Gifted underachievement indicates a gap between what one is expected to achieve given demonstrated gifted potential and what is actually attained in school. Gifted underachievement has long been defined as an ability-achievement gap calculated by test scores and GPA. With a current understanding of human potential not as a fixed capacity but as growing with experience and learning, this article presents a new conceptualization, situating possible underachievement in context, wherein the dynamics of person × task × situation interaction determine the outcome. Consequently, the authors propose a diagnosis-intervention approach to find out what exactly transpires in situ, resulting in a typology of underachievement that can differentiate multiple types of underachievement and facilitate targeted interventions. The effort to revamp the notion of gifted underachievement is guided by a new paradigm of talent development to make gifted education scientifically more compelling, socially more equitable, and educationally more productive.
Plain Language Summary
Gifted Underachievement Redefined and Reconceptualized
Many gifted students don’t perform as well in school as their abilities suggest they could. Traditionally, this “gifted underachievement” has been defined by comparing IQ scores to grades, identifying students whose achievement falls below what their test scores predict. Our paper challenges this outdated approach. We propose a new way of understanding gifted underachievement that recognizes it’s not just about test scores versus grades, but about complex interactions between students and their learning environments. We describe four main patterns of underachievement: (1) Internal Barriers, where personal factors like perfectionism or anxiety hold students back; (2) External Barriers, where environmental factors like lack of opportunities or stereotypes create obstacles; (3) Lack of Synergistic Play, where students initially engage but then experience a downward spiral of motivation; and (4) Mismatch, where there’s a fundamental disconnect between how a student learns and what education provides. This new approach helps educators better identify why a particular student might be underachieving and create targeted interventions rather than applying one-size-fits-all solutions. By considering underachievement as situated in specific contexts rather than as a fixed condition, we can help more gifted students fulfill their potential.
BaumS.SchaderR. (2018). Using a positive lens: Engaging twice exceptional learners. In KaufmanS. B. (Ed.), Twice exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties (pp. 48–65). Oxford University Press.
3.
CeciS. J.LikerJ. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.115.3.255
4.
ColangeloN.KerrB.ChristensenP.MaxeyJ. (1993). A comparison of gifted underachievers and gifted high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700404
5.
CronbachL. J. E. (Ed.). (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
DaiD. Y. (2002). Are gifted girls motivationally disadvantaged? Review, reflection, and redirection. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 315–358. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2002-283
7.
DaiD. Y. (2016). Envisioning a new century of gifted education: The case for a paradigm shift. In AmbroseD.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization (pp. 45–63). Sense Publishers.
8.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Prufrock Press.
9.
DaiD. Y.MoonS. M.FeldhusenJ. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3302&3_1
10.
DaiD. Y.RenzulliJ. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208315732
11.
DaiD. Y.Steenbergen-HuS.ZhouY. (2015). Cope and grow: A grounded theory approach to early college entrants’ lived experiences and changes in a STEM program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214568719
12.
DaiD. Y.SternbergR. J. (2004). Beyond cognitivism: Toward an integrated understanding of intellectual functioning and development. In DaiD. Y.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 3–38). Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
DaiD. Y.SternbergR. J. (2021). Introduction: Historical and contemporary perspectives on human potential. In DaiD. Y.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Scientific inquiry into human potential: Historical and contemporary perspectives across disciplines (pp. xv–xxviii). Routledge.
DesmetO. A.PereiraN. (2022). Gifted boys’ perceptions of their academic underachievement. Gifted Education International, 38(2), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211050294
16.
DesmetO. A.PereiraN. (2026). High-ability students’ perceptions of underachievement. Gifted Child Quarterly. [Manuscript in press].
17.
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
18.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
19.
FeldmanD. H. (2020). Nonuniversal theory and the development of gifts and talents. In CrossT. L.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (Eds.), Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development (pp. 181–201). Prufrock Academic Press.
20.
Foley NicponM.AllmonA.SieckB.StinsonR. D. (2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going?Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210382575
21.
FordD. Y. (1993). An investigation of the paradox of underachievement among gifted Black students. Roeper Review, 16(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199309553544
22.
FordD. Y. (1995). A study of achievement and underachievement among gifted, potentially gifted, and average African-American students (Research Monograph 95128). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
23.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C.WhitingG. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400302
24.
FordD. Y.HarrisB. N.ByrdJ. A.WaltersN. M. (2018). Blacked out and Whited out: The double bind of gifted Black females who are often a footnote in educational discourse. International Journal of Educational Reform, 27(3), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/105678791802700302
25.
FordD. Y.MooreJ. L. (2013). Understanding and reversing underachievement, low achievement, and achievement gaps among high-ability African American males in urban school contexts. The Urban Review, 45, 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0256-3
26.
GagnéF. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–119). Cambridge University Press.
HamptonJ. A. (2015). Categories, prototypes and exemplars. In ReimerN. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 125–141). Routledge.
29.
HerrnsteinR. J.MurrayC. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press.
30.
HertzogN. B. (2009). The arbitrariness of definitions of giftedness. In ShavininaL. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 205–214). Springer Science.
31.
JacksonR. L.JungJ. Y. (2022). The identification of gifted underachievement: Validity evidence for the commonly used methods. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 1133–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12492
32.
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
33.
KelleyT. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. World Book Company.
34.
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
35.
LohmanD. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent identification: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333–360. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2005-341
36.
LohmanD. F.KorbK. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451–484. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-245
37.
LubinskiD. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) “‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205
40.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2014). Underachievers. In PluckerJ.CallahanC. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 691–706). Prufrock Press.
41.
MofieldE.Parker PetersM. (2019). Understanding underachievement: Mindset, perfectionism, and achievement attitudes among gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(2), 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219836737
42.
Nicholson-CrottyS.GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyJ.ReddingC. (2016). Disentangling the causal mechanisms of representative bureaucracy: Evidence from assignment of students to gifted programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw024
43.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.CorwithS. (2017). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738015
44.
PetersS. J. (2021). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66, 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
45.
PluckerJ. A.PetersS. J. (2020). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Harvard Education Press.
46.
RalphJ. B.GoldbergM. L.PassowA. H. (1966). Bright underachievers: Studies of scholastic underachievement among intellectually superior high school students. Teachers College Press.
47.
ReisS. M.BaumS. M.BurkeE. (2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534976
48.
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
49.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327035EX1002_5
50.
RosenthalR. (1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 176–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770698
51.
SchefflerI. (1985). Of human potential: An essay in the philosophy of education. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
52.
SiegleD.McCoachD. B. (2005). Motivating gifted students. Prufrock Press.
53.
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
SnyderK. E.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 209–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.835597
58.
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
SternbergR. J. (2021). Adaptive intelligence: Intelligence is not a personal trait but rather a person× task× situation interaction. Journal of Intelligence, 9(4), 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9040058
61.
SternbergR. J.PreissD. D. (2022). Conclusion: Intelligence does not inhere within the individual but rather in person x task x situation interactions. In SternbergR. J.PreissD. D. (Eds.), Intelligence in context (pp. 415–431). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92798-1_17
62.
SternbergR. J.Soleimani DashtakiA. (2024). Effectivity: An alternative to conceptions of gifted under- and over-achievement. Gifted Education International, 41(2), 182–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294241280862
63.
SternbergR. J.TrompC.KaramiS. (2023). Intelligence, creativity, and wisdom are situated in the interaction among person × task × situation. In SternbergR. J.KaufmanJ. C.KaramiS. (Eds.), Intelligence, creativity, and wisdom (pp. 367–386). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26772-7_15
64.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
65.
SzumskiG.KarwowskiM. (2019). Exploring the Pygmalion effect: The role of teacher expectations, academic self-concept, and class context in students’ math achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, Article 101787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101787
66.
ThorndikeR. L. (1963). The concepts of over-and underachievement. Columbia University, Bureau of Publications.
67.
TomlinsonC. A. (2014). Differentiated instruction. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (pp. 197–1210). Prufrock Press.
68.
WhitmoreJ. R. (1986a). Preventing severe underachievement and developing achievement motivation. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 18(3–4), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1300/J274v18n03_12
WileJ. M.TierneyR. J. (1996). Tensions in assessment: The battle over portfolios, curriculum, and control. In CalfeeR. C.PerfumoP. (Eds.), Writing portfolios in the classroom: Policy and practice, promise and peril (pp. 203–215). Lawrence Erlbaum.
71.
WynerJ. S.BridgelandJ. M.DiIulioJ. J.Jr. (2007). Achievementrap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Civic Enterprises.
72.
YoungJ. L.YoungJ. R.FordD. Y. (2017). Standing in the gaps: Examining the effects of early gifted education on Black girl achievement in STEM. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(4), 290–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17730549
73.
ZieglerA.ChandlerK. L.VialleW.StoegerH. (2017). Exogenous and endogenous learning resources in the Actiotope Model of Giftedness and its significance for gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(4), 310–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217734376
