Revision of the Social Coping Questionnaire: Replication and Extension of Previous Findings

Abstract

Research into the psychosocial experiences o f g i f d adohscents indi-cates that they believe others see tbem as %z@rent, I ) and this perception may interfere with social interaction. Some authors have described the experience of being identij2d as gifed in school as socially stigmatizing. The few studies that have investigated how gifcd adoksccnts cope with this stigma sugest that they use a variety of methoa!c to control the information others have about them.The Social Coping Questionnaire (SCQI was designcd to measure such strategies. The mrrent study presents an expansion of the SCQ andsupports prrvious findings indicating that the social coping strategies used by giflrd adolescents are identifiable and measurabk Factor anaIysis of the rmiscd SCQproduredfve social coping factors: denial of gifedness, emphasis on popukzrig peer acceptance, social interaction, and hiding g$edness, Gender d$ fcrences suggest that fcmales are more like^ than males to deny their abilities and report high hurls of interpersonal activity. rikson (1950) stated that adolescence is characterized as a time of primary concern with one's social role and

The Social Coping Questionnaire: An Examination of Its Structure with an American Sample of Gifted Adolescents

“…Specifically, Swiatek (1995Swiatek ( , 2001Swiatek ( , 2002Swiatek & Dorr, 1998) and Chan (2003Chan ( , 2004Chan ( , 2005 found various combinations of social coping factors with American and Chinese students. However, several factors that emerged from their studies did not emerge in this study.…”

“…Subsequent replications, using increasingly larger and more generalizable samples, split the original factors and uncovered new factors to form a clearer picture of the strategies that gifted students employ to deal with their recognized abilities. For example, Swiatek and Dorr (1998) reported the same four factors and an additional factor that formerly loaded onto the Denial factor: Hiding Giftedness. After adding items to the SCQ and administering it to a sample of 212 Honors and Advanced Placement (AP) participants twice, with 8 weeks in between administrations, Swi-atek (2001) found seven factors, three of which had emerged in previous analyses of the SCQ (Denial of Giftedness, Peer Acceptance, and High Activity Level).…”

“…Only seven studies (Chan, 2003(Chan, , 2004(Chan, , 2005Swiatek, 1995Swiatek, , 2001Swiatek, , 2002Swiatek & Dorr, 1998) exist that empirically investigated the SCQ Of those, only three (Chan 2004(Chan , 2005Swiatek 2002) tested its use with younger and older adolescents, one (Swiatek, 2001) established test-retest reliability, and none have examined the ten-ability of the factor structure of the SCQ across gender. The goal of the current study was to employ the SCQ with a sample of gifted preadolescent and adolescent students and answer the following questions: (a) How do the factors identified from the SCQ in our sample compare to those of previous replications, (b) is the factor structure tenable across younger and older adolescents, and (c) is the factor structure tenable across gender?…”

The Relationship Between Social-Emotional Difficulties and Underachievement of Gifted Students

“…Other causes of poor social-emotional wellbeing in gifted students are the social pressures and negative stigmas associated with high academic achievers (ManorBullock, Look, & Dixon, 1995;Reis & McCoach, 2000;Rimm, Rimm-Kaufman, & Rimm, 1999;Schroeder-Davis, 1999;Swiatek, 1998;Swiatek & Dorr, 1998). Studies reveal that being labelled as 'gifted' results in limited social benefits (Rimm et al, 1999;Schroeder-Davis, 1999).…”

“…Studies reveal that being labelled as 'gifted' results in limited social benefits (Rimm et al, 1999;Schroeder-Davis, 1999). It is believed that when labelled as 'gifted', students feel different to their peers and may have problems being accepted socially by others (Manor-Bullock, Look, & Dixon, 1995;Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2000;Swiatek & Dorr, 1998). These social-emotional difficulties, such as peer exclusion, loneliness, and isolation, cause students to withdraw from advanced subjects to avoid negative stigmas, and thus do not achieve their full potential (Davis & Rimm, 1998).…”