Gifted-Children-and-Adults-Neglected-Areas-of-Practice-James-Webb

Gifted Children and Adults: 

Neglected Areas of Practice 

JamesT.Webb, 

PhD 

Working with gifted 

and talented children 

and their families 

and with gifted 

adults is a neglected area of practice for 

psychologists. Two widespread myths 

among educators, pediatricians, and psychologists, 

are that gifted children and 

adults are quite rare, and that bright minds 

have few issues and seldom need special 

help. In fact, gifted children and adults are 

defined as those in the upper three to ten 

percent of the population in any of several 

intellectual domains (NAGC, 2010). 

Clinical and educational practice usually 

focuses on disadvantaged persons and obvious 

psychopathology. Many are unaware 

that talented and gifted children are at risk 

for underachievement, peer relationship 

issues, power struggles, perfectionism, existential 

depression, and other problems, 

and that bright adults often have job difficulties, 

problems with peers, spouses or 

children, and existential depression that 

stem from giftedness. In addition, few psychologists 

understand that special issues 

can arise when a child or adult is twice-exceptional 

- that is, gifted as well as having 

a diagnosable condition such as a learning 

disability, vision difficulties, auditory 

issues, ADHD, etc. As a result, many 

gifted children and adults are being overlooked, 

misdiagnosed, and receiving treatment 

that may be inappropriate (SENG 

Misdiagnosis Initiative, 2014). 

The association of high ability with emotional 

or social difficulties has been, in 

some ways, counter-intuitive. A primary 

and generally accepted key facet of the 

construct of "intelligence" is that intelligence 

includes problem-solving abilities 

in various areas, including related areas 

such as forethought, planning, reasoning 

ability, capacity to see cause-effect relations, 

attention to details, memory for relevant 

data, and a wide array of knowledge 

upon which the individual might draw (Sattler, 

2008). To the extent that a person possesses 

more ofthese cognitive qualities, it 

might seem that such an individual would 

then have fewer - not more - social and 

emotional problems. Using this logic, such 

individuals should be able to anticipate, 

avoid, and/or solve more interpersonal 

problems than others and should have more 

self-understanding. 

Such assumptions and implications regarding 

the impact of intelligence on emotional 

and interpersonal functioning are 

not always valid. Authors periodically have 

written of individuals who were highly 

able cognitively, but who demonstrated 

significant emotional or interpersonal 

deficits (e.g., Piirto, 2004). Other authors 

(e.g., Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 

2002; Kerr, 2014), however, have suggested 

that intelligence does seem related 

to interpersonal adaptiveness. 

Historically, controversy has existed about 

the extent to which intellectually gifted 

children and adults are prone to social and 

emotional problems. Looking back to the 

early 1900s, the prevailing notion within 

Western cultures was that intellectually 

gifted children were constitutionally more 

prone to insanity or to becoming social misfits, 

and that early cognitive development 

was likely to result in early atrophy, as was 

expressed in the then-popular saying of 

"Early ripe; early rot." The classic Terman 

longitudinal studies of gifted children disproved 

this general notion and found that 

the identified gifted children were, as a 

group, no more likely to experience social 

or emotional difficulties than were children 

in general (Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 

1947). In fact, these children seemed to 

have fewer problems, although retrospective 

consideration suggested that Terman's sample 

was probably biased in ways that favored 

environmentally advantaged, teacherfavored 

children, many of whom received 

advice and guidance as they grew (Kerr, 

1991; Webb,Amend, Webb, Goerss, Beljan, 

& Olenchak, 2005). 

Voices subsequent to Terman sometimes 

differed. Hollingworth (1926,1942; Klein, 

2002) agreed with Terman's findings with 

regard to most gifted children, but noted 

that children of unusually high intelligence 

seemed more prone to certain types of 

problems. Using the then-new IQ tests, 

Hollingworth concluded that there was an 

optimum intelligence range of about 120- 

145, in which range children generally 

had fewer social and emotional problems. 

However, children above that range, in her 

opinion, were more at risk for various personal 

and interpersonal difficulties. 

In the 1940s and 1950s, little professional 

emphasis was placed on social or emotional 

problems of gifted children, although 

a few authors (e.g., Strang, 1951; 

Witty, 1940) wrote about the psychology 

of gifted students. In the 1960s and 1970s, 

18 The National Register of Health Service Psychologists· The Register Rcporr s Spring 2014

...few psychologists understand that special issues can arise when a child or 

adult is twice-exceptional - that is,gifted as well as having a diagnosable 

condition such as a leaming disability, vision difficulties, auditory issues, 

ADHD, etc.As a result, many gifted children and adults are being 

overlooked, misdiagnosed, and receiving treatment that may be 

inappropriate (SENG Misdiagnosis Initiative, 2014). 

a very few programs were available to 

counsel and guide gifted students, usually 

such programs were affiliated with universities 

(Kerr, 1991), but few published 

studies concerned social-emotional needs. 

In the 1980s, a surge of interest occurred in 

this topic stimulated by Guiding the Gifted 

Child (Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982), 

anAPA award-winning book about social 

and emotional issues of gifted children, 

and by a new program called Supporting 

Emotional Needs of Gifted (www.sengifted.org). 

SENG continues as a nationwide 

non-profit organization that focuses 

on social and emotional issues of bright 

children and adults. Subsequently, the National 

Association for Gifted Children created 

a Counseling and Guidance Division. 

Limited research was available at that time, 

and information came primarily from the 

experiences of numerous therapists, educators, 

parents, and counselors. 

In the last few decades, new issues, perspectives, 

and substantial research have 

emerged, and particular attention has been 

given to reconceptualizing the concepts 

of "intelligence" and "giftedness," as well 

as the methods used to identify such children 

(Worrell, Subotnik, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 

2013). The National Association 

for Gifted Children has noted that "individuals 

are those who demonstrate outstanding 

levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional 

ability to reason and learn) or 

competence (documented performance or 

achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or 

more domains" and that "The development 

of ability or talent is a lifelong 

process." (NAGC, 2010). Prior to that time, 

educational and psychological practice almost 

exclusively identified gifted children 

in terms of intellectual ability and/or specific 

academic aptitude, despite the conceptual 

breadth of legislative or textbook 

definitions. In particular, "giftedness" was 

often treated as though it were synonymous 

with intelligence test scores and/or 

academic achievement test scores or educational 

achievements (Webb & Kleine, 

1993). 

As a result, most of the research and observations 

concerning the social and emotional 

needs of gifted children is based on 

gifted children who were considered gifted 

in those traditional ways. That is, the existing 

knowledge about possible social and 

emotional difficulties is derived from children 

who showed unusual aptitude and 

performance in academic areas-i.e., children 

who were already functioning pretty 

The National Register of Health Service Psychologists· The Register Report e Spring 2014 19

Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas 

of Practice 

well in school. Highly able students who 

were unwilling or unable to show their 

abilities academically (e.g., underachievers 

or those who also had a learning disability 

or emotional problems) were not 

studied, nor were children with high aptitude 

in other areas such as music or art. 

It is important to recognize that the literature 

concerning social-emotional needs 

of gifted children and adults can be 

grouped into two basic categories. One 

group of authors views gifted and talented 

persons as being prone to problems and 

in need of special interventions to prevent 

or overcome their unique difficulties (e.g., 

Altman, 1983; Delisle, 2005; Hayes & 

Sloat, 1989a; Lovecky, 2003; Silverman, 

1991). The other group of authors views 

gifted children as generally being able to 

fare quite well on their own, and gifted 

children with problems needing special 

interventions are seen as a relative minority 

(e.g., Janos & Robinson, 1985; Neihart, 

Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; 

Robinson, Shore & Enerson, 2006). 

These divergent views are not as contradictory 

as they first appear. Those authors 

who find that gifted children are doing relatively 

well on their own usually have focused 

on students from academic programs 

specifically designed for gifted children. 

Such children, by the very nature of the 

selection process, are typically functioning 

well in school, which then generally implies 

also that they would not be experiencing 

major social or emotional problems. 

Such selection procedures are likely 

to limit the representativeness of the sample 

ofthe gifted children being studied and 

would exclude gifted children who are academically 

underachieving because of social 

or emotional problems and who are 

not being served educationally in special 

programs for gifted children. An underestimate 

of social and emotional issues is 

likely. By contrast, those authors who find 

frequent problems among gifted children 

often rely on data gathered in clinical settings 

and from individual case studies 

where the population is self-selecting. As 

a result, there is likely a sample bias that 

would prompt an over-estimate of the incidence 

of social and emotional difficulties. 

Both views have at least partial validity. 

Gifted children who are able to function 

sufficiently in school settings such that 

they can be identified as such are likely 

also to be functioning generally well in 

other areas oflife, and thus do not appear 

to be at major risk for developing social 

and emotional problems, particularly if 

these children are also being served by 

some school program which is attempting 

to meet their needs. On the other hand, 

high potential gifted children who have not 

been identified and are not in school programs 

appear to be more at risk for cer- 

...high potential gifted 

children who have 

not been identified 

and are not in school 

programs appear to 

be more at risk for 

certain social and 

emotional difficulties. 

tain social and emotional difficulties. The 

latter group has been the subject of fewer 

empirical studies, however, probably because 

of the difficulties in locating subjects 

in ways that fit with accepted experimental 

designs, as well as because of the 

emphasis on considering children as gifted 

only when they overtly have achieved. 

Most of the research has focused on gifted 

children, and little has been done on gifted 

adults. Some researchers have supposed 

a link between creativity and bipolar 

and/or depressive conditions (e.g., Piirto, 

2004; Andreason, 2008; Ludwig, 1995; 

Jamison, 1996). Others, however, have 

found significant shortcomings in the research 

designs of those researchers (Kaufman, 

2013; Schlesinger, 2013). Others 

have written about their observations of 

higher frequencies in gifted adolescents 

and adults of existential depressions 

(Webb, 2014), alcohol consumption 

(Kanazawa & Hellberg, 2010), eating disorders 

(Kerr & Kurpius, 2004), interpersonal 

problems (Jacobsen, 2000; 

Stryznewski, 1999), and marital issues 

(Kerr, 2014; Kerr & Cohn, 2001). 

It should also be recognized, though, that 

there are exceptions to both groups. Some 

unidentified and unserved gifted children 

and adults function quite well personally 

and socially; conversely, some gifted children 

and adults in excellent school or work 

settings experience notable problems. The 

following discussion describes key dimensions 

that appear to be factors in these exceptions, 

some of the more common reasons 

why gifted children and adults are 

unable to function and need psychological 

guidance, and ways in which psychologists 

and other mental health professionals 

can provide help. 

Exogenous versus Endogenous 

Problems 

A clear distinction must be made to consider 

contextual aspects as separate from internal 

personal characteristics of gifted persons 

so that social and emotional 

difficulties of gifted children and adults 

can be divided into two categories-exogenous 

and endogenous. Exogenous problems 

are those that arise, or are caused, 

primarily because of the interaction of the 

child or adult with the environmental setting 

(e.g., family or the cultural milieu). 

Endogenous problems are those that arise 

primarily from within the individual essentially 

regardless of environment; that 

is, endogenous problems stem from the 

very characteristics of the gifted child or 

adult. The endogenous-exogenous distinction 

has seldom been used explicitly with 

regard to the emotional functioning of 

gifted individuals, though it appears to have 

considerable merit in conceptualizing the 

social and emotional needs of gifted 

children. 

Relatively few characteristics of gifted 

children and adults inherently make them 

20 The National Register of Health Service Psychologists· The Register Report s Spring 2014

Gifted Children and Adults: Neglected Areas of Practice 

more likely to experience social and emotional 

problems. Instead, difficulties most 

often arise as exogenous problems from 

the interaction of these characteristics with 

the cultural settings, attitudes, and valuemilieu 

within which they may find themselves. 

Nevertheless, there are some characteristics 

of gifted children and adults 

that do seem to increase the probability 

of social and emotional difficulties essentially 

regardless of the influence by the 

cultural milieu. These are: ~ 

• Drive to use one's abilities 

• Drive to understand, 

consistency 

• Ability to see possibilities 

alternatives 

to search for 

and 

• Emotional intensity (focus; intrinsic 

motivation; persistence) 

• Concern with social and moral 

issues (idealism; sensitivity) 

• Different rates or levels of physical 

and emotional development 

Ironically, the characteristics of gifted individuals 

that are their greatest strengths 

are also likely to be their Achilles' hee!' 

Here are some common strengths, along 

with associated difficulties that are likely 

to result (Clark, 2012; Seagoe, 1974; 

Webb, 1993). 

• Acquires information quickly vs. 

impatient with slowness of others 

• Inquisitive attitude vs. asks embarrassing 

questions; strong willed 

• Seeks systems and strives for order 

vs. seen as bossy or domineering 

• Creative and inventive vs. may 

disrupt plans of others 

• Intense concentration vs. resists 

interruption; seen as stubborn 

• High energy vs. frustration with 

inactivity 

• Diverse interests vs. seen as 

scattered 

• Strong sense of humor vs. humor 

may disrupt classroom or work 

• Keen observer vs. sees inconsistencies 

and may become disillusioned 

Even these characteristics are seldom inherently 

problematic by themselves. More 

often it is combinations of these characteristics 

and interactions with situational factors 

that lead to problematic behavior patterns. 

Some common patterns from such 

interactions are as follows. 

Intensity and Sensitivity 

(Overexcitabilities) 

Kasimierz Dabrowski, a Polish psychologist 

and psychiatrist, developed a theory 

that has vastly improved our understanding 

of bright children and adults, particularly 

his concept of overexcitabilities, 

which refers to a person's heightened response 

to stimuli (the exact translation of 

Dabrowski's term from the Polish is superstimulatability). 

Understanding the 

overexcitabilities allows us to comprehend 

how bright people-particularly the more 

highly gifted-often experience life much 

more idealistically, intensely, and sensitively 

than others. (Mendaglio, 2008; 

Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997). 

Dabrowski recognized that certain individuals 

seem instinctively drawn to certain 

kinds of stimulation. He also noted that 

their excitability tends to be in one or more 

offive different areas: intellectual, imaginational, 

emotional, sensual, and psychomotor. 

Some people show their excitable passion 

and intensity in all areas, others in 

fewer areas, perhaps only one or two. 

Dabrowski and others after him have observed 

that very bright children and adults 

are particularly prone to experience these 

overexcitabilities, and as a result, their 

passion and intensity lead them to be so reactive 

that their feelings and experiences 

far exceed what one would typically expect 

(Daniels & Meckstroth, 2009). 

These individuals are frequently accused 

by those around them of being excessive 

persons with "too much" of one trait or another 

and often hear negative comments 

such as, "You are just too sensitive," or, 

"You're over-thinking this!" or, "You are 

too much of an idealist!" Being extremely 

intense or sensitive can bring with it a sharp 

awareness of being different or of being 

disappointed in the lack of idealism in the 

world, and sometimes their overexcitabilites 

are misdiagnosed as psychological disorders 

(Webb et al., 2005). On the other hand, 

these heightened experiences also can be 

positive ones that can provide a richness 

of experience and allow a person to experience 

life in ways that others cannot even 

imagine. As such, the overexcitabilities are 

both a major source of strength and also 

often a cause of substantial stress, personal 

frustration, and criticism. Bright people often 

feel that they are different from mainstream 

society simply by virtue of their 

high intellect, but those with overexcitabilities 

find that it is even harder to feel "norma!." 

Other people are likely to see these intense, 

sensitive idealists as quirky - and 

they often are. Their intensity can prompt 

others to become irritated and to criticize 

them. Or their intensity may cause them 

difficulty in controlling their behaviors so 

that they overreact to situations in ways 

that alienate others. Some ofthese individuals 

are so excessive that others find them 

exhausting to be around and avoid them. 

Their "over the top" behaviors, their intense 

focus on their activities and goals, 

and the accompanying self-absorption can 

be hard for others to live with. As one 

woman described her spouse, "It seems for 

him that anything worth doing is worth doing 

to excess!" 

Table 1 shows how the overexcitabilities 

can work in both positive and negative ways 

for the people who exhibit them. 

Asynchronous 

Development 

Motor skills, particularly fine-motor, often 

lag behind a gifted child's cognitive conceptual 

abilities, particularly in pre-school 

children (Gilman, 2008; Webb & Kleine, 

1993). When the lag is substantial, and 

when it is combined with their intensity, 

the result is often emotional outbursts like 

temper tantrums: That is, the child may 

see in his "mind's eye" what he wants to 

do or construct or draw; however, his motor 

skills do not allow him to achieve his 

goa!. The more intensely he tries, the more 

frustration he experiences, often resulting 

The National Register of Health Service Psychologists' The Register Report s Spring 2014 21


Table 1: Positives and Negatives of Overexcitabilities (Webb, 2013) 

Description 

of intense behaviors 

Overexcitability 

Positive manifestations of Negative manifestations of 

sensitivities 

sensitivities 

Thirst for knowledge; discovery; questioning; 

love of ideas/ theories; constant searching for 

Intellectual truth; detailed visual recall; detailed planning; Sometimes very critical; argumentative 

keen observation; thinking about thinking; 

introspection 

Imaginational 

Vivid imagination; frequent use of image and 

metaphor; richness of association; frequent and 

vivid dreaming; imaginary friends; inventions; Mixes truth and fiction; preference for 

gives inanimate objects personalities; 

imaginary over real friends; need for novelty 

preference for the unusual and unique; creation and variety; low tolerance for boredom 

of private worlds; love of poetry, music, and 

drama 

Emotional 

Great depth and intensity of emotional life 

expressed in a wide range of feelings, from 

great happiness to profound sadness or despair; Timidity; shyness; difficulty adjusting to new 

strong emotional attachments; compassion; environments; depressive moods; feelings of 

sense of responsibility; constant self- guilt 

examination; responds at an advanced level to 

spiritual experiences 

Sensual 

Enhanced refinement of the senses: sight, 

hearing, smell, taste, touch; delight in beautiful 

objects, sounds of words, music, nature 

Easily distracted by sounds or the feel of 

clothing seams or tags; wants to be the center 

of attention; may be inclined to overindulging 

behaviors like overeating or shopping sprees; 

intense dislike of certain textures, visual 

images, smells 

Psychomotor 

Constantly moving; fast talking; intense drive; Restless; compulsive talking/chattering; 

augmented capacity for being active and nervous habits, such as tics, nail-biting, and 

energetic 

hair pulling 

in an emotional outburst which may be labeled 

by others as immaturity. 

Another internal dyssynchrony is the lag of 

judgment or emotional maturity behind intellect 

(Roedell, 1980; Webb, Gore, 

Amend, & DeVries, 2007). Significant 

stress in the lives of gifted youngsters occurs 

when they attempt to deal with emotions 

or social or interpersonal concepts 

that are simply beyond their capacity 

(Hayes & Sloat, 1989; Kerr, 1991). Many 

aspects of life cannot be "reasoned out" 

and can be understood only through the 

accumulation of experience (Webb & 

Kleine, 1993). Advanced reasoning abilities 

do not necessarily help in weighing 

emotions. This lag of judgment is often 

mislabeled as an emotional disorder when 

really it is a developmental process where 

the judgment usually catches up to the intellect 

as the child grows older. 

Internal dyssynchrony can likewise occur 

between the emotions and intellect of gifted 

youngsters or adults, or within areas of 

emotions. Since gifted persons tend to have 

more intense overexcitabilities, they are 

more driven toward self-knowledge and 

disillusionment, and hopefully later toward 

self-actualization. However, the progress 

toward self-knowledge and self-actualization 

often involves times of intense emotional 

growth, turmoil, and "positive disintegration" 

or "positive maladjustment" 

where acute self-examination and change 

are undertaken, and which constitute a necessary 

step in personal growth and development 

(Mendaglio, 2008). 

These endogenous aspects, however, do 

also have exogenous consequences. The 

22 The National Register of Health Service Psychologists· The Register Report. Spring 2014


stronger one's overexcitabilities, the less 

welcome they are among peers and teachers 

(Daniels & Piechowski, 2008), as well 

as among coworkers or even spouses and 

friends (Fiedler, 2008). Further, overexcitabilities 

in some areas (e.g., sensual) 

may not be welcomed. 

Perfectionism and Avoidance of 

Risk- Taking 

The ability to see how one might perform, 

combined with emotional intensity, leads 

many gifted children and adults to have 

unduly high expectations of themselves 

and others. The fervor of involvement in 

their activities combined with their unrealistic 

goals consumes great amounts of 

personal time and energy, often unproductively, 

and in some cases, the perfectionism, 

anxiety, and excessive rumination and 

intellectualization can resemble Obsessive 

Compulsive Disorder. Various authors 

(e.g., Clark, 2012; Hollingworth, 1926; 

Webb et al., 2007) have noted perfectionism 

is frequently found among high ability 

children, with estimates that between 

15-20% of highly able children may be 

significantly handicapped by perfectionism 

at some point during their academic careers. 

Eating disorders is likewise associated 

with perfectionism (Peck & Lightsey, 

2008) and with high intellectual ability 

(Lopez, Stahl, & Tchanturia, 2010). 

In the same way that gifted children and 

adults can see the possibilities, they also 

can see the potential problems in undertaking 

those activities. Though the prevalence 

has not been estimated, authors generally 

agree that some of these children are unwilling 

to take such risks, and that the 

avoidance of risk-taking is often expressed 

in under-achievement (Siegle & McCoach, 

2005), but may also be seen in obsessive 

indecision where the child perseverates in 

considering alternatives and outcomes to 

such a degree that taking action is hindered. 

The avoidance of risk-taking is also 

likely when gifted youngsters initially encounter 

non-success, such as when going 

from high school to college, and find.this 

experience to be devastating (Blackburn 

& Erickson, 1986). 

Excessive 

Self-Criticism 

Being able to see possibilities and alternatives 

also can imply that bright individuals 

not only may see idealistic images of 

what they might be, but simultaneously 

berate themselves because they can see 

how they are falling short of such an ideal 

(Strang, 1951; Webb, 2013; Webb et al., 

2007). The intensity, combined with the 

idealism, magnifies the amount of selfevaluation, 

often leading to excessive and 

inappropriate self-criticism. This pattern 

often is the foundation for depression arising 

from anger and disappointment at oneself 

because of high self-expectancies 

(Webb, 2013; Webb et al., 2007). 

Multipotentiality 

Most gifted children, as they approach 

adolescence, become aware that they have 

advanced capabilities in several areas. 

Many of them enjoy this multipotentiality 

and are involved in diverse activities, 

sometimes to an almost frantic degree, and 

may intensely try to cram 30 hours ofliving 

into a 24-hour day. While their hypomanic 

activity is seldom a problem for the 

child or adult, such level of activity may 

create problems for family or coworkers. 

For the individual, however, problems do 

arise when decisions must be made about 

college major or career (Kerr, 1985). By 

choosing one career path, other alternatives 

are essentially negated, and the result 

can be decisional anxiety. Kerr (1991, 

1997) concluded that multipotentiality was 

the most frequent cause of gifted students' 

difficulties in career development. 

Existential 

Depression 

The intense and sensitive idealism, 

metacognition, and multiple career concerns 

of gifted children and adults are not 

widely shared by peers or by society at 

large and therefore increase the likelihood 

of existential depression. Societal pressures 

are more often toward conformity and 

mediocrity rather than excellence and creativity. 

Society's focus on trivial behaviors 

and meaningless rituals prompts idealistic 

gifted individuals - especially highly gifted 

- to spend substantial amounts of personal 

time and energy searching for life's meaning 

and authentic relationships. Career options, 

self-satisfaction, consistency of beliefs 

and behaviors, persistence, and real 

value to humanity are important concerns. 

The recognition of limits on the development 

of one's potential (i.e., one cannot be 

all that one could be simply because there 

is not enough time nor space) is combined 

with realization of the transiency of one's 

efforts. The result often is that the person 

feels angry at fate, questions the meaning 

and worth of life's existence, and experiences 

notable existential depression (Webb, 

2013). This is particularly likely if one's 

cognitive developmental stage is still "dualistic," 

seeing the world in terms of absolutes 

of right and wrong or good and evil 

(Kerr, 1991), prompting the person to 

search for absolutes about life. 

2e Gifted 

Twice-exceptionality can be considered 

an endogenous problem for gifted persons, 

particularly the more highly gifted. If a 

person has a vision, hearing, speech, or 

other physical disorder, the emphasis by 

professionals is most often on the disorder, 

with little emphasis given to enhancing 

their intellectual abilities. The gifted components 

are most often overlooked even 

though they have significant implications 

for the person's educational and vocational 

success and self-concept. 

As overall level of intelligence increases, 

the span of abilities in different areas frequently 

increases such that there is asynchrony 

in an individual's level of ability 

that is reflected in specific ability areas in 

subtest scores on achievement or cognitive 

tests, as well as in classroom or occupational 

activities (Gilman, 2008; Webb 

et al., 2005; Webb et al., 2007). These 2e 

persons frequently underestimate their 

abilities because they evaluate their competence 

based more on what they are unable 

to do - the area(s) that lag behind - 

rather than on their substantial abilities; 

as a result, they often underachieve and 

are prone to depression (Webb et al., 2007; 

Whitmore & Maker, 1985). 

The National Register of Health Service Psychologists e The Register Report. Spring 2014 23


Peer relation problems for gifted children may 

begin even in preschool.Young gifted children 

(particularly highly gifted ones) repeatedly and 

intensely attempt to organize people and things, 

and in their search for consistency, emphasize 

"rules" that they attempt 

Some gifted persons will have a specific 

learning disability; others will have physical 

or medical problems. The person's intellect 

may be quite high, but because of 

motor difficulties, such as cerebral palsy, 

the potential cannot be expressed in ordinary 

ways. It is important that psychologists 

help parents and educators focus on 

ways to nurture the intellect, at least by 

treating the person with appropriate intellectual 

respect, not just on the handicapping 

condition. Many twice-exceptional 

children have later become quite successful 

adults when the strengths and deficits 

are both nurtured (Trail, 2010). 

Exogenous 

- 

Problems 

Though some issues are endogenous, the 

majority of social and emotional problems 

experienced by gifted persons are more 

likely to be exogenous in origin, particularly 

for children in school settings, or 

with peers that are not a good fit for them, 

or with parents who are uninformed about 

characteristics of gifted children. The characteristics 

of gifted children exist in the 

context ofthe interaction of the child with 

the child's family, school setting, and/or 

culture in general, and these characteristics 

may, or may not, fit with that environmental 

context (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski- 

Kubilius, 2013). 

The lack of understanding or support for 

gifted children and the actual ambivalence, 

hostility, or bullying they experience particularly 

create significant problems for gifted 

children (Gilman, 2008; Webb et al., 2007). 

Gifted adults may experience similar problems, 

but less so because they are able to 

to apply to others. 

more easily change their life situations. 

Some commonly occurring exogenous 

problem areas and patterns are as follows. 

Educational Conformity vs. 

Individualism 

The gifted child is, by definition, unusual 

as compared with the typical developmental 

template in cognitive abilities as well as 

in intensity and sensitivity, and requires 

different educational experiences (Gilman, 

2008; Webb et aI., 2007). Since educational 

settings have task expectancies 

based on age-norms, children are grouped 

by age for educational instruction. Additionally, 

teachers and administrators focus 

on helping children achieve basic minimal 

levels of competence, and little, if 

any, emphasis is placed on helping gifted 

develop advanced skills (Gilman, 2008; 

Webb et al., 2007). Thus, the cognitively 

gifted child is unlikely to fit the curriculum, 

depending on the rigidity of the agegroupings 

and on the presence or absence 

of flexibility in the instruction regarding 

individual differences among learners 

(Gilman, 2008). The child, then, has a 

dilemma: "If I maximize my individual 

abilities and learn at the most appropriate 

pace for me, then I am likely to be seen 

as non-conformist and different. IfI conform 

to the expectancies for the average 

child, then I am bored, dishonest with myself, 

and handicapping my future development." 

Underachievement often results, 

in addition to careless, incomplete, disorganized, 

poor quality, and procrastinated 

work because the school environment has 

not taught the challenging process required 

for achievement (Rimm, 2008). 

Parents are often fearful that they will be 

seen as "pushy parents." They do not know 

what is reasonable to expect of their child 

or of the school, and they need guidance 

and support from psychologists to advocate 

for their child (Gilman, 2008; Webb 

et al., 2007). Probably the largest body of 

literature on gifted children concerns their 

educational needs, and what adaptations 

could or should be made to the "regular" 

curriculum in order to accommodate the 

gifted child's needs (e.g., Colangelo, Assouline, 

& Gross, 2004; Davis, 2006). Except 

for self-contained programs or 

schools, school adaptations represent compromises 

- that gifted children should develop 

their abilities, but they should also 

fit in with others - as a part of societal ambivalence 

about gifted children. 

The struggle between conformity and expressing 

one's abilities continues into adulthood 

in work, family, and peer settings (Jacobsen; 

2000; Kerr & Cohn, 2001; 

Stryznewski, 1999; Webb, 2013). Gifted 

girls, minority group children, certain religious 

group members, or unusually creative 

children seem particularly likely to 

experience pressures toward conformity in 

peer relations (Kerr, 1997; Piirto, 2004), 

and career decisions are often influenced by 

the role expectancies of those in the environment. 

Continually attempting to reconcile 

the conflict between fitting in and being 

an individual can be quite stressful. 

For gifted individuals, meeting the expectancies 

of others versus individualism 

exists throughout the lifespan, and it is 

displayed in many arenas-school, home, 

with peers, and in society at large-and 

raises issues of belongingness and personallife 

meaning (Webb, 2013). Gifted 

individuals, particularly the more creative 

ones, are often non-conformist and challenge 

traditions, rituals, roles, or expectancies, 

prompting discomfort in those 

around. Others see the nonconformist as 

unpredictable and as challenging the status 

quo. The more different in creativity 

or intellect the child is, the more likely 

that child is to be seen as non-conformist, 

and thus more likely to experience criticism 

or rejection by others. 

24 The National Register of Health Service Psycholcgists e The Register Report. Spring 2014


Peer Relations 

Peer relation issues are almost universal 

for gifted individuals, and these exogenous 

problems often perplex gifted children and 

adults because they seldom view themselves 

as being different from others. Since 

they grow up seeing the world through 

their own eyes, that is normal for them. 

One child, for example, was so surprised to 

discover that other third graders did not 

know how to play chess, nor did they like 

to study fractals. Psychologists who work 

with gifted individuals commonly report 

clients who say things like, "Others tell 

me I ask too many questions; I think too 

much; I am too serious; I have a strange 

sense of humor; I am impatient with others; 

I am too idealistic," and "I don't understand 

why I don't seem to fit in." 

Peer relation problems for gifted children 

may begin even in preschool. Young gifted 

children (particularly highly gifted ones) 

repeatedly and intensely attempt to organize 

people and things, and in their search 

for consistency, emphasize "rules" that 

they attempt to apply to others. They invent 

games and try to organize their playmates. 

Almost regardless of the setting, tensions 

are likely to arise between the gifted children 

and their age peers, and because of 

their advanced levels of ability, gifted children 

often gravitate toward older children 

or adults in their search for intellectual 

peers (Webb et al., 2007). 

Peer issues continue into adolescence and 

adulthood, and are relevant to socializing, 

relations with coworkers, dating, marriage, 

and family. A relevant and helpful concept 

for bright adults is that of an intellectual 

"zone of tolerance." That is, in order to 

have a long-lasting and meaningful relationship 

with another person (whether in 

friendship or a romantic relationship), that 

person should be within about plus or minus 

20 IQ points of one's ability level 

(Jensen, 2004, personal communication). 

Outside of that zone, there will be significant 

differences in thinking speed and 

depth or span of interests, which likely will 

lead to impatience, dissatisfaction, frustration, 

and tension on the part of each partie- 

ipant. Others have found that people who 

marry each other or become friends are 

usually within about 12 IQ points of each 

other (Ruf, 2012). When one is highly or 

profoundly gifted, the difficulty of finding 

someone similar increases. 

Depression 

Depression is often anger at oneself or 

anger at a situation over which one has 

little or no control, and the two are often 

related (Webb, 2013). 

Anger at oneself is generally endogenous; 

the gifted individual is able to perceive 

personal strengths, but also personal shortcomings. 

Anger at oneself may also have 

an exogenous component. Some families, 

for example, have a tradition of continually 

evaluating and criticizing performance - 

one's own and others. In such an environment, 

any natural propensity by the child 

to self-evaluate will likely be inflated. The 

possibility of clinical or sub-clinical depression 

increases in such situations, as 

well as academic underachievement. 

Exogenous depression may also arise from 

helpless anger at situations over which 

one feels no control and a poor sense of 

personal control over one's own life 

(Rimm, 1991; Webb, 2013). When the environment 

(e.g., home, school, friends) is 

not supportive of one's needs and one feels 

trapped, the frequent result is depression. 

Educational misplacement of gifted children 

or inappropriate job settings for gifted 

adults are examples of situations which 

do not meet their needs, but over which 

they have little or no control. 

Family Relations 

Families nurture - or hinder - social and 

emotional competencies, as well as enhance 

- or diminish - the development of 

achievement, creativity, and eminence (Albert, 

1978; Bloom, 1985; Csikszentrnihalyi, 

1996; Goertzel, Goertzel, Goertzel, & 

Hansen, 2004; Silverman, 1991). It is in 

the family that exogenous problems for 

gifted children may occur. Some common 

concerns are as follows. 

Power Struggles 

Most parents, particularly those with high 

aspirations, have firm ideas about the level 

of achievement and competence that they 

want their child to attain. Intense parental 

aspirations, when combined with the intensity 

of the gifted child, can lead to major 

power struggles, with the resulting passive-aggressive 

behavior by the child 

(Webb et al., 2007). Fathers in particular 

tend to perceive giftedness in terms of 

achievement and appear to be more likely 

to become involved in power struggles concerning 

achievement (Silverman, 1988). 

Enmeshment 

or Confluence 

Some parents of gifted children become 

emotionally enmeshed with their children; 

they narcissistically attempt to live out 

their own aspirations and wished-for 

achievements through their highly able 

child, and become overly involved in the 

child's life (Miller, 1996). Instead of a 

power struggle, the child accedes to the 

parental over-involvement. This pattern 

can lead to the gifted child having a poorly 

differentiated sense of self-identity as distinct 

from that of the parent. 

Mistaking the Abilities for the 

Child 

This problem often is embedded within 

the enmeshment or the power struggle. 

The child's unusual abilities may be what 

is emphasized by the parents, particularly 

fathers (Silverman, 1991), and the child's 

feelings or sense of person are denigrated. 

Such over-emphasis on achievement 

prompts the child toward perfectionism 

The National Register of Health Service Psychologists s The Register Report. Spring 2014 25


...few psychologists receive training about the characteristics or special 

needs of gifted children, and, in fact, are often taught in 

graduate school that "gifted children will make it on their own," 

and superficial relations with other people, 

for the child comes to internalize the 

emphasis on the importance of accomplishments 

rather than on the inherent 

worth as a person (Grobman, 2006). To 

be sure, many highly achieving persons 

feel good about themselves, and are neither 

perfectionistic, nor superficial. Such persons 

seem to have come from families that 

emphasized and modeled achievement, 

but balanced it with concerns for personal 

worth (Bloom, 1985; Robinson, Shore, & 

Enerson, 2006; Goertzel et al., 2004). 

Sibling Relations 

When one child in the family is labeled as 

gifted, and most often that is the first-born 

child (Cornell, 1984), the other children 

in the family may view themselves as nongifted. 

Gifted children often hold high status 

in the family; parents often feel closer 

to and prouder ofthe child who is labeled 

gifted, sometimes generating adjustment 

problems in siblings who are considered 

non-gifted (Cornell, 1983, 1984, 1989; 

Grenier, 1985; Silverman, 1991). Despite 

the "either-or" thinking (i.e., gifted vs. nongifted), 

the siblings are likely to be close in 

intelligence (Silverman, 2009). Thus, it is 

important to evaluate siblings to see if they, 

too, should be considered as gifted. Otherwise, 

there is substantial likelihood of underachievement 

by the unlabeled, but 

equally bright, siblings (Webb et al., 2007). 

Sibling rivalry seems more likely if the 

second-born child is labeled as gifted but 

the first-born is not. Whereas first-born 

children identified as gifted generally enjoyed 

a close sibling relationship, secondborn 

children labeled as gifted experienced 

more problems in sibling relationships 

(Tuttle, 1990). However, as the difference 

in sibling IQs increases, competition 

among the siblings decreases, and the sibling 

relations are more harmonious (Ballering 

& Koch, 1984). 

Parental 

Understanding 

Family problems occur most often because 

parents of gifted children (a) lack information 

about gifted children, (b) lack support 

for appropriate parenting, or (c) are attempting 

to cope with their own unresolved 

problems (which may have to do with their 

own experiences with being gifted). 

Despite conventional beliefs that "every 

parent has a gifted child," parents - particularly 

fathers-often overlook or underplay 

signs of precocious intellectual 

development in their children (Silverman, 

1991; Webb et al., 2007), though they may 

recognize their child as different from 

other children. Most parents apply guidelines 

and norms derived from children of 

average abilities or that emphasize minimally 

expected developmental criteria 

(Webb & Kleine, 1993). Parental puzzlement 

and frustration often result. 

Sometimes parents' own unresolved issues 

with giftedness contribute to family 

problems. Commonalities of heredity and 

environment usually (though not always) 

result in gifted children having gifted parents 

(Silverman, 1991). However, most 

parents are unaware of how bright they 

are or how it affects their lives. The intensity, 

impatience, and high expectancies 

that characterize these parents, if not mediated 

by self understanding, can create 

an environment of misery for those within 

the family. 

Approaches to Preventing or 

Ameliorating Problems 

Gifted individuals are not immune to social 

and emotional problems simply because 

of their unusual abilities. Although 

many gifted children and adults do function 

quite well, others do not, and may actually 

be more likely to experience significant 

difficulties related to their giftedness 

at some point in their lives, particularly if 

they are educationally misplaced and/or 

if they and their families lack appropriate 

information (Neihart et al., 2002; Webb 

et al., 2005; Webb et al., 2007). Ironically, 

their advanced ability to adapt or adjust 

may itself result in some problems, such as 

underachievement or excessive conformity 

(Kerr, 1997) as they strive to fit in. 

As noted previously, most counselors, psychologists, 

and primary health care professionals 

have little, if any, training in assessing 

or treating gifted individuals with 

emotional or interpersonal difficulties. Extremely 

few psychologists receive training 

about the characteristics or special needs 

of gifted children, and, in fact, are often 

taught in graduate school that "gifted children 

will make it on their own" and that 

they are not a group likely to have special 

problems (Webb et al., 2005). Similarly, 

psychologists are unaware of how frequently 

gifted children reach developmental 

milestones much earlier (Ruf, 2009), 

which has implications for peer relations 

as well as for school issues and educational 

planning. In fact, some studies have indicated 

that these professionals have distinctly 

negative feelings toward gifted children 

(Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 

1991). Further, most professionals have 

been trained in a pathology model, rather 

than an enhancement of human potential 

model, and tend to focus only on clear dysfunctions 

compared with the norm, rather 

than seeing that failure to reach potential 

might likewise be a dysfunction. As a result, 

''very few mental health professionals know 

how to adapt their counseling strategies to 

better meet the needs of individuals with 

high abilities, and untrained counselors 

may pathologize normal characteristics of 

gifted individuals, such as adaptive perfectionism 

and overexcitabilities" (Moon, 

2002, p. 218). 

26 The National Register of Healtb Service Psychologists' The Register Report s Spring 2014


Services under a Different Label 

Sometimes needs and problems of gifted 

children and adults are served by mental 

health professionals, but the situations and 

problems are misdiagnosed or labeled in 

a fashion that is only partially accurate 

(Webb et aI., 2005). For example, the professional 

may recognize and treat existential 

depression, but overlook the gifted 

components involved. Seeing numerous 

possibilities in situations may be classified 

as obsessive behavior. The intensity and 

daydreaming of a bored gifted child might 

be labeled as an attention deficit disorder. 

Interpersonal withdrawal could be due to 

educational misplacement or the lack of 

peers by a gifted youngster. The clownish 

classroom behavior of a gifted child who is 

educationally misplaced might be incorrectly 

diagnosed as an undersocialized conduct 

disorder behavior pattern. 

Assessment Approaches 

Sometimes formal psychological assessments 

are needed for a differential diagnosis 

or because the parents or school want a 

second opinion. It is important that professionals 

doing such assessments are knowledgeable 

about gifted children. For example, 

on projective personality tests, gifted 

children often give responses that might 

appear pathological, but really are simply 

a reflection of their vivid imagination combined 

with their intensity (Webb & Kleine, 

1993). Gifted children and adults show a 

great deal more intra-test scatter than do 

other children (Gilman, 2008; Webb & 

Kleine, 1993). That is, there is substantially 

greater variability across abilities than 

among children of average or less ability 

level. Such variability can prompt inappropriate 

conclusions oflearning disability or 

other disorders. And since so many gifted 

children reach the ceiling on subscales of 

standardized tests of cognitive ability, outof-level 

testing may be needed. 

Treatment Approaches 

Treatment interventions generally are quite 

effective with gifted children and adults. 

Their conceptual quickness apparently al- 

lows them to more quickly grasp and apply 

therapeutic suggestions. Most professionals, 

once they become familiar with 

relevant literature on gifted individuals, 

are readily able to incorporate that information 

into their treatment approaches. 

Relationship and insight-oriented approaches 

appear particularly useful since 

they go along with the cognitive strengths 

of the gifted child. That is not to demean 

behavioral or strategic approaches; they, 

too, may be helpful. Rational-emotive therapy 

approaches can be quite effective in 

helping gifted persons learn to manage 

their "self-talk" that underlies their feelings 

of excessive stress, perfectionism, or depression 

(Webb, 2013; Webb et aI., 2007). 

Many gifted individuals are searching for 

some cognitive framework through which 

they might understand themselves and 

their lives, but they also have a particular 

need to feel understood and to have a relationship 

with the treating professional. 

In addition to treating clinical problems, 

psychologists, pediatricians, and others 

can do anticipatory guidance with parents 

of gifted and talented persons, and there 

are substantial resources that a professional 

can suggest to the individual or family. 

Several non-profit groups have information 

available for free from their 

websites or sponsor conferences or other 

educational opportunities. Particularly 

noteworthy are Supporting Emotional 

Needs of Gifted (www.sengifted.org), 

Davidson Institute for Talent Development 

(www.ditd.org), Hoagies Gifted 

(www.hoagiesgifted.org), and the National 

Association for Gifted Children 

(www.nagc.org). Likewise several publishers 

specialize in books for parents of 

gifted children and the professionals who 

work in the field, which can be used for 

bibliotherapy. 

Parents of gifted children and gifted adults 

are looking for counseling and mental 

health professionals to whom they can turn 

for information, advice, support, diagnostic 

clarifications, and treatment. At present, 

it is difficult for them to find knowledgeable 

and helpful professionals. Gifted individuals 

and their families often need 

counseling and guidance in three areasacademic 

planning and career opportunities; 

personal and social concerns with 

their families, peers, or teachers; and special 

outside-of-school enrichment experiences. 

Although there is seldom third-party 

reimbursement for psychological services 

for gifted issues, per se, many families are 

willing to payout of pocket. Psychologists 

can expand their practices to meet 

this need, which currently is a neglected 

area of practice, by learning about the 

characteristics of gifted individuals. and 

the implications for diagnosis and treatment 

either through readings or through 

continuing education opportunities through 

nonprofit groups like SENG, which actively 

provide such information. 

References and CE exam available 

at E-Psychologist.org 

Author 

James T. Webb, Ph.D., 

the founder of the nonprofit 

group SENG 

(Supporting Emotional 

Needs of Gifted Children), 

served on the 

Board of Directors for 

the National Association 

for Gifted Children and was president 

of the American Association for Gifted 

Children. Dr. Webb is lead author of six 

books and numerous articles about gifted 

children. In 2011, he received the Lifetime 

Achievement Award of the Arizona 

Association for Gifted Children the Community 

Service Award from the National 

Association for Gifted Children, and the 

Upton Sinclair Award by 

EducationNews.org. Dr. Webb is a pastpresident 

of the Ohio Psychological Association 

and served on the APA Council 

of Representatives. Formerly Professor 

and Associate Dean at the Wright State 

University School of Professional Psychology, 

Dr. Webb is president of Great 

Potential Press. 

The National Register of Health Service Psychologists s The Register Reporr s Spring 2014 27

References 

Albert, R. S. (1978). Observations and suggestions regarding giftedness, familial influence, and the 

achievement of eminence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 201-211. 

Altman, R. (1983). Social-emotional development of gifted children and adolescents: A research 

model. Roeper Review, 6, 65-68. 

Andreason, N. C. (2008, June). The relationship between creativity and mood disorders. Dialogues 

in ClinicalNeuroscience, 10(2), 251-255. 

Ballering. L. D. & Koch. A. (1984). Family relations when a child is gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 

140-143. 

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. 

Clark, B.A. (2012). Growing up gifted, 8 th ed. New York: Pearson. 

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back 

America's brightest students. The Templeton National Report on Acceleration, Volumes 1& 

2. Iowa City: University of Iowa. 

Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the family system. 

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 322-335. 

Cornell, D. G. (1984). Families of gifted children. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press. 

Cornell, D. G. (1989). Child adjustment and parent use of the term "gifted." Gifted Child Quarterly, 

33,63-64. 

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Daniels, S., & Meckstroth, E.A. (2009). Nurturing the sensitivity, intensity, and developmental 

potential of young gifted children. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living with 

intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development of gifted 

children adolescents, and adults (pp. 33-56). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Daniels, S. & Piechowski, M. M. (2008). Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, 

excitability, and emotional development of gifted children adolescents, and adults. 

Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Davis, G. A. (2006). Gifted children, gifted education: A handbookforteachers 


and parents.

Delisle, J. R. (2005). Once upon a mind: The stories and scholars of gifted education. Independence, 

KY:Cengage Learning. 

Fiedler, E. (2008). Advantages and challenges of lifespan intensity. Chapter in Living with intensity: 

Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development of gifted children, 

adolescents, and adults (pp. 167-184). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Gilman, B. J. (2008). Academic advocacy for gifted children: A parent's complete guide. Scottsdale, 

AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M. G., Goertzel, T. G., & Hansen, A. M. W. (2004). Cradles of eminence: 

Childhoods of more than 700 famous men and women. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential 

Press. 

Grenier, M. E. (1985). Gifted children and other siblings. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 164-167. 

Grohman, J. (2006). Underachievement 

in exceptional gifted adolescents and young adults: A 

psychiatrist's view. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. 17(4), 199-210. 

Hayes, M. L., & Sloat, R. S. (1989). Suicide and the gifted adolescent. Journal for the Education of 

the Gifted, 13, 229-244. 

Hollingworth, 

Hollingworth, 

L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan. 

L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York: World Book Company. 

Jacobsen, M. E. (2000). The gifted adult: A revolutionary guide for liberating everyday genius. New 

York: Ballantine. 

Jamison, K. R. (1996). Touched with fire: Manic depressive illness and the artistic temperament. 

New York: Free Press. 

Janos. P. M. & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. 

In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives 

(pp. 149-196). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 

Kanazawa, S., & Hellberg, Josephine E. E. U. (2010, December). Intelligence and substance abuse. 

Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 382-396. 

Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Beautiful minds: The real link between creativity and mental illness. 

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/10/03/the-real-link-betweencreativity-and-mental-illness/

Kerr, B. A. (1991). A handbook for counseling the gifted and talented. Alexandria, VA: American 

Association for Counseling and Development. 

Kerr, B. A. (1997). Smart girls:A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness. Scottsdale, AZ: 

Great Potential Press. 

Kerr, B. A. & Cohn, S.J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for meaning. 


Kerr, B. A. & Kurpius, S. E. (2004). Encouraging talented girls in math and science: Effects of a 

guidance intervention. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 85-102. 

Kerr, B. A. & McKay, R. (in press 2014). Smart girls in the 21 st Century: Understanding 

talented girls and women. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Klein, A. (2002). Aforgotten 


voice: A biography of Leta Stetter Hollingworth. Scottsdale, AZ: Great 

Lopez, c., Stahl, D., & Tchanturia, K. (2010). Estimated intelligence quotient 

in anorexia nervosa: A 

systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Annals of psychiatry, 9, 40. 

Lovecky, D. V. (2003). Different minds: Children with ADHD,Asperger Syndrome, and other learning 

deficits. Philadelphia, PA: Kingsley. 

Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy. 

New York: Guilford. 

Mendaglio, S. (2008). Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential 

Press. 

Miller, A. (1996). Prisoners of childhood: The drama of the gifted child and the search for the true 

self. New York: Basic Books. 

Moon, D. (2002). Counseling needs and strategies. In Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & 

Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What 

do we know (pp 213-222). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. 

NAGC. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm. 

http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspxid=6404. 

Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional 

development of gifted children: What do we know Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Peck, l. D. & Lightsey, O. R. (2008). The eating disorders continuum, self-esteem, and 

perfectionism. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 184-192. 

Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Rimm, S. B. (1991). Underachievement and superachievement: Flip sides of the same psychological 

coin. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 328-344). 

Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Rimm, S. (2008). Why bright kids get poor grades, and what you can do about it: A six step 

program for parents and teachers. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enerson, D. l. (2006). Best practices in gifted education: An evidencebased 

guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. 

Roedell, W. C. (1980). Characteristics of gifted young children. In W. C. Roedell & H. B. Robinson 

(Eds.], Gifted young children (pp. 66-89). New York: Teachers College Press. 

Rut, D. A. (2009). 5 Levels of gifted: School issues and educational options. Scottsdale, AZ: Great 


Ruf, D. A. (2012). How does my IQ affect me Retrieved from www.talentigniter.com/blog/howdoes-my-iq-affect-me-2nd-series-does-intelligence-matter-deborah-ruf-phd 

Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations, 5 th ed. La Mesa, CA: Sattler. 

Schlesinger, J. (2012). The insanity hoax: Exposing the myth of the mad genius. Ardsley-on-Hudson, 

NY: Shrinktunes Media. 

Seagoe, M. (1974). Some learning characteristics of gifted children. In R. Martinson (Ed.), The 

identification of the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County 

Superintendent of Schools. 

SENG Misdiagnosis Initiative. (2014). https:/Iwww.sengifted.org/programs/seng-misdiagnosisinitiative. 

Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended 

education. New York: Teachers College Press. 

practices in gifted 

Silverman, l. K. (1988). The second child syndrome. Mensa Bulletin 320, 18-20. 

Silverman, l. K. (1991). Family counseling. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted 

education (pp. 307-320). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

............. __._-_._----------------:------------------------ 

Silverman, L. K. (2009). What we have learned about gifted children: 30 th anniversary. 

http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/WhatisGifted/learned.htm. 

Siegle, D. & McCoach, B. (2005, September). Making a difference: Motivating gifted students who 

are not achieving. Teaching exceptional children 38(1), 22-27. 

Strang, R. (1951). Mental hygiene of gifted children. In P. Witty (Ed.L The gifted child (pp.131-162). 

Boston: American Association for Gifted Children. 

Stryznewski, M. K. (1999). Gifted grownups: The mixed blessings of extraordinary potential. New 

York: Wiley. 

Terman, L. A. (1925). The mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: 

Stanford University Press. 

Terman, L. A. & aden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child graws up: Twenty-five years' follow-up of a 

superior group. Genetic studies of genius: Vol. IV. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Trail, B. (201O). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted 

students. Waco, TX: Prufrock. 

Tucker, B. & Hafenstein N. L. (1997). Psychological intensities in young gifted children. Gifted Child 

Quarterly, 41(3),66-75. 

Tuttle, D. H. (1990). Positive labeling and the sibling relationship infamilies with gifted children. 

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia. 

Webb, J. T. (2013). Searching for meaning: Idealism, bright minds, disillusionment, and hope. 

Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Webb, J. T. (1993). Nurturing social-emotional development of gifted children. In K. A. Heller, F.J. 

Monks, & A. H. Passow [Eds.], International handbook of research and development of 

giftedness and talent (pp. 525-538). Oxford: Pergamon Press. 

Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E.,Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2005). Misdiagnosis 

and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, Bipolar, OCD,Asperger's, 

depression, and other disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press. 

Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. R., & DeVries, A. R. (2007). A parent's guide to gifted children. 


Webb, J. T. & Kleine, P. A. (1993). Assessing gifted and talented children. In J. L. Culbertson and D. 

J. Willis (Eds.), Testing young children: A reference guide for developmental 

psychoeducational, and psychosocial assessments, (pp. 383-407). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E.A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child:A practical source for 

parents and teachers. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Press. 

Whitmore, J. R. & Maker. C.J. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons. Rockville, MD: 

Aspen. 

Worrell, F. c., Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2013). Giftedness and gifted education: 

Reconceptualizing the role of professional psychology. The Register Report (Spring), 14-22.

Gifted-Children-and-Adults-Neglected-Areas-of-Practice-James-Webb

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?