Abstract
Gender differences in young highly able children's psychosocial development were investigated using child and teacher ratings of prosocial behavior and peer acceptance. Developmental patterns were addressed by studying two groups – children in the primary grades (1 and 2) and children in grades 3 to 7. No gender differences were found on teacher or child ratings in the younger group. In the older group, gender differences favoring girls were found on teacher ratings of prosocial behavior and peer acceptance. Comparisons of child and teacher ratings by gender showed that the older boys viewed themselves as demonstrating more social skills and as being more accepted by peers than their teachers did. Implications for education and counselling are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benes, K. M. (1995). Review of the social skills rating system. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (eds.), The Twelfth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 965-967). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L., Rock, D. A. & Cerullo, F. (1993). Influence of behavior perceptions and gender on teachers' judgments of students' academic skills. Journal of Educational Psychology 85: 347-356.
Byrne, B. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the life span: Issues and instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Colangelo, N. (1997). Counseling Gifted Students: Issues and Practices. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (eds.), Handbook of Gifted Education (2nd ed.) (pp. 353-365). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fischer, K. W., Knight, C. C. & Van Parys, M. (1993). Analyzing diversity in developmental pathways: Methods and concepts. In R. Case & W. Edelstein (eds.), The New Structuralism in Cognitive Development: Theory and Research on Individual Pathways (pp. 33-56). Basel: Karger.
Furlong, M. & Karno, M. (1995). Review of the social skills rating system. In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (eds.), The Twelfth Mental Measurements Yearbook (pp. 967-969). Lincoln, NE: The University of Nebraska Press.
Gresham, F. M. & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social skills rating system manual. Toronto, ON: Psycan.
Grimm, L. G. & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development 53: 87-97.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. University of Denver.
Harter, S. (1989). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life-span perspective. In J. Kolligian & R. J. Sternberg (eds.), Perceptions of Competence and Incompetence across the Life-span (pp. 67-97). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Harter, S. & Pike, R. (1983). Procedural manual to accompany The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children. University of Denver.
Harter, S. & Pike, R. (1984). The pictorial scale of perceived competence and social acceptance for young children. Child Development 55: 1969-1982.
Janos, P. M. (1990). The self-perceptions of uncommonly bright youngsters. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (eds.), Competence Considered (pp. 98-116). Binghamton, NY: Vail-Ballou Press.
Janos, P. M. & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (eds.), The Gifted and Talented: Developmental Perspectives (pp. 149-195). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Keating, D. P. (1991). Curriculum options for the developmentally advanced: A developmental alternative to gifted education. Exceptionality Education Canada 1: 53-84.
Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls two. Dayton, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.
Matthews, D. J. (1995, March). Developmental diversity and giftedness: Identifying giftedness by domains. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago.
Matthews, D. J. (1997). Diversity in domains of development: Research findings and their implications for gifted identification and programming. Roeper Review 19: 172-177.
McKee, W. T. & Porath, M. (1995, April). Strategies for the longitudinal study of social development in children of high ability. Paper presented at AERA, San Francisco.
Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology 88: 203-214.
Reis, S. M. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly 31: 83-89.
Reis, S. M. (1991). The need for clarification in research designed to examine gender differences in achievement and accomplishment. Roeper Review 13: 193-198.
Robinson, N. M. & Noble, K. D. (1991). Social-emotional development and adjustment of gifted children. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds & H. J. Walberg (eds.), Handbook of Special Education: Research and Practice, Vol. 4 Emerging programs (pp. 57-76). New York: Pergamon Press.
Schneider, B. H. (1987). The gifted child in peer group perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Schneider, B. H. (1993). Children's social competence in context. New York: Pergamon Press.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: HarperCollins.
Terman, L. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius. Vol. 1 Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Tomlinson-Keasey, C. (1990). Developing our intellectual resources for the 21st century: Educating the gifted. Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 399-403.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology 85: 357-364.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Porath, M. Psychosocial development in girls of high ability. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 20, 289–299 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005391409223
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005391409223