Asynchrony: intuitively valid and theoretically reliable. (Contemporary Research).

In 1991 the Columbus Group, a group of parents, psychologists, and educators meeting in Columbus, Ohio, articulated a definition of giftedness as being

   ... asynchronous development
   in which advanced cognitive
   abilities and heightened intensity
   combine to create inner
   experiences and awareness that
   are qualitatively different from
   the norm. This asynchrony
   increases with higher intellectual
   capacity. The uniqueness
   of the gifted renders them particularly
   vulnerable ... (Morelock,
   1996, p. 8)

The evolution of this definition was described by Morelock (1996), and subsequently became the subject of the Point/Counterpoint published in the December 1997 issue of Roeper Review. The conflicting views expressed by Gagne and Morelock in that debate are timely. They have crystallized important matters of conceptualization and theory upon which the field of giftedness currently is built.

Morelock's 1996 article was prompted by the fact that we appear to have lost our way--the chaos of unsatisfactory definitions. These have been fed by a proliferation of multiplicities, be they of intelligence or of talent, and confused by the ebb and flow in meanings ascribed to gifted and to talent, with or without behaviors and/or development as an added option. The construct of intelligence has been reframed by grafting on the construct of [broadly based] creativity and the requirement of effort. It appears that the now hydra-headed beast is of indefinable identity. Practitioners are prone to hedge their bets when using the term gifted by "... mak[ing] sure that it is followed immediately by `talented' in the hope that the two terms together will cover all related combinations and permutations and no one will question anything" (Morelock, 1996, p. 4).

Gagne has dismissed the definition and the conceptualization of asynchrony as a mere "bungalow" on the "major housing complex" (Gagne, 1997a, p. 84) of genuine scientific enquiry. Gagne's belief is that his semantically inspired Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) already has taken care of the difficulties raised by Morelock (1996). Nonetheless, the very fact that the field has continued to remain littered with divergent viewpoints (Coleman, Sanders, & Cross, 1997; Grant & Piechowski, 1999; Robinson, 1999) would seem to necessitate further work on finding a conceptual and theoretical bridgehead. In Gagne's view, asynchrony and the Columbus Group definition are certainly not going to fulfil that purpose.

Issues associated with the identification and subsequent trajectory of nascent giftedness on the basis of intelligence scores have proven difficult to conceptualize. Jackson and Butterfield (1986) proposed that performance should be the focus of the field. The accomplishment demonstrated by athletes, musicians, visual artists, and budding Thespians is more manageable to research. Performance arguably underpins what Gardner (1983) has modelled as multiple "intelligences." It appears to be the substance of what is meant by the term "talent development." Whatever is claimed about the neatness and malleability of a concept of performance-based giftedness, it does, however, eradicate the existence of children who have a greater potential than at least 95% of their fellow students to learn in an academic setting. With the intention of widening the pool, we seem to have been more successful in muddying the water. At risk of being lost is the recognition of the needs of those children whose enhanced intellectual potential is identifiable and measurable (Benbow & Stanley, 1996). The fact is that whatever other human attributes the field accepts under the generalized rubric of gifted--triarchic or multiple, talent or gift--there still remains the fundamental proposition of a measured distance from the mean. To date that measurement has only been validly and reliably achieved by intelligence testing.

As a clinician, this author like others (see Morelock, 1997b), has found that asynchrony communicates to clients an intuitive grasp of enhanced intellectual potential. In effect, therefore, Gagne dismisses what has become intuitively comprehensible to people who work in the field. These clients are not, as suggested by Gagne (1997a) in his criticism of Morelock, drawn from subpopulations of either extreme exceptionality (for example, IQ 160+) or severe behavioral disturbances. The term implies unevenness, a dissimilarity. Both parents and teachers find this meaningful. To them it is an authentic accounting for the children's behavior. Their support for asynchrony should be taken as an indicator that here indeed is a phenomenon worthy of investigation.

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it will examine asynchrony within a wider framework of existing theory. Second, it will report on an analysis of archival data drawn from the clinical files of the CHIP Foundation, Australia. CHIP is the acronym for Children of High Intellectual Potential. The CHIP Foundation is an incorporated charitable foundation based in Melbourne, Victoria, under the aegis of the Australian Securities Commission. It offers counselling, assessment and education programs, in addition to professional development of teachers. Since 1987 the Foundation has offered a testing and counseling service for families of children of high intellectual potential. In 1992 it adopted a written format of questions for clinical and research purposes. This has enabled systematic collection of parents' perceptions of their children and has established a rich source of data for examining characteristic patterns in behavior.

Asynchrony as Difference

In July 1988 at the Eighth World Conference on the Education of Gifted and Talented Children in Sydney, Australia, K. Brian Start delivered a keynote address called The Tyranny of Age. In that address Start articulated a view of enhanced intellectual potential locked into chronological age-determined social and educational settings. He summarized the original Binet mental age/chronological age comparison as the experience of being different: "The only thing similar about twelve year olds is that they have had an independent existence on this planet for 12 years" (1988, p. 4). Enhanced intellectual potential in children is a developmental variable, sensitive to the quality of the environments encountered by the growing child. Intelligence filters experience, organizes meaning and reality. When cognitive enhancement is identified, validated, and nurtured, adaptiveness is optimized. When the child's potential to learn is denied, rejected, and frustrated; the responses required for adequate psychosocial adjustment are stressful and potentially maladaptive (Start, 1988; 1991; 1992).

Unlike the semantic tradition of explanation represented by Gagne (1997a; 1997b), for example, both Start and the Columbus Group emphasize the centrality of the child and how developmental differences are experienced. As described by the Columbus Group, asynchrony also signifies different development. In this definition it is more than experiential, however. Difference is a fundamental constituent of giftedness. Rather than identifying a child-by-environment interaction, the Columbus Group position is that differences endow intrinsic attributes. Typically these are intensities (Morelock, 1996; 1997a).

Essentially this paper is an extension of the developmental perspective. It proposes that an exploratory study of asynchrony is best undertaken within the theoretical field of self studies. Self-learning is one of the most robust indicators we have of adjustment (Anderson, 1992; Harter, 1996). Embedded in self-concept is the individual's interpretation of a history of engagement with the environment, to produce the "... unique personal narrative of story about who we are ..." (Greenspon, 1998, p. 162). Logically, the experience of those children who do not fall within the average distribution will result in a narrative about being different.

Asynchrony as a "Self" Model

The theoretical literature suggests that what individuals learn about self is determined by their interactions with the environment. This literature has a long history, reaching back to the origins of psychology, and especially to the thinking of William James. The relationship between James' I and Me has been born out many times in the theoretical and experimental literature associated with self (Harter, 1996; Wylie, 1974; 1979). James wrote of the I-self--what I know about me--as being the product of the Me-self--what is known about me--reflected back by (significant) others. Self-attributions, what is learned about self, are formed on the basis of these experiences.

In Bronfenbrenner' s (1986) model of environmental influences on development, the child is sensitized to the values and principles operating in the wider social setting. Competence and motivation reflect levels of support available from these environmental factors (Kindermann, McCollam, & Gibson, 1996; Novick, Cauce, & Grove, 1996; Stipek & MacIver, 1989; White, 1959). Self-learning is most likely to be adaptive when attributes are congruent with what is valued by the wider group.

Asynchrony is an expression of the quality of the environment in which the child's concept of self is formed. It captures the process of self-definition experienced by children who do not belong to the normative group (Gross, 1998; Morelock, 1996; 1997a; Silverman, 1997; Start, 1988). This too is the experiential component of asynchrony as difference. It suggests that the content of cultural "messaging" needs to be understood as a factor in psychosocial adjustment. In antipathetic contexts, the content of self-learning is vulnerable. Where attributes are not valued, are valued selectively, or are valued only in situation-specific settings, a child's self-knowledge will be prone to confusion.

Self studies are enriched by causative theories of behavior. White's (1959) effectance motivation has particular relevance to the field of enhanced potential. In White's model, the drive for efficacy is fundamental to behavior. It represents a motive system based on success under optimal challenge and the intrinsic pleasure such mastery brings (Harter, 1978; White, 1959). The cognition-affect link of White's effectance motivation also is present in Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory and, more recently, Bandura's (1977; 1997) social learning (cognition) and Csikszentmihalyi's (1982) "flow." Each of these is consistent with a theoretical tradition that locates mastery in self-concept. The model is based on how mastery is exercised within one's environment. What is learned about personal capacities from that engagement adds to self-understanding. To the effectiveness experience, Csikszentmihalyi added the intrinsic, deeply satisfying component of being at one with the exercise of one's abilities in "flow."

Asynchrony belongs in these theoretical traditions. For children of high intellectual potential, the drive for mastery is evident even in the very young. It takes the form of a sponge-like acquisition of information and a delight in engagement in complex reasoning (Gross, 1993; Kanevsky, 1992; Lewis & Louis, 1991). As in Maslow' s (1968) self-actualization, greater and greater accomplishment gives rise to a sense of profound satisfaction and shapes a deep inner drive for expression.

At the same time a conceptual framework such as asynchrony begs the question of belongingness for high potential students. Social identity theory suggests that the individual defines self from category--or group--membership (Tajfel, 1981, 1982). It is more the fact of not being of a group that defines an individual's identity. The problem would seem to be compounded by social expectations associated with the terminology attached to giftedness as applied to children. It is perfectly acceptable, even laudable, for the "clever"--or gifted--person to find a cure for cancer or to design and build space and computer technology. Identified cognitive precocity in a child taps a different nerve. Giftedness anticipates a capacity for performance, for evidence of the attribute. Intellectual potential is a silent potential. To master complex cognitive challenges is of intrinsic satisfaction only to the child. It is the effectance of White's (1959) model and the flow experience described by Csikszentmihalyi (1982). It is not identified, honed and practiced in the same way as, for example, potential in music, sport, dance, the visual arts. Because they are observable, even competitive, activities, they are consistent with entertainment traditions. Here the difference of out-of-age placement can be a value-added factor.

No tyranny of age mars the potential success of the youthful actor, swimmer, singer or musical prodigy. Nor are these young high-potential performers excluded from being grouped with others of similar aptitude but of differing age. In contrast, same-age placement is de rigueur in education. Repeatedly, acceleration has been found to be an optimal strategy for the intellectually enhanced child, as indicated both by cognitive outcomes (Benbow, 1991; Brody & Benbow, 1986; 1987; Cox, Daniel, & Boston, 1985; Gross, 1993; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Kulik & Kulik, 1984; Stanley & Benbow, 1983) and on measures of psychosocial adjustment such as peer acceptance and social identity (Brody & Benbow; Gross; Janos & Robinson; Kulik & Kulik; Richardson & Benbow, 1991; Stanley & Benbow). Nonetheless, it remains poorly supported among educators (Gross; Southern, Jones, & Ficus, 1989; Start, 1988). Same-age grouping can only serve to exaggerate the effect of mental age and how different are the learning needs of those at the higher end of the distribution (Start, 1988).

The Content of Self-Learning

Considerable investigation has gone into self-concept and self-esteem among the intellectually gifted (Coleman & Fults, 1982; Davis & Connell, 1985; Janos & Robinson, 1985; Lupkowski, Whitmore, & Ramsay, 1992) with mixed results. As an indicator of mental health, self-concept often is associated with the measurement of psychosocial adjustment. An elusive concept to define, Janos and Robinson (1985) have proposed psychosocial adjustment to be the equivalent of "... one's ability to operate effectively within and constructively beyond the structures imposed by the environment, to respond zestfully to challenge, and to maintain a high degree of relatedness, vitality, and personal satisfaction" (p. 156).

In the educational context, research findings have suggested that adaptiveness among children of high intellectual potential would hardly comply with the Janos and Robinson definition. Not wanting to suffer exclusion from socially relevant groups, these children have been found to "dumb down" (American Association of Gifted Children, 1978; Cross, Coleman, & Stewart, 1993; Manaster & Powell, 1983) and to deliberately underachieve (Green, Fine, & Tollefson, 1988; Webb, 1993). In studies of able girls, they have been found to give up their hopes and dreams (Kerr, 1991, 1994; Silverman, 1986). There is also a robust clinical and anecdotal literature that adds further credence to this discouraging picture (Morelock, 1996; Silverman, 1993; Webb; Wendorf & Frey, 1985).

Participation in special programs is likely to mediate at least some aspects of the content of self-knowledge. When grouped with similar others, intellectually able adolescents generally maintain relatively sound self-perceptions regarding their academic achievement (Colangelo, 1991; Cross, Coleman, & Stewart, 1993; Janos, Fung, & Robinson, 1985; Monks & Ferguson, 1983). A within-group study of high ability youth (Grade 5 through Grade 11) attending a two-week university enrichment program, for example, found that social self-concept predicted peer status in both academic and social activity settings (Cornell et al., 1990). On the other hand, conclusions that can be drawn from Swiatek's (1995) investigation of social coping strategies among junior high school students (N = 238) participating in a three-week summer program of accelerated learning cast adjustment measures in a different light. Despite cohort homogeneity, the coping strategies most apparent in the group were denial of giftedness and management of perception (of others). Highly verbal students reported lower levels of peer acceptance than did those with mathematical proclivities. This finding supports an earlier suggestion that the visibility of the enhancement erodes social acceptance (Dauber & Benbow, 1990).

Findings such as these add to the stigma paradigm described by Coleman (1985), in which social adaptiveness is determined by the need to disguise enhanced intellectual abilities (Cross, Coleman, & Stewart, 1993). Gross's (1998) motif is that of the "mask" behind which true self-identity is forced to hide. In both views it is the child's need for acceptance and belonging that requires a denial mechanism in self-attribution. Alternately, self-knowledge needs to accommodate sufficient dissonance in social learning so as to retain a "true" identity. As a response to difference, the character of the adaptation is comparable to the difficulties facing the identity of minority groups per se. Racial identity, for example, is implicated as a confounding factor in the low rate of program participation of African American students. They do not want to be seen by others in their community as "acting White" (Ford & Harris, 1997). Our most academically able children do not want others in their classroom community to see their achievement--"acting smart."

Experimental and clinical sources converge to give an inconclusive account of self-learning and adjustment among intellectually enhanced youth. The evidence suggests that the veracity of self-knowledge and self-worth may be prejudiced even within cohorts where educational modification occurs. Development will be qualitatively different from the norm--as written into the Columbus Group definition.

The Self of the Child of High Intellectual Potential

There is some empirical support for viewing intelligence as a self-organizer among children as young as four to seven years (Harter & Pike, 1984). Intuitively it would be assumed that different ability levels will differentiate children's responses to learning tasks. Such a finding has been made. Kanevsky (1992) observed that four-year-old children of IQ 130+ completed their Tower of Hanoi problem faster than did the six-year-old children in the average ability (the equivalent mental age) group. Further, she described a quality of joyous concerted effort to make tasks even more complex; to "play" with learning. Their absorbed pleasure defined the high ability children's responses.

Katz and Zigler (1967) have argued that the character of children's self-learning and thought change with maturity. Higher IQ would place greater strains upon maintenance of ideal- and social-self perceptions. Consequently, such children would be at risk for greater psychological discomfort in ideal-self shortfall. Being like others is central to self-other bias, actual and idealized self-perceptions, and to self-esteem maintenance (Tesser & Campbell, 1980). These will be children whose moral understanding, for example, exceeds that of their same-age classmates. Their own self-perceptions will have become more complex. They subject themselves to a more realistic yardstick that includes doubt and criticism. Those around them continue to view life through a more childish lens.

Not only do children think differently about themselves as they mature, but within a chronological same-age cohort, the changes will be distributed as a function of mental age (Harter & Pike, 1984; Marsh, Craven, & Debus, 1991; Stipek & MacIver, 1989). At the extremes of the distribution will be children who are without like-others. Intellectual precocity results in a child-by-environment interaction which may not be common to, or shared with, developmentally and socially relevant others. These intellectually precocious children are at risk for becoming isolates.

More than in any other context, the mixed ability classroom accentuates the asynchrony of intellectual precocity. Differences are not simply those of cognition. They include social learning and behavior. A substantive literature confirms that intellectually gifted children do indeed fail in nonrewarding and even punitive social-educational settings (Clarke, 1992; Commonwealth of Australia, 1988; Gross, 1993; Silverman, 1990, 1993, 1997; Start, 1988, 1991, 1992; Terrasier, 1985; Tolan, 1987; Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982; Whitmore, 1980). Psychological similarity/dissimilarity has been identified as a factor in how students evaluate their own academic achievement (Ashkanasy, 1997). For the able child, Ashkanasy's findings suggest that unless grouped with similar others, their understanding of their abilities risks being confused or ill-founded in easy achievement. Children who learn with consummate ease risk adapting their own cleverness to the poorer efforts of those who are not so adroit. Motivation to achieve will become dependent upon ready success--a form of perfectionism and ideal-self learning--often bolstered by the undifferentiated praise of others (McNab, 1997). As task complexity rises however, success becomes less certain. Erosion of competence and of confidence interlock, becoming a downward spiral into task avoidance. They demonstrate selective achievement (of subjects which do not have the hierarchical knowledge base of mathematics and sciences) and behavioral problems.

The Columbus Group definition casts doubt on the stereotype of high intelligence being equated with high achievement. To the contrary, this definition points to an explanatory model of why children endowed with the highest intellectual potential experience difficulties in both educational and social environments. Developmental theories that center on self identify detrimental individual-by-environment interactions. These suggest a lack of fit similar in adaptive effect to Lerner's (1983) goodness-of-fit.

It has been argued that the Columbus Group definition logically extends the theoretical literature of self studies. Asynchrony accounts for the experiences of the atypical child, the child of high intellectual potential. The second part of this article is an analysis of behavioral data. It poses the question of what parents/caregivers observe of their children that authenticates for them the Columbus Group definition and asynchrony. Is there a conceptualization of asynchrony that can be investigated further by researchers?

Method

CHIP Foundation Database

Clients of the CHIP Foundation are primarily self-referred, although growing awareness of the foundation's work has meant that educational, social support, and medical agencies list it as a specialist resource for counseling and testing services. The families represent both public and private education settings, generally from the city of Melbourne (population 2.5 million), where there is an established tradition of mainstream (heterogeneous classes) education in a largely centralized state system. Only since May 1995 has recognition of high potential children as a special needs group been acknowledged formally. The policy is not mandated, and provisions for teacher education remain limited. The data reported in this analysis were collected during the period 1992-1998.

The files of all children tested at the CHIP Foundation include a completed Stanford Binet Intelligence Test Form LM (scores adjusted for normative drift consistent with the Sattler correction), in addition to a Parent Background Form (PBF). Questions on the PBF are divided into current events (leading to referral or decision to seek assessment), School History, Bio-medical and Developmental History, Home History, Family History, and Demographic Information. It is a written form completed by parents at the time of testing and prior to receiving the results of the Stanford Binet.

Data for analysis were extracted from files of children in the top 5% of the population, with general ability scores [greater than or equal to] 126 (n = 541). Along with IQ, the other variables comprised gender, age at time of testing, and, from the PBF, a home behavior measure and a school behavior measure, in addition to a selection of 30 observations of child behavioral characteristics. The 30 observations of the child at the time of referral were entered on a dichotomous observed/not observed basis (1 = observed, 0 = not observed) and categorized into Behavior, Generic (semantic) Characterization and "State" Indicator, as shown in Table 1. State rather than "trait" was chosen to represent the descriptors. Trait implies a fixed attribute which exceeds the scope of the interpretations being proposed.

To determine what these responses might mean to respondents, anecdotal data from the probe (question) Please tell us about each one you circled were coded into literal statements and meaning units. These in turn were analyzed for content and consistency of wording.

To obtain a measure of context, the descriptive comments provided by parents to relevant questions were examined. Questions contributing to the home (context) variable are:

* What is currently happening in your child's life which led you to contact us?

* What sudden changes have you noticed recently in the child's behaviors and moods, or in family members?

* Which child in the family seems easiest to get along with, and why?

* Which child in the family is the most difficult, and why?

Questions contributing to the school (context) variable are:

* Does this child have any special school problems?

* How do this child's teacher(s) describe his/her behavior at school?

* How does this child get along with teachers as compared with his/her parents?

* How does this child get along with boys and girls of the same age?

The questions do not all follow sequentially in the PBF, being located in the sections Current Events, School History, and Home History. Responses were coded on the basis of how parents perceived the child's interactions within these environments: positive (1), neutral (2), negative (3), (0 for no information given) creating two variables, home and school. Three raters were trained to code the data. The mean inter-rater reliability was 95% on the home variable, and 91% on the school variable.

Positive descriptors forming the home variable included: keeps occupied; good company; plays (by choice) for hours on his/her own; great sense of humor; caring, helpful around the home; and plays a positive role in the family. Under "neutral" the direct or indirect impression conveyed was that the behavior of the child was no different than that of other children in general. Interactions were scored negatively when the child in the home setting was seen as moody, volatile, bad-tempered, dominant in interactions with siblings/family members, argumentative, low tolerance of situations in which they are not centered, or in which their expectations (of self and others) are not met. Primarily raters identified friction as the basis of these observations.

For the school variable, "positive" interactions suggested: liking school, gets on well with teacher, likes social activities and tolerates the academic, is happy at school. For "neutral" a more bland tone was noted, one indicating that teachers perceive the child to be a good student. Negative interactions included school resistance, complaints of boredom, reported noncompliance with task, disengagement from task, disruptive behavior associated with both teachers and other children, immature responses in the classroom (e.g., bursting into tears over "trivial" issues), constant attempts to dominate the attention of the teacher, bullying from other children (physical or emotional), lack of friends.

Data were entered into an SPSS for Windows Release 8.0 program. Frequency counts were obtained on the separate variables and a series of cross tabulations and chi-squares were calculated to determine the existence of a relationship between the home and school variables and the observations of problems.

Results

The mean age of children in the CHIP Foundation database at time of testing was 7.9 years (SD = 2.57) with a range of 3.5 to16.5 years. The mean IQ (within the range 126 to 190) was 142.2 (SD = 12.02). Of the 535 cases, 62.4% were male.

In reporting the results of this analysis it is emphasized that the sample from which inferences are drawn is not a normative one. It is derived from a clinical setting. There is no control group. The data will be limited by the interpretation each respondent ascribed to the verbal prompts used in the PBF and their anecdotal responses to the questions asked.

The protocols used to analyze the data were developed specifically for the study. After examination of frequency scores, 20% was set as the cutoff point for an observation of a problem to be considered of particular interest. Only six (of 30) observations met that criterion: one from the Generic Characterization group, the broadly-based school problems (22.9%), the remainder all falling within the category "State" Indicator (possible trait precursor), anxiety/tension (25.9%), easily frustrated (37.0%), easily upset (38.3%), overly sensitive (40.9%), and self-critical (34.8%). Table 2 provides the percentages of frequency with which parent observations are reported, distributed across level of IQ.

Content analysis of responses to these observational categories indicated a consistent pattern in explanatory statements. Generally these were readily classified by content, context, and expression of an emotional range. Anxiety/tension referred to a generalized impression of the child's affective state, the drive to want to do well, and a concern at the state of the world. Easily frustrated described responses to work perceived as being not up to standard, verbalized anger about school, and a tendency to cry when a concept is not immediately achieved. Crying over seemingly insignificant matters was consistently reported as an explanation of easily upset, as well as expressing deep hurt if accused of, for example, breaking promises or cheating. A degree of rigidity is reported, as in a dislike of unexpected change. In a similar vein is a tendency to cry or argue vehemently if reprimanded unfairly. Expressions of distress at visual stimuli in which suffering (human or animal) is presented will elicit a response characterized as easily upset. Overly sensitive also is related to a distress response, generally expressed through tearful behavior, apparently seen as inappropriate. Expressions of concern about the wellbeing of others and a tendency to worry and to self-blame are also mentioned. Twelve parents reported withdrawal from loud noise or excessive movement (stimuli) in the environment. Verbalizing "I am not good enough" and the setting of unrealistic expectations--becoming distraught when these are not attained--is found as expressive of self-critical. Generally these comments were linked to cognitive tasks, although some mention of them was also made in the sporting domain.

With the exception of easily frustrated and self-critical, the gender distribution approximated that of the 535 cases (two-thirds male, one-third female), although the overall trend of more males than females was continued. In the case of frustrated behavior the proportion of males increased to 71%. For self-critical, 40.6% of the observations were of girls. Cross tabulations and chi-square analysis indicated that only in the case of easily frustrated was gender significant ([chi square] = 10.00, 1 df, p < .002), fewer girls being observed than expected.

To determine an age effect the database was divided at the 11-year-old level (approximate elementary/secondary) and frequencies obtained. These are shown in Table 3.

On the basis of the increased representation in the older group, depression/sadness and shyness were included. When described, shyness generally referred to reticence in social groups, having a small number of friends, or discomfort in large groups. Interpreted largely in relation to demeanor in settings of social isolation, depression/sadness was mentioned as a generalized affective state observed in the child. No parent indicated that a child was being treated for depression. Cross tabulation and chi-square identified an association with gender in the case of easily frustrated in the younger group, with more males than females observed. In the older group more males than females were significantly associated with depression/sadness.

The frequency scores obtained on the context variables of home and school were almost mirror images of each other. On the composite home variable 34.6% (187) represented the child's interactions as positive within the home setting and 26.4% (143) negative (14.6% neutral and 23.3% [126] providing no information). On the school variable 26.4% (143) reported interactions which were coded as positive and 43.3% (234) as negative. Neutral and no responses for the school variable were 15.0% (81) and 14.4% (77) respectively. Thus more parents perceive that their children's interactions within the school context express negative behaviors than they reflect positive behaviors. Conversely, more parents perceive that their children's behaviors reflect positive interactions in their home contexts than in their school contexts. A single sample chi-square analysis of Home and of School indicated that the frequency with which the observed responses differed from the expected responses was significant (home [chi square] = 44.70, 3 df p < .001; school [chi square] = 120.66, 3 df p < .001).

Using cross tabulations, a series of separate chi-square analyses was conducted on each of the "state" indicators of anxiety/tension, easily frustrated, easily upset, overly sensitive, and self-critical and the home variable, then the school variable. The results are summarized in Table 4.

In view of the exploratory nature of this analysis of archival data, the standardized residuals from the positive and negative cells of the home and school variables in each of the five observed state indicators also are reported in summary form (Table 5). These clarify the source and strength of the relationships between parental observations of the child-by-context interactions within school and home. It is generally accepted that a standardized residual outside the range of-2.0 and +2.0 will denote a relationship of particular significance.

While the chi-square analyses suggest relationship patterns that are significant, Table 5 adds considerable depth to identifying the source of the values obtained. Consistently, a state indicator is observed to occur in a strong negative association with the context variables (home and school). Further, the effect overall is stronger in association with the school variable than with the home. As indicated by the level of significance obtained for the chi-square, overly sensitive observed in the home setting is not as strong as it is in that of the school. Similarly, although children characterized as self-critical were observed in a negative School context (<2.0), the significance of the chi-square was determined by the lesser than expected number in the positive cell (-2.4). Overall, the direction of the statistical relationship suggested by the chi-square analysis is indicative of a connection between how parents perceive their children's affect (state indicators), and their apprehension of the home and school contexts. The level and direction of the observed consistently and significantly exceeded the expected. The result is an effective polarization: overrepresentation in the negative cells of both home and school variables, and underrepresentation in the positive cells.

Discussion

Within a wider framework of existing theory, it has been argued that the Columbus Group definition is consistent with an established lineage of self models, two in particular. The first extends back to pioneers of psychology such as William James, suggesting that self-definition reflects the interaction of the child within the environment. The second relates to an internalized motivational system based on mastery. Together these two theoretical traditions support an understanding of the asynchrony experienced by children of high intellectual potential.

The data analysis has focused on behaviors observed of high IQ children in home and school contexts. Commonalities would form evidence for a shared base of experiences consistent with a preliminary conceptualization of the effects of high intelligence. It needs to be emphasized that however rich are the descriptive accounts obtained of children within their environment, their interpretation is limited. These data cannot be seen as congruent with the principles of systematic explication and control found in experimental methodology. What was extracted is a representative account of what parents observed about their children, prompting them to seek professional advice.

Even with these caveats, the findings of this study do indicate a consistent pattern of behavioral presentations. At the time of assessment, 30% to 40% of children manifested similar characteristics. Across age and IQ levels their parents observed that they appeared to be anxious, self-critical, easily upset, overly sensitive and easily frustrated. For adolescents, depression or sadness is added to these state indicators, in addition to a higher incidence of shyness than that observed among the younger children.

The fact that parents recognized five out of 30 observational prompts with such consistency suggests an underlying structure of interactions of the children within their environment. This is especially evident when the content of additional descriptive commentary is analysed. Even though these were free responses, a very narrow range of language and expression is evident. The open-ended comments provided by parents, and on which the composite variables of home and school were constructed, adds to the impression of response to a unifying phenomenon. Similarity in anecdotal content supplements this sense of commonality.

Further, there appears to be a relationship between these observational data and the interaction of the child with the immediate family and educational contexts. Negative reporting on the two composite variables of home and school is related to the frequency of the five characteristic indices. The observations reported by parents and caregivers offer evidence of a lack of "fit" between the child and these contexts. Arguably, it is this individual-by-environment tension that provides the descriptive evidence of developmental asynchrony within an atypical population.

Asynchronous development does not pre-ordain an overtly fraught experience. The data also offer evidence that children are not reported as experiencing difficulties. This would be consistent with the interactionist perspective of Environment-X-Individual. As indicated in Table 2, for example, higher IQ did not equate with a higher incidence of behavioral difficulty. The explanation is likely to lie in supportive family/educational settings, as found in Gross's (1991) study of children of IQ 160+. What is suggested therefore is a developmental template in which context appears to be the mediator. Such an interpretation is at variance with the Columbus Group definition in which asynchrony is an innate attribute of giftedness and is a linear function of distance from the mean: the higher the IQ the greater the asynchrony. The position suggested in this analysis, both of theory and of archival data, is that adaptive mechanisms will vary with the individual and with the experiences of the individual. There may be mechanisms within the cultural setting that nurture enhanced intellectual potential. Alternately there may be others which facilitate, perhaps force, accommodation with its values. Thus, to avoid the stigma of giftedness, a process of self-denial will be set in train.

It might be said than any child experiencing difficulty would present in a way similar to that being conceptualized as asynchrony. Low impulse control, volatility, stressors resulting in anger directed inwardly--all could be reframed as anxious, self-critical, overly sensitive, and easily frustrated and upset. The point is, however, that children who have an enhanced potential to learn are manifesting stress behaviors. Further, the effect is associated with the primary contextual settings of home and school. These are the most formative in development, and intellectually able children would be expected to thrive in these settings. The findings of an age effect in the data reflect further on research into the psychosocial adjustment of high-potential adolescents. The increased frequency with which parents reported depression, anxiety, shyness and self-criticism in children over 11 years could be attributed to the general malaise observed at adolescence. It is also possible that such experiences represent the byproduct of a losing battle for personal integrity.

Rather than generalizing the findings to a population, it is in keeping with the exploratory nature of this study to review them in light of broader theoretical propositions. The fundamental drive to do that which one is best equipped to do is inherent in White's (1959) effectance motivation, as it is in flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1982, 1991), and in the enacting function of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). These frameworks explain why children who can learn rapidly and well could grow to demonstrate negative responses if prevented from doing so. Frustration would not be unexpected. A child who became disengaged from tasks in a mainstream, heterogeneous classroom would grow to lack concentration and might also develop hypercritical tendencies, of both self and others. Anxiety and sensitivity to criticism could be especially likely to be habituated into the behavioral repertoire when a child had been defined as bright by earlier experiences in the home.

A crucial component of personal efficacy is the reinforcement by significant others. These are individuals whose own expertise is relevant to the skill being performed. The teacher in the classroom bears a specific responsibility for validating intellectual achievement. Lack of verification can represent a serious deficit in the formation of self-schema for the high-potential child. Concurrently, comparison with others of the chronological age group provides little opportunity for evidential reinforcement of complex skill mastery and knowledge acquisition. The flow experience is thereby denied the young fast learning child. In its place are the manifestations of a child disenfranchised from her or his intellectual ability and under stress.

Extending these self-related responses into social learning suggests a similar experience of dissonance. Self-identity theory suggests that schema development arises from the possession of organized generic knowledge about oneself. That is, group membership is a defining source. Group norms are internalized to represent common attitudes and behaviors. Where there is no group congruent with the individual, social alienation can result or a form of [mal]adjustment will overlay function, such as was found in the research of Swiatek (1995) and of Cross, Coleman, and Terhaar-Yonkers, (1991), and which is predicated on denial of self.

An obvious question arising from the findings is why more cases are not reported: what disproves the conclusions drawn? Several points should be considered. The data have been collected primarily from parents who actively sought assessment as a route to resolving a "problem." Completion of the form in detail was not made as a condition of the test. Parents were not recruited within the protocols of survey methodology. In addition, it has been found from other studies and from clinical information that parents can respond with frustration and anger at having to "convince" educators by pursuit of testing (Alsop, 1994; Hackney, 1981; Wendorf & Frey, 1985). Their willingness to cooperate or to respond to questions about behavior may have been marginal. They provided only as much information as they felt was relevant. At later interviews still others expressed their view that their children had been "labeled" enough--as naughty, noncompliant, disengaged, lacking concentration, and increasingly in the past years, possibly suffering ADD/ADHD and Asperger's Syndrome. They were reluctant to perpetuate the cycle of the negatives by committing these to paper. Fear of prejudicing testers against their child--as had been their experience in schools--also contributed to a tendency to provide only the most minimal information. These are substantive matters in the interpretation of data sourced from parental report.

Although it is important to keep the limitations of the analysis in view, there are nonetheless a number of important outcomes. Rather than constituting a separate developmental paradigm, asynchrony can be conceptualized as being a logical extension of models that already have an extended theoretical lineage. When examined within the literature of self studies these can be generalized to support an experiential approach to differentiated development. High intelligence is the self-organizer made evident in the construct of asynchrony. As applied to the individual, the term asynchrony implies an imbalance in development. As applied to the environment of the developing child, asynchrony implies a lack-of-fit.

Conclusion

This analysis of archival data is exploratory and has attempted to examine systematically observational reporting by parents/caregivers of their children. It is aimed at finding specific criteria from which a model of asynchronous development might be conceptualized. It is argued that within the broader theoretical literature asynchrony can be understood as a developmental and experiential construct. Theoretical models of self identify the environment as the modality for asynchronous development. Interaction with contextual influences particularizes the experience of high intellectual potential.

The analysis suggests that greater explanatory power in the study of childhood academic giftedness can be gained from a developmental perspective; the development of enhanced cognitive potential. It is argued that asynchrony implies a developmental trajectory based on chronological agemental age disparity; embedded in the development of the child of high intellectual potential are historical and sociocultural factors derived from interactions with his or her family, peer-group, and school contexts that are experientially different from those of normative groups; consequent upon placement in normative-based educational and social contexts, the child of enhanced intellectual potential is likely to manifest behaviors suggesting adjustment tension, even distress; and adjustment indicators will approximate or exceed those of normative groups when contextual settings are mediated to take into account enhanced cognitive potential.

Within the Columbus Group definition, intensity and vulnerability can be used as heuristics by which the experience of the "gifted" individual can be comprehended. This current study suggests that intensity is an omnibus term under which specific psychological states can be clustered: anxiety/tension, easily frustrated, easily upset, overly sensitive, and self-critical. An increase in anxiety/tension and depression/sadness can be added for the adolescent, together with self-critical and shyness. A decrease appears in the others, and a decrease--or perhaps the exercise of restraint--in upset, frustration, and sensitivity.

Vulnerability is clarified when it is interpreted as an environmental variable. Predictably in the analysis reported, parents attributed fewer difficulties to the home context than to the school. Even challenging behaviors experienced within the family tended to be classified as "ever was it so" from birth or perceived as an overflow effect from encounters within the school and/or the social setting. Vulnerability appears to be consistent with an understanding of a contextual profile. It is comprised of multifarious feedback loops in a child's world. These construct self-relevant information to act as layers of validation or of indifference, neutrality, or hostility.

Conceptually, the issues raised by asynchrony are broadly consistent with Tannenbaum' s (1983) original seastar model of the fulfilment of potential: general ability, specific aptitudes, nonintellective factors, environmental factors, and chance. An optimal convergence of all five nurtures potential. For children of high intellectual potential asynchrony conceptualizes distortions in environmental factors that flow on to disturbances in nonintellective attributes. Such an interpretation of Tannenbaum's model is troubling in view of the need for convergence of all five variables for potential to be realized.

Further directions in research are suggested. The first is to codify an observational inventory based on behaviors. These would lend themselves to a typology of asynchronous experience. Subsequent application in studies consistent with the experimental literature of self would offer access to other measures and a route to construct validity. Among these are social cognition, social comparison, and social identity, together with that of achievement motivation and self-schema. Development of "context profiles" would be a second direction for investigation. Systematic representation of aspects in the environment that impede and promote achievement arising from childhood intellectual precocity could provide professionals and advocates with the means of quantifying risk factors.

Finally, a multi-attribute view of potential giftedness may now be more acceptable in the field. The existence of high intelligence does not change, however, no matter what other definitions are devised. This analysis of both theory and archival data identifies the nature and quality of environment as being critical to the psychosocial adjustment of children of high intellectual potential. Asynchrony conceptualizes this and the risks in their development. Achievement will not spontaneously ignite from conditions of neglect and lack of understanding. This is as true for intelligence as it is for performance in other domains. The issues are those of context, and the values of those contexts. Currently football players, drummers, graffiti artists, and rappers are more likely to attract popular support than do children who enjoy reading Watership Down at seven years of age and who understand elementary calculus at 11 years of age. Educational trends such as mainstream classrooms and cooperative learning deprive them of the teachers (coaches?) available to athletes, visual artists, singers and dancers. No one expects a young musician to learn his skills "autonomously," or the neophyte high-performance swimmer to "work [on the open-ended task] at her own level."

Clearly schools are in danger of not providing adequately for our intellectually most able students, which is the point made by Benbow and Stanley (1996). Nor have communities yet to respond adequately to high intellectual potential in a way that makes it anything other than a stigma (Cross et al., 1991) or a sensation (Tannenbaum, 1998). At the very least, asynchrony serves as a necessary if not sufficient reminder of the resilience children of high intellectual potential need in order to realize their promise.

Table 1
Categories Of Parental
Observations Of Child's
Presenting Problems

Behavior
  Headbanging
  Lying
  Nail Biting
  Running Away
  Stealing
  Thumbsucking
  Drugs/Alcohol
  Tiredness/Fatigue

Generic Characteristic
  Destructiveness
  Clumsiness
  Cruelty
  Guilt Feelings
  Jealousy/Resentment
  Overactive
  Rituals
  School Problems
  Sexual Problems
  Underactive
  State Indicator
  Anxiety/Tension
  Depression/Sadness
  Easily Frustrated
  Easily Upset
  Fears/Phobias
  Overly Sensitive
  Shyness
  Obsessive/Ruminative

Table 2
Frequency (%) of Parental Observations
of Child's Problems by IQ level

State Indicator                              IQ Level
                         126+      126-139  140-149   150-159   160+
                    (Total N=535)  (n=261)  (n=138)    (n=82)  (n=54)

anxiety/tension          25.9       27.5      23.2     26.5    22.2
easily frustrated        37.0       38.2      35.9     41.0    24.1
easily upset             38.3       38.2      37.3     42.0    35.2
overly sensitive         40.9       42.7      43.0     32.5    38.9
self-critical            34.8       37.4      28.2     36.1    35.2

Table 3
Frequency (%) of Parental
Obeservations of
Child's Problem by Age

State Indicator                 Age

                     [less than     [greater than
                     or equal to]   or equal to]
                      10.9 years      11 years
                      (n = 459)       (n = 76)

anxiety/tension         21.3            37.7
depression/sadness       9.9            26.0
easily frustrated       39.6            24.7
easily upset            40.5            24.7
overly sensitive        42.9            28.6
self-critical           34.1            37.7
shyness                 16.2            22.1

Table 4
Rated Context Variable--Home/School By State Indicator

                             Home              School

State Indicator     [X.sup.2]     P    [X.sup.2]      P

anxiety/tension       19.42     .001     31.47     .001
easily frustrated     27.96     .001     40.03     .001
easily upset          17.60     .001     15.45     .001
overly sensitive      10.93     .012     13.61     .003
self-critical         13.61     .003     17.30     .001

Table 5
Observed and Expected Frequencies and Standardized Residuals
Derived From Context Variables and State Indicators (=1) *

                 Anxiety/     Easily     Easily    Overly      Self-
                 tension    frustrated   upset    sensitive   critical
Home
  +ive cell       -1.4        -1.8       -1.3       -0.4       -1.9
Observed count    39.0        55.0       61.0       74.0       50.0
Expected count    48.9        69.9       72.4       77.2       65.5
  -ive cell        3.0        3.50        2.6        1.2        1.7
Observed count    56.0        79.0       76.0       68.0       62.0
Expected count    37.4        53.8       55.7       59.1       50.1

School
  +ive cell       -2.5        -3.2       -1.3       -1.4       -2.4
Observed count    22.0        30.0       46.0       48.0       33.0
Expected count    37.4        53.5       55.3       59.1       50.1
  -ive cell        3.4         3.5        2.2        2.1        1.7
Observed count    88.0       120.0      111.0      117.0       97.0
Expected count    61.2        87.5       90.5       96.7       81.9

* Standardized residuals did not exceed 2.0 in any of the state
indicators = 0 (i.e., not present), with the exception of home-easily
frustrated (-2.7 in -ive cell), school-anxiety/tension (-2.0 in
-ive cell) and school-easily frustrated (2.5 in +ive cell and -2.7
in -ive cells respectively).

The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the CHIP Foundation Ethics and Research Committee for permission to access the foundation's clinical files.

REFERENCES

Alsop, G. (1994). The counselling needs of parents of children of high intellectual potential (CHIP). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

American Association for Gifted Children. (1978). On being gifted. New York: Walker.

Anderson, K. M. (1992). Self-complexity and self-esteem in middle childhood. In R. P. Lipka, & T. M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), Self-perspectives across the life span (pp. 11-25). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Ashkanasy, N. M. (1997). Attributions for the performance of self and other: It matters who the "other" is. Australian Journal of Psychology, 49, 14-20.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Benbow, C. P. (1991). Mathematically talented children: Can acceleration meet their educational needs? In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis. (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (pp. 154-165). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Benbow, C. P. & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How "equity" can lead to inequity for high potential students. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 2, 249-292.

Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1986). Social and emotional adjustment of adolescents extremely talented in verbal and mathematical reasoning. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 15, 1-18.

Brody, L. E., & Benbow, C. P. (1987). Accelerative strategies: How effective are they for the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 105-110.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted (4th ed.). New York: Merrill/Macmillan.

Colangelo, N. (1991). Counselling gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis. (Eds.). Handbook of gifted education (pp. 273-284). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Coleman, J. M. & Fults, B. A. (1982). Self-concept and the gifted classroom: The role of social comparisons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26, 116-120.

Coleman, L. (1985). Schooling the gifted. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Coleman, L. J., Sanders, M. D., & Cross, T. L. (1997). Perennial debates and tacit assumptions in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 44-50.

Commonwealth of Australia. (1988). The report of the senate select committee on the education of gifted and talented children. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Cornell, D. G., Pelton, G. M., Bassin, L. E., Landrum, M., Ramsay, S. G., Cooley, M. R. Lynch, K. A., & Hamrock, E. (1990). Self-concept and peer status among gifted program youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 456-463.

Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Stewart, R. A. (1993). The school-based social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 16, 37-40.

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, 44-55.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1982). Learning, "flow," and happiness. In R. Gross (Ed.), Invitation to lifelong learning (pp. 167-187). Chicago: Follett.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.

Dauber, S. L. & Benbow, C. P. (1990). Aspects of personality and peer relations of extremely talented adolscents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 10-15.

Davis, H. B. & Connell, J. P. (1985). The effect of aptitude and achievement status on the self-system. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 131-136.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1997). A study of racial identity and achievement of Black males and females. Roeper Review, 20, 105-110.

Gagne, F. (1997a). Critique of Morelock's (1996) definition of giftedness and talent. Roeper Review, 20, 76-85.

Gagne, F. (1997b). Much more than a semantic glitch: A rejoinder to Morelock's response. Roeper Review, 20, 87-88.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Grant, B., & Piechowski, M. M. (1999). Theories and the good: Toward child-centered gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 267-272.

Green, K., Fine, M. J. & Tollefson, N. (1988). Family systems characteristics and underachieving gifted adolescent males. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 267-272.

Greenspon, T. S. (1998). The gifted self: Its role in development and emotional health. Roeper Review, 20, 162-167.

Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London, UK: Routledge.

Gross, M. U. M. (1998). The "Me" behind the mask: Intellectually gifted students and the search for identity. Roeper Review, 20, 167-174.

Hackney, H. (1981). The gifted child, the family, and the school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 51-54.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 21, 34-64.

Harter, S. (1996). Historical roots of contemporary issues involving self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 1-37). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Harter, S., & Pike, R. (1984). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Development, 54, 1969-1982.

Jackson, N. E., & Butterfield, E. C. (1986). A conception of giftedness designed to promote research. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 151-181). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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

Janos, P. M., & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 149-195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Press.

Kanevsky, L. (1992). The learning game. In P. S. Klein, & A. J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 204-241). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Katz, P. & Zigler, E. (1967). Self-image disparity. A developmental approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 186-195.

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

Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls too: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.

Kindermann, T. A., McCollam, T. L., & Gibson, E., Jr. (1996). Peer networks and students' classroom engagement during childhood and adolescence. In J. Jovonen, & K. R. Wenzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children's school adjustment (pp. 279-313). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1984). Effects of accelerated instruction on students. Review of Educational Research, 54, 409-425.

Lerner, R. M. (1983). A "goodness of fit" model of person-context interaction. In D. Magnusson & V. L. Allen (Eds.), Human development: An interactional perspective (pp. 279-294). New York: Academic Press.

Lewis, M., & Louis, B. (1991). Young gifted children. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 365-381). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Lupkowski, A. E., Whitmore, M. & Ramsay, A. (1992). The impact of early entrance to college on self-esteem: A preliminary study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 87-91.

Manaster, G., & Powell, P. (1983). A framework for understanding gifted adolescents' psychological maladjustment. Roeper Review, 6, 77-82.

Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. (1991). Self-concepts of young children 5 to 8 years of age: Measurement and multidimensional structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 366-380.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

McNab, T. (1997). From potential to performance: Motivational issues for gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 408-415). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Monks, F. J., & Ferguson, T. J. (1983). Gifted adolescents: An analysis of their psychosocial development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12, 1-18.

Morelock, M. M. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19, 4-11.

Morelock, M. M. (1997a). A semantic glitch with major implications. Roeper Review, 20, 88-89.

Morelock, M. M. (1997b). In response to Gagne's critique. Roeper Review, 20, 85-87.

Novick, N., Cauce, A. M., & Grove, K. (1996). Competence self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self-concept (pp. 210-258). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Richardson, T. M., & Benbow, C. P. (1991). Longterm effects of acceleration on the social and emotional adjustment of mathematically precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 464-470.

Robinson, N. M. (1999). Exchanging new hats for old: A response to Franqoys Gagne's "My convictions about the nature of abilities, gifts and talents." Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 180-190.

Silverman, L. K. (1986). What happens in the gifted girl? In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for the gifted (pp. 43-89). Rockville, MD: Aspera

Silverman, L. K. (1990). Issues in affective development of the gifted. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), A practical guide to counseling the gifted in a school setting (pp. 6-12). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling families. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 151-178). Colorado: Love.

Silverman, L. K. (1997, July). Different worlds at the extremes of intelligence. Public address, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 29-35.

Stanley, J. C. & Benbow, C. P. (1983). Extremely young college graduates. Evidence of their success. College and University, 56, 361-371.

Start, K. B. (1988, July). The tryanny of age. Keynote address to the Eighth World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Sydney, Australia.

Start, K. B. (1991). Highlights from Australia. Gifted Education International, 7, 158-160.

Start, K. B. (1992, July). Paralysing objections to the development of CHIP. Keynote presentation to the Second Asian Conference on Gifted and Talented Children, Taipei, Taiwan.

Stipek, D. J., & MacIver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children's assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development, 60, 521-538.

Swiatek, M. A. (1995). An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 154-161.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: England: Cambridge University Press.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. London: MacMillan.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1998). Programs for the gifted: To be or not to be. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 3-37.

Terrasier, J-C. (1985). Dyssynchrony--uneven development. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Tesser, A., & Campbell, N. (1980). Self-definition: The impact of the relative performance and similarity of others. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 341-347.

Tolan, S. S. (1987). Parents and "professionals." a question of priorities. Roeper Review, 9, 184-187.

Webb, J. T. (1993). Nurturing social-emotional development of gifted children. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 525-538). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychological Press.

Wendorf, D. J., & Frey, J. (1985). Family therapy with the intellectually gifted. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 13, 31-38.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept (Rev. ed., Vol. 1). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wylie, R.C. (1979). The self-concept (Vol. 2). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Glenison Alsop is a teacher, counselor and registered psychologist who has worked with high-potential children and their families since 1985, completing the first doctorate in the field from an Australian university in 1994. As well as having her own private practice she is a consultant to the CHIP Foundation and to CHIP Programs (CHIP being the acronym for Children of High Intellectual Potential). She is a Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne where she has been a sessional lecturer and supervisor of theses. E-mail: [e-mail]