Advertisement

A Feminine Perspective of Giftedness

  • Linda Kreger SilvermanEmail author
  • Nancy B. Miller

Abstract

The feminine perspective, the legacy of Leta Hollingworth, focuses on developmental differences in childhood and equal pportunity. The masculine perspective, the legacy of Francis Galton, equates giftedness with eminence. Women, conomically disadvantaged, and culturally diverse groups do not have the same opportunities to attain eminence. The lack of eminent women has been attributed to Darwin’s variability hypothesis: since males are more variable than females, more males are assumed to be at the extremes of intelligence, whereas women tend toward the mean. In 1914, Leta Hollingworth completely discredited this hypothesis. Research for 100 years has demonstrated that there are at least as many gifted girls as boys–-even in the highest IQ ranges. Men now disparage IQ tests. Internationally, the field still defines giftedness as the potential for eminence. This chapter discusses masculine and feminine conceptions, the development of gifted girls, and barriers for girls from culturally diverse and low socioeconomic circumstances.

Keywords

Giftedness Eminent women Gifted girls IQ testing Diversity Cultural diversity Economic Diversity Sexism Gender equality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AAUW Educational Foundation. (1992). The AAUW Report: How schools shortchange girls. Executive summary. Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, R. S. (1969).Genius: Present-day status of the concept and its implications for the study of creativity and giftedness. American Psychologist, 24, 743–752.Google Scholar
  3. Alomar, B. O. (2003). Parental involvement in the schooling of children. Gifted and Talented International, 18, 95–100.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, K., Noble, K. D., & Subotnik, R. F. (1996). Perspectives on female talent development. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 1–19). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  5. Begley, S. (1993, June 28). The puzzle of genius. Newsweek, 46–53.Google Scholar
  6. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, L. A. (1989). Something’s wrong here and it’ not me: Challenging the dilemmas that block girls’ success. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 118–130.Google Scholar
  8. Bereiter, C. (1976–1977). IQ and elitism. Interchange, 7(3), 36–44.Google Scholar
  9. Binet, A. (1909). Les idees modernes sur les enfants. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  10. Binet, A., et Simon, Th. (1905). Application des methods nouvelle au diagnostic du niveau intellectual chez des enfants normaux et anormaux d’hospice et d’ecole primaire. L’Annee Psychologique, 11, 191–244.Google Scholar
  11. Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Borland, J. H. (1990). Leta Hollingworth’s contributions to the psychology and education of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12, 162–166.Google Scholar
  13. Buescher, T. M., Olszewski, P., & Higham, S. J. (1987, April). Influences on strategies gifted adolescents use to cope with their own recognized talents. Paper presented at the 1987 biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  14. Callahan, C. M. (1979). The gifted and talented woman. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and the talented: Their education and development. The seventy-eighth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (pp. 401–423). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Callahan, C. M. (1991). An update on gifted females. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 284–311.Google Scholar
  16. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Castellano, J. (2004). Empowering and serving Hispanic students in gifted education. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education(pp. 1–13). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, B. (1983). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school(2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, R. M. (1998). Class consciousness and its consequences: The impact of an elite education on mature, working-class women. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 353–375.Google Scholar
  20. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Vol. 1. Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. [Available free online at http://nationdeceived.org]
  21. Columbus Group (1991, July). Unpublished transcript of the meeting of the Columbus Group. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  22. Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the family system. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 322–336.Google Scholar
  23. Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. L. M. Terman (Series Ed.), Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 2.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Darwin, C. R. (1897). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex(Rev. ed.). New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
  26. Dreyden, J. I., & Gallagher, S. A. (1989). The effects of time and direction: Changes on the SAT performance of academically talented adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12, 187–204.Google Scholar
  27. Eccles, J. S. (1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135–171.Google Scholar
  28. Ehrlich, V. Z. (1978). The Astor program for gifted children: Pre-Kindergarten through grade three.New York: Teachers College, Columbia University in cooperation with the Board of Education of the City of New York.Google Scholar
  29. Elkin, F., & Handel, G. (1989). The child and society: The process of socialization. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  30. Evans, K. M. (1996). Counseling gifted women of color. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 1–19). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  31. Eyre, D., & Geake, J. (2002). Trends in research into gifted and talented education in England. Gifted and Talented International, 17, 15–21.Google Scholar
  32. Farrell, J. A. (2007, January 7). Pelosi gets a life. The Denver Post, pp. E1, E3.Google Scholar
  33. Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Identification and assessment of talented learners. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed., pp. 193–210). Denver: Love.Google Scholar
  34. Feldhusen, J. F., Proctor, T. B., & Black, K. N. (2002). Guidelines for grade advancement of precocious children. Roeper Review, 24, 169–171.Google Scholar
  35. Feldman, D. H. (1984). A follow-up of subjects scoring above 180 IQ in Terman’s “Genetic Studies of Genius.” Exceptional Children, 50, 518–523.Google Scholar
  36. Feldman, D. H. (1992). Has there been a paradigm shift in gifted education? In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & D. L. Ambroson (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 89–94). Unionville, NY: Trillium.Google Scholar
  37. Fennama, E. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs and gender differences in mathematics. In E. Fennama & G. Leder (Eds.), Mathematics and gender (pp. 169–187). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ford, D. Y. (2001). Achieving equity and excellence: Recruiting and retaining minority students in gifted education. In N. Colangelo & S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace national research symposium on talent development (pp. 27–39). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Milner, H. R. (2004). Underachievement among gifted African American students: Cultural, social, and psychological considerations. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education(pp. 15–31). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  40. Ford, D. Y., Harris, J. J., III, Tyson, C. A., & Frazier Trotman, M. (2002) Beyond deficit thinking: Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24, 52–58.Google Scholar
  41. Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112.Google Scholar
  42. Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its causes and consequences.London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Galton, F. (1907). Inquiries into human faculty and its development (2nd ed.). London: J. M. Dent & Sons.Google Scholar
  44. Gardner, H. G. (1983). Frames of mind: A theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  45. Gilligan, C. (1989). Preface: Teaching Shakespeare’s sisters. In C. Gilligan, N. P. Lyons, & T. J. Hanmer (Eds.), Making connections: The relational worlds of adolescent girls at Emma Willard School (pp. 6–29). Troy, NY: Emma Willard School.Google Scholar
  46. Gilman, B. J. (2003). Empowering gifted minds: Educational advocacy that works.Denver: DeLeon.Google Scholar
  47. Goertzel, V., & Goertzel, M. G. (1962). Cradles of eminence.Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  48. Goertzel, T. G., & Hansen, A. (2004). Cradles of eminence: Childhoods of more than 700 famous men and women(2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
  49. Granleese, J. & Joseph, S. (1993). Self-perception profile of adolescent girls at a single-sex and a mixed-sex school. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154, 525–530.Google Scholar
  50. Grant, B., & Piechowski, M. M. (1999). Theories and the good: Toward a child-centered gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 4–12.Google Scholar
  51. Hargreaves, R. (1981). Little Miss Bossy. Los Angeles, CA: Price Stern.Google Scholar
  52. Harris, C. R. (1992). The fruits of early intervention: The Holl-ingworth group today. Advanced Development, 4, 91–104.Google Scholar
  53. Ho, S. (2006, November 10). Women in world politics. Voice of America News. Retrieved January 20, 2007, from http://www.voanews.com/burmese/archive/2006-11/2006-11-10-voa3.cfm
  54. Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1992). A longitudinal examination of life choices of gifted and talented young women. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 207–212.Google Scholar
  55. Hollingworth, L. S. (1913). The frequency of amentia as related to sex. Medical Record, 84, 753–756.Google Scholar
  56. Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). Variability as related to sex differences in achievement: A critique. The American Journal of Sociology, 22, 19–29.Google Scholar
  57. Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture.New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Hollingworth, L. S. (1931). The child of very superior intelligence as a special problem in social adjustment. Mental Hygiene, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  59. Hollingworth, L. S. (1939). What we know about the early selection and training of leaders. Teachers College Record, 40, 575–592.Google Scholar
  60. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and development. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.Google Scholar
  61. Hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  62. Jaschik, S. (2005, December 7). 9 University presidents issue statement on gender equity. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/07/gender
  63. Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Miller, J. B., Stiver, I. P., & Surrey, J. L. (1991). Women’s growth in connection. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  64. Kastberg, S. M., & Miller, D. G. (1996). Of blue collars and ivory towers: Women from blue-collar backgrounds in higher education. In K. Arnold, K. D. Noble, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Remarkable women: Perspectives on female talent development (pp. 49–67). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  65. Kearney, K., & LeBlanc, J. (1993). Forgotten pioneers in the study of gifted African-Americans. Roeper Review, 15, 192–199.Google Scholar
  66. Kelly–Benjamin, K. (1990, April). Performance differences on SAT math questions. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  67. Kerr, B. A. (1991). Educating gifted girls. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 402–415). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  68. Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness (Revised ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
  69. Kitano, M. K. (1994/1995). Lessons from gifted women of color. The Journal of Secondary Education, 4(2), 176–187.Google Scholar
  70. Kitano, M. K. (1998a). Gifted Latina women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 21, 131–159.Google Scholar
  71. Kitano, M. K. (1998b). Gifted African American women. Journal for the Education of The Gifted, 21, 254–287.Google Scholar
  72. Klein, A. G. (2002). A forgotten voice: A biography of Leta Stetter Hollingworth. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
  73. Klug, B. J. (2004). Children of the starry cope: Gifted and talented Native American students. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 49–71). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  74. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  75. Lips, H. M. (2005). Sex and gender: An introduction(5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  76. Louis, B., & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness in young children and their relation to actual ability level. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 27–31.Google Scholar
  77. Lovecky, D. V. (2004). Different minds: Gifted children with AD/HD, Asperger Syndrome, and other learning deficits.London: Jessica Kinglsey.Google Scholar
  78. Lowie, R. H., & Hollingworth, L. S. (1916). Science and feminism. Scientific Monthly, 3, 277–284.Google Scholar
  79. Lutfig, R. L., & Nichols, M. L. (1990). Assessing the social status of gifted students by their age peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 111–115.Google Scholar
  80. The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center & The Network, Inc. (1993). Beyond Title IX: Gender equity issues in schools.Chevy Chase, MD: Authors. Retrieved January 22, 2007, from http://www.maec.org/beyond.html
  81. Miller, N. B., & Silverman, L. K. (2007). [The minority experience: A case study.] Unpublished raw data. Denver, CO; Gifted Development Center.Google Scholar
  82. Montague, H., & Hollingworth, L. S. (1914). The comparative variability of the sexes at birth. The American Journal of Sociology, 20, 335–370.Google Scholar
  83. Munger, A. (1990). The parent’s role in counseling the gifted: The balance between home and school. In J. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.), A practical guide to counseling the gifted in a school setting (2nd ed., pp. 57–65). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
  84. The National Association for Gifted Children Britain. Giftedness and high ability: Definitions of giftedness. Retrieved January 17, 2007, from http://www.nagcbritain.org.uk/giftedness/ definitions.html
  85. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  86. Olszewski-Kubilius, P. M., & Kulieke, M. J. (1989). Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents. In J. Van Tassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school(pp. 125–145). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  87. Parrish, M. (2004). Urban poverty and homelessness as hidden demographic variables relevant to academic achievement. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 203–211). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  88. Peter, R., & Stern, W. (1922). Die auslese befahigter Volksschuler in Hamburg. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  89. Phelps, C. R. (1991). Identity formation in career development for gifted women. Roeper Review, 13, 140–141.Google Scholar
  90. Reis, S. M. (2001). External barriers experienced by gifted and talented girls and women. Gifted Child Today, 24(4), 26–35.Google Scholar
  91. Reis, S. M. (2002). Internal barriers, personal issues, and decisions faced by gifted and talented females. Gifted Child Today, 25(1), 14–28.Google Scholar
  92. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.Google Scholar
  93. Riordan, C. (1990). Girls and boys in school: Together or separate?New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  94. Robinson, N. M. (2004). Effects of academic acceleration on the social-emotional status of gifted students. In N. Colangelo, S. G. Assouline, & M. U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students.(Vol. 2, pp. 59–67). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development [Available free online at http://nationdeceived.org]
  95. Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 280–294). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Robinson, N. M. (2008). The value of traditional assessments as approaches to identifying academically gifted students. In J. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 157–174). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  97. Roedell, W. C. (1984). Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6, 127–130.Google Scholar
  98. Roedell, W. C. (1989). Early development of gifted children. In J. Van Tassel-Baska & P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Patterns of influence on gifted learners: The home, the self, and the school (pp. 13–28). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  99. Roeper, A. (1982). How the gifted cope with their emotions. Roeper Review, 5(2), 21–24.Google Scholar
  100. Roeper, A. (1990). Educating children for life: The modern learning community.Monroe, NY: Trillium Press.Google Scholar
  101. Roeper, A. (1996). A personal statement of philosophy of George and Annemarie Roeper. Roeper Review, 19, 18–19.Google Scholar
  102. Roeper, A. (2004). My life experiences with children: Selected writing and speeches.Denver: DeLeon.Google Scholar
  103. Roeper, A. (2007). The “I” of the beholder: A guided journey to the essence of the child.Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.Google Scholar
  104. Rogers, M. T. (1986). A comparative study of developmental traits of gifted and average children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  105. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America’s schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  106. Sax, L. (2005). Why gender matters: What parents and teachers need to know about the emerging science of sex differences. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  107. Schwartz, L. L. (1991). Guiding gifted girls. In R. M. Milgram (Ed.), Counseling gifted and talented children: A guide for teachers, counselors and parents (pp. 143–160). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  108. Sears, P. S., & Barbee, A. H. (1977). Career and life satisfactions among Terman’s gifted women. In J.C. Stanley, W.C. George, & C.H. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty-year perspective (pp. 28–65). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Sethna, B. N. (2004). An unconventional view of gifted children of Indian descent in the United States. In D. Boothe & J. C. Stanley (Eds.), Critical issues for diversity in gifted education (pp. 101–117). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
  110. Shell, E. R. (2005, October). Frontiers of science: Sex. Discover. pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
  111. Silverman, L. K. (1986). What happens to the gifted girl? In C. J. Maker (Ed.), Critical issues in gifted education, Vol. 1: Defensible programs for the gifted (pp. 43–89). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  112. Silverman, L. K. (1993a). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted & talented(pp.3–28). Denver: Love.Google Scholar
  113. Silverman, L. K. (1993b). Social development, leadership, and gender issues. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted & talented(pp. 291–327). Denver: Love.Google Scholar
  114. Silverman, L. K. (1995). To be gifted or feminine: The forced choice of adolescence. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 6, 141–156.Google Scholar
  115. Silverman, L. K. (2007). [The percentage of female Nobel Laureates.] Unpublished raw data compiled from The Nobel Foundation website, http://nobelprize.org/ and Female Nobel Prize Laureates listed on The Nobel Prize Internet Archive, http://almaz.com/nobel.html. Retrieved January 20, 2007.
  116. Simmons, R. (2002). Odd girl out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  117. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ controversy, the media and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  118. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  119. Subotnik, R., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  120. Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives.New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  121. Terman, L. M. (1916a). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  122. Terman, L. M., (1916b). The Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon tests.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  123. Terman, L. M. (1917). The intelligent quotient of Francis Galton in childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 209–215.Google Scholar
  124. Terman, L. M. (1921). In E. L. Thorndike, et al. Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 127–133.Google Scholar
  125. Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius, Vol. 1: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 5. The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  127. Thorne, Y. M. (1995). Achievement motivation in high achieving Latina women. Roeper Review, 18(1), 44–48.Google Scholar
  128. Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Sex in education. The Bookman, 23, 211–214.Google Scholar
  129. Thorndike, E. L. (1910). Educational psychology(2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  130. Treffinger, D. J., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 181–193.Google Scholar
  131. Wallenchinsky, D. (2007, January 14). Is American still no. 1? Parade, 4–5.Google Scholar
  132. Weininger, O. (1910). Sex and character. London: Wm. Heinemann & Sons. (English translation from the sixth German edition.)Google Scholar
  133. White, W. L. (1990). Interviews with Child I, Child J, and Child L. Roeper Review, 12, 222–227.Google Scholar
  134. Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  135. Winner, E. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities.New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  136. Witty, P. (1940). Contributions to the IQ controversy from the study of superior deviates. School & Society, 51, 503–508.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for the Study of Advanced DevelopmentDenverUSA
  2. 2.University of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations