Growing Up Feeling Special: Retrospective reflections of eminent Canadian women.

This exploratory study describes the reflections of eminent Canadian women on the dynamics of their childhood families, focusing on their perceptions of having a special status or role. Over three-quarters (76%) of the respondents indicated they were considered special or had a definite role as children within the family of origin. Those given special treatment most often attributed it to their birth order, scholastic achievement, condition of health, or display of talents. Family members expressed this specialness by bestowing an abundance of attention, love, and caring. Many participants reported having roles within the family or designated epithets such as "the bookworm," "the brain," or "the responsible one.' When respondents believed that a sibling held a special position, the reasons provided were less often related to achievements and abilities. Brothers were reported as being special due to their gender or health; sisters because of their talent, beauty, charm or delicateness.

Eminent women are distinguished from their contemporaries by their levels of achievement, success and renown in their adult lives. Achievement level is influenced by psychological components of giftedness such as self-esteem and self-concept (Feldhusen & Hoover, 1986). One of the required conditions for raising self-esteem in children is recognizing their uniquenesses by acknowledging and respecting their particular attributes (Clemes & Bean, 1990). Descriptions of high achievers suggest that they perceive of themselves as being different as children (Kerr, 1994; Torrance, 1995) or as occupying special positions within the family (Albert, 1980, 1983; Bloom, 1985; Froggatt & Hunter, 1980; Rimm & Lowe, 1988). The family backgrounds of eminent women have not been extensively studied because early studies of genius and eminence focused predominately on adult males who were often deceased (Albert, 1983; Galton, 1869; Goertzel & Goertzel, 1962) and there have been few women recognized as being eminent (Osche, 1991; Silverman, 1995, Simonton, 1994). The study of eminent women is complicated by the fact that the factors identified as enhancing achievement for males may not be as salient for females (Tomlinson-Keasey & Little, 1990). Being treated as special within the family or holding a special position within the family as a factor associated with achievement of eminence has not yet been established for women. Using a sample of prominent Canadian women, this study is an attempt to develop a description of the roles and relationships that comprise the dynamics of the family focusing on the perception of specialness within the sibling set.

A cluster of experiences within the family has been found to be associated with the attainment of eminence in adulthood. Birth order (Albert, 1980; Froggatt & Hunter, 1980; Hennig, 1973; Roe, 1983), composition of the sibling group (Ernst & Angst, 1983; Yewchuk & Schlosser, 1996), absence of a parent (Albert, 1983; Cox, 1983; Roe, 1983), relationship with parents (Yewchuk & Schlosser, 1995), and separation from peers (Albert, 1983; Kerr, 1985; Roe, 1983) are all influences that have been associated with eminence. The search for other correlates of eminence has led to the study of background or childhood factors in those who have proved to be high achievers (Carisse, 1976; Froggatt & Hunter, 1980; Helson, 1971; Hennig, 1973; Kerr, 1985; Olszewski, Kulieke, & Buescher, 1987; Simonton, 1994; Solomon, 1990; Subotnik, Summers, Kassan, & Wasser, 1993; Yewchuk, Chatterton, & Jackson, 1990; Yewchuk & Schlosser, 1995; 1996).

This article emphasizes the importance of early recognition of a child's giftedness because this perception serves to orient family members towards that child in a special way. The importance of being labeled special was pointed out by Albert (1983) who studied the early family positions of eminent politicians and scientists. His results showed that 90% of the American presidents and 74% of Nobel laureates were considered to be special within their families. The specialness was often derived from being in a particular birth position or due to the death of a sibling or parent. Another study of family dynamics presumes that positive aspects such as support and encouragement are prerequisites to optimal development and achievement. In his study of the characteristics of 120 accomplished individuals, Bloom (1985) found that early home learning played a significant role in the development of talent. Bloom's subjects, who were pianists, sculptors, mathematicians, neurologists, swimmers, and tennis champions, reported feeling special in their families because of their talent areas. The specialness was expressed as a continuous commitment to the advancement of their ability or talent.

Additional studies have alluded to special treatment within the family as having an effect on the achievement of the subjects. A study comparing the family environments of achieving and non-achieving gifted children was done using a sample of 22 students being treated at the Family Achievement Clinic (Rimm & Lowe, 1988). Although most of the underachievers were described as being "special" in the family as young children, many were later depowered for some reason and their specialness was lost. Parental attention was not consistent in the lives of these underachieving children. The term "beyonders" is used by Torrance (1995) to describe a group of creative achievers he studied over a 30-year span and compared with other superior adults. Characteristics used to describe the creative group include a delight in thinking, a love of their work, a tolerance of mistakes, courage, a sense of mission, being comfortable alone, not being well-rounded, and a feeling of being different.

Studies of achievement that focus on female participants have also referred to specialness during childhood. In their study of successful Canadian women, Froggatt and Hunter (1980) reported that half of their subjects felt that their fathers had treated them as special among their siblings. Kerr (1994) described the nine eminent women whose lives she studied as feeling different or special in positive or negative ways. These subjects were aware of their specialness because others acknowledged their family's peculiarities, or their own intellectual gifts, artistic talents, or unusual appearances.

Available scholarship on giftedness and females has been recently synthesized and augmented by Arnold, Noble, and Subotnik (1996). In their book the term "eminence" involves the transformation of fields and domains and is one of the three spheres of influence in which women realize their potential. A model of female talent development is proposed in terms of foundations, filters, and spheres of influence. Foundational factors include components in society that serve to marginalize women from the centers of achievement as well as individual factors such as family background, personality characteristics, and resilience. These demographic and personal characteristics are filtered by opportunities and the nature of the particular talent domain at the time.

There are many barriers to career success for females that prevent girls from achieving up to their potential (Hollinger & Fleming, 1993; Reis, 1995). Female existence consists of relationships and interconnections with others (Gilligan, 1982). During adolescence girls typically silence themselves in an attempt to compromise between voice and relationship (Brown & Gilligan, 1992). Many girls succumb to the social pressure they experience at this time of their lives; they hide their gifts and seem to become someone other than their authentic self (Pipher, 1994). Women who do become high achievers are somehow different from the majority. Their acceptance of being different may have resulted from the roles they learned in their childhood families.

The purpose of this study is to gain deeper insights into the childhood development of women who have achieved renown in their adult lives. The term "eminent" in this article is used to describe women who are prominent publicly, but who have not necessarily transformed their field of endeavor. This article focuses on an important aspect of a foundational factor that affects talent development, the perception of the individual's position in her family of origin. The underlying assumption is that achievement motivation and self-esteem would be enhanced if girls were valued within their families for those behaviors that contribute to career success. In the decades in which these women were students, Canadian educators did not usually identify the gifted nor was special education provided for them. Families were largely responsible for the recognition of and support for special talents and gifts during these years. The hypothesis being studied in this article is that eminent women as girls had some special position within the family which promoted their achievement and subsequent renown. The special position they held was investigated by researching their recollections of how they were treated by other family members, their particular role, epithets used to describe them or their role, and the status ascribed to their siblings.

Method

Participants

This is a follow-up study of Canadian women who achieved eminence in their field of endeavor and are well-known for their exceptional achievement in some facet of public life such as politics, the arts, sports, literature, education, or journalism. Yewchuk, Chatterton, and Jackson (1990) surveyed the women listed in the Who's Who of Canadian Women (Pasternak, 1986); of their 827 respondents, 430 indicated that they would be willing to supply further information to the researchers. This group of willing participants was targeted for this follow-up study of childhood factors associated with adult achievement and success. The number of respondents for the present study was 197 which represents a 46% response rate.

The subjects for this study ranged in age from 29 to 89. Their mean age was 48.0 years with a standard deviation of 10.8. The modal age was 42 and the median was 46 years. Their families of origin varied in size from one to eleven children. Most of the families were relatively small; 85% included four or fewer children. The average number of children per family was 3.15.

Over half of the respondents (52%) occupied the first birth position in their families. Twenty-nine of the sample (15%) were only children. Second sibling position was held by 25%, with the rest occupying a later sibling position in a larger family. Most of the respondents reported having brothers although about one-third of them were from all-girl families.

Some of the demographic information obtained from the original study referred to the status of the families of origin. Most of the respondents were Canadian born with Canadian-born parents or parents of British Commonwealth or European origin. Parental income was perceived to have fallen in the middle income range with the majority of the remainder distributed in the lower income range rather than the higher income levels. Father's employment during the respondent's childhood usually was reported to be blue collar, small business, engineering, farming or other businesses. Mothers were most often homemakers.

Instrument

The four questions used in this analysis were taken from a questionnaire called "A Survey of Childhood Backgrounds of Eminent Women." Findings related to those parts of the questionnaire dealing with perceptions of parental characteristics (Yewchuk & Schlosser, 1995) and sibling relationships (Yewchuk & Schlosser, 1996) have been published elsewhere. The variables addressed in this article include the perception of the subject of being "special," indicators of specialness, role within the family, and the roles of siblings.

Procedure

The responses to the four questions relating to feeling special were analyzed in order to ascertain the position of the eminent woman in her childhood family. The responses to each question were grouped according to content. Further analysis involved consolidating the results from the individual questions to develop a composite understanding of the relationship between the women's perception of being "special" and their perceptions of their role. The results of the questions that pertained to the respondents only were combined with the findings relating to the status of the other children in the family. A final step involved the calculation of the proportion of families that granted a special status or role for at least one of their children.

Results

Perception of being "special"

Question 1 read I was considered a special child in my family (reasons could include gender, delicate health, unusual prospects, surrogate for deceased sibling, talent, etc.) because ... In responding to this question, 106 of the 197 respondents or 54% stated that they felt special in the family for some specified reason. These reasons, together with percentages of corresponding responses are presented in Figure 1.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Sibling order was cited by 24 (22%) of the respondents. Five of them claimed it was due to being the youngest in the family and 19 said it was because they were the oldest or the only child. In their own words:

I was the oldest and therefore was held responsible for my younger brother ... (185).

I am an only child. I did always feel "looked after," special or lucky (127).

A high level of academic performance was cited as contributing to their perception of being special by 22 (21%) women. A sampling of their answers to the question are provided:

I was the one with "the brains" who did well in school (031).

I was considered special because of high academic standings and teachers pushing my parents to let me "skip" grades (040).

Delicate health was provided as the reason that 14 (13%) of the respondents received special attention in their families. In particular, some of these women suffered from such illnesses as polio, scarlet fever, and rheumatic fever when they were young children. They described their status in the family based on their condition of health. Some of the quotations are:

I was a sickly child. Because of my mother' s protectiveness I tended to rebel and take risks (080).

Having been sick a lot as a child, I guess my sister was jealous of the attention I was getting from our mother (164).

The 13 respondents (12%) who pointed to their own talents described their specialness in terms of their abilities in a particular field of endeavor:

Drawing and painting ... simply continued (was always an artist) (059).

I took elocution and dancing classes and performed sometimes (121).

Personality factors were mentioned by ten (9%) of the women who described themselves in a variety of ways. Some were outgoing and energetic while others were quiet and shy. They described themselves as: obedient, competent, compliant, docile but determined (013); the mischievous one (082); the "talker" (086); "the quiet one" (087); the organizer and the personality kid (088); unusually outgoing and self-confident (097); "rebellious" (098).

Gender was provided as the reason for being special by five (5%) of the respondents. Being female meant being pampered in some families, overworked in others, as their words indicate:

As the only girl on this side of the family, I was indulged and protected (136).

As the eldest and the only girl, I had to function as the second "housewife" in the family (144).

Unusual prospects were cited by five (5%) of the respondents. Two of these women were adopted as babies, one was the survivor of a concentration camp, one had to deal with the death of a sibling, and another assumed responsibility for her siblings after family breakdown. Some of the responses were distinctive and they were not easily classified with the more common content groupings. These five were included in the "other" category. As an example of this grouping was the report by one woman of being treated as a replacement for an older sister who died. Another participant was not allowed to mix with other children because of her ethnic background. One family moved every five years because of their father's occupation.

In addition, eight participants gave two or more reasons why they were special and did not indicate their relative importance. These multiple reasons consisted of the categories previously included in these results. For example, one respondent believed that she was treated as special because she was a high achiever who also had delicate health (181). Another felt special because she was the first child, outgoing, and bright (016). One eminent woman responded that she loved selling things, and was also treated as special because of gender, her unusual prospects, and her level of talent (092).

Indicators of specialness

Question 2 read My family showed I was special by ... This question seeks further information about being treated as special in the family and is directly related to the first one. Of the 106 who supplied a reason for being special in Question 1, 92 (87%) provided a description of how their family members communicated their specialness to them.

The most common indicators of specialness in order of being reported were attention, respect, encouragement, praise, high expectation levels, and the provision of opportunity. Some stated that they were treated as an equal by their parents; whereas some were protected, and a few were criticized. Table 1 summarizes the data for this question.

Table 1

Frequencies and Percentages of Responses
Reporting the Ways in Which the Members of
their Family Made Them Feel "Special"

                                     Frequency of response
Indicators of specialness             n       %

Love, attention, care                 24     26.1
Deferring, showing respect            15     16.3
Encouragement                         14     15.2
Bragging or praising                  11     11.9
High expectations                      9      9.8
Provision of opportunity               7      7.6
Treatment as an adult                  6      6.5
Protectiveness                         3      3.3
Criticism                              3      3.3
  Total                               92    100.0

Quotations have been included using the actual wording of the respondents for each category of response. Examples of phraseology included in the category of love, attention, and care are: "love and attention and fun" (027); "their love and concern" (108); "loving me enormously" (131); "extra attention" (034). In all, 24 respondents conveyed the importance of receiving love and attention from their parents and siblings.

Fifteen responses were grouped together that focused on deference and respect. Some of these comments were: "the respect they showed in my opinions and decisions (042); "telling me how much better I was in comparison to friends my age" (125); "being proud of me. They had a special smile for me. I knew I was special, important" (145).

Fourteen families conveyed a sense of uniqueness to their girls by encouraging them. These respondents described their families as providing "encouragement and support toward my pursuits and projects (070); "challenging me to succeed" (118); "encouraging success" (150). A similar category of response (n= 11) focused specifically on bragging or praising. Some of these responses included: "constant praise" (105); "boasting about me to friends" (112); "praising my intelligence" (119).

Some families (n=9) placed high expectations on their girls and these responses included: "expecting a lot" (087); "placing high demands on me" (109); "expecting me to excel in areas they thought were important" (170); and "expecting perfection" (172). Other parents (n=7) understood their daughters' potential and provided them with enhanced opportunity: "special education" (059); "giving me more opportunities" (033); "taking me to many activities" (053). Six respondents reported that their parents treated them as if they were adults: "treating me as an equal" (014); "treating me as an adult in terms of discussing things with me and giving me responsibility" (123).

A few families (n=3) shielded their gifted girls and those respondents used the following words: "protectiveness" (080); "always defending me" (111). Three women believed that their uniqueness was conveyed in a negative way by their family members. They reported "parents yelling" (098), "teasing" (055), and "criticizing me" (007).

Participant's role within the family

Question 3 read I did/did not have a definite role or epithet in my family (e.g., the musical one, the bookworm, peacemaker, clever ...). Explain: ...

When the respondents were asked if they had a special role in the family, 114 (58%) said that they did. Table 2 provides the numbers and percentages of respondents indicating various roles or epithets within the family. Because of the way the participants reported their roles, studiousness has been separated from intellectual abilities and high levels of talent development. However, for many purposes these categories of response should be combined into one dealing with the abilities and achievements of the participants. Likewise, most of the other categories in Table 2 dealing with aspects of motivation, extrovertedness, behavior, and social skills could be combined into one dealing with personality factors.

Table 2

Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents
Reporting their Role within the Family

                                     Frequency of response
Role                                  n       %

Studiousness, "the bookworm"          30     26.3
Intelligence, "the brain"             18     15.8
Talent, "the talented one"            11      9.7
Responsibility, "hardworker"          11      9.7
Rebelliousness, "troublesome one"      9      7.9
Social skills, "the peacemaker"        7      6.1
Talkativeness, "the outgoing one"      6      5.2
Behavior, "the good one"               5      4.4
Birth order                            3      2.6
Other                                  2      1.8
Multiple response                     12     10.5
  Total                              114    100.0

The roles of these girls within their families often referred to their superior abilities in academic areas. Thirty women (26%) described themselves as being studious, a scholastic achiever, or labeled as "the bookworm." Sample quotations follow:

A student -- winner of gold medals, scholarships, etc. (135).

I was the bookworm; the smart one. Reading led me to a love of words, which continues in my broadcasting. (151).

Being intelligent, clever, or bright was indicated by another large group of women (n= 18). They emphasized their ability level more than their achievement or love of reading and school work. Some of their comments are included:

I was clever. Everyone was musical, reader, etc., but I solved problems (158).

I was (and still am) viewed by my brothers as the brightest child (021).

Eleven women pointed to their talents, describing an outstanding ability in music, art, sports, or elocution. Epithets given them included: "the star" (005); "the actress, the rider" (016); "the creative/artistic one" (059); "the harmonizer" (061); "sporty" (103); "the musical one" (180).

In describing their role in their family, 11 participants saw themselves as the responsible one. Being highly responsible was valued in some families because of large families or parental loss as their words indicate:

Mother depended on me for home chores and parent substitute for younger siblings (116).

After my father's death I became the head of the house mainly because of my mother' s poor knowledge of the English language (125).

Other aspects of the personality were described by the respondents. Nine women described themselves as rebels or troublemakers. One eminent woman admits to being a trouble-maker, "I was also a leader in a group that enjoyed getting into mischief, creating elaborate jokes, possibly because I found school work too easy or my small town life too boring" (119). In contrast to those who were troublesome within the family, most of those who referred to aspects of their personality were acknowledged for being positive influences in the family dynamics. They perceived themselves as being the family's negotiators (n=7), extroverted members (n=6), or well-behaved girls (n=5). One eminent woman saw herself as a peacemaker who was "trained to `rise to the occasion'. The consensus-maker" (109). One of the extroverted ones says "I was the talkative, involved one" (191). Another states, "I was the organizer and the personality kid" (088). Some of those who were acknowledged for their behavior describe themselves as "very sensitive and considerate of others" (034) and "obedient, competent, compliant, docile but determined" (013).

The frequency of birth order roles or epithets was very low, with three subjects stating they had a special role in the family due to being the eldest or the youngest. One respondent reports she was labeled "the firstborn" (140); another "the baby" (133); and another states "I was the oldest" (185). There were two responses that did not fit well with the other categories. One participant said "I am called my father's son because I tended to enjoy wood shopping, fishing, doing things with my Dad" (106). Another (188) said she was singled out as being a survivor because of the problems encountered when her parents divorced.

Twelve of the respondents gave multiple reasons without specifying which were more salient for them. In this category the participants combined two or more of the previously named roles or epithets. For example, one indicated that she was "the musical one, the temperamental one, the bookworm" (033). Others described themselves in two epithets: "the musical one, clever" (092); "the smart one and musical one" (096); "the baby; the singer" (097).

Role of siblings

Question 4 read A brother/sister who was younger/older was considered `special.' Explain:.... There were 168 respondents who had siblings; of these, 91 responded to this question. The responses were categorized as naming one sibling with special status in the family (n=78) or reporting more than one "special" siblings (n= 13). Five of those who reported that more than one of their siblings was special simply stated that all were special in their families and did not provide reasons why they were so designated.

Eight respondents provided a list of their multiple "special" siblings and a variety of reasons for being so designated. In one family a brother and sister were treated as special because they both attended high school by age 11 (159). One eminent woman reported that her brother was distinguished because of his gender, and a sister because she was the baby of the family (191). The sister of one respondent (126) was given special status because she was beautiful and happy-go-lucky; her younger brother, because he was a long-awaited male child. One respondent grew up as an adopted child in a home where a brother and sister were both treated as special because of their relationship with the parent; meanwhile, she felt like a stranger (056). An older brother was special in one family because of his athletic abilities while a younger sister was doted on because of her low achievement at school (113). The younger brother of one respondent was a national high jumper and a sister was valued for her physique and beauty (167). Another response included having two sisters labeled as special, one because she was handicapped, and a brother because he was "the son and heir" (052). One respondent listed each of her siblings and provided reasons for each of their special roles: her brother due to his talent, her twin sisters' cuteness, and another sister's prettiness and quietness (142).

Seventy-eight women named one sibling who was treated as special. Of these, 43 indicated that they had a brother with a special role and 35 reported that a sister had a special role. Of those who thought that their sibling was special in their family, the reasons most often given were gender-related (n=17), or due to the condition of health (n=14).

The breakdown of the responses according to the sex of the sibling is revealing. Brothers were valued for their gender because they were the family heir who would perpetuate the family name. In addition, brothers were treated as special if they were not well physically.

   My brother was always the favorite with my mother -- everything he did was
   right and what I did was wrong. Being male was much better than being
   female (009).

   Older brother -- great expectations -- heavy burden. In my eyes he was
   favored by my father and was pre-destined to become a doctor, lawyer, --
   professional (145).

   Older brother was special; he was ill with cystic fibrosis (038).

The sisters were valued if they were delicate in health, talented, or had an exceptional personality. Physical attributes were not mentioned for brothers, however four sisters were valued for their beauty. Some of the descriptions used for sisters included:

   A sister younger was considered less healthy and needing more protection in
   the early years (116).

   Younger sister was charming, talented, not perfectly responsible (109)

   She was the sporty one, the artistic one, but was also considered dumb
   (117).

In order to more fully understand the results of this question with the high proportion of siblings considered special within the family, the results of a previous question must be provided. When the respondents listed their siblings, they were asked to circle the birthdates of any who had achieved a level of adult public renown equal to their own. Forty-three of the respondents said that at least one of their siblings had also achieved eminence; 31 reported that they had one eminent sibling and 12 believed that more than one of their brothers and sisters was eminent. Not only were the siblings of these eminent women considered special as children, they became prominent adults as well.

When the results of the questions relating to the respondent and to her siblings were synthesized, there was further evidence for the concept of specialness. Most of the 197 families under scrutiny by the respondents provided recognition for one or more of their children. Only 34 families (17.3%) did not ascribe a special role or status to either the responding eminent person or to any of her siblings. Forty-three families made the respondent feel special, gave her a definite role or epithet and also recognized at least one of her siblings as being special as well.

Discussion

In summary, of the 197 women in this sample, 106 reported having been treated as special within the family (Question 1) while 114 specified a definite role for themselves (Question 3). Academic standing and the studiousness of eminent-to-be as well as her talents were often mentioned for both special status and role. While reported specialness most often derived from birth position, the more common roles reflected their scholastic interests and abilities. The different response patterns suggest that the respondents differentiated between the two questions. In an attempt to better understand these findings, the responses were scrutinized more closely.

Relationships among the responses to Question 1 and Question 3 were investigated by comparing those who reported being special in the family to those who reported having a special role in the family. In all, 78 women (40%) responded positively to only one of these questions and 71 (36%) responded positively to both of these questions. The relative frequencies of these combined results led to further investigation of the differences between the questions and how they were interpreted by the participants.

When both a category of special treatment and a definite role were given, sometimes they were nearly the same. Those who described their treatment as special because they were good at school often reported the role of being studious or intelligent and of being labeled "the brain" or "the bookworm." High levels of talent appeared as reasons for being treated "special" and also contributed to roles such as being the "creative one," musical one" or "the actress." If the reasons for being special were not the same as the roles provided, they were often closely associated. Firstborns may have described their roles as being hard workers or the caretakers of their siblings, and being designated "the responsible one" in the family. A woman (093) who reported that her specialness derived from her shyness described her role as being the bookworm. Another perceived that she was treated as special within her family because she was "a good girl" and her role was that of the peacemaker. "I thought it was my fault that Mom was sick, Dad was away and my sister lied" (051). Another woman was treated as special by her father because she was the firstborn and a daughter. She describes herself in terms of their relationship, "I was outgoing, bright, and very close to him." When she describes her role, she says" It was my job to make family and particularly my father happy" (111). One referred to her speech problems as contributing to her status and to her troubles in sports and in school as defining her role (067).

Those who revealed their special treatment in the family without specifying a role for themselves (n=35) tended to emphasize their placement in the family. Nine were only children and three were the only girls. In addition to those whose birth position was the decisive factor in their specialness, there also was a large number of respondents without a definite role who reported special status based on their individual gifts. Of this group, seven pointed to their academic aptitude and four attributed it to their talents in the arts.

In addition to being more inclusive of small families and only children, Question 1 seems to have been more positively perceived by respondents. Being special usually meant being treated well, being valued, or being favored as demonstrated by the reported indicators. Having a definite role or being designated an epithet was not always a positive condition. Because of their giftedness, academic interests, personality, or maturity, they took on a specific role within the dynamics of the family, but these roles included being troublesome, difficult, and rebellious. One described herself as the family's "scapegoat" (009). Sometimes, epithets like "the talker" and "the responsible one" were not used in a flattering way. Being called upon to serve as a domestic servant or the babysitter for younger siblings was not always regarded as special treatment, yet this definitive role was reported.

When the respondents were not treated as special within the family, yet had a definite role (n=43) their words are often poignant. One of the women described her role in the family, "I was considered the `cause of tension' because I challenged my father and so created stress since he beat me and my mother could not deal with this. My father preferred my sister -- but I didn't think of this as special" (114). Another referred to her role as the "bookworm", but realized that a sibling held the special status in her family. She said "I admired my older sister very much and felt myself to be quite in her shadow, not as pretty, not as valued by my parents, and used academic achievement to compensate for these feelings" (017).

Bloom (1985) believed that his subjects were special because of their talent. Albert (1983) felt that certain circumstances of birth and death placed the eminent-to-be in a favorable position within the structure of the family. Our results for Question 1 indicate that 22% of the women believe that their birth position contributed to their special treatment within the family group. In addition, many felt that they were recognized for their high levels of achievement (21%) and their demonstration of talent (12%). For most purposes these two categories of response could be combined into a category of demonstration of giftedness or talent in childhood. Health problems were mentioned by 13% of our participants. Concerns about health were not mentioned in the literature by Albert or Bloom, but Goertzel and Goertzel (1962) described some of their subjects as having physical disabilities. Kerr (1985) mentions adversity, difficult adolescence, and isolation as part of the background of her subjects.

In general, the roles indicated by these respondents to Question 3 accentuate their own high level of abilities and achievements as children. They had early experiences of success or recognition. There is little indication that these women attempted to downplay or hide their abilities as is often suggested (Kerr, 1985; Reis, 1987). Two themes sometimes emphasized in other studies, birth position (Albert, 1983) and having androgynous characteristics (Hollinger & Fleming, 1993), were not frequently mentioned in ascribing their familial roles. Instead, their most common places within the family were associated with early achievement, superior abilities or talents.

Families demonstrated their specialness to these respondents (Question 2) by bestowing love, care, attention, and respect and providing encouragement, praise, and high expectations. Bloom (1985) believed that the specialness reported by his subjects was demonstrated by the commitment of parents to the advancement of their child's ability or talent. Albert (1983) stated that families selected experiences for their child that produced certain outcomes. These themes did not emerge for our sample. Outward expressions of love, respect, and encouragement predominated in the impressions expressed by our respondents rather than the provision of opportunities emphasized by earlier research. The difference between our results and those of the previous studies may be because our sample consisted of women only.

Of the respondents who had siblings, 26% reported that one or more of their siblings became eminent adults and 54% specified that at least one of their brothers or sisters were treated as special. The categories of response that emerged for Question 4 were similar to those of Question 1. Unlike the special positions they perceived themselves as holding, the responses to Question 4 relating to their siblings did not as frequently attribute the specialness to birth order or roles to intelligence or talents. Their siblings took the spotlight mainly because of gender or ill health, both conditions beyond control of the child. Because of the patriarchal nature of our society when these women were growing up, it may be no surprise that their brothers would be treated as special for their maleness, their ability to work in the family business, to be the heir, and to carry on the family name to the next generation. The sisters had status for their delicateness, personality, charm, talent, or beauty. Sibling status within families and sibling relationships have not been the focus of previous research into the lives of eminent persons (Yewchuk & Schlosser, 1996). More research is needed to explain not only the relatively large number of eminent siblings reported by these participants but also the high proportion of siblings with special status.

Family structural variables as well as individual personal characteristics are related to the dynamics of the family. Participants often felt special in the family because of their position within the structure of the family: being firstborn, or being the only girl. In referring to the roles played by their siblings, the respondents again pointed out the significance of gender and birth order. Variables related to the individual also have an impact on their role and status within the family. These women were gifted girls. This is reflected in their responses to the questions, including the specialness categories of high academic standings and talent, and the role categories of being studious, intelligent, and talented. Evidence of their personalities is contained in their descriptions of their roles using such adjectives as responsible, hardworking, troublesome, rebellious, peacemaking, outgoing, and talkative.

Conclusion

The hypothesis that eminent Canadian women as gifts occupied a special position within the family composition, climate, or dynamics that enhanced their achievement and promoted their subsequent renown is not rejected. Only 24% of the respondents did not supply an answer to either the question of having been considered a "special" child or the question of having a definite role within the family. From the point of view that having a definite role or epithet in the family was also an indication of the "specialness" of the girl, the responses could be combined with those who supplied a definite reason for being considered special in the family resulting in an overall rate of 76% of the total number of respondents. Eminent Canadian women perceived that as children they occupied a special place within their families of origin.

This study of specialness among Canadian eminent women is not equivalent to other studies that refer to this aspect of family dynamics; however, the comparative figures are interesting. Albert's study of eminent men found that from 74% to 90% held a special position in their families of origin. Initially 82% of the gifted underachieving gifts and boys studied at the Family Achievement Clinic by Rimm & Lowe were designated as "special" in the family. Half of the successful Canadian women studied by Froggatt & Hunter (1980) reported feeling special because of their relationship with their father. All or most of Kerr's (1994) eminent women and Torrance's (1995) "beyonders" described a sense of feeling different from others.

The position of the gifted gift within the family is a very complex issue. There is more than one pathway to providing a family background conducive to eminence (Albert, 1991). One of the most intriguing questions for educators and parents is how childhood giftedness can be coaxed into the full development of potential in adulthood. We cannot control the environments that gifted children live and grow up in, but it is important to understand the component variables of an environment that enable or promote human development to its full potential. "A child must be allowed to develop, and helped towards achievement of, a strong and positive self-concept and then valued for whatever the result of that on-going effort is" (Katz, 1995, p. 7). Self-esteem and a belief in the self is crucial for talent development (Reis, 1995).

The development of the self is the continuing process of "becoming" involving both affiliation and individualization (Allport, 1955). The family unit provides the opportunity for both connection and differentiation by designating girls as "special" family members. Concepts dealing with the self in terms of lifespan achievement are based on self-actualization (Maslow, 1971) as the highest level of human growth based on innate human needs for achievement, creativity, and personal challenge. Self-actualization has been established as a sphere of influence attainable by gifted females (Arnold et al., 1996).

The participants in this study not only distinguished themselves among their colleagues in their careers, they felt that they were differentiated in childhood. Whether or not Maslow would have labeled them as "self-actualizers" or Torrance would have considered them "beyonders," they all achieved recognized success in their careers. Knowing that they were part of a family group that valued their uniquenesses may have helped to empower them to engage in problem-solving activity that led to career and personal success. Being described as special connotes both a recognition of the gifts as well as a differentiation of them from other members of the family or peer group. The sense of being special or different from others may protect gifted gifts from the stereotypical sex-roles so prevalent in society, allowing them to achieve and become highly successful. The nature of the reported interests and special roles indicates that these families provided the gifts with opportunities to experience instrumentality in their young lives. Early success may have improved the self-esteem of the gifts and served as a foundation for later achievement and renown.

The concept of "specialness" as conceived of by other authors is furthered and strengthened. Bloom's (1985) emphasis on the importance of being labeled special in the family was related to the high level of talent in his young subjects. Albert (1983) felt that certain circumstances of birth and death placed the eminent-to-be in a favorable position within the structure of the family. This study would seem to corroborate both theories; structural variables within the family were often reported, as were high levels of ability and achievement. Because of the large sample size the majority of whom felt special or had a unique role, the notion of early familial recognition may be generalized to eminent Canadian women. One of the cogent findings of this study is that 83% of the families treated at least one of their children in a special way or designated a special role to them. There is, therefore, an indication that families that facilitate eminence among their children do recognize and differentiate among their members.

Limitations to the study must be acknowledged. The retrospective nature of the study necessitates reliance on the credibility of the memory of these women of their childhood homes. Intervening incidents and historical events in their lives may have colored their recollection of the family factors studied. No other sources of information were available to substantiate their accounts of the details about their family life. Other limitations are inherent in any study of the family due to the complex and covert nature of the psychological processes that take place within the confines of the home environment. Interpersonal relationships within any family are often hidden influencers, but extremely powerful operatives on the family members. There has been some recognition that different beginnings might be conducive to the production of eminence in different fields of endeavor. The findings for each of the family variables have been discussed with respect to similar findings despite differences in the field in which the samples may have achieved their success or eminence.

The findings relating specialness to the childhood family point to a need for further research in this area. The perception of being special within the family suggests that the gift felt connected to her family, but also differentiated from the other members. The high proportion of responses referring to birth position points to the importance of the variables related to the structure of the family. Within the family relationships there may be specific conditions that promote a sense of worth and individual achievement motivation for girls. More study is needed to see how the concept of specialness fits in with the research on female adolescent relationships and the development of the authentic self. The personal relationships of these participants did not detract them or restrict them from career success, self-actualization, and the expression of their individual gifts and talents.

This study has contributed to the development of a more composite picture of the gifted girl's position within her childhood family. In the model of female talent development (Arnold et al., 1996), our study expands on a foundational aspect by establishing special status or role within the family as an important indicator of future success. These participants had highly developed skills and abilities which were valued by their parents and siblings. The family context provided experience with recognition and acknowledgment. The recognition of these participants in childhood and their differentiation from their siblings set the stage for adult distinction and prominence.

REFERENCES

Albert, R. S. (1980). Family positions and the attainment of eminence: A study of special family positions and special family experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24 (2), 87-95.

Albert, R. S. (1983). Genius and eminence. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press, Ltd.

Albert, R. S. (1991). People, processes, and developmental paths to eminence: A developmental-interactional model. In R. M. Milgram (Ed.) Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors, and parents (pp. 75-93). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Allport, G.W. (1985). Becoming: Basic consideration for a psychology of personality. New Haven, CO: Yale University Press.

Arnold, K., Noble, K.D., & Subotnik, R.F. (1996) Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.

Bloom, B. S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.

Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Women's psychology and girls' development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carisse, C. (1976). Life plans of innovative women: A strategy for living the feminine role. In L. E. Larson (Ed.), The Canadian family in comparative perspective (pp. 379-394). Scarborough: Prentice-Hall.

Clemes, H., & Bean, R. (1990). How to raise children's self-esteem. Los Angeles, CA: Price Tern Sloan, Inc.

Cox, C. (1983). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. In R. S. Albert (Ed.) Genius and Eminence (pp. 46-51). Oxford, U. K.: Pergamon Press, Ltd.

Ernst, C., & Angst, J. (1983). Birth order: Its influence on personality. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Feldhusen, J.F. & Hoover, S.M. (1986). A conception of giftedness: Intelligence, self concept and motivation. Roeper Review, 8(3), 140-143.

Froggatt, M., & Hunter, L. (1980). Pricetag: Canadian women and the stress of success. Don Mills, ON: Nelson Canada.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. New York: Macmillan.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence: A provocative study of the childhoods of over 400 famous twentieth-century men and women. Boston: Little, Brown.

Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36 (2), 210-220.

Hennig, M. (1973). Family dynamics and the successful woman executive. In R. Kundsin (Ed.) Women and success: The anatomy of achievement (pp. 88-93). New York: William Morrow.

Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E.S. (1993). Project CHOICE: The emerging roles and careers of gifted women. Roeper Review 15 (3), 156-160.

Katz, E. (1995). Affective education: Self concept & the gifted student. Boulder, CO: Open Space Communication, Inc.

Kerr, B. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Columbus, OH: Ohio Publishing Co.

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

Maslow, A.H. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature. Markham, ON: Penguin Books Canada Limited.

McCurdy, H. G. (1983). The childhood pattern of genius. In R. S. Albert (Ed.) Genius and Eminence (pp. 155-169). Oxford, U. K.: Pergamon Press, Ltd.

Ochse, R. (1991). Why there are relatively few eminent women creators. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25(4), 334-343.

Olszewski, P., Kulieke, M., & Buescher, T. (1987). The influence of the family environment on development of talent. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11 (1), 628.

Pasternak, P. M. (Ed.), (1986). Who's who of Canadian women. Toronto, ON: Trans-Canada Press.

Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Orphelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Reis, S. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding of the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31 (20), 83-89.

Reis, S. (1995). Older women's reflection on eminence: Obstacles and opportunities. Roeper Review, 18(1), 6672.

Rimm, S., & Lowe, B. (1988). Family environments of underachieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (4), 353-359.

Roe, A. (1983). Early background of eminent scientists. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence (pp. 170-181). Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press, Ltd.

Silverman, L.K. (1995). Why are there so few eminent women? Roeper Review 18 (1), 5-13.

Simonton, D. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York: Guilford Press.

Solomon, S. (1990). Necessary and sufficient characteristics: The voices of nine eminent Canadian women. In J. L. Ellis & J. M. Willinsky (Eds.), Girls, women, and giftedness (pp. 65-76) Toronto, Ontario: Trillium Press.

Subotnik, R., Summers, E., Kassan, L., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Tomlinson-Keasy, C., & Little, T. (1990). Predicting educational attainment, occupational achievement, intellectual skills, and personal adjustment among gifted men and women. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 442-455.

Torrance, E.P (1995). Why fly? A philosophy of creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Yewchuk, C. R., Chatterton, S., & Jackson, J. (1990). Survey of eminent Canadian women: Demographic data. In J. L. Ellis & J. M. Willinsky (Eds.), Girls, women, and giftedness (pp. 112-122). Monroe, NY: Trillium Press.

Yewchuk, C. R., & Schlosser, G. A. (1995). Characteristics of the parents of eminent Canadian women. Roeper Review 18 (1), 78-83.

Yewchuk, C. R., & Schlosser, G. A. (1996). Childhood Sibling Relationships of Eminent Canadian women. Roeper Review 18 (4), 287-92.

Grace Schlosser and Carolyn Yewchuk are with the Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta, Canada. Carolyn Yewchuk is a Contributing Editor of the Roeper Review.

Manuscript submitted January, 1997.

Revision accepted October, 1997.