An Investigation Into the Gender and Age Differences in the Social Coping of Academically Advanced Students

Abstract

In certain contexts, some academically advanced students employ coping strategies that manipulate the visibility of their ability. These strategies may include denying giftedness, hiding giftedness, gaining favor by helping others, denying the negative impact on peer acceptance, conforming to mask giftedness, and minimizing focus on popularity. The goal of the current study was to replicate previous research that revealed gender and age differences in coping strategy choice. The analysis of responses from approximately 550 students at a summer camp for academically advanced students revealed more similarities than differences among the subgroups of participants. As in previous research, girls were somewhat more likely than boys to engage in the stereotypically female role of helping others. In addition, older adolescents were significantly more likely than younger students to report hiding and denying their giftedness. Developmental differences between older and younger students may explain this finding, as well as the possibility of older adolescents identifying with a broader peer-base through participation in school and extracurricular activities and establishing greater independence from their parents. Finally, younger students were more likely to report that they minimize their focus on popularity. Although this last finding differs from previous research, it underscores the need for further research into the topic of social coping strategies among subpopulations of academically advanced students.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Buescher

T. M.

Olszewski

Higham

S. J.

(1987, April). Influences on strategies adolescents use to cope with their own recognized talents. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore.

Callahan

C. M.

Cunningham

C. M.

Plucker

J. A.

(1994). Foundations for the future: The socio-emotional development of gifted adolescent women. Roeper Review, 17, 99–105.

Chalmers

Lawrence

J. A.

(1993). Investigating the effects of planning aids on adults' and adolescents' organisation of a complex task. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 16, 191–214.

Chan

D. W.

(2003). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and their relationships with social coping among gifted adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 409–418.

Chan

D. W.

(2004). Social coping and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 30–41.

Chan

D. W.

(2005). The structure of social coping among Chinese gifted children and youths in Hong Kong. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 8–29.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coleman

L. J.

Cross

T. L.

(1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(4), 41–56.

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, 37–40.

10.

Janos

P. M.

Fung

H. C.

Robinson

N.M.

(1985). Self-concept, self-esteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel different. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 78–82.

11.

Keating

(2004). Cognitive and brain development. In Lerner

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 45–84). New York: Wiley.

12.

Klaczynski

Narasimham

(1998). Development of scientific reasoning biases: Cognitive versus ego-protective explanations. Developmental Psychology, 34, 175–187.

13.

Manaster

G. J.

Chan

J. C.

Watt

Wiehe

(1994). Gifted adolescents' attitudes toward their giftedness: A partial replication. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 176–178.

14.

Manor-Bullock

Look

Dixon

D. N.

(1995). Is giftedness socially stigmatizing? The impact of high achievement on social interactions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 319–338.

15.

Morris

Sloutsky

(2001). Children's solutions of logical versus empirical problems: What's missing and what develops? Cognitive Development, 16, 907–928.

16.

Robinson

(1990). Does that describe me? Adolescents' acceptance of the gifted label. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 245–255.

17.

Rudasill

Foust

R. C.

Callahan

C. M.

(in press). The Social Coping Questionnaire: An examination of its structure with an American sample of gifted adolescents. The Journal for the Education of the Gifted.

18.

Sternberg

R. J.

Nigro

G. N.

(1980). Developmental patterns in the solution of verbal analogies. Child Development, 51, 27–38.

19.

Swiatek

M. A.

(1995). An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 154–161.

20.

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.

21.

Swiatek

M. A.

(2002). Social coping among gifted elementary students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 65–86.

22.

Swiatek

M. A.

Dorr

R. M.

(1998). Revision of the Social Coping Questionnaire: Replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10, 252–259.