ED 350 737

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPEJOURNAL CIT

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 301 543

Drum, Jean, Ed.Gifted Girls.California Association for the Gifted.Sep 9229p.

California Association for the Gifted, 23684Schoenborn St., Canoga Park, CA 91304 (5 issues, $15per year).Collected Works Serials (022)Communicator; v22 n4 Sep 1992

MFOI/PCO2 Plus Postage.Academic Achievement; Academic Aptitude; *CulturalDifferences; Educational Discrimination; ElementarySecondary Education; *Equal Education; *Females;*Gifted; Minority Groups; Self Actualization; *SexBias; *Sex Differences; Sex Discrimination; Sex Role;Sex Stereotypes

This journal issue focuses on the theme of theeducation cf gifted female students. This document consists of thefive articles devoted to this subject. The lead article by Carolyn M.Callahan, titled "How Schools Shortchange Girls: Implicz.tions forParents and Educators of Gifted Girls," discusses the development ofgender roles, the experiences that young women have in school, andthe continued lack of interest and achievement in mathematics andscience among females most talented in those areas. An editorial byJean Drum comments on why "America Needs Heroines," and twohigh-school students (Debra Russell and Nina Alexander) present "WhatIt Means To Be Gifted and a Woman." "Factors Affecting theAchievement of Culturally Diverse Gifted Women" (Margie K. Kitano andCarol 0. Perkins) examines demographic data concerning gifted womenfrom diverse backgrounds, presents models of adult achievement, andanalyzes the literature to determine factors affecting theachievement of gifted women of color. "Gifted Females: They've Come aLong Way--Or Have They?" (Sally M. Reis and Carolyn M. Callahan)reviews research on gender differences, examines continuingperformance gaps in careers and professional accomplishments of menand women, and proposes more promising research directions. "LivingOut the Promise of High Potential: Perceptions of 100 Gifted Women"(Kathleen D. Noble) presents an overview of literature relating tothe psychological, social, cultural, and cognitive issues confrontinggifted women as they strive to develop their potential; reviewsfindings of a study of the lives of 100 contemporary adult giftedwomen in the Pacific Northwest; suggests kinds of psychologicalinterventions which would enable highly capable women's developmentand achievement to be maximized; and presents research directions.(JDD)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

u t OltPaPliseasTOP gOuCia0004:Mca cd..f alq11,14018,m1 om,y0,10.1.,

-EDUDMIONM of.SouRCES NfoRmATIONCENTER iEltiCi

aocumw. nat 001" ro0.o00C.0

M.M. .c.nngol NN MM A0*.000.<1.on

THE JOURNAL OF TI 1E CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION IOR FI IE GIFTED

VOLUME XX1 I NUMBER 4 SEPTEMBER. 19920 oM 0, 00.N0m1MMKI.,,,acc.,. 00 nol r 4 0 ow^. o.f.

COMMUNICATOR

ft ilk

.y.t.t

71frJELIM

PE RMISSION REPRODUCE HIS%AA TERIA ,.AS BEEN GRANTED BY

To THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (Eruci

GIFTED GIRLSHow Schools Shortchange Girls:

Implications for Parents and Educators ofGifted Girls

air

Early this year the AmericanAssociation of University Womenre-leased a comprehensive reporton

the education of women preparedby the Wellesley College Center

for Research on Women. Thisreport, entitled How SchoolsShortchange Girls (AAUW,1992a), grew out of concerns

that the debates around educational reform ofthe past decade had largely ignored the needsof females. A review which assessed theamountof attention given to gender and sex equityissues in 35 reports issued by special task forcesand commissions since 1983, resulted in thefinding that only four gave serious attention tothese issues and only one made a specificrecommendation.

This invisibility of girls in the current debatesuggests that girls and boys have identicaleducational experiences in school. Nothingcould be further from the truth. Whether onelooks at achievement scores, curriculum de-sign, or teacher student interaction, it is clearthat set and gender make a difference in thenation's public schools. The educational sys-tem is not meeting girls' needs (AAUW ,1992c,p. 31).

Although the needs of gifted girlswere notthe explicit focus of the report, the data sum-marized, the conclusions reached, and the im-plications are often directly related to the is-sues which face gifted young women in ourschools. The most pertinent findings and is-

by Carolyn M. Callahan

sues revolve around the development of gen-der roles, the experiences that young womenhave in school, and the continued lack of inter-est and achievement in mathematics and sci-ence among the females most talented in thoseareas. They are discussed briefly here, withselected citations from the report to illustratethe issues.'

Development of Gender RolesMale and female children begin the devel-

opment of gender roles in infancy, but theadoption of these roles in stereotypicand rigidfashion at the beginning of adolescence is thefirst indication of potential limitations that fe-males - especially gifted females - impose onthemselves. For example, by sixth grade, girls"rate being popular and well-liked as moreimportant than being perceived as competentor independent. Boys...are more likely to rankindependence and competence as important"(AAUW, 1992a, p. 11). While we certainly donot expect females (or males for that matter) toabandon concern for others, the obvious dan-ger is that girls may begin to act on their beliefsto pursue popularity at the expense of thepursuit of independence and competence - atragic loss.

At the same time we see other indicatorsthat are even more detrimental to the giftedfemale. Nearly every longitudinal study re-ports significant declines in the self-esteemandsell-confidence of females as they move fromchi into early adolescence. These sig-

C4ntingted on page 35

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PRESIDENT'S COLUMN

Sandra Kaplan

When Opportunity Knocks...or Fails to Knock

Students willingness to use available academic opportunities and tocreate opportunities for themselves are necessary components in attain-ing academic success and personal fulfillment. The comment, "If I onlyhad the opportunity...." might better be phrased, "How can I make theopportunity?" Both parents and teachers share the responsibility tohelp gifted students learn to assess and accept the opportunities that arepresented to them. Gifted programs need to include within the curricu-lum discussions about the value of accessing and structuring opportu-nities that can support the students' abilities.

Gifted students often are resistant to the opportunities available tothem. When presented as an ancillary experience or as an additionalfeature of the educational process, the opportunities that could bemeaningful for students are discounted or ignored. When presented asa potentially unforgettable experience by an over-zealous adult, theopportunities that could contribute meaningfully to the gifted studentare rejected. Gifted students will describe how they devalued theopportunities presented to them because of both how they were offeredand who was presenting the opportunity.

Gifted students who readily take advantage of the opportunitiespresented to them sometimes are perceived as greedy. Gifted studentswho attempt to define and structure opportunities for themselves areviewed as aggressive. This situation seems to transcend gender andseems to be particularly related to the concept that gifted students do notneed more opportunities since they already are privileged, so to speak.Of concern is that during current times when economic and academicopportunities are being curtailed, gifted students need even moreassistance in being able to make decisions about how to take and makeopportunities. One quality of a differentiated curriculum would be toteach gifted students how to make a match between the availability ofopportunities and the profile of their needs, interests, and abilities.

PUBLISHED BY THE CALIFORNIAASSOCIATION FOR THE GIFTED

Administrative Assistant, Sharon Mountford,818/888-8846...FAX 818/888-6225

The CAG Communicator is published five times duringthe year, in September, November, January, April, andJune. Opinions expressed by individual authors do notnecessarily represent official positions of the Associa-tion. Subscriptions are available to non-members a t anannual cost of $15.00.

Officers 1990.1992Executive Committee

President Sandra KaplanVice President Cathleen Silva

Secretary Ron FontaineTreasurer Judith Rosebeny

State Parent Council Chair Vera EbyRegional Representatives

Bay Area Bonnie Caws%Janice Daniels

Capitol Cell Wieg-andSharon Freitas

Joshua Tree Dana ReupertFznelie Neher

Mission Vicki SteinitzAnita Still

ML Shasta AdabbiiiiViviexTerrie Gray

Orange Pat Phelan..KaretiGrinfeld

Pacific Margaret GosfieldMartha Flournoy

Palomar Judy WittPat Peluso

Redwood Robin HubbardSue Benzinger

San Joaquin Ann CierleyMartha Hougen

Santa Lucia Kathy HopeMarjorie Bowles

Submission of materialCAG encourages all interested parties to submit

articles for publication. All submissions will be givencareful consideration. Photos and camera-ready artwork are particularly desirable. Send all material withyour name, address, and phone number to Jean Drum,Communicator Editor, 7822 Belgrave Avenue, GardenGrove, CA 92641, 714/892-1745.

Reprinting of materialsArticles appearing in the Communicator may be

reprinted as desired unless marked by ID or reprintedfrom another source. Please credit the Communicatorand send a copy of your newsletter or journal contain-ing the reprint to the Editor.

Page 2 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September, 1992

ON THE LIGHT SIDE IN THIS ISSUEby Jean Watts

Yes...Reality is very clear to me ... andcoloring yellow ch ckies is not it.

CALENDAROctober 2-4, 1992CAG Teacher-Training InstituteRichardson Springs, Chico 818/888-8846

November 4-8, 1992NAGC National Convention, Celebrating Di-

versityBonaventure Hotel, Los AngelesFor information call NAGC 202/785-4268

November 20-21, 1992Roeper City and Country School ConferenceEquity and Excellence: The Possible DreamBloomfield Hills, MI

February 3-6, 1993California Association for

Bilingual Education (CABE)1811, Annual ConferenceThe Best of Both WorldsAnaheim Hilton and Towers ...714/369 -6455

Articles about Gifted Girls and WomenHow Schools Short-Change Girls

Carolyn Callahan 1

What it Means to be Gifted and a WomanDebra Russell and Nina Alexander 5

Factors Affecting the Achievement of CulturallyDiverse Gifted WomenMargie Kitano and Carol Perkins 6

Gifted Females: They've Come a Long Way- or Have They?Sally Reis and Carolyn Callahan 11

Living out the Promise of High PotentialKathleen Noble 18

Other articlesQuotable Quotes on Grouping

Barbara Clark 29

Reverse That Pendulum: Protecting yourGATE Program in Perilous TimesAnn Lord 30

GATE Advocacy: From your Communityto the State Capitol!JoAnne Viserta-Galinis 33

Students Write from Camp Nawal-.waLeadership Camp 35

Student WorkDrawing by Kerry Kennedy 24

Poems from Paso Robles SD 32

My Sister's Footsteps by Joy Pederson 38

Theory into Practice:

Orchestrating Excellence

AP annual COG Conferencean lose

March 5-7, 1993 .1)

Flyers to be mailed this monthWatch for them!

September,1992 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 3

EDITOR'S COLUMN

lean Drum

America Needs Heroines

Every so often an observer of Americanlife writes an article decrying the lack of heroesin our society. There's no one to look up to, noone to admire, no one to pattern ourselvesafter. Government officials are embarrass-ingly fallible, police don't inspire significantnumbers of citizens, doctors are sometimesseen as more concerned with avoiding mal-practice suits than caring for patients, teachersare portrayed as incompetent or ineffective,and even parents no longer occupy the pedes-tal they once enjoyed. Of course, these com-mentators admit that the dreadful examplesthey use may be the exception rather than therule, but it is generally agreed that heroismisn't what it used to be.

What about heroine-ism? We may be fac-ing a dearth of heroes just now, but think aboutit. Who are our heroines? Who do Americansthink of when they say the word heroine?Betsy Ross? Well, maybe. Clara Barton? Eliza-beth Blackwell? Susan B. Anthony? Suffrag-ettes? Rosie the Riveter? Amelia Earhart?Eleanor Roosevelt? These are all inspiringwomen, and there are more, lots more, buthowever you add it up, there aren't enough.Those are all names from the past. What weneed to consider is the present, or maybe theyear 2000 and the fulfillment of the NationalEducation Goals. What we need is more hero-ines, role models for girls, all girls, but espe-cially gifted girls.

In her a rticle in this issue, Kate Noble quotesa study which says "no child will choose acareer that she does not know about or cannotidentify with," and this is the crucial issue.How can gifted girls and women fulfill theirpotential when they meet, read about, see ontelevision so few women in roles of leadership,so few women being admired nationally (orinternationally) for exceptional contributions?The figures are too well known to need repeat-ing- the still dismally low percentage of womenin government, on university faculties, in medi-cine and law, in public school administration,the areas where policy is made and ideas turn

into reality. When girls see teachers, but fewprincipals and even fewer superintendents,lots of nurses but still not many doctors, oneSupreme Court justice and thousands of para-legals, they have an overwhelmingly difficulttime envisioning themselves in anything butless significant roles.

Our mission is clear. We must providegifted girls with heroines to admire and towhose achievements they can aspire. We mustfind all the heroines we can, the women whoare in positions of leadership right now, andwe must put them in touch with the upcominggeneration of girls. We have to find ways towrite about them in publications, see that theirachievements and positions are aired on televi-sion, convince them that coming to schools andtalking to classes (the boys need to hear thistoo) is worth their time. We n' I to put pres-sure on television and the film industry toshow women in serious positions of authorityand competence.

Teachers have a significant role to play inall of this. We've all read the studies suggestingthat boys and girls are treated differently inclass, and we need to look at ourselves in theclassroom and be sure we aren't contributingto this. Above all, we need to encourage girls tofeel they can be successful in math and science,those areas which are so notoriously male domi-nated. If by the year 2000 we want Americanstudents to be "first in the world in science andmathematics achievement," we (and this meansevery teacher who walks through a classroomdoor every day) must make a concerted, defi-nite effort to see that girls are included com-pletely in science and math education startingwith their first day in kindergarten.

Yes, we need heroes. Inner cite' kids needheroes. Disabled kids need heroes. Minoritykids need heroes. Just plain ordinary kids needheroes. And at least half of those heroes needto be heroines!

Page 4 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304

5

September,1992

Nineties men

are finally able

to cry. ...it i5

surely time for

women to stop

playing the

role of the

somewhat

silly,

defenseless

little woman

who may

compete in the

man's world

but who really

belongs in the

kitchen and

the bedroom.

What it Means to be Gifted and a Woman

Being a woman is no easy job, but beingintelligent as well is an even tougher challenge.We have all struggled with the stereotypingand prejudices with which our society has la-beled women in this male-dominated nation.

A recent American Association of Univer-sity Women study states that curriculum com-monly ignores or stereotypes females, that sexbias is found in standardized tests, that thegender gap in science has not declined and maybe increasing, that girls who want to take col-lege math have closed the gap with men in theirfield but are still not pursuing math-relatedcareers in proportion to men. We ask ourselveswhy these facts are still a reality in the nineties.

Celina Miranda, an 11th grade GATE stu-dent at Century High School, recently did astudy on feminism for her hor.ors project.Miranda told us, "Every day brings about anew challenge. I face these challenges withdiligence and strive for successful results. Atthe same time, I must prove to those around methat my gender does not limit my potential asan individual human being." Why does onestill have to prove that being female does notlimit one's ability?

We discussed the question of being giftedand a woman with several girls from our 9thgrade honors English class. One of the moststriking themes to emerge was that many girlswill hide their intelligence around men be-cause they sense that if they are considered"smart" they will scare the men away. Anothertheme that emerged was the fact that girls willreact and defend themselves against blatantsexist remarks but that they will ignore thesexual innuendos with which we are all famil-iar. In fact, women are so used to these subtlesexist remarks that often we don't even noticethem. It is worthwhile to note that these 9thgrade girls could relate this behavior to theirparents' lives and the lives of their parents'peers as well as to their own. One obviousexample of this is that when a woman is moodyit is often attributed to PMS. When a man ismoody, he has had a hard day at work.

by Debra Russell and Nina Alexander

We have all heard stories of teachers whodirect their questions more to the boys and whoseem to favor the male gender. Fortunately, wehave not encountered this problem in our class-rooms. We seem to face the most difficultiesoutside of school. Proving that we are intelli-gent, that we do have ambitions beyond mar-riage and children, is not always an easy task.However, in our GATE classes, the teachers areexceptional. They treat each student with re-spect and as a person, not a gender. The biggestproblem is that being both a woman and giftedplaces one in a real minority situation, a situa-tion that is often uncomfortable because of ourmale-dominated society.

We feel that the media has been the majorproblem in the stereotyping of gifted women.Many movies and most commercials portraywomen as bimbos or sex symbols. If womenare smart or gifted, they are often seen as unat-tractive and even, in some cases, evil. The onlyway to change the image society has createdand that many women have fed by accepting itand by covering up their intelligence is bychanging our way of thinking and forcing themedia to change its stereotyping. After all, inthe nineties men are finally able to cry. Theydon't have to be the macho figure al the time.If this is so, then it is surely time for women tostop playing the role of the somewhat silly,defenseless little woman who may compete inthe man's world but who really belongs in thekitchen and the bedroom. It is time for womento emerge as the intelligent beings they reallyare.

It is surely up to the gifted woman to leadthe way, not in a war against men, but simplyto assert one's right to be an intelligent being aswell as a woman, to force society to accept thefact that intelligent, gifted women are a naturalpart of our society and are here to stay.

Debra Russell and Nina Alexander are GATE studentsat Century High School in Santa Ana, California, and

members of the SAGE Leadership Team.

September,1992 California Association for the Gifted . 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304

b

Page 5

Factors Affecting the Achievement of CulturallyDiverse Gifted Women

In 1921, Lewis Terman of StanfordUniversity began his pioneeringlongitudinal study of 1,528 intel-lectually gifted children bornduring the previous decade.Research on this sample byTerman and his colleagues hasproduced the most comprehen-sive data on the characteristicsof intellectually gifted individu-

als over time. Recent longitudi-nal studies of gifted women and

men born after 1940 (e.g., Subotnik,Karp, and Morgan, 1989) indicate that

the later gifted women have madesignificant gains in educa-

tional attainment andprofessional status ascompared with theTerman women.Unfortunately, nei-

ther the early nor the more recent studies offersignificant insight on gifted women from eth-nically diverse backgrounds. To provide un-derstanding about the lives of ethnically di-verse gifted women, this article presents a syn-thesis of extant literature and derives hypoth-eses concerning factors affecting this group'sachievement. The article begins with a discus-sion of demographic data that substantiate theneed to generate information concerning giftedwomen from diverse backgrounds.

The DataAvailable data on school -age children iden-

tified as gifted indicate that culturally diversegifted children, whether male or female, tendto be underserved (Multifunctional ResourceCenter, 1990; Zappia,1989). Collectively, thesedata suggest that while increasing numbers ofethnic children are being enrolled in pingramsfor the gifted, the number of Hispanics andAfrican-Americans in such programs is less (insome cases by over half) than what would beexpected from their numbers in the generalpopulation.

Few data are available regarding theachievement of ethnically diverse gifted

by Margie K. Kitano and Carol 0. Perkins

women. The underachievement of this groupcan be inferred from separate findings on giftedwomen and the professional attainments ofwomen and ethnically diverse individuals.

Although the incidence of giftedness inboys and girls is equal, the number of malesexceeds the number of females in terms ofadult achievers. As Callahan (1981,1991; Reisand Callahan, 1989) has pointed out, the litera-ture on gifted adults suggests that a substan-tially greater proportion of creative, produc-tive adults are males. One study of 400 histori-cally eminent individuals included only 52women ( Goertzel and Goertzel, 1962). A sub-sequent examination of 300 contemporary in-dividuals of eminence (Goertzel, Goertzel, andGoertzel, 1978) mentioned only 78 women.Nationally, women have increased their shareof doctorates. According to the Chronicle ofHigher Education (Apri125, 1990), women earned36.5% of all doctorates awarded in 1989. How-ever, of American citizens earning doctorates,only 3.6% were African-American, 2.5% His-panic, 2.7% Asian, and 0.4% Native American.

The business sector also reports low par-ticipation of women and ethnically diverseindividuals in management. Morrison andVon Glinow (1990) cited the following statis-tics:

Women represent only 3.6% of board di-rectorships and 1.7% of corporate officershipsin Fortune 500 companies (1988 study), 8.6% inSenior Executive Service levels in the U.S. Gov-ernment (1989 study), and an average of 1.1senior administrator (i.e., dean level or above)per college or university nationwide (1986study).

Regarding ethnically diverse men andwomen, one African-American heads a For-tune 1000 company (1988 study), and in 400 ofthe Fortune 1000 companies, less than 9% of allmanagers were African-American, Hispanic,or Asian (1986 study).

In sum, the literature points to unequalaccess of culturally different children to educa-tional programs for the gifted and unequalaccess of women and ethnically diverse indi-viduals as adults to positions of professional

Page 6 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September,1992

status. Even with the advent of the women'sliberation movement, the proportion of womenholding top positions in business, academia,science, journalism, literature, and the artsvirtually all professional fields continues tobe small. When individuals are both culturallydiverse and female, the obstacles to equal ac-cess compound. Society's loss of the potentialcontributions of gifted women from culturallydiverse backgrounds makes the acquisition ofinformation that will promote their develop-ment critical.

Models of Adult AchievementTheoretical models of adult achievement

that consider structural, institutional, and soci-etal factors in addition to individual and back-ground characteristics, appear most appropri-ate for understanding achievement of cultur-ally diverse gifted women. A synthesis of allo-cation and traditional socialization models isrequired to conceptualize diverse giftedwomen's educational and career attainment.

According to Kerckhoff (1976), the tradi-tional socialization model of status attainmentsuggests that an individual's ability and earlysocio-economic status (SES) explain the ulti-mate level of education achieved, and thatthese three variables explain occupational at-tainment. Mediating socialization process vari-ables include encouragement by significantothers (parents, teachers, peers) and the child'saspirations. Thus, the socialization model at-tributes outcomes to the individual's evolvingpersonal characteristics as shaped by signifi-cant others in his or her environment.

Kerckhoff also describes a competing view,an allocation model of status attainment. Thislatter model minimizes the significance of varia-tions in socialization outcomes, motivation,and skills and instead emphasizes social forcesand structural limitations, such as institutionalcriteria for identifying, selecting, and classify-ing individuals. Allocation models assumethat structural factors (those outside individualcontrol) exert profound influence on the posi-tion one ultimately reaches. Kerckhoff andothers (e.g., Wilson, 1987) argue that the tradi-tional status attainment model, which assumesthat individuals operate in an open opportu-nity system, has less applicability to ethnicallydiverse populations, individuals from low- SESbackgrounds, and women.

Betz and Fitzgerald (1987, p. 143) summa-rized individual, background, educa tional, and

adult lifestyle factors which are generally sup-ported in the empirical literature as enhancingwomen's career achievement. Individual vari-ables are high ability, liberated sex role values,instrumentality, androgynous personality, highself-esteem, and strong academic self-concept.The authors point to having had a workingmother, supportive father, highly educatedparents, female role models, adolescent workexperience, and androgynous upbringing asimportant background variables. Educationalvariables include higher education, continua-tion in mathematics, and girls' schools andwomen's colleges. Late marriage or singlestatus with few or no children constitute adultlifestyle factors facilitative of women's careerachievement.

i3etz and Fitzgerald note that the manner inwhich these factors interact to impact careerdevelopment requires investigation. They con-clude that no satisfactory theory of career de-velopment of women exists. "Given that girlssurr ass boys in school achievement at all lev-els, out lag far behind in ultimate educationaland occupational level attained, an appropri-ate model will have to include barriers towomen's career velopment, both internaland external, that reduce the extent to whichtheir abilities are actualized." One can readilyinfer the absence of a satisfactory theory of thecareer development of gifted women and cultur-ally diverse gifted women. Given the "tripleminority" status of such women and their cul-turally defined socialization experiences, struc-tural and socialization factors must be exam-ined in addition to personal/individual at-tributes.

Factors AffectirgGifted Women's Achievement

Findings of comparative, longitudinal, ret-rospective, and analytic studies on giftedwomen have yielded information consistentwith Betz and Fitzgerald's summary (1987) ofvariables that support women's career achie ve-ment. However, as noted above, few studiesspecifically address diverse gifted women. Onenotable exception is Arnold and Denny's casestudy report (1991) on five African-American(three women and two men) and three Mexi-can-American (all women) 1981 Illinois highschool valedictorians. For the most part, infer-ences must be drawn from available literatureon gifted women and on high-achieving indi-viduals from culturally diverse backgrounds.

California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 7

Table 1

Selected Studies on Factors Affecting Ethnically Diverse Achieving Women (& Men)

ReferenceArnold and Denny (1991)Followup of 8 black andMexican _American sub-jects from study of 1981Illinois high school vale-dictoriansSimoniello (1981) 8 casestudies of high-achievingprofessional Latinas

Factors Affecting Achievement

Personal Background/Socialization Structuralpersistence;determination

strong family ties lead tosense of responsibility tofamily of origin;commitment to commu-nity

economic hardship;support/encouragementfrom college faculty

some assimilation;independence;goal orientation

high parent expectationsfor high school, with lesssupport for higher educ.,especially from fathers;expectations of obedienceto parents; conflict overnontraditional careers

experiences with discrimi-nation;

sexism experienced withinfamily and society

Lane (1973) Retrospectiveanalysis of 22 female andmale African-Americansfrom poverty backgrounds

average 2nd grade IQ;increase of 8 points in 8thgrade while controlsdeclined

married parents bothliving at home duringsubjects' childhoods;high mobility but less thancontrol

questionable validity of IQscores

Allen (1985) 327 femaleand male African-Ameri-can undergraduates at six"white" state universities

3.4 high school GPA; highaspirations; drop in femaleacad. perf. cf. to males;aspiration levels lower forfemales and lower SESsubjects

parents graduated fromhigh school; 25% gradu-ated from college

academic achievementrelated to favorable facultyrelations, high schoolgrades

AdolescentsVanTassel-Baska (1989)Case studies of 15 disad-vantaged gifted adoles-cents, including 8 blackand 1 Asian

high level of school suc-cess; positive attitudestoward school; need forachievement; some externalmotivation; procrastination

high parental aspirations,expectations, and stan-dards for achievement;role of extended family,importance of grand-mother for girls; limitedpeer involvement

importance of teachers andschool

Lee (1984, 1985) 68 blackstudents grades 8-12 in aSE rural school system;identified by school assuccessful academicallyand socially

Fordham (1988) ethno-graphic study of 6 high-achieving black highschool students, 3 male/3female in predominantlyblack school

high achievement motiva-tion; consistent studyhabits; future orientation;high aspirations; highsocial consciousness;religious beliefs; blackpride but low levels ofblack consciousness; selfconfidence; perceiveddifferences from peers

high parental encourage-ment; values of respectingothers and elders, honesty,church; importance ofextended family; domesticresponsibilities;

most indicated no experi-ence with racially relatedproblems in school (pre-dominantly black system)

females showed "un-equivocal commitment tovalues and beliefs ofdominant social system";use of "racelessness" as astrategy to cope withambivalence about achiev-ing.

raceless persona valued byschool

Page 8 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September, 1992

Interestingly, even the li tera ture on high achiev-ers among some ethnic groups is sparse, per-haps due to adoption of theoretical models thatpredict underachievement as normative forthese groups (Slaughter-Defoe, Nakagawa,Takanishi, and Johnson, 1990).

Table 1 summarizes findings of studiesthat illuminate factors af fecting the perfmnanceof high-achieving adn!ts and adolescents fromculturally diverse backgrounds. Consistentwith the model of contributing factors describedabove, we have organized the findings as per-sonal characteristics, socialization and otherbackground influences, and structural factors.

Factors Affecting the Achievement ofGifted Women of Color

Hypotheses regarding factors affecting theachievement of ethnically diverse giftedwomen can be derived from the foregoing

literature. Table 2 presents (a) factors foundby Betz and Fitzgerald (1987) to enhance thecare_ r achievement of women in general; (b)additional factors inferred from the literatureas supporting the achievement of ethnicallydiverse gifted women; (c) barriers found forgifted women in general; and (d) additionalbarriers that might be hypothesized forgifted women of color based on the literaturereviewed.

If verified, these hypotheses may haveimplications for teachers, parents, and coun-selors regarding early recognition andacknowledgement of the potential of culturallydiverse gifted girls; early support of ethnic andpersonal pride; identification of supportive peergroups; strategies for recognizing and respond-ing to harassment, and sexual and racial dis-crimination; strategies for obtaining financialassistance; strategies for finding peers and ob-

Table 2

Factors Affecting Women's Career AchievementReference Individual Background Education Adult Lifestyle

late marriagefew or no children

Struc....ralSupported inempirical literatureas enhancingwomen's careerachievementBetz andFitzgerald (1987)

high abilityliberated sex-rolevalues

instrumentalityandrogynous

personalityhigh self-esteemstrong academic

self-concept

working mothersupportive dadhighly educated

parentsfemale role modelsadolescent work

experienceandrogynous

upbringing

higher educationcontinuation in

mathematicsgirls' schools/

women's colleges

Additionalsupportive factorshypothesized forethnically diversegifted women

biculturalismresiliencedeterminationpersistenceassertivenessracelessness

at least one support-ive parent

early identificationearly affirmationadult supportearly recognition of

racial differencesdevelopment of

ethnic prideiiteracy environment

enriched K-12schooling

supportiveteachers

supportive spouse financial assistancecivil rightswomen's rightsaffirmative action

Barriers for giftedwomen identifiedin the literature

fear of failurefear of successimposter phenom-

enon

(Card, et al, in Kerr, 1985: SES had littleeffect on bright women's realization ofachievement potential)

integratingpersonal/professional lives

affiliation priori-ties

sexismothers feeling

threatened

Additionalhypothesizedbarriers forethnically diversegifted women

perceived diffs.from peers

peer pressuredeclining aspira-

tionsnonassertiveness

economic hardship isolation sense of responsi-bility to family/community

racismdefinitions of merit

September,1992 California Assoc-ition for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Strut Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 9

Margie Kitano is with theCollege of Education, San

Diego State Universitya .1 Carol 0. Perkins is

with the Women'sStudies Program at

Stephens College,Columbia, MO.

taining peer support; strategies for findingmentors and obtaining mentor support; andstrategies for coping with role conflicts relatedto family /community /profession, structuraland personal definitions of success, and cul-tural maintenance and assimilation.

Next StepsFurther research is required to investigate

the factors hypothesized from the literature asinfluencing the achievement of gifted womenfrom diverse backgrounds. The authors cur-rently are directing a research project fundedby the Women's Educational Equity Act toempirically identify factors that support orimpede the development of gifted women fromethnically diverse backgrounds and to developand disseminate recommendations for schoolpersonnel and parents for supporting theachievement of gifted ethnic girls. The methodfor investigation is a retrospective analysis offactors based on interviews of sixty prominentAfrican - American, Asian- American, Hispanic,and Anglo women in the fields of higher edu-cation, business/industry, and government/law. Based on the findings, recommendationsfor supporting the needs of culturally diversegifted girls will be developed.

ReferencesAllen, W.R. (1985) Black student, white campus:

Structural, interpersonal, and psychological cor-relates of success. Journal of Negro Education,54(2), 134-147.

Arnold, K.D., and Denny, T. (April, 1991) Thefulfillment of early promise in academically tal-ented African-American and Hispanic students.Paper presented at the American EducationalResearch Association Annual Meeting, Chicago.

Betz, N.E., and Fitzgerald, L.F. (1987) The careerpsychology of women. Orlando, Florida: AcademicPress, Inc.

Callahan, C.M. (1981) The gifted girl: An anomaly?In W.B.Barbee and J.S. Renzulli (Eds.), Psychologyand education of the gifted (pp. 498-510). New York:Irvington.

Callahan, C.M. (1991) An updateon gifted females.Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14(3), 284-311.

Fordham, D. (1988) Racelessness as a factor in blackstudents' school success: Pragmatic strategy orPyrrhic victory? Harvard Education Review, 58(1),54-84.

Goertzel, M., Goertzel, V., and Goertzel, T.G. (1978)Three hundred eminent personalities. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Goertzel, V., and Goertzel, M.G. (1962) Cradles ofeminence. Boston: Little, Brown.

Kerckhoff, A.C. (1976) The status attainment pro-cess: Socialization or allocatiol? Social Forces,55(2), 368-381).

Lane, E.A. (1973) Childhood characteristics of blackcollege graduates reared in poverty. Developmen-tal Psychology, 8(1), 42-45.

Lee, C.C. (1984) An investigation of psychosocialvariables related to academic success for ruralblack adolescents. Journal of Negro Education,53(4), 424-434.

Lee, C.C. (1985) Successful rural black adolescents:A psychosocial profile. Adolescence, 20(77), 129-142.

Morrison, A.M. and Von Glinow, M.A. (1990).Women and minorities in management. Ameri-can Psychologist, 45(2), 200-208.

Multifunctional Resource Center, San Diego StateUniversity (1990). Status of the LEP student ingifted and talented education. Staff ExchangePresentation, San Joaquin County Office of Edu-cation, May 24.

Reis, S.M. and Callahan, C.M. (1989) Gifted females:They've come a long way or have they? Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 12(2), 99-117. (Ex-cerpted article appears in this issue of the Com-municator.)

Simoniello, K. (1981). On investigating the attitudestoward achievement and success in eight profes-sional U.S. Mexican women. AZTLAN: Interna-tional Journal of Chicano Studies, 12(1), 121-137.

Slaughter-Defoe, D.T., Nakagawa, K., Takanishi, R.,and Johnson, D.J. (1990). Toward cultural/ecological perspectives on schooling and achieve-ment in African- and Asian-American children.Child Development, 61(2), 363-383.

Subotnik, R., Karp, D., and Morgan, E. (1989) HighIQ children at midlife: An investigation into thegeneralization of Terman's genetic studies ofgenius. Roeper Review, 11(3), 139-144.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1989). The role of the family inthe success of disadvantaged gifted learners. Jour-nal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(1), 22-36.

Wilson, K.R. (1987). Explaining the educationalattainment of young black adults: Critical famil-ial and extra-familial influences. Journal of NegroEducation, 56(1), 64-76.

Zappia, I.A. (1989). Identification of gifted Hispanicstudents: A multi-dimensional view. In C.J.Maker and S.W. Schiever (Eds.). Critical issues ingifted education (Vo1.11, pp. 19-26). Austin, Texas:PRO-ED.

Page 10 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304

11

September,1992

This article comprisesselections from an article

which appeared in theJournal for the Education

of the Gifted, Vol. XII,No. 2, 1989, pp. 99-117.

Gifted Females: They've Come a Long WayOr Have They?

Headlines in a recent weekly news magazineproclaim that the gender gap on test scores isshrinking. "The notion that boys best theirsisters in mathematics and that girls excel inlanguage skills is a powerful stereotype andone that has seemingly been confirmed byresults on standardized tests. But like so muchof conventional wisdom, those notions maysoon have to be abandoned" (Begly, 1988, p.73). Education Week (1988) reported on theresearch of Linn and Hyde, who concludedthat sex differences in verbal ability were in-substantial. The Detroit Free Press (Flanigan,1988) and other periodicals (Zigli, 1985) havefocused on the successes and barriers to suc-cess faced by professional women.

More attention has been given to the issuesrelating to the potential and achievements ofgifted females in the last five years than in theprevious four or five decades. This attentionhas not been limited to the education of thegifted. Articles on this specific topic and manyrelated issues have appeared in popular dailynewspapers, monthly magazines, and profes-sional journals in other areas of education. Inaddition, a considerable body of literature ongender differences and the meanings of previ-ously accepted definitions of terms, acceptableapproaches to the study of gender differencesand the meaning of prior findings has evolvedin the psychology literature.

One might expect educators involved inworking on behalf of gifted females to bepleased by the attention of the popular pressand by findings such as those of Linn andHyd e, and Feingold (1988) which suggest fewerdiscrepancies between standardized test scoresof males and females. However, before webecome overly enthusiastic about these devel-opments, it is important to look closely at thereal implications and potential dangers of thisattention. In fact, Chipman (.1988) has notedthat "the subject of sex differences in behaviorand intellectual potential is far too sexy a topic,of much more interest than it should be," re-sulting in the reporting of any research regard-less of the quality of the research or the realsignificance of results. Further, the reporting

by Sally M. Reis and Carolyn M. Callahan

of even miniscule sex differences in cognitivefunctioning and personality often results in thetranslation of these results into categorical as-sumptions about individuals which belie thebroad variation within each sex.

Second, the reports of such data as a shrink-ing of the gap between male and female scoreson standardized tests may lead to unwarrantedcomplacency. Take, for example, the currentreports of research by Feingold (1988). Usingthe norms from the four standardizations ofthe Differential Aptitude Tests given between1947 and 1980 and from the Preliminary Scho-lastic Aptitude Test, and the Scholastic Apti-tude Tests given between1970 and 1983, heexamined patterns of differences. He foundthat on tests of language, spelling, and clericalskills, girls still outperform boys by a smallmargin. Boys outperform girls on measures ofspatial visualiz 'tion, high school mathematics,and mechanical aptitude. In addition, accord-ing to this research, gender differences, exceptat the upper levels of performance in highschool mathematics, have "declined precipi-tously over the years surveyed, and the in-creases in these differences [in high schoolmathematics] over the high school grades havediminished" (p. 95). Feingold found no genderdifferences on tests of verbal reasoning, arith-metic, and figural reasoning.

While some educators may consider thisgood news, a more careful analysis is neces-sary. Certainly, it is encouraging that overalldifferences are decreasing. Yet, early researchby Terman included findings on the giftedpopulation which were very similar to thosewhich Feingold reports on the general populz-tion. In 1925, Terman stated, "There are onlysmall sex differences in the subject-matterachievement of these gifted children, althoughthe boys of 9 years and above are somewhatsuperior to the girls in arithmetic, while thegirls of 10 and above are slightly superior toboys in language usage" (Terman and Oden,1925, p. 293). But what happened to thesefemales who were slightly superior to boys inlanguage usage and especially those femaleswho were deemed the most talented writers in

September, 1992 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 11

the sample? When the Terman sample wasexamined in adulthood, nearly all the eminentwriters were men. Only 48% of the giftedwomen in his longitudinal study were em-ployed full-time in 1940, and 30.8% of thatgroup were working as secretarial and clericalhelp ( Terman and Oden, 1947). Fifteen yearslater, in 1955, half of the women were stillhousewives and only 42% held full-time jobs.Although such results are not unexpected giventhe times in which these women made college,career, and life decisions, it is evident thatequal ability and achievement do not guaran-tee equal opportunity to achieve success andsatisfaction wit r# career choice.

Similarly, research over the past severaldecades has consistently demonstrated thatfemales received higher grades than malesthroughout elementary school, high school,and college (Achenback, 1970; Coleman, 1951;and Davis, 9164). If grades attained by femaleshave been consistently higher and if the gendergap between standardized test scores has beenminimal in the past and continues to close, wemight reasonably expect to see the performancegaps in careers, professional accomplishments,and consequent financial benefits also closing.This is simply not the case. Although nownearly half of the work force in the country isfemale and advertisements, television shows,and statistics of women entering graduateschool all seem to indicate that females havecome a long way since the 1950's, a more care-ful analysis of current statistics indicates thatthe struggle for equity has far to go. Why, forexample, are less than 2% of American paten-tees women (Axelrod, 1988)? Why, when over51% of the population of high school studentsare female and when Feingold (1938) demon-strates a disappearance of gender differenceson the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Tests,are just 36% of this year's National Merit semi-finalists female (Ordovensky, 19S8)? Why arethere only two females in the United StatesSenate, one female on the Supreme Court, andone female cabinet member? Why do womenconstitute less than 5% of the House of Repre-sentatives, own only 7% of all businesses in thiscountry, constitute less than 2% of all schoolsuperintendents, 9% of all college and univer-sity presidents, comprise only 10% of all fullprofessors at the college level, occupy only 5%of the executive positions of power in Ameri-can corporations, hold none of the leadingpositions in the top five orchestras in the United

States (including concertmaster, principal cello,bass or viola, oboe, clarinet, horn, trumpet,trombone, tuba, bass or percussion); representonly 4% of engineers, 13% of lawyers, 13% ofdoctors and 7% of architects? (Schaffer, 1986)Not only do women not achieve the level ofrecognition we might expect, but we also findthat the fully employed woman who has gradu-ated from college will earn, on the average, thesame amount as a fully employed man withonly a high school diploma (U.S. Bureau of theCensus, 1985).

Of course, there are those who raise theconcern that female accomplishmentbe mea-sured not only in terms of career and profes-sional success. As early as 1955 Melita Odennoted that:

There are many intangible kinds of accom-plishment and success open to the housewife,and it is debatable whether the fact that amajority of gifted women prefer housewiferyto more intellectual pursuits represents a netwaste of brainpower. Although it is possibleby means of rating scales to measure with fairaccuracy the achievement of a scientist or aprofessional or a businessman, no one has yetdevised a way to measure the contribution of awoman who makes her marriage a success,inspires her husband, and sends forth well-trained children into the world. (Terman andOden, 1959, p. 145).There are many problems with simply as-

suming that gifted women really do prefer thetraditional role of homemaker. The world hasbecome a very different place for women. Al-though the contributions made by women inthe role of wife and mother must not be deni-grated, we must face some of the realities.Women now make up more than half of thework force; some by choice, but many becausethey must work to support themselves or theirfamilies. Yet it is clear from the above statisticsthat bright women are clearly adult under-achievers.

The underachievement of adult women,then, is a totally different concept from theunderachievement of younger women, for itdefies measurement by the grades one achievesin school. We might consider it in comparisonwith male standards of profession, status, ca-reer-related accomplishments, satisfaction, andproductivity, or it may be that we have toreexamine the concept of underachievement ofbright women who do not achieve similar pro-

Page 12 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304

13

September, 1992

fessional accomplishments as their male coun-terparts (Reis, 1987, p.184).

Evidence suggests that there is no reasonthat "successful professional" and "wife andmother" must be mutually exclusive catego-ries. A recent study of marriage, motherhood,and research performance in science indicatesthat married women with children publish asmuch as their single colleagues do (Cole andZucker-man,1987). Many bright women choosealternatives other than homemaking or incombination with marriage and family, andmany more will be for :ed to enter the world ofwork in the future. If we believe that eachindividual should have both the opportunityto develop full potential and to make choicesabout how best to achieve personal fulfillment,then we must seek better understanding of,and programs for, gifted females.

All of this suggests a reconsideration ofwhat we must consider in creating a researchagenda and in interpreting the finds on sex andgender differences (or nondifferences) as weplan curriculum and programs for the gifted.Among the first issues we must consider is theimportance of sex differences and the impor-tance of gender differences, and be very clearon the distinctions between the two. We definesex differences are those differences generallyattributed to a biological basis; gender differ-ences are a result of socially attributed catego-rizations. Our interpretations of the sources ofsex or gender differences, the size and importof differences, and the degree to which thesedifferences lead to differential performance arealso of crucial importance. Some considerationof the potential bias in our research and prac-tices based on the historical domination of menin the fields of psychology and education -particularly in academia - is also important.

What Does Current Analysis Tell Us Of theDifferences Between Males and Females?

Hyde and Linn (1986) brought together aseries of meta-analyses of studies relating tothe psychology of gender differences. Themeta-analysis of data relating to causal attribu-tions of success and fail ure contrad ict the widelyheld beliefs about sex differences in attribu-tion. Whitley, McHugh, and Freize (1986) con-cluded that the achievement attributions ofmales and females are very similar and, notingthat the mean effect size was less than .2 stan-dard deviations, concluded that those smallsignificant differences which were found are

really quite meaningless. They further con-cluded that men are a bit more likely to at-tribute both success and failure to ability.Becker's (1986) meta-analysis of the dimensionof susceptibility to influence led her to theconclusion that differences in influencibilitywere of very small magnitude.

Linn and Peterson (1986) examined under-lying differences to explain the undisputed sexdifferences in occupational choicethe lowerrepresentation of women in mathematical, sci-entific, and technical occupations. First theypoint out that spatial ability has been the "cog-nitive ability of choice" among those trying toexplain these sex differences, despite the lackof evidence that spatial ability independent ofgeneral ability is related to science or mathachievement. Then they note that spatial abil-ity is not, in fact, a unitary concept and pointout that the definition and type of instrumentused has great influence on whether or not sexdifferences are identified. Finally, they con-clude that on traditional tests normally thoughtto measure spatial ability very small sex differ-ences are found; that larger differences arefound on a task calling for mental rotation ofblock forms. Yet, they argue that even thosefindings do not warrant conclusions that spa-tial abilities account for differences in adultachievements in mathematics and science.

Chipman (1981) in her review of thesestudies of sex and gender differences suggeststhat the important issues are no longer whetheror not there are sex differences. Pointing outthe infrequency with which these differencesare identified, the relative lack of predictabilityfrom those that are identified (estimates ofvariability in adult achievement accounted forby these statistically significant abilities rangedfrom a low of 1% to a high of 5% (Hyde, 1981),she suggests that research needs to be reorientedtoward potentially more productive questions.

The focus of research in these areas nowneeds to address factors that mediate genderdifferences in achievement and variables whichcan be manipulated in the environment in or-der to ensure that females' development is notinhibited and choices are not foreclosed. Fur-her, the time has come to examine the indi-

vidual differences within girls to determinethose characteristics likely to be influenced bythe environment and those experiences andconditions conducive to full development ofpotential.

5cotemner.1 992 Cali forma Association for the Gifted . 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 13

1 4.

More Promising Research DirectionsAlthough research related to gifted females

is more prevalent than it was a decade ago, it isnot necessarily aimed at answering the ques-tions raised above. We must recognize that"underlying the problems of achievement andmotivation of gifted and talented females liehypotheses yet to be tested and perhapsuntestable in the experimental tradition"(Callahan, 1979, p. 412). Even though we can-not expect to control environments in whichchildren are raised nor can we expect to radi-cally alter our society within the next few years,there are means through which many of thesequestions have and can be addressed.

For example, in considering the differencesin interest in math and science, Eccles (1987)points out that it is more profitable and impor-tant to look at internal comparisons made bygirls as they engage in decision-making ratherthan comparing boys to girls. She points outthat, after all, when we make decisions we askourselves what we are better at doing and whatwe value rather than asking if we are betterthan others or value something more than oth-ers. Accordingly, she examined the degree towhich young women felt they were more orless capable in math and English over time andthe degree to which they valued these disci-plines. Eccles notes that it is not sufficient tosimply describe these differences. We mustalso look for factors which may influence thesedifferences and distinguish females who chooseto continue to select math and science coursesand careers from those who do not.

Asking the question, "What goes on inmath and science classes which may affect theconfidence of these girls and their values," shedraws several conclusions from the extant lit-erature on math and science teachers who havebeen successful in keeping females interestedin mathematics and science. She notes a pat-tern of conditions which distinguish these class-rooms:

frequent use of cooperative learning oppor-tunities,frequent individualized learning opportu-nities,use of practical problem in assignments,frequent use of hands-on opportunities,active career and educational guidance,infrequent use of competitive motivationalstrategies,frequent activities oriented toward broad-ening views of mathematics and physical

sciences presenting mathematics as a toolin solving problems,frequent use of strategies to ensure full classparticipation.As she points out, these factors counteract

out-of-classroom pressures and influences onfemales. She further suggests other aspects ofour society that seem to influence the differen-tial achievement of males and females. Shesupports the need to examine these factors andto develop means to counteract the effects.

For example, strong stereotypes exist inour society regarding natural talent and whohas it. Achievement in math and science aremore often linked to innate abilities than isachievement in any other disciplines. Further,our culture subscribes to an assumption thatmales are more likely to have those innateabilities. In other cultures, success in math andscience are attributed to degree of effort putforth. Failure is attributed to lack of effortrather than lack of ability. Exploring this pos-sible ethnic difference, Brandon, Newton, andHammond (1987) examined mathematicsachievement across four ethnic groups infour grades in Hawaii. Not only did they findthat high-achieving girls outperformed high-achieving boys, with these differences increas-ing across grades; they found that the sex dif-ferences favoring girls among Caucasian stu-dents to be less than those among Japanese-American, Filipino-American, and Hawaiianstudents. The authors of the study concludethat "the cultural factors accounting for superi-ority of Caucasian boys over Caucasian girls inmainland United States might be influencingCaucasians in Hawaii" (p. 458). They furthersuggest that the data strongly support the con-sideration of the socio-cultural factor in anystudy of sex differences in mathematics achieve-ment. This also suggests many socio-culturalfactors which must be considered in designingstudies to identify influences which impedefemale achievement and effective strategies forcountering those influences.

Another factor identified by Eccles and hercolleagues is parental expectations. Parsons etal (1982) conducted a study of the effect thatparental beliefs and expectations have on theirchildren. First, the sex of the child had a signifi-cant effect on the parents' assessments of thechild's ability in mathematics. Although theboys and girls had performed equally well inmath the previous year, as well as on a recentmath test, parents of daughters believed their

Page 14 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoorbont Street . Canoga Park, CA 91304 September, 1992

15

daughters had to exert more effort to do well inmath than did the parents of sons. Perhapsmore significant is the finding that thechildren's beliefs about their abilities in mathwere more strongly influenced by their par-ents' expectations than by their own past per-formance.

Eccles reported, in 1984, that even whengirls and boys were both earning A's in mathand English, girls were considered by theirparents to be better in English and boys to bebetter in math. Even when girls had highergrades, higher standardized test scores, andhigher teacher ratings in math, parents be-lieved that math was harder for girls than forboys. In 1986 she found that parents ratedadvanced math courses as less important andEnglish and history as more important for theirdaughters than for their sons. In addition,these young girls had lower confidence in theirmath abilities than in their English abilitiesand, as we might expect, lower expectations forfuture success in math.

Further, building on the findings that ca-reer choices are based on stereotypes of occu-pations, values attached to occupations, andperceptions of the degree to which ability andeffort relate to success in the field, she foundthat young women attributed success in tradi-tionally female careers as due to ability andsuccess in male-stereotyped occupations as at-tributable to hard work and luck, with maleoccupations perceived as considerably moredifficult. Women who did choose to entermale-dominated fields attributed success inthose fields to ability and other stable, internalcharacteristics. These women also rated thevalue of math higher than did those who choseother occupations. Farmer (1985) also studiedthe aspirations and motivation of youngwomen and found that high aspiration is in-fluenced most by perceived support forwomen working in the field and by teachersupport. She also found the effect of environ-ment was much stronger for females thanmales. These research avenues begin to sug-gest patterns for understanding differences inadult achievement and means of addressingthose differences.

Subotnik (1988) has also completed researchon science and math achievement. In an exami-nation of the attitudinal variables characteriz-ing students who have achieved success inscience (146 winners of the 1983 WestinghouseTalent Search), she found that female subjects

"...reported more concern with social impactsof scientific research, less variability in theirself-image as a scientist, and a tendency toattribute success to hard work and dedicationrather than intelligence or creativity than didmale subjects..." (p. 19). The relationships be-tween these perceptions, the perceptions ofthose who ultimately enter and succeed inthese fields, and the factors that mediate thatsuccess are still unanswered research ques-tions.

Another line of research on the kinds ofenvironmental conditions that influenceachievement questioned the biological or in-nate ability explanations for sex differences inmathematical performance of the SAT (Pallasand Alexander, 1983). Increasing the numberof courses taken by females in advanced mathcourses related to decreased differences in theperformance of males and females on the SAT,suggesting that experience and socializationhave an impact on this performance and a needfor research on those factors which can becontrolled by the school experience.

To some degree this issue has been ad-dressed. We have seen an increase in thenumber of mathematics and science coursestaken by females at the high school level. How-ever, there is a danger of regarding this asindication of changes which may or may nothave occurred. That is, there is a danger thatincreased enrollment in mathematics and sci-ence will give us a false sense that fundamentalvalues, attitudes, and achievement aspirationsare really changing, when what we really areobserving is an artifact of increased require-ments for graduation resulting from the educa-tional reform movement. In other words, datathat indicates that females are enrolling inmorehigh school math and science courses may betrue, but misleading and falsely encouraginginformation.

Increased course enrollment may reflectnothing more than state and local requirementsfor earning honors or academic or other specialdiplomas. It is certainly encouraging to hy-pothesize that a full spectrum of course-takingin ma thema tics and science courses will counterthe trend of sex stereotyping and lessen thechance that females will restrict future optionsthrough failure to take these courses. But thefundamental question remains unanswered.Have these young women developed interests,values, skills, and attitudes (toward their ownabilities and toward these disciplines) that are

September, 1992 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 15

1 6

likely to result in the continued pursuit ofcourses and careers in mathematics and sci-ence? Are parents, teachers, and counselorstruly encouraging the additional course-tak-ing with a clear message that such courses areimportant and that young women can be suc-cessful in these classes which form the basis forcontinued pursuit of math- and science-relatedcareers? Or is the message one of, "Just takethis math and you will get a governor's di-ploma," or, "You need to take this to get intothe right college, but then you will never haveto take another course like this," or, "Don'tworry, you don't really need this course in thefuture. It's just a high school requirement."

Not only are the patterns of math andscience course-taking and attitudes towardthese subjects crucial for the rest of this decadeand the next, but the emerging use of comput-ers as an essential tool in nearly all disciplinesmakes the study of the impact of instructionand media on females another area of criticalconcern. Sanders and Stone (1986) report thatmales outnumber females 3 to 1 in computercamps and the seic difference is even greater inthe more expensive camps, suggesting thatparents are willing to spend more on males.The Washington Post (1986) reported that thecomputer industry estimates that women pur-chase fewer that 10% of personal computersand PC World reported that more than 80% ofsubscribers are male. The Post also reportedthat an executive of a major computer com-pany reported that 98% of their market is maleand said, "We do not feel that women repre-sent any great untapped market."

A third essential type of research which isneeded is longitudinal studies of gifted fe-males. Of particular importance is the need toidentify those critical times at which variousblocks to achievement are likely to occur,means of identifying those influenced by thosebarriers, and the short- and long-term impactof intervention programs.

An excellent example of this type of re-search is being completed by Arnold andDenny (1985) who are now in the seventh yearof a study of male and female high schoolvaledictorians and salutatorians. Emerginggender differences caused them to hypothesizethat society may be losing the talent of some ofour brightest young women. They discoveredwomen's estimates of their intelligence lower-ing between high school and their sophomoreyear in college as compared to their male coun-

terparts. These women also had lower careeraspirations and less ambitious goals as sopho-mores than when they graduated from highschool. This finding is consistent with previousresearch demonstrating an increased incidenceof underachievement for bright females in col-lege and after the completion of education(Bayley and Oden, 1955; Maccoby and Jacklin,1974). This phenomenon, coupled with find-ings that female career aspirations were mov-ing away from medicine, has led them to ex-plore the effects of concerns raised about merg-ing family and career on overall career aspira-tions.

Other longitudinal research conducted onfemales who participate in a gifted program inwhich counseling and other interventions (fe-male role models and an infusion into the cur-riculum of female accomplishments in a vari-ety of areas) are provided from elementarythrough high school is in progress (Reis, inpress). Results from this research suggest thatfemale participation in advanced mathematicsand science classes can be successfully in-creased through such intervention. It furtherdocuments that the products completed bymales and females across grade levels do notdiffer significantly in quality and that equiva-lent numbers of males and females initiate ad-vanced-level work when given the opportu-nity (Reis, 1981).

Final WordsIn considering the research that still needs

to be done, we must begin to frame that workwithin the context of a sound theoretical frame-work of development of gifted women. Thestudy of abilities, attitudes, and values withoutany theoretical framework or empirical evi-dence of the relationship between those differ-ences and achievement must be avoid.2d. Forexample, of what value is the discovery of sexdifferences in an ability, such as mental rota-tion ability, when we do not understand thesignificance of that ability in mathematics learn-ing? Further, our research should be designedto allow for maximum understanding of theprocesses of learning and development in or-der that all individuals have the maximumchoice in career and life decisions. This re-search on learning and development of giftedfemales should provide direction for translat-ing theory into practice in appropriate educa-tional strategies to enable these young peopleto realize their potential.

Page 16 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September, 1992

Most important, we must not al-low the findings of sex or gender dif-ferences to lull us into categorizationor stereotyping of any individual. Tofind that males and females differ on avariable as a group is not a basis toassume that all males share more orless of a given characteristic, while allfemales are on the opposite end of thecontinuum on that same characteris-tic.

ReferencesAchenbach, T. (1970) Standardization

of a research instrument for identi-fying associative responding in chil-dren. Developmental Psychology, 2,283-291.

Arnold, K. and Denny, T. (1985). Thelives of academic achievers: Thecareer aspirations of male and fe-male high school valedictorians andsalutatorians. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association,Chicago, Illinois.

Axelrod, T. (1988). Patently success-ful. Ms., XVI(10), 44-45.

Bayley, N. and Oden, M. (1955). Themaintenance of intellectual abilityin gifted adults. Journal of Gerontol-ogy, 10, 91-107.

Becker, B. (1986). Influence again: Anexamination of reviews and studiesof gender differences in social influ-ence. In J. Hyde, and M. Linn (Eds.),The psychology of gender: Advil, .-esthrough meta-analysis. Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins

Begley, S. (1988, Apri111). Closing thegender gap. Newsweek, 73.

Brandon, P., Newton, B., andHammond, 0., (1987). Children'smathematics achievement in Ha-waii: Sex differences favoring girls.American Educational Research Jour-nal, 24(3), 437-461.

Chipman, S. (1988) Far too sexy atopic. Educational Researcher, 17(3),46-49.

Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent soci-ety. New York: Free Press.

Davis, J. (1964) Great aspirations: Theschool plans of America's college se-niors. Chicago: Aldine.

Eccles, J. (1987) Understanding moti-vation: Achievement beliefs, gen-der roles and changing educationalenvironments. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, NewYork, NY.

Farmer, H. (1985) Model of career andachievement motivation for womenand men. Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 32, 363-390.

Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive genderdifferences are disappearing. Ameri-can Psychologist, 43(2), 95-103.

Flanigan, N. (1988, April 24). Sex andSabotage. Detroit Free Press, pp. Ml,M4-5.

Hyde, J. (1981). How large are cogni-tive gender differences? AmericanPsychologist, 36, 892-901.

Linn, M. and Peterson, A. (1986). Ameta-analysis of gender differencesin spatial ability: Implications formathematics and science achieve-ment. In Hyde and Linn (see above).

Maccoby, E. and Jacklin, C. (1974) Thepsychologyof sex differences. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Ordovensky, P. (1988, April 13). Testbias aids boys in scholarships. LISAToday, 10.

Pallas, A. and Alexander, K. (1983).Sex differences in quantitative SAT

performance: New evidence on thedifferential coursework hypothesis.American Educational Research Jour-nal, 20, 165-182.

Parsons, J., Adler, T., and Kaczala, C.(1982) Socialization of achievementattitudes and beliefs: Parental in-fluences. Child Development, 53(4),310-321.

Reis, S. (1981). An analysis of theproductivity of gifted students par-ticipating in programs using the re-volving doo: identification model.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Reis, S. (1987). We can't change whatwe don't recognize: Understandingthe special needs of gifted females.Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(2), 83-88.

Sanders, J. and Stone, A. (1986) Theneuter computer. New York: Neal-Schuman.

Schrage, M. (1986, December 1). Thestory of my fair (nonpersonal com-puting) lady. Washington Post, p.15(business section).

Subotnik, R. (1988) The motivation toexperiment: A study of gifted ado-lescents' attitudes toward scientificresearch. Journal for the Education ofthe Gifted, 11(3), 19-35.

Terman, L. and Oden, M. (1925). Ge-netic studies of genius: Mental andphysical traits of a thousand gifted chil-dren. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-versity Press.

Whitley, B., McHugh, M., and Freize, I.(1986). Assessing the theoreticalmodels for sex differences in causalattribution of success and failure. InHyde and Linn (see above).

Zigli, B. (1985, April 2). College hurtsself-esteem of bright women. LISAToday, sec. D, p. 1.

Sally M. Reis, Ph.D., is an instructor in theTeaching the Talented Program, School of

Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs,CT 06268.

Carolyn M. Callahan, Ph.D., is a professor ofEducational Studies in the Curry School of

Education, University of Virginia,Charlottesville, VA 22903.

September,1992 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304

Ju

Page 17

This article is excerptedfrom an article whichoriginally appeared in

Girls, Women, andGiftedness (Edited by

Julie L. Ellis and John M.Willinsky). Monroe, New

York: Trillium Press.

Living out the Promise of High Potential:Perceptions of 100 Gifted Women

Many issues are relevant to human growthand development, but the study of the giftedhas special significance. From this populationour cultural, political, educational, and spiri-tual leadership has historically arisen. To date,however, very little attention has been paid tothe emotional and social development of thegifted in general, and of women in particular.We know little about gifted women's psycho-logical development and needs, the uniqueproblems they encounter in their personal andprofessional lives, and the costs to themselvesand society of not having their marked abilitiesrecognized and nurtured.

What little data exist suggest that at theelementary school level, at least one-half of allchildren identified as gifted/talented/highlycapable are girls; by junior high school, lessthan one-fourth are still so identified (Clark,1983; Silverman, 1986). By adulthood, it islikely that the majority of gifted women willsettle for far less than their full potential, whilemost of their male peers will go on to positionsof leadership in education, science, industry,the arts, and other sectors of society (Kerr,1985).

The role of sexism in obscuring the recog-nition and expression of giftedness in womenis irrefutable. Our society has a long-standinghistory of ambivalence toward highly capablewomen, and over time many women internal-ize that ambivalence.

Being female means that even if she getsA's, her career will not be as important as thatof a boy who gets B's. Being female means thatshe is not important, except in her relationshipsto boys and men. Being female also meansbeing given ambivalent messages. Parentsand teachers rarely will tell a girl that she is lessimportant than her brothers and otherboys...The message of her inferiority will becommunicated in more subtle ways: by a lackof concern, by failure to fully nurture her po-tential for growth and development, by notexpecting her to succeed at difficult tasks. Andbecause the messages are mixed, a womanmay feel that her mother's, father's, or teacher'slack of attention to her stems from some spe-

by Kathleen D. Noble

cific failing of her own. Internalizing the voicesof her oppressors, the currents of her feelings ofinferiority and self-hatred run strong and deep(Christ, 1980, p. 15).

Even when women do succeed in takingthemselves seriously, many find that they haveonly a limited range of options through whichto express their abilities. As a culture, weacknowledge and reward only those talentsand abilities that have direct, marketable value,and what has value has largely been deter-mined by and for men. We tend, therefore, todismiss "gifts" that aren't rewarded materiallyor that aren't technologically oriented, and wediscount those that are stereotypically "fe-male" - the ability to love, to understand, toempathize, to be compassionate, to be altruis-tic, to cope, to survive, and to live life withgrace, integrity, and authenticity. Yet, by fail-ing to appreciate the value of these abilities inourselves and others, we perpetuate a misogy-nisticl and constricting conception of gifted-ness.'; This is an important and complex issue,but beyond the scope of this paper. Readers arereferred to Getzels and Dillon (1973) andGilligan (1982) for further elaboration.

Clark (1983, p. 356) questions whether the"secure, self-sufficient, successful, self-actual-izing gifted woman is commonly found in andsupPorted by our society." Certainly socialsupport is generally lacking, but I don't believethe gifted woman is not "commonly found."Rather, I believe that a significant part of theproblem lies in our reluctance or inabilityto recognize giftedness in women, and thatpart !Of the solution lies in teaching women torecognize, accept, and nurture giftedness intheMselves and each other.

This paper will address three primary is-Isues.I First, it will present an overview of the11current literature relating to the psychological,

social, cultural, and cognitive issues confront-ing gifted women as they strive to developtheir potential. Woven into that discussion willbe data gleaned from a 1986 pilot study of thelives of 100 contemporary adult gifted womenresiding in the Pacific Northwest region of theUnited States. Second, it will suggest the kinds

Page 18 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September, 1992

of psychological interventions which wouldenable psychologists and educators to maxi-mize the development and achievement ofhighly capable women. Third, it will posesome research directions which would addsubstantially to our knowledge base. Beforeaddressing these issues, however, a brief de-scription of the subjects and setting of theaforementioned pilot study will be offered.

Women of High Potential:Participant Characteristics

The first "Women of High Potential" con-ference was held at the University of Washing-ton in September, 1986. This conference wasorganized around three primary goals: (a) toprovide a forum within which highly capablewomen from different age groups, ethnic back-ground, occupations, and areas of interestcouldexplore the meaning and impact of giftednessin their lives, (b) to enhance their understand-ing of how giftedness could be nurtured orinhibited in self and others, and (c) to offer anopportunity for participants to inkact withother gifted women for support, mentoring,and the creation of opportunities for personaland professional growth. The conference alsoenabled its organizers to gather informationabout participants' perceptions of the joys andchallenges of their giftedness, and to build aplatform for further research.

Of the 142 women who attended the con-ference, 109 chose to complete a lengthy ques-tionnaire. The questionnaire was designed tocorroborate and amplify current research find-ings by specifically asking participants aboutthe presence in their lives of issues which ap-pear to confront other gifted women (Noble,1987). The questions were posed in the form ofchecklists, Likert-scale response choices, andopen-ended questions from which were de-rived categories for quantitative and qualita-tive analysis.

Who were these women? Their averageage was 39, but respondents ranged from 19 to79 years of age. They were predominantlyCaucasian (93%). Half were married or livingwith a partner, 20% had never married, and20% were divorced. A few of the women werewiuowed, and slightly over half were parents.Most (87%) had graduated from college, al-though only one-third of their mothers andone-fifth of their fathers had done so. Almosttwo-thirds (60%) attended or currently attendgraduate school, and the overwhelming ma-

jority (97%) were working outside the home inprofessional, technical, or managerial positions(77%).

Unfortunately, only a small number ofminority women attended the conference, andmost participants were well-educated and well-employed; thus, our group was not representa-tive of the multicultural urban environment inwhich the conference took place. The confer-ence organizers experienced difficulties inreaching women who are ethnic minorities andthose who are less aware or unaware of theirlevel of ability, such as university secretaries,women in rural communities, culturally/eco-nomically disadvantaged women, and home-makers. Future conferences and researchprojects will attempt to involve more womenfrom underrepresented groups.

It was interesting to the organizers thatapproximately 60% of the respondents hadbeen identified as "gifted," "talented," or"highly capable" at some time in their lives,usually between the ages of 5 and 15. Al-though most (83%) felt they were gifted orpossessed high potential, the rest weren't sure.Yet some of the comments of those who per-ceived themselves as gifted were highly reveal-ing, and I believe poignantly introduce some ofthe issues which confront highly capablewomen:

I have always done well, been at the top of theclass, skipped 6th grade, succeeded in collegeand in my work, but still tend to see mylimitations rather than my 'gifts.' Just lastyear age 41 I realized that I might be verygifted. And it is hard to say that evenanonymously and on paper.

I always knew I was different but didn't labelit until this conference.

I was identified at age 10, but 36 is the age atwhich I seriously took this information andmade it mine.

Issues Confronting GiftedWomen

It is evident that men have been moreprominent and more numerous in areas of highachievement, but they have been so by reasonof differing opportunities rather than differingabilities. In any case, the issue is not the relativesuperiority of men or women, but the neglect oftalent among those of the female population

September, 1992 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 19

who are, in fact, gifted or may be fcund to be so(Getzels and Dillon, 1973, p. 712).

Al though there is a dearth of literaturerelated to giftedness in women, some patternsand trends have been identified and will bediscussed in this section.

Personality CorrelatorsSeveral researchers have found that gifted

women score more like males than women notidentified as gifted on measures of self-con-cept, interests, values, and personality(Callahan, 1980; Mills, 1980; Solano, 1983;Wells, Peltier, and Glickauf-Hughes, 1982).From an early age, they appear to be moreachievement oriented, more interested innontraditional professions, more rebelliousagainst sex role stereotyping, and more reject-ing of outside influences that hinder their de-velopment than are their female peers of lesserability. They also appear to be more androgy-nous, to have higher self-esteem, and to showa great deal of persistence in the face of adver-sity (Blaubergs, 1978; Hollinger, 1983).

The conference data certainly supportedthis sense of persistence. The majority (60%) ofour group, when asked how they coped with avariety of obstacles to the development of theirabilities, described strategies that invoked prob-lem-solving and planning ways out of oraround the obstacles. A minuscule number ofrespondents said they had given up or con-sciously compromised themselves.

The appearance of psychological an-drogyny does not imply that gifted women aremore "masculine" than other women; rather,they seem to combine the characteristics, val-ues, attitudes, feelings, goals, and expectationsof both sexes. For example, like other women,they feel strongly compelled to nurture, caredeeply about relationships and family life, andexperience di f ficul ties placing their own needsabove those of others (Rodenstein and Glickau f-Hughes, 1977; Silverman, 1986).

Again, our data agreed with these find-ings. When asked to elucidate the major sourcesof joy in their lives, 48% described relation-ships with family, 42% described work andpersonal accomplishments, and 41% said theirrelationships with friends were highly signifi-cant. But for more than one-third of our re-spondents, conflicting demands of home andfamily had led to a change in career aspirationsin adulthood and was currently influencingthe development of their potential.

Social PressuresMany studies suggest that, unlike gifted

males and females not identified as gifted,almost all gifted women have found it neces-sary at some time in their lives to hide theirabilities in order to survive socially. Severalfactors contribute to this.

First, cultural ambivalence toward femaleindependence takes its toll on the ranks ofgifted women. The majority of these womenare gradually conditioned by the educationalsystem and by parents to view themselves asless capable than males, and are socialized to bepassive, to avoid taking risks, to hold lowerexpectations for success and to eventually dis-count their own skills and accomplishments(Blaubergs, 1980; Fox, 1981; Hollinger andFleming, 1984; Whitmore, 1980). Further, maleand female teachers appear to like gifted malesbetter, consider them more capable, and nega-tively perceive qualities in gifted females thatthey positively perceive in males, such as ana-lytical skills, originality, and nontraditional ap-proaches to learning and problem-solving(Blaubergs, 1980; Cooley, Chauvin, and Korner,1984; Fox, 1981). One-third of our subjects hadbeen discouraged byboth parents duringchild-hood and adolescence from developing theirabilities, while 20% felt that they were discour-aged by both male and female teachers. One-fourth indicated that they had to change theircareer aspirations as children because of pa-rental disapproval.

Second, the preadolescent peer group tend sto reject a girl who appears to be too smart ortoo successful, and this trend does not appearto reverse itself over time except in certainhighly selective environments such as all-fe-male high schools or colleges (Tidball andKistiakowskv, 1976). Consequently, gifted fe-males often feel they must choose betweendeveloping their abilities and being rejectedsocially or considered "unfeminine" (Callahan,1980; Fox, 1979; Schwartz, 1976). While 75% ofour respondents said they had had to hide theirabilities at some time from both males and otherfemales in order to be accepted, 66% had expe-rienced some kind of social rejection from malesfor being bright. A third of our sample (35%)felt they had been discouraged from develop-ing their potential in adulthood by spouses orpartners, and 25% had changed their careeraspirations because of this disapproval.

Third, gifted females frequently encounterhostility toward their abilities, not only in corn-

Page 20 California Association for the Gifted . 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September, 1992

munities which devalue intellectual gifts inwomen, but also in settings which tacitly sup-port both traditional and non-traditional aspi-rations in women (Fox, 1981; Kirschenbaum,1980; Silverman, 1986). Unfortunately, we donot know how often this hostility takes theform of violence against women. To my knowl-edge, no investigation has yet explored therepresentation of gifted females among popu-lations of sexually, physically, and/or emo-tionally abused women and girls. Yet, asWhitmore (1980) observed, there is a definitetendency among children and adults to punishand reject the person who is different. Suchtreatment will undoubtedly obscure the ex-pression of giftedness in some women andcompromise others' ability to take their giftsseriously and cultivate them assiduously.

Cultural ExpectationsRoeper (1978) observed that the real mile-

stone in the history of the gifted female was theadvent of the women's movement, becausedoors were finally opened to women that hadpreviously been closed. It is true that womenhave made progress over the past twenty years,and that more women ye access to moreeducational and employment opportunitiesthan ever before. But mainstream culturechanges more slowly than many of us wouldwish, and despite these new opportunities,gender-role stereotyping and the strength oftraditional values systems frequently burdengifted women with what has been described byRodenstein, Pfleger, and Colangelo (1977) as aclassic double bind. That is, the traditionalbehavioral expectations for gifted individualsand women are often inconsistent and mutu-ally exclusive. For example, gifted students areusually expected to succeed in traditionallymale-dominated fields such as science, math,law, medicine, and business. Yet gifted fe-males are generally not encouraged and arefrequently discouraged from studying scienceand math, and gender-role stereotyping stillaffects the number of options females perceiveas acceptable and attainable. We found thatover 50% of our respondents were not encour-aged to enter math/science careers, and onlyone-third had been encouraged to take mathand science courses in junior and senior highschool. Further, more than one-third of oursample had changed their career aspirations inchildhood or adolescence because of gender-role socialization, although in adulthood the

conflicting demands of home and family wereperceived as equally damaging to career aspi-rations and the development of potential. Ofcourse, sensitivity to these demands can readilybe viewed as another manifestation of gender-role socialization.

When women do enter nontraditionalfields, as did Barbara McClintoc,:, a brilliantscientist whose life work in cytogenetics isrevolutionizing the field of molecular biology(Keller, 1983), many have no role models, men-tors, support systems, or traditions for dealingwith these new opportunities. Further, womenare still expected to be less intelligent, to earnless and be less educated than their male part-ners, and to interrupt their careers when de-mands of their mates and/or children interfere(Blaubergs, 1980; Cox and Daniel, 1983;Fox, 1983; Higham and Navarre, 1984,Schwartz, 1980).

For some gifted women, the consequencesof dealing with this double bind can be fatal.Russo, Miller, and Vitaliano (1985) estimatethat the rate of suicide and morbidity amongfemale physicians arid medical students, forexample, although similar to that of male phy-sicians, medical students, and males in thegeneral population, is three times that of fe-males in the general population. "They havegreater accessibility to lethal means of sui-cide... females have difficulty integrating theirtraditional roles with those of the physician;they encounter hostility in a traditionally male-oriented environment; and they lack mentorsand support" (p. 118).

Finally, it is important to note that racialdiscrimination was perceived to be a major andcurrent obstacle for all the minority womenwho attended the "Women of Higher Poten-tial" conference, and all these women felt theyhad had to change their career aspirationsthroughout their lives because of it. The factthat knowledge about the particular difficul-ties encountered by gifted women who aremembers of ethnic minority groups is virtuallynonexistent makes it critical that we attend tothis issue in future research efforts.

Cognitive StylesAnother factor contributing to the psycho-

logical discouragement experienced by giftedwomen is lack of self-confidence. Many stud-ies have demonstrated women's tendency tointernalize responsibility for perceived failureor lack of opportunity (Covington and Omelic,

September, 1992 California Association for the Gifted . 23 684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 21

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1979; Dweck and Licht, 1980), while men tendto attribute success to ability, and failure ordisappointment to "chance" or an external fac-tor. Our data support 1 this tendency with50% of our respondents citing lack of self-confidence as the major reason for changingthrir career aspirations throughout their lifecycle, and as the primary obstacle inhibiting thedevelopment of their potential. Certainly re-spondents perceived external factors such asgender discrimination, the demands and/ordisapproval of parents/ teachers/significantothers, economic hardship, and lack of ad-equate training or education as contributing totheir difficulties in cultivating their abilities.But none of these factors approached thestrength of lack of self-confidence as a destruc-tive force in these women's lives.

Gifted women are often handicapped bytheir tendency to view mediocrity in any areaas a loss of self-esteem, and the turning downof an opportunity as a loss of potential andconsequently, a personal failure (Silverman,1986). To corroborate Silverman's observa-tion, we asked our sample to respond to thestatement "I fed that not taking advantage ofevery opportunity is a personal failure" andfound it to be true for almost half (43%) of the109 subjects.

Many gifted women also experience a pro-found sense of inadequacy which frequentlymanifests as an "impostor" mentality, charac-terized by a pervasive anxiety that one's facadeof competence will e,rentually be discovered,resulting in failure and humiliation. Amongour sample, for example, 34% felt they wereless capable than others perceived them to be.Eventually these perceptions will lead to acrippling or paralysis of exceptional ability.The result of struggling with cultural confu-sion about what is and is not appropriate forgifted women can be underachievement, un-deremployment, chronic dissatisfaction withone's life, depression, anxiety, illness, eatingdisorders, perfectionism, isolation, and theexhaustion of the superwoman syndrome.

These issues are certainly alive for mostwomen, but gifted women are affected muchmore powerfully and deleteriously because oftheir "enormousawarenessof the complexitiesand dangers of the world" (Roeper, 1978, p. 7).Although Garmezy and Tellegen (1984) haveargued that intelligence serves as a major pro-tective factor for individuals in coping withadversity and life stressors of varying inten-

sity, gender-role socialization mitigates muchof this protection for gifted women. Excep-tional cognitive ability is frequently accompa-nied by increased capacities for empathy, dif-ferentiated feelings, and relatedness, leadingto an enhanced identification with and respon-siveness to the expectations of others. Whenthese latter include (as they usually do) theneed for women to be dependent, to placeattachment to others above attachment to self,to avoid entering a challenging world and com-peting with men, and to substitute protectionfrom others for realization of potential, it is nowonder that so few women reach maturitywith their giftedness intact.

Directions for Prevention, Inter-vention, and Future Research

Higham and Navarre (1984) and Fox (1981)suggest several factors which are productive ofa high level of adult achievement in all people.These include: (a) a secure emotional base, (b)warm, nurturing parents who encourage ex-ploration, (c) parent and teacher encourage-ment of independent thinking, independentbehavior, and tolerance for change, and (d) rolemodel identification, self-acceptance, earlysuc-cess experiences, and self-confidence. Cer-tainly, many gifted women do not grow up insuch ideal environments. But psychologistsand educators can help to create a climateconducive to the development of superior abil-ity in women by implementing some of thefollowing suggestions:

1. Psychological education must be availableto gifted females from a very early age to helpthem make life-style choices, specifically inregard to career and family. Young giftedwomen particularly need help in dispellingthree self-defeating myths: (a) that a choicebetween having a career and a family is alwaysnecessary, (b) that career and life-style plan-ning is irreversible, and (c) that choosing thesingle life-style will inevitably lead to discon-tent and dissatisfaction with one's life(Rodenstein and Glickauf-Hughes, 1977). Fur-ther, gifted women need to learn that it may notbe possible or desirable to live up to the "super-woman" ethos, and that choosing a life-stylemay involve making some difficult compro-mises and trade-offs.

When we asked the women in our study toidentify the major sources of stress in theirlives, a familiar theme emerged: that of achiev-

Page 22 California Association for the Gifted . 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, C.4 913 04 September,7992

ing balance among work, relationships, andself; of having sufficient time to develop boththe intrapersonaland interpersonal dimensionsof high potential. In addition, for almost 50% ofour sample, family, work, relationships, andleisure provided roughly equivalent sources ofsignificant joy; thus, achieving balance amongall these competing forces is necessary to manyrespondents' sense of well-being.

But most of us experience great difficultyin arriving at such equilibrium. All women areexpected to assume burdens not assumed bymost men, but gifted women often find them-selves acting as pioneers in their personal andprofessional lives. How do we cope with suchan arduous and often lonely task? I believe wemust continually remind ourselves and eachother that the challenges we face are universal,sometimes internal and always external, thatwe must learn to expect less of ourselves interms of taking care of others' needs to thedetriment of our own, and demand more of ourpartners and our society as a matter of course.I also believe we must not support the current"superwoman" ethos, that we must not acceptthe exhaustion of our bodies, minds, and spir-its as the price we must pay for developing andutilizing our gifts.

2. Feminist-oriented psychotherapy to assistgifted women of all ages to develop autonomy,independence, psychological stability, asser-tiveness, self-confidence, positive self-image,self-esteem, and a sense of social competence isvitally important. Gifted women frequentlyneed help in unlearning a fear of creativity,building confidence in and gaining acceptancefor their creative abilities (Schwartz, 1977). Ourstudy further suggests that self-confidence is acrucial dimension to explore, and that psycho-therapy should assist gifted women to per-ceive themselves as gifted, to recognize the tollthat environmental discrimination has takenon their self-confidence, and to externalize fac-tors such as discrimination and socializationrather than internalize them as "lack of abil-ity." In addition, gifted women must under-stand that their perception of their own abilityis an essential dimension to explore becausetheir self-perception is usually much lowerthan their actual level of ability ;Hollinger,1983). We must also keep abreast of research insex differences in order to assist our clients tounderstand the prevalence of attitudes andstereotyping that are detrimental to the fullestexpression of their abilities. As Navarre (1980)

discovered, awareness can greatly reduce thenegative impact of sexism on women's willing-ness to develop and display their gift.

3. Career counseling can assist gifted womenin planning a life-style which allows for theachievement of leadership status within a ca-reer, as well as developing the ability to under-stand and work with multipotentiality (Roden-stein et al, 1977). Gifted women frequentlyhave the ability to be successful in so manyareas and activities that they have difficultychoosing a direction or focus for their lives. Wespecifically asked women in our study whetherthey had felt they had more than one option inchoosing their life work and 83% said they had.More than half of these respondents said it wasvery hard to choose what to do. And 94% feltthey had the ability to succeed in a variety ofareas ranging from academics to engineeringto community organization. Yet many inter-preted their multipotentiality as evidence ofconfusion, indecisiveness, or "being scattered"rather than as strength. Encouragement toreframe multiple interests and skills in a morepositive light is clearly needed.

Secondary school counselors and collegeadvisors should also make a special effort toalert women students to undergraduate andgraduate level scholarship, grant, and fellow-ship information. As one of the respondents inour study exple'ned, "much of the privilege ofhigh potential recognition and developmentlies in the ability to pay for nurturance of thatdevelopment in time, in attention, and ineducation." But for many gifted women, moneyis a barrier to higher education, and "the effectsof socioeconomic status on educational attain-ment are greater for girls than for boys" (Jensenand Hovey, 1982, p. 153).

4. Specific math/science course and careercounseling should be available throughout awoman's elementary and secondary schoolcareer. Gifted females, like their less able peers,are still largely socialized into traditionallyfemale, low-paying occupations. Without ad-equate preparation in math and science, ma^vwill not be able to participate in a socioect.-nomic system that increasingly demands thoseskills (Higham and Navarre, 1984). Access tosuch course work, however, may not be enough.As many investigators have discovered(Blaubergs, 1980; Cooley, Chauvin, and Karnes,1984; Fox, 1981; Rodenstein, Pfleger, andColangelo, 1977), many gifted girls are un-likely to receive sufficient academic prepara-

September,1992 California Association for the Gifted . 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 23

student Art WorkKerry KennedyLos Osos Middle School

a

. ,

"- .

tion or counseling at the K-12 level, becausemany teachers believe male students are inher-ently better at those subjects, and many coun-selors do not perceive careers in scientific ortechnological fields as appropriate for females.

We found that one-third of our sample hadbeen encouraged to consider math or sciencecareers by their junior and senior high schoolteachers, and only one-third were encouragedto take math or science course work duringthose years of study. Given that our respon-dents clustered around the 35 to 43 year-oldage group, we hope that these percentageshave increased substantially for contemporaryadolescent women. Certainly there has beenan explosion in recent years of programs foradolescent women to expand their knowledgeof and interest in scientific and technologicalcareers, and efforts of teachers, counselors,community colleges, and organizations suchas the Association for Women in Science. Theseefforts must continue if gifted girls are not tojeopardize their future options by neglectingadequate preparation in math and science.

5. Role models and mentors are crucial, if forno other reason than that "no child will choosea career that she does not know about or cannotidentify with" (Higham and Navarre, 1984, p.

52). Gifted women are exposed to fewer same-sex role models than are their male counter-

parts in daily life, literature, the arts, and themedia, and sex role stereotyping is still the rulerather than the exception in educational mate-rials. Opportunities to interact with role mod-els and mentors can significantly enhance agifted woman's acceptance of her own abilitiesand career possibilities (Fox and Richmond,1983; Navarre, 1980, Schwartz, 1980).

When we asked our sample to identify themost significant events in their lives in terms ofdeveloping their potential, 60% reported thatsupport and encouragement, principally byteachers and mentors, were the most impor-tant factors. All of us who have come to recog-nize and accept our level of ability must bewilling to serve as role models for our students,clients, friends, daughters, and support staff ifwe sincerely hope to increase the number ofgifted women who dare to develop themselves.

6. Coping in the workplace is another areawhich needs to be addressed by psychologistsand educators, role models, and mentors. Manygifted women have had the experience of work-ing for or under the supervision of individualswho are less bright or competent than they, orfor someone who is threatened by their compe-tence and intelligence. We asked our respon-dents whether they felt that males or females inpositions of authority were threatened bywomen who are bright/competent: 75% be-lieved men were threatened and 75% had expe-rienced this; 59% both thought and experi-enced women to be threatened. Further, al-most half our sample believed they were morecapable than others perceived them to be. Thelong-term effects of underemployment andunderutilization of talent can be devastatingfor all people, but particularly for those whoare gifted. I believe we must strive not only toincrease the availability of challenging oppor-tunities for women, but to help them developthe psychological strength to persevere in theface of centuries-old devaluation of women'sabilities.

7. Psychologists and counselors must be awareof their own expectations, attitudes and behav-iors toward gifted girls and women. We mustremember that we are products of a culturethat has a history of ambivalence toward recog-nizing or addressing the special needs of thegifted. Some of the ambivalence stems from afear of creating a caste system, an intellectualelite who will denigrate others who are lessable. Another part arises from a fear thatrecognizing high potential or ability will place

Page 24 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September, 1992

an individual, especially a child, in a high-pressure situation which might compromiseher or his personal development. But an evenstronger component is the belief that specialattention need not be paid the gifted becausethey will develop satisfactorily and self-suffi-ciently without it. This belief is false. The giftedperson will not succeed against all odds, espe-cially if she is female. In fact, without counsel-ing and educational interventions aimed spe-cifically at the challenge of being both giftedand female, the majority of gifted women willcontinue to disappear (Shakeshaftand Palmieri,1978).

8. Women psychologists and counselors mustalso become more aware of their own abilitiesso that they can better nurture the high abilitiesof their clients (Silverman, in press). Silvermanobserved that "many feminist therapists aregifted women who do not recognize their owngiftedness, and their clientele is frequently com-posed of unrecognized gifted women" (L.K.Silverman, personal communication, Febru-ary, 1987). In our study, 20% of the respon-dents identified therapy or counseling as anavenue of coping for them. We don't knowhow many respondents had ever sought coun-seling or I many of their therapists per-ceived their c, . or their clients' giftedness,but these are questions worthy of investiga-tion. If we fail to see ourselves in the fullness ofour abilities, we cannot see the gifts in othersnor empower them to reach their potential.

9. Psychology training programs must incor-porate specialized course wcrk and trainingopportunities in gifted psychology. As Silver-man (1983, p. 2) observed, "few teachers, coun-selors, psychologists, or even specialists work-ing with the gifted recognize that the giftedhave a unique set of affective needs." Counsel-ing the gifted is a complex activity for whichfew are or will be adequately prepared unlessa body of knowledge based on research isintroduced into psychology preparation pro-grams.

10. The popularity and availability of supportgroups for dealing with a vast array of issuesand challenges attest to their efficacy in help-ing people to manage their lives more effec-tively. For school-aged and adultgifted women,a supportive peer network can provide a meansof exploring changing life roles, values, meth-ods of conflict resolution, and strategies fordealing with situations that arise from sex rolestereotyping (Navarre, 1980). According to

Blaubergs (1980), the problem is pervasive butremediable. "Many parents, teachers, and coun-selors of the gifted continue to reflect attitudesand sex stereotypes that are detrimental to theexpression of the abilities of gifted girls. Anunderstanding of the prevalence of such atti-tudes and an awareness that they do not reflecta necessary reality, or often any reality at all,can help to remove this barrier to the giftedgirl's achievement."

11. Family counseling and parent educationprograms are necessary, since families tend tounderestimate or ignore the abilities of gifteddaughters. One-third of our sample said theyhad been discouraged by both parents duringtheir formative childhood and adole 3cent years,although the majority said they had been en-couraged by their mothers (70%) and/or fa-thers (59%). Many respondents, however,qualified these statements by telling us thattheir parents had both encouraged and dis-couraged them simultaneously:

I was told to get good grades but was given noencouragement as to what use they could beput to.

My family said, "When are you going to givethis up and get married?"

When I was growing up my parents werealways urging me to succeed but criticizingme for being "too ambitious, too independent,too driven, too verbal"; then when I was ac-cepted into a Ph.D. program my mother said,"Don't you think it's time to enter the realworld, don't you think you've had enoughschool now?"

Families especially need to learn ways tosupport the autonomy and emotional develop-ment of gifted daughters to help them learn tocontend with opposition, and to understandthe meaning and impact of giftedness in anindividual's life (Callahan, 1980; Ehrlich, 1982;Schwartz, 1980).

12. In-service training programs must bedeveloped for K-12 school district personnel(e.g., teachers, counselors, school psychologists,and administrators) to raise their awareness catthe many forces inhibiting gifted female stu-dents from developing their potential. Suchprograms should specifically address the waysin which the educational system contributes towomen's systematic devaluation of their ownabilities, and undermines their access toopportunities for maximum growth.

September,1992 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 25

26

Author's NoteI w' uld like toe.press my deepappreciation toDoreen Ander-son, SusanRosenkrantz, andAlice Sharp,graduate studentsat the Universityof Washington,for their efforts inpreparing andanalyzing thedata reported inthis paper. I wishalso to acknowl-edge the invalu-able assistance ofDr. Mavis Tsai,Dr. LindaWeimer, Dr.Alejandra Suarez,and the Board ofDirectors for the1986 "Women ofHigh Potential"conference indeveloping theinstrument usedto gather thesedata.

The power of the educational environmentfor gifted females cannot be minimized. For40% of our sample, educational experiences,particularly at the college / university level, weresignificant in developing their potential. Andalthough support and encouragement from avariety of sources was considered importantby two-thirds of our respondents, one-thirdattributed the greatest help received to teach-ers and mentors. Happily, 58% said that femaleteachers had encouraged them during theirpre-college years, and 48% indicated that maleteachers were supporti ve during this time; thesefigures dropped to 37% and 34%, respectively,in adulthood.

It should be noted that 20% of respondentsfelt they had been discouraged by both maleand female teachers in childhood or early ado-lescence. Another 20% believed that giftedwomen tend to hide, deny, disparage, and/orchoose not to develop their abilities becausethe educational system does not value, encour-age, or help females to achieve their high po-tential.

13. Conferences and symposia. We were over-whelmed by the powerful and positive re-sponse of participants to the "Women of HighPotential" conference. Much of the sentimentof the group was vividly expressed by twoparticipants when they said:

Sitting in a room with women who see them-selves as women of high potential feels verysatisfying. I feel proud. It is a relief not toworry about alienating other people by ourself-confidence and capability, trying to readothers...it's hard to put into words. I'm talk-ing about peer pressure to play down ourability and potential. That pressure is presentwith adults as well as with children. I lovebeing around these women.

I am very excited (thrilled!) at the prospect ofa center for research on women of high poten-tial. I think of my granddaughter (age 7) whois already being shaped by the system and herparents, and I have hope for her. Those of uswho are older and were shaped so subtly andprofoundly and, yet, remained nonconform-ist, different, odd, have been very lonely. Howimportant it is to find a group that is joiningpeople who have had this experience.

Conferences, workshops, and symposia canbe tremendously exciting, productive, and re-vitalizing for everyone they touch. Opportuni-ties for highly capable women to interact, share

experiences, and support each other in thesearch for effective ways to meet and transcendthe challenges we encounter in a sexist societyare rare, but without them the expression ofgiftedness will remain, for many, an isolatingand dispiriting experience.

14. Finally, the need fora great deal of researchin this area is unquestionable. Comprehensiveresearch programs must be created to expandexisting knowledge about the nature of thepsychological development of highly capablewomen, and the internal and external forceswhich impair their health and inhibit themfrom taking advantage of opportunities forachievement. I believe there are several ques-tions which require our urgent attention.

What protective and risk factors shape gift-edness in women and what internal and exter-nal defenses enable gifted women to cultivatetheir abilities in the face of adverse social con-ditions?

Are there specific sources of stress to whichadult and adolescent gifted women are ex-posed, and what effect might these stressorshave on their physical and psychological well-being? What processes determine the presenceor absence of "stress resistance" under similarbackgrounds and exposure conditions? Weknow from the work of Garmezy and Tellegen(1984) that high intelligence is not sufficient toprotect ability from erosion; thus, an investiga-tion of the inner wells from which gifted womendraw their strength would yield invaluableand practical information for clinicians of ev-ery discipline.

Is there a relationship between childhoodabuse and giftedness? What is the frequencywith which gifted women are victimized bysexual, physical, and /or emotional abuse, andwhat are the incidence and prevalence of vari-ous forms of self-sabotage among this popula-tion eating disorders, depression, learnedhelplessness, substance abuse?

What are the special issues affecting giftedwomen who are members of ethnic minoritygroups, or who are disabled, or who are cultur-ally or economically disadvantaged? Whatkinds of programs and intervention strategiescould be created to increase their contributionto our society?

Maslow (1972) argued that if we deliber-ately tried to be less than our best, we would bedesperately unhappy throughout our lives. Yetmany gifted women have found that the choiceto become their best is made at great cost to

Page 26 California Association for the Gifted . 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September,1992

i

their relationships with parents and partners,to their friendships, to their sense of safety andsecurity in the world, to their identities aswomen, and to their mental and physical health.I believe we must create a world in whichwomen can live out the promise of their highpotential without sacrificing essential parts ofthemselves. How? By asking and answeringdifficult questions such as those posed above,by translating research findings into effectivestrategies for individual and social change, bysupporting each other as we dare to be seenand dare to be heard despite centuries of con-ditioning to be less visible, less vocal, and lesscapable. And, ultimately, by planning for atime when the challenge of being female andgifted will become obsolete.

ReferencesBlaubergs, M. (1978) Personal studies of gifted

females: An overview and commentary.Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(4), 539-547.

Blaubergs, M. (1980) The gifted female: Sex-role stereotyping and gifted girls' experi-ence and education. Roeper Review,23(3),13-15.

Callahan, C.M. (1980) The gifted girl: Ananomaly? Roeper Review, 2(3), 16-20.

Christ, C.P. (1980) Diving deep and surfacing:Women writers on spiritual quest. Boston:Beacon Press.

Clark, B. (1983) Growing up gifted: Developingthe potential of children at home and at school.Columbus: Charles E. Merrill PublishingCompany.

Cooley, D., Chauvin, J.C., and Karnes, F.A.(1984) Gifted females: A comparison ofattitudes by male and female teachers. RoeperReview, 6(3), 164-167.

Covington, M.V., and Omelich, C.L. (1979)Effort: The double edged sword in schoolachievement. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 71(2), 169-182.

Cox, J., and Daniel, N. (1983) Specialproblems and special populations: Iden-tification. G /C /T, 30, 54-61.

Dweck, C.S., and Licht, B.G. (1980) Learnedhelplessness and intellectual achievement.In J. Garber and M.E.P. Seligman (Eds.)Human Helplessness (pp.197-221). New York:Academic Press.

Ehrlich, V.Z. (1982) Gifted children: A guide forparents and teachers. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Fox, L.H., and Richmond, L.J. (1979) Giftedfemales: Are we meeting their counselingneeds? Personnel and Guidance journal, 57(5),256-259.

Fox, L.H. (1981) Preparing gifted girls forfuture leadership roles. G /C /T, 17, 7-11.

Fox, L.H. (1983) Mathematically able girls: Aspecial challenge. Chronicle of Academic andArtistic Precosity, 2(3), 1-2.

Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of mind: The theoryof multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks, Inc.

Garmezy, N., and Tellegen, A. (1984) Studiesof stress-resistant children: Methods, vari-ables, and preliminary findings. In F.J.Morrison, C. Lord, and D. P. Keating (Eds.),Applied Developmental Psychology (pp. 231-283). Orlando: Academic Press.

Getzels, J.W., and Dillon, J.T. (1973) The natureof giftedness and the education of the gifted.In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.), Second Handbook ofResearch on Teaching (pp. 689-731). Chicago:Rand McNally and Company.

Gilligan, C. (1982) In a different voice. Cam-bridge: Harvard University Press.

Hall, E.G. (1980) Sex differences in IQ develop-ment for intellectually gifted students. RoeperReview, 2(3), 25-28.

Hall, E.G. (1982) Accelerating gifted girls.G /C /T, 25, 48-50.

Higham, S.J, and Navarre, J. (1984) Giftedadolescent females require differential treat-ment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,8(1), 43-58.

Hollinger, C.L. (1983) Counseling the giftedand talented female adolescent: The rela-tionship between social self-esteem and traitsof instrumentality and expressiveness. GiftedChild Quarterly, 27(4), 157-161.

Hollinger, C.L. (1985) The stability of selfperceptions of instrumental and expressivetraits and social self-esteem among giftedand talented female adolescents. Journal forthe Education of the Gifted, 8(1), 107-136.

Hollinger, C.L. and Fleming, E.S. (1984) Inter-nal barriers to the realization of potential:Correlates and interrelationships amonggifted and talented female adolescents. GiftedChild Quarterly, 28(3), 135-139.

September,1992 California Association for the Gifted 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 Page 27

S

Kathleen D. Noble is alicensed psychologist in

private practice in Seattle,Washington, andcurrently Acting

,lssistant Director of theEarly Entrance Program

at the University ofWashington.

She rounded and chairedthree conferences at the

University ofWashington on "Women

.11 !Ugh Potential" anahas authored several

pavers on the affectizxneeas or gifted women.

Jensen, E.L., and Hovey, S.Y. (1982) Bridgingthe gap from high school to college for tal-ented females. Peabody Journal of Education,59(3), 153-159.

Keller, E.F. (1983) A feeling for the organism: Thelife and work of Barbara McClintock. NewYork: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Kerr, B.A. (1985) Smar: girls, gifted women.Columbus: Ohio Psychology Publishing Co.

Kirschenbaum, R. (1980) Combating sexism inthe pre-school environment. Roeper Review,2(3), 31-33.

Maslow, A.H. (1972) The farther reaches ofhuman nature. New York: Penguin Books.

Mills, C. (1980) Sex-role-related personalitycorrelates of intellectual abilities in adoles-cents. Roeper Review, 2(3), 29-31.

Navarre, J. (1980) Is what is good for thegander, good for the goose: Should giftedgirls receive differential treatment? RoeperReview, 2(3), 21-25.

Noble, K.D. (1987) The dilemma of the giftedwoman. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11,367-378.

Rodenstein, J.M., and Glickauf-Hughes, C.(1977) Career and lifestyle determinants ofgifted women. Madison, WI: University ofWisconsin, Research and Guidance Labora-tory for Superior Students. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 194-689).

Rodenstein, J.M., P Heger, L.R., and Colangelo,N. (1977) Career development of giftedwomen. Gifted Child Quarterly, 21(3), 383-390.

Roeper, A. (1978) The young gifted girl: Acontemporary view. Roeper Review ,1.(1), 6-8.

Russo, J., Miller, D., and Vitaliano, P.P. (1985)The relationship of gender to perceived stressand distress in medical school. Journal ofPsychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4,117-124.

Schwartz, L.L. (1977) Can we stimulate cre-ativity in women? Journal of Creative Behav-ior, 11(4), 264-267.

Schwartz, L.L. (1980) Advocacy for the ne-glected gifted: Females. Gifted Child Quar-terly, 24(3), 113-117.

Shakeshaft, C., and Palmieri, P. (1978) Adivine discontent: Perspective on giftedwomen. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(4), 4618-477.

Silverman, L.K. (1982) Emotional develop-ment of gifted children. Presentation at theWorkshop on Counseling, Area I SouthService Center for Gifted Education, Chi-cago, Illinois, March, 1982.

Silverman, L.K. (1983) Issues in affective de-velopment of the gifted. In J. Van Tassel -Baska (Ed.), A Practical Guide to Counselingthe Gifted in a School Setting (pp. 6-21). Reston:Council for Exceptional Children.

Silverman, L.K., (1986) What happens to thegifted girl? In C.J. Maker (Ed.), DefensiblePrograms for the Gifted (pp.43-89). Rockville:Aspen.

Silverman, L.K. (in press) Feminine develop-ment through the life cycle. In Douglas,M.A. and Walker, L.E. (Eds.), Feminine Psy-chotherapies: Integration of therapeutic andfeminist systems.

Solano, C.H. (1983) Self-concept in math-ematically gifted adolescents. Journal of Gen-eral Psychology, 108, 33-42.

Tidball, M.E. and Kistiakowsky, V. (1976)Baccalaureate origins of American scientistsand scholars. Science, 193, 646-652.

Tomlinson-Keasey, C. and Smith-Wii deny, C.(1983) Educational strategies and personal-ity outcomes of gifted and nongifted collegestudents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 27(1), 35-41.

Wells, M.A., Peltier, S., and Glickaug-Hughes,C. (1982) The analysis of the sex-role orien-tation of gifted male and female adolescents.Roeper Review, 4(4), 46-48.

Whitmore, J R. (1980) The etiology of under-achievement in highly gifted young chil-dren. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,3(1), 8-51.

.'age 2F California Association for the Gifted . 23684 Schoenborn Street Canoga Park, CA 91304 September, 1992

1,d