The study aimed to empirically verify findings from qualitative studies that showed selective consumers could be distinguished from underachievers with regard to academic self-perception and thinking style preference. Participants, gifted males from an independent secondary boys’ school in Sydney, Australia, were categorized as achieving, underachieving, or selective consuming and administered the School Attitude Assessment Survey–Revised and the Thinking Style Inventory to assess academic self-perception and thinking style preference. A multivariate analysis (MANOVA) with a Bonferroni-adjusted alpha level to control for Type I errors showed a statistically significant difference in academic self-perception between achievers and underachievers only. Selective consumers could not statistically be distinguished from achievers or underachievers. Results, although not statistically significant, supported the trend currently reported in the literature that selective consumers differ qualitatively from underachievers.
BlackA. C.McCoachD. B. (2008). Validity study of the Thinking Styles Inventory. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 180-210.
2.
Butler-PorN. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In HellerK.A.MönksF.J.PassowA.H. (Eds.). International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 649-668). New York: Pergamon
3.
ByrneB. M. (1996). Measuring self-concept across the lifespan: Issues and instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4.
Cano-GarcỉaF.HughesE. H. (2000). Learning and thinking styles: An analysis of their interrelationship and influence on academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 20, 413-430.
5.
ClarkB. (1988). Growing up gifted (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
6.
DaiD. Y.FeldhusenJ. F. (1999). A validation study of the Thinking Styles Inventory: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 21, 302-307.
7.
DelisleJ. R. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional development of gifted youth. New York, NY: Longman.
8.
DelisleJ. R. (2008). Comfortably numb: A new view of underachievement. In GosfieldM. W. (Ed.), Expert approaches to support gifted learners (pp. 43-52). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
9.
DelisleJ. R.GalbraithJ. (2002). When gifted kids don’t have all the answers: How to meet their social and emotional needs. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
12.
GagnéF. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
GrigorenkoE. L.SternbergR. J. (1997). Styles of thinking, abilities, and academic performance. Exceptional Children, 63, 295-312.
HattieJ. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence. Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research, Melbourne.
16.
HébertT. P.SchreiberC. A. (2010). An examination of selective achievement in gifted males. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 570-605.
17.
JarrellR. H.BorlandJ. H. (1990). The research base for Renzulli’s three-ring conception of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 288-308.
18.
KanevskyL.KeighleyT. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20-29.
19.
MarshH. W.ByrneB. M.ShavelsonR. J. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 366-380.
20.
McCoachD. B. (2002) School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised. University of Connecticut
21.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003a). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144-152.
22.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003b). The School Attitude Assessment Survey–Revised: A new instrument to identify academically able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 414-429.
23.
RayneriL. J.GerberB. L.WileyL. P. (2006). The relationship between classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school students and the impact on levels of performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 104-109.
24.
ReddingR. E. (1990). Learning preferences and skill patterns among underachieving gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 72-75.
25.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go?Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-169.
26.
RimmS. B. (2003). Underachievement: A national epidemic. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 424-443). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
27.
RubanL.ReisS. M. (2006). Patterns of self-regulatory strategy use among low-achieving and high-achieving university students. Roeper Review, 28, 148-156.
28.
SeeleyK. R. (1993). Gifted students at risk. In SilvermanL. K. (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 263-276). Denver, CO: Love Publishing.
29.
Speirs NeumeisterK. L.HébertT. P. (2003). Underachievement versus selective achievement: Delving deeper and discovering the difference. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26, 221-238.
30.
StanovichP. J.StanovichK. E. (2003). Using research and reason in education: How teachers can use scientifically based research to make curricular and instructional decisions. Jessup, MD: The National Institute for Literacy, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/using_research_stanovich.cfm
31.
SternbergR. J. (1988). Mental self-government: A theory of intellectual styles and their development. Human Development, 31, 197-224.
32.
SternbergR. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
SternbergR. J.WagnerR. K. (1992). Thinking Styles Inventory (Unpublished manuscript). New Haven, CT: Yale University.
35.
SternbergR. J.ZhangL. (2005). Styles of thinking as a basis of differentiated instruction. Theory Into Practice, 44, 245-253.
36.
ThompsonD. D.McDonaldD. M. (2007). Examining the influence of teacher-constructed and student-constructed assignments on the achievement patterns of gifted and advanced sixth-grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 198-226.
37.
TomlinsonC. A.StoneJ. E. (2009). Learning profiles & achievement. School Administrator, 66, 28-33.
38.
WhitmoreJ. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
39.
ZhangL. F. (2001). Do thinking styles contribute to academic achievement beyond abilities?Journal of Psychology, 135, 621-637.
40.
ZhangL. F. (2002). Measuring thinking styles in addition to measuring personality traits?Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 445-458.
41.
ZhangL. F. (2004). Revisiting the predictive power of thinking styles for academic performance. Journal of Psychology, 138, 351-370.
42.
ZhangL. F.SternbergR. J. (2006). The nature of intellectual styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
