This study examined the structure of social coping across 2 age groups of 716 Chinese gifted children and youths based on 7 social coping strategies assessed by the Chinese Social Coping Questionnaire. To evaluate whether these strategies could be applied adequately to younger as well as older students, 3 models hypothesizing different degrees of equivalence across the 2 age groups were tested using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis. Despite the similarities, there was suggestive evidence that the 7 social coping strategies might correlate differentially and to various degrees with each other for the two different age groups. Subsequent second-order confirmatory factor analyses separately conducted for the 2 age groups indicated that 2 overall strategies of social-interaction coping and minimizing-differences coping between self and peers encompassed the 7 specific social coping strategies. Implications of the findings, including subtle differences in the interpretation of discounting popularity by older and younger students, are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BentlerP. (1989). Comparative fit indices. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
2.
BirdG. W.HarrisR. L. (1990). A comparison of role strain and coping strategies by gender and family structure among early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 10, 141–158.
3.
BouchetN.FalkR. F. (2001). The relationship among giftedness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 260–267.
4.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
ByrneB. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.
6.
ChanD. W. (2003). Dimensions of emotional intelligence and their relationships with social coping among gifted adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 409–418.
7.
ChanD. W. (2004). Social coping and psychological distress among Chinese gifted students in Hong Kong. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 30–41.
8.
ColemanJ. C. (1978). Current contradictions in adolescent theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 1–11.
9.
ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41–56.
10.
ColemanL. J.CrossT. L. (2000). Social-emotional development and the personal experience of giftedness. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 203–212. New York: Elsevier.
11.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. J.StewartR. A. (1993). The social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 16, 37–40.
12.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. J.StewartR. A. (1995). Psychosocial diversity of gifted adolescents: An exploratory study of two groups. Roeper Review, 17, 181–185.
13.
CrossT. L.ColemanL. J.YonkersTerhaar M. (1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 44–55.
14.
De JongP.BergI. K. (2002). Interviewing for solutions (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
15.
DiamantopoulosA.SiguawJ. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
GabrenyaW. K.Jr.HwangK. (1996). Chinese social interaction: Harmony and hierarchy on the good earth. In BondM. H. (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 309–321. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
17.
GenshaftJ. L.GreenbaumS.BorovskyS. (1995). Stress and the gifted. In GenshaftJ. L.BireleyM.HollingerC. L. (Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students: A resource for school personnel (pp. 257–268. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
18.
GrossM. U. M. (1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11, 189–194.
19.
JanosP. M.FungH. C.RobinsonN. (1985). Self-concept, self-esteem, and peer relations among gifted children who feel “different.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 78–81.
ManasterG. J.ChanJ. C.WattC.WieheJ. (1994). Gifted adolescents' attitudes toward their giftedness: A partial replication. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 176–178.
22.
BullockManor R.LookC.DixonD. N. (1995). Is giftedness socially stigmatizing? The impact of high achievement on social interactions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 319–338.
23.
NeihartM. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10–17.
24.
PattersonJ. M.McCubbinH. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescence, 10, 163–186.
25.
PiechowskiM. (1997). Emotional giftedness: The measure of intrapersonal intelligence. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 266–381). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
SteigerJ. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180.
27.
SwiatekM. A. (1995). An empirical investigation of the social coping strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 154–161.
28.
SwiatekM. A. (2001). Social coping among gifted high school students and its relationship to self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 19–39.
29.
SwiatekM. A. (2002). Social coping among gifted elementary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 65–86.
30.
SwiatekM. A.DorrR. M. (1998). Revision of the Social Coping Questionnaire: Replication and extension of previous findings. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 10, 252–259.
