Irish Gifted Students: Self, Social, and Academic Explorations

There has been interest in the education of exceptionally capable students for centuries. Testing has long played an important role in finding this potential, from the Imperial Examinations to identify civil servants during the Han Dynasty (206 BCE-220 CE) in China (Zhang, 2017) to the IQ tests used by Lewis Terman (1925) in his study of 1000 “geniuses.”

The Centre for Talented Youth-Ireland (CTYI) continues this tradition by utilizing standardized tests to find primary and secondary students who perform at the 95th percentile and above. These students are often not well served by school systems that focus on the development of average ability students, as is generally the case across Ireland (O’Reilly, 2013). Founded in 1992 based on the model of the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University, CTYI has grown significantly over the past 30 years. It has served thousands of highability Irish students by offering enrichment courses that expose students to topics not covered in schools, allowing in-depth exploration. A fee-based program, CTYI has expanded its offerings to low-income students through scholarships and grant-funded courses. The Centre for Academic Talent (CAT) program offers courses for students whose test scores fall between the 85th and 94th percentile, opening CTYI opportunities to an even wider swath of highly capable Irish students. The only centre for gifted education in Ireland, CTYI provides an important educational and advocacy function.

In the fall of 2010, the directors of the CTYI and the William & Mary Center for Gifted Education (CFGE) began a conversation that developed into a strong relationship between the two organizations. The mutual desire to support the needs of gifted students led to numerous collaborative research projects, publications, and presentations around the world. Previous reports have highlighted the beliefs and experiences of educators and parents (J. Cross et al., 2014, 2019). In this report, we will describe the findings of the ten studies with CTYI students and two studies with international students conducted between 2012 and 2021. Table 1.1 includes a list of the studies and Tables 1.2 and 1.3 describe participating student demographics.

Prior to 2012, very few studies had been published about Irish gifted students. In fact, only one study could be found that related to their psychology. In the mid-1990s, Mills and Parker (1998) studied students attending the new CTYI program and compared them with U.S. students participating in the Center for Talented Youth program at Johns Hopkins University. Much more is known about the psychology of gifted students in the US. Research with U.S. samples has considered their mental health (Cross & Cross, 2015; Martin et al., 2010), personality (Mammadov, 2021; Vuyk et al., 2016), self-concept (Dai & Rinn, 2008; Rinn et al., 2010), perfectionistic attitudes (Fletcher & Speirs Neumeister, 2012), achievement goal orientation (Speirs Neumeister, 2004), peer relationships (J. Cross, 2021; T. Cross & Cross, 2022), and attitudes toward their giftedness (Berlin, 2009). This research has led to a focus on the social and emotional needs of gifted students, along with recommendations for practice 

One line of research began with Coleman (1985), who proposed that gifted students may encounter a stigma in society that interferes with their ability to be accepted and to develop normally. Coleman’s stigma of giftedness paradigm (SGP) has three tenets:

1. Gifted students, like all students, desire normal interactions with their classmates;

2. as others learn of their giftedness, they will be treated differently; and

3. gifted students can increase their social latitude by managing the information others have of them.

Researchers found that gifted students did, indeed, sometimes attempt to hide their abilities from peers (T. Cross et al., 1991; Swiatek, 2012). The potential of such behaviors to impact students’ psychological, social, and academic development makes this a valuable endeavor. In their influential monograph, Subotnik and colleagues (2011) stress the importance of psychosocial variables in talent development. “Psychosocial variables are determining factors in the successful development of talent” (p. 7), they claim, citing copious research as evidence. 

Our primary goal in this research project has been to support the well-being and maximization of potential among Irish gifted students. By learning more about them and their experiences, we hope to provide a foundation on which to build this support in their homes and schools. The questions driving the research in this collaboration emphasized three topics in relation to Irish gifted students:

1. Their psychology, in particular, their self-beliefs.

2. Their social experience 

3. Their school experience

The research has been approached through both quantitative and qualitative methodologies, allowing for a broad perspective on students’ psychology and experiences. Over the years, researchers in other talent search or gifted education programs have become interested in this project. As a result, we are able to draw comparisons with high-ability students in not only the US, but also South Korea, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, and India.

Interviews were conducted with students in 2013, 2019, and 2021. The 2013 interviews were part of a five country cross-cultural study of the social experience of gifted students (J. Cross, Vaughn et al., 2019). In each country, three male and three female students at the elementary (4th and 5th Class), middle (2nd Year), and high school (4th and 5th Year) levels were interviewed, totaling 18 students. In 2019, six male and six female secondary level students (2nd through 6th Year) were interviewed about their school experiences. The full report goes into detail with our findings, making the most of these students’ time and openness. In this brief report, we will summarize the findings of the decades-long study of students participating in CTYI programs. It is our hope that this research is of benefit to Irish gifted students and their counterparts around the world.

One of the primary objectives of this research project has been to support the well-being of Irish gifted students. According to the dictionary of the American Psychological Association (APA), well-being is defined as “a state of happiness and contentment, with low levels of distress, overall good physical and mental health and outlook, or good quality of life” (APA, 2020). Well-being has rarely been studied among gifted students, but some studies have explored psychological constructs that lead to the opposite – high levels of distress – in this population (J. Cross & Cross, 2015). For example, there appears to be no difference in rates of depression among academically gifted students compared to their nongifted peers (Martin et al., 2010), although rates of depression have been found to be higher among creatively gifted individuals (Neihart & Olenchak, 2002). An analysis of four studies found levels of anxiety to be lower among gifted students than non-gifted peers (Martin et al., 2010). Studies of suicidal ideation (thinking about killing oneself) among gifted students find no difference from comparable samples in the general population (T. Cross & Cross, 2017). Depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation – these negative psychological conditions are linked in research in the general population with personality differences (Hakulinen et al., 2015; Lyon et al., 2021), self-concept (Matthews, 2014), perfectionism (Smith et al., 2016), self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001; Maddux, 1995), and even beliefs about the malleability of intelligence or personality (Schroder et al., 2015). To best support Irish gifted students’ well-being, we need to have a picture of their psychological make-up. 

In the quantitative studies listed in Table 1.1, we asked students to share their beliefs about- what they are like (self-concept [2012, 2013], personality [2015, 2016]); what they can do (self-efficacy [2013, 2014, 2015, 2016]); how perfect they need to be, for themselves or others (perfectionism [2015, 2016]); whether people can change their intelligence or personality (implicit theory [2013, 2015, 2016]); and what they believe about how resources should be distributed in society (social dominance orientation [2012]). This section will describe what we learned about the CTYI students who participated in these studies. We can infer from these data what steps may be best to take to support students who may be vulnerable to negative psychological outcomes. 

The most important lesson from our psychological research with CTYI students is that they are not a monolith. There is not one profile of an Irish gifted student that fits them all. This may seem obvious, but much previous research has attempted to explain the essence of a gifted student. By aggregating data, we can come up with an average profile, but such an average can be quite misleading. In his book, The End of Average, author Todd Rose (2016) described the efforts of the U.S. air force to create a cockpit that fit all pilots by using the average measurements of 4,000 pilots on 10 dimensions, such as arm and leg length, chest circumference, and so forth. After identifying the average, they discovered that not a single pilot was exactly average and fewer than 3.5% matched on just three dimensions. Keeping this lesson in mind, where possible, we have attempted to explore the data from a person-centered perspective. We first apply analyses in the aggregate, but then go deeper to examine clusters or classes of students who fit various profiles.

When we ask the question, “What is a person like?” there are many ways they can be described. We can describe their physical appearance, their abilities, their motivations, their patterns of behavior, or any number of other characteristics. Every individual is unique, but we often seek to find similarities that help us in making sense of others. Their personality, or their characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, are of particular importance to this sense-making.

In recent decades, personality research has consistently identified five dimensions: Openness to new experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (OCEAN, the common mnemonic). These dimensions exist on a continuum, from open to closed to new experiences; from highly conscientious to disorganized and lacking in discipline; from outgoing (extravert) to reticent (introvert); from agreeable to disagreeable; and from emotionally stable to unstable (neurotic). Individuals will differ from others by degree on each dimension.

In personality comparisons, CTYI and CAT students from the 2015 and 2016 studies were less extraverted (outgoing) and more conscientious than the general population represented in the large international norm group. CTYI students were more introverted and less agreeable than CAT students, who tended to be more agreeable and less emotionally unstable (neurotic) than the general population. Numerous studies have found gifted students to have a stronger tendency toward introversion than the general population and this was confirmed in the CTYI and CAT samples.

Numerous studies have found three consistent profiles in personality characteristics:

• Resilient – low in neuroticism (emotional instability), high in other traits

• Overcontroller – high in neuroticism (emotional instability), low in extraversion (introvert)

• Undercontroller – high in extraversion, low in agreeableness, low in conscientiousness

Resilients are flexible and adapt well to changing situations, leading them to generally be well-adjusted. Overcontrollers, who were so named because of their strong tendency to control the expression of their emotional and motivational impulses, have been found to be more likely to experience internalizing symptoms, such as depression and anxiety. Undercontrollers have the opposite tendency – they do not try to control their impulses. This personality pattern is associated with externalizing problems such as aggression, hyperactivity, and acting out.

The personality profiles among CTYI students in the 2015 study were mostly consistent with these patterns, but with important differences. Instead of having three profiles, the CTYI students had four, with not one resilient class, but two: moderate and high Resilients. Both classes of Resilients were high in the characteristics associated with positive adjustment – sociable, agreeable, conscientious, emotionally stable, and open to new experiences – but the High Resilients were very high in these characteristics. Together, the two resilient classes make up two-thirds (66.3%) of the CTYI sample. The CTYI Undercontroller class, 9.6% of the sample, was different from those identified in the literature, as well. Like those found in the general population, this group was highly extraverted, lowest of the CTYI students in agreeableness, but with a moderate level of conscientiousness, which is likely how they met the testing requirement for entry to CTYI. The majority of Overcontrollers were female (63.8%) and the majority of Moderate Resilients were male (63.5%).

CTYI students shared their beliefs about other aspects of their lives as well. The instrument used to measure students’ self-concept was the Self-Description Questionnaire I, which measured student perceptions of their Academic, Non-Academic, and General Selves. A majority of CTYI students in the 2012 study had overall high (n = 156; 44.2%) or moderately high (n = 86; 24.4%) levels of self-concept, with positive beliefs about their non-academic, academic, and general selves. Highest scores were seen among primary students and nearly all students had high reading self-concepts. Among secondary students, males had higher self-concept scores than females in most areas, with the exception of reading, parent relations, and general school.

What CTYI students will pursue as they develop will depend in part on what they believe about themselves. Self-concept is one’s perceptions of who they are, what they are interested in, and how they evaluate themselves: “Who am I?” “What do I like/dislike?” “Am I good/not good at ___?” These beliefs will likely have an impact on their academic pursuits. Another aspect of CTYI students’ psychology is their self-efficacy: their perceptions of their capability to carry out an activity (Bandura, 1986). In other words, self-efficacy is a measure of confidence in different arenas. Selfefficacy goes beyond an evaluation of one’s abilities to include their belief that they can carry out that activity, an important belief that will affect their motivation to pursue various activities. Table 2.1 presents the different areas measured by the Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy scale (MSPSE; Bandura, 1989).

Note: Response items: 1 = Not Well at All, 3= Not Too Well, 5 = Pretty Well, and 7 = Very Well

In an analysis of all the CTYI students who completed the MSPSE (N = 936), patterns of self-efficacy were identified. Nearly three quarters of CTYI students (n = 681; 72.1%; the Confident Majority and Superstars classes) were confident in all domains, with one in four being extremely confident. Highly confident in their academic and social skills, ability to be assertive and to meet others’ expectations, confidence among the Confident Majority only dipped slightly in their ability to manage their learning, garner social support when needed, and be successful in extracurricular or leisure activities. The Superstars class was confident in all these domains. The two most confident classes were made up almost exclusively of students with Resilient or High Resilient personality types, suggesting their flexibility in adapting to variable situations is associated with their confidence they will be successful in diverse activities.

One study of self-efficacy evaluated the 2015 students (N = 477) by their confidence in specific subject areas: general mathematics, algebra, biology, reading/writing, foreign language, and social studies (O’Reilly et al., 2018). While the largest subset of students had high self-efficacy in all subject areas (46% of the sample in that study), one subset (35%) had high confidence in their mathematics abilities, but low confidence in the other humanities-related subjects. CTYI students in the smallest subset (19%) lacked confidence in math, but were quite confident in science and the humanities.

Positive Perfectionism

Perfectionism, “the tendency to demand of others or of oneself an extremely high or even flawless level of performance” (APA, 2020, Perfectionism), among students with gifts and talents has been the focus of a great deal of research attention since the early 1990’s. One of the most widely accepted models of perfectionism describes three types: self-oriented (having unrealistically high expectations of themselves); socially prescribed (perceiving others have unrealistically high expectations of them); and other-oriented (having unrealistically high expectations for others). Much recent research in perfectionism has explored these three types.

Striving for perfection can be a healthy approach to demands. In fact, positive strivings have been found to correlate with adaptive outcomes, such as positive mood and emotion (affect), conscientiousness, motivation to master a task, and a sense of personal agency (an internal locus of control). In the three-dimension model of perfectionism, positive strivings may be measured by self-oriented perfectionism. Among the CTYI and CAT students from the 2015 and 2016 studies, self-oriented perfectionism was high and did not differ by program. Females in both programs, however, had higher selforiented perfectionism than males. The personality profiles differed significantly in their perfectionism scores. The High Resilients, the most adaptive and confident students, and the Overcontrollers, who tended to be less emotionally stable, had the highest selforiented perfectionism scores. These two groups had very different scores in Socially Prescribed Perfectionism, however, which is likely to result in different outcomes.

A Minority Needing Supports

The majority of CTYI students in these studies had a positive psychological profile. Two-thirds of them were confident and had desirable personality characteristics. A quarter to a third, however, may need support to bolster their self-beliefs and to flourish in their environments. Self-concept and self-efficacy develop from experiences. As a child engages with their environment, they have success or do not, they receive feedback from others: praise or criticism, encouragement or discouragement. Through these experiences, they develop beliefs about who they are and what they like and can do. Personality develops from an inborn temperament, shaped by the response of the child’s environment. A newborn with fearful tendencies may experience a caring environment in which they can thrive or a less nurturant one in which their fearfulness is exacerbated. How adults and peers respond to the developing child will affect their beliefs about themselves, and how others respond is affected by the child’s temperament.

Personality Challenges

The CTYI secondary students in the 2015 sample who were classified as Overcontrollers (24.2%) or Undercontrollers (9.6%) may experience challenges not faced by their resilient peers. Overcontrollers, a majority of whom – but not all – were female (63.8%), may be at particular risk for internalizing symptoms, such as depression and anxiety. They were highly introverted, meaning they prefer to avoid overstimulation, such as crowds and high-noise settings. Overcontrollers also tend to score high in neuroticism – they report being more likely to feeling depressed or to worry excessively. A supportive environment for Overcontrollers would recognize these differences, offering quiet spaces and activities with small groups or pairs. Professional counselors or attentive caregivers may help them reframe stressful events to reduce their anxiety.

Undercontrollers have been found to exhibit more externalizing problems, such as impulsivity, interpersonal conflict, and aggression . Their high extraversion means they would likely seek out peers to interact with, but their high disagreeableness may make it more difficult to develop friendships. These students may benefit from social skills training and positive feedback when they behave in a friendly manner. Their impulsivity can make peers uncomfortable. Teaching self-regulation directly and rewarding such behaviors may support Undercontrollers in developing friendships. Undercontrollers at CTYI were highly conscientiousness, which suggests they will have protection from some of the difficulties found among undercontrollers in the general population.

Self-Belief Challenges

Poor self-concept was found in 19.3% of CTYI students in the 2012 study, which included primary students, who tend to have positive self-concepts. Some CTYI students in the study had high self-concepts in all areas except their physical abilities. Self-concept can be boosted with affirmation, but having actual opportunities to succeed is more effective in changing self-beliefs. Challenge is important for these capable students, but succeeding at incrementally more difficult tasks at a lower level – working up to the ultimate challenge – will be better for self-concept development than repeatedly failing by attempting the ultimate challenge to start. In all cases, adults should be attending to what the child needs.

Academic self-efficacy was high among the CTYI secondary students and three of the classes with high self-efficacy included the majority of students: the Confident Majority (high self-efficacy across the board), the Confident Pushovers (high in all areas except ability to resist peer pressure), and the Superstars (very high in all areas). Three smaller classes, however, had less positive profiles. The Pushovers, the Insecure, and the Need a Boost classes made up 22.3% of the students in the 2013-2015 studies (N = 936). The Pushovers (n = 25) had relatively low scores overall, but were notably least likely to say they could resist peer pressure to engage in troubling behavior. The small group of Insecure students (n = 18) did not have concerns about peer pressure, but they had low self-efficacy in all other areas, with the exception of academics. The Need a Boost class (n = 165) lacked confidence in their learning skills, their ability to get help from others, and to do extracurriculars. In other areas, they had more confidence, but it was modest. An emphasis on how to get support from others would be beneficial to CTYI students in all three low-confidence classes: recognizing resources, learning how to ask for help when they need it, general social skills training.

Perfectionism Challenges

While self-oriented perfectionism has been found to be associated with positive outcomes, socially prescribed perfectionism has been linked to negative outcomes, including maladaptive motivational goals, negative affect, neuroticism, distress, eating disorders, and anxiety. The perception that others are expecting you to be perfect can be debilitating. Students in the Overcontroller class, who were high in positive expectations for their own perfection, were also high in their belief that others expect them to be perfect. These students, primarily female but including several males, are likely to be in need of psychological support.

Adult behavior, particularly that of parents, has been implicated in the development of perfectionistic beliefs, both positive and negative. Children may learn to strive for perfection or to be concerned about being evaluated negatively by observing the model of significant others or through being rewarded for such striving or punished for not doing so. They also learn through their own experience of striving for excellence, by thinking about what has occurred. Parents have an important role in their child’s development of these concerns. Their responsiveness to the child’s needs is critical to developing positive attitudes about their efforts to achieve. Research has supported the most positive outcomes for children raised with a balance between parents’ demandingness and responsiveness. An excess of demandingness in parenting may contribute to an unhealthy concern that others are evaluating you. Responsive parents are willing to give in to their child at times, realizing that their child needs to have confidence in their own ability to make choices and affect their own lives. Such a sense of agency will not develop if parents are constantly demanding. Table 2.2 describes the path parents set for their child through their modeling, responsiveness, and demandingness. It is important to note that all contributing factors highlighted in Table 2.2 are based on the child’s perceptions. An outsider may see a behavior as demanding or a model as positive or negative, but the child’s own perceptions of the behavior or model are what matter.

Adapted from Fletcher & Speirs Neumeister, 2017

Many people believe that human characteristics, such as intelligence and personality, are fixed within a person, but substantial evidence indicates that, while generally stable, one’s intelligence is affected by resources (e.g., exposure to books, access to technology, experience with excellent teachers, etc.) and that many aspects of one’s personality can change in response to the environment. Dweck (2006) found that students who held the belief that intelligence was fixed (e.g., “I am smart.”) were less likely to persist in the face of a difficult task, while those who believed it could be changed with opportunities for learning and practice were more likely to continue trying. She called these beliefs a growth mindset. Many schools have implemented programs to teach students about the significance of effort in achievement, attempting to overcome students’ fixed mindsets.

Among CTYI and CAT students, average scores were below 3.5, the point where beliefs would be considered “fixed”. CTYI females had more fixed beliefs than the males in both CTYI and CAT. All students had slightly stronger beliefs in the fixedness of personality. Implicit beliefs were not different among the personality classes, but both the Pushovers and Confident Pushovers had the most fixed beliefs about intelligence. Learning about how both intelligence and personality can change may help these students who claimed to be unable to resist peer pressure.

The ability to have positive, lasting significant relationships is a critical human need. People of all ages are motivated by this need4 . They will avoid activities that come between them and people with whom they have (or wish to have) a connection and they will pursue activities that foster relationships.

Being excluded from peers contributes to increased aggression, anxiety, and depression. Even expecting to be rejected by peers can lead to social anxiety and withdrawal. One study found the experience of pain associated with social rejection is similar to that of physical pain. Students in the “brain” crowd of one study had an increase in internalizing distress as they transitioned from childhood to adolescence, suggesting these students faced uniquely difficult stressors.

CTYI students have intellectual abilities different from their peers, as evidenced by their exceptional scores on standardized tests. They may not have intellectual peers in the same classroom or even the same school, creating challenges to friendship formation. Studies of popularity have found that high achievers in primary grades are often popular, but in secondary classes high achievers are less likely to be considered popular. Significant research, cited in Volume 2, Chapter 3, indicates potential challenges to friendship for CTYI students. Considering the importance of friendship to thriving in school, an important component of our studies with CTYI students focused on their relationships with peers.

In the early 1980’s, Larry Coleman and Tracy Cross spoke with hundreds of gifted students participating in the Tennessee Governor’s Schools about their social experiences. Coleman had previously proposed that giftedness is stigmatizing, and gifted students know that if others become aware of their exceptional abilities, they will be unable to have normal social interactions. From conversations with the students, Coleman and Cross (1988) learned about the conditions that led students to manage information about themselves so they could have normal social interactions and how they went about it. Gifted students might allow their abilities to be highly visible; or they would disidentify from their giftedness, behaving in ways counter to how they perceive a gifted person would, such as rebelling; or they would attempt to make themselves or their giftedness invisible. One thing that came up repeatedly in their interviews was students’ belief that they were different from peers. To further study this phenomenon, Coleman and Cross created a questionnaire that was modified for research with CTYI students. In the first part, questions asked how they believed others see them (the same as other students or different from other students) and how they considered themselves different from peers. Once again, the personality classes responded differently.

Overcontrollers and Undercontrollers were more likely to believe they were seen as different. Overcontrollers agreed most strongly that they get bored more quickly with small talk than others. Although the High Resilient students considered themselves most serious about learning, they did not believe peers get in the way of their learning. Undercontrollers, who were least agreeable, were also most likely to say other students get in the way of their learning. All CTYI students agreed that they prefer to work independently. CAT students had similar scores, except when it comes to viewing other students as getting in the way. They did not generally agree.

The second part of Cross and Coleman’s questionnaire was based on their findings that the conditions under which the stigma of giftedness had its effects differed. Some situations were more threatening to being “outed” as a gifted student than others. They tested this finding quantitatively with a series of scenarios, carefully crafted to elicit a response to these varying threats. The least threatening situation was to publicly show they know a discrete fact that other students did not. The scenario they created was of students complaining about not knowing the meaning of the word onomatopoeia. Asked how they would respond if they knew the meaning, students could choose options along a continuum of telling the truth to lying. The response options were developed from information given in student interviews. Students may deflect attention from their true beliefs (truth) by placating (agreeing with some aspect of the comment, before exposing true feelings), copping out (changing the subject), or covering up by using words that are related to the conversation, but do not reveal anything about the person’s self, or by giving a false response (lying). Another threatening scenario described a situation when others were not interested in learning, but the gifted student wanted to learn. For this situation, a scenario describes a substitute teacher being taunted by peers. The most threatening exposure is in the Biology Exam scenario, where others are complaining about the difficulty of a test the gifted student found easy. Cross et al. (1991) found many students responded to the Onomatopoeia scenario by saying they would tell the truth. The majority of students indicated they would placate in response to the Substitute Teacher scenario. The Biology Exam elicited the broadest range of responses, with some students comfortable telling the truth, but more being likely to cop out or even lie. Scenarios from the 2015 and 2016 surveys are below.

Scenario #1
Setting: In the cafeteria line, several people from your class are discussing the life science exam.
Taisce: Man! Wasn’t that test impossible? I must have spent 10 minutes trying to think of examples of the major biomes.
Corey: I blew the whole thing, even though I studied really hard.
Devin: I probably failed it too.

Devin says to Shannon, “I bet you breezed through it and didn’t even open the book to study.” Actually, Shannon spent several hours studying and thought it wasn’t a difficult test.
If you were Shannon, what would you be MOST inclined to say?
Please circle your choice.

Scenario #2
Setting: A group of students is discussing a class lecture as they leave the classroom.
Brady: I think it’s crazy that Mr. O’Reilly expects us to remember all of that material in Chapter 10 for the test in Literature!
Kieran: What does he think – that we have nothing better to do than memorize that stuff from the book?
Quinn: Some of those words are hard. I don’t even understand what he means by “onomatopoeia,” do you guys?

They all shake their heads, with the exception of Jamie (who has said nothing to this point). They turn to Jamie. Quinn says, “How about you, Jamie? Knowing you, you probably know it. Right?”
Jamie understands all of the terms and knows that onomatopoeia is nothing more than a word that describes a sound.
If you were Jamie, which would you be MOST inclined to say?
Please circle your choice.

Scenario #3
Setting: In the hallway, between classes:
Pat: Wasn’t that substitute teacher for Mrs. Flannery awful? I couldn’t figure out what she was trying to say about the Western Expansion. She really lost me.
Reagan: How about what Pete pulled on her, pretending he was sick and ready to throw up on her desk?
Aidan: She even believed it. I wish I had thought of that one! I would rather have spent the period in the clinic instead of sitting in that class. Everyone but Kelly nodded their heads in agreement.

Reagan looked at Kelly and asked, “Didn’t you think that was hysterical?” Kelly felt that the substitute had started an interesting topic, but Pete had made it impossible for her to teach. Kelly thought Pete had been unnecessarily rude.
If you were Kelly, which would you be MOST inclined to say?
Please circle your choice.

To help us better understand the social experience of gifted students, the cross-cultural study of 2013 explored this topic. In the 90 interviews conducted across elementary, middle, and high school aged5 , gifted students in five countries (Ireland, United States, United Kingdom, France, and Korea), the social experiences described fell into six themes:

Positive Competition was only seen among UK and South Korean students, but the other themes described common experiences of all the students. Table 3.1 gives examples of CTYI students’ comments in each social experience theme.

• Awareness of Others’ Expectations

• Pressure

• Concerned About Peers’ Feelings

• Comfortable Among Gifted Peers

• Confused by Response of Peers

• Positive Competition

In the study, Irish primary school students were classified as elementary, Irish secondary school students at junior cycle as middle school and Irish secondary students at senior cycle as high school.

Note: Participant ID is country code (IR=Ireland), age group (E = elementary, M = middle, H = high), sex (F = Female, M = Male), and subject reference number (1–3).

The stigma of giftedness was evident in all the countries of this study. Irish students’ comments can be seen in Table 3.2. Students clearly wanted to have normal interactions, but were inhibited in some ways connected to their high abilities. CTYI students were keenly aware of their visibility as highly able and many reported being rejected by peers. Bragging, being “boasty,” was viewed quite negatively by many of the students in the study. Concern for peers’ feelings was often given as a reason for not drawing attention to one’s performance.

Note: Participant ID is country code (IR=Ireland), age group (E = elementary, M = middle, H = high), sex (F = Female, M = Male), and subject reference number (1–3).

The ways in which CTYI students cope with the stigmatizing effects of giftedness were consistent with those of students in the other countries. They hid their talents, conformed to others’ behavior, helped peers when they could, and focused on themselves without regard for what others were expecting from them. Table 3.3 includes examples of CTYI students’ coping strategies.

Note: Participant ID is country code (IR=Ireland), age group (E = elementary, M = middle, H = high), sex (F = Female, M = Male), and subject reference number (1–3).

We did find an age-related pattern among the gifted students participating in the study (see Figure 3.4). Elementary-aged students were proud of the recognition their outstanding abilities received. They were happy when their parents or teachers were proud of their achievements. By middle school, students began to express an awareness of problems associated with their abilities. They were subjected to higher expectations than peers from parents, teachers, and even classmates. They experienced peers’ jealousy, rejection, and demands for help. By high-school age, these high-ability students had learned to accept these difficulties and developed coping strategies for dealing with them. Importantly, the high school students in the cross-cultural study were participating in gifted programs at the time of the research. It is likely that some students who learn in middle school about the challenges of higher expectations and peer rejection or demandingness will decide to leave such programs. Better understanding these difficulties and creating more positive environments will help more students achieve to their potential.

In 2020, Irish students – and most students around the world – had strictly curtailed social experiences with peers. Most students attended online school. For the majority, this was their first experience with virtual schooling. “Schools are,” Tracy Cross says, “first and foremost a social enterprise, where some academic learning goes on” (2018; p. 184). What would that social enterprise be like among CTYI students in online school? Sixteen Irish students (88% female) participated in interviews designed to explore the social experience of online learning during the pandemic. When school was totally online, these students had very little interaction with peers. During school, many peers kept their video off, so students could often not see one another in class. The experience of online classes overall was different, “I think when you’re in person you’ll tend to like ask questions. When you have to go through the trouble of like turning your mic on and like putting your hand up, people just wouldn’t, so the classes were very like silent. Some classes had like a different atmosphere to them” (6th Year Female, #2111). Some students saw only the teacher during the time their classes were online. When asked if classmates were more or less friendly in online school, one student responded, “They were mute in online school” (5th Year Male, #2113).

The effects of social comparison were different in online school. It was not even possible at times to know how another student was doing. In inperson school, body language could be a clue to whether a classmate needed help, but this clue was not accessible when school was online.

“To be honest, you couldn’t tell. I mean, like I said, some people weren’t even on their computers and if their camera is off you really couldn’t tell. And even if their cameras are on everybody has this like mutual blank expression where they just like stare off into the middle distance. That could be going in one ear and out the other or they could be understanding everything, or they could be understanding nothing because the breakout rooms were kind of few and far between a little bit scattered.” (5th Year Female)

In contrast to the frequency of the Top of Class experience in person, it was also not possible for other students to know how well the CTYI students were doing. The stigma of giftedness and the social comparisons that underpin some of the threatening interactions students responded to with coping strategies simply did not happen in online school. Cameras and microphones off and few personal interactions, made for a comparatively sterile social environment.

Some students made opportunities to engage with peers outside of class, through texting, setting up their own online social groups, or joining in others’ groups for activities such as online baking. Remote school may have been a place for introverts to flourish. The CTYI students interviewed were mixed on whether the year of online school during the pandemic was a lonely one. Ten of the sixteen said it was not. They maintained connections to friends (“I was able to talk with my friends. I found the ground.” [5th Year Female]) or stayed active with extracurriculars:

To be honest, I had like loads of things to keep me occupied. Because, like I have a book buying addiction and I need to finish the books that I’ve already bought, and like, I already have like lots of things on my to do list anyway. It was like, oh, learn how to skateboard and learn how to do anatomy or paint. (3rd Year Female, #2115)

Families also kept students from being lonely, “I would not say it was lonely because we have a big house - 6 people. So, no it wouldn’t be lonely. So one of my sisters is real close in age and we get along very well. So definitely no, it wouldn’t be lonely” (5th Year Female, #2102). Other students felt very lonely, even those who had made friends.

One positive outcome of this social isolation was that not a single student saw evidence of bullying while students were attending school remotely. There was no opportunity for this kind of negative interaction while schools dealt with the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. How these unusual experiences may affect the lives of high-ability students in the future remains to be seen.

Relationships with parents and siblings are integral to CTYI students’ well-being. Nearly all students in the studies of self-concept had positive perceptions of their relationship with parents, especially the primary students. On average, they agreed that their parents understand them, they get along well, and that “If I have children of my own, I want to bring them up like my parents raised me.” When asked not just how well they like their parents or feel understood, but how well can they get their support when they need it, most students had high confidence they could get their parents to help with a problem or to take part in school activities. Students in the Overcontroller personality class (high Neuroticism, low Extraversion) consistently were least confident, however, and Resilient students were consistently most confident. Siblings can also be a resource when needed, but students in all personality classes were less confident of their support. Positive attitudes about parent relationships were related to positive attitudes toward school.

An inability to get help from parents may be an indication of overly busy parents or, perhaps, of low responsiveness in an authoritarian or neglecting parenting style. In any case, when a child does not perceive support from parents there may be negative outcomes. Forty-three percent of students in the Overcontroller personality class believed they could not get help from their parents when needed. To support these students, it may be important to provide a stable source of responsiveness. Social connections outside the family can also fulfill belonging needs. Four out of 10 students in the Undercontroller personality class (gregarious, disagreeable) did not think they could get help from siblings when they needed it, while 16% believed they could do so “Very Well.” Although the majority of these Undercontroller students were quite confident their parents would be responsive to their needs, 20% of Undercontrollers did not believe they could get help from parents when needed.

Gifted students usually enter school ready to learn, but schools are not always prepared to provide what they need (Coleman et al., 2015). Schools tend to be focused on the needs of the average students, who are, by definition, the majority of the student population.

Adams (2021) describes effective programs as having “the following clearly articulated elements: a philosophy, goals, a definition, an identification plan, a coherent curriculum, a scope and sequence, a professional development plan, and an evaluation plan” (p. 128). With appropriate administrative support and resources, such a program can provide the advanced curriculum needed for many gifted students. A new movement in the field of gifted education proposes an emphasis on talent development, a focus on developing talents in a specific domain, rather than creating general programs to serve all students at an advanced level. In their School-Based Conception of Giftedness and Talent Development, T. Cross and Cross (2021) go beyond programs to recommend a whole-school focus on the development of talent among all students, not only those identified as gifted. In this conception, all students receive opportunities to learn at an advanced level. Those who are successful and interested in the subject area are given the supports and resources they need to continue developing in that area, resulting in a motivated student who can learn at their own pace. The nascent stage of gifted education in Ireland suggests this may be a time when adopting a talent development model is possible.

The type of instruction that is most effective for gifted learners is not entirely different from what is effective for all students. What is known to be effective for all students is also known to be effective with gifted students, but there are critical differences. Gifted students need curriculum that is more challenging than that for average students, offered at a pace that matches their rate of learning (Tomlinson, 2005). They need advanced materials, and many prefer more abstract content and tasks than their peers. The ability to pursue topics of interest more broadly and deeply will satisfy their desire to learn in-depth, supporting their motivation in school. Many schools seek to cater for gifted students through curriculum differentiation. When differentiation is the framework for providing gifted education, teachers learn what their students already know through preassessments, then offer instruction at an appropriate level to groups or individual students in the same classroom. Effective curriculum differentiation requires a commitment of time and resources. Without strong support for teacher training, time for planning, and materials or assistance needed to teach a variety of lessons, differentiation will not be successful as a means of serving high-ability students (Hertberg-Davis, 2009).

Another effective method of providing the advanced instruction gifted students need is through acceleration. Grade-skipping is the form of acceleration that is best known, but there are actually many forms. Southern and Jones (2015) describe 20 different types, including grade-skipping, but also subject-matter acceleration, curriculum compacting, and concurrent/ dual enrollment, for example. All of these practices, including grade-skipping, have been found to be very effective. Although grade-skipping is often avoided for fears of causing social and emotional harm to the accelerated student, research evidence supports the opposite: gains for students both academically and in the social/emotional realm (Rogers, 2015).

In a 2014 study of more than 800 Irish teachers, school leaders, and other staff from across the country (J. Cross et al., 2014), 73.4% of respondents reported that grade acceleration was not allowed in their school. Most teachers indicated they were differentiating their instruction for high-ability students, which they described as doing a few times per week through asking higher level questions, offering more challenging tasks and individual projects, and grouping students by ability level. A closer analysis of the teachers’ reported practices (Hinch et al., 2018) focused on only those that were likely to be exclusively beneficial to students with high ability:

• assigning reading of more advanced level work,

• eliminating curricular material that students have mastered,

• and substituting different assignments for students who have mastered regular classroom work.

The number of teachers who reported regularly engaging in all three of these practices with gifted students, but not average students – actual differentiation – was only 3% of the total number of teachers. When teachers do not assign advanced level work, eliminate mastered material, and substitute different assignments when the work has been mastered, their gifted students will be receiving inadequate instruction.

A study of 1,440 parents about their 1,914 children who had attended CTYI (J. Cross, Cross et al., 2019) found a majority reported their children were happy in school (63.2%) and liked it (56.1%), but most parents (72.1%) were dissatisfied with their child’s educational experiences. They did not believe their CTYI-attending children were being challenged in school. They reported more than half of the children (54.5%) were not receiving assignments targeting their ability level. Parents of 71% of the secondary students reported they never received more challenging or complex assignments than their classmates. Although 85% of teachers reported they were differentiating the curriculum for their highability learners (J. Cross et al., 2014), this study of parents suggests that figure was not representative of the experience of high-ability students across Ireland.

In general, CTYI students in these studies were confident in their academic abilities. Primary students, in particular, saw themselves as good at reading and mathematics. All students considered their reading abilities to be strong. In an examination of CTYI students’ self-efficacy for learning in math, science, and humanities (O’Reilly et al., 2018), the majority of students had high selfefficacy in all subject areas (46%), one subset (35%) had high confidence in their mathematics abilities, but low confidence in the other humanities-related subjects. CTYI students in the smallest subset (19%) lacked confidence in math, but were quite confident in science and the humanities. Despite an average high confidence level, not all CTYI students will be confident in all subject areas.

Gifted students “have a right to learn something new every day” (Siegle, 2007). Waiting for others to learn material they already know is a common experience that can lead to boredom, frustration, underachievement, or even dropping out of school altogether. Curricular differentiation eliminates waiting by addressing students’ different needs for pacing, complexity, and challenge.

CTYI students reported infrequently being given differentiated lessons – lessons more challenging or more complex than the assignments of their peers. A majority (from 65% to 78%) of CTYI and CAT students reported rarely or never receiving differentiated lessons in their classes. It is possible that teachers provide differentiated assignments in a manner that is not obvious to students, but it would be difficult for them to not be aware so much of the time. Considering that nearly 85% of Irish secondary teachers reported they differentiate lessons for their high ability students (J. Cross et al., 2014), there appears to be a significant disconnect.

To learn more about CTYI students’ experiences of school, twelve CTYI students (50% female) were interviewed in the summer of 2019. In general, the interviews confirmed the findings of the 2015 and 2016 studies: Students rarely receive differentiated lessons and are often bored in school. Several students gave examples of differentiation, of excellent teachers, and of a positive academic experience. Nearly all students, however, described being bored, having poor teachers or an unstimulating curriculum. Peers were an important feature of their school lives. Friends were frequently named first when asked what they think about when they think of school. As we saw in their survey responses, sometimes peers do get in the way of their learning. CTYI students have varied reactions to their peers’ slower learning, but in this study, they primarily viewed a deficient education as a result of curricular, teaching, or logistical breakdowns.

CTYI was a welcome change from school. One student was eloquent in his metaphorical description of the difference:

Sometimes it feels like when you’re in school it’s... Compared to here [CTYI], when I’m here it feels like I’m swimming in an ocean and you get this really hard wave coming at you and you have to really challenge yourself to get through it. But once you get through it, you’ve got the sort of nice atmospheric like relaxation where it’s swaying, you can smell the seaweed and the salt. You can taste it in your mouth. It’s a really nice moment. Where the education system is like a swimming pool. It’s just easy the entire way through. No challenge, but then there’s the stench of chlorine and almost as though nothing’s... It doesn’t feel very... It feels almost surreal or, yeah, it doesn’t feel natural. (M6)

CTYI students reported that teachers more frequently made time for students’ questions (the Teacher Support factor; see Figure 4.2) in in-person classes than online. Teachers more frequently motivated their students and classes were more interesting, challenging, and fun (the Motivation Support factor) in in-person classes than in online classes. Students more regularly believed they could work at a higher level and keep up with their learning, or manage their time (the My Learning factor) when in-person than online. In contrast to these more positive in-person experiences, students reported they were better able to access a computer or the internet when needed in online than in in-person classes. In general, however, CTYI students perceived a better learning environment in their in-person classes, with the possible exception of computer access in school. CTYI’s virtual classes had even greater teacher availability and support for students’ motivation than in-person classes.

In 2017, partners in two countries were interested in collaborating on the research being conducted at CTYI – the Center for Talented Youth-Greece (CTYG), at Anatolia College in Thessalonika, and the Jagadis Bose National Science Talent Search (JBNS) in Kolkata. CTYG employs a definition similar to CTYI, accepting students scoring in the 95th percentile on a standardized ability test.

JBNS participants were attending the Talent Search and Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research (INSPIRE) programs. Admission to the programs requires a top 1% score on the national board examinations or through aptitude testing and interviews. The survey used in the 2015 study was modified for the Greek and Indian contexts and data was collected in 2017 and 2018.

The CTYG students were evenly divided by gender (50.7% female). The majority of JBNS students were male (63.5%). Students in the JBNS sample were almost exclusively in the grade equivalent of 5th Year, whereas CTYG students were nearly all 1st through 3rd year. The comparison CTYI and CAT samples were more evenly distributed among males and females and by Junior and Senior cycle.

The personality measure was not available for CTYG students, but JBNS students could be compared with Irish students on the personality measure. The three samples – CTYI, CAT, and JBNS – were similar in Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness. JBNS students were more extraverted and more agreeable than CTYI students. Self-efficacy scores were available for all four samples. CTYG students, who tended to be younger than the students in the other countries, had self-efficacy scores that were consistently higher than the Irish students’ scores, with the exception of self-efficacy to Resist Peer Pressure. JBNS students tended to have lower self-efficacy scores than CTYI and CAT students, but they were similar to CAT students in their Social and Self-Regulated Learning self efficacy. Implicit Person Theory was similar among the four groups. All had median scores bordering on a fixed mindset, hovering around a 3. All scores were closer to an incremental mindset than a fixed one.

Students in the four countries varied most in their social cognitive beliefs (Figure 5.1) and response to the scenarios (Figure 5.2). CTYI students had a notably high preference for working independently and higher agreement that other students get in the way of their learning. CTYG and JBNS students were less likely to agree they get more quickly bored with small talk than peers or that other students get in the way of their learning. All students agree at least somewhat that they are more serious about learning and prefer to work independently.

Students in Ireland were more likely than students in the other two countries to report that their assignments were rarely or never differentiated to target their ability level. JBNS students indicated they more regularly received differentiated assignments. Students in all programs reported being bored once a week or more often in their science classes. CTYG students were more frequently bored in their math and English classes than students in the other programs. JBNS students were unlikely to report being frequently bored in history or geography lessons.

The research described in this report has the potential to affect Irish gifted students’ well-being and improve the opportunities for the maximization of their potential. When we better understand their psychology and their social and academic experiences, we have an opportunity to strengthen their foundations of support at home and in school.

It is of paramount importance that others do not view them as monolithic, fitting a stereotype developed from media portrayals or experience with a few outliers recognizable for their intellectual talents. There is great diversity in this population, but the exceptional abilities they share may result in similar experiences in their environments. Attention to their internal differences and the effects these may have on their lived experiences can help adults fashion supportive environments.

The personality types identified among CTYI students are similar to those found in the general population, although the finding of a High Resilient group is a significant difference, as is the higher conscientiousness among students in the Undercontroller class. Personality is considered stable, but it is not impervious to change. In fact, studies have found less stability among adolescents, with truly stable personality occurring only in one’s 40’s. The CTYI students in our study may have a different personality profile as they mature. The majority of students fit the resilient type and will be able to adapt to most settings.

Gifted adolescents in general tend to be less extraverted than their typical peers. The CTYI students who are more introverted will flourish in calm, small group settings that attend to their introversion by reducing irritating stimuli. Those who tend to be less emotionally stable (high neuroticism) will benefit when others encourage their resilience through caring and supportive messaging. Professional counseling may be needed to help the Overcontroller students in reshaping their concerns of being evaluated by others (socially prescribed perfectionism) and providing strategies for coping with stressful situations. CTYI students in the Undercontroller class will benefit from social skill development, including development of their perspective-taking skills. Their strong desire to engage with others (extraversion) may provide an inroad to teaching better strategies for interaction.

CTYI students tended to have strong confidence in their academic abilities, although this did vary by subject area. The students in the Superstars class, who made up 25% of the students in the 2013-2105 studies, had very high confidence across the board, but nearly all the other students could improve on their belief that they can enlist the support of parents, siblings, and community members to help them with a problem. Teaching students how to recognize the sources of support they can count on and how to persuasively articulate their needs may improve their beliefs about others’ support for them. In other areas where confidence is lacking, students will benefit when they have opportunities to be successful, particularly after receiving constructive feedback, or seeing the model of others trying hard at a task. Boosting self-efficacy will improve students’ well-being and their academic success. The importance of authentic praise, for students’ actual behaviors and not just the end result, is helpful in developing self-efficacy and a growth mindset.

Nearly all CTYI students exhibited high levels of selforiented perfectionism. This type of perfectionism is associated with positive striving, a good thing in terms of academic success and well-being. When CTYI students become concerned that they must be perfect to meet others’ expectations, negative outcomes are likely to ensue. To avoid this concern, which was highest among the students in the Overcontroller class, it is important to foster an ethic of care, reducing unrealistic expectations. Knowing what is unrealistic for these students can be a challenge in itself, because they can do so much. In an atmosphere of trust, when they are not worried about being dismissed or criticized, these students will tell you what they think. Listening to them, encouraging them to be open with their feedback, will be successful only if adults are committed to being responsive to the students’ needs. Greenspon (2021) recommends adults develop empathy for the student by attempting to learn how they see the world. Pointing out their likeable qualities, as opposed to their achievements, can draw attention away from the perfect products and behaviors the students have come to believe is so important. High expectations alone do not produce fearful perfectionists. When they are accompanied by adults who model a positive attitude toward failure as a learning opportunity, who are warm and accepting of the child’s efforts, students will lose their fear of being evaluated negatively.

The majority of CTYI students in this research had indicators of positive peer relationships. These students are like many others who feel different from peers, especially in terms of their seriousness about learning. This is one reason programs like CTYI are so important. Students are able to find intellectual peers who are similarly motivated to learn. In a mixed-ability classroom, CTYI students may worry about the visibility of their exceptional cognitive abilities. They may be concerned about hurting their peers’ feelings if they outperform them. Teachers who avoid talking about the academic hierarchy in the class (e.g., holding up one student’s work as an example, pointing out who performed best) will reduce the cost of outperformance (Mikami et al., 2012).

Students can learn strategies for maintaining positive relationships with peers who cannot perform as well. Most already know the strategies of lowering oneself (e.g., hiding their accomplishments, downplaying their success, etc.) and helping peers, as we learned in these studies. Other strategies that can be helpful are likely to be effective in supporting a mixed-ability relationship: simply being nice, complimenting the other person, and doing favors. A positive environment will be a natural outcome when all students are encouraged to engage in prosocial behaviors. Lowering oneself, while helpful to relationships in the moment, may result in underachievement and loss of opportunity.

An appropriate education for gifted students is one that has curriculum that is more challenging than average, which utilizes advanced materials with options for learning at greater breadth, depth, and level of abstraction, offered at a pace that matches their rate of learning (Tomlinson, 2005). Finding the right combination of these characteristics for each child requires significant teacher skill, time for planning, and access to resources. High percentages of CTYI students reported rarely or never receiving assignments more challenging or complex than their peers received, indicating that the 85% of Irish teachers in a 2014 study (J. Cross et al., 2014) who claimed to be differentiating instruction in 51 their classes were likely not doing so effectively. Many CTYI students reported being frequently bored in their classes and unable to go as in-depth as they would like.

Effective differentiation is only possible with appropriate professional development for teachers, adequate time for increased lesson planning, and the materials needed for this specialized instruction. All of this requires strong support from administrators. The contemporary movement in gifted education is toward a talent development approach (National Association for Gifted Children Talent Development Task Force, 2015), which takes a broad, inclusive perspective to offer advanced instruction to all students capable of achieving at that level. The focus is on providing opportunities to explore domains of talent early, with targeted instruction designed to develop students’ abilities in areas where they show exceptional ability and are motivated to learn at a higher level than peers. Talent development as the framework for offering gifted education will be best accomplished when the whole school applies its principles (T. Cross & Cross, 2021a).

CTYI programs offer gifted students tremendous opportunities for enrichment in a stimulating, challenging environment. When gifted education is lacking in their home schools, CTYI students find great satisfaction in the advanced programs it offers and revel in the time spent with intellectual peers. CTYI does an outstanding job of attending to the needs of this population, but it is available only to students who can access classes at the Dublin City University campus or other satellite locations and who can afford the tuition. Making it more available to students across the country and providing scholarships to those who qualify would be a great boon to more gifted students in Ireland.

Enrichment programs like CTYI, motivating and challenging as they are, are not a substitute for a home school that addresses gifted students’ needs. Advanced curriculum should be planned, with a scope and sequence that can be applied throughout the 13 years of schooling. To become expert in students’ areas of talent, they must have a firm foundation for their later learning, with increasing challenge that leads to expert performance. Additionally, schools must attend to the psychosocial needs of their students, without which they are unlikely to persevere through difficulty or know the psychological and social strategies needed to succeed in their talent domain. Trained school counselors who are versed in the unique needs of gifted students and how to offer the support they need will be invaluable (T. Cross & Cross, 2021b).

Irish gifted students are not all alike. They differ in personality, confidence, social acumen, and interests. Among the students attending CTYI programs who participated in these studies were many confident, well-adjusted, and socially competent adolescents. There was also a subset of students who need extra support from adults who care about them and their well-being. It is important that we better understand these students and learn how to create environments that allow them to achieve their maximum potential while living a good life.

Ablard, K. E., & Mills, C. J. (1996). Implicit theories of intelligence and self-perceptions of academically talented adolescents and children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01537340 

Adams, C. (2021). Introduction to programming for gifted learners. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.)  Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents, 2^nd ed. (pp. 125-143). Prufrock Academic Press. 

Aguilar, L., Downey, G., Krauss, R., Pardo, J., Lane, S., & Bolger, N. (2016). A dyadic perspective on speech accommodation and social connection: Both partners’ rejection sensitivity matters. Journal of Personality, 84(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12149

Almack, J. C. (1922). The influence of intelligence on the selection of associates. School Sociology, 16, 529–30.

Altemeyer, R. A. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Academic Press.

American Psychological Association. (2020). APA dictionary of psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org 

Asendorpf, J. B., Borkenau, P., Ostendorpf, F., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2001). Carving personality description at its joints: Confirmation of three replicable personality prototypes for both child and adults. European Journal of Personality, 15, 169–198. 

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall. 

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.   

Bandura, A. (1989). Multidimensional scales of perceived self-efficacy [Database Record]. PsycTests. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/t06802-000  

Bandura A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman. 

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.  

Barańczuk, U. (2021). The Five-Factor Model of personality and generalized self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Individual Differences, 42(4), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000345 (Supplemental) 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4, 99–102.  

Bellmore, A. (2011). Peer rejection and unpopularity: Associations with GPAs across the transition to middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023312 

Berlin, J. E. (2009). It’s all a matter of perspective: Student perceptions on the impact of being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper Review, 31(4), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903177580

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246–263.  

Bratt, C., Sidanius, J., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2016). Shaping the development of prejudice: Latent growth modeling of the influence of social dominance orientation on outgroup affect in youth. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(12), 1617–1634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216666267

Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Oh, S. (2017). Describing the status of programs for the gifted: a call for action. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(1) 20–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216686215 

Carter-Sowell, A. R., Wesselmann, E. D., Wirth, J. H., Law, A., Zhansheng Chen, Kosasih, M. W., van der Lee, R., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Strides for belonging trump strides for superiority: Effects of being ostracized for being superior or inferior to the others. Journal of Individual Psychology, 66(1), 68–92.

Cohen, R., Duncan, M., & Cohen, S. L. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children participating in a pull-out enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800105 

Coleman, L. J. (1985). Schooling the gifted. Addison-Wesley.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41-56.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1993). Relationships between practices and outcomes in a summer residential school for gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16(4), 420-441. 

Coleman, L. J., Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2021). Lived experience, mixed messages and stigma. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.)  Handbook for Counselors Serving Students with Gifts and Talents, 2^nd ed. (pp. 427-450). Prufrock Academic Press.

Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 358–376.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607322 

Costa, A., & Faria, L. (2018). Implicit theories of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Frontiers of Psychology, 9, 829. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00829 

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101. 

Cross, J. R. (2016). Crowds. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Adolescence (pp. 573-580). Springer. 

Cross, J. R. (2021). Peer relationships. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.)  Handbook for Counselors Serving Students with Gifts and Talents, 2^nd ed.  (pp. 471-488). Prufrock Press.

Cross, J. R., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Clinical and mental health issues in counseling the gifted individual. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 163-172.

Cross, J. R., Bugaj, S. J., & Mammadov, S. (2016). Accepting a scholarly identity: Gifted students, academic crowd membership, and identification with school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39, 23-48.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215624162

Cross, J. R., Cross, T. L., O’Reilly, C., & Mammadov, S. (2014). Gifted Education in Ireland: Educators’ Beliefs and Practices. Report prepared for Centre for Talented Youth – Ireland. 

Cross, J. R., Cross, T. L., O’Reilly, C., Vaughn, C. T., & Carroll, E. (2019). Gifted education in Ireland: Parents’ beliefs and experiences. Report prepared for Centre for Talented Youth – Ireland.

Cross, J. R., & Fletcher, K. L. (2010). Associations of parental and peer characteristics with adolescents’ social dominance orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 40, 694-706.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9585-7

Cross, J. R., & Fletcher, K. L. (2017, August). Comparison of Social Dominance Orientation between Honors and General College Students. Poster presentation at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Cross, J. R., O’Reilly, C., Kim, M., Mammadov, S. & Cross, T. L. (2015). Social coping and self-concept among young gifted students in Ireland and the United States: A cross-cultural study. High Ability Studies, 26, 39-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1031881

Cross, J. R., Vaughn, C. T., Mammadov, S., Cross, T. L., Kim, M., O’Reilly, C., Spielhagen, F., Pereira Da Costa, M., & Hymer, B. (2019). A cross-cultural study of the social experience of giftedness. Roeper Review, 41, 224-242.

Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (1992). Gifted high school students’ advice to science teachers. Gifted Child Today, 15(5), 25-26.

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., & Stewart, R. A. (1995). Psychosocial diversity of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of the giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 17, 181–185. 

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., & Cross, J. R. (2017). Suicide among students with gifts and talents. In S. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy-Dedrick, & M. Foley-Nicpon (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 601–614). American Psychological Association.  

Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2021a). A school-based conception of giftedness: Clarifying roles and responsibilities in the development of talent in our public schools. In R. J. Sternberg & D. Ambrose (Eds.) Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 83-98). Palgrave MacMillan.

Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (Eds.). (2021b). Handbook for Counselors Serving Students with Gifts and Talents, 2^nd ed.  Prufrock Press.

Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2022). From managing stigma to forming friendships: Introducing a model of friendship development. Gifted Child Today, 45(1), 58-61. DOI: 10.1177/10762175211050697. 

Cross, T. L., Cross, J. R., & O’Reilly, C. (2018). Attitudes about gifted education among Irish educators. High Ability Studies, 29(2), 169-189. 

Cross, T. L., Hernandez, N. R., & Coleman, L. J. (1991). Governor’s schools: An idea whose time has come. Gifted Child Today, 14(3), 29-31.

Dai, D. Y. (2004). How universal is the big-fish-little-pond effect? American Psychologist, 59, 267–268.  

Dai, D. Y., & Rinn, A. N. (2008). The big-fish–little-pond effect: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Psychological Review, 20, 283-317.

Damian, L. E., Stoeber, J., Negru, S. O., & Băban, A. (2017). On the development of perfectionism: The longitudinal role of academic achievement and academic efficacy. Journal of Personality, 85(4), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12261 

De Vries, R. E., Pronk, J., Olthof, T., & Goossens, F. A. (2020). Getting along and/or getting ahead: Differential hexaco personality correlates of likeability and popularity among adolescents. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2243 

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Department of Education. (2021). Education indicators for Ireland December 2021. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/055810-education-statistics/ 

Does, S., & Mentovich, A. (2016). Rooting for the top dog: How social dominance motives shape group preference in intergroup competition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.002

Donellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2010). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled personality types: Issues and controversies. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1070–1083.  

Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Academic Press. 

Duffy, A. L., Gardner, A. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2020). Peer rejection and dislike. In M. J. Zimmer-Gembeck & A. M. Waters, (Volume Editors) S. Hupp & J. D. Jewel, (Series Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Development: Emotion in Childhood (pp. 1727–1740). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781119171492.wecad191 

Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674–685.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077149  

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Taylor & Francis. 

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. Random House. 

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.  

 Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101.  

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) and S. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 1017–1095). Wiley. 

Eisenberger, N. J., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K., D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290-292. 

Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463-482.

Exline, J. J., & Lobel, M. (1999). The perils of outperformance: Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening upward comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 307–337.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.307 

Farmer, T. W., & Hollowell, J. H. (1994). Social networks in mainstream classrooms: Social affiliations and behavioral characteristics of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2(3), 143–155, 163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1 06342669400200302 

Farmer, T., Irvin, M., Leung, M.-C., Hall, C., Hutchins, B., & McDonough, E. (2010). Social preference, social prominence, and group membership in late elementary school: homophilic concentration and peer affiliation configurations. Social Psychology of Education, 13(2), 271–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-009-9107-1

Fegert, J. M., Vitiello, B., Plener, P. L., & Clemens, V. (2020). Challenges and burden of the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: A narrative review to highlight clinical and research needs in the acute phase and the long return to normality. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health, 14(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-020-00329-3

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 

Finn J. D., & Zimmer K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In Christenson S., Reschly A., Wylie C. (Eds.) Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97-131). Springer.

Fletcher, K. L., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2012). Research on perfectionism and achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 668–677. doi:10.1002/pits.21623 

Fletcher, K. L., & Neumeister, K. S. (2017). Perfectionism in schools: When achievement is not so perfect. Momentum Press. 

Foliano F., Rolfe H., Buzzeo J., Runge J. & Wilkinson D. (2019). Changing mindsets: Effectiveness trial. Evaluation Report. Education Endowment Foundation, London. https://www.niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Changing%20Min… 

Francis, B., Skelton, C., & Read, B. (2010). The simultaneous production of educational achievement and popularity: How do some pupils accomplish it? British Educational Research Journal, 36, 317–340.

Freitag, E. (2020, October 30). Letʼs fight about the future of public education. Chalkbeat. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/10/30/21540098/lets-fight-future-of-public-education

French, L. R., Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2011). Do gifted students really prefer to work alone? Roeper Review, 33, 145–159. 

Gadzikowski, A. (2016). Everyday differentiation: How administrators support differentiation of curriculum and instruction in early childhood classrooms. Exchange, January/February, 12-16. www.ChildCareExchange.com

Gilman, R., Carter-Sowell, A., DeWall, C. N., Adams, R. E., & Carboni, I. (2013). Validation of the Ostracism Experience Scale for Adolescents. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030913 

Gorman, A. H., Kim, J., & Schimmelbusch, A. (2002). The attributes adolescents associate with peer popularity and teacher preference. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 143–165. 

Greenspon, T. S. (2021). Perfectionism in context: Empathic gateways to a recovery process. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.)  Handbook for Counselors Serving Students with Gifts and Talents, 2^nd ed. (pp. 733-752). Prufrock Academic Press.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27. 

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2017). The implicit revolution: Reconceiving the relation between conscious and unconscious. American Psychologist, 72(9), 861–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000238 

Guo, G. (2006). Genetic similarity shared by best friends among adolescents. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9, 113-121.

Hakulinen, C., Elovainio, M., Pulkki, R. L., Virtanen, M., Kivimäki, M., & Jokela, M. (2015). Personality and depressive symptoms: Individual participant meta-analysis of 10 cohort studies. Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269), 32(7), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22376 

Hamm, J. V. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African American, Asian American, and European American adolescents’ selection of similar friends. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.36.2.209 

Hartl, A. C., Laursen, B., Cantin, S., & Vitaro, F. (2020). A test of the bistrategic control hypothesis of adolescent popularity. Child Development, 91(3), e635–e648. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13269 

Heaven, P. C. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality, 15, 49–56.

Heaven, P. C. L., Ciarrochi, J., & Leeson, P. (2011). Cognitive ability, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation: A five-year longitudinal study amongst adolescents. Intelligence, 39, 15-21.

Hébert, T. P. (2001). “If I had a new notebook, I know things would change”: Bright under- achieving young men in urban classrooms. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 174-194.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500303 

Herek, G. M. (2016). A nuanced view of stigma for understanding and addressing sexual and gender minority health disparities. LGBT Health, 3, 397–399. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2016.0154 

Hermann, K. M., & Lawrence, C. (2012). Family relationships. T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.)  Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents (pp. 393-407). Prufrock Press.

Hertberg-Davis, H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 251-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346927

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 456 – 470. 

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2004). Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.  

Hinch, L., Cross, J. R., Cross, T. L., & O’Reilly, C. (2018, August). Differentiation and teacher efficacy in Irish classrooms. Presentation at the European Council for High Ability, Dublin, Ireland.

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211432765

Huang, L.-L., & Liu, J. H. (2005). Personality and social structural implications of the situational priming of social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(2), 267–276. 

Huey, S. J., Jr., & Weisz, J. R. (1997). Ego control, ego resiliency, and the Five-Factor Model as predictors of behavioral and emotional problems in clinic-referred children and adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(3), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.106.3.404 

John, O. P., Angleitner, A., & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171-203.  

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory–versions 4a and 54. Berkeley: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley.  

Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209-232.

Kandler, C. (2012). Nature and Nurture in Personality Development: The Case of Neuroticism and Extraversion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 290–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452557 

Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20–28. 

King, R. B. (2020). Mindsets are contagious: The social contagion of implicit theories of intelligence among classmates. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12285 

Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development. 62, 284–300.

Lee, S-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 90-104.

Lippa, R., & Arad, S. (1999). Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463–493.

Locke, K. D. (2006). What predicts well-being: A consistent self-concept or a desirable self- concept? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 228–247. 

London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). Social causes and consequences of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17(3), 481–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2007.00531.x

Lyon, K. A., Elliott R., Ware, K., Juhasz, G., & Brown L. J. E. (2021). Associations between facets and aspects of big five personality and affective disorders: A systematic review and best evidence synthesis.” Journal of Affective Disorders, 288, 175–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.03.061. 

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist, 45, 513-520. 

Maddux, J. E. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. Plenum Press. 

Mammadov, S. (2020). A comparison of creativity‐relevant personal characteristics in adolescents across personality profiles. The Journal of Creative Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.451 

Mammadov, S. (2021). The Big Five personality traits and academic performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality. Advanced Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12663 

Mammadov, S., Ward, T. J., Cross, J. R., & Cross, T. L. (2016). Use of latent profile analysis in studies of gifted students. Roeper Review, 38, 175-184. DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1183739 

Marques, M. D., Feather, N. T., Austin, D. E. J., & Sibley, C. G. (2022). Attitudes towards favoring the fall of tall poppies: The role of social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, political ideologies, and self-esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1944034

Marsh, H. W. (1990). The Self-Description Questionnaire 1: Manual and research monograph. New South Wales, Australia: University of Western Sydney, McArthur.  

Marsh, H. W., & Ayotte, V. (2003). Do multiple dimensions of self-concept become more differentiated with age? The differential distinctiveness hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 687–706. 

Marsh, H. W., Chessor, D., Craven, R., & Roche, L. (1995). The effects of gifted and talented programs on academic self-concept: The big fish strikes again. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 285– 319.  

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (2003). Big-fish-little-pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58, 364–376.  

Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. J. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107–123.  

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. (1997). Coursework selection: Relations to academic self- concept and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 691–720.  

Martin, L. T., Burns, R. M., & Schonlau, M. (2010). Mental disorders among gifted and nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 31–41. doi:10.1177/0016986209352684 

Maslow, A. H. (1958). A Dynamic Theory of Human Motivation. In C. L. Stacey & M. DeMartino (Eds.), Understanding human motivation (pp. 26–47). Howard Allen Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1037/11305-004

Matthews, M. S. (2014). Self-concept and the gifted. In J. A. Plucker & C. M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says., 2nd ed. (pp. 567–575). Prufrock Press 

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. 

McAdams, D. P. (2019). The emergence of personality. In D. P. McAdams, R. L. Shiner, & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Handbook of personality development, pp. 3-19. Guilford Press.  

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Personality trait development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1456–1468. 

McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., & Mercer, L. (2001). The consequences of childhood peer rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 213–247). Oxford University Press.

Mikami, A. Y., Griggs, M. S., Reuland, M. M., & Gregory, A. (2012). Teacher practices as predictors of children’s classroom social preference. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 95-111.

Milfont, T. L., Bain, P. G., Kashima, Y., Corral-Verdugo, V., Pasquali, C., Johansson, L.-O., Guan, Y., Gouveia, V. V., Garðarsdóttir, R. B., Doron, G., Bilewicz, M., Utsugi, A., Aragones, J. I., Steg, L., Soland, M., Park, J., Otto, S., Demarque, C., Wagner, C., … Einarsdóttir, G. (2018). On the relation between social dominance orientation and environmentalism: A 25-nation study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 802–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722832

Mills, C. J. & Parker, W. D. (1998). Cognitive-psychological profiles of gifted adolescents from Ireland and the U.S.: Cross-societal comparisons. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(1), 1–16. 

Mio, M. G., & Matsumuto, Y. (2018). A single-session universal mental health promotion program in Japanese schools: A pilot study. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(10), 1727–1743. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7157

Miu, A. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Preventing symptoms of depression by teaching adolescents that people can change: Effects of a brief incremental theory of personality intervention at 9-month follow-up. Clinical Psychological Science, 3, 726–743.  

Mofield, E. L., & Chakraborti-Ghosh, S. (2010). Addressing multidimensional perfectionism in gifted adolescents with affective curriculum. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 479–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300403. 

Mofield, E. L., & Parker Peters, M. (2018). Mindset misconception? Comparing mindsets, perfectionism, and attitudes of achievement in gifted, advanced, and typical students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(4), 327–349. doi https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218758440.  

National Association for Gifted Children Talent Development Task Force. (2015). Report to the Board. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Governance/TalentDevelopmentTFReport_11%2003%2015_FINAL.pdf 

Neihart, M., & Olenchak, F. R. (2002). Creatively gifted children. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 165–176). Prufrock Press.  

Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: a meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2^nd ed. McGraw-Hill.

Nylund-Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000176 

O’Mara, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. L. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41, 181–206.  

O’Reilly, C. (2013). Gifted education in Ireland. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 97–118. doi:10.1177/0162353212470039

O’Reilly, C., Cross, T. L., & Cross, J. R. (2018, April). Preparing for psychological heterogeneity by identifying gifted students’ confidence in STEM and non-STEM disciplines. Presentation at the Wallace Research Symposium on Talent Development, Baltimore, MD.

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2015). Antecedent and concurrent psychosocial skills that support high levels of achievement within talent domains. High Ability Studies, 26(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1095077

Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2018). Talent development as a framework for gifted education: Implications for best practices and applications in schools. Prufrock Press. 

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low- accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.

Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionism in academically talented children. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 545 – 562. 

Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. J. (1996). The incidence of perfectionism in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 194 – 199.  

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/02724316980180 02001  

Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Preschool children’s attention to environmental messages about groups: Social categorization and the origins of intergroup bias. Child Development, 77(4), 847–860. 

Peine, M., & Coleman, L. (2010). The phenomenon of waiting in class. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 220-244.

Poteat, V. P., Horn, S. S., & Armstrong, P. I. (2017). Condoning discrimination: The effects of dominance and authoritarianism are moderated by different ways of reasoning about antigay discriminatory acts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(6), 831–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216638528

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601055772 

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. 

Prinstein, M. J., & La Greca, A. M. (2002). Peer crowd affiliation and internalizing distress in childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal follow-back study. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 325–351. 

Prinstein, M., & LaGreca, A. M. (2004). Childhood peer rejection and aggression as predictors of adolescent girls’ externalizing and health risk behaviors: A 6-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 103–112. 

Puckett, J. A., Zachary DuBois, L., McNeill, J. N., & Hanson, C. (2020). The association between social dominance orientation, critical consciousness, and gender minority stigma. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(8), 1081–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1603493

Rammstedt, B., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Borkenau, P. (2004). Resilients, overcon trollers, and undercontrollers: The replicability of the three personality prototypes across informants. European Journal of Personality, 18, 1–14. 

Rayner, S. G. (2001). Aspects of the self as learner: Perception, concept, and esteem. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), Self-perception (pp. 25–52). Ablex.  

Rinn, A. N., Plucker, J. A., & Stocking, V. B. (2010). Fostering gifted students’ affective development: A look at the impact of academic self-concept. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6(4) Article 1. http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss4/art1. 

Robinson, N. (1996). Counseling agendas for gifted young people: A commentary. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 128–137.

Rogers, K. B. (2015). The academic, socialization, and psychological effects of acceleration: Research synthesis. In N. Colangelo, J. L. VanTassel-Baska, A. Shoplik, & S. Assouline (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps excuses holding back America’s brightest students (pp. 19-29). Belin Blank Center for Talent Development. 

Rose, A., & Rudolph, K. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship process: Potential trade-offs for emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131.  

Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness (1st ed.). HarperOne. 

Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Temperament, development, and personality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(4), 207-212.

Rudasill, K. M., Foust, R. C., & Callahan, C. M. (2007). The Social Coping Questionnaire: An examination of its structure with an American sample of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 353–371.

Ruffman, T., Ruffman, C., Hill, S., Turunc, G., Park, N., Du, K., Hayhurst, J., Kang, J., Selçuk, B., Regenbrecht, H., Philipp, M. C., & Hunter, J. A. (2020). RWAc and SDOc: The measurement of right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in childhood. Social Development, 29(4), 1194–1214. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12438

Sak, U. (2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types of gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 70–79.  

Sandstrom, M. J., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Eisenhower, A. (2003). Children’s appraisal of peer rejection experiences: Impact on social and emotional adjustment. Social Development, 12(4), 530–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00247

Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009. 

Schroder, H. S., Dawood, S., Yalch, M. M., Donnellan, M. B., & Moser, J. S. (2015). The role of implicit theories in mental health symptoms, emotion regulation, and hypothetical treatment choices in college students. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 39(2), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-014-9652-6 

Schuler, P. A. (2000). Perfectionism and gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(4), 183.  

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407–441.  

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. 

Sidanius, J., Sinclair, S., & Pratto, F. (2006). Social dominance orientation, gender, and increasing educational exposure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1640-1653.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.0021-9029.2006.00074.x 

Siegle, D. (2007). Gifted children’s bill of rights. National Association for Gifted Children. https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources-parents/gifted-ch…

Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Rnic, K., Saklofske, D. H., Enns, M., & Gralnick, T. (2016). Are perfectionism dimensions vulnerability factors for depressive symptoms after controlling for neuroticism? A meta‐analysis of 10 longitudinal studies. European Journal of Personality, 30(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2053 

Smith, M. M., Sherry, S. B., Vidovic, V., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J., & Benoit, A. (2019). Perfectionism and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 23(4), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318814973 

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big-five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348.  

Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2015). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In N. Colangelo, J. L. VanTassel-Baska, A. Shoplik, & S. Assouline (Eds.), A nation empowered: Evidence trumps excuses holding back America’s brightest students (pp. 9-18). Belin Blank Center for Talent Development. 

Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Understanding the relationship between perfectionism and achievement motivation in gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800306 

Speirs Neumeister, K. L (2016). Perfectionism in gifted children. In M. Neihart, S. I. Pfeiffer & T. L. Cross (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (2nd ed., pp. 29–40). Prufrock Press.  

Stajkovic, A. D., Bandura, A., Locke, E. A., Lee, D., & Sergent, K. (2018). Test of three conceptual models of influence of the big five personality traits and self-efficacy on academic performance: A meta-analytic path-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 238–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.08.014 

Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754–77. 

Stelmack, R. M. (1990). Biological bases of extraversion: Psychophysiological evidence. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00917.x 

Stoeber, J. (2014). Multidimensional perfectionism and the DSM-5 personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 115–120. 

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 295–319.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr10042 

Stoeber, J., Otto, K., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Perfectionism and the Big Five: Conscientiousness predicts longitudinal increases in self-oriented perfectionism. Personality & Individual Differences, 47(4), 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.004 

Stricker, J., Buecker, S., Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Intellectual giftedness and multidimensional perfectionism: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 391–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09504-1 

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: a proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056 

Swiatek, M. A. (1995). An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(3), 154–161. https://doi.org/10.11 77/001698629503900305

Swiatek, M. A. (2001). Social coping among gifted high school students and its relationship to self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 19–39.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005268704144 

Swiatek, M. A. (2012). Social coping. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross (Eds.)  Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents (pp. 665-679). Prufrock Press.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178. 

Taub, A. (2022, March 31). Why Putin name-checked J. K. Rowling. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/31/world/europe/putin-jk-rowling.html?s…

Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children: Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Thompson, K. L., & Bundy, K. A. (1996). Social skills training for young adolescents: Cognitive and performance components. Adolescence, 31(123), 505.

Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How SDO and RWA fuels ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1455-1464.

Thorndike, E. L. (1898). Animal intelligence: An experimental study of the associative processes in animals. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2(4), i-109. 

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Association for Supervising and Curriculum Development. 

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 160-166. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4402_10

Van Leeuwen, K. G., Mervielde, I., Braet, C., & Bosmans, G. (2004). Child personality and parental behavior as moderators of problem behavior: Variable- and person-centered approaches. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1028–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1028 

Vuyk, M. A., Kerr, B. A. & Krieshok, T. S. (2016). From overexcitabilities to openness: Informing gifted education with psychological science. Gifted and Talented International, 31(1), 59-71. DOI: 10.1080/15332276.2016.1220796 

Vuyk, M. A., Krieshok, T. S., & Kerr, B. A. (2016). Openness to experience rather than overexcitabilities: Call it like it is. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 192–211.  

Wegner, D. M., & Vallacher, R. R. (1977). Implicit psychology. Oxford.  

Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126–134. 

Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (Eds.). (2006). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Thomson Wadsworth. 

Wilson, M. S. (2003). Social dominance and ethical ideology: The end justifies the means? The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 549-558.

Yeager, D., & Dweck, C. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805 

Yeager D. S., Hanselman P., Walton G. M., Murray J. S., Crosnoe R., Muller C., Tipton E., Schneider B., Hulleman C. S., Hinojosa C. P., Paunesku D., Romero C., Flint K., Roberts A., Jill Trott, Iachan R., Buontempo J., Man Yang S., Carvalho C. M., Hahn P. R., Gopalan M., Mhatre P., Ferguson R., Duckworth A. L. & Dweck C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573, 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y 

Zeidner, M., & Shani-Zinovich, I. (2011). Do academically gifted and non-gifted students differ on the big-five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 566–570.  

Zell, A. L., Exline, J. J., & Lobel, M. (2020). Navigating the perils of outperforming others. In J. Suls, R. L. Collins, & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Social comparison, judgment, and behavior (pp. 280–308). Oxford University Press. 

Zhang, Z. (2017). Gifted education in China. Cogent Education, 4, 1–12. 

Ziegler, A., Fidelman, M., Reutlinger, M., Vialle, W., & Stoeger, H. (2010). Implicit personality theories on the modifiability and stability of the action repertoire as a meaningful framework for individual motivation: A cross-cultural study. High Ability Studies, 21(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2010.528924 

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Gardner, A. A., Hawes, T., Masters, M. R., Waters, A. M., & Farrell, L. J. (2021). Rejection sensitivity and the development of social anxiety symptoms during adolescence: A five-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 45(3), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025421995921

Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2003). Albert Bandura: The scholar and his contributions to educational psychology. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 431–457). Lawrence Erlbaum. 

acceleration – any of myriad educational practices designed to move a student through curriculum already mastered, e.g., grade-skipping, curriculum compacting, dual enrollment, etc.

achievement goal orientation – a desire to learn for mastery of content or as a performance for others

adaptive/healthy perfectionism - perfectionistic attitudes that lead to excellence and positive psychological outcomes

agreeableness – considerate, kind, cooperative, prosocial behavior

Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect – the experience of reduced self-concept when in the presence of others who perform better

cluster analysis – statistical technique for classifying cases (individuals) by multiple variables (characteristics) based on group similarity

conscientiousness – disciplined, organized, careful, diligent

differentiation – educational practice of modifying curriculum to meet the needs of learners of varying ability levels within the same classroom

downward comparison - perceiving onself as better than another person in characteristics or performance; part of social comparison theory

evaluative concerns – associated with socially prescribed perfectionism; a tendency to fear the negative evaluation of others in any effort that does not achieve perfection 

extraversion – outgoing, talkative, active

five-factor model – personality model proposing five dimensions of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism

fixed mindset – a belief that a human characteristic is an unchangeable entity within the person

group-based dominance – a belief that a hierarchical society should be maintained through a group’s aggressive assertion of dominance

growth mindset – a belief that a human characteristic can be changed, is malleable

homophily - biological tendency to be attracted to similar others

implicit theory – a theory one holds about the cause of events; beliefs that are implied rather than stated explicitly; may be unconscious beliefs

incremental – in implicit theory, a belief that change occurs in small, cumulative steps

invariance hypothesis – social dominance orientation is consistently higher among males than females

latent profile analysis – statistical technique for classifying cases (individuals) by multiple variables (characteristics) based on model fit

maladaptive/unhealthy perfectionism – perfectionistic attitudes that lead to negative psychological outcomes

neuroticism – moody, easily made anxious or distressed, fearful, emotionally unstable

openness to experience – includes intellectual curiosity, desire for variety and novelty, etc. 

opposition to equality - a belief that a hierarchical society should be maintained due to a preference for inequality among groups

ostracism – rejection by others by being excluded or ignored

other-oriented perfectionism - expecting flawless performance by others

overcontroller – personality type high in neuroticism, low in extraversion; attempts to excessive control over responses to environment

perfectionism/perfectionistic attitudes – a tendency to hold the expectation of the self or others that one’s performance or characteristics should be flawless

personality – a set of enduring characteristics or patterns of behavior for an individual

positive striving – associated with self-oriented perfectionism; a tendency to try for perfection while maintaining a positive attitude toward the learning benefits of failure

resilient – in personality research, high in all personality dimensions; flexible, adaptive response to environment

self-beliefs – broadly defined understanding of the self, who one is, what they do well/poorly, what they like, etc. 

self-concept – the beliefs one holds about their psychological and physical characteristics

self-efficacy – a perception of one’s ability to perform in a specific task or in general; component of motivation to try a task

self-oriented perfectionism – expecting flawless performance of the self

self-regulated learning – self-initiated monitoring and controlling of learning processes, such as studying, planning for assignments, etc.

sensitivity to being a target of threatening upward comparisons – concern that outperforming others may result in negative consequences, e.g., loss of friendship, physical harm

social cognitive beliefs – understanding and thought processes related to others

social comparison theory – all people compare themselves against others on any characteristic or performance; see upward/downward comparison

social coping – strategies one engages in to deal with the stigma of giftedness

social dominance orientation – a preference for groups in societies to be organized as egalitarian, with resources distributed equally among groups, or hierarchically, with one group holding disproportionate resources of social value

socially prescribed perfectionism – believing others expect flawless performance of oneself

stigma - the negative social attitude attached to a characteristic of an individual that may be regarded as a mental, physical, or social deficiency. a stigma implies social disapproval and can lead unfairly to discrimination against and exclusion of the individual. (apa dictionary)

stigma of giftedness paradigm – gifted students want normal social interactions, but once known as gifted will not be treated normally; will manage information to maximize social latitude

talent development – as a framework for gifted education, emphasizes identification of potential in early stages through offering opportunities to all students, increases challenge with maturity, focusing on development of talent in specific domains 

undercontroller - personality type high in extraversion, low in agreeableness; poor control over responses to environment

upward comparison – perceiving another person as better than oneself in characteristics or performance; part of social comparison theory

well-being - a state of happiness and contentment, with low levels of distress, overall good physical and mental health and outlook, or good quality of life (from APA dictionary)

ACADHI – SCCLU2; high academics self-concept cluster

ANOVA - univariate analysis of variance

APA – American Psychological Association

BFI – Big Five Inventory personality scale

BFLPE – Big-Fish-Little-Pond Effect 

CAT - Centre for Academic Talent program for students with test scores between 85^th - 94^th percentile

COVID-19 – Coronavirus disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus

CTYG - Center for Talented Youth-Greece

CTYI – Centre for Talented Youth-Ireland or its programs for students with test scores at 95^th percentile and above

ECHA – European Council for High Ability

EFA - Exploratory Factor Analysis

FFM – Five-Factor Model of personality

FFMCL1 – Moderate Resilients personality class; positive profile

FFMCL2 – Overcontrollers personality class; high neuroticism, low extraversion

FFMCL3 – Undercontrollers personality class; high extraversion, low agreeableness

FFMCL4 – High Resilients personality class; extremely positive profile

GBD – Group-Based Domination; see SDO

GENHI – overall high self-concept cluster

HAS – High Ability Studies Journal

INSPIRE - Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research program in Kolkata, India

IPT - Implicit Person Theory scale

JBNS - Jagadis Bose National Science Talent Search program in Kolkata, India

LPA - Latent Profile Analysis

LPA – Latent Profile Analysis

MSPSE - Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy

NAGC – National Association for Gifted Children

OCEAN – Personality factors Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism

OEQ – Opposition to Equality; see SDO

OES-A - Ostracism Experience Scale for Adolescents

OOP – other-oriented perfectionism

SCB – Social Cognitive Beliefs scale

SCCLU1 – GENHI self-concept cluster; overall high self-concept

SCCLU2 – ACADHI self-concept cluster; high academics self-concept

SCCLU3 – SCLOW self-concept cluster; overall low self-concept

SCCLU4 – SCMOD self-concept cluster; overall moderate self-concept

SCLOW – SCCLU3; overall low self-concept cluster

SCMOD – SCCLU4; overall moderate self-concept cluster

SCQ - Social Coping Questionnaire

SDO – Social Dominance Orientation

SECL1 – Pushovers self-efficacy class

SECL2 – Insecure self-efficacy class

SECL3 – Need a Boost self-efficacy class

SECL4 – Confident Majority self-efficacy class

SECL5 – Superstars self-efficacy class

SECL6 – Confident Pushovers self-efficacy class

SECLn – Self-Efficacy Class number 

SEGSS – Social Experience of Gifted Students Scale

SEGSS – Social Experience of Gifted Students Scale

SGP - Stigma of Giftedness Paradigm

SOP – self-oriented perfectionism

SPP – socially prescribed perfectionism

SRA – Society for Research on Adolescence

SRCD – Society for Research in Child Development

STTUC - sensitivity to being a target of threatening upward comparison