Feldman, D.H. Beyond Universals in Cognitive De-velopment. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Pub-lishing Corporation, 1980.

Feldman, D. H. "The Mysterious Case of ExtremeGiftedness." In H. Passow. (Ed.) The Gifted andThe Talented: Yearbook of the National Societyfor the Study of Education. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1979, pp. 335-351.

Feldman, D. H. "Toward A Non-Elitist Conception ofGiftedness." Phi Delta Kappan, 1979, Vol. 60,pp. 660-663.

Gowan, ]. C. and Olson, M. "The Society Which Max-imizes Creativity." The Journal of Creative Be-havior, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 194-210.

Hollingworth, L. S. "The Development of Personal-ity In Highly Intelligent Children." In WayneDennis and Margaret W. Dennis (Eds.) The Intel-lectually Gifted An Overview. New York:Grune & Stratton, Inc., 1976, pp. 89-98.

Hollingworth, L.S. Gifted Children Their Natureand Nurture. New York: The MacMillan Com-

pany, 1927.Kontos, S.; Carter, K.R.; Ormrod, J.E.; and Cooney,

J. B. "Reversing the Revolving Doot: A Strict In-terpretation of Renzulli's Definition of Gifted-ness" and the authors1 exchange with JosephS. Renzulli and Steven V. Owen in the same issue.Roeper View, September, 1983, pp. 35-42.

O'Shea, H. E. "Friendship and the IntellectuallyGifted Child." Exceptional Children, Vol. 26, No. 6(February, 1960), pp. 327-335.

Renzulli, J. S. The Enrichment Triad Model: A GuideFor Developing Defensible Programs for theGifted and Talented. Weathersfield, Connecticut:Creative Learning Press, 1977.

Renzulli, J. S. What Makes Giftedness: A Re-examina-tion of the Definition of the Gifted and Talented.Ventura, California: Ventura County Superin-tendent of Schools Office, May, 1979.

Renzulli, J.S. "Will the Gifted Child Movement beAlive and Well in 1990?" Gifted Child Quarterly,Vol. 24, No. 1, Winter, 1980, pp. 3-9.

Robinson, H. B.; Roedell, W. C. and Jackson, N. E."Early Identification and Intervention." In H.Passow (Ed.) The Gifted and the Talented: Year-book of the National Society for the Study ofEducation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1979, pp. 138-154.

Rogers, C. R. "Toward A Theory of Creativity." InSidney J. Pames and Harold F. Harding (Eds.) ASource Book for Creative Thinking, CharlesScribner's Sons, New York, 1962, pp. 63-72.

Simonton, D. K. "The Eminent Genius In History:The Critical Role of Creative Development. TheGifted Child Quarterly, Summer, 1978, Vol.XXII, No. 2, pp. 187-195.

Terman, L. M. "The Discovery and Encouragementof Exceptional Talent." American Psychologist,1954, g, pp. 221-230.

Witty, P. (Ed.). The Gifted Child. Boston: D. C. Heathand Co., 1951.

Vulnerabilitiesof Highly Gifted

Children

Wendy C. Roedell

This article examines the uniquevulnerabilities of children with

extraordinarily advanced intellectualskills, and highlights the differences

between highly gifted and moderately giftedchildren. Problems of uneven development,

perfectionism, adult expectations, intensesensitivity, self-definition, alienation,inappropriate environments, and role

conflict are explored.

Wendy C. Roedell is a gifted educationconsultant for the Northwest Gifted Educa-tion Center at Educational Service DistrictNo. 121 in Seattle, Washington. Dr. Roedellis co-author of Gifted Young, Children(Teachers College Press, 1980), anda Con-tributing Editor of this journal.

G ood social adjustment, emo-tional maturity, and healthyself-concepts characterize theexperience of many intellectually giftedchildren. Numerous studies have con-firmed Terman's early finding thatmoderately gifted individuals tend todo well in school and to achieve suc-cess in later life (Gallagher, 1958; 1975;Hollingworth, 1942; Terman, 1925).Such life success is not automatic forthe gifted, however, and depends to agreat extent on environmental support.Even moderately gifted children are

vulnerable to a variety of adjustmentdifficulties. As the degree of intellec-tual advancement increases, so doesthe child's risk of social maladjustmentand unhappiness (Hollingworth, 1942;Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947;Tannenbaum, 1983).

Children with unusually advancedintellectual development are uniquelyvulnerable. Moreover, studies through-out the country have begun to documentthe fact that extraordinarily gifted chil-dren exist, at least in some cities, inlarger numbers than would be expectedon the basis of the normal curve. Stud-ies at the University of Washington(Roedell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980;Robinson, 1980), at Johns Hopkins Uni-versity in Baltimore (Stanley, Keating,& Fox, 1974; Keating, 1976), and at theUniversity of Denver (Silverman, inpreparation) have all identified signif-icant subpopulations of highly giftedchildren.

The definition of extraordinary pre-cocity differs from study to study.Some researchers cite IQs above 145 asindicating highly gifted abilities, whileothers reserve the label for childrenwhose IQs exceed 165 or even 180.Some define extraordinary giftednessin terms of scores on other types oftests, such as the Scholastic AptitudeTest, or in terms of high level creativeproductivity. Whatever the definition,there is general agreement that highlygifted children are more susceptible tosome types of developmental diffi-culties than are moderately gifted oraverage children. Areas of vulnerabilityinclude uneven development, perfec-tionism, adult expectations, intensesensitivity, self-definition, alienation,

Roeper Review, Volume 6, No. 3. Copy-right 1984. Roeper City and CountrySchool.

inappropriate environments, and roleconflicts.

Uneven Development

As Leta Hollingworth (1942) com-mented, it is difficult to havethe intelligence of an adult andthe emotions of a child in a childishbody (p. 282). The gap between a child'sadvanced intellectual capability andmore age-appropriate social and physi-cal skills can lead to unrealistic expec-tations for performance. Young chil-dren become frustrated when their lim-ited physical capabilities prevent theconstruction of the complex projectscreated in their extremely capable im-aginations. Adults, expecting socialmaturity to match high level intellec-tual development, may label a highlyarticulate, logical child as a behaviorproblem when he or she exhibits anage-appropriate tantrum.

Even more damage can result whenadults ignore a child's high level abilityand focus instead of weaknesses inareas of slower development. A child'sgiftedness may even go unnoticed,eclipsed by behavior problems, physi-cal weakness, or social immaturity.Whitmore (1980) gives the example ofBobby, with an IQ of 153, who spent asecond year in the first grade as a re-sult of his disruptive behavior and hisfailure to complete daily classroomwork. A teacher's underestimate of achild's ability can trigger a rapid de-cline in self-esteem. Pringle (1970)found, for example, that most of the103 bright children brought to a clinicbecause of general maladjustment hadteachers who underestimated theirability. The most frequent symptompresented by these able misfits was alack of confidence.

Roeper Review, February, 1984/127

Downloaded At: 01:57 12 April 2011

Perfectionism

Many gifted children exhibit aninner push toward perfectionwhich drives them to set im-possible goals for themselves. Theyuse their extremely capable conceptualabilities to imagine ambitious and de-tailed products, and then direct theirsimilarly well-developed critical think-ing skills to the task of tearing downtheir own imperfect efforts to realizetheir ideal. As they learn to appreciateprofessional work in the arts and sci-ences, they set professional level stan-dards for themselves, and become im-patient with the skill developmentwhich must occur before they canachieve that proficiency. Years of hear-ing parents and teachers say that'swonderful! to projects that do not meetthe child's own high standards leads toa distrust of feedback from thosesources. A child who consistently re-ceives an A without putting forth maxi-mum effort ceases to value that A gradeas a serious measure of performance.

This perfectionism has both positiveand negative aspects. In a positiveform, perfectionism can provide thedriving energy which leads to greatachievement. The meticulous attentionto detail necessary for scientific inves-tigation, the commitment which pushescomposers to keep working until themusic realizes the glorious sounds play-ing in the imagination, and the persist-ence which keeps great artists at theireasels until their creation matches theirconception all result from perfection-ism. Setting high standards is not initself a bad thing. However, perfection-ism coupled with a punishing attitudetowards one's own efforts can cripplethe imagination, kill the spirit, and sohandicap performance that an individ-ual may never fulfill the promise ofearly talent.

The inner drive to be perfect leadsmany gifted children to perceive them-selves as failures even when externalevidence indicates high level success.It is in the child's reaction to this per-ceived failure that the danger lies. Aseries of studies by Carol Dweck andher colleagues on the differences be-tween children who exhibit a sense ofhelplessness in the face of failure andthose who demonstrate a sense of mas-tery help elucidate the question of whyhighly capable children might perceivethemselves as inadequate.

In several studies (Diener & Dweck,1978; 1980; Dweck, 1975; Dweck & Re-pucci, 1973), Dweck found that help-less children attribute their failures tostable factors, such as lack of ability,and their successes to unstable factors,

such as effort or luck. Mastery-orientedchildren, on the other hand, attributetheir successes to stable factors, suchas ability, and their failures to unstablefactors, such as effort or luck. Whenmastery-oriented children succeed, theyinterpret the success as diagnostic oftheir underlying ability. When theyfail, they tend to concentrate on modi-fying their problem-solving strategies,rather than on analyzing reasons forfailure (Diener & Sweck, 1978).

Helpless children, on the other hand,interpret failure as diagnostic of theirperceived underlying lack of ability,and tend to give up, rather than to try adifferent strategy. Such children do notperceive success as evidence of highability, but rather as the result of aneasy task, teacher kindness, or blindluck. When their perfectionism inter-acts with a helpless orientation towardperceived failure, highly gifted childrenmay exhibit lowered self-concepts andineffective approaches to problem-solving. On the other hand, perfection-ism coupled with a mastery orientationcan lead to a high level of creativeproductivity.^Offering specific feedback on a giftedchild's work, rather than global evalu-ations, can help direct the child's atten-tion toward strategies for improvementwithout regard for failure or success.Feedback from professionals, obtainedthrough mentor programs or specialworkshops, can be particularly valu-able in helping a child understand theyears of dedication required to becomea creative professional.

Adult Expectations

The perfectionism of gifted chil-dren is frequently exaggeratedby adults who constantly urgethem to live up to their potential. Par-ents may overschedule their child withlessons and worthwhile activities, leav-ing no time to daydream or to play withordinary toys. Teachers who observethe spark of high level talent pile onextra work, and never seem satisfied.Children in a departmentalized secon-dary school can feel torn apart byteachers urging increased performancein each subject area, without regard tothe student's own interests or the pres-sures being applied by other teachers.Work harder on your math, says oneteacher. You have the ability to reallypush ahead. Work harder on your writ-ing, says another teacher. You reallyhave talent. Work harder on your so-cial studies project, says a third teacher.You aren't even beginning to tap yourreal ability. A multitalented child may

well have the ability to excel at highlevels in every subject area, but reali-ties of time and the dictates of thechild's own interest make living up toyour potential in every area an impos-sibility.

Intense Sensitivity

The intense sensitivity and inter-nal responsiveness characteriz-ing many highly gifted individu-als can intensify reactions to the ordi-nary problems of growing up (Silver-man, 1983; Whitmore, 1980). By tuningin to a wide range of social cues duringsocial interaction, a highly sensitivegifted child may perceive social rejec-tion where it is not intended (Whitmore,1980). Furthermore, sensitivity to soci-ety's injustice and hypocrisy leads manyhighly gifted children to feel despair andcynicism at very young ages.

Although heightened sensitivity toenvironmental and social cues may be anormal response for gifted children, Sil-yerman (1983) points out that they mayperceive their own intense inner expe-riences as evidence that somethingis wrong with them. Other children mayridicule a gifted child for reactingstrongly to an apparently trivial inci-dent, thereby increasing the child's feel-ing of being odd. Like perfectionism, in-tense sensitivity can have positive ornegative effects, depending on the indi-vidual response.

Self-definition

The classic adolescent identity crisismay come earlier for highly gifted chil-dren whose intense analytical approachto life leads to early analysis of self.Their own perfectionism, coupled withinappropriate adult expectations, canmake the process of identity formationparticularly difficult for highly giftedchildren.

In addition, highly talented childrenoften have the potential to succeed in anumber of different fields. Decidingwhich area should engage their mindsand talents can be an excruciating ex-perience (Sanborn, 1979). Unsure abouttheir ability to live up to their ownexpectations and the expectations ofothers, confused about the direction oftheir true talent, and worried about theways in which they are different fromaverage students while simultaneouslyfearing mediocrity these are the di-lemmas which face gifted students at-tempting to define themselves in aconfusing and often hostile world.

128/Roeper Review, February, 1984

Downloaded At: 01:57 12 April 2011

Alienation

While moderately gifted chil-dren tend to be popular withtheir classmates, childrenwith unusually high levels of abilitysometimes have a more difficult timefinding compatible peers (Gallagher,1958). Hollingworth (1942) and O'Shea(1960) have suggested that problems ofcommunication, starting in the pre-school years, may be one root cause ofthe highly gifted child's involuntaryisolation. A 3-year-old who expressesabstract ideas using the vocabulary ofthe average 6-year-old may not beunderstood by same-age peers. Four-year-olds who enjoy playing monopolyand checkers have difficulty findingsame-age playmates with similar skills(Roedell, Jackson, & Robinson, 1980).

With their advanced conceptions ofgroup organization, highly gifted chil-dren may develop an adult-like mannerwith others, and be accused of bossi-ness. When efforts to be accepted fail, ahighly able child may withdraw fromsocial interaction. One 4-year-old wasdiagnosed as emotionally disturbed byhis preschool teachers because of histendency to withdraw from social inter-action. Worried, his parents enrolledhim in a program for highly gifted chil-dren, where his friendly, outgoing man-ner demonstrated that his emotionaldisturbance had merely been a reactionto having no intellectual peers on hisown level with whom to interact.

Children who withdraw early fromsocial interaction may deprive them-selves of the opportunity to learnneeded social interaction skills. Whileintellectually advanced children fre-quently have advanced conceptions ofthe dynamics of social interaction, theirgood ideas may not translate into so-cial behavior without the benefit ofguided social experience in the com-pany of true peers (Roedell, Jackson, &Robinson, 1980).

The social alienation of extraordi-narily gifted children is exacerbated bythe insistence of educators and parentsthat they spend most of their time inthe company of chronological peers.The assumption that children of thesame age constitute a true peer grouponly holds true for children of averagedevelopment. The term peer does not,in essence, mean people of the sameage, but rather refers to individualswho can interact at an equal levelaround issues of common interest(Lewis, Young, Brooks, & Michelson,1975). Highly gifted children are notlikely to find developmentally definedpeers among their age-mates, and infact many of them prefer older compan-

ions (Hollingworth, 1942; Silverman,in preparation). Given a choice, highlygifted children tend to form friendshipswith others of similar mental age(O'Shea, 1960).

For children whose development ishighly uneven, true peers may varydepending on the activity. A child withextraordinary intellectual but averagephysical skills might have one set ofpeers for discussing literature or play-ing chess, and another set of peers onthe soccer field. The potential socialalienation of extremely able childrencan be avoided by special efforts tohelp such children find companionswith similar interests and abilities.Unless such efforts are made, highlygifted children run the risk of beinglabelled different and strange by theiragemates, and may internalize thisdesignation and become eccentric so-cial isolates. Ronald, a 5-year-old in aprogram for extraordinarily advancedchildren, explained these feelings wellwhen he commented, Do you knowwhy Bill is my best friend? Becausehe's the only one who understands thekind of guy I really am.

Inappropriate Environments

Highly gifted children experienceincreased vulnerability whenthey spend large portions oftheir time in inappropriate educationalsettings. The more a gifted child's abili-ties differ from the norm, the more in-appropriate becomes the educationalprogram offered in the regular class-room. A 7-year-old with the reasoningcapacity of an 11-year-old, whose read-ing and math skills equal those of theaverage fifth grader, will find littleuseful activity in a regular secondgrade classroom. Even if the teacherpresents new information, the instruc-tional pace will be unbearably slow,forcing the child to practice endlesslyskills mastered in less than half thetime taken by the average student(Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974; Keat-ing, 1976).

Many programs for gifted childrenalso constitute inappropriate environ-ments for the extraordinarily giftedchild (Stanley, 1979). Part-time pulloutprograms only relieve the boredom ofthe regular classroom for a few hoursper week. In some school districts, thecontent of the gifted enrichment classis not linked logically to the identifica-tion system. A mathematically brilliantyoungster might be identified for sucha program, for example, and be askedto spend his enrichment hours workingon creative writing and art, with no

attention paid to his interests and abili-ties in mathematics. Even when thechild's abilities and the content of theprogram are linked, the learning paceof the program may be geared to thelevel of the moderately gifted child.

It is important to remember that achild with an IQ of 164 is as dif-ferent intellectually from a childwith an IQ of 132 as that child is differ-ent from the 100 IQ child. Forcing achild with an IQ of 164 to learn at thepace of the average child, or even thepace of the moderately gifted, is akin toplacing an average child in a specialeducation classroom and asking thathis/her learning rate be slowed down tokeep pace with the rest of the class. Thefrustration of highly gifted childrenforced to stifle their love of learning ininhospitable environments can resultin withdrawal, behavior problems, orpsychosomatic symptoms.

Role Conflict

The conflict between society's stereo-typed expectations for certain age, sex,and racial groups and the highly giftedchild's need to fulfill extraordinary in-dividual potential can be severe. Forexample, in most junior high and highschool settings, th macho image pre-vails. It is the football star who is thehero of the school, not the mathematicswhiz. The desire to fulfill the role ex-pectations for the adolescent male candim a gifted young man's aesthetic ap-preciation for music or extraordinaryability in literature or mathematics.

The underrepresentation of minori-ties in mathematics and science coursesat the secondary level has been attrib-uted to a range of problems, includingthe lack of role models and the percep-tion of mathematics as the domain ofwhite males (Johnson, 1982). Highlygifted students from culturally differentbackgrounds face special conflicts infulfilling individual potential withoutbecoming alienated from their culturalheritage (Frasier, 1979). Peer pressureand the idea that academic excellenceis reserved for the majority culture pre-vents many highly able minority stu-dents from enrolling in gifted programsor in advanced academic courses.

Highly gifted girls experience equallysevere role conflicts. These girls, forexample, are less likely than boys totake advantage of opportunities to ac-celerate their mathematics education,and in general are less likely to enrollin high level math and science courses(Fox, Brody, & Tobin, 1980). Role con-flict for gifted girls stretcbes beyondmath and science, however, to a basic

Roeper Review, February, 1984/129

Downloaded At: 01:57 12 April 2011

conflict between traditional concep-tions of femininity and the inner driveto excel. In a 1978 study of gifted boys,it was found that only 18 percent of theboys expected their wives to have full-time careers, and 57 percent did notexpect them to work after they hadchildren. A companion study of highlygifted eighth grade girls revealed that48 percent saw major problems in com-bining scientific careers with familyresponsibilities. In a study of highlygifted seventh graders, only 46 percentof the girls, but 98 percent of the boysexpected to have continuous full-timecareers (Fox, Tobin, & Brody, 1981).

In her work on the moral develop-ment of women, Carol Gilligan(1982) describes the developmentalpath which leads women to definemorality in terms of care and responsi-bility towards others, so that evenwhen a girl does aspire to a career, itmay be for different reasons than arevoiced by boys. One 11-year-old girl isquoted as saying,... J want to be somekind of a scientist or something, and Iwant to do things, and / want to helppeople ...I think that everybody shouldtry to help somebody else in some way,and the way I'm choosing is throughscience, (p. 34) Gilligan asked womenof varying ages, to describe their viewsof self and morality. From these inter-views, she defines a feminine view ofthe world as comprised of a web ofinterconnections and contrasts thisperspective with the male view of aworld comprised of hierarchical rela-tionships. As Gilligan explains:

The images of hierarchy and web,drawn from the texts of men's andwomen's fantasies and thought, con-vey different ways of structuring re-lationships and are associated withdifferent views of morality and self.But these images create a problem inunderstanding because each distortsthe other's representation. As thetop of the hierarchy becomes theedge of the web and as the center of anetwork of connection becomes themiddle of a hierarchical progression,each image marks as dangerous theplace which the other defines assafe. (p. 62)

Thus, Gilligan characterizes wo-men's fear of success as essentiallya fear of being alone at the top withouta supporting network of equal rela-tionships.

Conclusions

Obviously, not all highly giftedchildren suffer as a result of thevulnerabilities described above.No inherent quality of giftedness auto-matically dooms these individuals tosocial maladjustment or unhappiness.In most cases, problems for extremelyable people arise from the discrepancybetween their level of development andthe expectations of society. As informa-tion about the needs of highly giftedchildren becomes more widespread,and society's expectations become moreclosely attuned to the realities of gifteddevelopment, the degree of vulnerabil-ity of these children will diminish.

Awareness, however, is not enough.Nurturing the development of highlygifted children requires a commitmentto building support systems to helpthem come to terms with their prodi-gious abilities. Such support systemsinclude appropriate educational pro-grams; systematic affective educationincluding social skills training and self-concept development; planned effortsin career counseling, academic coun-seling, and personal counseling; andsupportive adults to act as role models,provide guidance, and offer under-standing. Without these avenues ofsupport, extraordinarily advanced in-tellectual abilities become a tremen-dous burden rather than the foundationfor a creative and productive life.

REFERENCESDiener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. An analysis of learned

helplessness: Continuous changes in perform-ance, strategy, and achievement cognitions fol-lowing failure. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1978, 36, 431-462.

Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. An analysis of learnedhelplessness II: The processing of success. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980,39, 940-952.

Dweck, C. S. The role of expectations and attribu-tions on the alteration of learned helplessness.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1975, 31, 674-685.

Dweck, C. S., & Repucci, N. D. Learned helplessnessand reinforcement responsibility in children.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1973, 25, 109-116.

Fox, L. H. The problem of women ond mathematics.New York, New York: The Ford Foundation,1981.

Fox, L. H., Brody, L., & Tobin, D. (Eds.). Women andthe mathematical mystique. Baltimore, Mary-land: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980.

Fox, L. H., Tobin, D., & Brody, L. Career developmentof gifted and talented women, Journal of CareerEducation, 1981, 7, 289-298.

Frasier, M. M. Counseling the culturally diverse

gifted. In N. Colangelo & R.T. Zaffrann (Eds.),New voices in counseling the gifted. Dubuque,Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1979.

Freeman, J. Gifted children. Baltimore, Maryland:University Park Press, 1979.

Gallagher, J. J. Peer acceptance of highly gifted chil-dren in elementary school. Elementary SchoolJournal, 1958, 58, 465-470.

Gallagher, J. J. Teaching the gifted child. Boston,Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, 1975.

Gallagher, J.J., & Crowder, T. The adjustment ofgifted children in the regular classroom. Excep-tional Children, 1957, 23, 306-312, 317-319.

Gilligan, E. In a different voice. Cambridge, Massa-chusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Hollingworth, L. S. Children above 180 IQ. Slanford-Binet. Yonkers-on-Hudson, New York: WorldBook, 1942.

Johnson, J. L. Blacks in mathematics: The state of theart. Paper presented at the Equity in Mathe-matics Core Conference, National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia,February 19-21, 1982.

Keating, D. P. (Ed.). Intellectual talent: Research anddevelopment. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hop-kins University Press, 1976.

Lewis, M., Young, G., Brooks, J., & Michelson, L. Thebeginning of friendship. In M. Lewis & L. A.Rosenblum (Eds.), Friendship and peer relations.New York, New York: Wiley, 1975.

O'Shea, H. Friendships and the intellectually giftedchild. Exceptional Children, 1960, 26, 327-335.

Pringle, M. L. K. Able misfits. London: Longman,1970.

Robinson, H. B. The uncommonly bright child. In M.Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The uncommonchild. New York, New York: Plenum, 1980.

Robinson, N.M., & Robinson, H.B. The optimalmatch: Devising the best compromise for thehighly gifted student. In D. Feldman (Ed.), Newdirections for child development: Developmentalapproaches to giftedness and creativity. SanFrancisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 1982.

Roedell, W.C., Jackson, N.E., & Robinson, H.B.Gifted Young Children. New York, New York:Teachers College Press, 1980.

Sanborn, M. P. Differential counseling needs of thegifted and talented. In N. Colangelo & R.T. Zaf-frann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted.Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1979.

Silverman, L. K. Gifted education. St. Louis, Michi-gan: C. V. Moseby, in preparation.

Silverman, L. K. Issues in affective development ofthe gifted. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), A practi-cal guide to counseling the gifted in a schoolsetting. Reston, Virginia: Council for ExceptionalChildren, 1983.

Stanley, J.C. Identifying and nurturing the intel-lectually gifted. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn, & J. C.Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted. Baltimore,Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press,1979.

Stanley, J. C., Keating, D. P. & Fox, L. H. Mathemat-ical talent: Discovery, description, and devel-opment. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1974.

Tannenbaum, A. H. Gifted children. New York, NewYork: Macmillan, 1983.

Terman, L. M. Genetic studies of genius: Mental andphysical traits of a thousand gifted children(Vol. 1). Stanford, California: Stanford Univer-sity Press, 1925.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. Genetic studies of genius:The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years'follow-up of a superior group (Vol. 4). Stanford,California: Stanford University Press, 1947.

Whitmore, J. R. Giftedness, conflict, and under-achievement. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn &Bacon, 1980.

130/Roeper Review, February, 1984

Downloaded At: 01:57 12 April 2011