Introduction
In 21st Century Britain, government
guidance indicates that gifted and
talented learners are to be found in
“every year group in every
school/college” (DCSF, 2008).
However, there is a paucity of extant
research into the social and
psychological characteristics of this
significant subset of students.
Media reports have suggested there
may be adverse consequences to
being explicitly labelled as ‘gifted and
talented’ (e.g. Taylor, 2006), which
may link to the frequent
underachievement of this group (Reis
& McCoach, 2000).
Implications
The results suggest that there are no
adverse consequences to explicitly
labelling students (regardless of
gender or age) as ‘gifted and
talented’. Thus identifying these pupils
and providing specifically targeted
teaching and extension activities
should not be discouraged.
Equally, social and psychological
adjustment difficulties should not be
seen as the norm for gifted and
talented learners. If an individual
does present such concerns, this
warrants support and intervention.
Cairns, R. & Cairns, B. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
DCSF (2008). Identifying gifted and talented learners - Getting started. Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and
Families.
Frederickson, N., Simmonds, E., Evans, L., & Soulsby, C. (2007). Assessing the social and affective outcomes of inclusion.
British Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 105-115.
Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the
self-report version. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125-130.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver.
Hoare, P., Elton, R., Greer, A., & Kerley, S. (1993). The modification and standardization of the Harter self-esteem
questionnaire with Scottish school children. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2(1), 19-33.
Huebner, E. (1994). Preliminary development and validation of a multidimensional life satisfaction scale for children.
Psychological Assessment, 6(2), 149-158.
Reis, S. & McCoach, D. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted
Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170.
Taylor, M (2006, August 4). It's not cool to be clever at school, teachers warned. The Guardian, p. 9.
Research Questions
• How does the psychological well-being profile of
gifted and talented children and young people vary
between genders and across ages?
• Is there a difference in the extent to which
students labelled as ‘gifted and talented’ are socially
included compared to other individuals in their
school?
• Does this level of social inclusion differ for girls
compared to boys, and for pupils in primary school
compared to those in secondary school?
An Unwanted Gift? The Social Acceptability of
Being Gifted and Talented – Differences
Between Genders and Across Ages
Dr Timothy W. Jones
Results
No difference found in social inclusion of gifted and
talented (G&T) learners compared to their
classmates who were not identified as being G&T.
The G&T students were significantly less likely to be
socially excluded than their non-G&T peers.
Little difference in social acceptance within the G&T
sample. Primary-aged G&T were part of larger (or
more) friendship groups than secondary-aged G&T
students – as found in the general population.
G&T girls judged (by self, parents and teachers) to
demonstrate fewer hyperactivity and attentional
difficulties, and have more positive self-perceptions
of their own behavioural conduct than G&T boys.
Primary-school G&T participants had a better selfconcept for physical appearance, but secondaryschool G&T students reported more positive selfperceptions of scholastic competence, as well as
greater satisfaction in every aspect of their lives.
Procedure
A mixed-gender group of 60 pupils
explicitly identified by their schools as
being ‘gifted and talented’ were
recruited from three primary schools
(aged 7-9 years) and two secondary
schools (aged 12-14 years). The
study comprised three stages:
1. Self-report data was collected from
the gifted and talented sample.
2. Social inclusion data was collected
from the pupils in each class/form to
which the gifted and talented
participants belonged.
3. Parent- and teacher-report data
was collected from the parents and
class teachers/form tutors of the
gifted and talented participants.
Measures
• Self-Perception Profile for Children
(Harter, 1985; modified by Hoare et
al., 1993)
• Multidimensional Students’ Life
Satisfaction Scale (Huebner, 1994)
• Belonging Scale
(Frederickson et al., 2007)
• Strength and Difficulties
Questionnaire
(Goodman et al. 1998)
• Social Cognitive Mapping Survey
(Cairns & Cairns, 1994)
• Adult Profile of Children’s Thoughts
and Behaviours (adapted from Harter,
1985; Hoare et al., 1993)