The current study compared differences between mindset beliefs about intelligence (fixed vs. growth), dimensions of perfectionism (Concern Over Mistakes, Doubt of Action, Personal Standards, Organization), and achievement attitudes among gifted underachievers ( n = 15) and gifted achievers ( n = 169) in Grades 6 to 8 and examined the relationship between mindset beliefs and dimensions of perfectionism. Gifted underachievers had higher fixed mindset beliefs about intelligence ( d = .79), lower scores on Organization ( d = −1.01), and lower Self-Regulation/Motivation ( d = −1.17) when compared with gifted achievers. These factors also were statistically significant in logistic regression models predicting achievement status. In addition, for the entire sample of gifted students ( N = 264), fixed mindset beliefs predicted both dimensions of Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism (Concern Over Mistakes, β = .35, p < .0001; Doubt of Action, β = .28, p < .0001), while growth mindset beliefs predicted both dimensions of Positive Strivings Perfectionism (Personal Standards, β = .35, p < .0001, and Organization, β = .21, p = .001). Our findings provide a clearer picture of the relationships among underachievement, perfectionism, implicit theories of intelligence, and achievement attitudes, providing guidance for affective interventions.

Perfectionism can influence how one approaches challenges and deals with setbacks, and, consequently, can inhibit or facilitate achievement. The present study (1) explored the relationship between Frost's six dimensions of perfectionism and five types of coping strategies; (2) examined how dimensions of perfectionism predict coping in response to academic stress; and (3) investigated differences between gifted underachievers and other gifted students on perfectionism and coping among 130 American gifted students in grades 6-8. Results of stepwise regression models revealed approach coping was predicted by adaptive perfectionism (Positive Strivings-notably Organization), whereas avoidance coping (Internalizing, Externalizing, and Distancing) was predicted by various combined models. Gifted underachievers displayed lower Positive Strivings perfectionism scores and lower positive coping when compared to achievers. This information is helpful when considering ways to guide gifted students to high levels of academic achievement while utilizing adaptive approaches.

The study compared mindset beliefs, perfectionism, and achievement attitudes among gifted, advanced, and typical students in Grades 6 to 8 (N = 416) and explored the relationship between these variables. Welch's F tests revealed no statistically significant difference in growth or fixed mindset beliefs about intelligence among groups. Gifted and advanced students scored higher on Personal Standards (gifted, d = 0.68; advanced, d = 0.62) and Academic Self-Perception (gifted, d = 0.72; advanced, d = 0.58) compared with typical students. In hierarchical regression models, giftedness was a statistically significant predictor for Concern over Mistakes (β = 0.20) and Personal Standards (β = 0.27); both gifted (β = 0.31) and advanced (β = 0.17) status were statistically significant predictors for Academic Self-Perception. Various models showed a positive association between growth mindset and Positive Strivings Perfectionism and achievement attitudes and a positive association between fixed mindset and Evaluative Concerns Perfectionism. Findings suggest that gifted students are not more vulnerable to develop fixed mindsets.

Bullying and victimization rates among 90 gifted and nongifted, high-achieving (HA) high school students were assessed by using the Reynolds Bully Victimization Scale (BVS;W. M. Reynolds, 2003). The mean scores indicate that gifted and HA high school students bully others and are victimized by others generally at unelevated rates based on BVS scores. Rates of bullying and victimization found among gifted and HA high school students were not significantly different from each other either. Bullying and victimization rates for male and female participants were also compared, and no significant differences were found between males and females for either bullying or victimization. Results from this study do not provide support for social interventions for gifted students as a group but suggest that gifted programs continue to focus on promoting primarily advanced intellectual endeavors (N. Colangelo, S. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross, 2004). However, individual gifted students may need targeted interventions focused on reducing bullying and victimization.

No abstract