Journal of Youth and Adolescence

, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 699–723 | Cite as

Nonintellectual correlates of satisfaction with acceleration: A longitudinal study

  • Mary Ann Swiatek
  • Camilla Persson Benbow


Two studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between several nonintellectual personal attributes and satisfaction with acceleration among intellectually gifted students. First, two cohorts of gifted students (top 1% in ability and separated in age by five years) who had utilized acceleration during the course of their education were surveyed at age 18 and again at age 23. Overall, no strong relationships were found between satisfaction with acceleration and the nonintellectual factors at either age. Second, similar analyses were conducted for a subgroup of subjects, using the Adjective Check List and the Study of Values. Again, few significant correlations were found; the correlations that were statistically significant were small. These findings indicate that some non-intellectual personal attributes, which are often assumed important to the selection of students for acceleration or to the evaluation of participants in accelerative programs, actually may not be appropriate for these purposes.


Longitudinal Study Health Psychology Strong Relationship Personal Attribute Gifted Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Admissions Testing Program. (1979).National Report, College Bound Seniors. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W., Vernon, P. E., and Lindzey, G. (1960).Study of Values (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1986).Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory.Am. Psychol. 44: 1175–1184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bartkovich, K. G., and Mezynski, K. (1981). Fast-paced precalculus mathematics for talented junior high students: Two recent SMPY programs.Gifted Child Quart. 25: 73–80.Google Scholar
  6. Benbow, C. P. (1978). Further testing of the high scorers from SMPY's January 1978 talent search.ITYB 5: 1–2.Google Scholar
  7. Benbow, C. P. (1983). Adolescence of the mathematically precocious: A five-year longitudinal study. In Benbow, C. P., and Stanley, J. C. (eds.),Academic Precocity: Aspects of Its Development. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  8. Benbow, C. P. (1991). Meeting the needs of gifted students through use of acceleration. In Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., and Walberg, H. J. (eds.),Handbook of Special Education (Vol. 2). Pergamon, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Casserly, P. L. (1979). Helping able young women take math and science seriously in school. In Colangelo, N., and Zaffrann, R. T. (eds.),New Voices in Counseling the Gifted. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
  10. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., and Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970).Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, B. (1983).Growing Up Gifted: Developing the Potential of Children at Home and at School (2nd ed.). Merrill, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, S. J. (1977). Cognitive characteristics of the top-scoring third of the 1976 talent search contestants.ITYB 3: 3–6.Google Scholar
  14. Conger, A. J., Peng, S. S., and Dunteman, G. H. (1976).National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972: Group Profiles on Self-Esteem, Locus of Control, and Life Goals. Research Triangle Institute. Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  15. Delp, J. L., and Martinson, R. A. (1977).A Handbook for Parents of Gifted and Talented (Also Helpful for Educators) (2nd ed.). Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office, Ventura, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Eccles, J. S. (1985). Why doesn't Jane run? Sex differences in educational and occupational patterns. In Horowitz, F. D., and O'Brien, M. (eds.),The Gifted and Talented: Developmental Perspectives. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Feldhusen, J. F., Proctor, T. B., and Black, K. N. (1986). Guidelines for grade advancement of precocious children.Roeper Rev. 9: 25–27.Google Scholar
  18. Gallagher, J. (1988). National agenda for educating gifted students: Statement of priorities.Except. Child. 55: 107–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. George, W. C., Cohn, S. J., and Stanley, J. C. (1979).Educating the Gifted. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  20. Gough, H. G., and Heilbrun, A. B. (1983).The Adjective Check List Manual. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
  21. Hildreth, G. H. (1966).Introduction to the Gifted. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942).Children Above 180 IQ (Stanford-Binet): Origin and Development World Book Company, Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY.Google Scholar
  23. Janos, P. M. (1987). A fifty-year follow-up of Terman's youngest college students and IQ-matched agemates.Gifted Child Quart. 31: 55–58.Google Scholar
  24. Jung, C. G. (1954). The gifted child. In Read, H., Fordham, M., and Adler, G. (eds.),The Collected Works of C. G. Jung (Vol. 17: The Development of Personality). Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  25. Kerr, B. A. (1985).Smart Girls, Gifted Women. Ohio Psychology Publishing, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, G. D. (1980). Who is gifted: A quick grasp of concepts is one clue.Independ. School 39: 12–16.Google Scholar
  27. Morgan, A. B. (1957). Critical factors in the academic acceleration of gifted children: Hypotheses based on clinical data.Psychol. Rep. 3: 71–77.Google Scholar
  28. Morgan, A. B. (1959). Critical factors in the academic acceleration of gifted children: A follow-up study.Psychol. Rep. 5: 649–654.Google Scholar
  29. Peng, S. S., Fetters, W. B., and Kolstad, A. J. (1981).High school and beyond. Washington, DC: National Center of Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  30. Proctor, T. B., Feldhusen, J. F., and Black, K. N. (1988). Guidelines for early admission to elementary school.Psychol. Schools 25: 41–43.Google Scholar
  31. Ramos-Ford, V., and Gardner, H. (1991). Giftedness from a multiple intelligences perspective. In Colangelo, N., and Davis, G. A. (eds.),Handbook of Gifted Education. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Richardson, T. M., and Benbow, C. P. (1990). Long-term effects of acceleration on the social-emotional adjustment of mathematically precocious youths.J. Educat. Psychol. 82: 464–470.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, N. M., and Noble, K. D. (1991). Social-emotional development and adjustment of gifted children. In Wang, M. C., Reynolds, M. C., and Walberg, H. J. (eds.),Handbook of Special Education (Vol. 2). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, E. (1984). Giftedness on demand in every classroom.Gifted Educat. Int. 2: 142–144.Google Scholar
  35. Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., and Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic acceleration of gifted children.Gifted Child Quart. 33: 29–35.Google Scholar
  36. Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Giftedness according to the triarchic theory of human intelligence. In Colangclo, N., and Davis, G. A. (eds.),Handbook of Gifted Education Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Swiatek, M. A., and Benbow, C. P. (1991a). A 10-year longitudinal follow-up of participants in a fast-paced mathematics course.J. Res. Math. Educat. 22: 138–150.Google Scholar
  38. Swiatek, M. A., and Benbow, C. P. (1991b). A ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students.J. Educat. Psychol. 83: 528–538.Google Scholar
  39. Terman, L. M., and Oden, M. H. (1947).The Gifted Child Grows Up. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  40. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1989). Appropriate curriculum for gifted learners.Educat. Leader. 46: 13–15.Google Scholar
  41. Whitmore, J. R. (1980).Giftedness, Conflict, and Underachievement. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Ann Swiatek
    • 1
  • Camilla Persson Benbow
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIowa State UniversityAmes

Personalised recommendations