annotated bibliography
asdfghjklzxcvbnm
giftedboys1.pdf
BRIEF REPORT
Masculine Norms, School Attitudes, and Psychosocial Adjustment Among Gifted Boys
Samuel J. Shepard, Megan Foley Nicpon, James T. Haley, Michael Lind, and William Ming Liu The University of Iowa
Being an academically gifted boy may mean negotiating masculinity. In this explor- atory study, 58 gifted and talented adolescent boys completed the Male Role Norms Inventory–Adolescent (MRNI-A) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children– Self-Report of Personality (BASC-SRP-A). Correlation results show endorsing tradi- tional masculine norms was positively associated with feelings of competency, confi- dence, self-reliance, and feeling self-assured. Feelings of inadequacy also decreased when endorsement of masculine role norms increased. Adhering to achievement and status norms was associated with higher positive interpersonal relationships in high school and less social stress. Additionally, restricting emotions was associated with less satisfaction with friendships and social relationships for all participants. Results gen- erally show boys adherence to male role norms to be positively related to their perceptions of academic achievement. Research and clinical implications are discussed.
Keywords: gifted boys, psychosocial adjustment, masculine norms
Professionals in gifted education commonly refer to students who exhibit talent in various domains (e.g., intellectual ability, creativity, leadership) as gifted (Colangelo & Davis, 2003). Collectively, these children tend to be emotionally well-adjusted (Bain & Bell, 2004; Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams, 2008; Nail & Evans, 1997; Neihart, 1999; Roznowski, Reith, & Hong, 2000); however, problems may arise throughout development, such as depression, perfectionism, social stigma, identity issues, difficulty managing external expectations (Levy & Plucker, 2003), or feeling unable to be one- self in school (Cross & Coleman, 1993), due to the “stigma of giftedness” (Cross, Coleman, & Terhaar-Yonkers, 1991, p. 45). Among gifted boys, Bartell and Reynolds (1986) found that
they reported lower self-esteem and higher lev- els of depression than gifted girls. Others have suggested that issues relating to masculinity can interact with boys’ experience of giftedness in ways that create unique challenges (Kerr & Cohn, 2001) because what it means to be mas- culine may have little in common with what it means to be gifted. Rigid attitudes about mas- culinity may result in conflict if thoughts and behaviors they believe men should exhibit are contrary to their own.
Current perspectives in the study of men and masculinity view rigid adherence to traditional male norms as problematic, even among ado- lescent boys (Feder, Levant, & Dean, 2007). Scholars view certain male problems–such as violence, aggression, devaluation of women, detached fathering, and underutilization of physical and mental health services–as “unfor- tunate but predictable results of the male role socialization process” (Levant, 1996, p. 259). Among adult males, adherence to traditional male gender roles has been shown to be related to depression (Good & Mintz, 1990), anxiety (Davis, 1987), self-esteem (Davis, 1987), rela- tionship satisfaction (Burn & Ward, 2005), and
Samuel J. Shepard, Megan Foley Nicpon, James T. Ha- ley, Michael Lind, and William Ming Liu, Department of Psychological and Quantitative Foundations, Counseling Psychology Program, The University of Iowa.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to Megan Foley Nicpon, 600 Blank Honors Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. E-mail: [email protected]
Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 12, No. 2, 181–187 1524-9220/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019945
181
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
difficulties in intimacy (Maxton, 1994). Whether such adherence is equally troublesome among special populations of boys, such as gifted boys, is unknown, yet scholars in gifted education theorize that it is. For example, gifted children often are regarded as having a height- ened level of emotional sensitivity, increased awareness of others’ feelings, and sensitivity to criticism (Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert, 2002). These characteristics may be particularly challenging for gifted boys because heightened emotionality is incompatible with traditional masculine norms like stoicism and emotional suppression (Levant, 1992). Gifted boys may repress feelings of loneliness, uncertainty, or fear, as society teaches boys that these emotions are not acceptable for men (Pollack, 1998). Hébert (2002) cautions that gifted boys who experience criticism from those who do not value male sensitivity may withdraw emotion- ally, putting them at risk for psychological problems.
Gifted boys may find it difficult to reconcile their abilities with their conceptualization of an ideal masculine boy. Being “smart” or “brainy” has little to do with traditional male stereotypes, such as physical dominance, rugged self- reliance, and aggression (Epstein, 1998; Leaper & Van, 2008). They may perceive their abilities are shunned and conceptualize their gifts as social downfalls. Some gifted children deliber- ately hide their abilities by dropping out of advanced classes (Coleman & Cross, 1988; Rimm, 2002). For gifted boys, it has been sug- gested that certain activities (e.g., involvement in student leadership) may be labeled as a fem- inine, which could discourage them from enter- ing these potentially beneficial environments (Kerr & Foley Nicpon, 2003). It is important to note that these ideas have not been empirically tested, and some investigations suggest that they may not be true. For example, research examining the personality types of gifted stu- dents suggests that they way gifted boys prob- lem-solve and draw conclusions tends to be based on logical, objective information more so than with gifted girls (Cross, Speirs Neumeister, & Cassady, 2007). Gifted boys also continue to enter the math and sciences, fields with higher male gender-linked expectations, with a higher academic self-concept than gifted girls (Preckel, Goetz, Pekrun, & Kleine, 2008). It is possible that gifted boys’ adherence to some tradition-
ally masculine norms may not necessarily be problematic.
The aforementioned review of the possible effects of gifted boys’ adherence to masculine norms has yet to be empirical investigated and remains based on clinical experience; in fact, few of the articles reviewed have an empirical foundation (e.g., Bartell & Reynolds, 1986; Coleman & Cross, 1988; Cross et al., 2008; Cross & Coleman, 1993; Cross et al., 2007; Preckel et al., 2008). Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study was to measure the en- dorsement of traditional masculine norms among gifted adolescent boys and to examine how these values are related to levels of psy- chosocial adjustment and engagement in school. It was anticipated that greater endorsement of traditional masculine norms would be associ- ated with poorer psychosocial adjustment and more negative attitudes toward school.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 58 middle and high school males (ages 12 – 18) enrolled in summer en- richment programs at a university-based center for gifted education. Program participation was determined through a rigorous admissions pro- cess that involved reviewing records of ability and academic test scores demonstrating high ability, grades, examples of work products, es- says, and teacher and/or self-nominations. These scholarship programs are highly compet- itive and attract high ability students in specific content areas (mathematics, leadership, science, etc.). Students were from urban and rural set- tings and two-hundred survey packets were mailed; the 58 participants reflect a 29% return rate. This relatively low response rate may have been influenced by timing (summer recruitment when students typically are busy with extracur- ricular activities) or a pathology-based percep- tion of the BASC. Ninety percent identified as Caucasian, 5% as Asian American, and 5% “other.” Over 95% reported a GPA of 3.04 or higher. Approximately 35% reported an annual family income of more than $100,000; 29% reported incomes between $61,000 and $100,000, 17% between $41,000 and $60,000, and 7% between $21,000 and $40,000.
182 SHEPARD, NICPON, HALEY, LIND, AND LIU
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Procedures
Researchers mailed survey packets to par- ents/guardians of students enrolled in the pro- grams; if consent was granted, parents were asked to give the surveys to their boys to com- plete. Packets contained an informed consent, assent to participate, demographic data sheet, postage-paid return envelope, and the research questionnaires. Forms emphasized that research participation was voluntary and that lack of participation would not affect program status. Individuals were not compensated for their par- ticipation and measures took approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete.
Measures
Behavior Assessment System for Chil- dren–Self-Report of Personality. The BASC-SRP (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) is one of several assessments designed to inform differential diagnosis and treatment of chil- dren. While the BASC-SRP provides infor- mation about maladjustment, it also assesses positive, adaptive behaviors in respondents that can be utilized in various environments. The adolescent version of the Self-Report of Personality (SRP-A; ages 12–18) consists of 186 true-false items and takes 30 – 45 minutes to complete. These items yield scores on 14 different scales: 10 that measure maladjust- ment (Anxiety, Attitude to School, Attitude to Teachers, Atypicality, Depression, Locus of Control, Sensation Seeking, Sense of Inade- quacy, Social Stress, and Somatization) and four that measure positive adjustment (Inter- personal Relations, Relations with Parents, Self-Esteem, and Self-Reliance). The instru- ment is scored by computer, and results are reported as T scores. Internal consistencies (coefficient alpha reliabilities) for the 14 BASC-SRP-A subscales range from .64 –.89 (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992). Test–retest reliability is moderate to high (.57-.87), and convergent and divergent is high when com- paring children’s scores to those on other self-report measures (for example, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; Hathaway & McKinley, 1942/1970). Because reliability has been well-established, BASC alpha val- ues are not commonly reported in the research literature (e.g., Demaray, Malecki, Davidson,
Hodgson, & Rebus, 2005; Mahone, Zabel, Levey, Verda, & Kinsman, 2002; Nail & Ev- ans, 1997). Based on the review of the liter- ature on gifted boys, the following eight scales that were thought to be most influenced by adherence to masculine attitudes among this population were examined: Anxiety, At- titude to School, Depression, Sense of Inad- equacy, Interpersonal Relations, Self-Esteem, Self-Reliance, and Social Stress.
Male Role Norms Inventory–Adolescent. The MRNI-A (Levant, Graef, Smalley, Wil- liams, & McMillan, 2008) consists of 43 items designed to measure boys’ masculinity atti- tudes. Using a 7-point Likert scale, participants indicate their level of agreement with state- ments concerning male roles/behaviors (1 � Strongly Disagree, 7 � Strongly Agree). Higher scores indicate greater endorsement of tradi- tional masculine norms. The MRNI-A has five scales that assess these theoretically derived traditional norms: Avoidance of Femininity (e.g., “A boy should prefer football to sew- ing.”); Self-Reliance (e.g., “A boy should never doubt his own judgment.”); Aggression (e.g., “When the going gets tough, boys should get tough.”); Achievement/Status (“A boy should do whatever it takes to be admired and re- spected.”); and Restrictive Emotionality (“A boy should never reveal his worries to others.”). Internal consistencies for the current study were as follows: Self-Reliance (� � .58), Achieve- ment/Status (� � .59), and Aggression (� � .63), which were below the expected standard (.70), and Avoidance of Femininity (� � .84) and Restrictive Emotionality (� � .80), which above the expected standard.
Results
Mean scores, standard deviations, and inter- nal consistencies for the MRNI-A subscales, Avoidance of Femininity, Self-Reliance, Ag- gression, Achievement/Status, and Restrictive Emotionality, and means and standard devia- tions for the selected BASC-SRP-A subscales are presented in Table 1. In keeping with liter- ature that suggests gifted boys may be less adherent to traditional masculine norms (e.g., Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert, 2002), it is notable that participants’ mean scores on all MRNI-A subscales except Self-Reliance were
183PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AMONG GIFTED BOYS
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
found to be significantly lower than those re- ported by Levant et al. (2008) among a sample of American boys. T tests comparing the two groups were all significant at an alpha level of 0.01. Because of the exploratory nature of this study, an alpha level of 0.10 was used for all subsequent analyses (e.g., Ford, Havstad, Brooks, & Tilley, 2002; Marra et al., 2002; Morris, 1957).
The correlations between all MRNI-A sub- scales and participant age, grade, and BASC- SRP-A subscales are presented in Table 2. The correlations between the MRNI-A scales and participant age and grade level were included in the table because previous research has found that age is negatively correlated with more tra- ditional attitudes toward male roles among ad- olescent males (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku, 1994). However, this was not observed in the present study, as no significant correlations were found between MRNI-A subscales and participant age or grade.
Significant positive correlations were ob- served between BASC-SRP-A Self-Reliance and MRNI-A Achievement/Status, Self-Reli- ance, Avoidance of Femininity, and Aggression subscales. This suggests that greater endorse- ment of these masculine norms was associated with increased feelings of self-reliance. Signif- icant negative correlations were observed be- tween the MRNI-A Achievement/Status and the BASC-SRP-A Sense of Inadequacy subscales and between the MRNI-A Self-Reliance and the Sense of Inadequacy subscales. This suggests that greater endorsement of the norms of Achievement/Status and Self-Reliance was as- sociated with decreased feelings of inadequacy. A significant negative correlation was observed between the MRNI-A Achievement/Status and the BASC-SRP-A Social Stress subscales, sug- gesting that increased endorsement of the im-
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent (MRNI-A) and Behavior Assessment System for Children–Self-Report of Personality-Adolescent (BASC-SRP-A)
Subscale M SD
MRNI-A
Achievement/Status 3.93 0.72 Aggression 4.32 0.79 Avoidance of Femininity 3.89 1.10 Restrictive Emotionality 3.57 0.84 Self-Reliance 4.36 0.70
BASC-SRP-A
Anxiety 45.12 8.33 Attitude to School 47.02 7.79 Depression 45.67 4.82 Inadequacy 42.26 5.22 Interpersonal Relations 52.98 6.72 Self-Esteem 52.98 7.60 Self-Reliance 54.38 5.96 Social Stress 47.02 9.07
Table 2 Correlations Between Subscales of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent and Participant Age, Grade, and Scores on the Behavior Assessment System for Children–Self-Report of Personality-Adolescent
Achievement/Status Aggression Avoidance of
Femininity Restrictive
Emotionality Self-Reliance
Age .06 .13 .06 .01 .01 Grade .08 .03 .10 �.02 �.04 Anxiety �.11 �.02 .05 �.01 �.13 Attitude/School �.02 .03 �.07 .11 �.15 Depression �.08 �.05 .02 .15 �.06 Inadequacy �.42�� �.06 �.09 .01 �.34��
Int/Relations .22 .14 .01 �.20 .15 Self-Esteem .09 �.02 .05 �.10 .11 Self-Reliance .32� .22� .25� .11 .33�
Social Stress �.24� �.08 .04 .13 �.09
Note. Attitude/School � Attitude to School; Attitude/Teachers � Attitude to Teachers; Inadequacy � Sense of Inade- quacy; Int/Relations � Interpersonal Relations. �Correlation is significant at the .10 level (2-tailed). �Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ��Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).
184 SHEPARD, NICPON, HALEY, LIND, AND LIU
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
portance of achievement and status was associ- ated with fewer reports of stressful feelings in social situations.
Discussion
The results of the current study run counter to the literature on gifted boys presented earlier and the expectations of the authors. It was an- ticipated that, because academically gifted ado- lescent males as a group are thought to be in violation of traditional masculine norms–for in- stance, by having increased emotional sensitiv- ity (Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert, 2002)–that greater endorsement of traditional norms would result in dissonance that might manifest itself as maladjustment. However, no aspects of traditional masculinity were associ- ated with greater levels of maladjustment as measured by the BASC-SRP-A.
One possible explanation for these unex- pected findings is that the adolescent boys in the current study, despite having significantly lower scores on most of the MRNI-A subscales than a general sample of American boys, did not per- ceive themselves to be in violation of traditional masculine norms. As a result, the participants may not have perceived any failure to live up to the masculine norms they endorsed, resulting in a lack of dissonance and maladjustment. With regard to attitudes toward school, it is feasible that the participants in the current study did not view academic activities as feminine (as sug- gested by Kerr & Foley Nicpon, 2003) and, thus, did not perceive the need to avoid them. Another possible explanation is that the tradi- tional masculine norms measured by the MRNI-A scales are simply not as harmful to gifted adolescent boys as expected and, instead, that some levels of endorsement of these norms may even be adaptive.
Results from this exploratory study also dem- onstrated that increased feelings of confidence and self-reliance among gifted adolescent boys were associated with increased endorsement of the masculine norms of Achievement/Status, Self-Reliance, Avoidance of Femininity, and Aggression. Gifted adolescent boys who indi- cated these constructs were important male at- tributes reported feeling more self-assured. Be- cause of the correlational nature of this study, no causal relationship can be determined (e.g., feelings of self-reliance could lead to endorse-
ment of traditional masculine norms or endorse- ment of these norms could lead gifted boys to feel more self-assured). Decreased feelings of inadequacy were associated with greater en- dorsement of the norms of Achievement/Status and Self-Reliance. Participants who felt that it was important for men to be self-reliant and to strive for achievement reported fewer feelings of inadequacy and a greater sense of compe- tency. Striving for achievement and status may make gifted adolescent boys feel more worth- while, or achievement and status may fulfill a sense of mastery in competition (Pollack, 1998). Greater endorsement of Achievement/ Status was also associated with decreased re- ports of social stress. It may be that gifted adolescent boys generally value achievement and, thus, experience less social stress when meeting these expectations.
Clinical and Research Implications
For participants in our study, those who more highly endorsed traditional male norms, partic- ularly the importance of achievement and sta- tus, appeared more psychosocially and interper- sonally satisfied. Clinicians should consider this relationship when conceptualizing clients’ dis- tress. Would a gifted boy whose dream is to be a high school music teacher feel self-doubt about whether he is pursuing a career that has enough social status? Clinicians should include in their discussion what it means to be a gifted male, how male norms influence this role, and how they want to demonstrate their masculinity developmentally. The same is true for educators of gifted boys. Engaging boys in a discussion about how their high ability interacts with their perceptions of masculinity may be a meaningful component to their educational experience.
Because endorsement of several aspects of traditional masculinity (Self-Reliance, Aggres- sion, Avoidance of Femininity, and Achieve- ment/Status) was associated with positive psy- chosocial adjustment, this study raises the need for further research verifying the potential pos- itive aspects of adherence to certain masculine norms among gifted adolescent boys. Could the importance of pursuing achievement among gifted adolescent boys diminish problems with academic underachievement? Are there optimal
185PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AMONG GIFTED BOYS
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
levels of adherence to constructs such as self- reliance that predict adaptive levels of persis- tence?
Limitations
First, the MRNI-A and the BASC-SRP-A Self-Reliance scales were significantly corre- lated, although the relationship was not very strong. This low correlation may be because (a) the scales, although similarly labeled, assess different constructs; (b) the BASC-SRP-A may be based on a less normal population than the MRNI-A; (c) the MRNI-A Self-Reliance scale consists of items embedded within a measure of masculinity; and (d) the differences in wording between the two measures. Therefore, partici- pants may be primed to think of gender related self-reliance, thereby leading to a different con- ceptualization of self-reliance in the MRNI-A than in the BASC-SRP-A. Second, although positive aspects of adjustment were associated with increased adherence to the Achievement/ Status and Self-Reliance norms, results should be interpreted with caution because of poor internal consistencies. Because these two scales do not appear to measure a unified construct, it is impossible to determine if they actually rep- resent these intended constructs. Third, because of the program specific admission criteria for the various summer programs, participants do not constitute a well-defined population of gifted adolescent boys. While admission to the scholarship programs is rigorous, the same abil- ity and achievement data is not obtained for all participants. However, admission is competitive and students are not admitted unless they clearly demonstrate talent in a specific program area (i.e., science, creative writing, mathematics, etc.). This domain specific talent identification technique is a model consistent with progres- sive conceptualizations of what it means to be gifted (Lohman, 2005, 2006). Fourth, no com- parison group of nongifted males was used; such a group should be included in future re- search to determine if and how gifted adolescent boys differ from peers on these constructs. Fi- nally, only the self-report section of the BASC was used to measure psychosocial adjustment; findings would be enriched by including the teacher- and parent-report forms.
References
Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social self-concept, social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth, fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3), 167–178.
Bartell, N. P., & Reynolds, W. M. (1986). Depression and self-esteem in academically gifted and non- gifted children: A comparison study. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 51– 61.
Burn, S. M., & Ward, A. Z. (2005). Men’s confor- mity to traditional masculinity and relationship satisfaction. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6(4), 254 –263.
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of gifted education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41–56.
Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Adams, C. M. (2008). The psychology of gifted adoles- cents as measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 326 –339.
Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (1993). The social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 16(1), 37– 40.
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in the schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(1), 44 –55.
Cross, T. L., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Cassady, J. C. (2007). Psychological types of academically gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 285–294.
Davis, F. (1987). Antecedents and consequences of gender role conflict: An empirical test of sex-role strain analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 48/11, 3443.
Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Davidson, L. M., Hodgson, K. K., & Rebus, P. J. (2005). The rela- tionship between social support and student adjust- ment: A longitudinal analysis. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 691–706.
Edmunds, A. L., & Edmunds, G. A. (2005). Sensi- tivity: A double-edged sword for the preadolescent and adolescent gifted child. Roeper Review, 27, 69 –77.
Epstein, D. (1998). Real boys don’t work: “Under- achievement, masculinity, and the harassment of sissies”. In D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey, & J. Maw (Eds.), Failing boys? Issues in Gender and Achievement (pp. 96 –108). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
186 SHEPARD, NICPON, HALEY, LIND, AND LIU
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
Feder, J., Levant, R. F., & Dean, J. (2007). Boys and violence: A gender-informed analysis. Profes- sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(4), 385–391.
Ford, M. E., Havstad, S. L., Brooks, B. L., & Tilley, B. C. (2002). Perceptions of diabetes among pa- tients in an urban health care system. Ethnicity & Health, 7, 243–254.
Good, G. E., & Mintz, L. B. (1990). Gender role conflict and depression in college men: Evidence for compounded risk. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69(1), 17–21.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1970). Minne- sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneap- olis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original pub- lished in 1942)
Hébert, T. P. (2002). Gifted males. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 137–144). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Kerr, B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, & the search for meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Kerr, B. A., & Foley Nicpon, M. (2003). Gender and giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 493– 505). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Leaper, C., & Van, S. R. (2008). Masculinity ideol- ogy, covert sexism, and perceived gender typical- ity in relation to men’s academic motivation and choice in college. Psychology of Men & Masculin- ity, 9, 139 –153.
Levant, R. F. (1992). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 379 – 402.
Levant, R. F. (1996). The new psychology of men. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac- tice, 27, 259 –265.
Levant, R. F., Graef, S. T., Smalley, K. B., Williams, C., & McMillan, N. (2008). The evaluation of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent (MRNI-A). Thy- mos: Journal of Boyhood Studies, 2, 46 –59.
Levy, J. L., & Plucker, J. A. (2003). Assessing the psychological presentation of gifted and talented clients: A multicultural perspective. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 16, 229 –247.
Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of academi- cally gifted minority students. Journal for the Ed- ucation of the Gifted, 28, 333–360.
Lohman, D. F. (2006). Beliefs about differences be- tween ability and accomplishment: From folk theo- ries to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32– 40.
Mahone, E. M., Zabel, T. A., Levey, E., Verda, M., & Kinsman, S. (2002). Parent and self-report ratings of executive function in adolescents with myelo- meningocele and hydrocephalus. Child Neuropsy- chology, 8, 258 –270.
Marra, C. M., Rajicic, N., Barker, D. E., Cohen, B. A., Clifford, D., Post, M. J. D., . . . the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group 363 Team. (2002). A pilot study of cidofovir for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in AIDS. AIDS, 16, 1791– 1797.
Maxton, R. A. (1994). How do men in mid-life conceptualize masculinity, and how do those con- ceptualizations relate to intimacy? Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering. p. 4432.
Morris, R. P. (1957). An exploratory study of some personality characteristics of gamblers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 191–193.
Nail, J. M., & Evans, J. G. (1997). The emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning. Roeper Review, 20, 18 –21.
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psy- chological well-being. Roeper Review, 22, 10 –17.
Pleck, J. H., Sonenstein, F. L., & Ku, L. C. (1994). Attitudes toward male roles among adolescent males: A discriminant validity analysis. Sex Roles, 30, 481–501.
Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average- ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146 –159.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behav- ior assessment system for children: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressures and social accep- tance of gifted students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13–18). Waco, TX: Pru- frock Press.
Roznowski, M., Reith, J., & Hong, S. (2000). A further look at youth intellectual giftedness and its correlates: Values, interests, performance, and be- havior. Intelligence, 28, 87–113.
Received August 10, 2009 Revision received April 7, 2010
Accepted April 8, 2010 �
187PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AMONG GIFTED BOYS
T hi
s do
cu m
en t i
s co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
tio n
or o
ne o
f i ts
a lli
ed p
ub lis
he rs
. T
hi s
ar tic
le is
in te
nd ed
s ol
el y
fo r t
he p
er so
na l u
se o
f t he
in di
vi du
al u
se r a
nd is
n ot
to b
e di
ss em
in at
ed b
ro ad
ly .
