Week 3 Assignment 2

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93 183 © 2015 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 08/29/13 Revised 04/15/14

Accepted 05/30/14 DOI: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00194.x

Counselors can help gifted students more effectively when they understand the interaction of giftedness, gender identity, and gender role and the ways in which many gifted educa- tional practices are gendered. A model for the development of talent in the context of gender must also include the interac- tions of gender with privilege. Counselors can reduce inequi- ties for gifted students at all levels of education by confronting gendered practices in education—all those practices that are based on gender role expectations rather than on what is best for the individual student.

In this article, giftedness is defined as one’s potential for exceptional achievement or eminence in a domain, similar to the definition offered by Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Worrell (2011). Gender identity is the subjective sense of one’s maleness or femaleness (Johnson & Wassersug, 2010). Sexual orientation refers to the direction of one’s sexual at- traction, generally categorized as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Gender role is defined as the expectations of a society about the proper behaviors for males or females (Eagly, 2013). Gender relations are the attitudes and behaviors of males and females in relationships with one another and the ways in which gender roles shape social relations (Ridgeway, 2009). Each of these has an impact on how giftedness is perceived and developed. Finally, distance from privilege is defined as the distance that an individual must travel to reach the center of power in any domain, in terms of overcoming barriers such as gender, race, class, age, and citizenship. This concept, in addition to gender concepts, expands the Model of Talent Development given by Subotnik et al. so that a road map is provided for nurturing both gifted male and female individuals.

barbara a. Kerr and Karen D. Multon, Department of Psychology and Research in Education, University of Kansas. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Barbara A. Kerr, Department of Psychology and Research in Education, University of Kansas, 1122 West Campus Drive, 130 Q JRP, Lawrence, KS 66025 (e-mail: [email protected]).

The Development of Gender Identity, Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students Barbara A. Kerr and Karen D. Multon

This article describes the interaction of giftedness with gender identity, gender role, and gender relations. The authors explored ways in which many gifted educational practices are gendered, a model for the development of talent in the context of gender and gender relations, and ways of reducing gender inequities in the realization of potential for both male and female students. Issues that are unique to gifted individuals are aligned with suggestions for counseling interventions.

Keywords: gifted, gender identity, gender role, gender relations

Gender identity is considered to be a spectrum of beliefs and emotions rather than the traditional sense of a dichotomy of male and female (Eagly, 2013). Gender identity has devel- opmental stages paralleling cognitive development. Toddlers (ages 1–4) have a very fluid gender identity; being a boy or girl does not matter much to toddlers. This indifference gives way to gender rigidity in early childhood (about ages 4–7), when both boys and girls strictly enforce gender rules. What may be puzzling to many parents is the tendency of little children to think that it is their clothing or toys that make them boy or girl. In later childhood, the mature identity can form as children begin to understand that their biological sex is stable (Signorella, 2012).

Gifted students’ behavior and preferences often differ from those of their same-sex peers (Kerr, 1997; Terman & Oden, 1935); gifted girls are more like gifted boys than like other girls. As a result, gender identity formation may be more complicated. Gifted girls not only are likely to enjoy boys’ activities but also may have an early awareness of sexism and reject the second-class status of the female gender role (Kerr, 1997; Kerr & McKay, 2014). Although gifted girls are more like gifted boys in their interests and aspirations, they experience the same socialization as average girls; that is why gifted girls’ gender identity can be conflicted (Miller, Falk, & Huang, 2009).

Gifted boys also struggle with gender identity issues when they prefer creative activities to activities prescribed for males, such as sports and an interest in video games. They often fear that loving art, music, and drama may mean that they are not masculine enough (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). There is some evidence that the millennial generation of adolescents and

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93184

Kerr & Multon

young adults regards gender identity and sexual orientation as much more fluid and changeable compared with previous generations (Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2012). This may mean less pressure on creative boys to prove their masculin- ity by the avoidance of creative activities. One of the most striking differences in millennials is their tolerance for, and performance of, a wide variety of gender identity and sexual orientation combinations (B. E Wells & Twenge, 2005). For example, Weston (pseudonym), a 20-year-old student at an art institute, is biologically male, has a gender identity as a female (asks to be addressed as “she”), and has a bisexual orientation. Parents model egalitarian or nonegalitarian values. Parents who are homophobic or anxious about gender identity may discourage androgynous or opposite-sex interests (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). On the whole, however, most of the American public is moving in the direction of greater tolerance for di- verse sexual orientations and gender identity (Hans, Kersey, & Kimberly, 2012).

Gender role is the set of characteristics prescribed by a culture and communicated through direct communication and through media (Wood, 2012). Despite more openness and tolerance toward diversity, the ways in which gender roles are communicated by the media to boys and girls con- tinue to favor rigid, stereotypic images, as Orenstein (2011) documented. There is an increasing trend for sex-segregated clothing, toys, and media, although gifted girls and boys have more challenging toys and media available than before. Girls have early exposure to what Orenstein referred to in her book as the “princess industrial complex” (p. 10); they learn that the color pink, sparkly clothing, and pretty toys are critical to being a girl. Boys have early exposure to masculine models of violence and dominance, learning that monsters, weapons, and machines are the province of boys. Older gifted boys and girls usually take their cues from same-age peers (Shepard, Nicpon, Haley, Lind, & Liu, 2011).

Giftedness and Gendered Practices Gifted Girls

Most girls who are identified as gifted are early readers (Halsted, 2009). Many precocious readers are simply decod- ing or memorizing; however, the probability is much higher that girls are actually reading with comprehension and need to be allowed greater challenge (Halsted, 2009). Thus, early reading with comprehension is problematic when the child starts kindergarten late (i.e., when the child’s birthday falls shortly after the cutoff date and must wait another year) and opportunities for advancement are lacking in school. Kin- dergarten admission policies vary depending on the school, the district, and the state. Early admission to kindergarten is one of the best methods of acceleration for gifted girls, but it is often denied because of concerns for the child’s social and emotional maturity, which may be unfounded in the case of gifted girls, who tend to adjust quickly to kindergarten

(Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004). Because gifted girls on the average read earlier than gifted boys, both admissions policies and gifted identification policies that do not take into account these differences in development can be considered gendered practices. Counselors need to be advocates for policies that acknowledge and allow for the encouragement of early reading in girls. Counselors need to educate school administrators about the importance of early reading in girls as a sign of giftedness and encourage early admission and acceleration in reading for these girls.

Gifted girls tend to have interests more like those of gifted boys than those of average girls, but they may be rejected by boy groups. Older friends are desirable to gifted children, but grade schools tend to discourage formation of cross-age friendships for gifted children (Gross, 2002, 2009). Coun- selors can help gifted girls form positive relationships with older girls and encourage parents to allow gifted girls to play with gifted boys through formal and informal means. When gifted girls have access only to average girls, they may be rejected despite good social skills. Because bright girls long for friends who do not reject them for their greater vocabulary or general knowledge, they need help finding a “sure shelter” (Gross, 2009, p. 347), a friend who is advanced intellectu- ally as well as who is at the same social development level. Counselors need to carefully assess situations of rejection and to intervene only when the gifted girl herself perceives her peer relationships to be a problem.

In U.S. society, being “bad at math” seems to be a key aspect of the female gender role. Despite decades of research (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010) showing no sex differ- ences in math ability, the popular perception is still biased against girls. This may have a strong impact on gifted girls’ development; some may continue from that point to believe that they are less able in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; Dai, 2002). The math gap has closed and has shrunk even at the highest levels of mathematics ability, where the discrepancy in boys’ and girls’ scores was once extreme. Girls who hold stereotypic beliefs or who are reminded of stereotypes of girls’ inferiority in math may underachieve in math and science objective tests. Davies and Spencer (2005) demonstrated experimentally the nature of stereotype threat. In addition, parents who subscribe to the stereotypic beliefs can have a negative effect on gifted girls’ mathematics achievement (Jacobs & Eccles, 1992). Also, the more distant girls believe that they are from privilege (e.g., seeing themselves as less valued because of their race, socioeconomic status [SES], sexual orientation), the greater the stereotype threat (Kerr et al., 2012). Therefore, without intervention to change beliefs about math for mathematically gifted girls, the gap between potential for their achievement in childhood and actual achievement in adulthood may be great.

As advocates for gifted girls, counselors play an important role in helping teachers develop math and science education instruction that uses the best practices for overcoming nega-

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93 185

Gender Identity, Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students

tive beliefs about math and science, increasing self-efficacy, and reducing stereotype threat (Baker, 2013; McNees, 2003). Counselors can provide professional development for teachers to help them to understand the importance of early intervention, can educate parents of gifted girls about ways of encouraging girls in math and science, and can challenge gifted girls’ stereotypes about math and science careers.

Gifted girls, because of their multiple talents, are often pulled in too many directions, with too many academic and social activities (Kerr, 1997). Most counselors have been taught to encourage high school students to have as many activities as possible to make their college applications more attractive to selective schools. For gifted girls, it is better to counsel moderation in the number of choices of activities and focus on the goals of those options. That is, counselors need to help these gifted girls limit their activities to just a few extracurricular organizations and to prioritize those activi- ties that most closely match their interests and values. This generation of gifted girls also has much more responsibility for siblings, particularly in low-SES families. Counselors who see the signs of overextension—fatigue, sleepiness in class, stress, and nervousness—should examine these girls’ schedules and help them to get control of both their time and their health.

Among millennials, depression, anxiety, and eating dis- orders are more prevalent than in previous generations (B. E. Wells & Twenge, 2005). Too often, educators assume that gifted girls have it all—that is, not only do they have good grades and leadership, but they are unlikely to have any psychological disorders. Although it is true that, in general, gifted girls are better adjusted than average girls, they may have hidden disorders. Gifted girls are at risk when they are perfectionistic and skilled in camouflage. There is some evidence that gifted girls who have perfectionism related to high personal standards and concern for evaluation are particularly at risk. High intelligence allows girls the ability to gather and synthesize knowledge about nutrition to use for the purpose of restricting calories (Boone, Soenens, Braet, & Goossens, 2010). Gifted girls may be more capable than other girls at masking depression and anxiety, so counselors need to watch carefully for the signs in these girls. Webb (2009) described how gifted students carefully hide their difficulties with depression, anxiety, and eating disorders and showed how counselors can identify and guide their gifted clients toward health.

The combination of earlier puberty than in previous gen- erations and the media’s sexualization of adolescent girls means that gifted girls are at risk for compromising their dreams and goals for the sake of romance and intimacy. Stud- ies of eminent women suggest that the earlier gifted girls begin intimate relationships, the less they will achieve. Although all gifted adolescents benefit from delay, girls seem to be more negatively affected than boys by early sexual involvement (Csikszentmihalyi,1996). In both high school and college,

peer groups value and reward girls’ relationships more than girls’ accomplishments (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990). Even though gender relations (i.e., the nature of women’s relation- ships with their partners) have been found to be the major de- terminant of women’s achievement in academe, industry, and leadership, little is done on the high school level to educate girls about the direct link between egalitarian relationships and accomplishment of their goals (Xie & Shauman, 2003).

Finally, counselors need to be aware that many gifted girls’ intellectual abilities are more developed than their social maturity in adolescence, a common aspect of gifted students’ asynchrony (Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Thomson, 2012). As a result, they may have difficulty making independent decisions for early investments in their future and may need help making college choices that provide the most challenging and focused education. Gifted girls may be less likely than gifted boys to take advantage of highly challenging academic opportunities; girls tend to be less risk taking in general than boys, and this may account for their failure to take the most rigorous pathway (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999). The single most important thing that counselors can do for gifted girls is to insist on their choosing the most rigorous courses, to challenge them to engage in activities that will hone their skills, and to aspire to the highest and best college education they can find.

Gifted Boys

Many educators assume that gifted boys, especially those from privileged families (i.e., those with access to resources and other forms of power), will find their way to elite colleges and high-status careers. Although most gifted boys do grow up to be accomplished and achieving men (Lubinski & Ben- bow, 2006), there are those who are lost along the way (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). A nationwide study of gifted underachiev- ers—boys who were at the 95th percentile on ACT scores but failing in school—found that the largest group was made up of White, high-SES boys from large suburban high schools (Colangelo, Kerr, Christensen, & Maxey, 1993). Hartley and Sutton (2013) examined the underachievement of relatively privileged boys and found that many gifted boys who do not achieve their potential are blocked by gendered practices in education and society, some of which are described below.

Kindergarten redshirting, the practice of holding a child back an extra year before starting kindergarten, continues to be on the rise despite little evidence of its benefits (Frey, 2005). Parents believe that they are giving their child the gift of time for physical and social development, and educators encourage it for boys, thinking it will help boys catch up with girls’ social development. For gifted boys, being held back an additional year puts them 2 years behind where they could be, which can lead to these boys being out of step and bored throughout school (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). There are few good reasons for holding gifted boys back; in fact, the only valid reasons are learning disabilities and clear social and emotional

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93186

Kerr & Multon

delays or disorders (Colangelo et al., 2004). Counselors need to provide the community, parents, and school staff with in- formation about the negative consequences of kindergarten redshirting, particularly for gifted boys. Boys who show signs of giftedness, such as early reading or early mathematical skills, or boys who are able to perform at first- or second-grade level on out-of-level standardized achievement tests should be allowed to enter kindergarten.

A surprising finding is that gifted boys may underachieve as a way of establishing masculinity with their peer group (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Failing to turn in homework and low participation in class can also be a way of expressing boredom for gifted boys. Gifted girls are less likely to be underachieving when they are bored compared with gifted boys; in fact, across research studies of gifted underachievers, boys outnumber girls by a factor of two to three (Matthews & McBee, 2007). In general, teachers tend to be female and to favor girls’ ways of interacting in the classroom, and they also tend to give boys an increase in grades, especially White boys who act most like girls in their compliance with assignments, participation in class, and interaction (Cornwell, Mustard, & Van Parys, 2013).

A special problem for gifted boys who are highly gifted in spatial reasoning occurs when their abilities in this area result in them being placed in gifted education programs that em- phasize verbal and mathematical curricula (Kell & Lubinski, 2013). Their low performance in these classes may not be true underachievement but rather a case in which the education they are receiving does not tap their spatial abilities. Counsel- ors need to be aware of the critical periods when gifted boys are most likely to begin to underachieve—preadolescence and late high school—and engage in preventive and supportive counseling. This includes careful assessment of gifted boys’ abilities and achievement, discussions with gifted boys about conflicts between “acting like boys” and being achievement oriented, and encouragement to pursue interests that are nontraditional for boys through career education.

Gifted boys who act out their boredom are at risk for misdiagnosis with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder, and conduct disorder (Webb, 2009). Counselors need to consult with parents and medical professionals, advocating for the child and helping to avoid misdiagnoses. Before gifted boys are diagnosed with ADHD, counselors should advocate for acceleration options, such as in-class differentiation, grade skipping, and out-of-school opportunities for advanced work (Colangelo et al., 2004).

In high school, boys who identify strongly with masculine models may avoid girl-led or girl-dominated activities, such as show choir, yearbook, or student theater (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Because of the surge of girls in formerly male courses and activities, such as Advanced Placement math and science fairs, some gifted boys may disengage as a way of maintaining their status. The other side of the coin is boys’ greater tendency toward risk taking, which can result in activities such as sub-

stance abuse. Counselors need to question boys who are drop- ping out of after-school activities to ascertain if it is because of economic need or negative stereotypes about “girl activities.” Although gifted boys may seem disengaged in school, it is likely that they are very engaged in an out-of-school activity that fits their creative interests; counselors need to question gifted boys closely about their interests that may not fit into typical school activities, such as robotics, a rock band, animation, or creating apps (Kerr & McKay, 2013). Many creative boys have hidden projects that they do not realize should be a serious part of their portfolio of accomplishments.

One aspect of gendered education is the failure to provide boys with the same opportunities to discuss relationships that girls have with peers and adult confidants (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Gifted boys may confuse relationships with achievements, for example, choosing a relationship based on what is considered an “A” girlfriend. As with gifted girls, gifted boys need educa- tion in gender relations, because their intellectual ability will continue to have an impact on their relationships. Most gifted boys will eventually be members of dual-career couples (Xie & Shauman, 2003). Helping boys to understand what the future might hold for them in a relationship in which both partners are employed, or where the female partner is the breadwinner, will be more in keeping with predictions of marriage and careers in the next decades (Wang, Parker, & Taylor, 2013).

Finally, many of the careers for which gifted boys and gifted girls will qualify require early planning and investment. Gifted boys, particularly African American and Hispanic boys, may be less engaged in career planning than gifted girls. R. S. Wells, Seifert, Padgett, Park, and Umbach (2011) found striking differences between boys and girls in the amount of discussion of college and career with parents, the amount of investment parents put into planning, and the amount of talk with peers. That is, it is less likely for low-SES and minority boys than girls to seek or receive the social capital that leads to college attendance, no matter what their ability level might be. Gifted boys who do not discuss college and career with parents and peers in positive ways or who procrastinate on planning may miss important qualifying exams and scholar- ship opportunities. Counselors will find that not only low-SES gifted boys may not know how to plan for their future, but also some high-SES gifted boys who have been “coasting” along without challenge are missing important opportunities. Gifted boys need deadlines and active encouragement by counselors to engage in career assessment and academic planning.

Giftedness and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students

Gifted lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) stu- dents meet federal, professional, and cultural definitions of giftedness at approximately the same frequency as non-LGBT students (Fredericks, 2009). The exact prevalence of this group in the United States is related to the definitions of both

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93 187

Gender Identity, Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students

LGBT and giftedness. According to the most clear-cut general definition (i.e., gifted students are those in gifted programs and LGBT youth are those who self-identify as sexual mi- nority members), it is estimated that there are 260,000 gifted LGBT students in the United States (Fredericks, 2009). How- ever, this estimate is very conservative because it is limited to those youth enrolled in elementary and high school who are open about their sexual minority status.

For gifted LGBT youth, being twice different can lead to depression and isolation (Levy & Plucker, 2003). As gifted students, they must deal with their intellectual deviance from the mainstream; as LGBT students, they must deal with their stigmatized sexual orientation. They are often confused, clos- eted, and frightened for the same reasons nongifted LGBT youth are—fear of parental rejection, fear of bullying, and the desire to be similar to others in their peer groups. Finding a supportive community is paramount for these students. Gifted programs can be safe, nurturing spaces.

For LGBT gifted boys and girls, one advantage is the ability to read at a high level and use books and online learn- ing to learn more about what it means to be LGBT. Thus, counselors can make very good use of bibliotherapy to help LGBT gifted youth feel less isolated. Gay–straight alliances fit students with similar strengths to foster talents (e.g., cre- ative writing, artistic abilities, leadership skills) and can also broaden awareness of LGBT identities and lessen any feelings of loneliness. Counselors can also encourage LGBT youth to seek community experiences for their talent (e.g., community theater) and to connect with community mentorships (e.g., study under professional writer).

In the area of career counseling for LGBT gifted youth, concerns about physical and emotional safety will have a sig- nificant impact on career decision making (Peterson & Rischar, 2000). LGBT gifted students may avoid taking certain courses or programs of study in high school or college despite interests because of those same concerns. They are more likely to choose “safe” careers rather than pursue areas that are a better fit for their interests and abilities. Counselors need to work with LGBT gifted youth to thoroughly examine the extent of these safety concerns and how they affect career choice.

Gender, Gender Relations, and Distance From Privilege

The new megamodel of talent development proposed by Subotnik et al. (2011) has been helpful in showing how gift- edness progresses throughout development toward eminence and achievement in a domain. Unfortunately, the concepts of gender and distance from privilege are lost in the model— despite ample evidence that gender relations and distance from privilege (particularly race and SES) are major defining and delimiting factors in achievement (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2003). Noble, Subotnik, and Arnold’s (1999) Model of Talent Development was the only model

created to specifically address gender and giftedness and distance from power or privilege. Kerr and McKay (2014) updated the model to include the newest research findings. Counselors can benefit from a detailed understanding of this model and the ways in which it has been validated by previous research. The model includes talent, achievement, and distance from privilege as individual variables and con- text, filters, and opportunities as environmental variables in predicting both public and personal achievement. In an NSF project, Multon, Kerr, Robinson-Kurpius, and Hammond (2009) investigated major predictors of college women’s persistence in the STEM fields using Noble et al.’s model as a theoretical foundation. Given that gender relations is the most important variable determining women’s entry into the top positions in STEM fields, and given that distance from privilege moderates all forms of opportunities, it is important that these variables be operationalized and studied in various contexts.

Distance from privilege is how the gifted person perceives fitting in the mainstream of the dominant culture’s traditions, values, and practices (Kerr et al., 2012). As Noble et al.’s (1999) model indicates, the context of a gifted person’s life has a major impact on career choice and persistence. The model posits that predictions of potential based on ability should include the capacity to overcome certain barriers created by a person’s distance from the center of privilege and power. Thus, it would predict that a poor, rural African American girl with above-average math achievement scores who has managed to graduate high school and enters a prestigious college may have as much potential for persistence and achievement in STEM majors as a wealthy European American boy with very high math achievement scores at that same college.

Two scales were developed to measure distance from privilege (Kerr et al., 2012). The first scale, Access to Re- sources, has two measures corresponding to social capital and economic resources. An economic resource (i.e., having money through funds from family, scholarships, etc.) is not the same as having the social connections (i.e., social capital) to encourage and support persistence in college and, more specifically, in STEM fields. The second scale, Distance From Privilege Status, provides a measure of the person’s own perceptions of privileged status in society. As predicted by theory and research on privilege, this scale effectively dif- ferentiated perceptions of privilege between the following: males and females, racial minorities and nonracial minori- ties, heterosexuals and nonheterosexuals, levels of economic status, and types of geographic status (e.g., city, rural). That is, males, nonracial minorities, heterosexuals, high-SES in- dividuals, and city residents were perceived to have greater privilege. These findings support the idea that college students internalize societal values of gender, sexual orientation, and other personal identity variables (e.g., SES, religion).

The second major construct derived from Noble et al. (1999) is a barrier to opportunities due to gender relations.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93188

Kerr & Multon

Gender relations (Multon, Kerr, Fry, & Syme, 2007) refers to the impact a romantic partner has on an individual’s career ambitions and development. In a classic study of the “culture of romance,” Holland and Eisenhart (1990) found that 80% of college women’s conversations outside of the classroom were devoted to relationships with men. College women were also found to spend inordinate amounts of time helping boyfriends with their homework and housework and taking responsibility for family-related tasks that are virtually absent from the lives of college men (Sax et al., 2003). For women who do persist in STEM careers, an NSF (2003) report found that gender relations, particularly characteristics of marriage and family, distinguished female academic scientists who succeeded in achieving tenure-track positions, tenure, and/or rank. That is, of the academic scientists and engineers, married women and women with children were likely to be less successful than men who were married with children as well as women who were not married and did not have children.

To address this important issue of the impact of gender rela- tions on persistence in STEM, Multon et al. (2007) developed a measure of gender relations (the Gender Relations Inventory) and provided evidence of reliability and validity. Although few studies have examined the impact of romantic relationships on career persistence, the NSF (2003) report on academic scientists and engineers indicated that this variable was important enough to be examined and was part of the context variables related to achievement as theorized in the Model of Talent Development (Noble et al., 1999). For talented college women, partner sup- port, beliefs about societal roles, and family needs seem to have a more prominent influence on career decisions than their own career ambitions.

The primary outcome of the NSF study (Multon et al., 2009) was that talent, achievement, and social capital (i.e., distance from privilege) combined with equitable gender relations pre- dicted persistence in STEM in a large, diverse sample of college women. Thus, the Model of Talent Development (Noble et al., 1999) received its first empirical support. Interview data also indicated that, although the college women were aware of the tendency of female scientists to not have the same success as male scientists, the college women tended to have naive beliefs about gender relations. That is, they assumed that the difficul- ties encountered by other women in STEM would not happen to them. College women did not seem to make the connection between their present assumptions of inequitable roles in their romantic relationships and future compromises of their career goals. Less privileged young women, however, appeared to be more resistant to stereotypes and to inequitable relationships and less naive about the barriers ahead of them compared with more privileged women.

What does the Model of Talent Development mean for gifted boys? Although gifted adolescent boys are less deterred by gender relations than gifted adolescent girls, the boys are entering a world that has been transformed by new gender roles. It is important to assess these boys’ attitudes toward

their future gender relations to help them to project into the future in a more holistic way, taking into account that they are likely to be both earners and partners. All of the other variables in the model have been shown by the literature reviewed here to have importance to the engagement and persistence of male students toward their goals. The level of talent, as shown by Lubinski and Benbow (2006), is directly related to the kind of college and career to which both male and female students can aspire. The variable of achievement must be assessed by counselors not merely in terms of the gifted student’s performance in school relative to all students, but also in terms of the student’s performance in school rela- tive to his or her potential. Male underachievement must be taken seriously, and when a student’s grades do not match his or her objectively assessed achievement scores, intervention is necessary. Distance from privilege is certainly relevant to gifted boys; assessing distance from privilege is a powerful way of discovering how gifted boys, despite their status as the dominant gender, may feel otherwise limited. Certainly, minority gay gifted boys do not feel as if they benefit simply from being male in a society where racism and heterosexism can prevent the fulfillment of intellectual potential.

Using the Model of Talent Development in Counseling

The Model of Talent Development (Noble et al., 1999) can provide a set of guidelines for the provision of gender-fair counseling to gifted girls and boys. Among the conclusions that one can draw from this model are the following.

1. For gifted students, academic and career development cannot be treated separately from gender identity, gender role, and gender relations. At each point in the education of gifted students, there are milestones and danger zones related to gender. Counselors who are alert to the dangers of ignoring girls’ early signs of giftedness and kindergarten redshirting for boys can promote greater achievement and engagement in young gifted children. Counselors who help parents to deal with rigid gender role socialization for both boys and girls open up more possibilities for children to develop their own unique identity. Counselors who always engage in holistic life planning rather than narrow career development can ensure that gifted boys and girls are prepared for a life of career and relationship satisfaction.

2. Gender interacts with a wide variety of variables to predict achievement and life satisfaction. Assuming that gifted boys and girls will succeed merely because of their objectively assessed abilities and aptitudes is clearly a false assumption. Along the pathway toward their goals, other individual variables and contextual variables will affect their progress. For gifted girls, the resistance to stereotype threat and early sexualization is critical; for gifted boys, the refusal to underachieve as a response to boredom and the openness to equitable gender relations are critical to well-being.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93 189

Gender Identity, Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students

3. Gifted students who diverge from the heterosexual or gender role norms—as well as intellectual norms (e.g., the gifted gay boy who hates sports)—face difficulties with peers that may require counselor interventions to prevent bullying and to promote self-esteem.

4. Giftedness has implications for health, particularly with regard to eating disorders, where unhealthy perfec- tionism can interact with fears of evaluation, particularly for gifted girls. For gifted boys, the pressure to be athletic can lead to health problems when they try to prove them- selves through sports. The stress resulting from gifted students’ perceived needs to overperform may compromise their health. Counselors can build awareness of health is- sues for gifted students and teach both students and teach- ers the warning signs of perfectionism and stress-related health problems.

5. Understanding the complex interactions of gender, talent, achievement, distance from privilege, academic challenge, access to social capital, and economic resources leads to the conclusion that there are many pathways to success and life satisfaction. Where a student may be lacking in one area, a strength in another area can propel the student forward. It is the counselor’s role to observe and carefully build the profile of success for each gifted student based on the avoidance of danger zones and achievement of milestones in his or her academic and career development.

Conclusion Gender and giftedness interact to create challenges for gifted girls and boys throughout the school years. Counselors can promote awareness of gendered educational practices; can provide same-sex groups for counseling about gender rela- tions, academic planning, and career development; and can support gifted students, their parents, and teachers with consulting and counseling.

Counselors-in-training need to be aware of the issues at the intersection of gender and giftedness; of assessments useful to academic and career planning; and of useful information, resources, and interventions. It is essential to consult with parents and teachers of gifted students because they often do not have access to literature that dispels the myths about sex differences in achievement and career development.

The Model of Talent Development (Noble et al., 1999) needs further refinement and expansion. For example, it does not include personality and self-regulation variables, both of which have been linked to achievement and life satisfaction. In addition, outcome and longitudinal studies need to be per- formed on gender equity strategies and single-sex career and life planning strategies. By considering talent in this holistic way, counselors can help gifted individuals to achieve the milestones and avoid the danger zones on the many pathways to the realization of potential.

References Baker, D. (2013). What works: Using curriculum and pedagogy to

increase girls’ interest and participation in science. Theory Into Practice, 52, 14–20. doi:10.1080/07351690.2013.743760

Boone, L., Soenens, B., Braet, C., & Goossens, L. (2010). An empirical typology of perfectionism in early-to-mid adoles- cents and its relation with eating disorder symptoms. Be- haviour Research and Therapy, 48, 686–691. doi:10.1016/j. brat.2010.03.022

Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differ- ences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367–383. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students (Vol. I). Iowa City: University of Iowa, Connie Belin and Jac- queline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.

Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Christensen, P., & Maxey, J. (1993). A com- parison of gifted underachievers and gifted high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 155–160. doi:10.1177/001698629303700404

Cornwell, C., Mustard, D. B., & Van Parys, J. (2013). Noncogni- tive skills and the gender disparities in test scores and teacher assessments: Evidence from primary school. Journal of Human Resources, 48, 236–264.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Dai, D. Y. (2002). Are gifted girls motivationally disadvantaged? Review, reflection, and redirection. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 315–358. doi:10.4219/jeg-2002-283

Davies, P. G., & Spencer, S. J. (2005). The gender-gap artifact: Women’s underperformance in quantitative domains through the lens of stereotype threat. In A. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psy- chological approach (pp. 172–188). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross- national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/ a0018053

Fredericks, T. P. (2009). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered gifted. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (Vol. 1, pp. 367–369). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frey, N. (2005). Retention, social promotion, and academic red- shirting: What do we know and need to know? Remedial and Special Education, 26, 332–346. doi:10.1177/074193250502 60060401

Galinsky, E., Aumann, K., & Bond, J. T. (2012). Times are chang- ing: Gender and generation at work and at home in the USA. In M. A. Shaffer, J. R. Joplin, & Y. S. Hsu (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of work–family research: A vision for the future (pp. 279–296). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93190

Kerr & Multon

Gross, M. U. (2002, May). “Play partner” or “sure shelter”: What gifted children look for in friendship. The SENG Newsletter, 2, 1–3.

Gross, M. U. (2009). Highly gifted young people: Development from childhood to adulthood. In L. Shavanina (Ed.), Interna- tional handbook on giftedness (pp. 337–351). New York, NY: Springer Science.

Halsted, J. W. (2009). Some of my best friends are books: Guiding gifted readers from preschool to high school. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Hans, J. D., Kersey, M., & Kimberly, C. (2012). Self-perceived ori- gins of attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Homosexual- ity, 59, 4–17. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.638547

Hartley, B. L., & Sutton, R. M. (2013). A stereotype threat account of boys’ academic underachievement. Child Development, 84, 1716–1733. doi:10.1111/cdev.12079

Holland, D. C., & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and college culture. Chicago, IL: Univer- sity of Chicago Press.

Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The impact of mothers’ gender- role stereotypic beliefs on mothers’ and children’s ability percep- tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 932–944. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.932

Johnson, T. W., & Wassersug, R. J. (2010). Gender identity disorder outside the binary: When gender identity disorder–not otherwise specified is not good enough. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 597–598. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9608-1

Kell, H. J., & Lubinski, D. (2013). Spatial ability: A neglected tal- ent in educational and occupational settings. Roeper Review, 35, 219–230. doi:10.1080/02783193.2013.829896

Kerr, B. A. (1997). Smart girls. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Kerr, B. A., & Cohn, S. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, masculinity, and the search for meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Kerr, B. A., & McKay, R. (2013). Searching for tomorrow’s innova- tors: Profiling creative adolescents. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 21–32. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752180

Kerr, B. A., & McKay, R. (2014). Smart girls in the 21st century. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Kerr, B. A., Multon, K. D., Syme, M. L., Fry, N. M., Owens, R., Hammond, M., & Robinson-Kurpius, S. (2012). The develop- ment and validation of the Distance From Privilege Scale: An important construct for talent development in STEM. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 88–102. doi:10.1177/0734282911428198.

Lee, S. Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Aca- demically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 90–104. doi:10.1177/0016986212442568

Levy, J. J., & Plucker, J. A. (2003). Assessing the psychological presentation of gifted and talented clients: A multicultural per- spective. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 16, 229–247. doi: 10.1080/09515070310001610100

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math–science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345. doi:10.1111/j.1745- 6916.2006.00019.x

Matthews, M. S., & McBee, M. T. (2007). School factors and the underachievement of gifted students in a talent search summer program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 167–181. doi:10.1177/0016986207299473

McNees, P. (2003). New formulas for America’s workforce: Girls in sci- ence and engineering. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Miller, N. B., Falk, R. F., & Huang, Y. (2009). Gender identity and the overexcitability profiles of gifted college students. Roeper Review, 31, 161–169. doi:10.1080/02783190902993920.

Multon, K. D., Kerr, B. A., Fry, N., & Syme, M. L. (2007, August). Development of the Gender Relations Inventory. Poster session presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Associa- tion, San Francisco, CA.

Multon, K. D., Kerr, B. A., Robinson-Kurpius, S. R., & Hammond, M. (2009, August). Supports and barriers for women in STEM: An NSF project. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

National Science Foundation. (2003). Gender differences in the careers of academic scientists and engineers. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf03322/pdf/nsf03322.pdf

Noble, K. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Ar nold, K. D. (1999). To thine own self be true: A new model of female tal- ent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 140–149. doi:10.1177/001698629904300302.

Orenstein, P. (2011). Cinderella ate my daughter: Dispatches from the front lines of the new girlie-girl culture. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Peterson, J. S., & Rischar, L. (2000). Gifted and gay: A study of adolescent experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 231–246. doi:10.1177/001698620004400404

Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gen- der shapes social relations. Gender & Society, 23, 145–160. doi:10.1177/0891243208330313

Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Lindholm, J. A., Korn, W. S., Saenz, V. B., & Mahoney, K. M. (2003). The American freshman: National norms for fall 2003. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

Shepard, S. J., Nicpon, M. F., Haley, J. T., Lind, M., & Liu, W. M. (2011). Masculine norms, school attitudes, and psychosocial adjustment among gifted boys. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12, 181–187. doi:10.1037/a0019945

Signorella, M. L. (2012). Gender and development in sex roles. Sex Roles, 67, 373–374. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0199-2

Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Wor rell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A pro- posed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1935). Genetic studies of genius: The promise of youth (Vol. 3). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ April 2015 ■ Volume 93 191

Gender Identity, Gender Roles, and Gender Relations in Gifted Students

Wang, W., Parker, K., & Taylor, P. (2013). Breadwinner moms: Moth- ers are the sole or primary provider in four-in-ten households with children. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Webb, J. T. (2009). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted chil- dren and adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Wells, B. E., &Twenge, J. M. (2005). Changes in young people’s sexual behavior and attitudes, 1943–1999: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 9, 249–267. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.249

Wells, R. S., Seifert, T. A., Padgett, R. D., Park, S., & Umbach, P. D. (2011). Why do more women than men want to earn a four- year degree? Exploring the effects of gender, social origin, and social capital on educational expectations. The Journal of Higher Education, 82, 1–32. doi:10.1353/jhe.2011.0004

Wood, J. T. (2012). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Independence, KY: CengageBrain.

Xie, Y., & Shauman, K. A. (2003). Women in science: Career processes and outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press.

Copyright of Journal of Counseling & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.