14.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this unit is to introduce you to the concept of social adjustment so that you can help your students adjust in school and society. In Unit 13 you have studied about personal adjustment and emotional maturity, and the role of school and the teacher in the process of adjustment. You know that the teacher is the central figure in school and classroom. He/she influences the behaviors of students both directly and indirectly. His/her behaviors can also motivate the students to form groups as well as to break up groups formed on the wrong basis. You will also study the concept of social maturity and its relationship with social adjustment. The role of teachers in group dynamics is also explained in this unit. 14.2 OBJECTIVES After going through this unit, you should be able to: describe the concept of social adjustment, explain the concept of social maturity, illustrate how social adjustment promotes good interpersonal relations, state the process of adjustment in the school environment, and explain the teachers' role in group dynamics and social adjustment. 14.3 SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT Adjustment is a popular expression used by people in day to day life. For example, while Traveling in a bus or a train, we often hear or use this term; even when a guest comes to stay with-us for a few days we have to adjust him/her in our house. Though sometimes we face problems

This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. In making these adjustments, they are important to maintain personal as well as social peace Social Adjustment and harmony. Thus adjustment maintains peace and harmony in home, school, and society and in the country. Social adjustment can be defined as a psychological process. It frequently involves coping with new standards and values. In the technical language of psychology, getting along with the members of the society as best as one can is called adjustment.

14.3.1 Nature of Social Adjustment As social beings we live in a society, we form opinions about others and others have opinions about us. Everybody wants acceptance and recognition from and within society. We try to behave according to the norms of the society so that we can adjust with others. But it is not an easy task as the personality of each individual is a unique organization. This organization has to make special efforts to adjust with others unique organizations, which we call society. Actually adjustment is a wider term used in various spheres of life. For example, if an individual is well- adjusted in his family environment, his family adjustment will be good. So before defining social adjustment it is necessary for us to restrict the area of social adjustment. In other words we can say that social adjustment is the direction we, the teachers, try to instill adjustment skill in our students. As teachers we should emphasize on the adjustment of the student in the school. It is the teacher's responsibility to help the student cope with the existing situations of the school. For this we should contribute to improving the social environment of the school. Psychologists use the term adjustment of varying conditions of social and interpersonal relations in the society. Thus we see that adjustment means reaction to the demands and pressures of the social environment imposed upon the individual. Whenever two types of demands come into conflict with each other and resultant in an adjustment being made, a complicated process for the individual, then some special problems of adjustment arise.

14.3.2 Perception and Social Adjustment Impartial perception is needed for social adjustment. The processes of behaviour e.g. learning, maturation, sensation, perception and motivation are significant in our life because they con- tribute to the process of adjustment. The way we interact with people depends to a great extent upon how we perceive them and how we interpret their behaviour. The perceptions about people what we think, what they are like -influence the way we respond to them. If you perceive that a student is hostile, you are unlikely to interact or adjust with him/her. Your behaviour in a group is certainly different from the behaviour when in alone. Group affects an individual's behaviour. The mere presence of others affects our performance.How do we come to know about

other people? Our social perceptions of others are initially based on the information we obtain about them -in some instances the attribution (inferences) we make about the causes for their behaviour. It is, of course, important to have accurate knowledge of others before deciding on the kind of possible interactions with them. Our perceptions of others' personalities and feelings guide us in deciding the way we respond to them and what sort of relationships we have with them. Knowledge about others influences our adjustment with them. 14.3.3 Impression Formation and Socia1.Adjustment We shall first discuss 'impression' as a cognitive process. Impression formation is the process by which information about others is converted into more or less enduring cognition or thoughts about them. When we first meet someone, we usually have access to information how the person looks and where he/she works and what he/she says. These categories and their perceived interrelationship form the basic cognitive framework by which we understand others and try to adjust with them.

14.3.4 Other Processes in Social Adjustment There are certain other processes we can use for social adjustment. Let us discuss the mainProcesses in the following paragraphs. i) Stress and adaptation: The efforts to live and be satisfied are called adaptation: Environmental factors which make it hard for an individual to live are called stress. At This is the background image for an unknown creator of an OCR page with image plus hidden text. Facilitating Learning and Development the most elementary level of life, stress is experienced as irritation or discomfort A, a slightly more advanced level, stress is explained as the anticipation of harm. In human beings certain kinds of stresses produce anxiety. Anxiety sometimes produces defensive response which is mental efforts to reduce stresses. Defenses are generally regarded as poor methods of adjustment. Actually adjustment means reduction of tension or satisfaction of motives. ii) Social influence: The process of social influence contains two critical elements- (a) Some one's intervention, and (b) inducing change in other person. The FP (Focal Per-Son) is one who is influenced by the source of intervention is termed as the agent. The Following table classifies agents, types of intervention and related concepts. Table 14.1: Intervention by an agent to bring about influence

Adolescent social competence: An examination of social skills, social performance, and social adjustment with urban minority youth.

Author(s):  Nichols, Tracy Rose

Title: Adolescent social competence: An examination of social skills, social performance, and social adjustment with urban minority youth.

Advisor(s):  Brooks-Gunn, JeanneIssue Date:  2002

Description: 

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 63-03, Section: B, page: 1589.Sponsor: Jeanne Brooks-Gunn.Thesis (Ph.D.)--Columbia University, 2002.

Full Text (ProQuest): 

/ac/proxit.jsp?url=http://gateway.proquest.com/ope...

Abstract:  While extensive research has been conducted on normative social competence in early childhood, far less has been done for adolescence. Previous research has not conceptually differentiated among the ability to achieve social markers, perform effectively, or develop underlying skills. Consequently divergent methodologies have been employed and inconsistent results have emerged across studies. This

study explores the application of Cavell's (1990) tri-component model of social competence to urban minority adolescents.

Three hypotheses are tested: (a) skills will be associated with adjustment and performance but the relative importance will differ by outcome; (b) dominant response types used in social situations will differ by subgroups; (c) group differences by dominant response type will exist for performance and adjustment. The study uses a multi-method approach with 476 minority 6th graders attending public and parochial schools in New York City as part of a larger prevention trial.

Adjustment is measured with pro-social outcomes (academic achievement and self-esteem) and engagement in problem behaviors (delinquency, aggression, fighting). Performance is measured with four peer situations: two role-play tasks (Social Confrontation and Peer Negotiation) and two hypothetical vignettes (Peer Rejection and Peer Insult). Social skills are assessed with both self-report and observational methods and include cognitive skills (decision-making and self-reinforcement), emotion regulation skills (anger management and self-regulation) and social interaction skills (assertiveness, passivity, and aggression).

Results show competence among adolescents to vary by several factors including the component of competence measured, the context of the interaction and the methodology utilized. In addition, social skills were associated with both adjustment and performance, although most measures of performance were associated with interaction skills only. Differences did not exist in dominant response types by subgroups but partial support was found for the importance of dominant response type for both adjustment and performance.

This study illustrates the importance of assessing multiple components of competence as well as using multiple methods of assessment. It also speaks to the need to distinguish between assertive, aggressive, and passive enactment responses in both assessment and treatment. Overall the study introduces several new measures of competence within context that may prove helpful to the field of adolescent development.

Collection(s): Doctoral Dissertations

appeared to result only when they were unable to locate other sources. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved) Program Outcomes for Children

PERSONAL AND SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT OUTCOMES

Introduction and Conceptual Overview 

Most adults want the children they care about to enjoy the benefits of supportive social relationships throughout their lives, and to acquire the necessary competencies to do so.  Social competence, like social adjustment, is often used as an umbrella term to include various aspects of a child's performance in social contexts.  Those who design and provide programs for preschoolers and school-aged children in group settings often seek to enhance aspects of personal and social adjustment, either as a primary outcome or as a valued by-product of other program activities (Hauser-Cram & Shonkoff, 1988; Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1993). 

Link to NCEO Personal and Social Adjustment Model

If social competence is defined broadly as the ability to engage peers and adults in a friendly and cooperative manner and to be resourceful and achievement oriented (Siantz de Leon, 1997), then well developed social abilities affect virtually all areas of a child's life.  In combination, the qualities that make up social competence strengthen children at risk and help them to become more resilient.  Children who have achieved these qualities are more adequately prepared to excel personally, socially, and academically (Gresham & Reschly, 1987).  Yet, children who are at risk are often socially unskilled and have difficulty understanding how their actions affect the reactions they receive from others (Rathjen, 1984). 

Despite the almost universal desire to enhance these social capacities in children, measurement and evaluation of gains in this area has often been elusive.  Results of evaluations often fail to be consistent, clear-cut, or statistically significant, even when subjective judgements of staff and parents suggest positive outcomes.  One reason may be that social competence is less a set of well defined, measurable skills (although learned skills are clearly part of the picture), and more an underlying quality that subtly enhances functioning in a variety of areas.  Researchers in social development increasingly recognize that social competence has both emotional and cognitive elements (Hughes & Sullivan, 1988; Collins & Gunnar, 1990; Crick & Dodge, 1994), and that it may be context-specific (Gresham & Elliott, 1984).  A number of researchers are looking to the emotional and cognitive learning that takes place in the earliest attachment relationships for help in understanding later social competence in family, peer, and school settings (Cohn, 1990; Zahn-Waxler & Radke-Yarrow, 1990). 

Assessment Issues

Experienced evaluators of community-based programs offer a number of suggestions and cautions.  In light of the growing complexity of our understanding of personal and social adjustment, any measurement should be multidimensional, assessed in the context of the child's total functioning, and adapted to the child's developmental level.  In comparison to the intellectual development domain, there are fewer well-validated standardized measures that seem to tap into the qualities that make up social competence in children, and perhaps less agreement about what those qualities are.  Some methodologies that are well-established for basic research in social and emotional development (such as Ainsworth's Strange Situation and the Q-Sort, both used in attachment research) do not lend themselves as well to evaluation in community settings because they require extensive training and sometimes special laboratory conditions to administer.  Measures developed for classroom use in school settings may or may not be relevant to community-based programs for children.  Others measures which were designed for screening or diagnostic use in clinical settings may not be suitable as outcome measures in program evaluations.  Some otherwise valid and reliable assessments may not be well-accepted by program staff because they seem intrusive, overly subjective, or poorly matched to actual program activities and goals. 

When relevant standardized measures do exist, they often require special  training to administer.  The skills and logistics involved in interviewing and testing children are not necessarily the same as those required for adults.  The performance of young children in testing situations is known to be quite sensitive to factors like the familiarity of the setting and the examiner (Hauser-Cram & Shonkoff, 1988).  For ethnic minority children, language and cultural expectations about testing situations may be particularly relevant.  Although observational scales (directly observing and coding children's behavior during specific time intervals) may seem attractive because they are based on behavior in naturalistic settings, evaluators often find that these methods are extremely expensive and time-consuming, and may not be effective in assessing infrequent behaviors.  Teacher and parent questionnaires can sometimes be highly subjective.  Self-report measures by children themselves are often limited by children's language and reading skills.   

Recommendations

While many standardized measures and techniques do not lend themselves easily to evaluation of community-based programs for children, there are assessment tools that are appropriate and available for measuring children's outcomes.  Increasingly, the instruments of choice for evaluation of personal and social adjustment in intervention and prevention programs seem to be objective behavior rating checklists.  These are based on specific behaviors, can be completed quickly by teachers or staff based on their knowledge of their children, and can include a broad spectrum of child behaviors.  A number of newer instruments have been developed which attempt to take these issues into account, and several of these will be reviewed in the appropriate sections below. 

Many evaluators of programs for children recommend using multiple methods, usually a combination of standardized measures and more qualitative or program-specific outcome data, to achieve a more balanced picture of outcomes for children.  Simple and readily-available indicators can include existing program records such as attendance and participation data, school grades, and rates of referrals, as well as program satisfaction questionnaires for older children or their parents.  Program-specific indicators appropriate to particular kinds of programs will be suggested in later sections.  As always, the ages and characteristics of the children served by a particular program, and the goals of that program,  will influence the appropriateness of any given outcome measure.   Outcome Components:

Personal and social adjustment in children is a multi-faceted concept.  In choosing outcomes for evaluation of community-based programs for preschool and school-aged children (such as 4-H and State Strengthening projects), it is helpful to distinguish among the following elements of social competence outcomes (Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1993).  Some specific indicators for these outcomes components are suggested in separate sections of this website.  

Copes effectively with personal challenges, frustrations, and stressors Has a good self-image Gets along with other people (adults & peers) Respects cultural and individual differences

Summary

Although the emotional foundations of healthy personal and social adjustment may lie in early family relationships, it is important for children to have opportunities to learn and practice social skills through various community-based programs, and to experience nurturing relationships outside of the family context.  These opportunities to interact with peers and caring non-parental adults take on particular significance for children who have not enjoyed nurturing relationships or learned appropriate relationship skills within their families, and therefore may be at risk for poor social adjustment.  As children begin school, learned social skills also have an effect on academic achievements, since almost every learning experience involves a social context. 

Traditional 4-H projects and group activities through Cooperative Extension have long provided opportunities for school-aged children to practice developing skills with peers and non-parental adults, and to engage in prosocial activities.  State Strengthening projects provide an additional means for communities to extend these opportunities to reach and benefit more children who are at risk.  Even very young children can gain social skills through interaction with parents and other caregivers in the context of State Strengthening sponsored programs in local communities. 

Although the elements of personal and social adjustment can be elusive to measure, these are often critical outcomes for community-based programs for at-risk children.  Good assessment in this

area may require some imagination, including combination of standardized measures with more qualitative or program-specific assessments.  Multiple assessments that cover several dimensions of social development are most likely to provide a rich picture that effectively captures ways that programs benefit children. 

Summary of Literature on Social Adjustment, by Verne Wright © 1942 American Sociological Association.

How Young Children’s Behavior Difficulties Affect Social Adjustment Later in Childhood

Although most children form positive and satisfying relationships with their peers,

a subset of children find getting along with others difficult. Some of these children may

be highly aggressive, acting in ways that hurt others. Others are overly anxious with

peers and nervous during social interactions. Still others are both aggressive and

anxious. Unfortunately, children who are aggressive and/or anxious are at risk for a

number of adjustment difficulties including loneliness, depression, and conduct

problems.

Investigators are still working to understand the processes by which early

behavioral problems are related to later psychological dysfunction. We conducted the

current study to test the hypothesis that aggressive and anxious behaviors lead to later

problems by harming children’s relationships with peers. We based this assumption on

previous findings showing that aggressive and anxious/fearful behaviors place children

at greater jeopardy for friendlessness as well as for being rejected or bullied by their

peers. We also know from past research that stressful relationships with peers,

particularly if these problems are chronic, can lead to the development of psychological

and behavioral disorders. Furthermore, children who experience persistent relationship problems may develop a view of themselves as disliked and unworthy of other’s positive regard. They may also come to perceive age-mates as being hostile, untrustworthy, and uncaring. Even if these children eventually develop more satisfying relationships with peers, negative self- and peer-perceptions may endure, resulting in a continuation of psychological dysfunction. Therefore, we also examined whether children who had experienced a history of chronic peer relationship problems would continue to show adjustment difficulties as a result of constructing maladaptive self-perceptions and peer beliefs. To test these assumptions, we followed 381 children, beginning in kindergarten and continuing through fourth grade. We found that the more aggressive children were in kindergarten, the more likely they were to be chronically rejected, victimized, and friendless between first and third grade. A history of chronic rejection and victimization was associated with greater aggression and conduct problems in fourth grade, and a history of chronic friendlessness was associated with greater depression and loneliness in fourth grade. Moreover, the finding that chronic peer relationship problems continued to have an influence on later adjustment could be explained by changes in children’s self- and peer-beliefs. We concluded that aggressive children may experience future adjustment problems, in part, as a result of forming maladaptive relationships with peers. Furthermore, children who have a history of problematic peer relationships may experience long-term adjustment problems even if they are able to eventually make friends and get along well with others. Practitioners working with young children might be advised to reduce aggressive behaviors before chronic relational difficulties begin. Furthermore, the findings suggest that children’s problems may not go away once relationship difficulties are solved. Rather, to improve children’s psychosocial health, adults may need to help children use their social successes to develop more adaptive views of themselves and others. Summarized from Child Development, Vol. 74, Issue 5, The Role of Chronic Peer Difficulties in the Development of Children’s Psychological Adjustment Problems

by G.W. Ladd and W. Troop-Gordon. Copyright 2003 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved.

The Social Adjustment of Three, Young, High-Achieving Korean-English Bilingual Students in Kindergarten Social Development or Socialization? Linda Kreger Silverman, Ph.D.Gifted Development CenterDenver, ColoradoA major concern of parents and educators is the social adjustment of their gifted children. All provisions for gifted students – ability grouping, acceleration, pull-out programs, full day programs, special schools, homeschooling – are held suspect on the grounds that they will "prevent the children’s social adjustment." Indeed, the remarkable emphasis on the school as an agent of socialization makes one wonder if anyone really cares about the development of these children’s abilities or if all that is important is whether they fit in!As a psychologist who has spent over 30 years studying the social and emotional development of the gifted, I believe we need to clearly differentiate between the concepts of social development and socialization. An immense amount of research has accumulated over the last 70 years on socialization of the gifted, indicating that gifted children tend to enjoy greater popularity, social adjustment, and social competence, earlier psychological maturity, and fewer indications of psychological problems than their less gifted peers (Silverman, 1993). In their recent comprehensive review of the literature, Nancy Robinson and Kate Noble report: Perusal of a large group of studies of preadolescent children revealed [that] …as a group, gifted children were seen as more trustworthy, honest, socially competent, assured and comfortable with self, courteous, cooperative, stable, and humorous, while they were also seen as showing diminished tendencies to boast, to engage in delinquent activity, to aggress or withdraw, to be domineering, and so on. (N. Robinson & Noble, 1991, p. 62)It would appear obvious from these studies that gifted children are highly socialized. It is interesting that the context of most of these studies was some form of special provision for the gifted, such as special classes or acceleration. Clearly, then, gifted children’s socialization does not suffer the slightest when special provisions are made for their learning needs. Ann Robinson advises parents and educators to speak plainly on the issue of cooperative learning as therapy for socially maladjusted, talented students. The assumption that gifted children are more likely than others to have a variety of personal and social problems is not supported in the literature. Thus, the pill of cooperative learning may be prescribed for a perfectly healthy patient. (A. Robinson, 1990, p. 35)Up to this point we have been addressing primarily the issue of socialization. According to the dictionary, socialization is the ability to adapt to the needs of the group. Gifted children are very adaptable, particularly girls. But at what price? If one works very hard at fitting in with others, especially when one feels very different from others, self-alienation can result. And this is exactly what we find in so many "well adjusted" gifted youth and adults. In their desperation to belong, they have given up or lost touch with vital parts of themselves.Social development, on the other hand, is not the pressure to adapt, but a deep, comfortable level of self -acceptance that leads to true friendships with others.Lasting friendships are based on mutual interests and values, not on age. Individuals with good social development like themselves, like other people, demonstrate concern for humanity, and develop mutually rewarding friendships with a few kindred spirits. Social development goes hand in hand with self-actualization, whereas socialization is merely the desire to conform – often the opposite of self-actualization. The research indicates that special provisions for the gifted foster good social development (Silverman, 1993); this, rather than fitting in, should be our aim for them.Social Adjustment and Peer Pressures for Gifted Children Rimm, S. Davidson Institute for Talent Development 2003

This article by Sylvia Rimm addresses the social issues that gifted young people face on a regular basis. It

gives situational examples and offers suggestions to parents on how to deal with issues that may arise. Peer pressures are discussed as well as strategies for parents on helping their children to chose the "right" peer group.

Parents of gifted children often wonder and worry about the peer relationships of their children. They may hear stories of gifted children going awry because of peer pressure or about gifted children who feel isolated. This article will address three issues: 1) What research says about gifted children and peer relationships; 2) How much involvement parents should have in influencing their children's peer relationships; and 3) What parents can do when gifted children are in the "wrong" peer group. These issues may be quite different for elementary grade children than for older children.

The Elementary Grade YearsStudies of gifted, elementary-aged children actually found that they tend to be liked by their peers, and in one study were actually found to be more popular than their peers (Udvari & Rubin, 1996; Austin & Draper, 1981; Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Clegg, Byrne, Ledingham, & Crombie, 1989). Children and adults alike are influenced by their peers, but children who are still in the process of developing a value system are more vulnerable to negative influences (Rimm, 2000). Parents should take a proactive position in discussions about friendships during early childhood to lay the foundation for children making good decisions about friends later. You can help your children select good friends by teaching them early about what being a good friend means. For example, for a young child you could talk about kindness, love of learning, honesty, sharing, and having fun together. For gifted children, it's especially important for them to choose peers who enjoy learning so they feel confident in their own motivation to learn. Here are two examples of opportunities to teach children about peer relationships:

Sam enjoys time with his friend Nick, but after play dates Sam seems to be a different child. Sam's language changes to ugly vocabulary that he's never heard at home. He pushes limits and is disrespectful to his parents. Sam has also shared tales of Nick's troublesome behavior in school.First grader Hannah wanted her ears pierced. Her parents considered her far too young for earrings, but weren't sure how to handle Hannah's strong persuasion based on wanting to fit in with her friends who all had pierced ears and wore earrings.

In Sam's case, parents shouldn't feel hesitant about setting limits for their children if they find them selecting misbehaving or negative friends. If they observe that friends are a bad influence on their children, it's best to require children to discontinue play with them temporarily. It's also important to explain to children that people change, and when their friends' behaviors improve, they may play together again. For example, Sam may have to say to Nick, "My mom [or dad] says I can't play with kids who use bad language."

In Hannah's case, parents have no reason to prohibit Hannah's play with her "earring wearing" friends. They can decide to tell Hannah that earrings are inappropriate for her at this age and that she will need to wait until middle or high school. It isn't a question of a "right" time for earrings, but a parent's decision about her own values and teaching children early that there will be times ahead when they will be different than their friends based on their own family values. A discussion of differences and independence will help prepare them for the more intense, peer pressured years ahead in middle and high school.

The Middle and High School YearsThe middle and high school years can be quite lonely for some gifted teens. Gifted adolescents often express conflict over their giftedness. They value being intelligent, yet almost always realize that giftedness exacts a social price. Here are some of the comments from gifted middle school students with whom I met for focus groups about peer pressure:

I want so much to get A's for my parents and for myself, but also I want to be accepted by the "in" group at our school. The "in" group considers students who get all A's to be nerds. I used to be considered smart in my old school, but my friends never seemed to mind. After I got into

the gifted magnet school and told my friends in my neighborhood, they started pushing me around and calling me "nerd." They tease me and say I'm weak because I'm smart.In our class, we have two people in fifth grade that go to seventh grade math. Kids are jealous and try to beat them up and hurt them, just because they're nerdy.

Over 3,500 Minnesota secondary students responded to a newspaper column question that asked if they would rather be the best looking, most athletic, or smartest student in their class. Respondents were supposed to write an essay to support their answers (Schroeder-Davis, 1999). Although more students favored "most intelligent" (53.8 percent), followed by "most athletic" (37.3 percent) and "best looking" (only 8.9 percent), content analysis of these student essays showed that the students were aware of an anti-intellectual stigma expressed by peers. Twenty-two percent directly alluded to that stigma, and almost none attributed any immediate social benefits to being smartest (Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2001).

A survey conducted by Brown and Steinberg (1990) of 8,000 high school students in California and Wisconsin found that fewer than 10 percent of the high achievers were willing to be identified as part of the "brain" crowd, and students often withdrew from debate, computer clubs, and honors classes to avoid being labeled a "geek," "dweeb," or "nerd" (Davis & Rimm, 2003). The percentage was even lower for females than for males.

None of the high-achieving African-Americans surveyed in the Brown and Steinberg study were willing to be considered part of the "brain" crowd. This social pressure was confirmed by Ford (1994-95). In her study of gifted African-American girls, peer pressure had a powerfully negative effect on their achievement in school. Over half of the girls in her study indicated they were teased by their peers for their high achievement, and one third were accused of "acting white." These negative experiences caused feelings of alienation and rejection, as well as withdrawal and underachievement for these girls. Marva Collins, African-American and founder of the Urban Preparatory School in Chicago, remembers her struggles.

I grew up as an African-American during the worst period of racism in Alabama. If I was called a racist name and I told my dad and my grandfather, they would just look at me without surprise and say "And...?" People would say to me as a child, "Don't you know? Black kids can't do those things." It never dawned on me that because I was a black kid, I was inferior to anyone. I never believed the word "can't." Everything I've done in my life I've been told I couldn't do, so when someone tells me what I can't do, I know I'm on the right track. "I can" has become my mantra. Kids picked on me a lot. They'd say, "You think you're more than us." My parents had to pick me up from high school every day because kids would want to fight me, scratching and pulling my hair. (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001)

Luftig and Nichols (1989) also found evidence that gifted boys hid or masked their giftedness by being funny. In contrast to average adolescents and gifted girls, Luftig and Nichols (1990) found gifted boys ranked as most popular, non-gifted boys and non-gifted girls as second most popular, and finally, gifted girls as least popular of the four groups. Fifteen percent of the successful women in the See Jane Win study considered social isolation to be their most negative experience in childhood. A study of over 1,000 successful women (Rimm, Rimm-Kaufman, & Rimm, 1999) found the theme of a social price to pay common among many who were excellent students. Some women commented that they intentionally did poorly on tests or didn't hand in assignments. However, their backing away from achievement to preserve their social selves was typically temporary, and they, their parents, or a teacher recognized the dysfunction of their brief underachievement.

For example, Martha Aarons, a flutist in the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra, recalled coming home from middle school and crying daily because kids called her "hairy legs" and "brain." It was not an easy time for an all-A student who loved classical music. It was traumatic for her, and it took her years to recover from that sadness. Attendance at summer music camps dissipated the pressure and reassured her there were others like her. She made plenty of friends through her music (Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001).

Gifted adolescents often express feelings of difference (Swiatek & Dorr, 1998; Rimm et al., 1999; Rimm & Rimm-Kaufman, 2001). Manor-Bullock, Look, and Dixon (1995) suggested these feelings result from the

"gifted" label, although gifted women interviewed for the See Jane Win research expressed feelings of difference frequently, whether or not they were in gifted programming. Coleman and Cross (1988) suggested that even when children don't feel different, they sometimes assume that others perceive them as different, and thus, they believe that perception will interfere with their social interactions. The Coleman and Cross study points out that the stigma of giftedness doesn't have to be proven as real if it is assumed by the students to be real. Their beliefs about the stigma will have an effect on their social relationships anyway.

Extreme Giftedness Many studies that have compared social adjustment of moderately gifted students to students with extremely high IQs have concluded that popularity is a much greater problem for students with unusually high intelligence (Austin & Draper, 1981; Feldman, 1986; Gallagher, 1958; Hollingworth, 1942), and that extremely gifted children have much greater social problems, probably related to how far from the norm their thinking experiences are.

Gross (1993) found that for students with IQs of 160+, eighty percent of them reported that they experienced intense social isolation in a regular classroom and were continuously monitoring their social behavior to conform to the expectations of their peer group. That, in combination with their frequently unchallenging curriculum, caused them ongoing emotional stress.

How Families Can Be SupportiveWhile positive relationships with parents typically are not harmful to peer relationships (Montemayer, 1984), reliance on peers for advice and acceptance can be negatively associated with closeness to parents (Kandel & Lesser, 1972). Continuous bickering with parents seems to propel adolescents to more dependence on and acceptance of peer norms, with rejection of parent norms (Hill, 1980). Maintaining a positive family environment helps gifted children deal with the anti-gifted peer pressure they may feel during adolescence.

It's also important for parents to value and support their children's talent during this precarious period in their development and not to add to the pressures the child is already feeling. Parents need to be especially careful not to stress popularity and social success. Instead, parents may have to counter peer messages of popularity by pointing out that the emphasis on popularity, as a competitive form of friendship, ends at high school graduation (Rimm, 1988). They will need to support their conscientious students and point out the rewards ahead, including good scholarships and excellent colleges, and explain that once college begins the stress on popularity will fall away and be viewed as immature.

Parents can also encourage the development of positive interests that will ultimately lead them to positive peer groups and social confidence. The See Jane Win research showed that gifted girls who felt negative peer pressure often coped with that pressure with involvement in interests and activities. Scouts, music, horseback riding, religious groups, and sports provided arenas to develop self-confidence and friendship. Even during the teen years, kids need to continue to be involved in family activities. If teens are lonely, parents may wish to invite a friend to join the family activities. On the other hand, if teens are too social, families can preserve family time for family bonding only, and insist that friends don't join the family for these special occasions.

Probably the best way to support gifted and talented students, particularly adolescents, is to help assemble a gifted cohort group. It will encourage high achievement and reinforce the full use of students' talents. Youth symphony orchestras, high-level Saturdays, summer programs, special classes, debate teams, intellectual and creative teams, and gifted peer-discussion groups help young people to value their talent and build constructive self-concepts and identities.

Perhaps most important, schools need to provide counselors and school psychologists who are trained to understand the peer pressures and isolations that gifted children feel so that social isolation doesn't lead to anger toward themselves or others. If knowledgeable adults are not available to support these gifted students in their schools, they are indeed at risk of using their gifted cognitive abilities and sensitivities to harm

themselves and society instead of making the contributions of which they are capable.

If Your Teens Are In Negative Peer GroupsPeers who smoke, drink alcohol, use drugs, and oppose school and parents will put pressure on your children to do the same. Peers who are excellent students, involved in extracurricular activities, and busy building skills and interests are likely to have a positive effect on your children. Sometimes parents and teachers may be fooled by teens' school behavior. That is, occasionally, even apparently positive kids lead a very different and unhealthy social life outside of school unbeknownst to their families.

If your child is already in a negative peer group, here are some suggested potential solutions for separating them from their negative friends. Unfortunately, all of these are more effective with children in middle school than in high school, and none are guaranteed to be a solution. All are worth considering (Rimm et al., 1999):

SOCIAL ADJUSTMENTS IN GLOBALIZATION:THE ROLE OF SOCIAL ACTORS Year Completed: 2001 [Published in PLR Vol. XXIV, January - December 2002]

This study expounds on the role of social actors (i.e., government, workers, employers, NGOs) in the process of social adjustment amid globalization. Although having long-term economic advantages, globalization still has its birth pains, especially during the process of social adjustment whose blows may be too debilitating for certain sectors, most especially for workers.

This paper aims to analyze the extent of involvement of government, labor, and employer sectors and NGOs in economic and social development. Specifically, it seeks to determine how well the social actors have dealt with the impact of globalization. In this light, this paper also desires to recommend policy and program actions to further help them in their active participation in social adjustment.

Based on an extensive study of documents from different forums, official statistics, and interviews and analysis, the paper suggests ways of cushioning the blows of social adjustment, such as strengthening employment facilitation services to reach needy sectors; creating effective labor market information system for the utilization of skills and jobs; providing employment insurance that can give social assistance especially during contingencies such as unemployment, retraining and enterprise restructuring; and fostering cooperation between workers and employers for a  more participatory approach wherein the worker’s voice is considered in deciding the firm’s future .

The study stresses that social adjustment is a mechanism for development. The process may be particularly hard under the globalization era but the continuous collective effort of social actors can effectively strike a balance between the competing economic and social objectives of globalization.

The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Students

Carolyn M. Callahan Claudia J. Sowa Kathleen M. May Ellen Menaker Tomchin Jonathan A. Plucker Caroline M. Cunningham Wesley Taylor University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia

PART 2: Expanding Lazarus and Folkman's Paradigm to the Social and Emotional Adjustment of Gifted Children and Adolescents

Study 1: Coping Methods of Young Adolescents1

In this study, the model of Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) cognitive appraisal paradigm was used as the basis for investigating the appropriateness of the development of gifted children and adolescents. The cognitive appraisal paradigm suggests that adjustment involves "constantly changing cognitive and

behavioral effort to manage specific external or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (p. 141). It defines both process adjustment and achievement adjustment mechanisms. Process adjustment is a method of employing cognitive efforts to cope with the demands of the environment. Achievement adjustment is the employment of behavioral efforts to adapt to the environment (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

Definitions and Models for Social and Emotional Development

Understanding the social and emotional experiences of gifted youth requires understanding their cognitive development (and factors contributing to it) as it relates to the more general concepts and models from the fields of child development and psychological adjustment. Here, Rathus and Nevid's (1992) view of adjustment and Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) model of adjustment to stress set the stage for investigating these experiences. Rathus and Nevid (1992) define adjustment mechanisms as processes people use to respond to environmental demands. Successful adjustment mechanisms allow people to meet their needs or tastes, regulate their behavior to bring about desired effects, believe in their abilities to achieve desired outcomes, interpret experiences so that they perceive solutions to problems and do not overly arouse negative emotions, and imitate others so that they learn many ways to influence their environment. Children and adolescents who demonstrate these characteristics present successful social and emotional adjustment processes. While Rathus and Nevid (1992) delineate the characteristics of adjusted persons, Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) cognitive appraisal paradigm defines both process adjustment and achievement adjustment mechanisms.

Process adjustment was further delineated as problem-focused or emotion-focused cognitive appraisals by Lazarus in 1993. In problem-focused coping, the individual uses cognitive appraisal to determine behaviors that are aimed at solving a problem or reducing the stress associated with the environment. In emotional-focused coping, the cognitive appraisal process is associated with changing personal interpretations of the environment to reduce stress.

1 Sowa, C. J., & May, K. M. (1997). Expanding Lazararus and Folkman's paradigm to the social and emotional adjustment of gifted children and adolescents (SEAM). Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 3643. Therefore, the use of cognitive appraisal within process adjustment produces behaviors or changes in

interpretation of the environment. If this appraisal process helps the individual exhibit behaviors that are adaptive within the environment, it reflects a parallel mechanism of achievement adjustment and process adjustment.

Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) cognitive appraisal paradigm has been criticized by Ryan-Wenger (1992) and Compas (1987) as primarily reflecting adults' cognitive development and function. For gifted children, however, the onset of deductive reasoning has been shown to occur as early as four years of age (Hollingworth, 1931; Morelock, 1992; Torrance, 1965). Based on the early development of deductive reasoning and the precocity of gifted children, the application of the cognitive appraisal paradigm as part of the social and emotional adjustment model presented was deemed appropriate.

Achievement adjustment often is reflected in the research on gifted children's adaptation relative to non-gifted peers. Examples of this literature include comparisons of gifted children and non-identified children on self-perceptions of social competence (Chan, 1988), and comparisons of gifted children's families to families of non-identified children on characteristics of the family environment (Mathews et al., 1986).

Application of the cognitive appraisal paradigm to young people must recognize that children and adolescents' stressors are not the same as those of adults (Dise-Lewis, 1988). Young people's stressors often are related to

experiences with parents, other family members, teachers, and social conditions beyond their control (Compas, Malcarne, & Fondacaro, 1988). Thus, an additional consideration must be the fit between the child and the environment (Compas, 1987). Therefore, the model investigated here conceptualizes the fit between gifted adolescents and their environments through the addition of environmental characteristics of family, school, and peers to the cognitive appraisal paradigm of Lazarus and FolkmanSocial and Emotional Adjustment Model (SEAM)

The following section describes three paths through SEAM: a functional adjustment path representing gifted children and adolescents who reflect characteristics of both social and emotional adjustment and two dysfunctional adjustment patterns representing those who rely on either social or emotional adjustment patterns at the expense of the other. The functional path (see Figure 1) within SEAM is presented first.

The gifted child. The beginning of SEAM is the gifted child, defined as one whose development of formal operations or abstract thinking occurs at an earlier age than the child's non-identified peers (Morelock, 1992). Stories were shared by parents of situations involving these children learning to read by age three or playing the piano by age five. The parents agreed that their children not only knew what they wanted but also knew how to seek solutions at an early age.

The family. The interaction between the child and the parent as well as the entire family (Box 2.0) provides the stage for the social and emotional adjustment of the gifted child. In functional families (Box 2.2) a sense of belonging is balanced with a sense of having one's own unique identity (Minuchin, 1974). Functional families are described by Goldenberg and Goldenberg (1994) as providing rules to maintain order and stability while at the same time allowing flexibility in the event of changing circumstances.

Adjustment Interactional Family Mechanism Mechanism (2.0) (3.0) (4.0)

Figure 1. Functional path. Adjustment mechanisms. The well functioning family is the basis for the child's

development of simultaneous achievement adjustment and process adjustment. This balance between achievement adjustment and process adjustment is considered necessary for both social and emotional adjustments of gifted children within the model. For clarity, achievement adjustment and process adjustment are shown as two separate boxes (Boxes 3.1 and 3.2) in the figures, although they are interactive and dynamic within the adjustment mechanism (Box 3.0).

Alan typifies the use of simultaneous adjustment mechanisms. "If somebody is doing something I don't like . . . I usually just read and do something that is not strenuous . . . something I like to do and take my mind off the person . . . I congratulate myself and say I am learning to do this, I am using my head instead of reacting." The gifted adolescent in this case uses cognitive appraisal to determine behaviors that are aimed at solving a problem and reducing the stress associated with the environment. Since this appraisal process helps Alan adapt within the environment without sacrificing a sense of self, it reflects a parallel adjustment mechanism of achievement adjustment and process adjustment.

The interactional mechanism. Children begin to develop self-concept through relationships with others, their development of self-knowledge, and their comparisons of themselves to others (Collins, 1984). The interactional mechanism (Box 4.0) reflects this developmental process. Self-concept is both situational, based on the identification and comparison with similar peers (Box 4.1) and global, based on the concept of personal identity (Box 4.2) (Bandura, 1986; Erikson, 1963). Previous research has shown that the comparison of self to peers is critical to the social and emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents (Cornell et al., 1990).

A teacher working with 2 gifted Hispanic students told this story, illustrating the interactional mechanism. A little while into the school year a gifted Hispanic student, Antonio, moved into the area. "When Antonio first came to me. I thought Juan and Antonio would be friends. I thought maybe Juan would be a good influence on Antonio. But Juan kept his distance because he knows Antonio is trouble . . . . Now in my class, they are pleasant to each other, they talk, but I would not say that Antonio is a good friend of his."

The outcome of the entire functional model is gifted young people who are socially and emotionally adjusted (Box 5.0). These youngsters exhibit the characteristics of functional adjustment as defined by Rathus and Nevid (1992) and positive self-concepts. The following story is an overview of one child whose story reflects the functional model.

Nina, a sixth grade student, is both a highly capable and creative gifted child. Nina viewed her parents as having "fair rules" and yet admitted that, at times, she disagrees with the rules. She is given responsibilities and interacts with her siblings in a normal manner. She described her relationship with her siblings as "great friends" most of the time, who "get along okay" other times, and "then sometimes we just don't get

along at all." Nina brings energy and enthusiasm to each of her activities, both academic and

extracurricular. She exhibits playfulness and seems to engage in a wide array of experiences for the sake of personal pleasure. Her school principal stated that she is "a sensational student . . . . She finds interest in all areas of learning and is endlessly curious about so many things. She loves learning and is energetic in her pursuit." At the same time, a teacher sees Nina as a "self-motivated and self-challenging student, who sets high standard for herself." Nina appears to be strongly goal-oriented. Nina radiates confidence regarding her ideas, abilities, and values. She views herself as unique and different. This perspective is due in part to the fact that she believes she is a creative person and that creativity makes a person different from other people. "I want to be creative cause if I was like everyone else, the world wouldn't be as cool . . . by being creative, people are different. Being creative makes everybody special, makes everybody different."

At the same time Nina enjoys being creative and unique, she enjoys her associations with her classmates and has many friends. As one teacher puts it: "She seems to be comfortable in her own skin."

Over-reliance on achievement adjustment may occur when the gifted child or adolescent is part of a family (Box 2.1, Figure 2) where a sense of belonging is emphasized to the detriment of a sense of self. Characteristics of these types of families include rigid adherence to family rules, parental domination, rewards based on conformity to the family, and family taking precedence over the individual (Lamborn, Mounts, & Steinberg, 1991). For example, in one child's family, the father is the authoritarian figure in the family. His word is final. The father feels the need to control his children and his wife and praise is based on conformity to the father's viewpoint.

The child's involvement in this type of family results in imbalance within the simultaneous adjustment mechanism (Box 3.0). This gifted child relies on achievement adjustment (Box 3.1) as a means of coping socially and emotionally. The child produces socially accepted behaviors that include purposeful attempts to comply or adjust to the detriment of self. Teachers often describe these children as perfect. "Juan does exactly what you ask exactly when you ask him to do it, and if there is any feedback, it is always positive."

Children's reliance on these behaviors, when they are incongruent with their cognitive appraisal of the environment, produce a conflict between personal beliefs and the actions expected by others. After starring in a school play, one gifted child received high praise from her family and friends at a celebration party and appeared to be enjoying the party. However during the party, she quietly retreated in tears to her room and, stated "I was not as good as I could have been."

Adjustment Interactional Family Mechanism Mechanism (2.0) (3.0) (4.0)

Figure 2. Reliance on achievement adjustment. The reliance on achievement adjustment often is reinforced by the selection of

similar peers who also fit into the environment (Box 4.1) and playing by the rules of the game. The gifted child following the path illustrated in Figure 2 consistently suppresses his/her own beliefs to conform to peer expectations and may be socially adjusted at the expense of emotional adjustment, which requires a reflection of one's own beliefs in one's action. For example, Debbie's father reported that "she is very concerned socially about conforming and she doesn't want to appear apart from her peers."

June is a 13 year old eighth-grader attending a public middle school in a relatively small community and represents gifted children who over-rely on achievement adjustment. At school, she serves on the yearbook staff and is a reporter for the school newspaper. For a time, she acted as manager for the school's volleyball team, then she joined the school's track and field team as a long distance runner. She is a member of the school's Odyssey of the Mind team and participates in an after school gifted and talented seminar program. Recently, June was elected by her class to be next year's class president.

Outside of school, June takes piano and ballet lessons and between these activities and her homework, she finds the time to maintain a wide variety of hobbies. She enjoys reading, is an active participant in a local theater group and enjoys both vegetable and flower gardening.

When asked to describe her family in one word, June's mother responded with "Smiths." This is a family that spends a great deal of time together. June's father describes their family as "tight knit." And each of the Smiths appears to be very satisfied with their family life and supportive of one another. June points out that her parents want what is best for her.

However, June worries that her mother works too hard and indicates that occasionally her mother becomes upset about not being able to do everything she feels that she should: "She gets upset a lot of times about the house and getting it clean." June's response to her mother's reaction is: "[I] try as hard as I can to help around the house." June points out that "When she's [mom] upset . . . it affects us all." She also reports that occasionally she and her mother have disagreements but that their anger with one another dissipates quickly: "I don't want our relationship to get hurt because she's very important to me."

Susan, June's only close friend, is very similar to June. Their friendship is based on mutual academic support. Regarding her friendship with Susan, June claims that "we have to be good friends because we take all the same classes, and I need her help and she needs my help." June's mother expressed concern that the friendship between June and Susan appears to be based solely on their academic interests.

Last year, June received her first B. "It was a big thing [at the time] . . . ." In fact, it was a big enough "thing" that June, who does not cry often, cried, and her mother wrote a note to the teacher. However, June never gave this note to the teacher because "[I] didn't want to hurt [my] relationship with her [the teacher]."

According to her teachers, June is a standard, of sorts. In her classes, she acts as both a leader and a follower and is open to her classmates' and teachers' different ideas and approaches to class work. Her algebra teacher believes that June succeeds in school not only because she enjoys learning, but also because "[she] has a fierce desire to please her parents." June's case illustrates that the perfect gifted child may be at risk for emotional adjustment difficulties by continually sacrificing for others.

When a gifted child is born into a family (Box 2.3, Figure 3) that creates an exaggerated sense of individual importance we may see development of over-reliance on process adjustment. These types of families are characterized by erratic rules, individual domination (often the child is dominant), expectations of system modification to individual needs, and individuals taking precedence over family (Hollingsworth, 1990; Rimm, 1990). For example, one mother described the impact her son, Kevin, had on her relationship with her husband as, "Life before Kevin, now it's Kevin, and hopefully there will be life after Kevin." A father said his gifted child was "the recipient of all his dreams and hopes."

The child's involvement in this type of family sets up a reliance on process adjustment (3.2). This child often is described as not fitting into the environment and not expressing any distress over lack of adaptation. For example, Jill, a fifth-grader, often argues and debates issues in her classes. She says that she "knows other students don't

like it, but it's good for them. Maybe they'll go on to be in the debate in high school or become lawyers."

Difficulties for these adolescents occur when they experience congruence between their beliefs and their behaviors, but generate actions that do not help them fit into the environment. Often these behaviors are seen by others as inappropriate. Therefore, the gifted adolescent's internal appraisal does not encourage behaviors necessary for achievement adjustment, and emotional adjustment exists at the expenses of social adjustment.

Kevin, a seventh grade student at the time this study began, is a highly intellectual child with an IQ of 180 on the Slosson Intelligence Test. Kevin's interviews create a story that illustrates reliance on process adjustment. Kevin's mother describes the family as "totally child-centered." The father concurs "I guess we try to do too much for the kids. It's like there is no tomorrow." Within the context of school, Kevin is seen by his teachers as having social difficulties. One teacher's explanation is that "He is very bright and his interests are so different that somehow he never learned the social skills needed with peers. So it became a cyclical thing. He would be talking about things or be interested in things they weren't, he'd get a bad response, so he'd isolate himself, not pick up the social skills, so even his intellectually similar peers rejected him."

Adjustment Interactional Family Mechanism Mechanism

Figure 3. Reliance on process adjustment. Kevin's lack of achievement adjustment was compensated by his reliance on

process adjustment or his appraisal of his peer relationships in a manner that did not cause him emotional distress: "Most people at school I am not good friends with . . . . We don't really hate each other we just sort of live with each other. Occasionally I might talk to them or play a game . . . but we're not like buddies, pals, come over to my house sort of thing . . . . See you can only have so many really good friends anyway."

Kevin sums his story clearly as he describes himself: "I've never been a real social person anyway. I could go off by myself and read a book at recess . . . I said to myself . . . who needs it? . . . . Forget this."

Model of Social and Emotional Adjustment

A conceptual model of the social and emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents (see Figure 4) was developed through a qualitative research study involving 22 gifted students and their families, teachers, and peers (Sowa & May, 1997). This study examined how these gifted adolescents coped with the demands and pressures they

experienced. Case studies based on extensive interviews and observations were developed for each adolescent. Cross-case analyses yielded common and discrepant patterns in the ways these adolescents responded to the stressors in their lives. The linking of these patterns to the literature was the foundation of the conceptual model. The model incorporated theoretical and empirical information from the fields of child and family development and personal adjustment to stress.

Adjustment was defined by Rathus and Nevid (1992) as a process people use to respond to environmental demands. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) described this process as "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (p. 141). They referred to it as the cognitive appraisal paradigm. On the basis of the cognitive appraisal paradigm, the model assumes that people are not merely reactive, but also proactive within their environments, creating complex interactions. Hence, intrapersonal, family, school, and peer influences on social and emotional adjustment are examined separately as well as in combination within the model.

The first component of the model is the gifted child. For the purposes of this model, gifted was defined as advanced intellectual ability and corresponds with the development of formal operations or abstract thinking at an earlier age than the child's non-gifted peers. This ability allows the gifted child to employ the cognitive appraisal paradigm.

The second component is the family. The family provides the initial setting for the social and emotional adjustment of the gifted child. Functional families encourage a sense of togetherness and a sense of individuality (Minuchin, 1974). This duality is the basis for the child's development of balanced adjustment that fosters social and emotional adjustment.

The adjustment mechanism, the third component of the model, includes both achievement adjustment and process adjustment. Achievement adjustment is the strategy a gifted child uses to adapt within his or her environment (Lazarus, 1961). Process adjustment is the employment of the cognitive appraisal paradigm by the gifted child. Both achievement adjustment and process adjustment are used to cope with demands of the environment. Adjustment Interactional Family Mechanism Mechanism

Figure 4. A conceptual model of social and emotional adjustment of gifted adolescents. Successful emotional and social adjustment in gifted children is based on the

generation of effective behaviors and beliefs that produce a balanced employment of achievement and process adjustment. Similar to adjusted adults (Rathus & Nevid, 1992), adjusted gifted adolescents seek balance between their belief systems and their environments and modify their beliefs or behaviors when they are not adaptive.

The fourth component of the model is an interactional mechanism that fosters the development of self-concept. Children begin to develop self-concept through self-knowledge and comparisons between themselves and others (Collins, 1984). The establishment of a realistic attitude toward oneself and a favorable outlook on relationships with others reinforces the simultaneous adjustment mechanism in gifted children within the functional model.

When successful social and emotional adjustments have occurred, gifted children will exhibit the characteristics of functional adjustment as defined by Rathus and Nevid (1992). They will demonstrate accurate expectations and behaviors that permit them to: (a) meet the demands of the environment; (b) change the environment or create new

environments to meet their needs or tastes; (c) regulate their behavior to bring about desired effects; (d) believe in their abilities to achieve desired outcomes; (e) interpret experiences in such a way that they perceive solutions to problems and do not unnecessarily arouse negative emotions; and (f) imitate a wealth of models so that they learn many ways to influence their environment. These behaviors and expectations are often reflected in positive self-concept and the use of effective coping strategies.

Recent research has highlighted the importance of examining self-concept from a multidimensional perspective (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Marsh, Byrne, & Shavelson, 1988). In particular, studies examining the relationship between self-concept and giftedness have been confounded by variations in the ways the construct has been defined and measured (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993). Although gifted students scored somewhat higher than average children on measures of global, academic, and behavioral self-concept, for example, meta-analysis suggests that there were no significant differences between student identified as gifted and those not so identified on measures of social self-concept (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993). Within the present study, we focus on the relationship between the coping strategies predicted by Sowa and May's (1997) model and the nonacademic dimensions of self-concept that have been shown to predict social and emotional adjustment of gifted students.

Study 5: Issues in the Development of a Gifted, Asian American Student6

Research and theory in gifted education has traditionally focused upon the intellectual development of high potential students. A recent analysis of the literature on the gifted and talented found that only 13% of the articles dealt with socio-emotional issues. Less than one third of those articles were empirical studies (Rogers, 1989). Considering the possible, if uncertain, correlation between socio-emotional attribute such as self-efficacy, self-concept, resiliency, stress, and academic achievement (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Kelly & Colangelo, 1984), the paucity of research in this area is unfortunate. High potential, Asian American students have also received little attention in the literature, with few exceptions (see Kitano & Chinn, 1986; Maker & Schiever, 1989). Published, empirical studies involving Asian American students do not adequately address socio-emotional adjustment and development (Plucker, 1993).

In an effort to further document and provide some additional understanding of the dynamics of relationships between outstanding talent and the adjustment of high potential students, the University of Virginia site of The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented has undertaken a qualitative study of the social and emotional development of high potential adolescents.

Altman (1983) proposed a research model for the socia1-emotional development of gifted children that stresses the interaction of different data sources, such as the child, teachers, parents, siblings, and peers; psychosocial traits, including self-concept, interpersonal relations, community adjustment, and personality traits; and demographic variables, age, sex, SES level, and cultural variations. In this model, however, Altman downplays the role of adjustment and advocates the

independent investigation of each interaction. A model is needed to guide research that comprehensively investigates the complex interaction of variables that influence a gifted child's socio-emotional development and adjustmentImplications and Conclusions

Families and schools should foster a balance between achievement adjustment and process adjustment mechanisms to assist gifted children and adolescents in the development of social and emotional adjustment skills. The means for fostering simultaneous adjustment mechanisms differ based on the reliance of the gifted child or adolescent on one area of adjustment over another. Gifted children or adolescents who are reliant on achievement adjustment need to strengthen their personal identity and feel more comfortable in expressing and abiding by their personal beliefs systems. A stronger sense of personal identity promotes trust in their own cognitive appraisal and helps recreate balance in the simultaneous adjustment mechanism.

In turn, gifted children or adolescents who rely on process adjustment as a means of coping need to incorporate others into their appraisal process. It is important that schools and families help young people learn to understand the views of their peers and others even when they are perceived as dissimilar. The increasing importance of peers in adolescence may facilitate this process and serve as a means of promoting achievement adjustment. During its development, the applicability of the model was considered for minority populations and both genders. Ethnic, racial, and sexual identity play important roles in both the personal identity of the adolescent and the comparison with similar peers (Boyd-Franklin, 1989). The role ethnicity, race, and gender play in the model is determined by the importance of ethnic, racial, and sexual identity within the family. Therefore, if the family incorporates these issues by employing balanced adjustment mechanisms, the gifted child begins a simultaneous path in regard to ethnic, racial, and sexual identity (see Figure 1). If the family relies on either achievement adjustment or process adjustment approach to incorporate the minority or gender issues into their personal adjustment mechanisms, the gifted child is likely to exhibit such a reliance. Future research is needed on the implications of ethnicity, race, and gender within this model.

Additional research using quantitative techniques also is needed to clarify the relationships within the model of social and emotional adjustment presented. This model is built on the premise that social and emotional adjustments are not the same constructs and rely on separate adjustment mechanisms. This conceptual model of social and emotional adjustment portrays a pictorial representation of gifted children's and adolescents vulnerability. It is based on the delicate balance of both fitting into the world while being different and understanding one's own uniqueness. This balance is important for all persons living and working with gifted children and adolescents to remember.