Modeling,Vicarious Learning,and Basic Needs

Setting the Context

Bandura’s (1977, 1986) social cognitive and social learning theories suggest that political speech may have far-reaching implications. I contend that we discourage our future scientists by promoting arguments based on political orthodoxy that run counter to overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. The two best examples are when political leaders promulgate the ideas that (a) there is no such thing as climate change—that it is, in fact, a hoax, and (b) that evolution is a lie. Why would our children choose to pursue science when it is so regularly and often discredited in the political arena? Such dismissal of scientific evidence even became a political litmus test for those running for president during one party’s primaries in each of the past 12 years. On multiple occasions, candidates have indicated that they reject climate change or evolution (e.g., Schultheis, 2016; Seelye, 2007).

Concerted efforts to discourage others from believing these two scientific facts include claims that the science is still “out,” that the science is widely debated, that the science is wrong, that a high number of scientists do not support these ideas, and, most recently, by merely claiming that “I am not a scientist”—implying that regular people cannot know about science. Taking matters even further are numerous stories published on the Internet representing these claims, in many cases using made-up facts (Inskeep, 2016; Tavernise, 2016). Students are consuming these fake news stories and seeing the claims made by our politicians and could reasonably assume that science is not a respected profession, so why pursue it? Moreover, as we move into this post-fact period of political discourse, the value placed on scientific approaches to understanding the world is eroding.

The recent election season manifested an extension of these efforts with the introduction of the idea that how one feels about something is more important than scientific facts (Camerota, 2016). The idea being touted was that facts are a tool that others use to trick people and that feelings about something are more reliable, potent, and genuine than the science that underpins many of our most important issues of the day. Hearing political leaders subordinate science to an individual person’s feelings, in addition to all of the aforementioned strategies to make science suspect, can have a destabilizing effect on the students. How do students deal with such diametrically opposing views, one learned about in school and the other learned vicariously outside of school? This conflict can cause anxiety and appreciable confusion.

How Will Various Groups Be Affected by the Election Rhetoric?

In my conversations with college students and even with younger gifted students of color, they expressed feeling in a chronic fear state. They are worrying about leaving their homes out of fear of being physically attacked. Hispanic children are manifesting great worry about being deported and/or separated from their families. One African American freshman in college expressed a deep-seated fear and upset that she had been lied to her entire life. She was raised to believe in the American Dream, to believe that she could have a successful career if she worked hard through school and college, and that our having an African American president meant that the United States was less divided than in previous generations. But now the election has revealed that some of our political figures support these types of prejudices and threats of violence (i.e., a “Second Amendment solution” when talking about a cure for the unsavoriness of a political opponent), with approximately 26% of those eligible to vote—a large segment of the population—voting for this candidate.

So, for the young nonmajority students (including gifted) of this period in history in the United States, the need for security has emerged in their lives, making other aspects of their lives pale in comparison. Living in a chronic fear state creates considerable levels of anxiety and stress and is harmful in and of itself. Stoking xenophobia was a strategy to appeal to disenfranchised White voters. This has created fear among members of multiple groups (Latinos, African American, women, Muslims, and people with disabilities). While the presidential election did not create the prejudice and hatred that exist among many in the United States, it did feed a carefully targeted, coalescing group on a diet of vulgarity, disdain, hatred, and xenophobia—making lashing out verbally or physically seem acceptable. This rhetoric was experienced directly or vicariously by many people living in the United Stares. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that many of the attacks since the election were influenced by the negative behaviors exhibited or encouraged by some of our political models. Clearly, there is a differential effect of the rhetoric on groups within the overall population of the United States. It seems that White students who believe in the vitriol and hate speech have less to be fearful of relative to the future. White students who do not believe or support the aforementioned political rhetoric will likely feel distress and upset, but will not likely fear for their safety.

Employing Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, it is easy to see how members of minority groups may need to worry about physiological needs—having the necessary food to survive and develop water, and so forth, to sustain life in a healthy manner. If this need is largely met, then they will have the capacity to try to satisfy their safety needs. This can mean having shelter or living free from fear of injury. As a consequence of the negative political atmosphere, many people, including some of our gifted students, are likely to be feeling chronic fear and anxiety in a manner and to a degree that upsets their capacity to thrive educationally.

The next level of needs in the hierarchy is called “belongingness and love.” It is easy to understand how the 2016 presidential cycle created so much fear and anxiety in the minds of many such that, for the first time, many are feeling unloved and as if they do not belong in their home country. The reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups have extended the xenophobia to a heightened pitch. Students of color (including gifted students) have been told in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome in the United States, that they should be deported, have to carry special identification cards, or worse.

According to Maslow’s theory, esteem needs are the next to be met. Self-esteem results from interpretations of personal experiences and reflected appraisals (Rayner, 2001). Young girls (including gifted girls) were watching as the campaign rhetoric included complaints about beauty contestants “getting fat” to no women being a “10” if they were flat-chested. The misogynistic tenor of the campaign will have exacerbated esteem issues in young girls across the country. In tandem with other anti-intellectual messages, these attacks may be the impetus for a significant negative cohort effect.

As our society moves toward a post-fact, xenophobic, misogynistic, antiscience future, many of our children, adolescents, and young adults (including those who are gifted) are going to struggle to feel safe, that they belong and are loved, and are worthy of respect (esteem). Consequently, we should anticipate considerable academic loss and arrested development in several arenas. We may also witness the more disenfranchised becoming motivated to assault others either verbally or physically, as they observe this response being modeled by those around them. In the current climate, the growing numbers of disenfranchised people will also include growing numbers of gifted students.

What Can We Do to Be Helpful?

As adults who care about the development of our children, including gifted children, we are moral guides and need to provide appropriate modeling of American values—values that do not condone misogyny, racism, sexism, xenophobia, or making fun of people with disabilities. We cannot stand by quietly while adults bully people who seem different from others. We must model appropriate behavior and stand up for human rights. We cannot be witnesses to the kind of behavior characteristic of the 2016 political season that gave rise to expressed hatred and assaults on disenfranchised people. We must model respect for science and scholarly pursuits to counter the culture of anti-intellectualism that gained momentum during the recent political campaign. In essence, we need to protect our children by allowing them to learn, resisting anti-intellectualism and creating environments that promote acceptance of others. At the same time, we need to protect other people’s children and support their right to an appropriate education.

America cannot afford the incalculable loss of talent that could come from the social learning of all children, including students with gifts and talents, from this most recent political campaign. Let us work to prevent this cohort of gifted students from becoming both the victims and perpetrators of hate crimes. It is incumbent upon all of us who serve as role models to our nation’s children that we actively dilute the recent events and model appropriate behavior. Our children are watching us as they try to figure out how to behave appropriately. Let us dedicate ourselves to become the type of role models who will create a foundation of safety and caring that is needed for all children, including gifted children, so they can reach their potential in spite of the poor behavior on the part of many of our politicians. Remember, our children, adolescents, and young adults will be learning from the behavior and rhetoric of adults. Let us dedicate ourselves to modeling the type of behavior that we can be proud of when we see it reflected back in our children.