that students’ means on the dependent variables
differed significantly between KSA and CTD students. The
partial eta2 of .36 based on the significant Wilks’ k was
3 We did not include KSA students for analysis in order to make the
two groups of gifted students (highly vs. moderately) more
comparable.
190 S.-Y. Lee et al.
123
strong in that 36 % of multivariate variance of the depen-
dent variables was accounted for by the group factor.
Tests of between-subjects effects were significant on the
subscales of asserting influence, F (1, 579) = 74.43,
p \ .001; conflict resolution, F (1, 579) = 32.99, p \ .001;
and sociability, F (1, 579) = 56.35, p \ .001. The subscale
measuring students’ ability to assert influence favored CTD
over KSA students, while the subscale regarding the ability
to resolve conflicts favored KSA students. On the socia-
bility subscale, a higher mean score was found for CTD
students than KSA students. These differences yielded all
medium or nearly medium effect sizes (d = .70, .47, and
.61, respectively). No statistically significant differences
were found for the initiating relationships, providing
emotional support, and self-disclosure subscales by the
group factor (p [ .008). Therefore, it appears that CTD
students tended to be more positive about their abilities to
take initiative, take charge of situations, and make deci-
sions when interacting with other people and voice their
desires, opinions, and beliefs to others and that they were
more confident with their social skills that they are liked by
other people including peers, are invited by others to do
activities, get involved with people or groups, and work
well with others, while, KSA students were more positive
about their conflict resolution skills, particularly in dealing
with disagreements and resolving those issues in ways that
make other people ultimately happy.
Differences by gender
Multivariate tests demonstrated a statistically significant
difference between male and female students on their
perceived interpersonal competence, Wilks’ k = .88, F (6,
574) = 13.56, p \ .001 with a partial eta2 of .12.
Tests of between-subjects effects showed statistically
significant differences on the subscales of asserting influ-
ence, F (1, 579) = 9.94, p = .002, providing emotional
support, F (1, 579) = 23.70, p \ .001 and sociability, F (1,
579) = 47.55, p \ .001, while no statistically significant
differences were found for the other three subscales
(p [ .008). Specifically, all of the subscales yielding dif-
ferences by gender-favored female students over male
students with small effect sizes for the asserting influence
(d = .34) and providing emotional support (d = .49) sub-
scales and a medium effect size for the sociability subscale
(d = .66). All these results supported that our sample of
female students more positively rated their abilities to take
the initiative and take charge of situations when interacting
with other people; convince them to follow their own
opinions, desires, and beliefs; and get along and work well
with others than did gifted boys. Female students were also
more positive in perceiving that they are good at making
others happy, helping others to work through their thoughts
and feelings, helping others to handle pressure or upsetting
events, and providing advice efficiently and that they are
liked by other people as well.
Differences by levels of giftedness
No statistically significant differences were found between
our sample of highly gifted students and the comparison
group of moderately gifted students on the subscales of
ICQ-R and SS with a very small effect size, Wilks’
k = .99, F (6, 928) = 1.01, p = .416, partial eta2 = .007.
Therefore, the highly and moderately gifted students were
not different in rating their abilities to assert influences on
other people, initiate relationships, disclose their thoughts
and opinions, resolve conflicts, and provide others with
emotional support; and rating their social skills overall.
Overall perceived social competence: peer relationships
Items on the subscales of SPPA and SCQ and the CTD
friendships survey were used to measure students’ peer
relationships. Three MANOVAs were conducted to
examine the effects of group (KSA vs. CTD), gender, and
levels of giftedness factors on the four subscales of SPPA
and all six items on SCQ, respectively.
The entire sample of KSA and CTD students
Our gifted students positively rated their self-concept
across the two domains of social acceptance (Mean = 3.34
of 4) and close friendship (Mean = 3.45 of 4). When
compared to the norming sample of their age group, a large
effect size was found for social acceptance (d = .82),
while the close friendship self-concept yielded a small
effect size (d = .19). Higher means were found for our
sample in both self-concepts.
More than two-thirds of the students responded that
others like them easily (83.3 %) and that they feel socially
accepted (79.9 %), have a lot of friends (76.8 %) and are
popular with others their age (75.4 %). Moreover, the
students responded that they have a close friend they can
share personal thoughts and feelings with (83.5 %), are
able to make truly close friends (82.6 %), and have a close
friend they can share secrets with (81.9 %).
Students were confident and satisfied with their peer
relationships. The majority of them reported that they do
not have difficulty finding friends (86.2 %) but have many
friends at school (78.8 %) and are happy with their number
of friends at school (86.8 %) and peer relationships
(88.9 %). They described their friends as those from school
(58.2 %) or a combination of friends from school and
outside of school (38.2 %), mostly their age (69.9 %), and
had at least one adult friend (55.5 %). For students who
Social competence of the highly gifted 191
123
had participated in gifted programs of any type, they found
their best friends in or outside of gifted programs (36.5 %)
or from gifted programs, exclusively (33.3 %). Having
similar interests and shared activities was the most
important criterion when looking for a friend (93.1 %) in
contrast to similar ages or grades (6.1 %).
For our sample, being gifted was not likely to affect
their ability to build friendships. Overwhelmingly, students
disagreed that being smart or good at school made it harder
to make friends (92.8 %) and that they hide their abilities at
school because they are worried about being disliked by
peers (80.1 %). Also, the students did not experience dif-
ficulty finding friends of comparable intellectual capability
with whom they can share their academic interests
(82.1 %). Responses to the SPPA peer acceptance subscale
confirmed that being gifted was not likely to harm peer
relationships for our students. The majority of the students
strongly disagreed that they would fit in better if they were
not gifted (77.7 %), that being gifted hurts their popularity
among peers (73.6 %), and that they hide their giftedness
from peers (59.0 %). For these students, being gifted was
not likely to make a difference in their peer relationships.
On the item regarding if peers at school would like them
any more or less than now if not gifted, 69.6 % negatively
responded, and 58.5 % perceived that other students like
them less because they were gifted. Our gifted students did
not view being gifted as negatively affecting their popu-
larity among peers and relationships with other students.
Differences between KSA and CTD students
Multivariate tests found a significant Wilks’ k = .98, F (2,
619) = 6.19, p = .002 with a partial eta2 of .02. The
ANOVA test on the close friendship self-concept was
significant, F (1, 620) = 12.36, p \ .001, but it was not
significant on the social acceptance self-concept, F (1,
620) = 1.59, p = .21. Both subscales favored CTD stu-
dents with small effect sizes for the mean differences (close
friendship d = .29; social acceptance d = .10). CTD stu-
dents were more likely than KSA students to feel that they
have close friends and are able to make trusted friends.
The two groups of students were also different in rating
their peer relationships and describing their friends. More
CTD than KSA students reported that they are happy with
their number of friends, v2 (2, 636) = 6.77, p = .03, they
have many friends at school, v2 (1, 636) = 6.85, p = .01,
and they are happy with their relationships with friends, v2
(1, 636) = 8.08, p = .004. Both groups also differed in
describing their friends in terms of having friends from
school or outside of school, v2 (2, 636) = 16.63, p \ .000,
their ages, v2 (3, 634) = 116.86, p \ .000, and having at
least one adult friend, v2 (1, 635) = 35.13, p \ .000. For
CTD students, friends were evenly distributed between
those from school (49.1 %) and a combination of school
and non-school friends (47.2 %), and mostly their age-
mates (54.2 %). Yet, they had at least one adult friend
more than did KSA students (69.1 vs. 45.5 %). KSA stu-
dents described their friends as mostly from school
(64.9 %) and same age (81.4 %). Among the students who
had been involved in gifted programs, their descriptions
about friends differed, v2 (3, 627) = 101.28, p \ .000, in
that CTD students had best friends more from a combi-
nation of gifted and non-gifted programs (51.5 %) than
gifted programs alone (13.0 %), compared to KSA stu-
dents, mostly from gifted programs (48.6 vs. 25.3 %
combination). However, the two groups were not different
(p [ .05) in placing similar interests or activities as their
priority in looking for friends (CTD 93.7 % vs. KSA
92.6 %) and not having difficulty finding friends at school
(CTD 84.5 % vs. KSA 87.5 %).
As for the effect of being gifted on peer relationships,
some differences were found. Wilks’ k of .40, F (6,
627) = 156.36, p \ .001 was significant, and 60 % of
multivariate variance of the SCQ subscales was accounted
for by the group factor (partial eta2 = .60). Tests of
between-subjects effects demonstrated that compared to
KSA students, CTD students were more aware of being
gifted in school; they felt that if they were not gifted, they
would fit in better at school, F (1, 632) = 17.04, p \ .001,
or their peers at school would like them more or less than
now, F (1, 632) = 58.98, p \ .001. Effect sizes were small
(d = .33) and medium (d = .60), respectively. However,
more KSA than CTD students expressed that they try to
hide their giftedness from others, F (1, 632) = 30.64,
p \ .001, with an effect size close to medium (d = .44)
and that they prefer doing things alone, F (1, 632) = 11.36,
p = .001, with a small effect size (d = .27).
Though the ANOVA test on whether being gifted hurt
popularity among peers was not significant (p [ .008), on
an item about whether being smart makes it hard to make
friends, more CTD students said ‘‘yes’’ (12.6 vs. 3.3 %), v2
(1, 635) = 20.31, p \ .000. CTD students also strongly
responded that it is hard to find friends with whom they can
share their interests, v2 (1, 635) = 12.06, p = .001 (CTD
24.1 % vs. KSA 13.4 %).
Differences by gender
The result of MANOVA showed a significant Wilks’
k = .98, F (2, 619) = 6.01, p = .003 but with a weak
partial eta2 of .02. The test of between-subjects effects was
significant for close friendship, F (1, 620) = 11.21,
p = .001, but not for social acceptance, F (1, 620) = 4.88,
p = .03 (p [ .025), with higher means for girls than boys
and small effect sizes (d = .32 for close friendship and .21
for social acceptance).
192 S.-Y. Lee et al.
123
Female students reported that they have many friends at
school, v2 (1, 637) = 11.17, p = .01 (88.0 % girls vs.
75.6 % boys), and both genders differed in describing the
profiles of their friends. Male students were more likely to
have friends from school (61.0 %), while female students
were split evenly between friends from school (50.0 %)
and outside of school (47.0 %), v2 (2, 636) = 7.27,
p = .026. Though friends were described as mostly age-
mates (71.5 % boys vs. 65.1 % girls), girls were more
likely to have friends their age and older, v2 (3,
634) = 15.30, p = .002 (27.7 vs. 15.3 %) and have at least
one adult friend, v2 (1, 635) = 11.24, p = .001 (66.7 vs.
51.6 %). For students in gifted programs, more girls than
boys had friends from both gifted and non-gifted programs
(47.0 vs. 32.8 %), v2 (3, 627) = 20.85, p \ .000.
Multivariate tests showed a significant difference by
gender in their perceptions of being gifted and the effects
of giftedness on their peer relationships, Wilks’ k = .89,
F (6, 627) = 12.96, p \ .001 with a partial eta2 of .11. The
results of the univariate ANOVA were significant on an
item asking students whether other students like them less
because they were gifted, F (1, 632) = 56.09, p \ .001,
which favored female students over male students with a
medium effect size (d = .67), and about preferring doing
things alone instead of with others, F (1, 632) = 18.25,
p \ .001, favoring male students, with a small effect size
(d = .41). No differences were found by gender on items
stating that they would fit in better at school or others
would not like them more or less than now if not gifted;
that giftedness hurts their popularity; and that they hide
giftedness from others (p [ .008). Male and female stu-
dents disagreed that being smart makes it harder to make
friends (93.4 vs. 90.9 %).
Differences by levels of giftedness
The highly versus moderately gifted students were not
different in perceiving many aspects of their peer rela-
tionships. On SPPA, no differences were found between
both groups in perceptions of their social self-concept and
close friendship self-concept, Wilks’ k = 1.00, F (2,
1,030) = .178, p = .837, partial eta2 = .000.
The cross-tabulation analysis revealed no significant
differences between highly and moderately gifted students
in the number of friends and satisfaction with friendships,
having difficulty finding friends, and descriptions about
friends (e.g., age, participation in gifted programs, adult
friends, similar interests). All these led to non-significant
results (p [ .05).
As for the labeling effects of being gifted, the highly and
moderately gifted students were not different. No signifi-
cant differences were found on the SCQ social acceptance,
Wilks’ k of .99, F (6, 1,063) = 1.43, p = .200, partial
eta2 = .200, demonstrating that both groups were not dif-
ferent in feeling differences of peer relationships led by
their giftedness, preference for working alone, and hiding
giftedness to make friends and maintain peer relationships.
Highly socially capable versus less socially capable
students
The social competence index comprising the subscales of
ICQ-R, SS, and SPPA was used to examine differences
between highly socially capable students and less socially
capable students. The cross-tabulation analysis found no
statistically significant differences between students of high
social competence and those of low social competence by
group (KSA vs. CTD) and gender (p [ .05). Among KSA
students whose IQ scores were available for analysis, an
independent t test confirmed no statistically significant dif-
ference between the highly socially capable and less socially
capable students in their IQ scores (p [ .05). Also, both
groups were not different by their experiences with academic
acceleration, such as participation in in-school or outside-of-
school gifted programs, early entrance to school, and accel-
eration by a whole grade or in a subject matter (p [ .05).
Summary and discussion
Our sample of gifted adolescents positively perceived their
interpersonal ability and peer relationships, at levels com-
parable to or higher than those of their non-gifted counter-
parts. They were satisfied and confident with their peer
relationships and did not generally perceive negative out-
comes of being gifted when forming and maintaining
friendships with same age peers. Major results included the
following: First, our sample rated their interpersonal com-
petence—the ability to assert influence and convince other
people; disclose their personal thoughts, opinions, and
feelings; resolve conflicts; initiate relationships; and provide
emotional support when interacting with other people–as
comparable to the level of their grade-equivalent peers.
They positively perceived that they generally work and
get along well with others, have good relationships with
them and in a group, and make other people laugh and feel
comfortable with. Second, our gifted students showed higher
competence in their social self-concept, particularly with
regard to feeling accepted by peers, than non-gifted students.
The majority reported that they were popular among peers,
had many friends, and could make truly close and trusted
friends. Third, the students referenced similar interests and
shared activities as the most important factor to look for in a
friend. Fourth, many students described their friends as those
from school, mostly their ages but also included at least one
adult friend, and students who had been in the same gifted
Social competence of the highly gifted 193
123
programs. Fifth, being gifted was not perceived to do harm
in overall peer relationships. Our students did not feel that
their peer relationships would differ if they were not aca-
demically gifted and strongly denied that being smart makes
it harder to make friends and that they hide their abilities due
to concerns about peer relationships. Sixth, differences were
found between KSA and CTD students in that CTD students
more positively rated their ability to assert influence and felt
that they work and get along well with others, while KSA
students viewed themselves as better at resolving conflicts
when facing disagreements with others. CTD students per-
ceived themselves as more competent when making truly
close friends but seemed to feel that they would fit in better at
school and their peer relationships would change if not
gifted, whereas KSA students tended to hide their giftedness
from others and prefer doing things alone. Seventh, female
students were more positive about and confident with their
ability to make close friends than male students, while male
students preferred doing things alone. Yet, overall, boys and
girls were not significantly different in perceiving the effect
of being gifted on their peer relationships. Eighth, differ-
ences were noticed in the profiles of friends; KSA more than
CTD students referenced their friends as those from school
of the same age. Yet, among the students who had been in
gifted programs, KSA students reported more friends from
the programs than did CTD students. Female and CTD
students were more likely to have older friends, including
adults, compared to male and KSA students. Ninth, no sta-
tistically significant differences were found between levels
of giftedness and social competence. Also, the highly and
less socially capable groups did not differ in their percep-
tions of social competence overall.
The positive self-portrayal of social competence for our
gifted students did not support previous studies involving
highly gifted students (Gross 2002, 2004; Hollingworth
1942). In consideration of the level of giftedness, our stu-
dents were highly gifted compared to other gifted samples in
many studies whose giftedness was based primarily on
academic standings, ranking them within the top 5–10 % on
national or state level achievement tests. The mean IQ of our
KSA students was around 140 as comparable to that of
Terman’s (1925) sample who were socially healthy and well
adjusted. Researchers claim that students whose academic
giftedness is recognized by teachers perform and behave
well in school (Gallagher 2003). KSA and CTD students, by
virtue of the way they qualified for their gifted school and
program, are students who are academically and socially
competent. Thus, our results may not be surprising.
However, the positive outcomes of this study cannot
merely be ascribed to personal characteristics of our gifted
sample considering the special educational circumstances of
KSA and CTD. KSA is a specialized math and science high
school for extremely gifted students, and CTD offers
students intellectual stimulation via challenging programs
though CTD students are not grouped with other gifted peers
everyday as KSA students. Both groups of students were
able to interact with other intellectual peers while at school
or in their gifted program, and this might help them to accept
their giftedness positively and avoid linking their giftedness
to peer rejection as found for many gifted students (Coleman
and Cross 2000; Cross et al. 1993; Cross and Swiatek 2009;
Robinson 2008; Silverman 1993, 2002; Swiatek and Dorr
1998). Thus, special schools and programs for gifted stu-
dents may benefit the gifted by providing a secure place for
interacting with students of comparable intelligence and
building friendships with them. This is on par with the
previous findings evidencing the positive outcomes of spe-
cial schools and programs for gifted students’ social devel-
opment (Adams-Byers et al. 2004; Cross and Swiatek 2009;
Cunningham and Rinn 2007; Fredricks et al. 2010; Jin and
Moon 2006; Moon et al. 2002).
Female students were more positive and confident in
making close friends, including adult friends, while male
students preferred doing things alone. Our results resonate
with previous research reporting gender differences in
interpersonal ability, mostly favoring girls (Kerr 1994;
Kerr and Nicpon 2003). Yet, our results did not support the
vulnerability of gifted girls who would deal with the double
labels–giftedness and girl (Luftig and Nichols 1990; Rimm
et al. 1999). Since a greater number of boys than girls were
involved, and both genders were not evenly distributed by
group, caution is needed to interpret if the gender differ-
ences we found were led by gender per se, or by the
interaction between groups or other potential mediating
variables (e.g., gifted schools or programs). This is one of
the areas that need further explorations.
Interpersonal ability was a relative strength of CTD stu-
dents, particularly regarding asserting influence over others,
while strength of KSA students was resolving conflicts. CTD
students were more willing to take leadership roles in
interpersonal relationships, whereas KSA students were
more attuned to think of themselves as arbitrators and
peacemakers in confronting conflicts. CTD students
appeared to be more sensitive to and aware of being gifted in
building friendship, and KSA students tended to hide gift-
edness to secure their peer relationships. Differences inclu-
ded the profile of friends related to ages as well. Based on this
single comparative analysis, it is difficult to conclude whe-
ther differences between both groups were led by their idi-
osyncratic educational (gifted program vs. school), linguistic
or cultural (Korea vs. the United States) backgrounds, or the
heterogeneity of their own personal experiences.
As for overall social competence, our gifted students
were not behind compared to the norming sample, and no
differences were found by their level of giftedness. Our
data showed that highly gifted students are not necessarily
194 S.-Y. Lee et al.
123
socially incompetent or having difficulty with peers though
the relationship between students’ social competence and
their giftedness is not clear. Given that different criteria are
used in identifying gifted students and their giftedness,
research involving diverse gifted population is needed.
Limitations and future considerations
First, one of the major limitations was related to the use of a
self-report measure. Self-report measures are useful in
investigating intrapersonal traits; however, disclosing per-
sonal issues may cause discomfort to research participants
and yield positive responses about themselves. Ratings from
different people (e.g., parents, teachers, peers) and the use of
qualitative measures (e.g., interviews, observations, review
of documents) would strengthen our results. Second, though
both KSA and CTD students were identified as highly gifted
by applying the same criterion, there are potentially
unknown and uncontrolled sources of group subject bias,
which might have affected our results. Studies involving
research subjects from different cultures, personal, linguistic
and cultural variables, and their effects need to be more
carefully considered. Third, in comparing highly versus
moderately gifted students, KSA students were not included.
The exclusion of KSA students reduced the sample size of
the highly gifted group, which might have affected the non-
significant results also. Having more equivalent comparative
data is suggested. Fourth, results could be different if stu-
dents’ strengths are not limited to math and science. Some
studies reported that compared to the verbally gifted, the
mathematically gifted were more outgoing, sociable, and
popular with peers (Brody and Benbow 1986; Dauber and
Benbow 1990; Swiatek 1995). Comparisons between stu-
dents by different talent domains are worth examining.
Lastly, the survey used in this study consisted of items
developed in the United States and proved to be valid and
reliable for the American sample. There might be subtle
differences in interpreting the items between Korean and
American students. Follow-up studies may help to disclose
linguistic and cultural differences and their impact on
responses to the present findings.
Acknowledgments This study was supported by a research grant
(Primary Investigator: Seon-Young Lee, first and corresponding
author of this manuscript) funded by the Korea Foundation for the
Advancement of Science and Creativity, and the Ministry of Educa-
tion, Science, and Technology of Korea from December 2009 to
September 2010.
References
Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted
students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional
effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. GiftedChild Quarterly, 48(1), 7–20.
Austin, A. B., & Draper, D. C. (1981). Peer relationships of the
academically gifted: A review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(3),
129–133.
Bickley, N. Z. (2002). The social and emotional adjustment of giftedchildren who experience asynchronous development and uniqueeducational needs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Connecticut.
Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1986). Social and emotional adjustment
of adolescents extremely talented in verbal or mathematical
reasoning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15(1), 1–18.
Brown, B. B., & Steinberg, L. (1990). Skirting the ‘‘brain-nerd’’
connection: Academic achievement and social acceptance. TheEducation Digest, 55, 57–60.
Buhrmester, D. (1989). Manual for the socioemotional adjustmentQuestionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Program in Psychol-
ogy, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX.
Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal compe-
tence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence.
Child Development, 61(4), 1101–1111.
Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988).
Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 991–1008.
Coleman, L. J. (2001). A ‘‘rag quilt’’: Social relationships among
students in a special high school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45,
164–173.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2000). Social-emotional development
and the personal experience of giftedness. In K. A. Heller, F.
J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 203–212).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being gifted in school: Anintroduction to development, guidance and teaching (2nd ed.).
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Cross, T. L. (2007). Social and emotional issues of gifted adolescents.
Paper presented at the Opportunities for the Future conference,
Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL.
Cross, T. L., Adams, C. A., Dixon, F., & Holland, J. (2004).
Psychological characteristics of academically gifted adolescents
attending a residential academy: A longitudinal study. Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 28, 159–181.
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Stewart, R. A. (1993). The social
cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of
giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 16(1), 37–40.
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The
social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the
stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15,
44–55.
Cross, T. L., & Swiatek, M. A. (2009). Social coping among
academically gifted adolescents in a residential setting: A
longitudinal study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(1), 25–33.
Cunningham, L. G., & Rinn, A. N. (2007). The role of gender and
previous participation in a summer program on gifted adoles-
cents’ self-concepts over time. Journal for the Education of theGifted, 30(3), 326–352.
Dauber, S. L., & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Aspects of personality and
peer relations of extremely talented adolescents. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 34(1), 10–15.
Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented(4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Delisle, J. R. (1984). Gifted children speak out. New York: Walker &
Co.
Dixon, F. A. (1998). Social and academic self-concepts of gifted
adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 80–94.
Social competence of the highly gifted 195
123
Eddles-Hirsch, K., Vialle, W., Rogers, K. B., & McCormick, J.
(2010). ‘‘Just challenge those high-ability learners and they’ll be
all right!’’: The impact of social context and challenging
instruction on the affective development of high-ability students.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(1), 106–128.
Enersen, D. L. (1993). Summer residential programs: Academics and
beyond. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 169–176.
Foust, R. C., Rudasill, K. M., & Callahan, C. M. (2006). An
investigation into the gender and age differences in the social
coping of academically advanced students. Journal of AdvancedAcademics, 18, 60–80.
Fredricks, J. A., Alfeld, C., & Eccles, J. (2010). Developing and
fostering passion in academic and nonacademic domains. GiftedChild Quarterly, 54(1), 18–30.
Gallagher, J. J. (2003). Issues and challenges in the education of
gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbookof gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 11–23). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Gross, M. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for
intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. RoeperReview, 11(4), 189–194.
Gross, M. U. M. (2001). From ‘‘play partner’’ to ‘‘sure shelter’’: What
do gifted children seek from friendship? GERRIC News, pp. 4–5.
Gross, M. U. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues for exceptionally
intellectually gifted students. In M. Neihart, M. Reis, N.
M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotionaldevelopment of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 19–29).
Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). New
York: Routledge.
Harter, S. (1988). Manual for the self-perception profile for adoles-cents. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. Stanford-binet:Origin and development. Yonkers, NY: World Book.
Janos, P. M., Fung, H. C., & Robinson, N. M. (1985a). Self-concepts,
self esteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel
‘‘different’’. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(1), 79–82.
Janos, P. M., Marwood, K. A., & Robinson, N. M. (1985b).
Friendship patterns in highly intelligent children. RoeperReview, 8(1), 46–49.
Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in
intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien
(Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspective (pp.
149–195). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Jin, S., & Moon, S. M. (2006). A study of well-being and school
satisfaction among academically talented students attending a
science high school in Korea. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50,
169–184.
Kerr, B. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women, andgiftedness (Revised ed.). Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.
Kerr, B. A., & Nicpon, M. F. (2003). Gender and giftedness. In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education(3rd ed., pp. 493–505). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kulik, J. A. (2004). Meta-analytic studies of acceleration. In N.
Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nationdeceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students(Vol. II, pp. 13–22). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin &
Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education
and Talent Development.
Leroux, J. A. (1988). Voices from the classroom: Academic and
social self-concepts of gifted adolescents. Journal for theEducation of the Gifted, 11, 3–18.
Luftig, R. L., & Nichols, M. L. (1990). Assessing the social status of
gifted students by their age peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34,
111–115.
McCallister, C., Nash, W. R., & Meckstroth, E. (1996). The social
competence of gifted children: Experiments and experience.
Roeper Review, 18, 273–276.
Mendaglio, S. (2006). Affective-cognitive therapy for counseling
gifted individuals. In S. Mendaglio & J. S. Peterson (Eds.),
Models for counseling gifted children, adolescents, and youngadults (pp. 35–36). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Moon, S. M., Swift, M., & Shallenberger, A. (2002). Perceptions of a
self-contained class for fourth-and fifth-grade students with high
to extreme levels of intellectual giftedness. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 46(1), 64–79.
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-
being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review,22, 10–17.
Neihart, M. (2002). Gifted children and depression. In M. Neihart, S.
Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social andemotional development of gifted children: What do we know?(pp. 93–113). Waco TX: Prufrock Press.
Neihart, M. (2006). Achievement/affiliation conflicts in gifted ado-
lescents. Roeper Review, 28, 196–202.
Olszewski, P., Kulieke, M. J., & Willis, G. B. (1987). Changes in the
self-perceptions of gifted students who participate in rigorous
academic programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,10(4), 287–303.
Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not
have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly,53, 280–282.
Peterson, J. S., Duncan, N., & Canady, K. (2009). A longitudinal
study of negative life events, stress, and school experiences of
gifted youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 34–49.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of
gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? GiftedChild Quarterly, 44(3), 152–167.
Rimm, S. B. (2002). Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted
students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S.
M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of giftedchildren: What do we know? (pp. 13–18). Washington, DC: The
National Association for Gifted Children.
Rimm, S. B. (2003). Underachievement: A national epidemic. In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education(pp. 424–443). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Rimm, S. B., Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Rimm, I. (1999). See Jane win:The Rimm report on how 1,000 girls became successful women.
New York: Crown.
Rinn, A. N. (2006). Effects of a summer program on the social self-
concepts of gifted adolescents. The Journal of Secondary GiftedEducation, 17, 65–75.
Robinson, N. M. (2002). Introduction. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N.
M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotionaldevelopment of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. xi–xxiv).
Washington, DC: The National Association for Gifted Children.
Robinson, N. M. (2008). The social world of gifted children and
youth. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children:Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp.
33–51). New York: Springer.
Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and
talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382–396.
Schneider, B. H. (1987). The gifted child in peer group perspective.
New York: Springer.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling the gifted and talented: Adevelopmental model for counseling the gifted. Denver, CO:
Love.
Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart,
S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The socialand emotional development of gifted children: What do we
196 S.-Y. Lee et al.
123
know? (pp. 31–39). Washington, DC: The National Association
for Gifted Children.
Swiatek, M. A. (1995). An empirical investigation of the social
coping strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 39(3), 154–161.
Swiatek, M. A. (2001). Social coping among gifted high school
students and its relationship to self-concept. Journal of Youthand Adolescence, 30(1), 19–39.
Swiatek, M. A., & Cross, T. L. (2007). Construct validity of the social
coping Questionnaire. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,30(4), 427–449.
Swiatek, M. A., & Dorr, R. M. (1998). Revision of the social coping
questionnaire: Replication and extension of previous findings.
The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10(1), 252–259.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physicaltraits of a thousand gifted children (vol. I). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships
in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjust-
ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203.
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. A. (1997). Friendships, peer
acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic
achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68,
1198–1209.
Worrell, F. C., Roth, D. A., & Gabelko, N. H. (1998). Age and gender
differences in the self-concepts of academically talented stu-
dents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 157–162.
Social competence of the highly gifted 197
123
