A comparison between intellectually gifted and typical children in their coping responses to a school and a peer stressor.

The rapid development of the intellects of gifted children inherently sets them apart from their typical peers. Yet, there have been opposing views as to whether possessing higher intellect is a constitutional strength or an "Achilles' heel." Certain researchers have indicated positive aspects to being intellectually gifted (Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1959). In contrast, researchers such as Renzulli (1981), Coleman and Cross (1988), and Bull and Bell-Dolan (1997) have reported concerns about potential vulnerabilities related to being gifted. In particular, Freeman (1994) and others (Abroms, 1985; Butler-Por, 1993; Callahan, 1993; Czeschlik & Rost, 1994; Gallagher, 1990; Hillyer, 1988; Hollingworth, 1942; May, 1994; Roedell, 1984: Tannenbaum, 1981; Zilli, 1971) have stated that gifted children as a group might be at an increased risk for not developing some of the skills necessary to function socially and emotionally. It has been highlighted that these vulnerabilities might influence the ability of gifted children to fulfill their potentials.

Furthermore, a review of the literature suggests that gifted children are faced with multiple daily stressors specific to being gifted, such as pressure from others to be perfect, feeling different and misunderstood by their peers, and impatience with problems lacking an easy solution (Bull & Bell-Dolan, 1997; Delisle, 1987: Freeman, 1985; Geiger, 1995; Janos & Robinson, 1985: Renzulli, 1981; Terassier, 1985). It has also been well documented that children, in general, face multiple daily hassles specific to childhood, such as fighting with parents and/or peers, getting bad grades, and not making sports teams or being elected to clubs (see reviews by Compas, 1987; Sandler, Wolchik, MacKinnon, Ayers, & Roosa, 1997). Moreover, a consistent relationship between experiencing multiple daily hassles and maladjustment has been documented (see review by Sandler et al.). Therefore, the additional stressors gifted children might be facing in combination with the typical, everyday hassles identified by children in general could leave gifted youth at greater risk for psychosocial maladjustment. The present study was an examination and comparison of the coping strategies of gifted and typical children in response to two commonly experienced childhood stressors. Furthermore, the participants' levels of adjustment were compared using teacher ratings of adjustment.

Coping Strategies of Gifted and Typical Children

Coping is an important factor often considered to moderate or mediate the relation between stress and adjustment (Compas, 1987; Sandier et al., 1997). Most recently, coping has been conceptualized in terms of multiple, narrowband, empirically derived dimensions rather than broad-band categories (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In particular, Ebata and Moos (1991) and Causey and Dubow (1992) have developed multidimensional conceptualizations of coping that have been useful in assessing the relation between coping strategies, stress, and adjustment. Results of these studies (Causey & Dubow; Ebata & Moos; Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994) have indicated that children tend to be quite sophisticated in their use of various coping strategies. Specifically, children have demonstrated the ability to vary strategy selection to better address the difficulty they are facing. Moreover, research has demonstrated that matching coping strategies to certain situations is correlated with better adjustment (Ebata & Moos).

Giftedness and Moderation of the Stress/Adjustment Relation

Most of the child coping research has been conducted with typical participants. Only one study focused on gifted adolescents but did not utilize a comparison group (Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987). In addition, the research only addressed stressors related to being gifted rather than being gifted and commonly experienced stress-related events (e.g., school failure or parental separation). Similarly, Cross and colleagues (Cross, Coleman, & Terhaar-Yonkers, 1991; Cross, Coleman, & Stewart, 1993) have studied the social cognition of gifted adolescents and ways in which the students manage the "stigma of giftedness." Again, however, they do not utilize a specific, known paradigm of coping and the emphasis is on adolescent adjustment.

The present study was designed to address some of these limitations in the current literature regarding intellectual giftedness and its relation to stress and coping. Specifically, the present study examines differences in coping strategies in response to age-appropriate daily stressors between intellectually gifted and typical school-aged children. Daily stressors were selected rather than major life events due to a significant literature indicating that daily hassles rather than major life events are more strongly related to adjustment (Compas, 1987; Sandler et al., 1997). Fifth and sixth grade gifted and typical children were asked how they usually cope with potentially stressful events from two domains: academic problems and peer relations. Gifted children were identified by their inclusion in gifted programming in a public school system. Inclusion criteria included being identified as potentially intellectually gifted by a primary classroom teacher and then scoring at least two standard deviations above the mean on standardized testing. In addition, parental consent to participate in the programming (one all-day program a week) was necessary. Children identified as gifted but not involved in pull-out programming were not eligible for randomization. All participants responded to a self-report coping questionnaire for each type of stressor. The responses given for each stressor were compared within and between groups. Finally, teachers completed global ratings of the children's social adjustment, academic adjustment, and academic potential. The teacher ratings served as the adjustment measures to assess the relation between intensity of the stress, or level of upset, and adjustment. Primary classroom teacher ratings were used to maintain consistency across ratings and comparison groups. In addition, the primary teachers interacted more frequently and consistently with all students given that the gifted children only attended gifted programming one day a week.

Hypotheses

1. Between-group differences in coping strategy selection. Research on stress and gifted children indicated that gifted children prefer to implement quick and efficient solutions to problems and become irritated when such solutions are not readily available (Buescher, 1985). Thus, it was expected that gifted participants would report more problem-solving and support-seeking strategies, those aligned with more active styles, than typical children who have been shown to vary their strategy use by stressor.

2. Group status as a moderator of the relation between stress and adjustment. Another goal of this study was to analyze the specific effect of being gifted on the stress/adjustment relation. It was hypothesized that the perceived stressfulness of an event would have a more negative impact on gifted children's adjustment than on typical children's adjustment. This hypothesis follows from the literature suggesting that gifted children are more "psychologically intense" than their typical peers (Kitano, 1990; Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984). Furthermore, gifted children have been shown to have specific difficulties in social contexts (Abroms, 1985; Kitano; Roedell, 1984). For example, Kitano reported that parents rate gifted children as impatient and emotionally sensitive. Such characteristics may lead to more difficulty in coping with daily stressors, especially when the stressor is perceived as uncontrollable. Research with typical children has indicated that children rate peer stressors as less controllable than academic stressors. Because gifted children have greater difficulty with situations perceived as out of their control and have been found to be, generally, more intense than their typical peers (Geiger, 1995; Kitano; Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984), it was expected that the proposed effect would be stronger with the peer stressor than the academic stressor.

Method

Participants

Fifty-five typical children and 52 intellectually gifted fifth and sixth grade children from the elementary schools in a semi-rural community participated in the study. Fifty percent of the typical participants and 45% of the gifted participants were female. The majority of participants came from two-parent homes (83%) and identified themselves as Caucasian (96%). To ensure a sufficient number of gifted participants, all of the children enrolled in gifted programming were solicited for inclusion in the study via their parents. Due to the significantly greater number of typical classrooms and typical children, half of the regular classrooms were randomly selected from the available classrooms and participants were solicited from these classrooms. Parental consent forms were sent home and returned via children's classroom teachers. Participation was strictly voluntary with the option to withdraw from the study at any time. Forty-three percent of the typical children and 63% of gifted children eligible for inclusion received parental consent and assented to participate.

Procedure

The study consisted of standardized measures being administered in classroom sessions during a 50-minute period. Each student who received parental consent to participate was given a brief rationale for the study and asked for his or her assent to participate. The experimenter and post-master's level research assistants then read the questions and response anchors aloud and were available to answer questions regarding the completion of the measures. To ensure confidentiality, all measures were completed anonymously and were only identifiable by a pre-assigned identification number. School officials and other parties did not have access to the children's data.

Teachers were asked to complete three global scales of adjustment for each of the participants in their classrooms. These measures took approximately one minute per student. All of the teachers completed and returned forms on each participant from their classroom.

Measures

Demographic questionnaire. Students were asked to indicate their gender, age, grade level, race, enrollment status in gifted or typical programming, and parents' marital, educational, and occupational status. A socioeconomic status (SES) rating for each student was calculated based on occupational prestige (Stevens & Hoisington, 1987).

Coping measure. Participants completed the Self-Report Coping Scale (Causey & Dubow, 1992) for two stressors from the domains of school and peer stressors. The children were asked to respond to the prompts: "When I get a bad grade in school, one worse than I normally get, I usually ..." and "When I have a fight or an argument with a friend, I usually ..." corresponding to each domain--school and peer--respectively. These particular stressors were chosen because Compas, Malcarne and Fondacaro (1988) identified getting bad grades and fights with friends as common, specific daily hassles of school-age children, and these have also been noted as problematic for gifted children (Buescher, 1985).

Before the children identified coping strategies they used when dealing with the specific stressor identified, students rated how upsetting they perceived the selected event to be on a 5-point scale (1 = "not at all upsetting" to 5 = "extremely upsetting"). Subjects were then asked to complete the Self-Report Coping Scale (SRCS) for each specific stressor. The scale consists of 34 items representing five subscales of coping strategies. For the two events selected (school and peer), subjects rated the frequency with which they used each strategy to deal with the stressor (1 = "never" to 5 = "always"). Thus, the SRCS was completed twice, once for the school stressor and once for the peer stressor.

Causey and Dubow (1992) developed the SRCS to reflect Roth and Cohen's (1986) approach/avoidance conceptualization and Ebata and Moos' (1991) internalizing/externalizing conceptualization for emotional reaction coping strategies. The items contain some replications of previous measures of coping by children and adolescents as well as new items created to reflect the approach/avoidance conceptualization. The following subscales were derived through factor analysis (Causey & Dubow): seeking social support (i.e., tell a friend or family member what happened), self-reliance/problem-solving (i.e., try to think of different ways to solve it), distancing (i.e., forget the whole thing), internalizing (i.e., go off by myself), and externalizing (i.e., yell to let off steam). Internal consistency coefficients for these subscales in the present study ranged from .61 to .83 for the school stressor and from .62 to .85 for the peer stressor.

The SRCS has been used in a number of studies of children's coping strategies in a variety of samples (e.g., fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth graders). The internal consistencies of the coping scales are at least as high as those reported for other coping scales (e.g., Ebata & Moos, 1991). In addition, the sample on which this measure is based includes fourth through sixth graders rather than attempting to generalize from samples of adolescents (Ebata & Moos, 1991). Furthermore, each subscale is represented by at least four items as opposed to other measures wherein subscales include only one or two items (e.g., Spirito, Stark, & Williams, 1988). Finally, the instrument is multi-factored rather than assessing only one factor associated with coping (e.g., Ryan-Wenger, 1992).

Adjustment measures. To assess adjustment, teachers provided global ratings of the children's social adjustment, academic adjustment, and academic potential (adapted from Work, Cowen, Parker & Wyman, 1990). The teachers were asked to provide a separate global index of the child's adjustment in each of these areas. For social and academic adjustment, teachers placed each child in one of five categories in the classroom. The five groups are as follows: (1) among the three best adjusted, (2) among the top third, but not the top three, (3) in the middle third, (4) among the bottom third, but not the bottom three and (5) among the three most poorly adjusted. The scores were coded so that high scores indicated poorer adjustment. For academic potential, teachers rated participants on the following 4-point Likert scale: 1) achieving far below potential, (2) somewhat below potential, (3) achieving potential and (4) above potential (e.g., beyond what would be expected given other indications of ability). This global rating system was chosen because these ratings have been shown to be correlated with other, more comprehensive measures of childhood adjustment (e.g., Teacher's Child Rating Scale; Parker, Cowen, Work, & Wyman, 1990; Work et. al, 1990). In addition, this type of global rating system was less time consuming for the teaching staff who were asked to complete these measures for each participant from their classrooms.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Relations between the demographic variables and the major study variables (group status, coping, and adjustment). To assess group equivalence in background factors, preliminary analyses were computed to examine the relationship between the demographic variables, group status (i.e., gifted and typical), and gender. T-tests were computed to assess the association of occupational prestige and parents' education levels to group status and gender. The groups (i.e., gifted, typical, boys, girls) did not differ by parent education levels or parents' occupational prestige scores. Chi-square analyses were computed to assess the association of marital status and gender to group status. These tests failed to show significant group differences.

The relations between the demographic variables and the major study variables were examined via correlations, for continuous demographic variables (i.e., occupational prestige ratings and parents' education levels), and t-tests, in the case of dichotomous demographic variables (i.e., marital status and gender). These analyses guided decisions regarding which background variables needed to be controlled for in later analyses.

Results indicated that indices of socioeconomic status correlated primarily with the teacher ratings of adjustment (see Table 1). Specifically, higher paternal occupational prestige scores, paternal education level, and maternal education level were related to higher teacher ratings of social adjustment (absolute r's ranged from .22 to .33). Furthermore, higher levels of parental academic achievement were related to higher teacher ratings of academic adjustment (r = .30 for lathers, r = .25 for mothers). Similarly, higher paternal SES indices (i.e., occupational prestige and education scores) were related to higher teacher ratings of academic potential (absolute r's ranged from .25 to .28). Yet, maternal occupational prestige scores were not significantly correlated with teacher ratings of academic potential (See Table 1).

Given these preliminary results, parent education and occupation variables were controlled for in later regression analyses in which adjustment variables (i.e., teacher ratings) served as the criterion variables.

Primary Analyses

Repeated measures analysis of group differences in coping strategies for peer and academic stressors. The first major study question addressed whether there were group differences in coping strategy selection for peer and academic stressors. A repeated measures ANOVA with two between-subjects variables (i.e., group status and gender) and two within-subjects variables (i.e., situation and coping strategies) was computed. Gender was included in the analysis because multiple studies have reported gender differences in coping (Labouvie-Vief, Hakim-Larson, & Hobart, 1987; Roecker, Dubow, & Donaldson, 1996). A significant Coping X Group interaction was predicted such that gifted children would report more problem-solving and support-seeking strategies than typical children.

With regard to the first hypothesis, there was a significant Coping X Group interaction in the predicted direction, F(4, 103) = 4.203, p < .01 (see Table 2). Specifically, intellectually gifted children (M = 7.14, SD = 1.3) reported using more problem-solving strategies than typical children (M = 6.52, SD = 1.4) across situations (school and peer), t(1,105) = -2.365, p < .05. The gifted participants, however, did not report using more support-seeking strategies than the typical participants, t(1,105) = .528, ns.

In addition, there were several significant results that were not predicted. First, a significant Coping effect was found, F(4,103) = 85.45, p <.01. Follow-up paired t-tests indicated that all participants--gifted and typical--across stressors endorsed using certain coping strategies more or less, on average, than the others. On a scale from 1 (never use) to 5 (always use), participants endorsed using problem-solving strategies (M = 3.17, SD = .67) the most with support-seeking strategies (M = 2.9, SD = .77) being second-most popular. The children endorsed externalizing and distancing strategies the least (M = 2.19, SD =.57, M= 2.17, SD = .55, respectively). Internalizing (M = 2.43, SD = .57) strategies were endorsed less than support seeking and problem solving but more than externalizing and distancing strategies.

Second, there was a significant Situation X Coping interaction, F(4,103) = 7.28, p < .01. Follow-up paired t-tests indicated that children endorsed more problem-solving strategies to cope with the peer stressor (M = 3.49, SD = .77) than the school stressor (M = 3.34, SD = .71), t(1,106) = 4.67, p < .05. In addition, children endorsed more distancing strategies to cope with the school stressor (M = 2.32, SD = .70) than the peer stressor (M = 2.01, SD = .62), t(1,106) = 4.67, p < .01).

Third, there was a significant Coping X Sex interaction, F(4,103) = 4.33, p < .01. Follow-up t-tests indicated that females endorsed more support-seeking strategies (M = .49, SD = 1.7) in response to both stressors than the boys (M = -.45, SD = 1.8), t(1,105) = -2.74, p < .01. Coping scores across stressors were created by standardizing each coping variable (e.g., school support seeking--sample mean/sample SD) and adding standardized variables for each stressor to create a total coping score across situations (e.g., new school SS + new peer SS = total SS score).

Last, there was a significant Situation X Sex X Group Status interaction, F(1,105) = 3.95, p < .05. A follow-up repeated measures ANOVA and multiple t-tests indicated that gifted males (M = 11.69, SD = 2.3) endorsed fewer coping strategies with the peer stressor t(1,50) = -2.01, p = .05 than all other groups. Typical girls (M = 12.45, SD = 1,7), typical boys (M = 12.53, SD = 2.4), and gifted girls (M = 12.87, SD = 1.9), however, did not differ in their responses to the peer stressor.

Group status as a moderator of the stress/adjustment relation. The second major research question concerned whether group status moderated the relation between stress and adjustment. That is, it was predicted that upset over the stressor would be related to poorer adjustment for the gifted children, but not the typical children. Hierarchical regression analyses were computed to assess the relation between stress level (i.e., level of upset) and teacher's global rating of adjustment for each stressor (i.e., peer and academic). That is, separate equations were computed for each stressor (i.e., academic and peer) predicting the corresponding global index of adjustment for that stressor. The first step of the analyses involved entering predictor variables independently (i.e., gender, group status, level of upset). Gender was included due to past research indicating that teacher's perceptions of adjustment may vary by sex of the child (Work et al., 1990). In the second step of the analysis, the interaction term of Stressfulness X Group Status was added to assess whether group status moderated the relation between the perceived stressfulness of the academic or peer stressor and teacher ratings of adjustment. For each of the three equations, SES was controlled for by including the term for the average parental education level of the household (i.e., [maternal education level + paternal education level] / 2). Occupational prestige scores were not introduced because maternal occupation did not correlate with the dependent variables and paternal occupation was highly correlated with paternal education level (absolute r = .67).

Prior to computing the regression analyses, t-tests indicated that the gifted and typical groups did not differ in reported levels of upset for either stressor. That is, intellectually gifted and typical children did not differ in their reported levels of upset over the school stressor (gifted [M = 3.29, SD = .85] and typical [M= 3.24, SD = 1.1]) or the peer stressor (gifted [M = 3.65, SD = 1.1] and typical [M = 3.47, SD = .88]).

In step 1, group status, t(3,98) = -3.92, p < .01, and parental education level, t(3,98) = 3.99, p < .01, were the only significant predictors of teacher ratings of social adjustment. That is, being in gifted programming and having parents with higher levels of education were associated with being rated as better socially adjusted by teachers. Similarly, the best predictors of teacher ratings of academic adjustment were group status t(4,98) = -5.61, p < .01 and parental education level, t(4.98) = 3.81, p < .01. That is, being involved in gifted programming was related to higher teacher ratings of academic adjustment as was having parents with higher levels of education. Finally, teacher ratings of academic potential were best predicted by sex t(4,98) = 2.46, p < .05 and parental education level t(4,98) = -2.13, p < .05. That is, being female and having parents with higher education levels were associated with higher teacher ratings of academic potential (see Table 3).

In step 2, the results of the moderating hypothesis were not significant. Being intellectually gifted did not moderate the relationship between level of upset and teacher ratings of adjustment, indicating that the relation between perceived stressfulness of the event and adjustment did not vary by group status.

Discussion

The present study was conducted in order to enhance the current literature regarding coping and adjustment in gifted children. Specifically, this study was designed to investigate the differences and similarities in intellectually gifted and typical children's self-reported coping strategies in relation to two common stressors (academic and peer). In addition, the present study examined giftedness as a potential moderator between reported levels of upset over each stressor and the teacher ratings of adjustment in each domain (social and academic).

Differences Between Intellectually Gifted and Typical Children in Self-Reported Coping Strategies and Adjustment

The present findings indicated that intellectually gifted and typical children differed in their reported choices of coping strategies in response to the academic and peer stressors presented. The intellectually gifted children reported that they used more problem-solving strategies to cope with these stressors. These findings are consistent with past research (Buescher, 1985; Wertlieb et al., 1987), which suggested that intellectually gifted children prefer quick and efficient solutions to problems and are more likely to select action-oriented approaches to solving problems. These findings might also reflect the emphasis on teaching problem-solving skills in gifted programming (Khatena, 1982) in that the gifted children might have been exposed more to this style of coping than children not involved in gifted programming.

An unexpected, but curious, finding in the present study was that gifted boys endorsed fewer coping strategies than any other group (i.e., typical girls, typical boys, and gifted girls) in response to the peer stressor. One possible interpretation is that the gifted boys have discovered a few strategies that work well and continue to select those. Alternatively, the present results might suggest that gifted boys have not learned as many alternatives to coping with peer stress as gifted girls and typical children. Although there is a considerable literature suggesting that gifted girls might be an "at-risk" population (Bretherton & Liepins, 1989; Callahan, 1981; Colangelo et al., 1995), there has been no literature to date to suggest that gifted boys would have more difficulty than other populations in coping with social stressors. Therefore, the present finding needs to be further investigated to address the children's perceptions of how efficacious each of their coping strategies has been with these stressors. In addition, gifted children's coping with a wider variety of social stressors in comparison to their typical peers might shed light on specific differences in these populations.

Giftedness as a moderator between stress and adjustment

With respect to the relation between reported levels of upset over each stressor and teacher ratings of adjustment, it was anticipated that environmental stressors would more negatively affect intellectually gifted children than typical children. The present findings did not support this hypothesis. Rather, being identified as gifted was positively related to teacher ratings of social and academic adjustment. Interestingly, these findings coincide with previous findings suggesting that children who endorse greater use of problem-solving approaches are also rated as better adjusted (Carson, Swanson, Cooney, Gillum, & Cunningham, 1992; Compas et al., 1988). Future studies addressing this topic should examine whether being gifted leads tn higher ratings of adjustment or whether endorsement of particular coping strategies leads to better adjustment.

Coping Strategies Across Groups

Although the focus of the present study was on comparing the responses of gifted and typical children, certain findings pertaining to both groups are worth highlighting. Specifically, the results indicated that the children reported using problem-solving strategies the most, with support-seeking strategies being used second most frequently in response to the peer and academic stressors. Distancing and externalizing strategies were selected equally as frequently as one another and the least. Internalizing strategies were reported less than support-seeking strategies, but with greater frequency than externalizing or distancing strategies. This pattern of responses mirrors the pattern found by Causey and Dubow (1992) who also examined coping strategies in response to an academic and peer stressor in a sample of fifth and sixth graders. Interestingly, the pattern differs from that found by Roecker et al. (1996) who presented fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth grade children with peer and adult interpersonal conflict stressors. Specifically, Roecker and colleagues found that children across ages reported distancing strategies with the greatest frequency and support-seeking the least. Hence, more research may be necessary to examine the impact of the type of stressor chosen (e.g., adult- or peer-related event) on children's coping strategy choice and the consistency thereof.

The present results also add credence to the hypothesis that young children demonstrate situation specificity in coping-strategy choice in that these participants endorsed certain strategies more in response to one stressor than the other. In particular, these children endorsed more distancing strategies in response to the school stressor than the peer stressor and more problem-solving strategies in response to the peer stressor than the school stressor. These results are consistent with past research that suggests that children vary their strategy use in accordance with the stressor (Band & Weisz, 1988; Brodzinsky et al., 1992; Cansey & Dubow, 1992; Griffith, 1992; Roecker et al., 1996).

Gender differences in response patterns are also noteworthy. Consistent with past research (Cansey & Dubow, 1992; Roecker et al., 1996; Rossman, 1992; Wertlieb et al., 1987), the present findings indicate that girls reported greater preference for support-seeking strategies than boys when dealing with academic and peer stressors. It is possible that gender socialization in this society makes asking for help more acceptable in females than males. The girls, however, did not report greater use of problem-solving approaches, nor did the boys endorse greater use of externalizing and distancing approaches, which is inconsistent with past research (Cansey & Dubow; Roecker et al.; Rossman; Wertlieb et al.). One possible explanation for the mixed results is the age of the selected participants. Band and Weisz (1988) identified 9 to 12 years old as the developmental period when children make the transition from using predominantly primary (e.g., strategies focused on actively changing the situation) coping strategies to a combination of primary and secondary (e.g., strategies aimed at making the individual feel better regardless of ability to change the situation) strategies. Therefore, the mixed results regarding gender and coping strategy selection might reflect the process of this developmental shift.

Limitations and Conclusions

There were certain limitations to the present study that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, the sample of children was demographically restricted in that most of the participants were Caucasian, from middle to upper-middle class families, and from two-parent homes. Such demographic indicators limit the generalizability of the findings. In particular, it is unknown as to whether these results would apply to intellectually gifted children living in more culturally diverse areas.

Furthermore, the intellectually gifted participants were not divided by ability level (gifted and highly gifted). That is, past research (Bridges, 1973; Lovecky, 1994; Roedell, 1984) has suggested that children identified as highly gifted (IQ > 160) encounter a greater number of stressors and have more difficulties socially than gifted children (IQ > 132). Without access to the children's IQ scores, this issue could not be examined in the present study. Given the aforementioned limitations, however, there are several implications of the results.

The present findings suggested that intellectually gifted and typical children might cope somewhat differently with academic and peer stressors. Specifically, intellectually gifted children reported a preference for problem-solving approaches. Also, being identified as intellectually gifted appeared to be a positive experience in many ways, including being perceived by teachers as more socially well adjusted than typical children.

These results, however, should not be interpreted as meaning that gifted children are capable of coping with life stress without assistance. These findings are not intended to suggest that participation in social problem-solving programs, or other adjunct socioemotional programming/counseling, would not be equally advantageous to this population as to typical children. There was considerable variability in intellectually gifted children's responses to the questionnaires, indicating that there might be subgroups of gifted children who are in need of additional assistance in the form of special programs (e.g., gifted boys, and/or highly intellectually gifted children).

Therefore, even though the present results indicate that being intellectually gifted is more of a blessing than a curse, it remains important to include this population in research endeavors. Of potential interest in future research would be investigating the response patterns of gifted children not enrolled in special programming. That is, one might compare coping strategies and stressors experienced by gifted children who have been identified and placed in programs to address their special needs with those who continue to be in regular classrooms. The results of the present study might reflect an effect of the pull-out programming in which the gifted participants are involved. Pull-out programming might provide an arena for the gifted children to associate with peers who have similar concerns related to being gifted and this might actually alleviate some of the proposed stressors and anxieties. Similarly, future studies of this nature may also need to include measures that identify how similar to their typical age-mates the gifted children feel (Cross, Coleman, & Stewart, 1995).

In addition, future studies should address demographically diverse gifted populations because these groups might be enduring additional stressors. Future efforts should also address different levels of giftedness and how this characteristic relates to stress, coping, and adjustment. It remains important for future research to include comparison groups of typical children so as to not misinterpret findings. Overall, it is hoped that the present findings will spark additional research in this area rather than relegating the population of intellectually gifted children to the "back burner" of research simply because they appear to possess a number of psychological strengths.

Table 1
Correlations of SES
and Major Study Variables

SES Variable          Teacher Adjustment Rating       r

Maternal Occupation
                      Social                      -.066
                      Academic                     .016
                      Academic Potential           .050
Paternal Occupation
                      Social                      -.220 *
                      Academic                    -.195
                      Academic Potential           .283 **
Maternal Education
                      Social                       .243 **
                      Academic                     .251 **
                      Academic Potential          -.127
Paternal Education
                      Social                       .334 **
                      Academic                     .297 **
                      Academic Potential          -.247 **

(* p <.05, ** p <.01)

Table 2
Results of Repeated Measures ANOVA:
Coping with Peer andAcademic Stressors

Within Subjects Variables   Effect                             F

Situation: Peer and
  Academic Stressors        Situation                            .007
                            Situation X Sex                     3.18
                            Situation X Group Status             .056
                            Sit. X Group Status X Sex           3.95 *
Coping Response: Seeking
  Support, Problem
  Solving, Distancing,
  Externalizing,
  Internalizing             Coping                             85.5 **
                            Coping X Sex                        4.33 **
                            Coping X Group Status               4.20 **
                            Coping X Sex X Group Status         1.11
                            Situation X Coping                  7.28 **
                            Situation X Coping X Sex            2.22
                            Situation X Coping X Group Status    .797
                            Situation X Coping X Sex X Group    1.80

(* p <.05, ** p <.01)

Table 3
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses:
Predictors of Teacher Ratings of Adjustment

Equation                     Variable(s)              Beta      t

Teacher Social
                             Gifted                  -.345   -3.92 **
                             Upset Peer               .026    -.298
                             Parent Education         .349    3.99 **
                             Gifted X Upset Peer      .337     .913
Teacher Academic
                             Sex                     -.141   -1.70
                             Gifted                  -.457   -5.61 **
                             Upset School            -.024    -.286
                             Parent Education         .311    3.81 **
                             Gifted X Upset School   -.284    -.951
Teacher Academic Potential
                             Sex                      .232    2.46 *
                             Gifted                   .167    1.80
                             Upset School             .119    1.27
                             Parent Education        -.197   -2.13 *
                             Excel X UpsSch           .182    1.42

(* p <.05, ** p <.01)

We wish to thank Annette Mahoney and Michael Zickar for their thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We also thank the school personnel, especially Marcia Myers, families, and children who made this project possible.

REFERENCES

Abroms, K. (1985). Social giftedness and its relationship with intellectual giftedness. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children: Perspectives on development and education (pp. 201-218). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Band, E. B., & Weisz, J. R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children's perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24(2), 247-253.

Bretherton, D. & Liepins, I. (1989). A follow-up study of gifted children with special attention to girls. In M. A. Luszcz & T. Nettelbeck (Eds.), Psychological development: Perspectives across the life span. Proceedings of the 24th International Congress of Psychology of the International Union of Psychological Science, Vol. 7 (pp. 251-276). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Bridges, S. (1973). Problems of the gifted child: IQ-150. New York: Crane, Russak.

Brodzinsky, D. M., Elias, M. J., Steiger, C., Simon, J., Gill, M., & Clarke-Hitt, J. (1992). Coping scale for children and youth: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13(1), 195-214.

Buescher. T. M. (1985). A framework for understanding the social and emotional development of gifted and talented adolescents. Roeper Review. 8, 10-15.

Bull, C. A., & Bell-Dolan, D. J. (1997, April). Multidimensional perfectionism in adolescents: A comparison of gifted, high-achieving, and average students. Poster session presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washington, D.C.

Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 649-668). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Callahan, C. M. (1981). The gifted girl: An anomaly? In W. B. Barbe, & J. S. Renzulli (Eds.), Psychology and education of the gifted (pp. 498-510). New York: Irvington.

Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation programs and procedures for gifted education: International problems and solutions. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 605-618). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Carson, D. K., Swanson, D. M., Cooney, M. H., Gillum, B., & Cunningham, D. (1992). Stress and coping as predictors of young children's development and psychosocial adjustment. Child Study Journal, 22(4), 273-302.

Causey. D. L., & Dubow, E. F. (1992). Development of a self-report coping measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(1), 47-59.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., Stoyanova, F., Peters, W., Ma, H., Monks, F., Ye, G., & Sahin, A. (1995) Giftedness and self-concept. In M. W. Katzko & F. J. Monks (Eds.), Nurturing talent: Individual needs and social talent (pp. 66-100). Assen. Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(4), 41-56.

Compas, B. E. (1987). Stress and life events during childhood and adolescence. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 275-302.

Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988). Coping with stressful events in older children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 405-411.

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Stewart, R. A. (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., & Stewart, R. A. (1995). Psychosocial diversity among gifted adolescents: An exploratory study of two groups. Roeper Review. 17(3), 181-185.

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(1), 44-55.

Czeschlik, T., & Rost, D. H. (1994). Socio-emotional adjustment in elementary school boys and girls: Does giftedness make a difference? Roeper Review, 16(4), 294-297.

Delisle, J. R. (1987). Gifted kids speak out. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Ebata. A. T., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed and healthy adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 33-54.

Freeman, J. (1985). Emotional aspects of giftedness. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children: Perspectives on development and education (pp. 247-264). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Freeman, J. (1994). Some emotional aspects of being gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17(2), 180-197.

Gallagher, J. J. (1990). The public and professional perception of the emotional status of gifted children. Special issue: The emotional adjustment of gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(3), 202-211.

Geiger, R. D. (1995). Temperament and giftedness: American and European perspectives. In M. W. Katzko & F. J. Monks (Eds.), Nurturing talent: Individual needs and social talent (pp. 139-143). Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum.

Griffith, M. A. (1992). Developmental differences in adolescent coping with family, school and peer stressors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University.

Hillyer, K. (1988). Problems of gifted children. Journal of the Association for the Study of Perception, 21(1-2), 10-26.

Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. Yonkers on the Hudson, NY: World Book.

Janos, P. M., & Robinson. N. M. (1985). Self-concept, self-esteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel different. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(2), 78-82.

Khatena, J. (1982). Myth: Creativity is too difficult to measure. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(1), 21-23.

Kitano, M. K. (1990). Intellectual abilities and psychological intensities in young children: Implications for the gifted. Roeper Review, 13(1), 5-10.

Labouvie-Vief, G., Hakim-Larson, J., & Hobart, C.J. (1987). Age, ego level, and life-span: Development of coping and defense processes. Psychology and Aging, 2(3), 286-293.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.

Lovecky, D. (1994). Exceptionally gifted children: Different minds. Roeper Review, 17(2), 116-120.

May, K. M. (1994). A developmental view of a gifted child's social and emotional adjustment. Roeper Review, 17(2), 105-109.

Parker, G. R., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Wyman, P. A. (1990). Test correlates of stress resilience among urban school children. Journal of Primary Prevention, 11(1), 19-35.

Piechowski, M. M., & Colangelo, N. (1984). Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly. 28, 80-88.

Renzulli, J. S. (1981). Identifying key features in programs for the gifted. In W. B. Barbe, & J. S. Renzulli (Eds.), Psychology and education of the gifted (pp. 214-219). New York: Irvington.

Roecker, C. E., Dubow, E. F., & Donaldson. D. (1996). Cross-situational patterns in children's coping with observed interpersonal conflict. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25(3), 288-299.

Roedell, W. C. (1984). Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6(3), 127-130.

Rossman, B. B. R. (1992). School age children's perceptions of coping with distress: Strategies for emotion regulation and the moderation of adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 1373-1397.

Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813-819.

Ryan-Wenger, N. (1992). A taxonomy of children's coping strategies: A step toward theory development. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62(2), 256-263.

Sandler. I. N., Tein, J., & West. S. G. (1994). Coping, stress, and the psychological symptoms of children of divorce: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Child Development, 65, 1744-1763.

Sandler. I. N., Wolchik. S. A., MacKinnon, D., Ayers. T. S., & Roosa, M. W. (1997). Developing linkages between theory and interventions in stress and coping processes. In S. A. Wolchik & I. N. Sandler (Eds.), Handbook of children's coping: Linking theory and intervention (pp. 3-40). New York: Plenum Press.

Spirito, A., Stark. L. J., & Williams, C. (1988). Development of a brief coping checklist for use with pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 13, 555-574.

Stevens, G., & Hoisington, E. (1987). Occupational prestige and the 1980 U.S. labor force. Social Science Research, 16, 74-105.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1981). Pre-Sputnik to post-Watergate concern about the gifted. In W. B. Barbe. & J. S. Renzulli (Eds.). Psychology and education of the gifted (pp. 20-37). New York: Irvington.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 1: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Terman. L. M., & Oden, M. (1959). Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 5: The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Terrassier, J-C. (1985). Dyssynchrony-Uneven development. In J. Freeman (Ed.). The psychology of gifted children: Perspectives on development and education (pp. 265-274). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., & Feldstein. M. (1987). Measuring children's coping. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 548-560.

Work, W. C., Cowen, E. L., Parker, G. R., & Wyman, P. A. (1990). Stress resilient children in an urban setting. Journal of Primary Prevention, 11(1), 3-17.

Zilli, M. J. (1971). Reasons why the gifted adolescent underachieves and some of the implications of guidance and counseling to this problem. Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 279-292.

Lesli J. Preuss is a clinical psychologist and director of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Evaluation Service (CAPES) in the Department of Child Psychiatry at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. Her general research interests are in the field of the social and emotional needs of gifted children and program development and evaluation. Applied work includes directing a psychiatric evaluation service and serving as a CBT therapist in a national, multi-site study of childhood anxiety. E-mail: [e-mail]

Eric F. Dubow is a professor of psychology in the clinical psychology doctoral program at Bowling Green State University. His general research interests are in the field of risk and protective factors in children's and adolescents' adjustment. His applied work includes the development and evaluation of school-based intervention programs to enhance children's competencies and to prevent behavioral and emotional problems. E-mail: [e-mail]

Manuscript submitted April 8, 2003.

Revision accepted May 28, 2003.