Chance and talent development.

"Those who complain they didn't get their chance should reflect on the number of times chance came for nothing."

--Coluche [French actor]

What is chance? The primary definition of chance found in many dictionaries is the absence of assignable cause. Is it possible then for chance to represent the bulk of unexplained variance in empirical studies of talent development? To what extent and how do chance events play a role in the talent development process? Do we reach major life goals through self-initiated activities and pursuits and with the help of expert teachers, or are we as dependent as puppets on unpredictable extraneous influences? And why is it important to acknowledge the role of chance? One finds a wide variety of opinions in the non-scientific literature, from the conviction that we make our own chance, to the belief that a person's development is continuously bombarded by unexpected events to which that person must react.

This summary of a past National Association for Gifted Children presentation (Schader & Gagne, 2001) addresses these questions, with a focus on talent development. Two goals are pursued: (a) to briefly review the relevant--and limited-scientific literature on the subject of chance, and (b) to draw the general guidelines for a research program aimed at buttressing beliefs and hypotheses with solid empirical data.

Survey of the Literature

The literature can be divided into two main paths: (a) the analysis of lay beliefs about the role of chance in life events, and (b) the insertion of chance as a causal factor in theories of human development.

About Lay Beliefs

The most extended exploration of chance beliefs as a causal factor in human affairs belongs to the field of attribution theory. Simply put, causal attribution refers to the way people perceive why events happened as they did. Weiner, et al. (1972) extended attribution theory into the area of achievement motivation by examining classroom academic success. They concluded that causal perceptions directly influence the goal-setting and goal-reaching process. The four causal attribution factors most commonly ascribed to achievement outcomes were identified as ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck (chance) (Weiner, 1986). Interestingly, while good luck has been found not to be important in success attributions, bad luck has been more often invoked in failure attributions. When individuals perceive chance to have been the cause of their success, they are in fact saying that the control of the event is beyond their responsibility.

Borrowing partly from attribution theory, Gagne, Blanchard, & Begin (1999) asked large samples of educators and students what made a difference between high achievers and those whose achievements were much more modest. Eight distinct causal influences were proposed: interest, natural abilities, parental support, effort and persistence, amount of practice, impact of teachers, personal qualities, and chance. The results showed chance to be judged by far the least important factor explaining what made a difference between academically talented students and their more average peers. Identical results were obtained from equally large samples in music (Gagne, Blanchard, & Begin, 2003) and sports (Gagne, Blanchard, & Begin, 2000), as well as a large group of past and present female Olympians (Schader, 2001). No other empirical survey of lay beliefs about the role of chance in people's lives was found.

About Scholarly Beliefs

The term "belief" in this subtitle indicates that none of the authors mentioned below based their positions on any form of empirical data. Within the field of gifted education, there has been occasional mention of the role of chance; for instance in the work of Feldhusen, Feldman, and Renzulli (see Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). However, in his Star Model, Tannenbaum (1983) explicitly included chance as a significant contributor to talent development. Tannenbaum devoted most of his chapter on chance to Austin's (1978) distinction between four types of chance factors, and Getzels' (1979) longitudinal study of a small sample of fine arts students. In the light of these examples, Tannenbaum concluded:</p>

<pre> Both the knowable and unknowable interact in a mutually

dependent way: without intimation of high potential, no amount of good fortune can help the person achieve greatness; conversely, without some experience of good fortune, no amount of potential can be truly realized. (pp. 208-209) </pre> <p>Gagne is the only other scholar to have given chance a prominent role in his theoretical thinking. The placement of chance within the model evolved over the years. It was not mentioned in its first presentation (Gagne, 1985). Soon after (Gagne, 1993), it was included as the fifth component within the environmental catalysts (with milieu, persons, provisions, and events); then, chance became a qualifier (random vs. non-random) of the various environmental catalysts (Gagne, 1999). Recently, chance was promoted to full causal component status along with gifts or natural abilities, intrapersonal catalysts, learning/practice, and environmental catalysts (Gagne, 2003).

As an aside, let us briefly mention a few authors who have discussed chance as a contributor to a person's life-span development. The first clear mention we found belongs to Albert Bandura (1982). Strangely, after stating, "the central thesis of this article is that chance encounters play a prominent role in shaping the course of human lives" (p. 747), the author switched to an extended discussion of personal susceptibilities to social influence (e.g., proclivities, values), as well as social and cultural determinants. More recently, Lewis (1997) introduced randomness as one of the major causes that can deal a fatal blow to the predictability of human lives. He vigorously attacked the dominant "organismic" paradigm, which is based essentially on directionality and a slowly cumulative progression of steps, as well as a long-term impact through the mother's key developmental influence (p. 36). He counter-proposed a "pragmatic" paradigm borrowed from William James, which he defended as a much more probable representation of the reality of personal development. His model only requires adaptation to the current context, which is deemed "more instrumental than past events in controlling how people act in the present" (p. 3). Like other researchers, Lewis presented no empirical data to support his position on the major role of chance in life-span development.

Our Beliefs

The scholars who took the initiative to discuss the role of chance in personal (or talent) development all were convinced that chance had been given lip service in developmental psychology. Such is the case with us. In a recent description of the Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), Gagne (2003) reserved a whole section to the question "What makes a difference?" and addressed the issue of the relative causal importance of the various components of the DMGT. Here is how the causal hierarchy was presented, and how chance's top position was defended:</p> <pre> My present view could be

summarized with the acronym C. GIPE (pronounced "seagype"). Using one letter per component ... it shows the decreasing order of causal impact: from chance at the top of the hierarchy to environmental catalysts at the bottom. Why is chance given such a predominant role? The answer lies in Atkinson's two rolls of the dice: the genetic roll and the parental roll. Note that the

genetic endowment affects not only the G component, but also

the IC component.... Two additional facts, both related to the

genetic endowment, increase the significance of the chance factor. First, the importance of the genotype as a determinant

of human individual differences has kept growing over the last

two decades; second, chance directly impacts the next two factors (Gifts and Intrapersonal Catalysts) in my proposed hierarchy.

(pp. 69-70) </pre> <p>The top position given to chance among all major determinants of talent emergence constitutes our theoretical platform. Yet, just as every other scholar who wrote on the role of chance, our position remains "data challenged[" One can find numerous testimonials on the role of chance, especially with regard to scientific discoveries (e.g., Austin, 1978; Perkins, 2000; Shapiro, 1987). But, all these discussions, without exception, mention only singular events and case studies to support their position. Not a single survey, quantitative or qualitative, appears to assess the prevalence and importance of chance events in sculpting individuals' life courses. The rest of this paper constitutes an attempt to define the major steps of a research program devoted to the examination of chance's significance as a determinant of talent emergence.

Proposal for a Research Agenda

The framework of our proposal rests on two central perspectives. First, we believe it is essential to focus on a lifespan approach more typical of Lewis' outlook than of the event-oriented approach adopted by most scholars. Recall that the quasi-totality of the studies inspired by attribution theory targeted specific achievement events; for instance a particular exam in school or a specific sports competition. A similar approach guided scholars (e.g., Austin, 1978; Perkins, 2000) who analyzed the scientific discovery process. Talent development (TD) covers many years, even decades, during which innumerable events take place, some of them well planned and others the result of chance. Second, we believe in the strong need for quantification, but in conjunction with in-depth and clear qualitative research on the impact of chance in individual cases. Let us briefly describe the primary questions, as well as some key methodological issues.

Major Questions

The first questions directly address Atkinson's two rolls of the dice, namely heredity and parenting issues. In the case of heredity, two behavior domains are relevant: natural abilities (gifts), and natural proclivities (temperament and physical qualities). A basic question might be expressed as follows: What is the level of giftedness demonstrated by a person in either of these two domains? How do these gifts and outstanding predispositions relate to the field of talent in which the individuals are building their high-level skills? In the case of the family environment where a child is "dropped" at birth, one can try to assess the quality of that environment as it impinges on the talent development of the child or adolescent. Individual differences will be interpreted as so much good/bad luck depending on the positive or negative valence of their impact on the TD process.

Another series of questions derives from a differential approach, namely large anticipated individual differences in the role of chance as a determinant of talent development. Would we find individuals who perceived their talent development process to be almost completely planned, whereas others considered their progress marked by recurring random events? Do random events cluster early in the TD process, or do they tend to coincide with advanced TD phases? What is the ratio of good over bad luck? In that respect, one can imagine that this ratio should be positively correlated with the level of talent attained; in other words, more bad luck should be associated with situations of limited development and even quitting the TD process. Does the amount of recognized chance differ between fields of talent? For instance, we hypothesize that academic talent development, characterized by outstanding school grades and advanced education degrees, may be less prone to apparent chance events, and thus more predictable than the TD process in fields like the arts (e.g., music, dance, visual art) and sports. Finally, are there differences associated with gender, race, socioeconomic status, or other types of intervening variables?

Methodological Issues

There is no room in this short overview for detailed answers to the methodological issues encountered as we began sketching this research program; however, three major issues were almost constantly in the forefront as we discussed data gathering strategies.

First, researchers will need to devise a taxonomy of chance events. Only two such attempts were found in the literature. Austin (1978) created a four-category system that is summarized in Tannenbaum's (1983) chapter on chance. Essentially, Austin's four levels are labeled respectively: (a) "blind" luck, (b) the Kettering principle (chance favors those in motion), (c) the Pasteur principle (chance favors the prepared mind), and (d) the Disraeli principle (chance favors the individualized action). More recently, Perkins (2000, pp. 94-95) proposed a more detailed category system, whose six levels are labeled as follows: (a) Sheer chance, (b) Cultivated chance, (c) Systematized chance, (d) Fair bet, (e) Good bet, and (f) Safe bet. One can immediately worry about inter-rater reliability in the application of this system to concrete situations!

Assessing the degree of randomness is only one of the problems associated with the operationalization of the concept of chance. It will also be necessary to quantify the importance of chance occurrences on the TD process and, consequently, its outcome. Such quantification would create a continuum from minor to major chance events in the life of an individual. Moreover, the valence (+/-) of random events will have to be determined: no doubt an easy task in many cases, but possibly a very difficult one in some situations. Think for instance of potentially divergent views of a given chance event by different actors or observers--the metaphor of the half full/half empty glass. Finally, in line with the life-span perspective, researchers will need to find a way to aggregate multiple chance events into a global chance index. Determining how to achieve that combination will be an interesting challenge.

The next discussion area concerns the sources of information because the whole data gathering process will depend on subjective data, either from the subjects themselves or from individuals close to them (e.g., parents, siblings, spouses, close friends). The reliability of such retrospective information constitutes a major problem. No doubt various means of triangulation or cross-validation will be required to ensure appropriate quality. Note that the problem of subjectivity extends to the rating of chance data by judges. To what extent will these judges' ratings concur with the personal judgments of the subjects?

The last problem concerns the recognition by the subjects of what the chance events have been in their lives. Recall that our studies of lay beliefs showed that chance was almost unanimously given a minimal role in the TD process. It is probable that the subjects were not considering heredity or the characteristics of the family environment as part of chance's role. Still, to what extent will the subjects be able to pinpoint occurrences belonging to chance?

Conclusion

With these numerous questions and problems to surmount in such a study, the temptation may be to leave chance where it is: superficially acknowledged, but not clearly circumscribed. Yet we maintain that by ignoring chance, those who study the process of talent development may run the danger of ascribing too much responsibility to the individual when his/her life achievement do not match the observed potential of childhood. On the other hand, by recognizing the power of chance and the ways a favorable environment may be created, we may be able to limit the likelihood of negative outcomes and increase the probability of positive outcomes.

REFERENCES

Austin, J. B. (1978). Chase, chance, and creativity. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bandura, A. (1982). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American Psychologist, 37, 747-755.

Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.

Gagne, F. (1993). Constructs and models pertaining to exceptional human abilities. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 69-87). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Gagne, F. (1999). Appendix: Gagne's Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 230-234.

Gagne, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gagne, F., & Blanchard, D. (2003). Beliefs of music educators and students concerning the major determinants of musical talent. In K. E. Bebne, G. Kleinen, and H. de la Motte-Haber (Eds.), Musikpsychologie. Jahrbuch der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Musikpsychologie: Vol 17. Musikalische Begabung und Expertise (pp. 32-49). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe-Verlag.

Gagne, F., Blanchard, D., & Begin, J. (1999). Beliefs of American and Quebec educators and students concerning the major determinants of academic talent. In F. A. Dixon & C. M. Adams, (Eds.), 1999 Research briefs (pp. l-16). Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

Gagne, F., Blanchard, D., & Begin, J. (2000). Beliefs of trainers and athletes, Phys. Ed. educators and students concerning the major determinants of talent in sports. Unpublished research report. Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada.

Getzels, J. W. (1979). From art student to fine artist: Potential problem finding and performance. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development. The Seventy-eighth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 372-387). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press 

Lewis, M. (1997). Altering fate: Why the past does not predict the future. New York: Guilford Press.

Perkins, D. (2000). Archimede's bathtub: The art and logic of breakthrough thinking. New York: W. W. Norton.

Schader, R. M. (2001). The role of parental influence in the relent development of female U.S. Olympians. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Schader, R. M., & Gagne, F. (2001, November). The role of chance in talent development. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Cincinnati, OH.

Shapiro, G. (1987). A skeleton in the darkroom: Stories of serendipity in science. New York: Harper & Row.

Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.) (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B., Freize, I. H., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1972). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 95-120). Morristown, N J: General Learning Press.

Manuscript submitted December 01, 2004.

Revision accepted October 31, 2005.

Francoys Gagne is Emeritus Professor at the Universite du Quebec a, Montreal. He is well known for his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) and for an extensive list of publications in the field of gifted education. In addition, he is the recipient of major awards in the field including the article of the year for the Gifted Child Quarterly, awards from the American MENSA Association, and the distinguished Scholar Award from the National Association for Gifted Children. E-mail: [e-mail]

Robin Schader received her Ph.D. in Gifted and Talented Education from the University of Connecticut where she is now an assistant professor. Her work and research focus on talent development, particularly with respect to the role of parents. Robin also serves as the parent resource specialist for the National Association for Gifted Children. She presents at numerous workshops and conferences, and works with both teachers and parents to match educational programs to student needs. E-mail: [e-mail]