Jean Sunde Peterson

Bullying and the Gifted: Victims, Perpetrators, Prevalence, and Effects

Gifted eighth graders (N = 432) in 11 U.S. states participated in a retrospective national study that explored the prevalence and effects of being bullied and being a bully during kindergarten through grade 8. No significant differences were found related to size of city, race/ethnicity, and geographical region in terms of either being bullied or being a bully. Sixty-seven percent of all participants had experienced at least 1 of 13 kinds of bullying listed on the survey, more in grade 6 than in other grades, and 11% had experienced repeated bullying. Name-calling and teasing about appearance were the most common kinds of bullying, and the latter was among several kinds of bullying significantly related to emotional impact. In grade 8, 16% were bullies, and 29% had violent thoughts. At all grade levels, a larger percentage of males than females were bullied, were bullied more than 10 times, and were bullies.

Myth 17: Gifted and Talented Individuals Do Not Have Unique Social and Emotional Needs

It is understandable that school peers, significant adults, and the public in general may assume that gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. When common, positive stereotypes prevail based on images of confident and motivated students, athletes, and musicians, giftedness might be perceived as being unrelated to social and emotional concerns. Educators and others may therefore not recognize or address social and emotional needs, assuming that gifted students deal easily with developmental challenges. Early scholarly work related to giftedness may also have contributed to the notion that high capability means solid mental and physical health and success and satisfaction in career and relationships. Research samples have often not been inclusive enough to reflect concerns of a broad range of high-potential students and may have perpetuated positive stereotypes. In addition, deeply engrained societal attitudes as well as democratic and egalitarian political views may, for many citizens, preclude thinking that students with high-level abilities should be given special attention for social and emotional needs. Federal education mandates have also reflected little concern for the well-being of gifted and talented students. Even the field of gifted education may not have advocated as strongly as it could have for proactive approaches to promote healthy social and emotional development.

Bullying Among the Gifted: The Subjective Experience

One portion of a national study of bullying, which surveyed gifted 8th graders regarding bullying during their school years (N = 432), used structured interviews (N = 57) to explore the lived experience of being bullied or being a bully. Qualitative analysis of interview data found that even just one incident was highly distressing for some. Also important are the findings that many victims suffered in silence, struggled to understand bullying, assumed responsibility for stopping it themselves, despaired when it continues, and thought violent thoughts. Intelligence appeared to have helped most of those interviewed to make sense of bullying, including those who had intentionally halted their own bullying. Many subjects believed that not being known contributed to being bullied. Helping students to make social connections and adjustments, especially during the early middle school years, may be crucial to their well-being and to their feeling safe in school.

A Longitudinal Study of Negative Life Events, Stress, and School Experiences of Gifted Youth

An 11-year mixed-methods, cross-sectional longitudinal study began with a group of 121 children, identified as gifted, and followed them until high-school graduation. Parents annually identified negative life events experienced by child and family, and, at graduation, students completed an open-ended retrospective questionnaire, focusing on events, impact of events, supports, and hindrances during the school years. As a result of attrition, participants became increasingly homogeneous over time. School data were available for 59 students (of 63 family units who sustained involvement) at the end. The students had experienced many negative events and situations during the school years. However, they usually cited academic challenges, school transitions, peer relationships, and overcommitment as their most challenging experiences, not life events. Almost without exception, they maintained high achievement. Putting the Research to Use: Gifted students may not communicate their distress to adults who are invested in their achievement or non-achievement. Significant adults therefore might wisely keep the findings in this study in mind as they interact with them. Inquiring casually about how the students are feeling or how they are managing high-stress times in the academic or extra-curricular year might be appreciated and potentially helpful. Though habits of achievement may help them to maintain high grades and high levels of extra-curricular performance, achievers might quietly experience high levels of stress from their heavy involvements in or outside of school. Low achievement and a high number of absences may also reflect personal stress in gifted students. Showing non-voyeuristic, holistic interest in gifted students as complex individuals, gently commenting when they seem “flat,” not fueling ultra-competitive attitudes, and offering credible comments about personal strengths and resilience might offer crucial support at a time of vulnerability.

A follow‐up study of one group of achievers and underachievers four years after high school graduation

A four‐year follow‐up study comparing gifted achievers and underachievers examined college attendance, academic performance, involvement in campus activities, type of institution attended, number of declared majors, career direction, and satisfaction with life developments since high school. All achievers attended college, were more sure of career direction, completed more years of college, and were more involved in campus activities than were underachievers, but did not report more satisfaction. Of the 87% underachievers who attended college, 52% had attended for four years and 41% had performed better academically in college than they had in high school. Qualitative analysis of narrative responses concerning adjustment found themes related to developmental, academic, and other concerns.

Depressive Disorder in Highly Gifted Adolescents

This article examines the nature and extent of depressive disorders in highly gifted adolescents based on current literature and data gathered from a phenomenological study, focus groups, and clinical records. Two case studies and clinical examples document the capacity of some highly gifted adolescents to mask even severe symptoms. Several factors appeared to contribute to this masking phenomenon, including shame for being incapacitated and unable to resolve their dilemma; depressions signature cognitive confusion, which disengaged their coping mechanisms; and fear of harming others with their toxic state. These findings raise questions about the efficacy of quantitative research instruments to determine actual cases of depressive disorder in this subgroup, as well as current research estimates of depression in the highly gifted population.

Gifted and Gay: A Study of the Adolescent Experience

A retrospective study of the adolescent experience of 18 gay, lesbian, or bisexual young adults with high ability (12 males, 6 females) using a postpositivistic mode of inquiry found significant themes of danger, isolation, depression, and suicidal ideation, together with high achievement and extreme involvement in activities, in their narrative responses to an extended questionnaire. Participants described personal responses to wondering about sexual orientation, being convinced, and eventually coming out, and the effects on school and family relationships. Half reported awareness by the end of elementary school, and almost all were convinced by grade 11. Most participants offered suggestions for educators in general and for those involved in gifted programs, and many of the suggestions have implications for staff development.

A Longitudinal Study of Post-High-School Development in Gifted Individuals at Risk for Poor Educational Outcomes.

Fourteen gifted late adolescents, considered at risk for poor educational outcomes because of underachievement, depression, or family situation, participated in a 4-year qualitative longitudinal study focusing on 4 developmental tasks: gaining autonomy, becoming differentiated, establishing career direction, and developing a mature relationship. The process of resolving conflict with parents generated the largest portion of narrative data. The majority of participants still lacked direction and a mature relationship at the end of the study, but most respondents had resolved conflict, felt autonomous, and reported good emotional health. Multiple task accomplishments were associated with being able to concentrate on academics.

Successful Adults Who Were Once Adolescent Underachievers.

This retrospective study of professionally successful adults who were academic underachievers during adolescence (N = 31) explored the phenomenological experience of underachievement, with particular focus on potentially interactive factors that might be associated with onset. maintenance, and reversal of underachievement. Underinvolved and nonencouraging parents and teachers, negative parental attitudes toward work, family conflict, lack of career direction, and family transitions were found to be associated with underachievement. Both the adolescents and their parents achieved in nonacademic areas. Findings suggest that personality factors, achiever role models outside of the family, developmental task accomnplishmrent, changes in location, and new academic courses may contribute to reversal of underachievement.

Naming Gifted Children: An Example of Unintended “Reproduction”

We asked classroom teachers from two middle schools in a Midwestern community (the teachers were Anglo-American but were teaching a sizable Latino minority) to recommend students for a temporary program for the “gifted.” Although teachers were given no guidelines for selection, they had no trouble discussing “giftedness” as a concept; nor did they have difficulty identifying “gifted” children. Their language revealed that they used the existing ideals and moralities of the dominant culture as their guide in assessing childrens giftedness. Latino children, and those from other minority groups, were passed over. Nowhere in the discussion of “giftedness” did the teachers consider that their criteria for “excellence,” “talent,” and “ability” were culturally determined. Instead, teachers treated “giftedness” as if it were absolute, universally agreed upon, transcontextual and transcultural. These results show that vigorous and creative teacher education is needed to ensure proportionate representation of nonmainstream cultural groups in selective programs, and that teachers, who are often vocally opposed to social and educational inequities, unwittingly support the existing social order.