Verschueren, K., Lavrijsen, J., Weyns, T., Ramos, A., & De Fraine, B. (2019).

Social accep-
tance of high-ability youth: Multiple perspectives and contextual influences. In R. F. Sub-
otnik, S. G. Assouline, P. Olszewski-Kubilius, H. Stoeger, & A. Ziegler (Eds.), The Future
of Research in Talent Development: Promising Trends, Evidence, and Implications of Innovative
Scholarship for Policy and Practice. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
168, 27–46.

3
Social Acceptance of High-Ability Youth:
Multiple Perspectives and Contextual
Influences
Karine Verschueren , Jeroen Lavrijsen, Tessa Weyns,
Alicia Ramos, Bieke De Fraine

Abstract
Peer relationships form a key developmental context. The current study inves-
tigated differences in peer acceptance between high-ability and average-ability
youth, from the perspectives of teachers, peers, and students. Relying on the
person-group similarity model, we also tested whether high-ability students’
acceptance would depend on the peer group’s mean ability level. A sample of
2,736 sixth-grade students from 188 classes in 117 schools participated. Stu-
dents scoring in the top 10% of a cognitive ability measure were considered
high-ability students (N = 274). Results showed that high-ability students were
better accepted than average-ability students according to teachers and peers.
However, the students did not show more positive self-perceptions of accep-
tance. Moreover, they nominated less peers as their friends. Gifted students felt
more accepted in classes with higher mean ability levels. The authors call for
a stronger integration of developmental theory and research into the study of
giftedness. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, no. 168, November 2019 © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). • DOI: 10.1002/cad.20316 27
28 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

P eer relationships form a key developmental context for children

and adolescents. Particularly in late childhood and early adoles-
cence, youth’s involvement in social interactions with peers and the
importance of peer relationships increase dramatically (Gifford-Smith &
Brownell, 2003). Contrasting the abundance of research on peer relation-
ships in the general developmental literature, the topic has remained much
less explored in the field of giftedness research. Nonetheless, research has
revealed that youth’s acceptance by their peers, as well as their sense of
acceptance, are crucial predictors of later socio-emotional and academic
outcomes (McElhaney, Antonishak, & Allen, 2008; Rubin, Bukowski, &
Bowker, 2015).
The current study investigated possible differences in social acceptance
between high-ability and average-ability students, drawing these students
from a nonselected student sample. Given the modest convergence between
peer, teacher, and self-reports of peer acceptance, and the unique window
into peer experiences each of them offers (Rubin et al., 2015), our objective
was to shed more light on the social acceptance of high-ability students
by examining it from the perspective of peers, teachers, and the students
themselves. Further, in line with recent models that emphasize that peer
acceptance is a construct that should be situated primarily at the level of
the group, and thus can vary considerably depending on group characteris-
tics (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003), we aimed to investigate the role of
the peer context in students’ social acceptance. Specifically, relying on the
person-group similarity model (Wright, Giammarino, & Parad, 1986) we
sought to find out if high-ability students’ social acceptance by classmates
would depend on the mean cognitive ability of these classmates.
In the field of giftedness research, a plethora of conceptual models
and definitions of giftedness have been proposed (Harder, Vialle, & Ziegler,
2014; Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Worrell, 2011). Despite their dif-
ferences, most contemporary models are developmental and contextual
in nature, asserting that outstanding ability in a particular domain may
gradually develop into outstanding talent (e.g., achievement, eminence),
depending on contextual influences, including appropriate instruction and
coaching, and personal influences, such as personality, motivational and
psychosocial characteristics (Al-Shabatat, 2013; Gagné, 2004; Harder et al.,
2014; Subotnik et al., 2011). Also, although contemporary models acknowl-
edge different domains of giftedness (e.g., artistic, leadership), intellectual
giftedness has been the most studied domain (Jarosewich, Pfeiffer, & Mor-
ris, 2002). Intellectual giftedness has been measured in various ways (e.g.,
using intelligence and achievement tests, teacher nominations, portfolio,
or combinations thereof). In this study, we used a standardized measure
of intelligence, which is the most widely used operationalization (Kosir,
Horvat, Aram, & Jurinec, 2016).

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND HIGH ABILITY YOUTH 29

Multiple Perspectives on Social Acceptance. Children’s peer experi-

ences comprise multiple, interdependent levels of social complexity, includ-
ing individual characteristics (such as social problem solving skills), observ-
able interactions, dyadic relationships, and social groups (Rubin et al.,
2015). Among all peer-related constructs, the construct of social acceptance
or peer acceptance has yielded the most research attention. Peer accep-
tance refers to the degree to which children are liked by their peers, and
is usually measured by asking children to nominate peers whom they like
most or whom they are friends with (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003).
Peer acceptance involves different levels of social complexity: Although
it is assigned to an individual child, it refers primarily to a group’s affec-
tive stance toward that child (i.e., the group level), aggregating individual
attraction or friendship nominations within that group (i.e., the relation-
ships level) (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). A large body of research
has documented that being accepted by the peer group offers many advan-
tages for children’s development, not only for their psychosocial develop-
ment and mental health, but also for their academic success (Gifford-Smith
& Brownell, 2003; Wentzel & Muenks, 2016). Longitudinal research has
shown that children who are accepted by their peers at school tend to feel
more emotionally engaged in school and display higher levels of behavioral
school engagement over time (e.g., De Laet et al., 2015; Weyns, Colpin, De
Laet, Engels, & Verschueren, 2018). These findings are consistent with the
assumption that social acceptance fulfills children’s need for relatedness,
which helps fostering their engagement and achievement (e.g., Wentzel &
Muenks, 2016).
Peer acceptance has been mostly assessed using peers’ evaluations or
affective reactions. Although these can be considered the most “direct”
assessments of peer acceptance, the inclusion of other perspectives is key
to obtaining a more comprehensive understanding of children’s social func-
tioning. Indeed, research has generally shown only modest convergence
between perspectives of peers, teachers, and children themselves (Rubin
et al., 2015; Weyns et al., 2017). Moreover, some research suggests that,
irrespective of peer-rated likeability, youth’s own perception of social accep-
tance is particularly predictive of future social outcomes (e.g., McElhaney
et al., 2008). As children move to adolescence, these perceptions may
become more enduring and may guide youth’s behaviors in and interpreta-
tions of social interactions with peers, thus acting as self-fulfilling prophe-
cies (McElhaney et al., 2008; Rubin et al., 2015). As such, students who
perceive themselves as being socially accepted may approach others with
greater confidence, whereas students who feel they have more difficulties in
being accepted may withdraw more from interactions with peers and thus
miss opportunities to further develop their social skills (McElhaney et al.,
2008; Nelson & Crick, 1999).
Likewise, grasping teacher judgments of students’ acceptance in the
peer group is also important, because a teacher’s perception of a child’s peer

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

30 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

acceptance may predict the teacher’s attitudes toward the child, which in
turn may impact his or her interactive behavior toward the child (De Laet
et al., 2014; Mercer & DeRosier, 2008). Numerous longitudinal as well as
intervention studies have shown that the quality of teacher–child interac-
tions influences children’s psychosocial and academic development (Sabol
& Pianta, 2012).
Giftedness and Social Acceptance: Theoretical Considerations and
Empirical Research. Despite the importance of peer relationships in ado-
lescence, research on peer relationships of intellectually gifted children
and adolescents has been rather limited. This is particularly true com-
pared to the amount of research on gifted youth’s personality and emo-
tional functioning (e.g., neuroticism, perfectionism, depression, anxiety)
(Francis, Hawes, & Abbott, 2016; Martin, Burns, & Schonlau, 2010). The
small body of research examining peer relationships of gifted children and
adolescents has mostly been framed within a general risk versus resiliency
perspective on psychological functioning (Neihart, 1999, 2002). Relying
on the developmental literature on peer acceptance, there are reasons to
argue that, in general, children with high cognitive abilities tend to be well
accepted by the peer group (defined here as age peers, not ability peers),
especially in the early elementary school years. First, children with higher
cognitive abilities generally show more advanced problem solving skills,
social cognitive abilities, and moral reasoning, which have all been found
to relate with higher peer acceptance in childhood (López & Sotillo, 2009;
Neihart, 1999; Rubin et al., 2015). Second, high-ability children generally
show lower levels of externalizing behavioral problems, such as aggression
(Francis et al., 2016), which has been found to be the most powerful deter-
minant of peer rejection, particularly in the early elementary school years
(Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003; Rubin et al., 2015). There are also reasons
to argue that differences will be modest at best, given that peer acceptance
also depends on characteristics that are not necessarily related to cognitive
abilities, such as physical attractiveness, athletic abilities, friendliness, and
sociability (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003; Rubin et al., 2015).
In line with this reasoning, empirical research using peer assessments
of social acceptance has generally shown that intellectually gifted students
are better accepted by their peers or show equal levels of acceptance as
compared with non-gifted students (Cohen, Duncan, & Cohen, 1994; Kosir
et al., 2016; López & Sotillo, 2009). These findings are echoed in stud-
ies using teacher ratings of social acceptance (Kosir et al., 2016; López &
Sotillo, 2009). However, these studies included students formally identified
as gifted or as qualifying for a gifted program. Accordingly, they often partic-
ipated in gifted programs, such as pull-out enrichment programs at school
(e.g., Cohen et al., 1994; Luftig & Nichols, 1990) or outside-of-school
enrichment programs (e.g., Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Thomson, 2012).
Findings from such samples may not generalize to the group of high-ability
students as a whole. Indeed, students participating in such programs are

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND HIGH ABILITY YOUTH 31

more likely to show better psychological adjustment and experience more

educational fit (Neihart, 1999). Also, enrichment programs often include
a focus on improving social skills and interactions, and offer possibilities
for interacting with other gifted peers, and are thus likely to impact stu-
dents’ peer relationships positively (Cohen et al., 1994; Kim, 2016). Thus, it
remains to be examined whether similar findings would be obtained among
high-ability youth from a nonselected group of students.
Inner Feelings of Social Acceptance. Another remaining question is
how intellectually gifted students themselves look at their social acceptance.
A review of qualitative research investigating the lived experience of gifted
students in school suggested that the feeling of “being different from oth-
ers” emerged convincingly from the studies (Coleman, Micko, & Cross,
2015). Intellectually gifted students are often interested in other activities
and subjects than their typically developing peers. As students transition
to adolescence, they may become more aware of this mismatch in abilities
and interests, leading to a stronger sense of isolation (Coleman et al., 2015).
Thus, although peer and teacher reports may indicate that gifted adolescents
are well accepted among their peers, they may nevertheless report feelings of
difference and perceive their giftedness as negatively impacting their peer
relationships (Coleman & Cross, 2014; Kerr, Colangelo, & Gaeth, 1988;
Kosir et al., 2016). As far as we know, only one recent study has tested this
assumption, using peer, teacher, and self-reports of social acceptance (Kosir
et al., 2016). This study partially supported the predicted discrepancies
between perspectives. Specifically, discrepancies between teacher and stu-
dent self-reports of social acceptance were most pronounced, with teachers
generally assessing the gifted students as more socially accepted, while no
differences in students’ self-reports were found. For peer assessments, dif-
ferences depended on the measure used: Whereas no difference was found
in peer acceptance, the number of negative nominations was lower, lead-
ing to a lower social impact. However, in this study giftedness was defined
very broadly, referring not only to outstanding cognitive ability, but also to
excellent physical, artistic, or leadership skills. Considering that students
showing these skills may differ in social acceptance from students showing
outstanding cognitive or academic skills caution should be paid in general-
izing the findings to intellectually gifted youth.
Outgoing Friendship Ties. Whereas previous research considering
peer assessments of social acceptance has investigated the number of friend-
ship nominations gifted children receive, we will also examine the number
of outgoing friendship ties, or friendship nominations gifted students give.
Consistent with the aforementioned discrepancy between other- and self-
reports of social acceptance, there are reasons to believe that differences
in outgoing ties may be more pronounced than differences in incoming
ties. First, intellectually gifted students may hold higher friendship expec-
tations, adopting higher standards in regards to friendships and whom they
see as a friend. This is in line with developmental research showing that,

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

32 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

with age, children’s understanding of friendship becomes more sophisti-

cated and their expectations become increasingly related to intimacy (Rubin
et al., 2015). Whereas most children in late childhood, for instance, define
a friend as a loyal companion who provides protection and instrumental aid
when needed, most children in early adolescence see a friend as someone
who shares similar interests, engages in intimate self-disclosure, and makes
endeavors to truly understand you (Rubin et al., 2015). Higher friendship
expectations among children with more advanced cognitive abilities may
lead these children to adopt higher standards for selecting someone as a
friend, that is, be more “picky” in whom they see as their friends, thus lead-
ing to lower outgoing friendship nominations. Second, across the lifespan
it has been found that people tend to form friendships with peers who are
similar in sex, ethnicity, behavioral, and academic characteristics (Altermatt
& Pomerantz, 2003; Rubin et al., 2015). In most regular classrooms, high-
ability students may have more difficulty in finding a peer having similar
cognitive abilities or interests (Coleman et al., 2015). Moreover, in adoles-
cence, intellectually gifted students may develop very strong engagements
in highly specific fields of interests (e.g., astronomy, literature), not neces-
sarily shared by other intellectually gifted youth (Coleman et al., 2015).
Whereas some students may mask these interests for the sake of being
accepted by their peers, it may still impact their own assessments of their
friendships. In our study, we therefore investigated outgoing friendship ties,
in addition to incoming friendship ties, hypothesizing that high-ability stu-
dents would tend to nominate fewer peers as their friends.
Social Acceptance as a Group-Level Construct. In the past, devel-
opmental research on social acceptance typically focused on child charac-
teristics as a predictor of children’s acceptance in their peer group (Gifford-
Smith & Brownell, 2003). Accordingly, also giftedness researchers looked at
gifted children’s variations in social acceptance, depending on their degree
of giftedness, the domain of their talent, and other individual characteris-
tics (Lee et al., 2012; Neihart, 1999). However, in line with the notion that
social acceptance is a group-level construct, a shift of focus emerged in the
developmental literature, and more attention was given to peer group fea-
tures as predictors of social acceptance (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003).
In their seminal work, Wright and colleagues (1986) reasoned that whereas
some individual behaviors/attributes will invariantly predict social accep-
tance across a wide variety of social groups, other behaviors or attributes
will relate to more or less social acceptance depending on the similarity
of the individual with the group. Relying on the literature on attraction
and friendship, showing that liking between two persons increases when
their interests and attitudes are more similar, and considering that social
acceptance is an aggregate of individual attraction or friendship nomina-
tions, Wright and colleagues (1986) argued that more person-group sim-
ilarity regarding a particular attribute or behavior would result in higher
social acceptance for individuals showing this attribute or behavior. This

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND HIGH ABILITY YOUTH 33

“person-group similarity model” has been tested and confirmed in several

studies (e.g., Stormshak et al., 1999; Wright et al., 1986), mostly focusing
on aggressive behavior. These studies revealed that in groups with relatively
low levels of aggression (i.e., where high aggression was less common) indi-
vidual aggressive behavior was related to lower peer acceptance, whereas
in groups with relatively high levels of aggression no such association was
found.
Intellectual giftedness may also be an attribute of which the meaning
and correlates differ according the social group. Thus, applying the person-
group similarity model we may expect that high-ability students tend to be
more socially accepted in groups showing higher levels of cognitive abil-
ity. Although many ability peer group initiatives for gifted students implic-
itly or explicitly rely on that assumption, to the best of our knowledge it
has not been tested empirically before. Therefore, this study was an initial
attempt at addressing this gap. Specifically, we investigated whether high-
ability students’ acceptance in class would depend on the mean level of their
classmates’ cognitive ability.
This Study. Adding to the small body of literature on peer relation-
ships of intellectually gifted students, the current study investigated differ-
ences in social acceptance between high-ability and average-ability youth,
from the perspectives of peers, teachers, and students, also attending to stu-
dents’ outgoing friendship nominations. Moreover, we tested whether high-
ability students’ acceptance would depend on the peer group’s mean ability
level. High-ability students were drawn from a nonselected student sample,
thereby adding to previous research that has typically relied on samples of
students formally identified as gifted or as qualifying for a gifted program.
The following research questions were addressed: (1) Are high-ability
students generally better accepted by their peers than average-ability stu-
dents? Based on theoretical considerations and scant empirical findings, we
expected that, in general, high-ability students would be better accepted by
their peers than average-ability students, both according to peers and teach-
ers. However, we expected that student self-perceptions would yield a less
positive picture, showing lower or equal levels of perceived social accep-
tance; (2) Do high-ability students nominate fewer peers as their friends
compared to average-ability students? In line with the assumption that
high-ability youth may have higher friendship expectations and experience
more difficulties in finding friends with similar interests, we hypothesized
that they would nominate fewer classmates as their friends; (3) Are high-
ability students better accepted in groups showing higher levels of cognitive
ability? Consistent with the person-group similarity model, we expected
that high-ability students would show higher social acceptance and nomi-
nate more classmates as their friends in classrooms showing higher mean
levels of cognitive ability.
Following the model of Gagné (2004), students scoring in the top
ten percent on a standardized intelligence test were considered to be high

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

34 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

ability students (i.e., IQ ≥ 120). Because peer social functioning may differ
depending on the ability level (Lee et al., 2012; Neihart, 1999), we also
investigated whether there were any differences between students with IQs
between 120 and 130 students with IQ above 130 (i.e., very high-ability).
As an average-ability reference group, we used students with IQ-scores
between 90 and 1101 . Child gender was taken into account as a control
variable in the analyses.

Method
Participants. A sample of 2,736 sixth-graders (49.9% boys, Mage =
11.8 year, SD = 0.41 year) from 188 classes from 117 schools is used to
answer our research questions. The data were collected as part of the large-
scale longitudinal SiBO-study, in which students were followed during ele-
mentary and secondary school (Dutch acronym for School Trajectories in
Primary Education; Maes, Ghesquière, Onghena, & Van Damme, 2002).
The participating schools were drawn from a total population of 2,129
schools, being quasi-representative for educational network, school size,
region, and number of socially disadvantaged students. In the current study,
we focused on data collected in February–March, when students were in
Grade 6.
Procedure. Child questionnaires and peer nomination measures were
filled out by the students in the classroom. Teacher questionnaires were
sent to the teachers and afterward returned to the researchers. Cognitive
ability was assessed when students were in Grade 3. Bachelor students in
Applied Psychology administered two tests for cognitive ability, one for
crystallized intelligence (CIT 3-4-R; Hendrikx, Maes, Magez, Ghesquire, &
Van Damme, 2008; Stinissen, Smolders, & Coppens-Declerck, 1975) and
one for fluid intelligence (Standard Progressive Matrices; Raven, Raven, &
Court, 2000). The first is a verbal intelligence test, consisting of three sub-
tests (i.e., Opposites, Logical connection, and Sorting) and the latter is a
nonverbal intelligence test designed to measure inductive and deductive
reasoning abilities (Hendrikx et al., 2008; Raven et al., 2000). The CIT
has shown good internal consistency, construct validity (i.e., factorial valid-
ity), and predictive validity (i.e., associations with achievement outcomes)
(Hendrikx et al., 2008; Stinissen et al., 1975). Research has also found evi-
dence for the reliability of the SPM, both for internal consistency and test-
retest reliability (Owen, 1992; Raven et al., 2000; Zhang & Wang, 1989).
Also, the SPM has shown the expected correlations with other intelligence
tests and achievement tests, supporting its validity (e.g., Pearce, 1983; Pind,
Gunnarsdóttir, & Jóhannesson, 2003; Raven et al., 2000; Rogers & Holmes,
1987). In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha was .91 for the CIT and .88
for the SPM. The average of the standardized scores on the CIT and SPM
was used as the measure of intelligence. Children scoring in the top 10%
on the aggregate cognitive ability measure (IQ ≥ 120), were considered

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND HIGH ABILITY YOUTH 35

as high-ability students. They were compared with the reference group of

average-ability students (IQs between 90–110).
Measures.
Peer-Rated Social Acceptance. Peer acceptance was assessed using
sociometric nominations (e.g., Cillessen, 2009). Each child was presented
with a list of all his/her classmates and was asked to indicate his/her friends.
For all children, the total number of received circles was summed up and
standardized within each class with mean 0 and standard deviation 1. To
ensure reliability of the nomination measures, classes in which less than ten
children awarded a nomination to a classmate were left out of the analyses.
Teacher-Rated Social Acceptance. Social acceptance was also assessed
using a teacher-report scale (PRIMA; Driessen, van Langen, & Vierke, 2000;
Jungbluth, Roede, & Roeleveld, 2001). Previous research has found good
reliability (e.g., Driessen et al., 2000). We used the mean score on four items
(e.g., “Can get along well with classmates”) that were answered on a 6-point
scale (ranging from “Definitely not applicable” to “Completely applicable”).
Cronbach’s alpha was .87.
Self-Reported Social Acceptance. The subscale “Social acceptance” from
the PRIMA-child report scale was used to measure self-reported social
acceptance (Driessen et al., 2000). Evidence for good reliability has been
found in previous research (e.g., Driessen et al., 2000). We used the mean
score on six items (e.g., “I can get along well with the children in my class”),
rated on a 5-point scale (“Not true,” “Usually not true,” “Sometimes true,
sometimes not true,” “Usually true,” “True”). Cronbach’s alpha in this study
was .82.
Number of Outgoing Nominations. From the sociometric nominations,
also the number of classmates nominated as a friend by each child was
calculated and standardized within each class with mean 0 and standard
deviation 1.

Results
Descriptive Statistics. The analytic sample, which includes only stu-
dents with IQ-scores either between 90 and 110 or above 120, who belong to
a class with at least ten participants, and who had no missing information,
consisted of 1,573 children from 156 classes in 102 schools. The sample
comprised 49.5% boys (Mage = 11.8 year, SD = 0.49 year). Among these,
274 children scored in the top 10% in the initial sample and were thus con-
sidered high-ability students. Among these, 191 students scored between
the top 10% and top 3% (IQ 120–130), and 83 children scored in the top
3% (IQ > 130).
Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the key measures
are reported in Table 3.1. Notably, the three social acceptance measures are
moderately correlated, with Pearson coefficients ranging between .39 and

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

36 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Table 3.1. Mean and Standard Deviations of Outcome Measures

Correlations
Measure M SD 1. 2. 3.
1. Peer-rated social acceptance 0.03 0.96
2. Teacher-rated social acceptance 4.56 0.91 .53∗∗∗
3. Self-rated social acceptance 4.29 0.70 .39∗∗∗ .40∗∗∗
4. Outgoing nominations 0.01 0.97 .17∗∗∗ .11∗∗∗ .25∗∗
∗∗ p < 0.01. ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

Table 3.2. Comparison of Social Acceptance Scores of the

Average-Ability Reference Group (IQ between 90 and 110) and the
High-Ability Group (IQ above 120), Adjusted for Gender
Reference Group High-Ability Group
Measure M SE M SE t Part. η2
Peer-rated social 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.06 2.66∗∗ 0.005
acceptance
Teacher-rated 4.52 0.03 4.76 0.05 4.07∗∗∗ 0.011
social
acceptance
Self-rated social 4.28 0.02 4.34 0.04 1.29 0.001
acceptance
∗∗ p < 0.01. ∗∗∗ p < 0.001.

.53. This emphasizes the importance of adopting a multi-informant per-

spective on social acceptance.
Comparison of Social Acceptance Scores Between Groups. Table
3.2 reports the least squares means (i.e., the marginal means, adjusted for
gender) of the social acceptance scores for high-ability students and the
reference group, for the three different informants. Differences were tested
using t-tests on the adjusted least squares means. This is statistically equiva-
lent to performing a 2-way ANOVA with group and gender as factors. High-
ability students were rated as significantly more socially accepted than the
reference group by both their peers and their teachers. In contrast, regard-
ing self-reported social acceptance no significant differences were found
between both groups. Values for partial η2 were small for all three social
acceptance measures.
Table 3.3 reports the least squares means further differentiating the
high-ability group in a moderate (IQ 120–130) and very high-ability group
(IQ above 130), with adjustment for gender and application of a Tukey cor-
rection for multiple comparisons. Importantly, for none of the social accep-
tance measures a significant difference could be observed between the two
subgroups. The moderate subgroup was rated as significantly more socially

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND HIGH ABILITY YOUTH 37

Table 3.3. Multiple Comparisons of Social Acceptance Scores of

Average-Ability Reference Group (IQ between 90 and 110), the
Moderate (IQ between 120 and 130), and Very High-Ability Group
(IQ above 130), Adjusted for Gender and with Tukey Correction
High-Ability Group
Reference Group Moderate Very High
Measure M SE M SE M SE
Peer-rated social 0.00a 0.03 0.18b 0.07 0.17ab 0.11
acceptance
Teacher-rated 4.52a 0.03 4.75b 0.06 4.80b 0.10
social
acceptance
Self-rated social 4.28a 0.02 4.34a 0.05 4.33a 0.08
acceptance
Note. Means sharing the same subscript do not differ significantly (p > 0.05).

Table 3.4. Comparison of Outgoing Nominations by Average-Ability

Reference Group (IQ Between 90 and 110) and the High-Ability
Group (IQ Above 120), Adjusted for Gender
Reference Group High-Ability Group
Measure M SE M SE t Part. η2
Outgoing 0.03 0.03 −0.12 0.06 −2.43∗ 0.003
nominations
∗p < 0.05.

accepted than the reference group by both their peers and their teachers.
For the very high-ability subgroup, only teacher-rated acceptance differed
significantly from the reference group; for peer-rated acceptance, however,
the group mean was very close to that of the moderate subgroup, suggesting
that the lack of significant differences with the reference group is probably
due to the small size of this subgroup.
Outgoing Friendship Ties. Table 3.4 reports the average outgoing
friendship nominations, that is, the standardized number of classmates that
children from the different groups nominated as their friends. High-ability
children generally nominated fewer classmates as their friends than children
in the reference group.
Again, differentiating between a moderate (IQ 120–130) and very high-
ability group (IQ > 130) added little to the understanding of outgoing nom-
inations. Both groups did not differ in this regard (p = 0.82). For both
subgroups, the comparison with the reference group was no longer sig-
nificant, probably due to loss of power by splitting up group sizes (see
Table 3.5).

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

38 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Table 3.5. Multiple Comparisons of Outgoing Nominations by the

Average-Ability Reference Group (IQ Between 90 and 110), the
Moderate (IQ Between 120 and 130), and Very High-Ability Group
(IQ Above 130)
High-Ability Group
Reference
Group Moderate Very High
Measure M SE M SE M SE
Outgoing nominations 0.03a 0.03 −0.10a 0.07 −0.17a 0.11
Means sharing the same subscript do not differ significantly (p > 0.05).

Effect of Class-Average Cognitive Ability on High-Ability Students’

Social Acceptance. A series of linear regression models was estimated pre-
dicting the social acceptance of high-ability children based on the mean
cognitive ability of their class, controlling for gender and correcting stan-
dard errors for clustering within classes using the type = complex feature
in Mplus. Average class-ability was calculated as the arithmetic mean of
the standardized cognitive ability scores of all students in the class. For
each informant a regression model was estimated separately. Similarly, the
number of outgoing nominations by high-ability children was regressed on
class-average cognitive ability.
Table 3.6 shows that self-reported social acceptance of high-ability
children was significantly positively associated with class-average cognitive
ability, implying that high-ability students felt better accepted by their class-
room peers when they were in classrooms with higher mean levels of cogni-
tive ability. For the peer- and teacher-rated acceptance measures, no signif-
icant associations were found. Similarly, no relationship could be observed
between the number of outgoing nominations by high-ability students and
class-average ability.

Discussion
This study aimed at contributing to the literature on peer relationships of
intellectually gifted students by (1) examining their social acceptance from
three perspectives (peers, teachers, and students themselves), (2) attend-
ing to their outgoing friendship nominations in addition to their incoming
friendship nominations, and (3) investigating the role of the peer context,
specifically the mean ability level of the class, in their social acceptance
by classmates. These objectives were addressed using a high-ability group
that was drawn from a nonselected student sample and compared with a
reference group of average-ability students.
Regarding the first objective, and generally in line with our research
hypotheses, our findings showed that high-ability students were rated as

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Table 3.6. Linear Regression of Social Acceptance and Outgoing Nominations on Average Class Ability and Student
Gender Among High-Ability Students. Standardized Estimates
Criterion: Peer-Rated Criterion: Teacher-Rated Criterion: Self-Reported Criterion: Outgoing
Acceptance Acceptance Acceptance Nominations
β SE p β SE p β SE p β SE p
Intercept 0.17 0.14 – 5.27 0.38 – 6.22 0.52 – −0.28 0.13 –
Class-average 0.02 0.06 0.80 0.09 0.06 0.13 0.16 0.06 <0.01 0.06 0.06 0.33
ability
Female −0.03 0.06 0.66 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.35
n 274 274 274 274
R2 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01
40 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

better accepted than average-ability students by both their teachers and

their peers. These results confirm findings from research among formally
identified gifted students participating in enrichment programs or other
forms of gifted education (Cohen et al., 1994; Kosir et al., 2016; López
& Sotillo, 2009), showing their generalizability to high-ability youth from
a nonselected group of students. Together, these findings contradict the
stereotypical view of high-ability youth as being smart but socially inept
that still prevails in the media and among teachers (Baudson & Preckel,
2013; Weyns, Preckel, & Verschueren, 2019). Our findings imply that the
higher social acceptance of intellectually gifted students shown in previous
research cannot by attributed solely to a bias of selecting well-functioning
children or children showing better fit with the educational environment.
Most possibly, high-ability youth are generally better accepted by peers
because of advanced levels of social cognitive abilities promoting peer
acceptance and/or because of lower levels of externalizing problem behav-
iors that tend to impede acceptance (Gifford-Smith & Brownell, 2003;
Rubin et al., 2015). Future research should focus on unraveling the explain-
ing mechanisms.
Our study also revealed that self-assessments of students’ social accep-
tance yielded a less positive picture than peer and teacher assessments,
showing no difference with the reference group. Thus, we found support for
the idea that students’ own feelings of social acceptance are not necessarily
in line with peers’ and teachers’ judgments. Because students’ own percep-
tions of social acceptance may act as self-fulfilling prophecies, guiding their
behavior and interpretations in future peer interactions, it is important to
understand why these self-perceptions do not parallel the perceptions of
peers and teachers.
Our findings did not suggest that, as a group, intellectually gifted
youth showed lower feelings of social acceptance compared with the ref-
erence group, which seemed to be implied by qualitative research (Cole-
man et al., 2015). These differences may be due to differences in research
methods (e.g., using surveys vs. in-depth interviews; having comparative
data for a non-gifted reference group; sampling identified gifted students or
not). Also, the current study focused on students in Grade 6 of elemen-
tary school. Possibly, feelings of social acceptance decline as these chil-
dren move further into early adolescence. Indeed, after the transition to
secondary school, academic goals generally tend to be valued less in the
peer group (Galván, Spatzier, & Juvonen, 2011), while, at the same time,
intellectually gifted adolescents may become increasingly aware of any dif-
ferences with the general peer group norms and culture (Coleman et al.,
2015). Further research tracking social acceptance across the (early) ado-
lescent years is key to gaining more insight into the development of social
acceptance.
Consistent with the aim of shedding more light on gifted students’
own perspective on their peer relationships, our second objective was to

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND HIGH ABILITY YOUTH 41

investigate students’ outgoing friendship ties. Compared with students from

the reference group, high-ability students generally nominated fewer peers
as their friends. This was found even though these peers nominated them
more often as being their friend. This suggests that friendship conceptions
and expectations may differ among children with more advanced cognitive
abilities. Also, it indicates that educators and counselors should explore and
take into account children’s own friendship perceptions; even though high-
ability students may appear to have many friends, they may still feel their
friendship network is deficient, either quantitatively or qualitatively.
Finally, in line with the conceptualization of peer acceptance as a
group-level construct, we investigated whether peer group features would
be predictive of high-ability students’ social acceptance. Specifically, apply-
ing the person-group similarity model (Wright et al., 1986) to intellectual
giftedness, we examined whether high-ability students’ acceptance in class
would depend on the mean level of cognitive ability in class. Our study pro-
vided partial support for the person-group similarity hypothesis: In classes
with higher mean levels of cognitive ability, students felt more accepted by
their classroom peers. This effect was only found for students’ self-reported
acceptance; not for the acceptance rated by peers or teachers. Again, this
attests to the importance of taking into account different perspectives on
social acceptance, including the students’ own perceptions. Especially high-
ability students themselves appear to be sensitive to the degree to which
their attributes align with the peer group norms.
In general, results were similar for moderate (IQ between 120 and 130)
and very high-ability students (IQ above 130). Possibly, such differences
will appear only when separating a substantially large subgroup of students
with extremely high intelligence scores, which was not possible in the cur-
rent study. Scholars have indeed suggested that extremely gifted students,
with IQ’s of 155 or even higher, might be especially prone to social problems
and isolation (see Lee et al., 2012; Neihart, 1999).
Strengths, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Research. Our
study has a number of strengths, including the reliance on a population-
based sample with a large number of students and classes, the use of the
same standardized cognitive ability measure for all students, the availability
of an average-ability reference group, and of different informants of social
acceptance.
Nevertheless, there are also a number of limitations that need to be
addressed in future research. First, the study relied on cross-sectional data
on social acceptance, gathered in the final grade of elementary school. Given
the growing importance of peers during adolescence and changing peer
group norms, it would be interesting to chart developmental trajectories
of social acceptance during adolescence, and particularly during the tran-
sition to secondary school. Second, a longitudinal follow-up would allow
to examine the developmental consequences of peer acceptance, including
relations with academic engagement and performance (Gifford-Smith &

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

42 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Brownell, 2003) and differential effects of self-perceived versus peer-rated

acceptance (McElhaney et al., 2008). Third, our study does not provide
any insight into the mechanisms explaining high-ability students’ higher
levels of acceptance by peers, or the discrepancies between peer- and self-
evaluations. Future research should focus on shedding more light on these
explanatory mechanisms, drawing from general developmental theory and
research (e.g., Rubin et al., 2015). Fourth, it would be interesting to see
whether individual-level predictors, such as social cognitive skills or proso-
cial behavior, predict differences in high-ability students’ peer acceptance as
they do in the general population (Rubin et al., 2015). Also, future research
could investigate whether being labeled as gifted matters for students’ (feel-
ings of) peer acceptance. Scholars have indeed argued that labeling may neg-
atively impact social experiences (Freeman, 2006). Fifth, our study assessed
one aspect of the peer group context, namely the group’s average ability
level. Further research may want to examine the role of other features of
the peer group, such as its attitude toward diversity or toward academic
performance, or its density or connectivity.
In general, we think that research on gifted youth’s peer relationships
will benefit strongly from an integration with insights from general develop-
mental theory and research. Developmental models can provide a general
framework for studying peer relationships at different interrelated levels
(i.e., individual, interactions, relationships, and groups), and for examin-
ing antecedents and consequences of peer acceptance or other peer-related
constructs. Also, adopting longitudinal designs and growth modeling will
inform the research field of giftedness on the (unique and varying) devel-
opmental trajectories of high-ability youth. Integrating giftedness research
into more general developmental science is essential to advance the research
on giftedness, as well as to impact the broader field of psychology and edu-
cational sciences (Winner, 2000).

Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Fund for Scientific Research- Flanders
(FWO), grant S002917N was assigned to Karine Verschueren.

Note
1. Broadening the reference group to students with IQ-scores between the 10th and
90th percentile (IQ 80–120) yielded similar results.

References
Al-Shabatat, A. M. (2013). A review of the contemporary concepts of giftedness and tal-
ent. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 2, 1336–1346. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.12816/0002983

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND HIGH ABILITY YOUTH 43

Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2003). The development of competence-

related and motivational beliefs: An investigation of similarity and influence
among friends. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 111–123. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.111
Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the
gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 37–46. Retrieved
from http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000011
Cillessen, A. H. N. (2009). Sociometric methods. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, &
B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 82–99).
New York: Guilford Press.
Cohen, R., Duncan, M., & Cohen, S. L. (1994). Classroom peer relations of children
participating in a pull-out enrichment program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 33–37.
Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800105
Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2014). Is being gifted a social handi-
cap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(1), 5–17. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521486
Coleman, L. J., Micko, K. J., & Cross, T. L. (2015). Twenty-five years of
research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the stu-
dents’ voices. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 38, 358–376. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215607322
De Laet, S., Colpin, H., Vervoort, E., Doumen, S., Van Leeuwen, K., Goossens, L., . . . Ver-
schueren, K. (2015). Developmental trajectories of children’s behavioral engagement
in late elementary school: Both teachers and peers matter. Developmental Psychology,
51, 1292–1306. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/a0039478
De Laet, S., Doumen, S., Vervoort, E., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Goossens, L., & Ver-
schueren, K. (2014). Transactional links between teacher–child relationship quality
and perceived versus sociometric popularity: A three-wave longitudinal study. Child
Development, 85, 1647–1662.
Driessen, G., van Langen, A., & Vierke, H. (2000). Basisonderwijs: Veldwerkverslag,
leerlinggegevens en oudervragenlijsten. Basisrapportage PRIMA-cohortonderzoek. Derde
meting 1998–1999 [Elementary school: Fieldwork, student data, and parent ques-
tionnaires. Basis rapport PRIMA-cohort study. Third measurement 1998-1999].
Nijmegen, The Netherlands: ITS.
Francis, R., Hawes, D. J., & Abbott, M. (2016). Intellectual giftedness and psychopathol-
ogy in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Exceptional Children,
82, 279–302. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779
Freeman, J. (2006). Giftedness in the long term. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
29, 384–403. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-246
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmen-
tal theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.
1080/1359813042000314682
Galván, A., Spatzier, A., & Juvonen, J. (2011). Perceived norms and social values to cap-
ture school culture in elementary and middle school. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 32, 346–353. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2011.08.005
Gifford-Smith, M. E., & Brownell, C. A. (2003). Child peer relationships: Social accep-
tance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 235–284.
Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(03)000048-7
Harder, B., Vialle, W., & Ziegler, A. (2014). Conceptions of giftedness and exper-
tise put to the empirical test. High Ability Studies, 25, 83–120. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2014.968462
Hendrikx, K., Maes, F., Magez, W., Ghesquière, P., & Van Damme, J. (2008). Longitu-
dinaal onderzoek in het basisonderwijs: Intelligentiemeting (schooljaar 2005–2006)

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

44 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

[Longitudinal Research in Primary School: Intelligence Measure (School Year 2005–

2006)]. Leuven, Belgium: Steunpunt Studie en Schoolloopbanen.
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using
teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 20, 322–336.
Jungbluth, P., Roede, E., & Roeleveld, J. (2001). Validering van het PRIMA-leerlingprofiel.
Secundaire analyses op de PRIMA-cohort bestand (SCO-rapport nr. 608) [Vali-
dating the PRIMA-students profile. Secondary analyses on the PRIMA-cohort
data (SCO-rapport no. 608)]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Universiteit van
Amsterdam.
Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes toward their
giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 245–247. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.
1177/001698628803200201
Kim, M. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted
students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.
1177/0016986216630607
Kosir, K., Horvat, M., Aram, U., & Jurinec, N. (2016). Is being gifted always an advan-
tage? Peer relations and self-concept of gifted students. High Ability Studies, 27, 129–
148. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108186
Lee, S.-Y., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Thomson, D. T. (2012). Academically gifted stu-
dents’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quar-
terly, 56(2), 90–104. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212442568
López, V., & Sotillo, M. (2009). Giftedness and social adjustment: Evidence supporting
the resilience approach in Spanish-speaking children and adolescents. High Ability
Studies, 20, 39–53. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1080/13598130902860739
Luftig, R. L., & Nichols, M. L. (1990). Assessing the social status of gifted students by
their age peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 111–115.
Maes, F., Ghesquière, P., Onghena, P., & Van Damme, J. (2002). Longitudinaal onderzoek
in het basisonderwijs: Van doelstellingen tot onderzoeksopzet [Longitudinal Research in
Primary Education. From objectives to research design]. Leuven, Belgium: Steunpunt
Loopbanen doorheen Onderwijs naar Arbeidsmarkt.
Martin, L. T., Burns, R. M., & Schonlau, M. (2010). Mental disorders among gifted and
nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. Gifted Child Quar-
terly, 54, 31–41. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209352684
McElhaney, K. B., Antonishak, J., & Allen, J. P. (2008). “They like me, they
like me not”: Popularity and adolescents’ perceptions of acceptance predicting
social functioning over time. Child Development, 79, 720–731. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01153.x
Mercer, S. H., & DeRosier, M. E. (2008). Teacher preference, peer rejection, and student
aggression: A prospective study of transactional influence and independent contribu-
tions to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 661–685.
Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.006
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What
does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10–17. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553991
Neihart, M. (2002). Risk and resilience in gifted children: A conceptual framework. In
M. Neihart, S. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional
development of gifted children: What do we know (pp. 113–122). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Nelson, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Rose-colored glasses: Examining the social infor-
mation processing of prosocial young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19,
17–38. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1177/0272431699019001002

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND HIGH ABILITY YOUTH 45

Owen, K. (1992). The suitability of Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices for various
groups in South Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 149–159.
Pind, J., Gunnarsdóttir, E. K., & Jóhannesson, H. S. (2003). Raven’s Standard Progressive
Matrices: New school age norms and a study of the test’s validity. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 375–386.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and
vocabulary scales. Oxford, UK: OPP.
Rogers, W. T., & Holmes, B. J. (1987). Individually administered intelligence test scores:
Equivalent or comparable? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 33, 2–20.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Bowker, J. C. (2015). Children in peer groups.
In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental sci-
ence (Vol. 4, pp. 1–48). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.
1002/9781118963418.childpsy405
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships,
and groups. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child
Psychology: Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (6th ed., pp. 571–
645). New York: Wiley.
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Recent trends in research on teacher–child
relationships. Attachment & Human Development, 14, 213–231. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672262
Stinissen, J., Smolders, M., & Coppens-Declerck, L. (1975). Handleiding bij de Collec-
tieve Verbale Intelligentietest voor derde en vierde leerjaar (CIT-3-4) [Instructions of the
Collective Verbal Intelligence test for Grade 3 and 4 (CIT-3-4)]. Brussels, Belgium:
C.S.B.O.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1999). The
relation between behavior problems and peer preference in different classroom con-
texts. Child Development, 70, 169–182.
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking gift-
edness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psycholog-
ical science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
Weyns, T., Colpin, H., De Laet, S., Engels, M., & Verschueren, K. (2018). Teacher sup-
port, peer acceptance, and engagement in the classroom: A three-wave longitudinal
study in late childhood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1139–1150. Retrieved
from http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0774-5
Weyns, T., Preckel, F., & Verschueren, K. (2019). Teacher perceptions of gifted children’s
characteristics and teacher-child interactions: An experimental study. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Weyns, T., Verschueren, K., Leflot, G., Onghena, P., Wouters, S., & Colpin, H. (2017).
The role of teacher behavior in children’s relational aggression development: A five-
wave longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 64, 17–27. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.008
Wentzel, K. R., & Muenks, K. (2016). Peer influence on students’ motivation, academic
achievement, and social behavior. In R. W. Kathryn & G. B. Ramani (Eds.), Hand-
book of social influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive
outcomes (pp. 13–30). London: Routledge.
Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 159–
169. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.159
Wright, J. C., Giammarino, M., & Parad, H. W. (1986). Social status in small groups:
Individual-group similarity and the social “misfit”. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 523–536. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.523
Zhang, H. C., & Wang, X. P. (1989). Chinese standardisation of Raven’s Standard Pro-
gressive Matrices. Psychological Test Bulletin, 2, 36–39.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

46 THE FUTURE OF RESEARCH IN TALENT DEVELOPMENT

KARINE VERSCHUEREN is a full professor at KU Leuven, Belgium. She specializes

in social classroom relationships (with teachers and peers) as a context for child
development in general and for high ability students’ development in particular.

JEROEN LAVRIJSEN is postdoctoral researcher at KU Leuven and research coordi-

nator of a large-scale longitudinal study investigating academic and psychoso-
cial development of high ability adolescents. His research focuses primarily on
motivational developmental processes among high-ability students.

TESSA WEYNS is a PhD student researching childteacher relations among high-

ability students at KU Leuven, Belgium.

ALICIA RAMOS is a PhD student researching long-term educational and psycho-

logical outcomes of high-ability students at KU Leuven.

BIEKE DE FRAINE is an expert in educational effectiveness for the inspectorate of

the Flemish Department of Education.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT • DOI: 10.1002/cad

Copyright of New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development is the property of John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to
a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.