The disharmony hypothesis (DH) states that high intelligence comes at a cost to the gifted, resulting in adjustment problems. We investigated whether there is a gifted stereotype that falls in line with the DH and affects attitudes toward gifted students. Preservice teachers (N = 182) worked on single-target association tests and affective priming tasks. High intelligence was more strongly associated with gifted than with average-ability students. Adjustment problems were more strongly associated with gifted than with average-ability students for males only. Attitudes toward gifted students were neutral when no component of the DH was activated but were negative toward gifted males when adjustment difficulties were activated. Implicit associations and attitudes were in line with the DH—but only for male students.
AartsH.DijksterhuisA. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal-directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 53–63. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.53
2.
BaileyC. L. (2011). An examination of the relationships between ego development, Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration, and the behavioral characteristics of gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 208–222. doi:10.1177/0016986211412180
3.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 37–46. doi:10.1037/spq0000011
4.
BeckerG. (1978). The mad genius debate. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
5.
BennettR. E.GottesmanR. L.RockD. A.CerulloF. (1993). Influence of behavior perceptions and gender on teachers’ judgments of students’ academic skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 347–356. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.347
6.
BerekashviliN. (2012). The role of gender-biased perceptions in teacher-student interaction. Psychology of Language and Communication, 16, 39–51. doi:10.2478/v10057-012-0004-x
BlairI. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242–261. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8
9.
BusseT. V.DahmeG.WagnerH.WieczerkowskiW. (1986). Teacher perceptions of highly gifted students in the United States and West Germany. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 55–60. doi:10.1177/001698628603000202
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
12.
ColemanL.CrossT. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11, 41–56. doi:10.1177/0162353214521486
13.
CopenhaverR. W.McIntyreD. J. (1992). Teachers’ perception of gifted students. Roeper Review, 14, 151–153. doi:10.1080/02783199209553411
14.
CramondB.MartinC. E. (1987). Inservice and preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 15–19. doi:10.1177/001698628703100103
15.
CrossT. (2005). The social and emotional lives of gifted kids: Understanding and guiding their development. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
16.
DaiD. Y. (2009). Essential tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness. In ShavininaL. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 39–80). New York, NY: Springer.
17.
De HouwerJ. (2006). What are implicit measures and why are we using them? In WiersR. W.StacyA. W. (Eds.), The handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 11–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
De HouwerJ.MoorsA. (2007). How to define and examine the implicitness of implicit measures. In WittenbrinkB.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Implicit measures of attitudes: Procedures and controversies (pp. 179–194). New York, NY: Guilford.
19.
DeutschR.StrackF. (2006). Duality-models in social psychology: From opposing processes to interacting systems. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 166–172. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1703-2
20.
Endepohls-UlpeM. (2004). Wie stellen Grundschullehrkräfte sich hochbegabte Schüler/innen vor? Der Einfluss persönlicher Erfahrung in der Unterrichtung Hochbegabter [Primary school teachers image of the gifted: The impact of experience with teaching the gifted]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 51, 126–135.
21.
FazioR. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In SorrentinoR. M.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204–243). New York, NY: Guilford.
22.
FazioR. H. (2001). On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 115–141. doi:10.1080/0269993004200024
23.
FazioR. H.JacksonJ. R.DuntonB. C.WilliamsC. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1013
24.
FeldhusenJ. F.JarvanF. A. (2000). Identification of gifted and talented youth for educational programs. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 233–252). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
25.
FiedlerE. D. (1999). Gifted children: The promise of potential/the problems of potential. In SchweanV.SaklofskeD. (Eds.), Handbook of psychosocial characteristics of exceptional children (pp. 401–441). New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.
26.
FlorackA.ScarabisM.BlessH. (2001). When do associations matter? The use of automatic associations toward ethnic groups in person judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 518–524. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1477
27.
GagnéF. (1983). Perceptions of programs for gifted children: Agreement on principles, but disagreement over modalities. British Columbia Journal of Special Education, 7, 113–127.
28.
GalinskyA. D.MoskowitzG. B. (2007). Further ironies of suppression: Stereotype and counterstereotype accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 833–841. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.09.001
29.
GallagherJ. J. (1990). Editorial: The public and professional perception of the social and emotional status of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 202–211.
30.
GallowayB.PorathM. (1997). Parent and teacher views of gifted children’s social abilities. Roeper Review, 20, 118–121. doi:10.1080/02783199709553872
31.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
32.
GawronskiB.DeutschR.MbirkouS.SeibtB.StrackF. (2008). When “just say no” is not enough: Affirmation versus negation training and the reduction of automatic stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 370–377. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.004
33.
GeakeJ. G.GrossM. U. M. (2008). Teachers’ negative attitudes toward academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 217–231. doi:10.1177/0016986208319704
34.
GlockS.KneerJ.KovacsC. (2013). Preservice teachers’ implicit attitudes toward students with and without immigration background: A pilot study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 204–210. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.003
35.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
36.
GrigorenkoE. (2011). Recent research in the field of giftedness: The field in 30 minutes or less. Online Educational Research Journal. Retrieved from http://www.oerj.org
37.
GrossM. U. M. (1997). Changing teacher attitudes towards gifted children: An early and essential step. In ChanJ.LiR.SpinksJ. (Eds.), Maximising potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride (pp. 3–22). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Social Sciences Research Centre.
38.
GrossM. U. M. (1998). The “me” behind the mask: Intellectually gifted students and the search for identity. Roeper Review, 20, 167–174. doi:10.1080/02783199809553885
39.
HeinbokelA. (2001). Hochbegabung im Spiegel der Printmedien seit 1950: vom Werdegang eines Bewußtseinswandels [Giftedness reflected in print media since 1950: The career of a change in consciousness]. Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.
40.
HellerK. A. (2005). Education and counseling of the gifted and talented in Germany. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27, 191–210.
41.
HellerK. A.ReimannR.SenfterA. (2005). Hochbegabung im Grundschulalter: Erkennen und Fördern [Giftedness in elementary school: Identification and fostering]. Münster, Germany: LIT.
42.
HermansD.SpruytA.EelenP. (2003). Automatic affective priming of recently acquired stimulus valence: Priming at SOA 300 but not at SOA 1000. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 83–99. doi:10.1080/02699930302276
43.
JussimL.EcclesJ.MadonS. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281–388. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60240-3
44.
JussimL.HarberK. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131–155. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3
45.
KarpinskiA.SteinmanR. B. (2006). The Single Category Implicit Association Test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 16–32. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16
46.
KerrB. A.NicponM. F. (2003). Gender and giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 493–505). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
LombrosoC. (1891). The man of genius. London, UK: Scott.
49.
MacraeC. N.BodenhausenG. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93–120. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93
50.
MaioG. R.EssesV. M.BellD. W. (2000). Examining conflict between components of attitudes: Ambivalence and inconsistency are distinct constructs. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 32, 58–70. doi:10.1037/h0087101
51.
MartinL.BurnsR.SchonlauM. (2010). Mental disorders among gifted and nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 31–41. doi:10.1177/0016986209352684
52.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted?Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 246–255. doi:10.1177/0016986207302719
53.
Megay-NespoliK. (2001). Beliefs and attitudes of novice teachers regarding instruction of academically talented learners. Roeper Review, 23, 178–182. doi:10.1080/02783190109554092
54.
MönksF. J.HellerK. A.PassowA. H. (2000). The study of giftedness: Reflections on where we are and where we are going. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 839–864). Kidlington, UK: Elsevier.
55.
MoonS. M. (2009). Myth 15: High-ability students don’t face problems and challenges. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 274–276. doi:10.1177/0016986209346943
56.
MussweilerT.FörsterJ. (2000). The sex => aggression link: A perception-behavior dissociation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 507–520. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.4.507
NeedhamV. (2012). Primary teachers’ perceptions of the social and emotional aspects of gifted and talented education. APEX: The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 17, 1–18. Retrieved from www.giftedchildren.org.nz/apex/pdfs17/needham.pdf
59.
NeihartM. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being. What does the empirical literature say?Roeper Review, 22, 10–17. doi:10.1080/02783199909553991
60.
NeihartM.ReisS. M.RobinsonN. M.MoonS. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know?Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
61.
NicelyR. F.SmallJ. D.FurmanR. L. (1980). Teacher attitudes toward gifted children and programs: Implications for instructional leadership. Education, 101, 12–15.
62.
OlsonM. A.FazioR. H. (2009). Implicit and explicit measures of attitudes: The perspective of the MODE model. In PettyR. E.FazioR. H.BriñolP. (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 19–63). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
63.
PajaresM. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332. doi:10.3102/00346543062003307
64.
PerssonR. S. (1998). Paragons of virtue: Teachers’ conceptual understanding of high ability in an egalitarian school system. High Ability Studies, 9, 181–196. doi:10.1080/1359813980090204
65.
PerssonR. (2009). The unwanted gifted and talented: A sociobiological perspective of the societal functions of giftedness. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 913–924). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
66.
PetersenJ. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 342–348. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002
67.
PetersonJ. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280–282. doi:10.1177/0016986209346946
68.
PetersonJ. S. (2011). Giftedness: The asset-vulnerability paradox. In LevesqueR. J. R. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (Vol. 2, pp. 1171–1180). New York, NY: Springer.
69.
PettyR. E.FazioR. H.BriñolP. (2009). The new implicit measures: An overview. In PettyR. E.FazioR. H.BriñolP. (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 3–18). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
70.
PlunkettM. (2000). Impacting on teacher attitudes toward gifted students. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9, 33–42.
71.
PreckelF.BrüllM. (2008). Grouping the gifted and talented: Are gifted girls most likely to suffer the consequences?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32, 54–85. doi:10.4219/jeg-2008-822
72.
PreckelF.EckelmannC. (2008). Beratung bei (vermuteter) Hochbegabung: Was sind die Anlässe und wie hängen sie mit Geschlecht, Ausbildungsstufe und Hochbegabung zusammen? [Counseling the gifted and talented: What are the reasons and how are they related to gender, grade level, and giftedness?] Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 55, 16–26.
73.
PreckelF.VockM. (2013). Hochbegabung. Ein Lehrbuch zu Grundlagen, Diagnose und Fördermöglichkeiten [Giftedness: A textbook about basic concepts, identification, and fostering options]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
74.
PreckelF.ZeidnerM.GoetzT.SchleyerE. (2008). Female “big fish” swimming against the tide: The “big-fish-little-pond effect” and gender-ratio in special gifted classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 78–96. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.08.001
75.
RichardsJ.EncelJ.ShuteR. (2003). The emotional and behavioral adjustment of intellectually gifted adolescents: A multi-dimensional, multi-informant approach. High Ability Studies, 14, 153–164. doi:10.1080/1359813032000163889
76.
RimmS. (2002). Peer pressure and social acceptance of gifted students. In NeihartM.ReisS. M.RobinsonN. M.MoonS. M. (Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13–18). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
77.
RizzaM. G.MorrisonW. F. (2003). Uncovering stereotypes and identifying characteristics of gifted students and students with emotional/behavioral disabilities. Roeper Review, 25, 73–77. doi:10.1080/02783190309554202
78.
RudasillK.FoustR. C.CallahanC. M. (2007). The Social Coping Questionnaire: An examination of its structure with an American sample of gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 353–371. doi:10.1177/016235320703000304
79.
SmithE. R. (1998). Mental representation and memory. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 391–445). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
80.
StorrA. (1972). The dynamics of creation. London, UK: Penguin.
81.
StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803
82.
TermanL. M. (Ed.). (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Vol. 2. The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
83.
TermanL. M. (Ed.). (1935). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 3. The promise of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
84.
TermanL. M. (Ed.). (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
85.
TermanL. M. (Ed.). (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 5. The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five years’ follow-up of the superior child. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
86.
TrautweinU.BaeriswylF. (2007). Wenn leistungsstarke Klassenkameraden ein Nachteil sind: Referenzgruppeneffekte bei Übergangsentscheidungen [When high-achieving classmates put students at a disadvantage: Reference group effects at the transition to secondary schooling]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 21, 119–133. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.21.2.119
87.
Vaivre-DouretL. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of “high-level potentialities” (highly gifted) children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011, 1–14. doi:10.1155/2011/420297
88.
VialleW. (1994). “Termanal” science? The work of Lewis Terman revisited. Roeper Review, 17, 32–38. doi:10.1080/02783199409553614
89.
VialleW. (2007). Pink or Paris? Giftedness in popular culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 16, 5–11.
90.
WirthweinL.RostD. H. (2011). Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 182–186. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001
91.
WittenbrinkB.JuddC. M.ParkB. (2001). Spontaneous prejudice in context: Variability in automatically activated attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 815–827. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.5.815
92.
ZeidnerM.Shani-ZinovichI. (2011). Do academically gifted and nongifted students differ on the big-five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 566–570. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.007
