This study examined sex differences among academically achieving and underachieving gifted students (N = 280) in the Netherlands attending a pre-university track in secondary school. We focused on three types of underachievement: general, language arts, and STEM. Boys demonstrated higher general intelligence scores than girls, while girls showed higher general academic achievement than boys. No sex differences were found in language arts and STEM achievement. Furthermore, boys underachieved at higher rates than girls across all three achievement domains (general, language arts, and STEM). Students who underachieve in one domain are more likely to underachieve in another. Regarding social-emotional characteristics, the study identified differences between achievers and underachievers in academic-achievement motivation and social-emotional well-being, but not in academic self-concept and inquisitiveness. Our findings highlight the importance of early identification of underachievement in gifted students across multiple domains.
Plain Language Summary
Sex Differences in Underachievement and Social Emotional Functioning of Gifted Students
This study looked at whether boys and girls with high intelligence perform differently in school and what factors might explain any differences. Researchers studied 280 Dutch seventh-grade students who were all attending an academically challenging pre-university track. The key findings showed that while boys scored slightly higher on intelligence tests, girls actually performed better in school across all subjects—including general academics, language arts, and science/math courses. Boys were about twice as likely as girls to be “underachievers”—meaning their school grades were much lower than expected based on their high intelligence. The researchers found that underachievement often affects multiple school subjects at once rather than just one area. For example, three-quarters of students who underachieved in language arts also underachieved in science and math. This pattern was especially strong for boys. Students who underachieved showed lower motivation for schoolwork and reported feeling less emotionally well compared to their achieving peers. However, both achieving and underachieving students showed similar levels of curiosity and confidence in their academic abilities. These findings suggest that having high intelligence does not automatically lead to good grades, and that boys may face particular challenges in translating their abilities into academic success. The results highlight the importance of identifying underachieving students early and providing support that addresses not just academic skills but also motivation and emotional well-being. Understanding these patterns can help teachers and parents better support all gifted students in reaching their potential.
Abu-HamourB.Al-HmouzH. (2013). A study of gifted high, moderate, and low achievers in their personal characteristics and attitudes toward school and teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 5–15.
2.
AertsE.LavrijsenJ.PreckelF.VerschuerenK. (2024). A theoretical framework for the development of need for cognition in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Intelligence, 12(10), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12100099
3.
BaslantiU.McCoachD. B. (2006). Factors related to the underachievement of university students in Turkey. Roeper Review, 28(4), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190609554366
4.
BleidornW.ArslanR. C.DenissenJ. J. A.RentfrowP. J.GebauerJ. E.PotterJ.GoslingS. D. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-esteem—A cross-cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000078
DesmetO. A.PereiraN.PetersonJ. S. (2020). Telling a tale: How underachievement develops in gifted girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219888633
12.
DixonR. M.CravenR.MartinA. (2006). Underachievement in a whole city cohort of academically gifted children: What does it look like?Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 15(2), 9–15. https://ro.uow.edu.au/edupapers
13.
EgberinkI. J. L.de LengW. E. (2024, June). COTAN beoordeling 2004-2005, Schoolvragenlijst, SVL [COTAN review 2004-2005, School Questionnaire, SQ]. www.cotandocumentatie.nl
14.
FiggS. D.RogersK. B.McCormickJ.LowR. (2012). Differentiating low performance of the gifted learner: Achieving, underachieving, and selective consuming students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(1), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X11430000
15.
FirmenderJ. M.ReisS. M.SweenyS. M. (2013). Reading comprehension and fluency levels ranges across diverse classrooms: The need for differentiated reading instruction and content. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212460084
16.
FongC. J.PatallE. A.SnyderK. E.HoffM. A.JonesS. J.Zuniga-OrtegaR. E. (2023). Academic underachievement and its motivational and self-regulated learning correlates: A meta-analytic review of 80 years of research. Educational Research Review, 41, 100566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100566
17.
FordD. Y. (2014). Segregation and the underrepresentation of blacks and Hispanics in gifted education: Social inequality and deficit paradigms. Roeper Review, 36(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2014.919563
18.
FordD. Y.MooreJ. L. (2013). Understanding and reversing underachievement, low achievement, and achievement gaps among high-ability African American males in urban school contexts. Urban Review, 45(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0256-3
19.
Gilar-CorbiR.VeasA.MiñanoP.CastejónJ.-L. (2019). Differences in personal, familial, social, and school factors between underachieving and non-underachieving gifted secondary students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02367
20.
GuthrieK. H. (2020). The weight of expectations: A thematic narrative of gifted adolescent girls’ reflections of being gifted. Roeper Review, 42(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1690080
21.
HébertT. P. (2001). “If I had a new notebook, I know things would change”: Bright underachieving young men in urban classrooms. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500303
22.
HeyderA.KesselsU. (2015). Do teachers equate male and masculine with lower academic engagement? How students’ gender enactment triggers gender stereotypes at school. Social Psychology of Education, 18(3), 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9303-0
23.
HeyderA.KesselsU. (2017). Boys don’t work? On the psychological benefits of showing low effort in high school. Sex Roles, 77(1–2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0683-1
24.
HiscockM. (2007). The Flynn effect and its relevance to neuropsychology. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29(5), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390600813841
25.
HoferS. I.SternE. (2016). Underachievement in physics: When intelligent girls fail. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.006
26.
JacksonR. L.JungJ. Y. (2022). The identification of gifted underachievement: Validity evidence for the commonly used methods. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 1133–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12492
27.
KanevskyL.KeighleyT. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554235
28.
KeithT. Z.ReynoldsM. R.PatelP. G.RidleyK. P. (2008). Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 6 to 59: Evidence from the Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Intelligence, 36(6), 502–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.11.001
29.
KroesbergenE. H.van HooijdonkM.Van ViersenS.Middel-LallemanM. M. N. N.ReijndersJ. J. W. W. (2016). The psychological well-being of early identified gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215609113
30.
LauK.-L.ChanD. W. (2001). Identification of underachievers in Hong Kong: Do different methods select different underachievers?Educational Studies, 27(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690120050419
31.
LavrijsenJ.PreckelF.VerschuerenK. (2023). Seeking, mastering, and enjoying cognitive effort: Scrutinizing the role of need for cognition in academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 107, 102363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102363
32.
LavrijsenJ.VerschuerenK. (2020). Student characteristics affecting the recognition of high cognitive ability by teachers and peers. Learning and Individual Differences, 78, Article 101820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101820
33.
LehwaldG. (1981). Verfahren Zur Untersuchungen des erkenntnisstrebens [Procedure for examining the pursuit of knowledge]. In GuthkeJ.WitzlackG. (Eds.), Zur psychodiagnostiek von persönlichkeitsqualitäten bei schülern [For psychodiagnostic personality qualities in students] (pp. 345–406). Volk und Wissen.
34.
LehwaldG. (1985). Zur diagnostik des erkenntnisstrebens bei schulern [For the diagnosis of the pursuit of knowledge in schools]. Volk und wissen volkseigener verlag.
35.
LiepmannD.BeauducelA.BrockeB.AmthauerR. (2010). IST Intelligentie Structuur Test: Handleiding met normen voor studenten [IST Intelligence Structure Test: Manual with student norms]. Hogrefe.
36.
LupartJ. L.PyrytM. C. (1996). “Hidden gifted” students: Underachiever prevalence and profile. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329602000103
MarshH. W.CravenR. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 133–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00010.x
40.
MazrekajD.De WitteK.TriebsT. P. (2022). Mind the gap: Measuring academic underachievement using stochastic frontier analysis. Exceptional Children, 88(4), 442–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211073524
41.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003). The school attitude assessment survey-revised: A new instrument to identify academically able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403063003005
42.
MokM. M. C.KennedyK. J.MooreP. J. (2010). Academic attribution of secondary students: Gender, year level and achievement level. Educational Psychology, 31(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2010.518596
43.
ObergriesserS.StoegerH. (2015). The role of emotions, motivation, and learning behavior in underachievement and results of an intervention. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1043003
PauneskuD.WaltonG. M.RomeroC.SmithE. N.YeagerD. S.DweckC. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26(6), 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571017
47.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
48.
PetersonJ. S. (2000). A follow-up study of one group of achievers and underachievers four years after high school graduation. Roeper Review, 22(4), 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554041
PetersonJ. S.ColangeloN. (1996). Gifted achievers and underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counseling & Development, 57(4), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb01886.x
51.
PhillipsonS. N. (2008). The optimal achievement model and underachievement in Hong Kong: An application of the Rasch model. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50(2), 147–172.
52.
PhillipsonS. N.Ka-on TseA. (2007). Discovering patterns of achievement in Hong Kong students: An application of the Rasch measurement model. High Ability Studies, 18(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130701709640
53.
PreckelF.BrunnerM. (2015). Academic self-concept, achievement goals, and achievement: Is their relation the same for academic achievers and underachievers?Gifted and Talented International, 30(1–2), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2015.1137458
54.
ReisS. M. (2003). Reconsidering regular curriculum for high achieving students, gifted underachievers, and the relationship between gifted and regular education. In BorlandJ. H. (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 186–200). Teachers College Press.
55.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go?Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
56.
RidgleyL. M.RubensteinL. D.CallanG. L. (2020). Gifted underachievement within a self-regulated learning framework: Proposing a task-dependent model to guide early identification and intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 57(9), 1365–1384. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22408
57.
RitchotteJ. A.MatthewsM. S.FlowersC. P. (2014). The validity of the achievement-orientation model for gifted middle school students: An exploratory study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534890
58.
SchickH.PhillipsonS. N. (2009). Learning motivation and performance excellence in adolescents with high intellectual potential: What really matters?High Ability Studies, 20(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130902879366
59.
SchouwenburgH. (1997). Selftest: Vragenlijst Studie-Aanpak voor de Tweede Fase van het VO [Questionnaire for study-related attitudes in secondary education]. LOS Contact, 17(3–4), 38–39.
60.
SiegleD. (2018). Understanding underachievement. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 285–297). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_16
61.
SiegleD.McCoachD. B. (2005). Making a difference: Motivating gifted students who are not achieving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503800104
62.
SiegleD.McCoachD. B. (2018). Underachievement and the gifted child. In PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE.Foley-NicponM. (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 559–573). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-036
SnoeijsB. G. J. (2004). Fragenboge zur Erfassung des Erkenntnisstreben: Een goede voorspeller van uitval? [The questionnaire for detecting inquisitiveness: A good predictor for dropout?; Thesis]. Radboud University.
SparksR. L.PattonJ.GanschowL.HumbachN. (2009). Long-term relationships among early first language skills, second language aptitude, second language affect, and later second language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 725–755. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990099
67.
Steenbergen-HuS.Olszewski-KubiliusP.CalvertE. (2020). The effectiveness of current interventions to reverse the underachievement of gifted students: Findings of a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 132–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220908601
68.
StoegerH.SontagC.ZieglerA. (2014). Impact of a teacher-led intervention on preference for self-regulated learning, finding main ideas in expository texts, and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 799–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036035
69.
VettoriG.Casado LedesmaL.TesoneS.TarchiC. (2024). Key language, cognitive and higher-order skills for L2 reading comprehension of expository texts in English as foreign language students: A systematic review. Reading and Writing, 37, 2481–2519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-023-10479-3
70.
VorstH. C. M. (2008). Schoolvragenlijst voor basisonderwijs en voortgezet onderwijs. Herziene uitgave (4e druk) [School questionnaire for primary and secondary education. Revised] (4th ed.). Pearson.
WhiteS. L. J.GrahamL. J.BlaasS. (2018). Why do we know so little about the factors associated with gifted underachievement? A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 24, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.001
73.
WoltringL.van der WaterenD. (Eds.). (2019). De ontwikkeling van jongens in het onderwijs: Context en praktijk van primair tot en met hoger onderwijs [The development of boys in education: Context and practice from primary to higher education]. LannooCampus.
