/ Gifted Children and Adults:
Neglected Areas of Practice
JamesT.Webb, PhD
orking with gifted
and talented children
and their families
and with
gifted
adults is a neglected area of practice for
psychologists. Two widespread myths
among educators, pediatricians, and psychologists, are that gifted children and
adults are quite rare, and that bright minds
have few issues and seldom need special
help. In fact, gifted children and adults are
defined as those in the upper three to ten
percent of the population in any of several intellectual domains (NAGC, 2010).
Clinical and educational practice usually
focuses on disadvantaged persons and obvious psychopathology. Many are unaware
that talented and gifted children are at risk
for underachievement, peer relationship
issues, power struggles, perfectionism, existential depression, and other problems,
and that bright adults often have job difficulties, problems with peers, spouses or
children, and existential depression that
stem from giftedness. In addition, few psychologists understand that special issues
can arise when a child or adult is twice-exceptional - that is, gifted as well as having
a diagnosable condition such as a learning disability, vision difficulties, auditory
issues, ADHD, etc. As a result, many
gifted children and adults are being overlooked, misdiagnosed, and receiving treatment that may be inappropriate (SENG
Misdiagnosis Initiative, 2014).
W
The association of high ability with emotional or social difficulties has been, in
some ways, counter-intuitive. A primary
and generally accepted key facet of the
18
The National Register of Health Service Psychologists·
construct of "intelligence" is that intelligence includes problem-solving abilities
in various areas, including related areas
such as forethought, planning, reasoning
ability, capacity to see cause-effect relations, attention to details, memory for relevant data, and a wide array of knowledge
upon which the individual might draw (Sattler, 2008). To the extent that a person possesses more ofthese cognitive qualities, it
might seem that such an individual would
then have fewer - not more - social and
emotional problems. Using this logic, such
individuals should be able to anticipate,
avoid, and/or solve more interpersonal
problems than others and should have more
self-understanding.
Such assumptions and implications regarding the impact of intelligence on emotional and interpersonal functioning are
not always valid. Authors periodically have
written of individuals who were highly
able cognitively, but who demonstrated
significant emotional or interpersonal
deficits (e.g., Piirto, 2004). Other authors
(e.g., Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon,
2002; Kerr, 2014), however, have suggested that intelligence does seem related
to interpersonal adaptiveness.
Historically, controversy has existed about
the extent to which intellectually gifted
children and adults are prone to social and
emotional problems. Looking back to the
early 1900s, the prevailing notion within
Western cultures was that intellectually
gifted children were constitutionally more
prone to insanity or to becoming social misfits, and that early cognitive development
The Register Rcporr
s
Spring 2014
was likely to result in early atrophy, as was
expressed in the then-popular saying of
"Early ripe; early rot." The classic Terman
longitudinal studies of gifted children disproved this general notion and found that
the identified gifted children were, as a
group, no more likely to experience social
or emotional difficulties than were children
in general (Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden,
1947). In fact, these children seemed to
have fewer problems, although retrospective
consideration suggested that Terman's sample was probably biased in ways that favored environmentally advantaged, teacherfavored children, many of whom received
advice and guidance as they grew (Kerr,
1991; Webb,Amend, Webb, Goerss, Beljan,
& Olenchak, 2005).
Voices subsequent to Terman sometimes
differed. Hollingworth (1926,1942; Klein,
2002) agreed with Terman's findings with
regard to most gifted children, but noted
that children of unusually high intelligence
seemed more prone to certain types of
problems. Using the then-new IQ tests,
Hollingworth concluded that there was an
optimum intelligence range of about 120145, in which range children generally
had fewer social and emotional problems.
However, children above that range, in her
opinion, were more at risk for various personal and interpersonal difficulties.
In the 1940s and 1950s, little professional
emphasis was placed on social or emotional problems of gifted children, although a few authors (e.g., Strang, 1951;
Witty, 1940) wrote about the psychology
of gifted students. In the 1960s and 1970s,
...few psychologists understand that special issues can arise when a child or
adult is twice-exceptional - that is,gifted as well as having a diagnosable
condition such as a leaming disability, vision difficulties, auditory issues,
ADHD, etc.As a result, many gifted children and adults are being
overlooked, misdiagnosed, and receiving treatment that may be
inappropriate (SENG Misdiagnosis Initiative, 2014).
a very few programs were available to
counsel and guide gifted students, usually
such programs were affiliated with universities (Kerr, 1991), but few published
studies concerned social-emotional needs.
In the 1980s, a surge of interest occurred in
this topic stimulated by Guiding the Gifted
Child (Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982),
anAPA award-winning book about social
and emotional issues of gifted children,
and by a new program called Supporting
Emotional Needs of Gifted (www.sengifted.org). SENG continues as a nationwide non-profit organization that focuses
on social and emotional issues of bright
children and adults. Subsequently, the National Association for Gifted Children created a Counseling and Guidance Division.
Limited research was available at that time,
and information came primarily from the
experiences of numerous therapists, educators, parents, and counselors.
In the last few decades, new issues, perspectives, and substantial research have
emerged, and particular attention has been
given to reconceptualizing the concepts
of "intelligence" and "giftedness," as well
as the methods used to identify such children (Worrell, Subotnik, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2013). The National Association
for Gifted Children has noted that "individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or
competence (documented performance or
achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or
more domains" and that "The development of ability or talent is a lifelong
process." (NAGC, 2010). Prior to that time,
educational and psychological practice al-
most exclusively identified gifted children
in terms of intellectual ability and/or specific academic aptitude, despite the conceptual breadth of legislative or textbook
definitions. In particular, "giftedness" was
often treated as though it were synonymous with intelligence test scores and/or
academic achievement test scores or educational achievements (Webb & Kleine,
1993).
As a result, most of the research and observations concerning the social and emotional needs of gifted children is based on
gifted children who were considered gifted
in those traditional ways. That is, the existing knowledge about possible social and
emotional difficulties is derived from children who showed unusual aptitude and
performance in academic areas-i.e., children who were already functioning pretty
The National Register of Health Service Psychologists·
The Register Report e Spring 2014
19
Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice
well in school. Highly able students who
were unwilling or unable to show their
abilities academically (e.g., underachievers or those who also had a learning disability or emotional problems) were not
studied, nor were children with high aptitude in other areas such as music or art.
It is important to recognize that the literature concerning social-emotional needs
of gifted children and adults can be
grouped into two basic categories. One
group of authors views gifted and talented
persons as being prone to problems and
in need of special interventions to prevent
or overcome their unique difficulties (e.g.,
Altman, 1983; Delisle, 2005; Hayes &
Sloat, 1989a; Lovecky, 2003; Silverman,
1991). The other group of authors views
gifted children as generally being able to
fare quite well on their own, and gifted
children with problems needing special
interventions are seen as a relative minority (e.g., Janos & Robinson, 1985; Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002;
Robinson, Shore & Enerson, 2006).
These divergent views are not as contradictory as they first appear. Those authors
who find that gifted children are doing relatively well on their own usually have focused on students from academic programs
specifically designed for gifted children.
Such children, by the very nature of the
selection process, are typically functioning
well in school, which then generally implies also that they would not be experiencing major social or emotional problems. Such selection procedures are likely
to limit the representativeness of the sample ofthe gifted children being studied and
would exclude gifted children who are academically underachieving because of social or emotional problems and who are
not being served educationally in special
programs for gifted children. An underestimate of social and emotional issues is
likely. By contrast, those authors who find
frequent problems among gifted children
often rely on data gathered in clinical settings and from individual case studies
where the population is self-selecting. As
a result, there is likely a sample bias that
would prompt an over-estimate of the in-
20
The National Register of Health Service Psychologists·
cidence of social and emotional difficulties.
Both views have at least partial validity.
Gifted children who are able to function
sufficiently in school settings such that
they can be identified as such are likely
also to be functioning generally well in
other areas oflife, and thus do not appear
to be at major risk for developing social
and emotional problems, particularly if
these children are also being served by
some school program which is attempting
to meet their needs. On the other hand,
high potential gifted children who have not
been identified and are not in school programs appear to be more at risk for cer-
...high potential gifted
children who have
not been identified
and are not in school
programs appear to
be more at risk for
certain social and
emotional difficulties.
tain social and emotional difficulties. The
latter group has been the subject of fewer
empirical studies, however, probably because of the difficulties in locating subjects in ways that fit with accepted experimental designs, as well as because of the
emphasis on considering children as gifted
only when they overtly have achieved.
Most of the research has focused on gifted
children, and little has been done on gifted
adults. Some researchers have supposed
a link between creativity and bipolar
and/or depressive conditions (e.g., Piirto,
2004; Andreason, 2008; Ludwig, 1995;
Jamison, 1996). Others, however, have
found significant shortcomings in the research designs of those researchers (Kaufman, 2013; Schlesinger, 2013). Others
have written about their observations of
The Register Report
s
Spring 2014
higher frequencies in gifted adolescents
and adults of existential depressions
(Webb, 2014), alcohol consumption
(Kanazawa & Hellberg, 2010), eating disorders (Kerr & Kurpius, 2004), interpersonal problems
(Jacobsen,
2000;
Stryznewski, 1999), and marital issues
(Kerr, 2014; Kerr & Cohn, 2001).
It should also be recognized, though, that
there are exceptions to both groups. Some
unidentified and unserved gifted children
and adults function quite well personally
and socially; conversely, some gifted children and adults in excellent school or work
settings experience notable problems. The
following discussion describes key dimensions that appear to be factors in these exceptions, some of the more common reasons why gifted children and adults are
unable to function and need psychological
guidance, and ways in which psychologists and other mental health professionals can provide help.
Exogenous versus Endogenous
Problems
A clear distinction must be made to consider contextual aspects as separate from internal personal characteristics of gifted persons so that social and emotional
difficulties of gifted children and adults
can be divided into two categories-exogenous and endogenous. Exogenous problems are those that arise, or are caused,
primarily because of the interaction of the
child or adult with the environmental setting (e.g., family or the cultural milieu).
Endogenous problems are those that arise
primarily from within the individual essentially regardless of environment; that
is, endogenous problems stem from the
very characteristics of the gifted child or
adult. The endogenous-exogenous distinction has seldom been used explicitly with
regard to the emotional functioning of
gifted individuals, though it appears to have
considerable merit in conceptualizing the
social and emotional needs of gifted
children.
Relatively few characteristics of gifted
children and adults inherently make them
Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice
more likely to experience social and emotional problems. Instead, difficulties most
often arise as exogenous problems from
the interaction of these characteristics with
the cultural settings, attitudes, and valuemilieu within which they may find themselves. Nevertheless, there are some characteristics of gifted children and adults
that do seem to increase the probability
of social and emotional difficulties essentially regardless of the influence by the
cultural milieu. These are:
~
• Drive to use one's abilities
• Drive to understand, to search for
consistency
• Ability to see possibilities and
alternatives
• Emotional intensity (focus; intrinsic
motivation; persistence)
• Concern with social and moral
issues (idealism; sensitivity)
• Different rates or levels of physical
and emotional development
Ironically, the characteristics of gifted individuals that are their greatest strengths
are also likely to be their Achilles' hee!'
Here are some common strengths, along
with associated difficulties that are likely
to result (Clark, 2012; Seagoe, 1974;
Webb, 1993).
• Acquires information quickly vs.
impatient with slowness of others
• Inquisitive attitude vs. asks embarrassing questions; strong willed
• Seeks systems and strives for order
vs. seen as bossy or domineering
• Creative and inventive vs. may
disrupt plans of others
• Intense concentration vs. resists
interruption; seen as stubborn
• High energy vs. frustration with
inactivity
• Diverse interests vs. seen as
scattered
• Strong sense of humor vs. humor
may disrupt classroom or work
• Keen observer vs. sees inconsistencies and may become disillusioned
Even these characteristics are seldom inherently problematic by themselves. More
often it is combinations of these characteristics and interactions with situational factors that lead to problematic behavior patterns. Some common patterns from such
interactions are as follows.
Intensity and Sensitivity
(Overexcitabilities)
Kasimierz Dabrowski, a Polish psychologist and psychiatrist, developed a theory
that has vastly improved our understanding of bright children and adults, particularly his concept of overexcitabilities,
which refers to a person's heightened response to stimuli (the exact translation of
Dabrowski's term from the Polish is superstimulatability).
Understanding the
overexcitabilities allows us to comprehend
how bright people-particularly
the more
highly gifted-often experience life much
more idealistically, intensely, and sensitively than others. (Mendaglio, 2008;
Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997).
Dabrowski recognized that certain individuals seem instinctively drawn to certain
kinds of stimulation. He also noted that
their excitability tends to be in one or more
offive different areas: intellectual, imaginational, emotional, sensual, and psychomotor. Some people show their excitable passion and intensity in all areas, others in
fewer areas, perhaps only one or two.
Dabrowski and others after him have observed that very bright children and adults
are particularly prone to experience these
overexcitabilities, and as a result, their
passion and intensity lead them to be so reactive that their feelings and experiences
far exceed what one would typically expect
(Daniels & Meckstroth, 2009).
These individuals are frequently accused
by those around them of being excessive
persons with "too much" of one trait or another and often hear negative comments
such as, "You are just too sensitive," or,
"You're over-thinking this!" or, "You are
too much of an idealist!" Being extremely
intense or sensitive can bring with it a sharp
The National
awareness of being different or of being
disappointed in the lack of idealism in the
world, and sometimes their overexcitabilites
are misdiagnosed as psychological disorders (Webb et al., 2005). On the other hand,
these heightened experiences also can be
positive ones that can provide a richness
of experience and allow a person to experience life in ways that others cannot even
imagine. As such, the overexcitabilities are
both a major source of strength and also
often a cause of substantial stress, personal
frustration, and criticism. Bright people often feel that they are different from mainstream society simply by virtue of their
high intellect, but those with overexcitabilities find that it is even harder to feel "norma!." Other people are likely to see these intense, sensitive idealists as quirky - and
they often are. Their intensity can prompt
others to become irritated and to criticize
them. Or their intensity may cause them
difficulty in controlling their behaviors so
that they overreact to situations in ways
that alienate others. Some ofthese individuals are so excessive that others find them
exhausting to be around and avoid them.
Their "over the top" behaviors, their intense focus on their activities and goals,
and the accompanying self-absorption can
be hard for others to live with. As one
woman described her spouse, "It seems for
him that anything worth doing is worth doing to excess!"
Table 1 shows how the overexcitabilities
can work in both positive and negative ways
for the people who exhibit them.
Asynchronous Development
Motor skills, particularly fine-motor, often
lag behind a gifted child's cognitive conceptual abilities, particularly in pre-school
children (Gilman, 2008; Webb & Kleine,
1993). When the lag is substantial, and
when it is combined with their intensity,
the result is often emotional outbursts like
temper tantrums: That is, the child may
see in his "mind's eye" what he wants to
do or construct or draw; however, his motor skills do not allow him to achieve his
goa!. The more intensely he tries, the more
frustration he experiences, often resulting
Register of Health Service Psychologists'
The Register Report
s
Spring 2014
21
Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice
Table 1: Positives and Negatives of Overexcitabilities
(Webb, 2013)
Description of intense behaviors
Overexcitability
Positive manifestations
sensitivities
Negative manifestations
sensitivities
of
Intellectual
Thirst for knowledge; discovery; questioning;
love of ideas/ theories; constant searching for
truth; detailed visual recall; detailed planning;
keen observation; thinking about thinking;
introspection
Sometimes very critical; argumentative
Imaginational
Vivid imagination; frequent use of image and
metaphor; richness of association; frequent and
vivid dreaming; imaginary friends; inventions;
gives inanimate objects personalities;
preference for the unusual and unique; creation
of private worlds; love of poetry, music, and
drama
Mixes truth and fiction; preference for
imaginary over real friends; need for novelty
and variety; low tolerance for boredom
Emotional
Great depth and intensity of emotional life
expressed in a wide range of feelings, from
great happiness to profound sadness or despair;
strong emotional attachments; compassion;
sense of responsibility; constant selfexamination; responds at an advanced level to
spiritual experiences
Timidity; shyness; difficulty adjusting to new
environments; depressive moods; feelings of
guilt
Sensual
Enhanced refinement of the senses: sight,
hearing, smell, taste, touch; delight in beautiful
objects, sounds of words, music, nature
Easily distracted by sounds or the feel of
clothing seams or tags; wants to be the center
of attention; may be inclined to overindulging
behaviors like overeating or shopping sprees;
intense dislike of certain textures, visual
images, smells
Psychomotor
Constantly moving; fast talking; intense drive;
augmented capacity for being active and
energetic
Restless; compulsive talking/chattering;
nervous habits, such as tics, nail-biting, and
hair pulling
in an emotional outburst which may be labeled by others as immaturity.
Another internal dyssynchrony is the lag of
judgment or emotional maturity behind intellect (Roedell, 1980; Webb, Gore,
Amend, & DeVries, 2007). Significant
stress in the lives of gifted youngsters occurs when they attempt to deal with emotions or social or interpersonal concepts
that are simply beyond their capacity
(Hayes & Sloat, 1989; Kerr, 1991). Many
aspects of life cannot be "reasoned out"
and can be understood only through the
22
of
The National Register of Health Service Psychologists·
accumulation of experience (Webb &
Kleine, 1993). Advanced reasoning abilities do not necessarily help in weighing
emotions. This lag of judgment is often
mislabeled as an emotional disorder when
really it is a developmental process where
the judgment usually catches up to the intellect as the child grows older.
Internal dyssynchrony can likewise occur
between the emotions and intellect of gifted
youngsters or adults, or within areas of
emotions. Since gifted persons tend to have
more intense overexcitabilities, they are
The Register Report.
Spring 2014
more driven toward self-knowledge and
disillusionment, and hopefully later toward
self-actualization. However, the progress
toward self-knowledge and self-actualization often involves times of intense emotional growth, turmoil, and "positive disintegration" or "positive maladjustment"
where acute self-examination and change
are undertaken, and which constitute a necessary step in personal growth and development (Mendaglio, 2008).
These endogenous aspects, however, do
also have exogenous consequences. The
Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice
stronger one's overexcitabilities, the less
welcome they are among peers and teachers (Daniels & Piechowski, 2008), as well
as among coworkers or even spouses and
friends (Fiedler, 2008). Further, overexcitabilities in some areas (e.g., sensual)
may not be welcomed.
Perfectionism
Risk- Taking
and Avoidance
of
The ability to see how one might perform,
combined with emotional intensity, leads
many gifted children and adults to have
unduly high expectations of themselves
and others. The fervor of involvement in
their activities combined with their unrealistic goals consumes great amounts of
personal time and energy, often unproductively, and in some cases, the perfectionism, anxiety, and excessive rumination and
intellectualization can resemble Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Various authors
(e.g., Clark, 2012; Hollingworth, 1926;
Webb et al., 2007) have noted perfectionism is frequently found among high ability children, with estimates that between
15-20% of highly able children may be
significantly handicapped by perfectionism
at some point during their academic careers. Eating disorders is likewise associated with perfectionism (Peck & Lightsey, 2008) and with high intellectual ability
(Lopez, Stahl, & Tchanturia, 2010).
In the same way that gifted children and
adults can see the possibilities, they also
can see the potential problems in undertaking those activities. Though the prevalence
has not been estimated, authors generally
agree that some of these children are unwilling to take such risks, and that the
avoidance of risk-taking is often expressed
in under-achievement (Siegle & McCoach,
2005), but may also be seen in obsessive
indecision where the child perseverates in
considering alternatives and outcomes to
such a degree that taking action is hindered. The avoidance of risk-taking is also
likely when gifted youngsters initially encounter non-success, such as when going
from high school to college, and find.this
experience to be devastating (Blackburn
& Erickson, 1986).
Excessive Self-Criticism
Being able to see possibilities and alternatives also can imply that bright individuals not only may see idealistic images of
what they might be, but simultaneously
berate themselves because they can see
how they are falling short of such an ideal
(Strang, 1951; Webb, 2013; Webb et al.,
2007). The intensity, combined with the
idealism, magnifies the amount of selfevaluation, often leading to excessive and
inappropriate self-criticism. This pattern
often is the foundation for depression arising from anger and disappointment at oneself because of high self-expectancies
(Webb, 2013; Webb et al., 2007).
Multipotentiality
Most gifted children, as they approach
adolescence, become aware that they have
advanced capabilities in several areas.
Many of them enjoy this multipotentiality and are involved in diverse activities,
sometimes to an almost frantic degree, and
may intensely try to cram 30 hours ofliving into a 24-hour day. While their hypomanic activity is seldom a problem for the
child or adult, such level of activity may
create problems for family or coworkers.
For the individual, however, problems do
arise when decisions must be made about
college major or career (Kerr, 1985). By
choosing one career path, other alternatives are essentially negated, and the result can be decisional anxiety. Kerr (1991,
1997) concluded that multipotentiality was
the most frequent cause of gifted students'
difficulties in career development.
Existential
Depression
The intense and sensitive idealism,
metacognition, and multiple career concerns of gifted children and adults are not
widely shared by peers or by society at
large and therefore increase the likelihood
of existential depression. Societal pressures
are more often toward conformity and
mediocrity rather than excellence and creativity. Society's focus on trivial behaviors
and meaningless rituals prompts idealistic
gifted individuals - especially highly gifted
- to spend substantial amounts of personal
time and energy searching for life's meaning and authentic relationships. Career options, self-satisfaction, consistency of beliefs and behaviors, persistence, and real
value to humanity are important concerns.
The recognition of limits on the development of one's potential (i.e., one cannot be
all that one could be simply because there
is not enough time nor space) is combined
with realization of the transiency of one's
efforts. The result often is that the person
feels angry at fate, questions the meaning
and worth of life's existence, and experiences notable existential depression (Webb,
2013). This is particularly likely if one's
cognitive developmental stage is still "dualistic," seeing the world in terms of absolutes of right and wrong or good and evil
(Kerr, 1991), prompting the person to
search for absolutes about life.
2e Gifted
Twice-exceptionality can be considered
an endogenous problem for gifted persons,
particularly the more highly gifted. If a
person has a vision, hearing, speech, or
other physical disorder, the emphasis by
professionals is most often on the disorder,
with little emphasis given to enhancing
their intellectual abilities. The gifted components are most often overlooked even
though they have significant implications
for the person's educational and vocational
success and self-concept.
As overall level of intelligence increases,
the span of abilities in different areas frequently increases such that there is asynchrony in an individual's level of ability
that is reflected in specific ability areas in
subtest scores on achievement or cognitive tests, as well as in classroom or occupational activities (Gilman, 2008; Webb
et al., 2005; Webb et al., 2007). These 2e
persons frequently underestimate their
abilities because they evaluate their competence based more on what they are unable to do - the area(s) that lag behind rather than on their substantial abilities;
as a result, they often underachieve and
are prone to depression (Webb et al., 2007;
Whitmore & Maker, 1985).
The National Register of Health Service Psychologists e The Register Report.
Spring 2014
23
Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice
Peer relation problems for gifted children may
begin even in preschool.Young gifted children
(particularly highly gifted ones) repeatedly and
intensely attempt to organize people and things,
and in their search for consistency, emphasize
"rules" that they attempt to apply to others.
more easily change their life situations.
Some commonly occurring exogenous
problem areas and patterns are as follows.
Some gifted persons will have a specific
learning disability; others will have physical or medical problems. The person's intellect may be quite high, but because of
motor difficulties, such as cerebral palsy,
the potential cannot be expressed in ordinary ways. It is important that psychologists help parents and educators focus on
ways to nurture the intellect, at least by
treating the person with appropriate intellectual respect, not just on the handicapping condition. Many twice-exceptional
children have later become quite successful adults when the strengths and deficits
are both nurtured (Trail, 2010).
Exogenous
Educational Conformity
Individualism
The gifted child is, by definition, unusual
as compared with the typical developmental template in cognitive abilities as well as
in intensity and sensitivity, and requires
different educational experiences (Gilman,
2008; Webb et aI., 2007). Since educational settings have task expectancies
based on age-norms, children are grouped
by age for educational instruction. Additionally, teachers and administrators focus on helping children achieve basic minimal levels of competence, and little, if
any, emphasis is placed on helping gifted
develop advanced skills (Gilman, 2008;
Webb et al., 2007). Thus, the cognitively
gifted child is unlikely to fit the curriculum, depending on the rigidity of the agegroupings and on the presence or absence
of flexibility in the instruction regarding
individual differences among learners
(Gilman, 2008). The child, then, has a
dilemma: "If I maximize my individual
abilities and learn at the most appropriate
pace for me, then I am likely to be seen
as non-conformist and different. IfI conform to the expectancies for the average
child, then I am bored, dishonest with myself, and handicapping my future development." Underachievement often results,
in addition to careless, incomplete, disorganized, poor quality, and procrastinated
work because the school environment has
not taught the challenging process required
for achievement (Rimm, 2008).
-
Problems
Though some issues are endogenous, the
majority of social and emotional problems
experienced by gifted persons are more
likely to be exogenous in origin, particularly for children in school settings, or
with peers that are not a good fit for them,
or with parents who are uninformed about
characteristics of gifted children. The characteristics of gifted children exist in the
context ofthe interaction of the child with
the child's family, school setting, and/or
culture in general, and these characteristics
may, or may not, fit with that environmental context (Worrell, Subotnik, OlszewskiKubilius, 2013).
The lack of understanding or support for
gifted children and the actual ambivalence,
hostility, or bullying they experience particularly create significant problems for gifted
children (Gilman, 2008; Webb et al., 2007).
Gifted adults may experience similar problems, but less so because they are able to
24
The National Register of Health Service Psycholcgists
vs.
e
The Register Report.
Spring 2014
Parents are often fearful that they will be
seen as "pushy parents." They do not know
what is reasonable to expect of their child
or of the school, and they need guidance
and support from psychologists to advocate for their child (Gilman, 2008; Webb
et al., 2007). Probably the largest body of
literature on gifted children concerns their
educational needs, and what adaptations
could or should be made to the "regular"
curriculum in order to accommodate the
gifted child's needs (e.g., Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Davis, 2006). Except for self-contained
programs or
schools, school adaptations represent compromises - that gifted children should develop their abilities, but they should also
fit in with others - as a part of societal ambivalence about gifted children.
The struggle between conformity and expressing one's abilities continues into adulthood in work, family, and peer settings (Jacobsen; 2000; Kerr & Cohn, 2001;
Stryznewski, 1999; Webb, 2013). Gifted
girls, minority group children, certain religious group members, or unusually creative children seem particularly likely to
experience pressures toward conformity in
peer relations (Kerr, 1997; Piirto, 2004),
and career decisions are often influenced by
the role expectancies of those in the environment. Continually attempting to reconcile the conflict between fitting in and being an individual can be quite stressful.
For gifted individuals, meeting the expectancies of others versus individualism
exists throughout the lifespan, and it is
displayed in many arenas-school, home,
with peers, and in society at large-and
raises issues of belongingness and personallife meaning (Webb, 2013). Gifted
individuals, particularly the more creative
ones, are often non-conformist and challenge traditions, rituals, roles, or expectancies, prompting discomfort in those
around. Others see the nonconformist as
unpredictable and as challenging the status quo. The more different in creativity
or intellect the child is, the more likely
that child is to be seen as non-conformist, and thus more likely to experience criticism or rejection by others.
Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice
Peer Relations
Peer relation issues are almost universal
for gifted individuals, and these exogenous
problems often perplex gifted children and
adults because they seldom view themselves as being different from others. Since
they grow up seeing the world through
their own eyes, that is normal for them.
One child, for example, was so surprised to
discover that other third graders did not
know how to play chess, nor did they like
to study fractals. Psychologists who work
with gifted individuals commonly report
clients who say things like, "Others tell
me I ask too many questions; I think too
much; I am too serious; I have a strange
sense of humor; I am impatient with others; I am too idealistic," and "I don't understand why I don't seem to fit in."
Peer relation problems for gifted children
may begin even in preschool. Young gifted
children (particularly highly gifted ones)
repeatedly and intensely attempt to organize people and things, and in their search
for consistency, emphasize "rules" that
they attempt to apply to others. They invent
games and try to organize their playmates.
Almost regardless of the setting, tensions
are likely to arise between the gifted children and their age peers, and because of
their advanced levels of ability, gifted children often gravitate toward older children
or adults in their search for intellectual
peers (Webb et al., 2007).
Peer issues continue into adolescence and
adulthood, and are relevant to socializing,
relations with coworkers, dating, marriage,
and family. A relevant and helpful concept
for bright adults is that of an intellectual
"zone of tolerance." That is, in order to
have a long-lasting and meaningful relationship with another person (whether in
friendship or a romantic relationship), that
person should be within about plus or minus 20 IQ points of one's ability level
(Jensen, 2004, personal communication).
Outside of that zone, there will be significant differences in thinking speed and
depth or span of interests, which likely will
lead to impatience, dissatisfaction, frustration, and tension on the part of each partie-
ipant. Others have found that people who
marry each other or become friends are
usually within about 12 IQ points of each
other (Ruf, 2012). When one is highly or
profoundly gifted, the difficulty of finding
someone similar increases.
Depression
Depression is often anger at oneself or
anger at a situation over which one has
little or no control, and the two are often
related (Webb, 2013).
Power Struggles
Anger at oneself is generally endogenous;
the gifted individual is able to perceive
personal strengths, but also personal shortcomings. Anger at oneself may also have
an exogenous component. Some families,
for example, have a tradition of continually
evaluating and criticizing performance one's own and others. In such an environment, any natural propensity by the child
to self-evaluate will likely be inflated. The
possibility of clinical or sub-clinical depression increases in such situations, as
well as academic underachievement.
Most parents, particularly those with high
aspirations, have firm ideas about the level
of achievement and competence that they
want their child to attain. Intense parental
aspirations, when combined with the intensity of the gifted child, can lead to major power struggles, with the resulting passive-aggressive
behavior by the child
(Webb et al., 2007). Fathers in particular
tend to perceive giftedness in terms of
achievement and appear to be more likely
to become involved in power struggles concerning achievement (Silverman, 1988).
Exogenous depression may also arise from
helpless anger at situations over which
one feels no control and a poor sense of
personal control over one's own life
(Rimm, 1991; Webb, 2013). When the environment (e.g., home, school, friends) is
not supportive of one's needs and one feels
trapped, the frequent result is depression.
Educational misplacement of gifted children or inappropriate job settings for gifted
adults are examples of situations which
do not meet their needs, but over which
they have little or no control.
Enmeshment or Confluence
Some parents of gifted children become
emotionally enmeshed with their children;
they narcissistically attempt to live out
their own aspirations and wished-for
achievements through their highly able
child, and become overly involved in the
child's life (Miller, 1996). Instead of a
power struggle, the child accedes to the
parental over-involvement. This pattern
can lead to the gifted child having a poorly
differentiated sense of self-identity as distinct from that of the parent.
Family Relations
Families nurture - or hinder - social and
emotional competencies, as well as enhance - or diminish - the development of
achievement, creativity, and eminence (Albert, 1978; Bloom, 1985; Csikszentrnihalyi, 1996; Goertzel, Goertzel, Goertzel, &
Hansen, 2004; Silverman, 1991). It is in
the family that exogenous problems for
gifted children may occur. Some common
concerns are as follows.
Mistaking
Child
the Abilities for the
This problem often is embedded within
the enmeshment or the power struggle.
The child's unusual abilities may be what
is emphasized by the parents, particularly
fathers (Silverman, 1991), and the child's
feelings or sense of person are denigrated.
Such over-emphasis
on achievement
prompts the child toward perfectionism
The National Register of Health Service Psychologists s The Register Report.
Spring 2014
25
Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice
...few psychologists receive training about the characteristics or special
needs of gifted children, and, in fact, are often taught in
graduate school that "gifted children will make it on their own,"
and superficial relations with other people, for the child comes to internalize the
emphasis on the importance of accomplishments rather than on the inherent
worth as a person (Grobman, 2006). To
be sure, many highly achieving persons
feel good about themselves, and are neither
perfectionistic, nor superficial. Such persons seem to have come from families that
emphasized and modeled achievement,
but balanced it with concerns for personal
worth (Bloom, 1985; Robinson, Shore, &
Enerson, 2006; Goertzel et al., 2004).
Sibling Relations
When one child in the family is labeled as
gifted, and most often that is the first-born
child (Cornell, 1984), the other children
in the family may view themselves as nongifted. Gifted children often hold high status in the family; parents often feel closer
to and prouder ofthe child who is labeled
gifted, sometimes generating adjustment
problems in siblings who are considered
non-gifted (Cornell, 1983, 1984, 1989;
Grenier, 1985; Silverman, 1991). Despite
the "either-or" thinking (i.e., gifted vs. nongifted), the siblings are likely to be close in
intelligence (Silverman, 2009). Thus, it is
important to evaluate siblings to see if they,
too, should be considered as gifted. Otherwise, there is substantial likelihood of underachievement
by the unlabeled, but
equally bright, siblings (Webb et al., 2007).
Sibling rivalry seems more likely if the
second-born child is labeled as gifted but
the first-born is not. Whereas first-born
children identified as gifted generally enjoyed a close sibling relationship, secondborn children labeled as gifted experienced
more problems in sibling relationships
(Tuttle, 1990). However, as the difference
in sibling IQs increases, competition
among the siblings decreases, and the sibling relations are more harmonious (Ballering & Koch, 1984).
26
The National Register of Healtb Service Psychologists'
Parental Understanding
Family problems occur most often because
parents of gifted children (a) lack information about gifted children, (b) lack support
for appropriate parenting, or (c) are attempting to cope with their own unresolved
problems (which may have to do with their
own experiences with being gifted).
Despite conventional beliefs that "every
parent has a gifted child," parents - particularly fathers-often
overlook or underplay signs of precocious intellectual
development in their children (Silverman,
1991; Webb et al., 2007), though they may
recognize their child as different from
other children. Most parents apply guidelines and norms derived from children of
average abilities or that emphasize minimally expected developmental criteria
(Webb & Kleine, 1993). Parental puzzlement and frustration often result.
Sometimes parents' own unresolved issues with giftedness contribute to family
problems. Commonalities of heredity and
environment usually (though not always)
result in gifted children having gifted parents (Silverman, 1991). However, most
parents are unaware of how bright they
are or how it affects their lives. The intensity, impatience, and high expectancies
that characterize these parents, if not mediated by self understanding, can create
an environment of misery for those within
the family.
Approaches to Preventing or
Ameliorating Problems
Gifted individuals are not immune to social and emotional problems simply because of their unusual abilities. Although
many gifted children and adults do function quite well, others do not, and may actually be more likely to experience significant difficulties related to their giftedness
The Register Report
s
Spring 2014
at some point in their lives, particularly if
they are educationally misplaced and/or
if they and their families lack appropriate
information (Neihart et al., 2002; Webb
et al., 2005; Webb et al., 2007). Ironically,
their advanced ability to adapt or adjust
may itself result in some problems, such as
underachievement or excessive conformity (Kerr, 1997) as they strive to fit in.
As noted previously, most counselors, psychologists, and primary health care professionals have little, if any, training in assessing or treating gifted individuals with
emotional or interpersonal difficulties. Extremely few psychologists receive training
about the characteristics or special needs
of gifted children, and, in fact, are often
taught in graduate school that "gifted children will make it on their own" and that
they are not a group likely to have special
problems (Webb et al., 2005). Similarly,
psychologists are unaware of how frequently gifted children reach developmental milestones much earlier (Ruf, 2009),
which has implications for peer relations
as well as for school issues and educational
planning. In fact, some studies have indicated that these professionals have distinctly negative feelings toward gifted children (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward,
1991). Further, most professionals have
been trained in a pathology model, rather
than an enhancement of human potential
model, and tend to focus only on clear dysfunctions compared with the norm, rather
than seeing that failure to reach potential
might likewise be a dysfunction. As a result,
''very few mental health professionals know
how to adapt their counseling strategies to
better meet the needs of individuals with
high abilities, and untrained counselors
may pathologize normal characteristics of
gifted individuals, such as adaptive perfectionism and overexcitabilities"
(Moon,
2002, p. 218).
Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice
Services under a Different Label
Sometimes needs and problems of gifted
children and adults are served by mental
health professionals, but the situations and
problems are misdiagnosed or labeled in
a fashion that is only partially accurate
(Webb et aI., 2005). For example, the professional may recognize and treat existential depression, but overlook the gifted
components involved. Seeing numerous
possibilities in situations may be classified
as obsessive behavior. The intensity and
daydreaming of a bored gifted child might
be labeled as an attention deficit disorder.
Interpersonal withdrawal could be due to
educational misplacement or the lack of
peers by a gifted youngster. The clownish
classroom behavior of a gifted child who is
educationally misplaced might be incorrectly diagnosed as an undersocialized conduct disorder behavior pattern.
Assessment Approaches
Sometimes formal psychological assessments are needed for a differential diagnosis or because the parents or school want a
second opinion. It is important that professionals doing such assessments are knowledgeable about gifted children. For example, on projective personality tests, gifted
children often give responses that might
appear pathological, but really are simply
a reflection of their vivid imagination combined with their intensity (Webb & Kleine,
1993). Gifted children and adults show a
great deal more intra-test scatter than do
other children (Gilman, 2008; Webb &
Kleine, 1993). That is, there is substantially greater variability across abilities than
among children of average or less ability
level. Such variability can prompt inappropriate conclusions oflearning disability or
other disorders. And since so many gifted
children reach the ceiling on subscales of
standardized tests of cognitive ability, outof-level testing may be needed.
Treatment Approaches
Treatment interventions generally are quite
effective with gifted children and adults.
Their conceptual quickness apparently al-
lows them to more quickly grasp and apply therapeutic suggestions. Most professionals, once they become familiar with
relevant literature on gifted individuals,
are readily able to incorporate that information into their treatment approaches.
Relationship and insight-oriented
approaches appear particularly useful since
they go along with the cognitive strengths
of the gifted child. That is not to demean
behavioral or strategic approaches; they,
too, may be helpful. Rational-emotive therapy approaches can be quite effective in
helping gifted persons learn to manage
their "self-talk" that underlies their feelings
of excessive stress, perfectionism, or depression (Webb, 2013; Webb et aI., 2007).
Many gifted individuals are searching for
some cognitive framework through which
they might understand themselves and
their lives, but they also have a particular
need to feel understood and to have a relationship with the treating professional.
counseling and guidance in three areasacademic planning and career opportunities; personal and social concerns with
their families, peers, or teachers; and special outside-of-school enrichment experiences. Although there is seldom third-party
reimbursement for psychological services
for gifted issues, per se, many families are
willing to payout of pocket. Psychologists can expand their practices to meet
this need, which currently is a neglected
area of practice, by learning about the
characteristics of gifted individuals. and
the implications for diagnosis and treatment either through readings or through
continuing education opportunities through
nonprofit groups like SENG, which actively provide such information.
In addition to treating clinical problems,
psychologists, pediatricians, and others
can do anticipatory guidance with parents
of gifted and talented persons, and there
are substantial resources that a professional can suggest to the individual or family. Several non-profit groups have information available for free from their
websites or sponsor conferences or other
educational opportunities. Particularly
noteworthy are Supporting Emotional
Needs of Gifted (www.sengifted.org),
Davidson Institute for Talent Development
(www.ditd.org),
Hoagies
Gifted
(www.hoagiesgifted.org), and the National
Association
for Gifted
Children
(www.nagc.org). Likewise several publishers specialize in books for parents of
gifted children and the professionals who
work in the field, which can be used for
bibliotherapy.
James T. Webb, Ph.D.,
the founder of the nonprofit group SENG
(Supporting Emotional
Needs of Gifted Children), served on the
Board of Directors for
the National Association for Gifted Children and was president
of the American Association for Gifted
Children. Dr. Webb is lead author of six
books and numerous articles about gifted
children. In 2011, he received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Arizona
Association for Gifted Children the Community Service Award from the National
Association for Gifted Children, and the
Upton
Sinclair
Award
by
EducationNews.org. Dr. Webb is a pastpresident of the Ohio Psychological Association and served on the APA Council
of Representatives. Formerly Professor
and Associate Dean at the Wright State
University School of Professional Psychology, Dr. Webb is president of Great
Potential Press.
Parents of gifted children and gifted adults
are looking for counseling and mental
health professionals to whom they can turn
for information, advice, support, diagnostic clarifications, and treatment. At present,
it is difficult for them to find knowledgeable and helpful professionals. Gifted individuals and their families often need
References and CE exam available
at E-Psychologist.org
Author
The National Register of Health Service Psychologists
s
The Register Reporr
s
Spring 2014
27
References
Albert, R. S. (1978). Observations and suggestions regarding giftedness, familial influence, and the
achievement of eminence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 201-211.
Altman, R. (1983). Social-emotional development of gifted children and adolescents: A research
model. Roeper Review, 6, 65-68.
Andreason, N. C. (2008, June). The relationship between creativity and mood disorders. Dialogues
in ClinicalNeuroscience, 10(2), 251-255.
Ballering. L. D. & Koch. A. (1984). Family relations when a child is gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28,
140-143.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
Clark, B.A. (2012). Growing up gifted, 8th ed. New York: Pearson.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back
America's brightest students. The Templeton National Report on Acceleration, Volumes 1&
2. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the family system.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 322-335.
Cornell, D. G. (1984). Families of gifted children. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.
Cornell, D. G. (1989). Child adjustment and parent use of the term "gifted." Gifted Child Quarterly,
33,63-64.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Daniels, S., & Meckstroth, E. A. (2009). Nurturing the sensitivity, intensity, and developmental
potential of young gifted children. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living with
intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development of gifted
children adolescents, and adults (pp. 33-56). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Daniels, S. & Piechowski, M. M. (2008). Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity,
excitability, and emotional development of gifted children adolescents, and adults.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Davis, G. A. (2006). Gifted children, gifted education: A handbookforteachers
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
and parents.
Delisle, J. R. (2005). Once upon a mind: The stories and scholars of gifted education. Independence,
KY: Cengage Learning.
Fiedler, E. (2008). Advantages and challenges of lifespan intensity. Chapter in Living with intensity:
Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development of gifted children,
adolescents, and adults (pp. 167-184). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Gilman, B. J. (2008). Academic advocacy for gifted children: A parent's complete guide. Scottsdale,
AZ: Great Potential Press.
Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M. G., Goertzel, T. G., & Hansen, A. M. W. (2004). Cradles of eminence:
Childhoods of more than 700 famous men and women. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential
Press.
Grenier, M. E. (1985). Gifted children and other siblings. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 164-167.
Grohman, J. (2006). Underachievement in exceptional gifted adolescents and young adults: A
psychiatrist's view. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. 17(4), 199-210.
Hayes, M. L., & Sloat, R. S. (1989). Suicide and the gifted adolescent. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 13, 229-244.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York: World Book Company.
Jacobsen, M. E. (2000). The gifted adult: A revolutionary guide for liberating everyday genius. New
York: Ballantine.
Jamison, K. R. (1996). Touched with fire: Manic depressive illness and the artistic temperament.
New York: Free Press.
Janos. P. M. & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children.
In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives
(pp. 149-196). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Kanazawa, S., & Hellberg, Josephine E. E. U. (2010, December). Intelligence and substance abuse.
Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 382-396.
Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Beautiful minds: The real link between creativity and mental illness.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/10/03/the-real-link-betweencreativity-and-mental-illness/
Kerr, B. A. (1991). A handbook for counseling the gifted and talented. Alexandria, VA: American
Association for Counseling and Development.
Kerr, B. A. (1997). Smart girls:A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness. Scottsdale, AZ:
Great Potential Press.
Kerr, B. A. & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for meaning.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Kerr, B. A. & Kurpius, S. E. (2004). Encouraging talented girls in math and science: Effects of a
guidance intervention. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 85-102.
Kerr, B. A. & McKay, R. (in press 2014). Smart girls in the 21st Century: Understanding
talented girls and women. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Klein, A. (2002). Aforgotten
Potential Press.
voice: A biography of Leta Stetter Hollingworth. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Lopez, c., Stahl, D., & Tchanturia, K. (2010). Estimated intelligence quotient in anorexia nervosa: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Annals of psychiatry, 9, 40.
Lovecky, D. V. (2003). Different minds: Children with ADHD,Asperger Syndrome, and other learning
deficits. Philadelphia, PA: Kingsley.
Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy.
New York: Guilford.
Mendaglio, S. (2008). Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential
Press.
Miller, A. (1996). Prisoners of childhood: The drama of the gifted child and the search for the true
self. New York: Basic Books.
Moon, D. (2002). Counseling needs and strategies. In Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., &
Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What
do we know? (pp 213-222). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
NAGC. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm.
http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=6404.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional
development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Peck, l. D. & Lightsey, O. R. (2008). The eating disorders continuum, self-esteem, and
perfectionism. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 184-192.
Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Rimm, S. B. (1991). Underachievement and superachievement: Flip sides of the same psychological
coin. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 328-344).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rimm, S. (2008). Why bright kids get poor grades, and what you can do about it: A six step
program for parents and teachers. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enerson, D. l. (2006). Best practices in gifted education: An evidencebased guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Roedell, W. C. (1980). Characteristics of gifted young children. In W. C. Roedell & H. B. Robinson
(Eds.], Gifted young children (pp. 66-89). New York: Teachers College Press.
Rut, D. A. (2009). 5 Levels of gifted: School issues and educational options. Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Ruf, D. A. (2012). How does my IQ affect me? Retrieved from www.talentigniter.com/blog/howdoes-my-iq-affect-me-2nd-series-does-intelligence-matter-deborah-ruf-phd
Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations, 5th ed. La Mesa, CA: Sattler.
Schlesinger, J. (2012). The insanity hoax: Exposing the myth of the mad genius. Ardsley-on-Hudson,
NY: Shrinktunes Media.
Seagoe, M. (1974). Some learning characteristics of gifted children. In R. Martinson (Ed.), The
identification of the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County
Superintendent of Schools.
SENG Misdiagnosis Initiative. (2014). https:/Iwww.sengifted.org/programs/seng-misdiagnosisinitiative.
Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Silverman, l. K. (1988). The second child syndrome. Mensa Bulletin 320, 18-20.
Silverman, l. K. (1991). Family counseling. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted
education (pp. 307-320). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
.............
__ ._-_._----------------:------------------------
Silverman, L. K. (2009). What we have learned about gifted children: 30th anniversary.
http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/WhatisGifted/learned.htm.
Siegle, D. & McCoach, B. (2005, September). Making a difference: Motivating gifted students who
are not achieving. Teaching exceptional children 38(1), 22-27.
Strang, R. (1951). Mental hygiene of gifted children. In P. Witty (Ed.L The gifted child (pp.131-162).
Boston: American Association for Gifted Children.
Stryznewski, M. K. (1999). Gifted grownups: The mixed blessings of extraordinary potential. New
York: Wiley.
Terman, L. A. (1925). The mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. A. & aden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child graws up: Twenty-five years' follow-up of a
superior group. Genetic studies of genius: Vol. IV. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Trail, B. (201O). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted
students. Waco, TX: Prufrock.
Tucker, B. & Hafenstein N. L. (1997). Psychological intensities in young gifted children. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 41(3),66-75.
Tuttle, D. H. (1990). Positive labeling and the sibling relationship infamilies with gifted children.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
Webb, J. T. (2013). Searching for meaning: Idealism, bright minds, disillusionment, and hope.
Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Webb, J. T. (1993). Nurturing social-emotional development of gifted children. In K. A. Heller, F. J.
Monks, & A. H. Passow [Eds.], International handbook of research and development of
giftedness and talent (pp. 525-538). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2005). Misdiagnosis
and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, Bipolar, OCD,Asperger's,
depression, and other disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. R., & DeVries, A. R. (2007). A parent's guide to gifted children.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Webb, J. T. & Kleine, P. A. (1993). Assessing gifted and talented children. In J. L. Culbertson and D.
J. Willis (Eds.), Testing young children: A reference guide for developmental
psychoeducational, and psychosocial assessments, (pp. 383-407). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted
parents and teachers. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
Whitmore, J. R. & Maker. C. J. (1985).
child:A practical source for
Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons. Rockville, MD:
Aspen.
c.,
Worrell, F.
Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2013). Giftedness and gifted education:
Reconceptualizing the role of professional psychology. The Register Report (Spring), 14-22.