Perfectionism Differences in Gifted Middle School Students.

Perfectionism has been cited as a major characteristic associated with children and adolescents who have been identified as gifted (Adderholdt-Elliott, 1987; Roedell, 1984; Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982). Silverman (1993) noted that perfectionism and curiosity are "relentless drives" in the gifted personality, and that some gifted students continuously set unrealistic standards for themselves. Participants in Terman's longitudinal study of gifted children exhibited higher expectations and perfectionistic tendencies than other students their age (Oden, 1968).

The purpose of the present study was to examine the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost, Marten, Lahart & Rosenblate, 1990) with a broad socioeconomic sample of academically gifted and talented students at the middle school level, and to explore perfection differences among grade levels, between genders, and among birth order positions. Research has been limited in addressing perfectionism with gifted adolescents, especially those at the middle school level. The present study seeks to fill the gap in the limited empirical research on perfectionism with younger adolescents. In addition, most research has examined perfectionism from a one-dimensional perspective. This study offers an expanded perspective whereby perfectionism is viewed as a multidimensional concept.

Background

Definitions of perfectionism and information about its inherent nature are diverse (Hollender, 1978; Parker & Adkins, 1995). Burns (1980) defined perfectionism in a unidimensional manner:

   I want to make clear what I mean by perfectionism. I do not mean the
   healthy pursuit of excellence by men and women who take genuine pleasure in
   striving to meet high standards. Without concern for quality, life would
   seem shallow and true accomplishments would be rare. The perfectionists I
   am talking about are those whose standards are high beyond reach or reason,
   people who strain compulsively and unremittingly toward impossible goals
   and who measure their own worth entirely in terms of productivity and
   accomplishment. For these people the drive to excel can only be
   self-defeating. (p. 34)

Hamachek (1978), however, regarded perfectionism as a manner of behaving and a manner of thinking about the behavior. He described two types of perfectionism--normal and neurotic--and viewed them on a continuum. Normal perfectionists are those who "derive a very real sense of pleasure from the labors of a painstaking effort and who feel free to be less precise as the situation permits" (p.27). Neurotic perfectionists, on the other hand, "are unable to feel satisfaction because in their own eyes they never seem to do things good enough to warrant that feeling" (p. 27).

Measurement of Perfectionism

The measurement of perfectionism varies. Adderholdt-Elliott (1991) stated that, "Observing and describing perfectionism is easier than measuring it" (p. 65). The Burns Perfectionism Scale (1980) was used throughout the 1980s, but its unidimensional emphasis on personal standards and concern over mistakes makes its use limited. Hewitt and Flett's (1989) Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale focuses on the interpersonal aspects of perfectionism. Their Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale provides separate scores for self-oriented, other-oriented, and socially prescribed perfectionism:

   Self-oriented perfectionism is an intrapersonal dimension characterized by
   a strong motivation to be perfect, setting and striving for unrealistic
   self-standards, focusing on flaws, and generalization of self-standards.
   Self-oriented perfectionism may also involve a well-articulated ideal
   self-schema. Other-oriented perfectionism involves similar behaviors, but
   these behaviors are directed toward others instead of toward self Finally,
   socially prescribed perfectionism entails the belief that others have
   perfectionistic expectations and motives for oneself (p. 98)

Frost et al, (1990) developed a perfectionism scale also called the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS). The MPS is based on Hamachek's (1978) perspective of perfectionism and expands the measurement of perfectionism to include the dimensions that are seen repeatedly in the literature: overly critical evaluative tendencies, doubt about the quality of one's performance, considerable value on parents' expectations and evaluations, and an overemphasis on precision, order, and organization. The MPS, which was piloted with 232 female undergraduates at a women's college, categorized the 35 items into six dimensions: personal standards, concern over mistakes, perceived parental expectations, perceived parental criticism, doubting of actions, and organization. We adopted the multidimensional approach for this study.

Perfectionism and Gifted Students

While case studies have been noted in the literature, very few studies exist that explore perfectionism specifically with gifted children and adolescents (Bransky, 1989; Orange, 1997; Parker & Mills, 1996; Parker & Stumpf, 1995). Parker and Adkins (1995) noted this lack of empirical knowledge about perfectionism and the gifted, and suggested that further research using quality measures of perfectionism be explored. Bransky used the Empowering Gifted Behavior Scale to measure teachers' perceptions of gifted students' perfectionism; Orange used the Perfectionism Quiz to study perfectionism in gifted high school students.

Two recent studies (Parker & Mills, 1996; Parker & Stumpf, 1995) used the MPS (Frost et al., 1990) to examine perfectionism in gifted sixth grade students. Parker and Mills found little difference between academically talented students and a group from the general cohort. Their sample included 600 academically talented sixth grade students and a comparison group of 418 sixth graders from a nationally gathered sample. All students came from middle to upper middle class public, private, and parochial schools. Parker (1997) also found that "the overriding characteristic of perfectionism in these talented children is conscientiousness, not neurosis" (p. 556).

Parker and Stumpf (1995) examined the psychometric properties of the MPS when used with academically talented children. Their sample was composed of 855 academically talented sixth grade students participating in the longitudinal Developmental Study of Talented Youth conducted by the Center for Talented Youth of Johns Hopkins University. Their results were similar to the intercorrelations of the original MPS scores and supported its use with both male and female academically talented students. Their study supports use of the MPS in populations beyond the college females for which it was standardized.

Gender Differences

The main source of data examining gender differences in perfectionism between gifted female and gifted male adolescents has been anecdotal records and case studies. Empirical research is limited. Baker (1996), in a study on stressors of academically gifted adolescents, found gifted females in ninth grade reported higher levels of perfectionism than gifted males and average ability males and females. This finding was derived from data gathered on a five-point Likert-type scale with stressors found in giftedness literature. These stressors included academic achievement, feeling different from others, boredom, sensitivity, multipotentiality, androgeny, competition, vocational choice, and perfectionism (Baker, 1996, p. 362). Bellamy (1993), while not specifically focusing on gifted adolescents, likewise discovered the incidence of perfectionism was statistically greater in ninth grade females than males. Kline and Short (1991), in a cross-sectional study of first through twelfth grade gifted females, found that gifted females in high school had a stronger sense of perfectionism in comparison with gifted females in lower grades.

Birth Order

Although research on birth order continues to be controversial (Steelman, 1985; Sulloway, 1996), it was felt that this variable would be interesting to explore in this study. By investigating birth order in relationship to gifted children, information can be obtained that provides a better understanding of their personality characteristics. This in turn can assist educators, parents, and counselors in meeting students' emotional needs. For example, Forer (1977) noted that later borns prefer social relationships over completing tasks, while first borns demonstrate the following characteristics: need for approval of others, low test anxiety, need for achievement, conformity to authority and regulation, need for approval from others, task orientation, susceptibility to social pressure, and high responsibility scores. Knowledge of these characteristics and their positive and negative manifestations may help in the development of coping strategies particularly adapted to gifted children.

An examination of research on perfectionism and birth order is also restricted to a few studies. Some researchers have concluded that only children (Travis & Kohli, 1995) or only children and first born children (Leman, 1985; Smith, 1990) have more perfectionistic tendencies. Parker (1997, 1998) found that first born and only children were more likely to be healthy perfectionists, while youngest children were disproportionately nonperfectionists and least likely to be dysfunctional perfectionists. In a study by Schuler (1997), first born children were also more likely to be identified as gifted and as healthy perfectionists. Strube and Ota (1982) reported that first born and early born also were more likely to exhibit Type A behavior, which is associated with perfectionism.

Method

Subjects

The data were collected from a sample of 391 students in grades six (n=154), seven (n=135), and eight (n=99) (3 students did not indicate their grade) who had been identified as gifted and talented and were participating in programs for students with high abilities. Although each school had its own identification methods, every student in the sample population had met the criteria for above-average to superior academic ability. There were 223 females and 164 males (4 students did not indicate their gender) who represented a variety of socioeconomic levels from low to high SES, and suburban as well as urban settings. First born or only children dominated the sample (n=189), last born were next (n=137), followed by middle children (n=59). Six children did not indicate their birth order. For the purposes of analysis, only children were classified as first born. Three different schools representing New England, Middle Atlantic, and Southern regions of the United States participated in the study.

Instrumentation

A 35-item instrument entitled Goals and Work Habits Survey (Schuler, 1994), adapted from the MPS (Frost et al., 1990) was used to measure contributing factors toward perfectionism. The name of the instrument was changed in order to eliminate any bias in student answers about perfectionism. Gable and Wolf (1993) recommended that researchers carefully consider the titles of attitude instruments to prevent response bias in subjects. Because the MPS was created for an older population, the wording of six statements was changed from the original instrument to reflect the present experiences of the respondents. For example, the statement, "My parents never tried to understand my mistakes," was changed to "My parents never try to understand my mistakes." Student responses were measured on a 5-point scale that ranged from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5).

To establish evidence of content validity, 10 experts working on doctorates in educational psychology of the gifted reviewed the scale. Based on their suggestions, minor edits were made.

Procedures

The surveys were mailed to the gifted and talented specialist at each of the selected schools. The specialists distributed a survey to each participant in the sixth through eighth grade gifted program. After the surveys were completed by the subjects, they were collected by the specialist and returned to the researchers.

The first goal of this study was to examine the appropriateness of the Goals and Work Habits Survey (Schuler 1994) with gifted and talented middle school students. Because this was a pilot study, exploratory factor analysis was used to examine construct validity of the scale. A principal component analysis with a varimax rotation produced an eight factor solution that accounted for 59% of the variance. With their population, Frost et al (1990) reported a six factor solution that accounted for 65% of the variance.

Of the eight factors we found, the items in five of them produced Cronbach alpha reliabilies above .70: concern over mistakes, organization, personal standards, parental criticism, and parental expectations. The internal consistency reliabilities for these five subscales, calculated using Cronbach's alpha, were .82, .87, .78, .82, and .74 respectively (see table 1). These factors are similar to the factors reported with the MPS (Frost et al., 1990). Frost et al's sixth factor was doubting one's action. We found a similar factor, but the reliabiliy of that factor did not meet our .70 alpha reliability standard.

Table 1. Items were used with factor loadings > .40 which contributed to a Cronbach alpha >.70 for the construct.

Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation

Item   Statement                                          Loading(*)

Factor 1: Concern over Mistakes; Cronbach's Alpha = .82; M = 2.12;
 SD = 1.09

  9    If I fail at work/school, I am a failure as
        a person.                                            .50
 10    I should be upset if I make a mistake.                .52
 13    If someone does a task at work/school better
        than I, then I feel like I failed the whole
        task.                                                .70
 14    If I fail partly, it is as bad as being a
        complete failure.                                    .72
 21    People will probably think less of me if I
        make a mistake.                                      .59
 23    If I do not do as well as other people, it
        means that I am an inferior being.                   .72
 25    If I do not do well all the time, people will
        not respect me.                                      .60
 34    The fewer mistakes I make, the more people
        will like me.                                        .60

Factor 2: Organization; Cronbach's Alpha = .87; M = 3.47; SD = 1.05

 2     Organization is important to me.                      .61
 7     I am a neat person.                                   .78
 8     I try to be an organized person.                      .82
 27    I try to be a neat person.                            .76
 29    Neatness is very important to me.                     .82
 31    I am an organized person.                             .83

Factor 3: Personal Standards; Cronbach's Alpha = .78; M = 3.31;
 SD = 1.10

 6     It is important to me that I be thoroughly
        competent in everything I do.                        .55
 12    I set higher goals than most people.                  .75
 16    I am very good at focusing my efforts.                .53
 18    I hate being less than best at things.                .47
 19    I have extremely high goals.                          .73
 24    Other people seem to accept lower standards
        than I do.                                           .61
 30    I expect higher performance in my daily tasks
        than most people.                                    .67

Factor 4: Parental Criticism; Cronbach's Alpha = .82; M = 2.35;
 SD = 1.57

 22    I never feel like I can meet my parents'
        expectations.                                        .75
 35    I never feel like I can meet my parents'
        standards.                                           .77

Factor 5: Parental Expectations; Cronbach's Alpha = .74; M = 2.77;
 SD = 1.49

 11    My parents want me to be the best at
        everything.                                          .69
 15    Only outstanding performance is good enough
        in my family.                                        .53
 20    My parents expect excellence from me.                 .64

Analysis

A 2 X 3 X 3 between-subject multivariate analysis of variance was performed on the five dependent variables of concern over mistakes, organization, personal standards, parental criticism, and parental expectations. Differences among gender (male or female), birth order (oldest, middle child, or youngest) and grade level (sixth, seventh, or eighth) were examined.

Using Wilks' criterion, the combined dependent variables were statistically significant for gender and birth order, but not for grade level. Only the interaction effect of gender by grade level was significant. The other interactions were not significant. Multivariate results are presented in table 2.

Table 2.

Wilks Multivariate Tests of Significance for Concern over Mistakes, Organization, Personal Standards, Parental Criticism, and Parental Expectations

                                         Approx.   Hypoth
                                Value       F        df

Grade                            .96      1.52       10
Gender                           .96      3.33        5
Birth Order                      .94      2.41       10
Grade X Gender                   .95      1.93       10
Grade X Birth Order              .92      1.49       20
Gender X Birth Order             .98       .82       10
Grade X Gender X Birth Order     .96       .82       20

                                Error
                                 df         p

Grade                           724       .128
Gender                          362       .006
Birth Order                     724       .008
Grade X Gender                  724       .038
Grade X Birth Order            1201.57    .075
Gender X Birth Order            724       .608
Grade X Gender X Birth Order   1201.57    .690

Because the omnibus MANOVA showed significant main effects for gender and birth order and for the interaction of gender by grade, further investigation of the nature of the differences among the independent with respect to the dependent variable using univariate F's was warranted. If sample sizes are equal, robustness of significance tests is expected regardless of homogeneity of variance. Since the sample sizes varied in this analysis and the variables of concern over mistakes, organization, and parental criticism failed the Bartlett-Box F test of homogeneity of variance, an adjustment was made using sequential sums of squares. Results of univariate F ratios are shown in table 3.

Table 3.

Univariate F-ratios for the Main Effects of Gender and Birth Order and the Interaction of Gender by Grade

Independent

Dependent Variable        df          F        [[Eta].sup.2]

Gender
 Concern over Mistakes     1,366     .02           .001
 Organization              1,366    7.41(**)       .020
 Personal Standards        1,366    1.82           .005
 Parental Criticism        1,366     .11           .001
 Parental Expectations     1,366    4.30(*)        .012

Birth Order
 Concern over Mistakes     2,366    3.54(*)        .019
 Organization              2,366     .53           .003
 Personal Standards        2,366    2.17           .012
 Parental Criticism        2,366    4.68(**)       .025
 Parental Expectations     2,366    3.70(*)        .020

Gender by Grade
 Concern over Mistakes     2,366    3.73(*)        .020
 Organization              2,366     .65           .004
 Personal Standards        2,366    1.46           .013
 Parental Criticism        2,366    3.12(*)        .017
 Parental Expectations     2,366    2.49           .020

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

Males and females differed over their concern about organization and expectations from parents. Females (M = 3.55, SD = .72) expressed more concern about organization than males (M = 3.33, SD = .91) [d = .27 effect size]. Males (M = 2.87, SD = 1.00) reported higher expectations from parents than females (M = 2.69, SD = .97) [d =. 18 effect size].

The birth order groups varied on their concern over making mistakes, parental criticism, and parental expectations. Scheffe post hoc analysis revealed differences between first born students and youngest on parental criticism and parental expectation with first born students expressing greater concern. No post hoc differences were found among the birth order groups on making mistakes. Means and standard deviations are shown in table 4.

Table 4.

    Oldest          Middle       Youngest
 M       SD       M      SD      M       SD

Concern over Mistakes
2.18    .70     2.20    .65    2.00    .66

Parental Criticism (d = .33 effect size)(*)
2.52    1.21    2.25    .96    2.14    1.12

Parental Expectations (d = .29 effect size)(*)
2.87    1.02    2.79    .93    2.59    .93

(*) Scheffe post hoc showed a significant difference between first born and youngest, p < .05.

An interaction was found between gender and grade level for concern over mistakes and parental criticism. Females expressed more concern over mistakes as they grew older, while the concern over mistakes reported by male students increased in seventh grade and then decreased in eighth grade (see Figure 1). Female students reported slightly higher levels of parental criticism in sixth and eighth grade, but males reported higher parental criticism in seventh grade.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Discussion

This study confirms that the Goals and Work Habits Survey, as modified from the MPS (Frost et al, 1990), can be used to measure perfectionism in academically talented students in grades six, seven, and eight. Items which loaded on the categories in the original Frost et al survey were in most cases loading on the same dimensions in the adapted Goals and Work Habits Survey. However, the language of several items appears to warrant closer scrutiny if this instrument is used again with these grade levels. Survey administrators reported that students had difficulty discriminating between words such as "standards" and "expectations" in choosing their responses.

The lower loading of a few items in the factor analysis may have been influenced by the developmental levels of these young adolescents. Punishment for imperfect work, being upset about mistakes, and doubting one's performance may not be concerns for some of these students at this point in their school experiences. Further research is necessary to determine if young adolescents can make subtle distinctions between doubts about one's performance and the expectations and standards of others. The limited number of items for the parental criticism and parental expectations factors warrant development of additional statements for those factors. We recommend that further refinements of some of the subscales on the Goals and Work Habits Survey be made.

The results support some of the findings on perfectionistic, gifted adolescents in the literature and disagree with others. The gifted females in our study were more concerned about organization than gifted males. Reis (1998) noted that "During middle school and usually continuing through their adolescent years, mathematically talented females exhibit great attention to detail in their work [and] strong organizational skills.... Educators can use these skills to motivate girls' interest in mathematics" (p. 320). In addition, concern about making mistakes increased for females from sixth to eighth grade. This increase in perfectionistic behaviors for gifted adolescent females has been reported in the literature (Bellamy, 1993; Kline & Short, 1991; Rodenstein, Pfleger, & Colangelo, 1977). Students should be encouraged to view events or products that fall short of expectations as fixable, rather than mistakes to be discarded. This is the approach taken by computer programmers. Computer programs seldom run smoothly on the first attempt. Rather than discard their work and start again, programmers rework the program until it functions correctly.

A new finding from this research is that males reported higher parental expectations than females. It appears that parents place higher expectations on their sons than they do on their daughters. While extreme levels of parental expectation can be counter productive, the scores for both genders fell in a healthy range between disagree and neutral with our sample. Given that the expectations for males fell in the healthy range, parents and educators should strive to equally encourage students of both genders to set challenging goals for themselves.

In this study, first born adolescents reported the highest levels of parental criticism and expectations and youngest adolescents showed the lowest concerns in these areas. This builds on the work of Schuler (1997). She found that more first born children were identified for gifted programs, which may be related to the higher expectations first born children feel from parents. Parents of first born gifted children need to exam their expectations and how they respond to the higher needs of these children for approval, achievement, and conformity.

Overall, the level of perfectionism exhibited by the students in this study about concern over mistakes and parental criticism and expectations was healthy, while concerns over organization and personal standards were more problematic. Additional research on perfectionism in young gifted adolescents can have implications on how educators, counselors, and parents perceive their roles with these students.

Counselors can help perfectionistic gifted students at the middle school level discover ways to change unhealthy behaviors to healthy ones and to reinforce positive behaviors they may already be demonstrating. Gifted perfectionists need help to focus on present behaviors, plan realistic goals, make reasonable commitments, and accept the consequences of their behaviors. The use of special units within counseling groups can also assist perfectionistic gifted adolescents to understand the sources of their perfectionism and learn strategies to combat unhealthy tendencies.

Parents can help their gifted adolescent realize that perfectionism can be a cause of stress or a positive motivator. Setting priorities, modeling acceptance of mistakes, setting high but realistic standards, encouraging relaxation techniques, and improving self-evaluation skills are strategies that parents can use. If parents perceive that their child is unable to act or becomes fearful of rejection, then professional counseling should be sought.

The characteristics of adolescent perfectionists and the consequences and complications could affect curricular, career, and counseling opportunities. Gender issues may also be a concern in how students view their performance; this would have implications as to how they are educated and counseled, especially gifted females.

There is a greater need for attention to the emotional issues affecting gifted adolescents, especially during this transition time in their lives. School systems can foster a more collaborative effort with parents to meet the exceptional needs of perfectionistic gifted adolescents. Middle schools can provide more educational flexibility, counseling programs, and training for educators and counselors that address these needs. Increasing the awareness of the issues of gifted adolescents can prevent serious emotional difficulties, especially dysfunctional perfectionism. An increase in the number of respondents on the Goals and Work Habits Survey from more regions, as well as a more diverse population, especially among disadvantaged and minority groups, is warranted to fully address the issue of adolescent perfectionism in gifted students.

[Figure 2 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

REFERENCES

Adderholdt-Elliott, M. R. (1987). Perfectionism: What's bad about being too good? Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.

Adderholdt-Elliott, M. R. (1991). Perfectionism and the gifted adolescent. In M. Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational, developmental, and multicultural issues (pp. 65-75). New York: Teachers College Press.

Baker, J. A. (1996). Everyday stressors of academically gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 7, 356-368.

Bellamy, J. (1993). Perfectionism in adolescents: A comparison of private and public school students. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Manitoba, Canada.

Bransky, P. S. (1989). Academic perfectionism in intellectually gifted adolescents: The roles of attribution, response to failure, and irrational beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Burns, D. D. (1980, November). The perfectionist's script for self-defeat. Psychology Today, pp. 70-76.

Forer, L. (1977). The birth order factor. New York: Pocket Books.

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449-468.

Gable, R. K., & Wolff M. B. (1993). Instrument development in the affective domain: Measuring attitudes and values in corporate and school settings (2nd ed.). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology, 15, 27-33.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1989). The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale: Development and validation. Canadian Psychology, 30, 339.

Hollender, M. H. (1978). Perfectionism: A neglected personality trait. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 39, 384.

Kline, B. E., & Short, E. B. (1991). Changes in emotional resilience: Gifted adolescence girls. Roeper Review, 13, 118-121.

Leman, K. (1985). The birth order book: Why you are the way you are. New York: Dell Publishing.

Oden, M. H. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow-up of the Terman gifted group. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 77.

Orange, C. (1997). Gifted students and perfectionism. Roeper Review, 20, 39-41.

Parker, W. D. (1997). An empirical typology of perfectionsim in academically talented children. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 545-562.

Parker, W. D. (1998). Birth-order effects in the academically talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 29-38.

Parker, W. D., & Adkins, K. K. (1995). Perfectionism and the gifted. Roeper Review, 17, 173-176.

Parker, W. D., & Mills, C. (1996). The incidence of perfectionism in gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 194-199.

Parker, W. D., & Stumpf, H. (1995). An examination of the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale with a sample of academically talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 372-383.

Reis, S. M. (1998). Work left undone: Choices & compromises of talented females. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Rodenstein, J., Pfleger, L. R., & Colangelo, N. (1977). Career development of gifted women. Gifted Child Quarterly, 21, 340-347.

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

Schuler, P. (1994). Goals and work habits survey. Unpublished instrument. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut.

Schuler, P. A. (1997). Characteristics and perceptions of perfectionism in gifted adolescents in a rural school environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertaton. University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Silverman, L. K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 3-28). Denver, CO: Love.

Smith, A. W. (1990). Overcoming perfectionism: The key to a balanced recovery. Deerfield, FL: Health Communications.

Steelman, L. C. (1985). A tale of two variables: A review of the intellectual consequences of sibship size and birth order. Review of Educational Research, 55, 353-386.

Strube, M. J., & Ota, S. (1982). Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern: Relationship to birth order and family size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 317-323.

Sulloway, F. (1996). Born to rebel. New York: Pantheon Books.

Travis, R., & Kohli, V. (1995). The birth order factor: Ordinal position, social strata, and educational achievement. The Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 499-507.

Webb, T. J., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child: A practical source for parents and teachers. Columbus, OH: Psychology Publishing.

Manuscript submitted April, 1999.

Revision accepted October, 1999.

Del Siegle is Assistant Professor of Foundations, Technology and Seconday Education, Boise State University, Idaho. He serves on the board of directors for the National Association for the Gifted Children and the Council for Exceptional Children - The Association for the Gifted. Patricia A. Schuler is a National Certified Counselor and partner in Creative Insights, a counseling and educational consulting practice, in Rensselaer, New York, which specializes in working with high ability children and their families. Her areas of expertise related to gifted education include underachieving gifted students, differentiation in the classroom, perfectionism, and the social and emotional issues of gifted students.