Competitive Goal Orientations, Quality, and Stability in Gifted and Other Adolescents' Friendships

Schapiro, Michelle; Schneider, Barry H.; Shore, Bruce M.; Margison, Judith A.; Udvari, Stephen J.

doi:10.1177/0016986208330566

Cited by 21 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As for the assumption, that rivalry inevitably damages relationships, Schapiro et al (2009) questions the connection between competitiveness and its harm to friendship. In a Canadian study of 7 th and 8 th graders, competitiveness among 76 pairs of a gifted and non-gifted friends has been examined, and the results showed that while the aims of learning were different in the 2 groups, the gifted had learning goals and the non-gifted -achieving goals, competiveness did not have any influence on the friendship of these dyads of friends.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sibling Relationships among Eilat Families with at Least One Gifted Child

Hine¹,

Gil²,

Raviv³

2009

Gifted and Talented International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A most common belief is that giftedness is the cause of problems in sibling relationships when the family is "mixed", has at least one gifted child, and at least one non-gifted one. This belief has been accepted not only by parents and educators of the gifted, but also by researchers in the area of gifted education in general and counseling the gifted family in particular. However, quantitative studies have shown that in most case gifted families maintain healthy connections, a high level of psychological adjustment and positive coping strategies (Mathews et al., 1986; Silverman, 1993a). Relationships among gifted and non-gifted siblings have not been widely studied. Thus, until the Chamrad et al.(1995) study the common belief was that having a gifted child has a negative influence on the sibling relationships. Our work is the first Israeli one that examines a whole population, all gifted children invited to participate at the enrichment program for the gifted in Eilat, the most southern Israeli city, with a population of approximately 50,000, in the year 2007/2008. We studied the 6 following parameters of sibling relationships: friendship, empathy, learning, rivalry, conflict and avoidance. We found that the labeling of one sibling as "gifted" in Eilat did not have a negative influence on the sibling relationship. This result is of crucial importance, as many parents prefer not to send their gifted children to the enrichment program for the gifted I order not to harm the relationships between the gifted and the no-gifted sibling.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sibling Relationships among Eilat Families with at Least One Gifted Child

Hine¹,

Gil²,

Raviv³

2009

Gifted and Talented International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Ash & Huebner, 1998, pp. 312-313) Ackerman (1997; Ash and Huebner (1998);Baker (1996); Dai (2001); Estell et al (2009); Gaultney (1998); Hannah and Shore (1995); Hawkins (1997); Jausovec (1996); Jausovec (1997); Klein and Zehms (1996); Maksic (1997); Metha and McWhirter (1997);Muj et al (2000); Park, Park, and Choe (2005); Rovan and Vlahovic-Stetic (2008); Schapiro et al (2009);Steiner (2006); Thornton et al (2006); Tirri and Nokelainen (2007); Tong and Yewchuk (1996); Wu and Elliott (2008) Identification method used Example Sources used…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1) Ackerman (1997);Bain and Bell (2004);Baker (1996); L. K. S Chan (1996)Delcourt, Lyn, and Rejskind (1997);Gallucci et al (1999);Gaultney (1998);Gentry, Gable, and Springer (2000);George and Scheft (1998);Hannah and Shore (1995);Hawkins (1997);Heng (2000);Kher-durlabhji et al (1997);Klein and Zehms (1996);Liu et al (2008);McCoach and Siegle (2002); Mendez(2000);Merrell et al (1996);Mooij and Driessen (2008);Muj, Yeung, Low, and Jin (2000);Nail and Evans (1997);Parker and Mills (1996);Rigo et al (1998);Schapiro, Schneider, Shore, Margison, and Udvari (2009);Schommer and Walker (1997);…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Apples and Oranges

Carman

2013

Journal of Advanced Academics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lack of a unified definition of giftedness leads researchers to use very different operationalizations when selecting a sample of gifted individuals for use in research. We found 104 empirical articles from 38 journals that differentiated between gifted and nongifted students which were analyzed to determine the most common methods of identifying individuals in research. Results of the analysis show a lack of consensus as to what qualifies a person to be defined as gifted for the purposes of research. This lack of consensus leads to lower generalizability of research about giftedness and to an inability for researchers in the field to compare results of studies. An agreedupon unified definition of giftedness for the purposes of research will lead to a more homogeneous group of participants, which in turn would lead to multiple benefits, including higher external validity in research designs.

show abstract

“…Studies examining friendship qualities amongst high ability and gifted learners have yielded mixed results. For example, some have found high ability students report lower degrees of friendship intimacy (Mayseless, 1993) and fewer positive friendship qualities (i.e., companionship, help, security, closeness;Schapiro, Schneider, Shore, Margison, & Udvari, 2009) with a best friend than average ability peers. Yet other researchers have found gifted students viewed their friendships as more close and intimate than non-gifted peers (Field et al, 1998) and were more likely to report more positive friendship qualities (Masden, Leung, Shore, Schneider, and Udvari, 2015).…”

Section: High Ability or Giftednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A language arts teacher completed the Teacher Competition Rating Scales (cognitive scales; Schneider et al, 2005) and the physical education teacher completed the physical scales. Data were collected at the end of the first semester of the school year, at the end of the school year, and at the start of the next school year (Schapiro et al, 2009).…”

Section: High Ability and Giftedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating friendship qualities in high ability or achieving, typically-developing, ADHD, and twice-exceptional youth

Fosenburg¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I would also like to thank the staff at the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development for their guidance and encouragement during the conceptualization and recruitment process. A special thanks to the individuals who participated in this study and the parents and guardians who provided support. A very special thank you to my family. To my parents, who patiently waited for me to find new books in the library, embraced my curiosity, and taught me to find balance. To my brother, who has taught me degrees are only part of wisdom. To my graduate school and internship families, Meg, Kevin, Michelle, Emily, Nicole, Kristin, Chuck, Liz, Candice, Kate, and Destiny, the best of companions on this educational journey. To my best friend, LaNeisha, the best support and person I could ever have hoped to befriend during the first day of orientation and now count as family. And to Josh, who patiently supported me through years of long distance and many evenings of laptop dates. I feel so blessed to be on this journey with you. Without you all, none of this would have been possible. Thank you a thousand times over! iv ABSTRACT Current gaps in knowledge about twice-exceptional youth relative to those with only one exceptionality (e.g., high ability or ADHD) include how twice-exceptional students perceive their friendships (Foley Nicpon et al., 2010). Some researchers have found friendship qualities to be less positive for youth with ADHD (Humphrey et al., 2007), yet others have found friendships to be rated more positively by gifted youth (Field et al., 1998). The current investigation sought to determine how friendships are perceived by twice-exceptional youth compared to peers with ADHD or high ability or achievement, and those with average ability or achievement and no diagnosis. Participants included 65 youth (35 boys, 33 girls) in middle school. Participants completed the Friendship Qualities Scale (Bukowski et al., 1994), in addition to a demographic questionnaire completed by parents. A repeated-measures ANOVA design was utilized to compare friendship quality ratings based on ability or achievement and ADHD diagnosis, as well as gender. Participants with ADHD, regardless of ability or achievement, reported significantly less companionship, help, and security with a best friend than those without a diagnosis. Boys were observed to report significantly less closeness with a best friend than girls. Implications of the current findings for counseling psychologists in the areas of practice and theory include considerations of how youth are socialized based on societal beliefs about gender and disability. Additionally, recommendations for treatment considerations, particularly for twice-exceptional youth, may include strengths-based interventions to support areas of strength to help accommodate difficulties. v

show abstract

Competitive Goal Orientations, Quality, and Stability in Gifted and Other Adolescents' Friendships

Cited by 21 publications

References 45 publications

Sibling Relationships among Eilat Families with at Least One Gifted Child

Sibling Relationships among Eilat Families with at Least One Gifted Child

Comparing Apples and Oranges

Investigating friendship qualities in high ability or achieving, typically-developing, ADHD, and twice-exceptional youth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About