PAUL R E N Z AND FLORENCE C H R I S T O P L O S

Toward an Operational

Definition of Giftedness *

NEED FOR

REDEFINITION Diagnostic requirements for the optimum education of gifted children make it mandatory that we work toward a more uni- form means of differentiating not only among types of gifted- ness but also between proficiency and giftedness. Since these last two concepts are unfortunately often equated, the authors of this article hope to clarify the differences by providing an operational definition of "giftedness." Such a frame of refer- ence may provide a meaningful structure for the program- ming, methods, materials, and so forth to be used in the edu- cation of the gifted, and its use may also have subsequent ef- fects upon teacher selection and teacher-training curricula.

There are two assumptions basic to our definition : I ) Areas or categories of giftedness are determined by the

prevailing culture. In view of the multiplicity of behaviors of which man is capable, the theoretical number of "types" of gifted is infinite. Each culture or sub-culture lays down, within the framework of its own value systems, those syndromes of behavior which are acceptable and/or those in which it will allow gifted behavior to be manifested.

2) A definition of giftedness, to be operationally useful, should be applicable to any behavioral area. The dynamics of the interaction between the individual and his environment is

* This article offers a functional approach to the gifted. Implications for research along a priority continuum are discussed.

91 Volume 2 Number 2 Spring 1968

Toward an Operational Definition of Giftedness

the important factor, regardless of the specific characteristics of the behavioral area. In other words, whatever the giftedness is, the same basic interactional processes are employed. The interaction process can be trichotomized into steps which are developmental and ordered in sequence. Each step describes a qualitatively differentiated level of interaction and the final step provides the basic definition of giftedness.

Step I : The individual learns what the behaviors and their sequence are as they are required for the performance of a par- ticular task. By this is meant that he acquires the skills which are necessary for minimal competence in performance of the task, along with the appropriate spatial and temporal rules that are implicit therein. However, unless the individual has the opportunity to use the behavior freely he will not make the transition to the second step. Performing the task only under strict guidance and control is unlikely to allow sufficient as- similation of the behavioral rules. Anything that tampers with or restrains the organism’s own movements as it interacts with its environment is interfering with a feedback loop and thus inhibiting efficient adaptation to the environment (Held, 1965).

Step 2: The assimilation of the rules. The individual de- velops high proficiency, and performance becomes automatic and facile. This is a time of extensive practice and drill. The in- dividual becomes increasingly task centered as he frees him- self from dependence not only upon others for evaluation but even upon himself for concentrated attention to the mechanics of following the rules. Having freed himself thus, he may begin to focus on generalizing the rules to new situations.

Step 3 : With the opportunity to generalize and expand the use of the rules, the individual has the potential to become gifted in his area. He may now devote his attention to innova- tions in, divergence from, or refinement of the rules. This in- novative behavior becomes the general definition of giftedness.

Although almost all individuals achieve the first level and many individuals manifest behavior characteristic of the sec- ond level, only those individuals who can make the full transi- tion into the third level of interaction after completing the first two steps i n an ordered manner are defined as gifted. Some of the implicit limitations which the foregoing discussion and definition of giftedness force us to recognize must be con- sidered. First of all, giftedness is culture bound. Divergence, innovation, or refinement of the rules must take off from those

WHAT IS

GIFTEDNESS

Giftedness Depends on

Culture

92

The journal of Creative Behavior

rules already established by the culture. In addition, the value of a set of rules must be learned in the context of a reference group witliiri the culture. Every group in a society has a set of values placed on proficiency in killing others. A law abiding citizen may see no value in learning such a skill. Yet a member of the armed forces within the same society is encouraged to develop proficiency in this skill which is so negatively per- ceived outside of his reference group. It is far more likely that an individual will become a gifted killer if he is in the armed services than if he is a private citizen, since there is less risk involved in developing such a skill in the one situation than in the other. Fewer people are threatened by, or threatening to, the gifted military killer than the gifted civilian killer.

Another example of dependence upon the reference group of an individual, as well as upon a particular spatial and temporal interaction, occurs in a classroom situation. “Cheating”, or de- veloping proficiency in sharing the knowledge of classmates, may be of a high risk nature in most American suburban schools. However, the same proficiency and giftedness are like- ly to be highly prized among the Oglala Indians who despise competition and value cooperation highly. For them, no such derogatory label as “cheating” is associated with the behavior (Erikson, 1963).

Within this definition of giftedness, the innovative behavior must be classified as gifted regardless of whether it is socially prized or denigrated. The same processes are at work in either social situation. The reference groups within a culture are not agencies which encourage all kinds of giftedness, but rather are agencies which decide which culturally available giftednesses they do indeed wish to encourage or discourage. A crucial problem arising from this approach to giftedness is that of identifying those areas in which our society encourages giftedness or divergence from the rules, hereinafter designated as low risk areas, and those areas in which giftedness or di- vergence is discouraged, hereinafter designated as high risk areas.

As a start toward identifying such a risk hierarchy, we may suggest as an example of a relatively low risk area of giftedness certain sports or acrobatics. Skilled divergence is encouraged or rewarded. Rarely are innovations viewed as threatening. Ex- amples of relatively high risk areas of giftedness are those actually forbidden by law. Not only is one discouraged from

The Risk Continurn

93

Toward an Operational Definition of Giftedness

thinking up innovations in methods of theft or burglary, but one becomes legally subject to punishment for the practice of such a skill.

In ranking areas on this risk continuum, one of the most weighted variables must be the number of well established in- stitutions or groups that wouId perceive the innovative be- havior as threatening. For example, politics is an area of higher risk than painting because the effects of political behavior are far more pervasive in our society than the effects of artistic behavior.

In school situations this risk continuum approach suggests the use of certain guidelines for teachers. At present many teachers operate under the self-deluding assumption that they are encouraging giftedness p e r se. However, if it is recognized that the designation of areas as high risk or low risk is deter- mined by the teacher's own attitudes, it becomes clear that the teacher's responsibility is to decide, in advance and with full awareness, where he will encourage and where he will dis- courage giftedness.

Just as innovative behavior is a risk to the society in which it occurs (situational risk), so is it a risk for the gifted indi- vidual himself. He is taking the "risk" of finding out or doing something which may cause extensive shaking up of his pre- viously established belief and behavior patterns (internal risk). (Internal risk is comparable to some aspects of the open-closed mind as discussed by Rokeach (1960).) Regardless of whether the situational risk is high or low, the internal risk for the gifted person pertains.

The ability to tolerate both internal and situational risk is a necessary prerequisite for making the transition from Step z to Step 3 . On the other hand, if the gifted individual is as truly task centered as Steps 2 and 3 imply, he is less likely to be as impressed by a task's risk element (either internal or situ- ational) as a non-gifted person would be. Although the implications for research from the above discus- sion are multifaceted, there are certain lines of inquiry that should have priority, particularly in the educational area.

I. It is imperative to identify degrees of situational risk. This may be possible by administering to educators attitude scaling techniques aimed at identifying a hierarchy of behav- ioral areas ranging from those in which innovation is most desired to those in which it is least desired.

Areas for Research

94

The journal of Creative Behavior

2 . Internal risk also requires clarification. Selected items from available personality tests (e.g., Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale) could be a point of departure in measuring student tol- erance for dissonance as well as other factors pertinent to this definition of giftedness.

3 . The problem of differentiating proficiency (Step 2) from giftedness (Step 3) must be resolved. A basis for doing this might be derived from available learning programs which de- lineate the behavior required for proficiency in a particular task. (See Guilford & Hoepfner, 1966.) Identifying giftedness would then proceed from the observation of behaviors which are innovations on the proficiency prescribed in the program. 4. A further need is for analysis of the environmental con-

ditions facilitating and inhibiting the transition from one step to the next. Additional elaboration is necessary before it will be possible to measure operationally these transitional conditions. In summary, an operational definition of giftedness must dif- ferentiate between task proficiency and innovative behavior based on proficiency. The definition must also recognize the culturally determined values which establish areas of high and low risk for the manifestation of gifted behavior. Identifying the risk hierarchy should help society in general, and educators in particular, to discharge their responsibility to build in some protection for that gifted behavior which is recognized as es- sential for the preservation or advancement of society.

SUMMARY

REFERENCES ERIKSON, E. H. Childhood and Society, 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1963. GUILFORD, J. P., & HOEPFNER, R. Sixteen divergent-production abilities

HELD, R. Plasticity in sensory-motor systems. Sci. Amer., 1965, 213, 84-94. ROKEACH, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

BARRON, F. Creativity and psychological health. New York: Van Nostrand,

BEM, D. J., WALLACH, M. A,, & KOGAN, N. Group decision-making under risk of adversive consequences. 1. of Pers. SOC. Psychol. 1965, I,

453-460.

at the ninth-grade level. Mdtivar. Behav. Res., 1966, 1.

SELECTED READINGS 1963.

BERNE, E. Games people play. New York: Grove Press, 1964. BRUNER, J. S. The conditions of creativity. In Gruber, H. E., Terrell, G., &

Wertheimer, M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking. New York: Atherton, 1963, 1-30.

GUILFORD, J. P. Creativity. Amer. Psycho/., 1950, 5, 444-454. GUILFORD, J. P. Intelligence: 1965 model. Amer. Psychol., 1966, 21, 20-26. LUCE, R. D., & RAIFFA, H. Games and decisions. New York: Wiley, 1957. MARQUIS, D. G. Individual responsibility and group decisions involving

risk. Indust. Manag. Rev., 1962, 3, 8-23.

95

Toward an Operational Definition of Giftedness

NORDHOY, F. Group inter nction in decision-innking under risk. Unpub. Master's thesis, M.I.T., 1962.

RABOW, J. FOWLER, F. J., BRADFORD, D. L., HOFELLER, M. A., & SHIBUYA, Y. The role of social norms and leadership in risk-taking. Sociometry, 1966, 2y. 16-27.

SASIENI, M., YASPAN, A,, & FRIEDMAN, L. Operations research: methods and problems. New York: Wiley, 1959.

STONER, J. A. F. A comparison of individlral nnd grorrp decisions including risk. Unpub. Master's thesis, M.I.T., 1961.

TORRANCE, E. P. Rewarding crentiue behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965.

VON NEUMANN, I., & MORGENSTERN, 0. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1944.

WALLACH, M. A., KOGAN, N., & BEM, D. J. Group influence on individual risk-taking. 1. of Abn. 8 SOC. Psychol., 1962, 65, 75-86.

WALLACH, M. A,, KOGAN, N., & BEM, D. J. Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk-taking in groups. 1, of Abn. 63 Soc. Psychol., 1964, 68,

WILLIAMS, J. D. The compleat strntegyst. New York: McCraw-Hill, 1954. 263 -274.

Paul Renz, Direcfor, Child Study Center. .4ddress: Old Dominion College, Norfolk, Virginia 23508.

FIorence Christoplos, Assistant Professor, Special Education. Address: Coppin State College, 2500 West North Avenue, Baltimore, Mary- land 21216.

96