14.

1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this unit is to introduce you to the concept of social adjustment so that you can help your
students adjust in school and society. In Unit 13 you have studied about personal adjustment and emotional
maturity, and the role of school and the teacher in the process of adjustment. You know that the teacher is the
central figure in school and classroom. He/she influences the behaviors of students both directly and
indirectly. His/her behaviors can also motivate the students to form groups as well as to break up groups
formed on the wrong basis. You will also study the concept of social maturity and its relationship with social
adjustment. The role of teachers in group dynamics is also explained in this unit.

14.2 OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you should be able to: describe the concept of social adjustment, explain the
concept of social maturity, illustrate how social adjustment promotes good interpersonal relations, state the
process of adjustment in the school environment, and explain the teachers' role in group dynamics and social
adjustment.

14.3 SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT

Adjustment is a popular expression used by people in day to day life. For example, while
Traveling in a bus or a train, we often hear or use this term; even when a guest comes to stay with-us for a few
days we have to adjust him/her in our house. Though sometimes we face problems

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. In making
these adjustments, they are important to maintain personal as well as social peace Social Adjustment and
harmony. Thus adjustment maintains peace and harmony in home, school, and society and in the country.
Social adjustment can be defined as a psychological process. It frequently involves coping with new standards
and values. In the technical language of psychology, getting along with the members of the society as best as
one can is called adjustment.

14.3.1 Nature of Social Adjustment

As social beings we live in a society, we form opinions about others and others have opinions about us.
Everybody wants acceptance and recognition from and within society. We try to behave according to the
norms of the society so that we can adjust with others. But it is not an easy task as the personality of each
individual is a unique organization. This organization has to make special efforts to adjust with others unique
organizations, which we call society. Actually adjustment is a wider term used in various spheres of life. For
example, if an individual is well- adjusted in his family environment, his family adjustment will be good. So
before defining social adjustment it is necessary for us to restrict the area of social adjustment. In other words
we can say that social adjustment is the direction we, the teachers, try to instill adjustment skill in our
students. As teachers we should emphasize on the adjustment of the student in the school. It is the teacher's
responsibility to help the student cope with the existing situations of the school. For this we should contribute
to improving the social environment of the school.
Psychologists use the term adjustment of varying conditions of social and interpersonal relations in the
society. Thus we see that adjustment means reaction to the demands and pressures of the social environment
imposed upon the individual. Whenever two types of demands come into conflict with each other and
resultant in an adjustment being made, a complicated process for the individual, then some special problems
of adjustment arise.

14.3.2 Perception and Social Adjustment

Impartial perception is needed for social adjustment. The processes of behaviour e.g. learning, maturation,
sensation, perception and motivation are significant in our life because they con- tribute to the process of
adjustment. The way we interact with people depends to a great extent upon how we perceive them and how
we interpret their behaviour. The perceptions about people what we think, what they are like -influence the
way we respond to them. If you perceive that a student is hostile, you are unlikely to interact or adjust with
him/her. Your behaviour in a group is certainly different from the behaviour when in alone. Group affects an
individual's behaviour. The mere presence of others affects our performance.How do we come to know about
other people? Our social perceptions of others are initially based on the information we obtain about them -in
some instances the attribution (inferences) we make about the causes for their behaviour. It is, of course,
important to have accurate knowledge of others before deciding on the kind of possible interactions with
them. Our perceptions of others' personalities and feelings guide us in deciding the way we respond to them
and what sort of relationships we have with them. Knowledge about others influences our adjustment with
them.

14.3.3 Impression Formation and Socia1.Adjustment

We shall first discuss 'impression' as a cognitive process. Impression formation is the process by which
information about others is converted into more or less enduring cognition or thoughts about them. When we
first meet someone, we usually have access to information how the person looks and where he/she works and
what he/she says. These categories and their perceived interrelationship form the basic cognitive framework
by which we understand others and try to adjust with them.

14.3.4 Other Processes in Social Adjustment

There are certain other processes we can use for social adjustment. Let us discuss the mainProcesses in the
following paragraphs.
i) Stress and adaptation: The efforts to live and be satisfied are called adaptation:
Environmental factors which make it hard for an individual to live are called stress. At
This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text.
Facilitating Learning and Development the most elementary level of life, stress is experienced as irritation or
discomfort A, a slightly more advanced level, stress is explained as the anticipation of harm. In human beings
certain kinds of stresses produce anxiety. Anxiety sometimes produces defensive response which is mental
efforts to reduce stresses. Defenses are generally regarded as poor methods of adjustment. Actually
adjustment means reduction of tension or satisfaction of motives.
ii) Social influence: The process of social influence contains two critical elements-
(a) Some one's intervention, and (b) inducing change in other person. The FP (Focal Per-Son) is one who is
influenced by the source of intervention is termed as the agent. The Following table classifies agents, types of
intervention and related concepts.
Table 14.1: Intervention by an agent to bring about influence

Adolescent social competence: An examination of social skills, social performance, and social
adjustment with urban minority youth.

Author(s): Nichols, Tracy Rose

Adolescent social competence: An examination of social skills, social
Title:
performance, and social adjustment with urban minority youth.
Advisor(s): Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne
Issue Date: 2002
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 63-03, Section: B, page:
1589.
Description:
Sponsor: Jeanne Brooks-Gunn.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--Columbia University, 2002.
Full Text
/ac/proxit.jsp?url=http://gateway.proquest.com/ope...
(ProQuest):
Abstract: While extensive research has been conducted on normative social competence in
early childhood, far less has been done for adolescence. Previous research has not
conceptually differentiated among the ability to achieve social markers, perform
effectively, or develop underlying skills. Consequently divergent methodologies
have been employed and inconsistent results have emerged across studies. This
study explores the application of Cavell's (1990) tri-component model of social
 competence to urban minority adolescents.

Three hypotheses are tested: (a) skills will be associated with adjustment and
performance but the relative importance will differ by outcome; (b) dominant
response types used in social situations will differ by subgroups; (c) group
differences by dominant response type will exist for performance and adjustment.
The study uses a multi-method approach with 476 minority 6th graders attending
public and parochial schools in New York City as part of a larger prevention trial.

Adjustment is measured with pro-social outcomes (academic achievement and

self-esteem) and engagement in problem behaviors (delinquency, aggression,
fighting). Performance is measured with four peer situations: two role-play tasks
(Social Confrontation and Peer Negotiation) and two hypothetical vignettes (Peer
Rejection and Peer Insult). Social skills are assessed with both self-report and
observational methods and include cognitive skills (decision-making and self-
reinforcement), emotion regulation skills (anger management and self-regulation)
and social interaction skills (assertiveness, passivity, and aggression).

Results show competence among adolescents to vary by several factors including

the component of competence measured, the context of the interaction and the
methodology utilized. In addition, social skills were associated with both
adjustment and performance, although most measures of performance were
associated with interaction skills only. Differences did not exist in dominant
response types by subgroups but partial support was found for the importance of
dominant response type for both adjustment and performance.

This study illustrates the importance of assessing multiple components of

competence as well as using multiple methods of assessment. It also speaks to the
need to distinguish between assertive, aggressive, and passive enactment
responses in both assessment and treatment. Overall the study introduces several
new measures of competence within context that may prove helpful to the field of
adolescent development.
Collection(s): Doctoral Dissertations

appeared to result only when they were unable to locate other sources. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008
APA, all rights reserved)
Program Outcomes for Children

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT OUTCOMES

Introduction and Conceptual Overview

Most adults want the children they care about to enjoy the benefits of supportive social relationships
throughout their lives, and to acquire the necessary competencies to do so. Social competence,
like social adjustment, is often used as an umbrella term to include various aspects of a child's
performance in social contexts. Those who design and provide programs for preschoolers and
school-aged children in group settings often seek to enhance aspects of personal and social
adjustment, either as a primary outcome or as a valued by-product of other program activities
(Hauser-Cram & Shonkoff, 1988; Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1993).

Link to NCEO Personal and Social Adjustment Model

If social competence is defined broadly as the ability to engage peers and adults in a friendly and
cooperative manner and to be resourceful and achievement oriented (Siantz de Leon, 1997), then
well developed social abilities affect virtually all areas of a child's life. In combination, the qualities
that make up social competence strengthen children at risk and help them to become more
resilient. Children who have achieved these qualities are more adequately prepared to excel
personally, socially, and academically (Gresham & Reschly, 1987). Yet, children who are at risk are
often socially unskilled and have difficulty understanding how their actions affect the reactions they
receive from others (Rathjen, 1984).

Despite the almost universal desire to enhance these social capacities in children, measurement
and evaluation of gains in this area has often been elusive. Results of evaluations often fail to be
consistent, clear-cut, or statistically significant, even when subjective judgements of staff and
parents suggest positive outcomes. One reason may be that social competence is less a set of well
defined, measurable skills (although learned skills are clearly part of the picture), and more an
underlying quality that subtly enhances functioning in a variety of areas. Researchers in social
development increasingly recognize that social competence has both emotional and cognitive
elements (Hughes & Sullivan, 1988; Collins & Gunnar, 1990; Crick & Dodge, 1994), and that it may
be context-specific (Gresham & Elliott, 1984). A number of researchers are looking to the emotional
and cognitive learning that takes place in the earliest attachment relationships for help in
understanding later social competence in family, peer, and school settings (Cohn, 1990; Zahn-
Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990).

Assessment Issues

Experienced evaluators of community-based programs offer a number of suggestions and

cautions. In light of the growing complexity of our understanding of personal and social adjustment,
any measurement should be multidimensional, assessed in the context of the child's total
functioning, and adapted to the child's developmental level. In comparison to the intellectual
development domain, there are fewer well-validated standardized measures that seem to tap into
the qualities that make up social competence in children, and perhaps less agreement about what
those qualities are. Some methodologies that are well-established for basic research in social and
emotional development (such as Ainsworth's Strange Situation and the Q-Sort, both used in
attachment research) do not lend themselves as well to evaluation in community settings because
they require extensive training and sometimes special laboratory conditions to administer.
Measures developed for classroom use in school settings may or may not be relevant to
community-based programs for children. Others measures which were designed for screening or
diagnostic use in clinical settings may not be suitable as outcome measures in program
evaluations. Some otherwise valid and reliable assessments may not be well-accepted by program
staff because they seem intrusive, overly subjective, or poorly matched to actual program activities
and goals.

When relevant standardized measures do exist, they often require special training to administer.
The skills and logistics involved in interviewing and testing children are not necessarily the same as
those required for adults. The performance of young children in testing situations is known to be
quite sensitive to factors like the familiarity of the setting and the examiner (Hauser-Cram &
Shonkoff, 1988). For ethnic minority children, language and cultural expectations about testing
situations may be particularly relevant. Although observational scales (directly observing and
coding children's behavior during specific time intervals) may seem attractive because they are
based on behavior in naturalistic settings, evaluators often find that these methods are extremely
expensive and time-consuming, and may not be effective in assessing infrequent behaviors.
Teacher and parent questionnaires can sometimes be highly subjective. Self-report measures by
children themselves are often limited by children's language and reading skills.
Recommendations

While many standardized measures and techniques do not lend themselves easily to evaluation of
community-based programs for children, there are assessment tools that are appropriate and
available for measuring children's outcomes. Increasingly, the instruments of choice for evaluation
of personal and social adjustment in intervention and prevention programs seem to be objective
behavior rating checklists. These are based on specific behaviors, can be completed quickly by
teachers or staff based on their knowledge of their children, and can include a broad spectrum of
child behaviors. A number of newer instruments have been developed which attempt to take these
issues into account, and several of these will be reviewed in the appropriate sections below.

Many evaluators of programs for children recommend using multiple methods, usually a
combination of standardized measures and more qualitative or program-specific outcome data, to
achieve a more balanced picture of outcomes for children. Simple and readily-available indicators
can include existing program records such as attendance and participation data, school grades, and
rates of referrals, as well as program satisfaction questionnaires for older children or their parents.
Program-specific indicators appropriate to particular kinds of programs will be suggested in later
sections. As always, the ages and characteristics of the children served by a particular program,
and the goals of that program, will influence the appropriateness of any given outcome measure.
Outcome Components:

Personal and social adjustment in children is a multi-faceted concept. In choosing outcomes for
evaluation of community-based programs for preschool and school-aged children (such as 4-H and
State Strengthening projects), it is helpful to distinguish among the following elements of social
competence outcomes (Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1993). Some specific indicators for these outcomes
components are suggested in separate sections of this website.

• Copes effectively with personal challenges, frustrations, and stressors

• Has a good self-image
• Gets along with other people (adults & peers)
• Respects cultural and individual differences

Summary

Although the emotional foundations of healthy personal and social adjustment may lie in early family
relationships, it is important for children to have opportunities to learn and practice social skills
through various community-based programs, and to experience nurturing relationships outside of
the family context. These opportunities to interact with peers and caring non-parental adults take
on particular significance for children who have not enjoyed nurturing relationships or learned
appropriate relationship skills within their families, and therefore may be at risk for poor social
adjustment. As children begin school, learned social skills also have an effect on academic
achievements, since almost every learning experience involves a social context.

Traditional 4-H projects and group activities through Cooperative Extension have long provided
opportunities for school-aged children to practice developing skills with peers and non-parental
adults, and to engage in prosocial activities. State Strengthening projects provide an additional
means for communities to extend these opportunities to reach and benefit more children who are at
risk. Even very young children can gain social skills through interaction with parents and other
caregivers in the context of State Strengthening sponsored programs in local communities.

Although the elements of personal and social adjustment can be elusive to measure, these are
often critical outcomes for community-based programs for at-risk children. Good assessment in this
area may require some imagination, including combination of standardized measures with more
qualitative or program-specific assessments. Multiple assessments that cover several dimensions
of social development are most likely to provide a rich picture that effectively captures ways that
programs benefit children.
Summary of Literature on Social Adjustment, by Verne Wright © 1942 American Sociological Association.

How Young Children’s Behavior Difficulties Affect Social Adjustment

Later in Childhood
Although most children form positive and satisfying relationships with their peers,
a subset of children find getting along with others difficult. Some of these children may
be highly aggressive, acting in ways that hurt others. Others are overly anxious with
peers and nervous during social interactions. Still others are both aggressive and
anxious. Unfortunately, children who are aggressive and/or anxious are at risk for a
number of adjustment difficulties including loneliness, depression, and conduct
problems.
Investigators are still working to understand the processes by which early
behavioral problems are related to later psychological dysfunction. We conducted the
current study to test the hypothesis that aggressive and anxious behaviors lead to later
problems by harming children’s relationships with peers. We based this assumption on
previous findings showing that aggressive and anxious/fearful behaviors place children
at greater jeopardy for friendlessness as well as for being rejected or bullied by their
peers. We also know from past research that stressful relationships with peers,
particularly if these problems are chronic, can lead to the development of psychological
and behavioral disorders.
Furthermore, children who experience persistent relationship problems may develop a view of themselves as
disliked and unworthy of other’s positive regard. They may also come to perceive age-mates as being hostile,
untrustworthy, and uncaring. Even if these children eventually develop more satisfying relationships with
peers, negative self- and peer-perceptions may endure, resulting in a continuation of psychological
dysfunction. Therefore, we also examined whether children who had experienced a history of chronic peer
relationship problems would continue to show adjustment difficulties as a result of constructing maladaptive
self-perceptions and peer beliefs.
To test these assumptions, we followed 381 children, beginning in kindergarten and continuing through fourth
grade. We found that the more aggressive children were in kindergarten, the more likely they were to be
chronically rejected, victimized, and friendless between first and third grade. A history of chronic rejection
and victimization was associated with greater aggression and conduct problems in fourth grade, and a history
of chronic friendlessness was associated with greater depression and loneliness in fourth grade. Moreover, the
finding that chronic peer relationship problems continued to have an influence on later adjustment could be
explained by changes in children’s self- and peer-beliefs.
We concluded that aggressive children may experience future adjustment problems, in part, as a result of
forming maladaptive relationships with peers. Furthermore, children who have a history of problematic peer
relationships may experience long-term adjustment problems even if they are able to eventually make friends
and get along well with others. Practitioners working with young children might be advised to reduce
aggressive behaviors before chronic relational difficulties begin. Furthermore, the findings suggest that
children’s problems may not go away once relationship difficulties are solved. Rather, to improve children’s
psychosocial health, adults may need to help children use their social successes to develop more adaptive
views of themselves and others.
Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 74, Issue 5, The Role of Chronic Peer Difficulties in the
Development of Children’s Psychological Adjustment Problems
by G.W. Ladd and W. Troop-Gordon. Copyright 2003 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved.

The Social Adjustment of Three, Young, High-Achieving Korean-English Bilingual Students in Kindergarten
Social Development or Socialization?
Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D.
Gifted Development CenterDenver, Colorado
A major concern of parents and educators is the social adjustment of their gifted children. All provisions for
gifted students – ability grouping, acceleration, pull-out programs, full day programs, special schools,
homeschooling – are held suspect on the grounds that they will "prevent the children’s social adjustment."
Indeed, the remarkable emphasis on the school as an agent of socialization makes one wonder if anyone really
cares about the development of these children’s abilities or if all that is important is whether they fit in!
As a psychologist who has spent over 30 years studying the social and emotional development of the gifted, I
believe we need to clearly differentiate between the concepts of social development and socialization. An
immense amount of research has accumulated over the last 70 years on socialization of the gifted, indicating
that gifted children tend to enjoy greater popularity, social adjustment, and social competence, earlier
psychological maturity, and fewer indications of psychological problems than their less gifted peers
(Silverman, 1993). In their recent comprehensive review of the literature, Nancy Robinson and Kate Noble
report:
Perusal of a large group of studies of preadolescent children revealed [that] …as a group, gifted children were
seen as more trustworthy, honest, socially competent, assured and comfortable with self, courteous,
cooperative, stable, and humorous, while they were also seen as showing diminished tendencies to boast, to
engage in delinquent activity, to aggress or withdraw, to be domineering, and so on. (N. Robinson & Noble,
1991, p. 62)
It would appear obvious from these studies that gifted children are highly socialized. It is interesting that the
context of most of these studies was some form of special provision for the gifted, such as special classes or
acceleration. Clearly, then, gifted children’s socialization does not suffer the slightest when special provisions
are made for their learning needs. Ann Robinson advises parents and educators to
speak plainly on the issue of cooperative learning as therapy for socially maladjusted, talented students. The
assumption that gifted children are more likely than others to have a variety of personal and social problems is
not supported in the literature. Thus, the pill of cooperative learning may be prescribed for a perfectly healthy
patient. (A. Robinson, 1990, p. 35)
Up to this point we have been addressing primarily the issue of socialization. According to the dictionary,
socialization is the ability to adapt to the needs of the group. Gifted children are very adaptable, particularly
girls. But at what price? If one works very hard at fitting in with others, especially when one feels very
different from others, self-alienation can result. And this is exactly what we find in so many "well adjusted"
gifted youth and adults. In their desperation to belong, they have given up or lost touch with vital parts of
themselves.
Social development, on the other hand, is not the pressure to adapt, but a deep, comfortable level of self
-acceptance that leads to true friendships with others.
Lasting friendships are based on mutual interests and values, not on age. Individuals with good social
development like themselves, like other people, demonstrate concern for humanity, and develop mutually
rewarding friendships with a few kindred spirits. Social development goes hand in hand with self-
actualization, whereas socialization is merely the desire to conform – often the opposite of self-actualization.
The research indicates that special provisions for the gifted foster good social development (Silverman, 1993);
this, rather than fitting in, should be our aim for them.
Social Adjustment and Peer Pressures for Gifted Children

Rimm, S.
Davidson Institute for Talent Development
2003

This article by Sylvia Rimm addresses the social issues that gifted young people face on a regular basis. It
gives situational examples and offers suggestions to parents on how to deal with issues that may arise. Peer
pressures are discussed as well as strategies for parents on helping their children to chose the "right" peer
group.

Parents of gifted children often wonder and worry about the peer relationships of their children. They may
hear stories of gifted children going awry because of peer pressure or about gifted children who feel isolated.
This article will address three issues: 1) What research says about gifted children and peer relationships; 2)
How much involvement parents should have in influencing their children's peer relationships; and 3) What
parents can do when gifted children are in the "wrong" peer group. These issues may be quite different for
elementary grade children than for older children.

The Elementary Grade Years

Studies of gifted, elementary-aged children actually found that they tend to be liked by their peers, and in one
study were actually found to be more popular than their peers (Udvari & Rubin, 1996; Austin & Draper, 1981;
Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Clegg, Byrne, Ledingham, & Crombie, 1989). Children and adults alike are
influenced by their peers, but children who are still in the process of developing a value system are more
vulnerable to negative influences (Rimm, 2000). Parents should take a proactive position in discussions about
friendships during early childhood to lay the foundation for children making good decisions about friends
later. You can help your children select good friends by teaching them early about what being a good friend
means. For example, for a young child you could talk about kindness, love of learning, honesty, sharing, and
having fun together. For gifted children, it's especially important for them to choose peers who enjoy learning
so they feel confident in their own motivation to learn. Here are two examples of opportunities to teach
children about peer relationships:

Sam enjoys time with his friend Nick, but after play dates Sam seems to be a different child. Sam's
language changes to ugly vocabulary that he's never heard at home. He pushes limits and is
disrespectful to his parents. Sam has also shared tales of Nick's troublesome behavior in school.
First grader Hannah wanted her ears pierced. Her parents considered her far too young for earrings, but
weren't sure how to handle Hannah's strong persuasion based on wanting to fit in with her friends who
all had pierced ears and wore earrings.

In Sam's case, parents shouldn't feel hesitant about setting limits for their children if they find them selecting
misbehaving or negative friends. If they observe that friends are a bad influence on their children, it's best to
require children to discontinue play with them temporarily. It's also important to explain to children that
people change, and when their friends' behaviors improve, they may play together again. For example, Sam
may have to say to Nick, "My mom [or dad] says I can't play with kids who use bad language."

In Hannah's case, parents have no reason to prohibit Hannah's play with her "earring wearing" friends. They
can decide to tell Hannah that earrings are inappropriate for her at this age and that she will need to wait until
middle or high school. It isn't a question of a "right" time for earrings, but a parent's decision about her own
values and teaching children early that there will be times ahead when they will be different than their friends
based on their own family values. A discussion of differences and independence will help prepare them for the
more intense, peer pressured years ahead in middle and high school.

The Middle and High School Years

The middle and high school years can be quite lonely for some gifted teens. Gifted adolescents often express
conflict over their giftedness. They value being intelligent, yet almost always realize that giftedness exacts a
social price. Here are some of the comments from gifted middle school students with whom I met for focus
groups about peer pressure:

I want so much to get A's for my parents and for myself, but also I want to be accepted by the "in"
group at our school. The "in" group considers students who get all A's to be nerds.
I used to be considered smart in my old school, but my friends never seemed to mind. After I got into
 the gifted magnet school and told my friends in my neighborhood, they started pushing me around and
calling me "nerd." They tease me and say I'm weak because I'm smart.
In our class, we have two people in fifth grade that go to seventh grade math. Kids are jealous and try
to beat them up and hurt them, just because they're nerdy.

Over 3,500 Minnesota secondary students responded to a newspaper column question that asked if they would
rather be the best looking, most athletic, or smartest student in their class. Respondents were supposed to write
an essay to support their answers (Schroeder-Davis, 1999). Although more students favored "most intelligent"
(53.8 percent), followed by "most athletic" (37.3 percent) and "best looking" (only 8.9 percent), content
analysis of these student essays showed that the students were aware of an anti-intellectual stigma expressed
by peers. Twenty-two percent directly alluded to that stigma, and almost none attributed any immediate social
benefits to being smartest (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2001).

A survey conducted by Brown and Steinberg (1990) of 8,000 high school students in California and Wisconsin
found that fewer than 10 percent of the high achievers were willing to be identified as part of the "brain"
crowd, and students often withdrew from debate, computer clubs, and honors classes to avoid being labeled a
"geek," "dweeb," or "nerd" (Davis & Rimm, 2003). The percentage was even lower for females than for males.

None of the high-achieving African-Americans surveyed in the Brown and Steinberg study were willing to be
considered part of the "brain" crowd. This social pressure was confirmed by Ford (1994-95). In her study of
gifted African-American girls, peer pressure had a powerfully negative effect on their achievement in school.
Over half of the girls in her study indicated they were teased by their peers for their high achievement, and one
third were accused of "acting white." These negative experiences caused feelings of alienation and rejection, as
well as withdrawal and underachievement for these girls. Marva Collins, African-American and founder of the
Urban Preparatory School in Chicago, remembers her struggles.

I grew up as an African-American during the worst period of racism in Alabama. If I was called a racist
name and I told my dad and my grandfather, they would just look at me without surprise and say
"And...?" People would say to me as a child, "Don't you know? Black kids can't do those things." It
never dawned on me that because I was a black kid, I was inferior to anyone. I never believed the word
"can't." Everything I've done in my life I've been told I couldn't do, so when someone tells me what I
can't do, I know I'm on the right track. "I can" has become my mantra. Kids picked on me a lot. They'd
say, "You think you're more than us." My parents had to pick me up from high school every day
because kids would want to fight me, scratching and pulling my hair. (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001)

Luftig and Nichols (1989) also found evidence that gifted boys hid or masked their giftedness by being funny.
In contrast to average adolescents and gifted girls, Luftig and Nichols (1990) found gifted boys ranked as
most popular, non-gifted boys and non-gifted girls as second most popular, and finally, gifted girls as least
popular of the four groups. Fifteen percent of the successful women in the See Jane Win study considered
social isolation to be their most negative experience in childhood. A study of over 1,000 successful women
(Rimm, Rimm-Kaufman, & Rimm, 1999) found the theme of a social price to pay common among many who
were excellent students. Some women commented that they intentionally did poorly on tests or didn't hand in
assignments. However, their backing away from achievement to preserve their social selves was typically
temporary, and they, their parents, or a teacher recognized the dysfunction of their brief underachievement.

For example, Martha Aarons, a flutist in the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra, recalled coming home from
middle school and crying daily because kids called her "hairy legs" and "brain." It was not an easy time for an
all-A student who loved classical music. It was traumatic for her, and it took her years to recover from that
sadness. Attendance at summer music camps dissipated the pressure and reassured her there were others like
her. She made plenty of friends through her music (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001).

Gifted adolescents often express feelings of difference (Swiatek & Dorr, 1998; Rimm et al., 1999; Rimm &
Rimm-Kaufman, 2001). Manor-Bullock, Look, and Dixon (1995) suggested these feelings result from the
"gifted" label, although gifted women interviewed for the See Jane Win research expressed feelings of
difference frequently, whether or not they were in gifted programming. Coleman and Cross (1988) suggested
that even when children don't feel different, they sometimes assume that others perceive them as different, and
thus, they believe that perception will interfere with their social interactions. The Coleman and Cross study
points out that the stigma of giftedness doesn't have to be proven as real if it is assumed by the students to be
real. Their beliefs about the stigma will have an effect on their social relationships anyway.

Extreme Giftedness
Many studies that have compared social adjustment of moderately gifted students to students with extremely
high IQs have concluded that popularity is a much greater problem for students with unusually high
intelligence (Austin & Draper, 1981; Feldman, 1986; Gallagher, 1958; Hollingworth, 1942), and that
extremely gifted children have much greater social problems, probably related to how far from the norm their
thinking experiences are.

Gross (1993) found that for students with IQs of 160+, eighty percent of them reported that they experienced
intense social isolation in a regular classroom and were continuously monitoring their social behavior to
conform to the expectations of their peer group. That, in combination with their frequently unchallenging
curriculum, caused them ongoing emotional stress.

How Families Can Be Supportive

While positive relationships with parents typically are not harmful to peer relationships (Montemayer, 1984),
reliance on peers for advice and acceptance can be negatively associated with closeness to parents (Kandel &
Lesser, 1972). Continuous bickering with parents seems to propel adolescents to more dependence on and
acceptance of peer norms, with rejection of parent norms (Hill, 1980). Maintaining a positive family
environment helps gifted children deal with the anti-gifted peer pressure they may feel during adolescence.

It's also important for parents to value and support their children's talent during this precarious period in their
development and not to add to the pressures the child is already feeling. Parents need to be especially careful
not to stress popularity and social success. Instead, parents may have to counter peer messages of popularity
by pointing out that the emphasis on popularity, as a competitive form of friendship, ends at high school
graduation (Rimm, 1988). They will need to support their conscientious students and point out the rewards
ahead, including good scholarships and excellent colleges, and explain that once college begins the stress on
popularity will fall away and be viewed as immature.

Parents can also encourage the development of positive interests that will ultimately lead them to positive peer
groups and social confidence. The See Jane Win research showed that gifted girls who felt negative peer
pressure often coped with that pressure with involvement in interests and activities. Scouts, music, horseback
riding, religious groups, and sports provided arenas to develop self-confidence and friendship. Even during the
teen years, kids need to continue to be involved in family activities. If teens are lonely, parents may wish to
invite a friend to join the family activities. On the other hand, if teens are too social, families can preserve
family time for family bonding only, and insist that friends don't join the family for these special occasions.

Probably the best way to support gifted and talented students, particularly adolescents, is to help assemble a
gifted cohort group. It will encourage high achievement and reinforce the full use of students' talents. Youth
symphony orchestras, high-level Saturdays, summer programs, special classes, debate teams, intellectual and
creative teams, and gifted peer-discussion groups help young people to value their talent and build
constructive self-concepts and identities.

Perhaps most important, schools need to provide counselors and school psychologists who are trained to
understand the peer pressures and isolations that gifted children feel so that social isolation doesn't lead to
anger toward themselves or others. If knowledgeable adults are not available to support these gifted students
in their schools, they are indeed at risk of using their gifted cognitive abilities and sensitivities to harm
themselves and society instead of making the contributions of which they are capable.

If Your Teens Are In Negative Peer Groups

Peers who smoke, drink alcohol, use drugs, and oppose school and parents will put pressure on your children
to do the same. Peers who are excellent students, involved in extracurricular activities, and busy building skills
and interests are likely to have a positive effect on your children. Sometimes parents and teachers may be
fooled by teens' school behavior. That is, occasionally, even apparently positive kids lead a very different and
unhealthy social life outside of school unbeknownst to their families.

If your child is already in a negative peer group, here are some suggested potential solutions for separating
them from their negative friends. Unfortunately, all of these are more effective with children in middle school
than in high school, and none are guaranteed to be a solution. All are worth considering (Rimm et al., 1999):

SOCIAL ADJUSTMENTS IN GLOBALIZATION:

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ACTORS Year Completed: 2001 [Published in PLR Vol. XXIV, January - December
2002]

This study expounds on the role of social actors (i.e., government, workers, employers, NGOs) in the
process of social adjustment amid globalization. Although having long-term economic advantages,
globalization still has its birth pains, especially during the process of social adjustment whose blows may
be too debilitating for certain sectors, most especially for workers.

This paper aims to analyze the extent of involvement of government, labor, and employer sectors and
NGOs in economic and social development. Specifically, it seeks to determine how well the social actors
have dealt with the impact of globalization. In this light, this paper also desires to recommend policy and
program actions to further help them in their active participation in social adjustment.

Based on an extensive study of documents from different forums, official statistics, and interviews and
analysis, the paper suggests ways of cushioning the blows of social adjustment, such as strengthening
employment facilitation services to reach needy sectors; creating effective labor market information
system for the utilization of skills and jobs; providing employment insurance that can give social
assistance especially during contingencies such as unemployment, retraining and enterprise
restructuring; and fostering cooperation between workers and employers for a more participatory
approach wherein the worker’s voice is considered in deciding the firm’s future .

The study stresses that social adjustment is a mechanism for development. The process may be
particularly hard under the globalization era but the continuous collective effort of social actors can
effectively strike a balance between the competing economic and social objectives of globalization.

The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Students

Carolyn M. Callahan Claudia J. Sowa Kathleen M. May Ellen Menaker Tomchin Jonathan A. Plucker
Caroline M. Cunningham Wesley Taylor University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia

PART 2: Expanding Lazarus and Folkman's Paradigm to the Social and Emotional
Adjustment of Gifted Children and Adolescents

Study 1: Coping Methods of Young Adolescents1

In this study, the model of Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) cognitive appraisal paradigm was used as
the basis for investigating the appropriateness of the development of gifted children and adolescents. The
cognitive appraisal paradigm suggests that adjustment involves "constantly changing cognitive and
behavioral effort to manage specific external or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding
the resources of the person" (p. 141). It defines both process adjustment and achievement adjustment
mechanisms. Process adjustment is a method of employing cognitive efforts to cope with the demands of the
environment. Achievement adjustment is the employment of behavioral efforts to adapt to the environment
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Definitions and Models for Social and Emotional Development

Understanding the social and emotional experiences of gifted youth requires understanding their
cognitive development (and factors contributing to it) as it relates to the more general concepts and models
from the fields of child development and psychological adjustment. Here, Rathus and Nevid's (1992) view of
adjustment and Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) model of adjustment to stress set the stage for investigating
these experiences. Rathus and Nevid (1992) define adjustment mechanisms as processes people use to
respond to environmental demands. Successful adjustment mechanisms allow people to meet their needs or
tastes, regulate their behavior to bring about desired effects, believe in their abilities to achieve desired
outcomes, interpret experiences so that they perceive solutions to problems and do not overly arouse negative
emotions, and imitate others so that they learn many ways to influence their environment. Children and
adolescents who demonstrate these characteristics present successful social and emotional adjustment
processes. While Rathus and Nevid (1992) delineate the characteristics of adjusted persons, Lazarus and
Folkman's (1984) cognitive appraisal paradigm defines both process adjustment and achievement adjustment
mechanisms.

Process adjustment was further delineated as problem-focused or emotion-focused cognitive appraisals

by Lazarus in 1993. In problem-focused coping, the individual uses cognitive appraisal to determine
behaviors that are aimed at solving a problem or reducing the stress associated with the environment. In
emotional-focused coping, the cognitive appraisal process is associated with changing personal interpretations
of the environment to reduce stress.

1
Sowa, C. J., & May, K. M. (1997). Expanding Lazararus and Folkman's paradigm to the social and emotional
adjustment of gifted children and adolescents (SEAM). Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 36
43.
Therefore, the use of cognitive appraisal within process adjustment produces behaviors or changes in
interpretation of the environment. If this appraisal process helps the individual exhibit behaviors that are
adaptive within the environment, it reflects a parallel mechanism of achievement adjustment and process
adjustment.

Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) cognitive appraisal paradigm has been criticized by Ryan-Wenger
(1992) and Compas (1987) as primarily reflecting adults' cognitive development and function. For gifted
children, however, the onset of deductive reasoning has been shown to occur as early as four years of age
(Hollingworth, 1931; Morelock, 1992; Torrance, 1965). Based on the early development of deductive
reasoning and the precocity of gifted children, the application of the cognitive appraisal paradigm as part of
the social and emotional adjustment model presented was deemed appropriate.

Achievement adjustment often is reflected in the research on gifted children's adaptation relative to
non-gifted peers. Examples of this literature include comparisons of gifted children and non-identified
children on self-perceptions of social competence (Chan, 1988), and comparisons of gifted children's
families to families of non-identified children on characteristics of the family environment (Mathews et al.,
1986).
Application of the cognitive appraisal paradigm to young people must recognize that children and adolescents'
stressors are not the same as those of adults (Dise-Lewis, 1988). Young people's stressors often are related to
experiences with parents, other family members, teachers, and social conditions beyond their control
(Compas, Malcarne, & Fondacaro, 1988). Thus, an additional consideration must be the fit between the child
and the environment (Compas, 1987). Therefore, the model investigated here conceptualizes the fit between
gifted adolescents and their environments through the addition of environmental characteristics of family,
school, and peers to the cognitive appraisal paradigm of Lazarus and Folkman
Social and Emotional Adjustment Model (SEAM)
The following section describes three paths through SEAM: a functional adjustment path
representing gifted children and adolescents who reflect characteristics of both social and emotional
adjustment and two dysfunctional adjustment patterns representing those who rely on either social or
emotional adjustment patterns at the expense of the other. The functional path (see Figure 1) within SEAM
is presented first.

The gifted child. The beginning of SEAM is the gifted child, defined as one whose development of
formal operations or abstract thinking occurs at an earlier age than the child's non-identified peers (Morelock,
1992). Stories were shared by parents of situations involving these children learning to read by age three or
playing the piano by age five. The parents agreed that their children not only knew what they wanted but also
knew how to seek solutions at an early age.

The family. The interaction between the child and the parent as well as the entire family (Box 2.0)
provides the stage for the social and emotional adjustment of the gifted child. In functional families (Box 2.2)
a sense of belonging is balanced with a sense of having one's own unique identity (Minuchin, 1974).
Functional families are described by Goldenberg and Goldenberg (1994) as providing rules to maintain order
and stability while at the same time allowing flexibility in the event of changing circumstances.
Adjustment Interactional Family Mechanism Mechanism (2.0) (3.0) (4.0)
Figure 1. Functional path.
Adjustment mechanisms. The well functioning family is the basis for the child's
development of simultaneous achievement adjustment and process adjustment. This
balance between achievement adjustment and process adjustment is considered
necessary for both social and emotional adjustments of gifted children within the model.
For clarity, achievement adjustment and process adjustment are shown as two separate
boxes (Boxes 3.1 and 3.2) in the figures, although they are interactive and dynamic
within the adjustment mechanism (Box 3.0).

Alan typifies the use of simultaneous adjustment mechanisms. "If somebody is

doing something I don't like . . . I usually just read and do something that is not
strenuous . . . something I like to do and take my mind off the person . . . I congratulate
myself and say I am learning to do this, I am using my head instead of reacting." The
gifted adolescent in this case uses cognitive appraisal to determine behaviors that are
aimed at solving a problem and reducing the stress associated with the environment.
Since this appraisal process helps Alan adapt within the environment without sacrificing
a sense of self, it reflects a parallel adjustment mechanism of achievement adjustment
and process adjustment.

The interactional mechanism. Children begin to develop self-concept through

relationships with others, their development of self-knowledge, and their comparisons
of themselves to others (Collins, 1984). The interactional mechanism (Box 4.0) reflects
this developmental process. Self-concept is both situational, based on the identification
and comparison with similar peers (Box 4.1) and global, based on the concept of
personal identity (Box 4.2) (Bandura, 1986; Erikson, 1963). Previous research has
shown that the comparison of self to peers is critical to the social and emotional
adjustment of gifted adolescents (Cornell et al., 1990).

A teacher working with 2 gifted Hispanic students told this story, illustrating
the interactional mechanism. A little while into the school year a gifted Hispanic
student, Antonio, moved into the area. "When Antonio first came to me. I thought Juan
and Antonio would be friends. I thought maybe Juan would be a good influence on
Antonio. But Juan kept his distance because he knows Antonio is trouble . . . . Now in
my class, they are pleasant to each other, they talk, but I would not say that Antonio is
a good friend of his."

The outcome of the entire functional model is gifted young people who are
socially and emotionally adjusted (Box 5.0). These youngsters exhibit the characteristics
of functional adjustment as defined by Rathus and Nevid (1992) and positive self-
concepts. The following story is an overview of one child whose story reflects the
functional model.

Nina, a sixth grade student, is both a highly capable and creative gifted child.
Nina viewed her parents as having "fair rules" and yet admitted that, at times, she
disagrees with the rules. She is given responsibilities and interacts with her siblings in a
normal manner. She described her relationship with her siblings as "great friends" most
of the time, who "get along okay" other times, and "then sometimes we just don't get
along at all."
Nina brings energy and enthusiasm to each of her activities, both academic and
extracurricular. She exhibits playfulness and seems to engage in a wide array of
experiences for the sake of personal pleasure. Her school principal stated that she is "a
sensational student . . . . She finds interest in all areas of learning and is endlessly curious
about so many things. She loves learning and is energetic in her pursuit." At the same
time, a teacher sees Nina as a "self-motivated and self-challenging student, who sets high
standard for herself." Nina appears to be strongly goal-oriented. Nina radiates confidence
regarding her ideas, abilities, and values. She views herself as unique and different. This
perspective is due in part to the fact that she believes she is a creative person and that
creativity makes a person different from other people. "I want to be creative cause if I
was like everyone else, the world wouldn't be as cool . . . by being creative, people are
different. Being creative makes everybody special, makes everybody different."

At the same time Nina enjoys being creative and unique, she enjoys her
associations with her classmates and has many friends. As one teacher puts it: "She
seems to be comfortable in her own skin."

Over-reliance on achievement adjustment may occur when the gifted child or

adolescent is part of a family (Box 2.1, Figure 2) where a sense of belonging is
emphasized to the detriment of a sense of self. Characteristics of these types of families
include rigid adherence to family rules, parental domination, rewards based on
conformity to the family, and family taking precedence over the individual (Lamborn,
Mounts, & Steinberg, 1991). For example, in one child's family, the father is the
authoritarian figure in the family. His word is final. The father feels the need to control
his children and his wife and praise is based on conformity to the father's viewpoint.

The child's involvement in this type of family results in imbalance within the
simultaneous adjustment mechanism (Box 3.0). This gifted child relies on achievement
adjustment (Box 3.1) as a means of coping socially and emotionally. The child produces
socially accepted behaviors that include purposeful attempts to comply or adjust to the
detriment of self. Teachers often describe these children as perfect. "Juan does exactly
what you ask exactly when you ask him to do it, and if there is any feedback, it is
always positive."

Children's reliance on these behaviors, when they are incongruent with their
cognitive appraisal of the environment, produce a conflict between personal beliefs and
the actions expected by others. After starring in a school play, one gifted child received
high praise from her family and friends at a celebration party and appeared to be enjoying
the party. However during the party, she quietly retreated in tears to her room and, stated
"I was not as good as I could have been."
Adjustment Interactional Family Mechanism Mechanism
(2.0) (3.0) (4.0)
Figure 2. Reliance on achievement adjustment.
The reliance on achievement adjustment often is reinforced by the selection of
similar peers who also fit into the environment (Box 4.1) and playing by the rules of the
game. The gifted child following the path illustrated in Figure 2 consistently suppresses
his/her own beliefs to conform to peer expectations and may be socially adjusted at the
expense of emotional adjustment, which requires a reflection of one's own beliefs in one's
action. For example, Debbie's father reported that "she is very concerned socially about
conforming and she doesn't want to appear apart from her peers."

June is a 13 year old eighth-grader attending a public middle school in a relatively

small community and represents gifted children who over-rely on achievement
adjustment. At school, she serves on the yearbook staff and is a reporter for the school
newspaper. For a time, she acted as manager for the school's volleyball team, then she
joined the school's track and field team as a long distance runner. She is a member of the
school's Odyssey of the Mind team and participates in an after school gifted and talented
seminar program. Recently, June was elected by her class to be next year's class
president.

Outside of school, June takes piano and ballet lessons and between these activities
and her homework, she finds the time to maintain a wide variety of hobbies. She enjoys
reading, is an active participant in a local theater group and enjoys both vegetable and
flower gardening.

When asked to describe her family in one word, June's mother responded with
"Smiths." This is a family that spends a great deal of time together. June's father
describes their family as "tight knit." And each of the Smiths appears to be very satisfied
with their family life and supportive of one another. June points out that her parents want
what is best for her.

However, June worries that her mother works too hard and indicates that
occasionally her mother becomes upset about not being able to do everything she feels
that she should: "She gets upset a lot of times about the house and getting it clean."
June's response to her mother's reaction is: "[I] try as hard as I can to help around the
house." June points out that "When she's [mom] upset . . . it affects us all." She also
reports that occasionally she and her mother have disagreements but that their anger with
one another dissipates quickly: "I don't want our relationship to get hurt because she's
very important to me."

Susan, June's only close friend, is very similar to June. Their friendship is based
on mutual academic support. Regarding her friendship with Susan, June claims that "we
have to be good friends because we take all the same classes, and I need her help and she
needs my help." June's mother expressed concern that the friendship between June and
Susan appears to be based solely on their academic interests.

Last year, June received her first B. "It was a big thing [at the time] . . . ." In fact,
it was a big enough "thing" that June, who does not cry often, cried, and her mother wrote
a note to the teacher. However, June never gave this note to the teacher because "[I]
didn't want to hurt [my] relationship with her [the teacher]."

According to her teachers, June is a standard, of sorts. In her classes, she acts as
both a leader and a follower and is open to her classmates' and teachers' different ideas
and approaches to class work. Her algebra teacher believes that June succeeds in school
not only because she enjoys learning, but also because "[she] has a fierce desire to
please her parents." June's case illustrates that the perfect gifted child may be at risk for
emotional adjustment difficulties by continually sacrificing for others.

When a gifted child is born into a family (Box 2.3, Figure 3) that creates an
exaggerated sense of individual importance we may see development of over-reliance
on process adjustment. These types of families are characterized by erratic rules,
individual domination (often the child is dominant), expectations of system
modification to individual needs, and individuals taking precedence over family
(Hollingsworth, 1990; Rimm, 1990). For example, one mother described the impact her
son, Kevin, had on her relationship with her husband as, "Life before Kevin, now it's
Kevin, and hopefully there will be life after Kevin." A father said his gifted child was
"the recipient of all his dreams and hopes."

The child's involvement in this type of family sets up a reliance on process

adjustment (3.2). This child often is described as not fitting into the environment and not
expressing any distress over lack of adaptation. For example, Jill, a fifth-grader, often
argues and debates issues in her classes. She says that she "knows other students don't
like it, but it's good for them. Maybe they'll go on to be in the debate in high school or
become lawyers."

Difficulties for these adolescents occur when they experience congruence

between their beliefs and their behaviors, but generate actions that do not help them fit
into the environment. Often these behaviors are seen by others as inappropriate.
Therefore, the gifted adolescent's internal appraisal does not encourage behaviors
necessary for achievement adjustment, and emotional adjustment exists at the expenses of
social adjustment.

Kevin, a seventh grade student at the time this study began, is a highly intellectual
child with an IQ of 180 on the Slosson Intelligence Test. Kevin's interviews create a story
that illustrates reliance on process adjustment. Kevin's mother describes the family as
"totally child-centered." The father concurs "I guess we try to do too much for the kids.
It's like there is no tomorrow." Within the context of school, Kevin is seen by his teachers
as having social difficulties. One teacher's explanation is that "He is very bright and his
interests are so different that somehow he never learned the social skills needed with
peers. So it became a cyclical thing. He would be talking about things or be interested in
things they weren't, he'd get a bad response, so he'd isolate himself, not pick up the social
skills, so even his intellectually similar peers rejected him."

Adjustment Interactional Family Mechanism Mechanism

Figure 3. Reliance on process adjustment.
Kevin's lack of achievement adjustment was compensated by his reliance on
process adjustment or his appraisal of his peer relationships in a manner that did not
cause him emotional distress: "Most people at school I am not good friends with . . . .
We don't really hate each other we just sort of live with each other. Occasionally I might
talk to them or play a game . . . but we're not like buddies, pals, come over to my house
sort of thing . . . . See you can only have so many really good friends anyway."

Kevin sums his story clearly as he describes himself: "I've never been a real
social person anyway. I could go off by myself and read a book at recess . . . I said to
myself . . . who needs it? . . . . Forget this."

Model of Social and Emotional Adjustment

A conceptual model of the social and emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents

(see Figure 4) was developed through a qualitative research study involving 22 gifted
students and their families, teachers, and peers (Sowa & May, 1997). This study
examined how these gifted adolescents coped with the demands and pressures they
experienced. Case studies based on extensive interviews and observations were
developed for each adolescent. Cross-case analyses yielded common and discrepant
patterns in the ways these adolescents responded to the stressors in their lives. The
linking of these patterns to the literature was the foundation of the conceptual model. The
model incorporated theoretical and empirical information from the fields of child and
family development and personal adjustment to stress.

Adjustment was defined by Rathus and Nevid (1992) as a process people use to
respond to environmental demands. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) described this process
as "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external
and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the
person" (p. 141). They referred to it as the cognitive appraisal paradigm. On the basis
of the cognitive appraisal paradigm, the model assumes that people are not merely
reactive, but also proactive within their environments, creating complex interactions.
Hence, intrapersonal, family, school, and peer influences on social and emotional
adjustment are examined separately as well as in combination within the model.

The first component of the model is the gifted child. For the purposes of this
model, gifted was defined as advanced intellectual ability and corresponds with the
development of formal operations or abstract thinking at an earlier age than the child's
non-gifted peers. This ability allows the gifted child to employ the cognitive appraisal
paradigm.

The second component is the family. The family provides the initial setting for the
social and emotional adjustment of the gifted child. Functional families encourage a
sense of togetherness and a sense of individuality (Minuchin, 1974). This duality is the
basis for the child's development of balanced adjustment that fosters social and emotional
adjustment.

The adjustment mechanism, the third component of the model, includes both
achievement adjustment and process adjustment. Achievement adjustment is the strategy
a gifted child uses to adapt within his or her environment (Lazarus, 1961). Process
adjustment is the employment of the cognitive appraisal paradigm by the gifted child.
Both achievement adjustment and process adjustment are used to cope with demands of
the environment.
Adjustment Interactional Family Mechanism Mechanism
Figure 4. A conceptual model of social and emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents.
Successful emotional and social adjustment in gifted children is based on the
generation of effective behaviors and beliefs that produce a balanced employment of
achievement and process adjustment. Similar to adjusted adults (Rathus & Nevid, 1992),
adjusted gifted adolescents seek balance between their belief systems and their
environments and modify their beliefs or behaviors when they are not adaptive.

The fourth component of the model is an interactional mechanism that fosters

the development of self-concept. Children begin to develop self-concept through self-
knowledge and comparisons between themselves and others (Collins, 1984). The
establishment of a realistic attitude toward oneself and a favorable outlook on
relationships with others reinforces the simultaneous adjustment mechanism in gifted
children within the functional model.

When successful social and emotional adjustments have occurred, gifted

children will exhibit the characteristics of functional adjustment as defined by Rathus
and Nevid (1992). They will demonstrate accurate expectations and behaviors that
permit them to:
(a) meet the demands of the environment; (b) change the environment or create new
environments to meet their needs or tastes; (c) regulate their behavior to bring about
desired effects; (d) believe in their abilities to achieve desired outcomes; (e) interpret
experiences in such a way that they perceive solutions to problems and do not
unnecessarily arouse negative emotions; and (f) imitate a wealth of models so that they
learn many ways to influence their environment. These behaviors and expectations are
often reflected in positive self-concept and the use of effective coping strategies.

Recent research has highlighted the importance of examining self-concept from a

multidimensional perspective (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson,
1988). In particular, studies examining the relationship between self-concept and
giftedness have been confounded by variations in the ways the construct has been defined
and measured (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993). Although gifted students scored somewhat
higher than average children on measures of global, academic, and behavioral self-
concept, for example, meta-analysis suggests that there were no significant differences
between student identified as gifted and those not so identified on measures of social self-
concept (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993). Within the present study, we focus on the relationship
between the coping strategies predicted by Sowa and May's (1997) model and the
nonacademic dimensions of self-concept that have been shown to predict social and
emotional adjustment of gifted students.

Study 5: Issues in the Development of a Gifted, Asian American

Student6

Research and theory in gifted education has traditionally focused upon the
intellectual development of high potential students. A recent analysis of the literature on
the gifted and talented found that only 13% of the articles dealt with socio-emotional
issues. Less than one third of those articles were empirical studies (Rogers, 1989).
Considering the possible, if uncertain, correlation between socio-emotional attribute
such as self-efficacy, self-concept, resiliency, stress, and academic achievement (Hoge
& Renzulli, 1993; Kelly & Colangelo, 1984), the paucity of research in this area is
unfortunate. High potential, Asian American students have also received little attention
in the literature, with few exceptions (see Kitano & Chinn, 1986; Maker & Schiever,
1989). Published, empirical studies involving Asian American students do not
adequately address socio-emotional adjustment and development (Plucker, 1993).

In an effort to further document and provide some additional understanding of

the dynamics of relationships between outstanding talent and the adjustment of high
potential students, the University of Virginia site of The National Research Center on
the Gifted and Talented has undertaken a qualitative study of the social and emotional
development of high potential adolescents.

Altman (1983) proposed a research model for the socia1-emotional development

of gifted children that stresses the interaction of different data sources, such as
the child, teachers, parents, siblings, and peers; psychosocial traits, including
self-concept, interpersonal relations, community adjustment, and personality
traits; and demographic variables, age, sex, SES level, and cultural variations. In
this model, however, Altman downplays the role of adjustment and advocates the
independent investigation of each interaction. A model is needed to guide
research that comprehensively investigates the complex interaction of variables
that influence a gifted child's socio-emotional development and adjustment
Implications and Conclusions

Families and schools should foster a balance between achievement adjustment

and process adjustment mechanisms to assist gifted children and adolescents in the
development of social and emotional adjustment skills. The means for fostering
simultaneous adjustment mechanisms differ based on the reliance of the gifted child or
adolescent on one area of adjustment over another. Gifted children or adolescents who
are reliant on achievement adjustment need to strengthen their personal identity and feel
more comfortable in expressing and abiding by their personal beliefs systems. A stronger
sense of personal identity promotes trust in their own cognitive appraisal and helps
recreate balance in the simultaneous adjustment mechanism.

In turn, gifted children or adolescents who rely on process adjustment as a means

of coping need to incorporate others into their appraisal process. It is important that
schools and families help young people learn to understand the views of their peers and
others even when they are perceived as dissimilar. The increasing importance of peers in
adolescence may facilitate this process and serve as a means of promoting achievement
adjustment. During its development, the applicability of the model was considered for
minority populations and both genders. Ethnic, racial, and sexual identity play important
roles in both the personal identity of the adolescent and the comparison with similar peers
(Boyd-Franklin, 1989). The role ethnicity, race, and gender play in the model is
determined by the importance of ethnic, racial, and sexual identity within the family.
Therefore, if the family incorporates these issues by employing balanced adjustment
mechanisms, the gifted child begins a simultaneous path in regard to ethnic, racial, and
sexual identity (see Figure 1). If the family relies on either achievement adjustment or
process adjustment approach to incorporate the minority or gender issues into their
personal adjustment mechanisms, the gifted child is likely to exhibit such a reliance.
Future research is needed on the implications of ethnicity, race, and gender within this
model.

Additional research using quantitative techniques also is needed to clarify the

relationships within the model of social and emotional adjustment presented. This model
is built on the premise that social and emotional adjustments are not the same constructs
and rely on separate adjustment mechanisms. This conceptual model of social and
emotional adjustment portrays a pictorial representation of gifted children's and
adolescents vulnerability. It is based on the delicate balance of both fitting into the world
while being different and understanding one's own uniqueness. This balance is important
for all persons living and working with gifted children and adolescents to remember.