Gifted Students and Social Stigma Gifted Students and Social Stigma Philosopher Benedict Spinoza said, “Man is a social animal” (Kaplan 278). The desire for social acceptance, whether recognized or denied, is part of human culture. People yearn for it, obsess over it, and alter themselves to obtain it. Humans can spend their entire lives unsuccessfully attempting to achieve a level of social status they believe will validate them. Acceptance is denied for superficial reasons varying from clothing to cliques.
However, it is also denied due to innate elements of personality. Stigmatizing others for a natural characteristic not only seems unwarranted but also unfair. Yet, a stigma is imposed daily on gifted adolescents who neither deserve, nor know how to deal with, the disparagement. One group particularly stinted in terms of social acceptance is gifted students. Intellectually exceptional students are socially stigmatized. Often, their intelligence inversely correlates to their social abilities. The more precocious the gift the less adept the social skills.
And the spectrum of the stigma extends from negative peer perceptions to an inability to interact socially with their peers, the extreme of which can result in suicide. The origin of the social stigma is often educators and parents, those ideally associated with student guidance and support. The advanced ability of most gifted children is identified at a young age. And, in the current educational system of teaching the fundamentals and helping students to just get by, gifted students are not challenged.
Director of the Area Service Center for Gifted Education in southern Chicago, Joyce Van Tassel states, “The system itself does not demand much of these students. We’re worried about minimum competency and back to basics these days, but these kids already know the basics” (Johnson 27). Because intelligent children are already competent in terms of educational basics, they proceed to question the nature of things. They want to know what something is but also why it is that way.
Teachers can take this curiosity to be offensive and oftentimes the student is viewed negatively by their peers due to an adoption of the teacher’s negative attitude, thus beginning the social stigma (Johnson 27). Another standard, “educational” treatment of gifted students is to separate them from the class. Because the gifted student has surpassed the majority the teacher isolates the child with a separate advanced activity and returns to the majority. In these situations the gifted student and his/her peers become accustomed to this “different” status.
The gifted student becomes an outsider in relation to the group by default, due to his/her above average abilities. Educational treatment of the gift denies the student the opportunity to learn to socially interact at a young age. Gifted students never become accustomed to peer interaction because this system is perpetuated upward throughout the grade levels. And unfortunately, in an educational atmosphere where grades are a primary focus, poor interpersonal skills are more likely to be tolerated than poor work-related skills (Wolfle 3).
It becomes a norm for the student to work alone and his/her social and psychological needs are ignored. The students themselves report that one prevailing stigmatism of being gifted is being neglected, not only as academics but also as people. Sadly, the truth is that as long as gifted students maintain high grade point averages and therefore raise school achievement records, they are largely overlooked (Johnson 27). They are the prize-winners but never the attention-getters. These students tend to be introverted, on-task, non-discipline issues in class.
In a typical classroom the students that are loud, at-risk or discipline problems are the ones that receive the teacher’s attention and often they usurp it for the entire period (Wolfe 2). While harried teachers appreciate gifted students they do not encourage them. Van Tassel asserts, “No one ever sat down and tried to make them feel proud of their accomplishments. Teachers just assume they can do well and will do well” (Johnson 27). Assuming the students will do well and ignoring their needs is unfair to students and it inevitably has stigmatizing implications.
Bruce Kline and Elizabeth Short’s research in the Roeper Review shows that students know they are largely ignored. Gifted students were questioned about adult responses to them in varying psychological situations. 46% said adults ignored them when they were “angry and frustrated” and 77% declared they were ignored when they were depressed. Not surprisingly, 69% of the males stated that causing trouble ensured adult attention (Kline 3). So, while the attention they receive might be disapproving, it is still attention.
The “assume and ignore” attitude of administrators, teachers and parents can cause students to react by becoming discipline problems and/or achieving below their potential. Middle School is a critical time for gifted students. At this point the risk of students adopting an underachieving mentality are particularly high. Students are old enough now to fully realize their “otherness” and their reactions to this are widespread. Studies show that at this age students have increased “depression, worry and loneliness” (Kline 4) and if these emotional needs are not addressed students become accustomed to internalizing issues and ignoring academics.
Males in particular are at risk at this age. Gifted and nongifted males of this age group experience behavior issues of general immaturity, for example instigating, restlessness and intentional slighting of authority. Adults must remember that the intellectual ability of gifted males does not exclude them from behaving like boys once in awhile. Oftentimes males are so berated and misjudged for this type of behavior that their potential is overlooked and they are underestimated from the start (Kline 2). Another issue specific to males is the societal pressure to be less social and emotional.
The idea that men are to be the strong, money-providing element of a household is not completely gone from the societal mindset. In her article, “Underachieving Gifted Males: Are We Missing the Boat? ” Jane Wolfe states, In our society, males are expected to be tough and able to handle problems. Males are actually admired for keeping their emotions under control. It is even easier to miss the signals from the academically competent male (even if an underachiever) who has always done things on his own and who has few, if any, close friends. (3-4). Society teaches young boys to be less emotionally available.
These males in turn make fewer connections to their peers and have less of an opportunity to socially interact and to lean on another person in a time of need. In Kline and Short’s study gifted males were asked about desired responses from others when they are upset. 29% desired time away from friends, 43% time away from their mothers, 50% time away from their fathers and 79% wanted time away from their teachers (Kline 4). The highest concentration wanted a separation from the educator, who is the source of their academics, which are the source of their social stigma.
At this point students try to disassociate themselves from other gifted students and the gifted part of themselves, hence, the underachieving mentality. Gifted females have their own set of challenges and social stigmas. Societal expectations for females are more social in nature. Females are expected to be inherently more interactive and emotional. Because of these societal assumptions females who are accustomed to being separated are doubly stigmatized, for not only being socially inept, but for being a socially inept female.
Usually gifted girls are ostracized for being domineering and detached (Luftig 114). In “Assessing the Social Status of Gifted Students by Their Age Peers” it states, On the one hand, they are expected to be docile, supporting, passive, and nurturing, and on the other they are expected assertively to develop their own talents. This conflict often leads to ambiguous peer relations between gifted girls and their nongifted counterparts. (Luftig 114). Gifted girls are counted upon to submissively forge ahead, regardless of their lack of previous social interaction due to their gifted status.
When these issues are not addressed the contradiction is confusing to adolescents and oftentimes they surrender their gifted associations for the ease and popularity of underachieving. Regardless of gender, when the nonacademic needs of academically mature students continue to be put aside these student marvels can slip through school without having any significant social experiences and they are consequently devoid of the opportunity to build social skills. They are labeled as “advanced” and therefore “able” and little else is addressed. They are expected to be above allowing others’ attitudes o affect them (Peterson 2). When in truth, being an adolescent means discovering who you are, regardless of your academic maturity, and to completely discredit others’ opinions takes a strong adult and an incredible adolescent. The intellectual achievement of gifted students is irrelevant when considering their emotional needs. To assume that due to the advanced intellect of gifted students, those students are undoubtedly socially capable is incorrect. In fact, their lonely lifestyle of constant pullout programs and separated subjects would imply the opposite of their social ability.
Gifted students are still students, still adolescents and are still experiencing the confusing ordeal that is adolescence. Tracy Cross, author of “Psychological and Social Aspects of Educating Gifted Students” states, When considering the psychological and social needs of gifted students, one must realize they are children first. Hence, the issues and needs that exist for them will often reflect those relevant to their respective age groups. Moreover, many of the needs these students have in this domain exist or are exacerbated because they are children.
A second important consideration is that many of the psychological and social needs of gifted students are the same as those for nongifted students. Therefore, attending to their needs as children first by focusing on the issues associated with normal development is a good place to start, but knowing the specific need areas unique to gifted students will enhance one’s ability to meet their psychological and social needs more fully. (2). High ability does not exempt students from academic or social difficulty.
Gifted students have social needs just as their peers do regardless of the fact that it is frequently, if not constantly, overshadowed by their academics (Peterson 5). In fact, gifted students are often perceived as being overly confident or aloof when in fact they have a tendency to be less socially confident than most of their peers. In The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, research by Jennifer Clark and David N. Dixon shows that gifted students are highly sensitive, developmentally unbalanced chronic perfectionists with emotional and intellectual disparity and prevalent self-perceptions of being abnormal (Clark 1).
Benbow and Dauber’s study asserts, “Extremely gifted students view themselves as more introverted, less socially adept, and more inhibited [ . . . also ] their peers saw them as much less popular, less socially active, less athletic, and less active in the leading crowd” (13). The self-perceptions and the peer perceptions of gifted students show that they are doubly stigmatized, and this excludes teacher and parent expectations. Gifted students are constantly made aware of the disparity between themselves and their classmates and it negatively affects their social abilities.
In Benbow and Dauber’s article in The Gifted Child Quarterly, it states, [E]xceptionally gifted students may be at a disadvantage; students with extremely high IQs are less popular and have more difficulty with peer relations than age-mates [ . . . ] their unusually high intelligence makes it difficult for their age-mates to relate to them intellectually or socially. (Benbow 10). Ultimately, these students believe they are different. They are not only misunderstood by their peers, they are forced to be somewhat peerless.
As cited in Clark’s “The Impact of Social Skills Training on the Self-Concepts of Gifted High School Students,” chronological age connects more directly to social development while mental age connects with emotional development. When mental age surpasses chronological age, social skills are left behind with the physical development, causing disproportionate social and mental abilities (Clark 1). * Due to the fact that they are intellectual individuals in a societal school system that does not focus on intellect, it is unlikely that their more social, less gifted peers can relate to them (Cross 3).
When students become mentally but not socially advanced they are in a sort of peer limbo where they cannot fully relate to peers their age. In these situations gifted children often turn toward adults for friendship. In “Assessing the Social Status of Gifted Students by Their Age Peers” it states, “Gifted children often establish attachments and relationships with [ . . . ] adults more easily than they do with nongifted age peers” (Luftig 111). While, the ability to relate to many adult issues is impossible, the social stigma connected with gifted students is decreased in the presence of adults.
The tendency of adults is to view students as exceptional and not eccentric. When the negative age-mate assumptions are removed gifted students can feel more connected, at least mentally, to adults. Connecting to elders is one way students can disconnect themselves from the gifted category and it is only one of a slew of tactics gifted students utilize to become socially acceptable. Age-mate interaction is not impossible. However, it almost always includes some dissembling on the part of the gifted child.
Gifted students have a plethora of coping methods to deal with their social inabilities. One of the most detrimental coping techniques is lowering academic achievements in order to raise social status (Wallace 1); this is incorporated in the underachieving strategy. Cross discusses five other coping techniques used by gifted students. They are defined as truth, placate, cop out, cover up and lie (Cross 5). Truth is when gifted students give information they believe to be true and lying is when students give blatantly untruthful information.
Placating is denying or decreasing a presumed distinction before admitting the truth. A cop out is when a gifted student shifts the topic or changes the flow of the conversation in order to take the attention off of them and a cover up is a complete avoidance of the core question asked by generally mentioning the issue at hand. Gifted students exemplify these behaviors in various ways. Students downplay their grades and abilities, purposely date nongifted students, assume the role of the class clown, mock other gifted students and lie about their age in accelerated classes (Cross 5).
Studies have also shown that males most frequently respond by hiding their gift behind humor (Swiatek 22) and females respond by denying their gift and becoming more socially active (Swiatek 19). The time and energy gifted students put into disassociating with themselves is physiologically damaging. Students are growing up assuming that in order to fit in they cannot be themselves. Student’s responses to this are often to mold themselves to fit into one of three categories: high visibility students, invisible students and disindentified students (Cross 6).
Cross writes, “[T]he behaviors of gifted students in school mirror their self-perceptions in terms of feeling different or the same and how they chose to act in order to maintain as much social latitude as they desire” (6). Giftedness is not a visible stigma. It can be hidden and gifted students do hide it. The extent to which these students go to deny themselves in order to achieve social acceptance shows the depth of the stigma. It also highlights the need for gifted students to learn how to socially interact, while maintaining their abilities, at a significantly earlier point in their education.
Michael Spinner* is a gifted student who falls into the underachieving, disidentifed category. He is extremely verbally gifted* and obviously, is part of the male category. His high school GPA was a 3. 5, regardless of the fact that he skipped more than half the school year because class lacked an intellectual challenge for him. He graduated in three years from a well-recognized, Tier Two College, with the same GPA again without any effort on his part. His ACT scores were a 31 out of 36 and he was in 99th percentile on standardized tests without exception.
Also his ASVAB scores were distinguished enough that he was actively recruited by every branch of the armed services, including the CIA. The interview with Spinner was somewhat difficult and tedious. He was obviously uncomfortable and often made jokes and changed the subject. After an hour of difficulty in interviewing he states, “I don’t like talking about being gifted. ” At what age were you declared gifted? I don’t know. I’ve always been smarter. I was in special programs as early as first grade. I was reading by about five. I didn’t read especially early, but I read especially well very early.
I read Robinson Crusoe and Treasure Island on my own when I was six. How comfortable are you with others? I’m not really. Describe your perception of your social skills. I don’t really have, um… good… ones. I have excellent social skills in a leadership capacity, by which I mean I am better in roles where I can be less socially capable. In a leadership role you control how much and with whom you must deal with others. But other than that I feel put upon in social dealings. I go inside. * In social situations I shut down… too many people.
Because, I don’t feel that it is possible to connect with that many people and in most social situations you are expected to connect with a great many people. I don’t feel that it is possible. I feel like it is synaptic overload. I am an asshole; it is part of my synaptic overload. How would you describe your social graces? I’m not a good host. I can deal with differences of opinion provided that they are defensible. I don’t need a person to agree with me but I need them to adopt a valid stance. They need to have basis for it and need to be able to present that basis well.
But most times people can do neither. Pick a few adjectives that define you. Reclusive hermitage is my ideal state. That is my retirement goal. What did you find were some of the challenges of the school system? There were none in my school. There were no AP classes. And the community college classes were actually easier than those at the high school. I did what I needed to do to get through class and little else. How did this affect academically you in college? College was no different. I was still not challenged although the possibility for challenge was increased. The faculty was not adversarial.
I felt at least that they were contributing to the educational process instead of hindering it. Has there ever been a time in your life when you have been challenged? Not in school. Even my hardest college class was a matter of just putting in the time. I was tired and I was putting in 20 hours a day but it wasn’t difficult, just time consuming. Are there any accomplishments that you are particularly proud of? My relationship with my girlfriend. It is a complex, adult, social relationship that other people could learn from. I feel like we have succeeded in achieving something a good many people have failed at.
I’ve never connected as deeply with another person before. But I don’t see that as something I have overcome, it was just something that wasn’t previously available. It isn’t that I was incapable of having this before it was that there was no one I wanted to have it with. It is uncommon but it is not an accomplishment. I still haven’t overcome any social fears. Why did you pursue a higher education at the college level? Mostly for the piece of paper, which pisses me off, but our society says that I need to have that to validate my abilities and I am not liberated enough to have gone against that.
I gave in to what they said I should have and should be doing in that instance. What was your relationship with your teachers? Well, once we established with one another that I did not need to be at school, that I could perform better in their class if I didn’t show up everyday, that I didn’t have to do the same busy work as the other students, and that I could just come in and take the tests, we were fine. But that took three years, before then it was very adversarial. Before we established this I was considered a discipline problem because I didn’t see the need to be in school.
When they let me do what I wanted we were okay. Did teachers or administrators have trouble with you not meeting your potential? There was no opportunity within the school to meet my potential or even to gage it. The result then was for teachers and administrators to put aside my potential as long as I was passing. How would you describe your parental interaction? It was like, they assume you are generally okay. There were never any probing questions. Because I could take care of myself at any early age, we were more friendly than family. We were more like companions.
There was more trust, more respect more equality on both sides. Can you talk a little about your high school friendships? My high school friendships consisted of a few close friends. The rest of the people were acquaintances. You’d see them you’d say hi and that was it. My close friends and I shared a sense of humor so we could laugh together but I did not consider them to be on my intellectual level. A couple of them had the potential to be on my intellectual level, and could have excelled in specific subjects if they had tried but they were not nearly as broadly intellectual as I am. Did you have any friendships with adults?
I’ve always found that in friendships with people older than me, they can make up for what I lack in experience, and our levels even out. I am gifted in terms of intelligence and they are gifted in terms of life’s lessons, etc. And more often than not these adults recognized that grades, extra curriculars, and high school generally, is just a hoop. I mean, everybody has to jump through hoops, but my adult friends don’t assign an unrealistic level of significance to the games of education like educators are required to. To them, it doesn’t really mean anything and once you could get through it you don’t have to do it again.
With the adults I could identify my struggle. By “it” you mean education? Well, for the previous question explicitly I was referring to my education but I think it applies generally to life. Whether it be your job, your parents, your spouse or the law. Did you employ any type of coping methods in relation to your gifted abilities? I didn’t actively try to hide. I didn’t actively pursue stupid ends either. If a person thought I was gifted so be it but I wasn’t going to go out of my way to persuade them. Did you ever feel the need to “dumb down” your abilities to relate to your friends? Absolutely.
Even teachers. You want to say things and you want to comment specifically about things and you do at first. But then you get tired of people staring at you blankly. You get tired of explaining what you meant so eventually you stop trying. So then the close friendships you have are the people who share your sense of humor because, although intellect is connected to humor, intellect is not the primary basis of your exchange with people and that is just easier. Do you find that you are adept at hiding personal problems? Yes. I don’t really have any problems. I was anorexic in High School.
I worked out too much and I ate not enough. My parents had no reaction to this. They didn’t think I was unhealthy. I was never at a dangerous weight so it was easy for them to miss it. I never really thought about them not noticing. I didn’t do it to get their attention. They were never really involved in it at all; they weren’t part of my intentions. Do your believe your gift affected peer perceptions of you? No, because the same talent at hiding problem makes you adept at hiding everything. You’re just a more secretive person and you’re less willing and able, frankly, to exhibit things about your personality.
Because there is no opportunity to advance you’re kind of all in the same boat, and maybe I’m better at steering but it’s all the same. I just have the ability to do it more easily. Do you believe that your gifted abilities are the cause of your social ineptitudes? I think because I operate on a different wavelength than others, that it is that much harder to connect with someone. And you try to connect and you just see that blank look again and again and you want to be by yourself and not even bother because it is so rare that you find somebody to connect with who is thinking “Hell yeah! instead of “What the hell? ” Describe the people you connect with currently. I can still connect with people due to a shared sense of humor. I’d say connect with four-ish people right now. I can connect with all four of those people with humor. In a couple of people, two out of the four, we share an intellect. In one of the other two I can see elements of myself, and the last person is just a really good person that I like hanging out with. Do you resent that there are not more people you connect with? Sometimes I’m frustrated by it, but it also makes the relationships that I do have more special.
But if I didn’t have even my paltry four I would definitely resent it. Those four have kept me from an overwhelming bitterness. What are your future goals? I don’t have any. I want to do whatever I want with the rest of my life. Spinner exemplifies numerous characteristics of a socially stinted, gifted individual. Underachieving, making adult friendships, dumbing down and hiding behind humor were all behaviors that have been connected to gifted students. His mention of being “in the same boat” as his peers could be considered placating on Cross’ list of coping strategies.
Spinner’s description of himself as “reclusive” proves that he is well-aware of his social short comings. His understanding of the need to “get by” or “jump through hoops” is far-reaching, as is evident by his comments on why he continued on to college, regardless of his less than educationally supportive and challenging interactions with schools and teachers. And parental interaction on a deep emotional level was not to be found. Spinner’s strong statement about his potential for “overwhelming bitterness” would he not have found his four-ish companions, shows that his gift did not make him less socially vulnerable.
In fact, the decreased number of companions imply an increased need for them. This is compounded by Spinner’s comments concerning his best accomplishment: a deep, social connection with another person. The conclusion that he regards this achievement so highly cannot be unrelated to his lacking social inabilities. The future implications of the gifted stigma are extremely detrimental. There is a continuous search for intimacy, which ironically is stinted because these students are never taught how to be intimate. In The Journal for the Education of the Gifted, clinical studies by Rochelle Manor-Bullock, Christine Look, and David N.
Dixon show that students are affected by their stigma later in life. When gifted subjects were asked how others perceived them socially and how they perceived themselves the respective responses were: 65% responded in terms of being socially different and 69% primarily described themselves in terms of academics (Dixon 329). Their academics become the way through which they see themselves and are most able to communicate with others. This practice is potentially socially damaging due to the fact that the majority of people are not able to communicate in those terms.
In “Preparing for College–Beyond the Getting-In Part” counselor Jean Sunde Peterson studies the reactions gifted students have to life at college. Common reactions included a negative response to living with a roommate and extreme loneliness (3). When students were questioned on how their abilities have served them in college 27% cited them as a social liability which lead to “preoccupation with academics at the expense of social experiences; social ineptitude; inflated pride; and consequent social problems” (4).
Strictly in terms of academics 60% of students believe their gift was an asset to their academic achievement in college. However, it did not prepare them for living in a continuously social atmosphere; a type of collegiate culture shock was not an uncommon experience for gifted students. These social inefficiencies lead to an overemphasis on monetary pursuits and diversions and an underemphasis on interpersonal ideals, such as marriage, religion and relationships (Kline 2). In terms of employment, jobs dealing with objects not people, appealed to these students more often.
They become more “argumentative and self-protective” and value “an exciting life, wisdom, self-respect, pleasure, and inner harmony,” all individual issues, over “altruism, social recognition, achievement, affiliation and family security,” more social concerns (Kress 205). They have no objectives concerning community issues or making personal connections. As technology advances and human interaction decreases, students can become increasingly more withdrawn from societal situations. Gifted students may never be rid of their social ineptitudes if schools do not take responsibility for instilling students with social values.
Peterson writes, “[High ability] does not mean that social balance is unimportant” (5) but due to a system that allows gifted students to be completely nonsocial, this is often the state of student’s lives until the completion of high school. Administrative assumptions that gifted students are socially mature, regardless of a complete lack of experience as perpetuated by the schools, is both senseless and destructive, two repulsive qualities, especially when used in reference to educational decision makers.
Social and personal connections, in some manner enter into most professions and domains of life. The successful achievements of any gifted student will be limited at some future point if they do not possess the skills needed in an interactive world. To assume students have social abilities after your educational system has not taught them is to condemn these students to a life of wasted possibility. Parents, teachers and counselors need to ensure gifted students the opportunity to socially interact. Proper psychological development is dependent upon it.
Gifted students must be able to interact with both gifted and nongifted peers; to limit the interaction to only one side would be a misrepresentation of the greater world. Both individual and cooperative learning must be employed in the classroom, and all students should be exposed to each method. Teachers could encourage gifted students to assist other students because “the greatest impact [on] students’ knowledge comes through social contact” (Wolfle 5). In this manner at least some level of peer interaction occurs, whereas separation tactics alleviate all peer connections.
Gifted students need to learn that failure is permissible (Johnson 29) and human interaction is a vital and positive part of maturing. Gifted students would do well to have a mentor and counseling in order to give them the opportunity to discuss emotional issues and connect with another person. Parents need to research potential schools and gifted programs along with the treatment of gifted students in those environments (Cross 7). Parents must take an active role in helping their child develop social skills by giving them the opportunity and encouragement to interact with their peers.
Peterson states, “Forearming, with things-to-do-when, with practice in articulation of social and emotional concerns, and with normalizing unsettling experiences, might help a young adult to stay in control and solidly afloat, even when the weather is less than favorable” (5). Educators and parents need to be sure that “expectations can never transcend maturation” (Cross 7). Because the education system excels at ignoring the nonacademic needs of the gifted child, the gifted child is denied the opportunity to excel at anything except academics.
The stigma can extend from complete isolation to social exclusion. Often these students end up internalizing everything and they cannot relate to others, even in adulthood. And as Cross asserts, “the underachievement does not end by grade 12” (5). It becomes an attitude not just for school, but for life, that leads to psychological disassociation and negative adult consequences. These students become socially inept in an increasingly interactive world. Giftedness is a type of diversity (Cross 7) and giftedness should be included in diversity training programs.
Educators and parents need to learn how to treat gifted students, so those students know how to treat others in the future. And above all else, we must remember that gifted students are children first and gifted second. Works Cited Benbow, Camilla Persson, and Susan L. Dauber. “Aspects of Personality and Peers Relations of Extremely Talented Adolescents. ” Gifted Child Quarterly. 34. 1. (1990): 10-5. Clark, Jennifer J. , and David N. Dixon. “The Impact of Social Skills Training on the Self-Concepts of Gifted High School Students. ” The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. . 4. (1997): 1-11. Cross, Tracy L. “Psychological and Social Aspects of Education Gifted Students. ” Peabody Journal of Education. 72. 3-4. (1997): 180-200. Dixon, David N. , Christine Look and Rochelle Manor Block. “Is Giftedness Socially Stigmatizing? The Impact of High Achievement on Social Interactions. ” Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 18. 3. (1995): 319-338. Johnson, Christopher. “Special Feature on the Gifted and Talented. ” Feb/Mar 1981: 27- 8. Kaplan, Justin ed. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1992. Kline, Bruce E. and Elizabeth Short. “Changes in Emotional Resilience: Gifted Adolescent Boys. ” Roeper Review. 13. 4. (1991): 1-6. Kress, Cathann A. “Understanding the Consistently Misunderstood: The “Underachieving Gifted” Child. Reclaiming Children and Youth. 6. 4. (1998): 204-207. Luftig, Richard L. , and Marci L. Nichols. “Assessing the Social Status of Gifted Students by Their Age Peers. ” Gifted Child Quarterly. 34. 3. (1990): 111-5. Peterson, Jean Sunde. “Preparing for College — Beyond the Getting-In Part. ” Gifted Child Today Magazine. Mar/Apr. 2000: 36-42. Swiatek, Mary Ann. Social Coping Among Gifted High School Students and its Relationship to Self-Concept. ” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 30. 1. (2001): 19-39. Wallace, Margaret. “Nuturing Nonconformists. ” Educational Leadership. 57. 4. (1999): 44-6. Wolfle, Jane A. “Underachieving Gifted Males: Are We Missing the Boat? ” Roeper Review. 13. 4. (1991): 1-3. Bibliography Austin, Ann Berghout, and Dianne C. Draper. “Peer Relationships of the Academically Gifted: A Review. ” The Gifted Child Quarterly. 25. 3. (1981): 129-133. Benbow, Camilla Persson, and Susan L. Dauber. Aspects of Personality and Peers Relations of Extremely Talented Adolescents. ” Gifted Child Quarterly. 34. 1. (1990): 10-5. Clark, Jennifer J. , and David N. Dixon. “The Impact of Social Skills Training on the Self-Concepts of Gifted High School Students. ” The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. 8. 4. (1997): 1-11. Cross, Tracy L. “Psychological and Social Aspects of Education Gifted Students. ” Peabody Journal of Education. 72. 3-4. (1997): 180-200. Dixon, David N. , Christine Look and Rochelle Manor Block. “Is Giftedness Socially Stigmatizing? The Impact of High Achievement on Social Interactions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 18. 3. (1995): 319-338. Johnson, Christopher. “Special Feature on the Gifted and Talented. ” Feb/Mar 1981: 27- 8. Kaplan, Justin ed. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1992. Kline, Bruce E. , and Elizabeth Short. “Changes in Emotional Resilience: Gifted Adolescent Boys. ” Roeper Review. 13. 4. (1991): 1-6. Kress, Cathann A. “Understanding the Consistently Misunderstood: The “Underachieving Gifted” Child. Reclaiming Children and Youth. 6. 4. (1998): 204-207. Luftig, Richard L. , and Marci L. Nichols. Assessing the Social Status of Gifted Students by Their Age Peers. ” Gifted Child Quarterly. 34. 3. (1990): 111-5. Peterson, Jean Sunde. “Preparing for College — Beyond the Getting-In Part. ” Gifted Child Today Magazine. Mar/Apr. 2000: 36-42. Swiatek, Mary Ann. “Social Coping Among Gifted High School Students and its Relationship to Self-Concept. ” Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 30. 1. (2001): 19-39. Wallace, Margaret. “Nuturing Nonconformists. ” Educational Leadership. 57. 4. (1999): 44-6. Wolfle, Jane A. “Underachieving Gifted Males: Are We Missing the Boat? ” Roeper Review. 13. 4. (1991): 1-3.