Giftedness and social adjustment: evidence supporting the resilience approach in Spanish‐speaking children and adolescents

Abstract

Do gifted students adjust poorly to their social environment? There are currently two competing positions: one that sustains that giftedness is by itself a risk factor for social adaptation, and another that holds that high cognitive abilities involve distinctive features that are protective and hence increase individual resilience. Empirical support has been provided for both positions. This paper provides data from a study performed with 50 Spanish-speaking gifted children and adolescents using a comparison group of 50 average-ability peers matched by sex and chronological age. The results show no significant differences between gifted students and their peers on global measures of adjustment. Instead, they suggest that gifted students are neither significantly more poorly nor better adjusted than their peers during different age periods. Our analysis of the results provides moderate support for the resilience position.

Social Acceptance of High‐Ability Youth: Multiple Perspectives and Contextual Influences

“…Regarding the first objective, and generally in line with our research hypotheses, our findings showed that high‐ability students were rated as better accepted than average‐ability students by both their teachers and their peers. These results confirm findings from research among formally identified gifted students participating in enrichment programs or other forms of gifted education (Cohen et al., ; Kosir et al., ; López & Sotillo, ), showing their generalizability to high‐ability youth from a nonselected group of students. Together, these findings contradict the stereotypical view of high‐ability youth as being smart but socially inept that still prevails in the media and among teachers (Baudson & Preckel, ; Weyns, Preckel, & Verschueren, ).…”

“…In line with this reasoning, empirical research using peer assessments of social acceptance has generally shown that intellectually gifted students are better accepted by their peers or show equal levels of acceptance as compared with non‐gifted students (Cohen, Duncan, & Cohen, ; Kosir et al., ; López & Sotillo, ). These findings are echoed in studies using teacher ratings of social acceptance (Kosir et al., ; López & Sotillo, ). However, these studies included students formally identified as gifted or as qualifying for a gifted program.…”

“…Relying on the developmental literature on peer acceptance, there are reasons to argue that, in general, children with high cognitive abilities tend to be well accepted by the peer group (defined here as age peers, not ability peers), especially in the early elementary school years. First, children with higher cognitive abilities generally show more advanced problem solving skills, social cognitive abilities, and moral reasoning, which have all been found to relate with higher peer acceptance in childhood (López & Sotillo, ; Neihart, ; Rubin et al., ). Second, high‐ability children generally show lower levels of externalizing behavioral problems, such as aggression (Francis et al., ), which has been found to be the most powerful determinant of peer rejection, particularly in the early elementary school years (Gifford‐Smith & Brownell, ; Rubin et al., ).…”

Parenting Styles and Adjustment in Gifted Children

“…A study done on gifted Spanish children (Lopez & Sotillo, 2009) aimed to clarify the two opposing theories concerning the gifted child's adjustment. Twenty-five gifted and 25 nongifted children between the ages of 7 and 11 were compared using scores of 130 or above on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (Wechsler, 1974).…”

Differences in Mechanisms of Social Interaction of Gifted Children Based on Peer Acceptance

“…(see Almeida, Araújo, Sainz-Gómez, & Prieto, 2016;Calero, García-Martin, & Robles, 2011;Clinkenbeard, 2012;Little, 2012;Reis & Renzulli, 2010;Sternberg, 2010;Stoeger & Ziegler, 2010). Nevertheless the socio-emotional area had also received a great relevance being one of the most controversial areas within this field, with studies supporting the hypothesis of a positive personal and social adjustment of these students (Borges, Hernández-Jorge, & Rodríguez-Naveiras, 2011;Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2012;Jen, Gentry, & Moon, 2017;López & Sotillo, 2009;Neihart, 2007;Robinson, 2008) while others highlight that it is necessary to pay attention to the socio-emotional needs of these students, since some children could be more vulnerable in different aspects of their development (Coleman & Cross, 2000;VanTassel-Baska, 2009) and experience difficulties with their environment (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Turner, 2012).…”