Perceptions of parental behaviors by a sample of gifted and no gifted women: an exploratory study

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTAL BEHAVIORS BY A SAMPLE OF
GIFTED AND NONGIFTED WOMEN:
AN EXPLORATORY' STUDY
by
Robynne Michelle Rudin
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Counseling Psychology)
May 1995
Copyright 1995 Robynne Michelle Rudin
UMI Number: 9625035
UMI Microform 9625035
Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90007
This dissertation, written by
. Rob^mne _Michel 1 e__ Rud in............
under the direction of hST Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re
quirements for the degree of
D O C T O R OF PH ILOSOPH Y
/ ' t . jP j
Dean of Graduate Studies
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairperson
Acknowledgements
This dissertation could not have been completed without
the help of many people. I am indebted to Dr. Rod Goodyear
for graciously agreeing to chair my dissertation, as well as
for his support and insights. I am thankful to Dr. Laura
Baker for her valuable time, feedback, and optimism. My
sincere appreciation goes to Dr. Scott Whiteley, who
sympathetically agreed to join my committee and offered
helpful suggestions.
I am eternally grateful to my soul mate, Les Prosser,
for his love and unwavering belief in me and in my ability.
His never-ending support of my goals helped make this
doctorate attainable.
I would like to thank my parents, Mort Rudin and Issy
Stone, whose pride in my accomplishments helped instill
self-confidence and determination. The present milestone
may not have been possible without their love and belief in
the importance of education. I would also like to offer
thanks to Keith Rudin. I am fortunate to have a brother
such as he.
I am particularly thankful to Marci Breitling, my
cousin and dear friend, and Ray Williams, my "big brother,"
for their ceaseless love, support, and pride in me.
Finally, I am grateful to all my loved ones, who
graciously endured the numerous stresses and interruptions
that inevitably accompany a vast undertaking such as this.
For the constant praise and encouragement, I thank all who
supported me and my endeavor. I hope the final product
reflects these contributions.
iv
Table of Contents
Title Page...................................................i
Acknowledgements........................................... ii
Table of Contents.......................................... iv
List of Tables............................................. vi
Abstract...................................................vii
1. Conceptual and empirical foundations................... 1
1.1 Introduction to the problem....................... 1
1.2 The impact of parenting........................... 5
1.3 Definitions and descriptions of giftedness....... 10
1.4 Assessing giftedness............................. 18
1.5 Influences on giftedness......................... 19
1.6 Parent behaviors..................................22
1.7 Purpose of the study............................. 26
2. Method..................................................28
2.1 Participants......................................28
2.2 Instrumentation/measures......................... 33
2.3 Procedures........................................38
3. Results.................................................41
3.1 Psychometric properties of the instruments....... 41
3.2 Preliminary analyses............................. 42
3.3 Relationships between giftedness and
perceptions of parental behaviors................ 42
3.4 Predicting parental behavior.....................45
3.5 Group differences in perceptions of
parental behaviors................................48
3.6 Group differences in SRBCSS giftedness
subscales................................... 50
4. Discussion..............................................52
4.1 Relationships between giftedness and
perceptions of parental behavior................. 52
4.2 Predicting parent behavior.............. 54
4.3 Group differences in perceptions of
parental behavior.................................55
4.4 Summary of results............................... 55
V
Table of Contents (Continued)
4.5 Convergence with existing research................ 56
4.6 Methodological assumptions.......................63
4.7 Limitations.......................................65
4.8 Implications......................................66
4.9 Future research.................................. 68
5. References 70
vi
List of Tables
1. Self-reported family incomes
2. Parental educational levels
3. Means and standard deviations for giftedness and
perceived parental behaviors for the entire sample of
women
4. Proportions of the sample regarded as gifted in each of
the four areas
5. Correlation matrix of giftedness and perceived parental
behaviors
6. Summary of standardized multiple regressions of
giftedness predicting perceptions of maternal and
paternal behaviors
7. Means, standard deviations, and multivariate analysis
of variance of perceived parental behaviors between
gifted and nongifted women
8. Means, standard deviations, and multivariate analysis
of variance of SRBCSS subscale scores between formally
identified gifted and nongifted women
vii
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between giftedness
in women and their perceptions of how their parents behaved
toward them in terms of acceptance, psychological control,
and behavioral control. Sixty-six gifted and nongifted
women constituted the sample of investigation. Giftedness
was assessed in four areas: learning, motivation,
creativity, and leadership. Perceptions of the three
parental behaviors were evaluated separately for the mothers
and for the fathers. Findings suggested that perceptions of
acceptance, psychological control, and behavioral control
were significantly related to giftedness scores in women.
In addition, gifted women were found to perceive that their
mothers and fathers accepted them, supported their
psychological autonomy, and exerted behavioral control over
them. Perceived maternal acceptance and paternal
psychological control were significantly predictable from
giftedness scores. No significant differences were found
between the formally identified gifted and nongifted women
with respect to perceptions of the parental behaviors.
However, significant differences were found between the two
groups on their giftedness scores, indicating that
giftedness was validly measured in the study. A discussion
viii
of the results, implications, and suggestions for future
research are presented.
1
Chapter 1
Conceptual and Empirical Foundations
A good deal of research on gifted individuals exists.
Most of this research, however, is based either on male
samples or on samples that have pooled males and females
together. As documented by Reis (1987), Clark (1979), and
Shakeshaft and Palmieri (1978), there is a relative lack of
adequate, concordant, and recent research on gifted women.
Schwartz (1980) speculated that the reason for this may be
that, throughout history, the education of gifted women has
been a low priority and that, relatedly, some still believe
that women's lives should be centered around the home.
In a similar vein, there has been relatively little
research on the characteristics of mothers and fathers of
gifted women. Although few disagree that parents are very
influential in the development of giftedness in their
children (e.g., Colangelo & Dettman, 1983; Maccoby & Martin,
1983; McMann & Oliver, 1988; Morrow & Wilson, 1961; O'Neill,
1978; Plomin, DeFries, & McClearn, 1990; Willerman, 1979),
existing research on specific common parental
characteristics is inconsistent and inconclusive.
Furthermore, there appears to be very little research
concerning perceived characteristics of the parents of
2
gifted individuals. Reality as people know it depends on
their individual perceptions of it (Hare-Mustin & Marecek,
1988). Therefore, perceptions of parent behaviors may be as
important to examine as actual parent behaviors (Rohner,
1986; Schaefer, 1965). Similar to the addage, "beauty is in
the eye of the beholder," love, and even rejection,
according to Kagan (1978), "like pleasure, pain, or beauty,
is in the mind of the beholder. Parental love is a belief
held by the child, not a set of actions by a parent" (p.
57).
Thus, the child's perceptions of how the parents feel
toward him or her are important. Further, the main emphasis
of phenomenological theories, such as Rogers' (1961) Client-
Centered Theory, is on individuals' subjective experiences,
or perceptions. In fact, Rogers (1961) stated, "experience
is, for me, the highest authority" (p. 23). Moreover, in
the area of giftedness, researchers have found that
children's perceptions of their parents' behaviors are
significantly related both to the children's adjustment and
achievement (Rohner, 1986; Schaefer, 1965) and to the
parents' actual behaviors (Rohner, 1986).
This investigation was important for several reasons.
First and perhaps most importantly, there were limitations
to the body of research on gifted women. For example, much
3
of the research possessed limited generalizability (Cook &
Campbell, 1979) because samples of mostly white middle-class
males were frequently studied (e.g., Terman, 1925), whereas
non-white, non-middle-class individuals (especially females)
were very much underrepresented. Additionally, in the area
of parents of the gifted, some studies measured actual
parent behaviors (rather than their children's perceptions
of those behaviors). Further, many of the studies either
analyzed maternal and paternal data together (rather than
examining them separately) or neglected the fathers
altogether. This is a major flaw because current research
suggests that both mothers and fathers affect their
children's lives (Phares, 1992).
The gifted are important to study because of their
great potential to contribute to society. In fact, as far
back as 1925, Terman, the ground-breaking researcher in the
area of gifted children, asserted that gifted individuals
were one of society's valuable natural resources (Terman,
1925). Additionally, the present investigation was
important because research has demonstrated that many gifted
women are either underachieving or are achieving less than
their gifted male counterparts (Eccles, 1985; Kerr, 1985;
Terman & Oden, 1959; Walker, Reis, & Leonard, 1992), and
they continue to earn less than gifted men in similar
4
positions (Kerr, 1985). Terman and Oden (1959) explained
this to be due, not to lack of ability, but rather due to
lack of motivation and opportunity. Perhaps, however,
gifted women's perceptions of how they were treated by their
parents may provide an important clue as to why this occurs.
Consensus does not exist regarding the specific
behaviors and abilities comprising the "gifted" label.
There is, however, some overlap among the various
definitions of giftedness (see "Definitions and Descriptions
of Giftedness" section for specific information). The
working definition of the term "giftedness" as used in this
study is that it is evident when an individual possesses
high ability (scores >25) in at least one of the three
following areas: a) intellectual/cognitive skills, b)
creativity, and c) psychosocial skills. This is similar to
Sternberg's (1985) taxonomy of giftedness. In addition,
like Sternberg's (1985) conceptualization, high ability and
motivation are necessary prerequisites to exceptional
performance in any of these domains. According to this
working definition, approximately the top 20 percent of the
population (Kerr, 1991) would qualify as gifted. It is more
liberal and inclusive than the definition employed by Terman
(1925) and understood by nonexperts (e.g., the top two
percent).
5
The impact of parenting
A theoretical model that is useful in examining gifted
women's perceptions of how their parents behaved toward them
is Object Relations theory. Using this theory, the
importance of parental influence is quite strong. The focus
of Object Relations theory is on people's early
relationships with significant others, usually the parents
(Cashdan, 1988). The term "object" can be used
interchangeably with "other" because it refers to the
attachment of a child to an important person (St. Clair,
1986). The major tenet of Object Relations theory
(Kernberg, 1988; Mahler, 1968) is that humans are motivated
by the need to establish and maintain relationships
(Cashdan, 1988). Generally speaking, there is a predictable
progression of stages in which individuals develop. In
addition, the core of one's selfhood is inextricably tied to
the infant's first and most fundamental object relationship;
the relationship with the early caretaker, usually the
mother. Object Relations theorists believe this forms the
template for all subsequent relationships (Cashdan, 1988).
Specifically, this theory states that an individual's
current behavior and current relationships largely reflect
early relationships (Cashdan, 1988; Kernberg, 1988). In
addition, psychologists and psychiatrists typically have
6
assigned greater importance to maternal influences (Briere &
Runtz, 1988).
Rinsley (1989) presented an interesting departure from
the typical "mother-blaming" approach. He stated that a
poor object relationship between a mother and a child is, in
fact, mediated by a poor emotional relationship and poor
support of the mother by the father. Hence, in this Object
Relations conceptualization, poor support from the father
contributes to a poor marital relationship, which leads to a
poorly supported mother. This, then, translates into poor
object relations between the mother and the child, which
lead to a child's poor sense of self and the potential
development of psychopathology.
Mahler (1968) suggested that, in general, children move
from an attachment to the mother to the establishment of a
stable autonomous identity. The degree to which children
successfully resolve the conflicts of each stage determines
the extent to which they are psychologically healthy.
Mahler called the first stage Normal Infantile Autism
and believed that it typically occurs in the first three to
four weeks of life (Mahler, 1968). At this phase, the
infant is basically unable to differentiate her- or himself
from the mother. Rather, she or he is mainly concerned with
tension reduction (usually by feeding).
7
The second stage is called Symbiosis and occurs through
the fifth month (Mahler, 1968). At this phase, the child is
able to make the connection between tension reduction and
the mother, but the mother still is not fully experienced as
a separate individual. In addition, the child is now able
to categorize pleasurable experiences as "good" and painful
ones as "bad."
The third stage is called Separation-Individuation and
is made up of a series of subphases (Mahler, 1968). The
first subphase is called Differentiation and it lasts from
the fifth to the tenth month. At this point, the child is
able to begin to experience the mother as a separate
individual.
The second subphase is called Practicing and it
typically lasts from the tenth to the sixteenth month. At
this point, the infant begins to crawl and separate itself
physically from the mother.
The third subphase is called Rapprochement and usually
lasts from the fifteenth to the thirtieth month. The child
begins to demonstrate self-assertiveness and separateness.
However, at the same time, the child still experiences a
strong need for help and reassurance. The child attempts to
deny this and it culminates in the "rapprochement crisis."
An important factor in being able to successfully resolve
8
this crisis is the mother's ability to provide a balance of
emotional support (including acceptance) and firmness
(including behavioral control), while still allowing the
child to engage in independent activity (including support
of autonomy).
The fourth and final subphase is called Libidinal
Object Constancy and typically lasts from two-and-a-half to
three years. This is the most critical subphase because it
plays an essential role in the nature of one's self. The
principal task of this phase involves integrating both
positive and negative aspects of the mother. If this is not
accomplished, the individual will never develop an
autonomous sense of self or be able to establish healthy
object relations with others. Hence, the origins of
psychopathology can often be traced to this stage of
development (Cashdan, 1988; Mahler, 1968).
Object Relations theorists stress that the emotional
responsiveness of the caregivers, particularly in the
earliest years of life, is crucial to the development of a
healthy personality (Cashdan, 1988). Representations and
perceptions of parents as having been warm, caring, and
emotionally responsive also have been linked to adult
competencies, including intelligence and achievement
(Rohner, 1986; Steinberg, 1990) and a sense of general self
9
efficacy and level of reported social support (Mallinckrodt,
1992).
Conversely, loss of a parent or even the parents'
emotional unavailability and inconsistency in responding to
childhood emotional and physical needs have been associated
with numerous adjustment problems. Some of the commonly
associated problems include juvenile delinquency,
alcoholism, depression, and suicide (Gardner, 1990; Rohner,
1986). In addition, academic and intellectual difficulties
also have been associated with dysfunctional object
relationships (Rohner, 1986).
Issues of loveability and acceptability are a pervasive
part of Object Relations theory, regardless of whether or
not physical abandonment actually has occurred. In
addition, internalization of both positive and negative
aspects of people and of the self helps individuals become
psychologically autonomous people. Success in one's work
and intelligence are noted to be by-products of early
positive mother-child relations (Cashdan, 1988). For these
reasons, as well as for the aforementioned, it makes sense
that Object Relations theory applies when considering the
relationship between giftedness in women and their
perceptions of their parents' behaviors. Another reason
Object Relations seems a particularly useful theoretical
10
framework regarding gifted women is that, of several factors
that are predictive of giftedness, a secure emotional base
and warm nurturing parents who encourage exploration are the
most important (Noble, 1987).
Definitions and descriptions of aiftedness
A review of literature in the area of giftedness
reveals that there are numerous definitions of giftedness.
They range from intelligence alone to the combination of
academic ability, creativity, leadership ability, talent,
and psychomotor ability (Clark, 1979; Gardner, 1993;
Martinson, 1974; Noble, 1987; Perleth, Sierwald & Heller,
1992; Richert, 1986; Sternberg & Davidson, 1985). A
controversial view reflecting the Zeitgeist of his time was
espoused by Terman (1925). He defined intellect as that
which derived from inherited qualities of the group to which
an individual belongs. More specifically, he believed there
was a hierarchy of intellectual beings, starting with white
men at the top, followed by women, children, and "lower
races," with animals at the bottom (Terman, 1925). More
recently, the controversial researcher, Jensen (1992),
reaffirmed this stance in what has been termed his "black IQ
deficit" hypothesis (Yee, Fairchild, Weizmann, & Wyatt,
1993).
11
Another controversial topic is what has been come to be
known as the "Elitism Controversy." According to Kerr
(1991), this argument charges that special and differential
education promotes a sense of superiority and elitism among
the gifted, who receive special educational opportunities.
This is one of the most prevalent criticisms of gifted
education (Kerr, 1991). In other words, the argument states
that, by being labelled as special and by receiving special
education, these individuals will develop attitudes that
they are superior to other nongifted students. The flip
side of this argument is that those who are not labelled as
gifted may be less likely to aspire to higher achievement
(Kerr, 1991). Hence, a self-fulfilling prophecy exists.
In 1981, Myers and Ridl warned that classification of
students by ability would result in an "academic caste
system" that would reflect racial and class segregation.
This is one of the main arguments of the new controversial
book, "The Bell Curve," by Herrnstein and Murray (1994).
Before describing this book, it should be noted that,
although elitist attitudes do exist among some gifted
individuals (largely reflecting individual personalities),
Kerr (1991) noted that there is little documented evidence
of elitist attitudes among the majority of gifted
individuals.
12
As just stated, the elitist argument has recently been
resurrected in a new release by Herrnstein and Murray
(1994). These authors argued that intelligence plays a
large role in determining wealth, poverty, and social status
in American society. Like Terman (1925) and Jensen (1992),
Herrnstein and Murray (1994) believe that American society
is characterized by an intellectual hierarchy, with the
"cognitive elite" (highly educated persons) at the top and
the intellectually inferior people at the bottom. Further,
they made the statement that blacks as a group are
intellectually inferior to whites. Because of their
intellectual inferiority, claim Herrnstein and Murray
(1994), blacks appear to be destined to remain in poverty.
These authors, however, have been criticized for using
highly selective and biased IQ data (Morganthau, 1994).
According to Yee et al. (1993), most researchers and
scientists today tend to employ the genetic-environmental
interaction approach rather than the genetic-deficit
hypothesis. Perleth and colleagues (1992), for example,
stated that giftedness is produced by the interaction of
internal dispositional factors, as well as external
socialization factors. Specifically, they define giftedness
as an individual's cognitive, motivational, and
13
social possibilities of attaining excellence in one or more
areas (Perleth, et al., 1992).
For nearly 30 years, researchers have stressed that
there are different types of giftedness (Birch, 1984;
Gardner, 1993; Guilford, 1967; Kerr, 1991; Perleth et al.,
1992; Richert, 1985; VanTassel-Baska, 1984). The prevailing
view is that merely testing IQ is insufficient (Birch, 1984;
Kerr, 1991). In addition, neither IQ nor standardized
achievement tests (such as the SAT and GRE) adequately
measure the different types of giftedness (Richert, 1985) or
predict academic success in non-white individuals (Sedlacek
& Adams-Gaston, 1992). Further, in 1972, the U.S. Office of
Education legislated giftedness to be defined as
"demonstrated and/or potential high performance in the
following areas: a) general intellectual ability, b)
specific academic aptitude, c) creative or productive
thinking, d) leadership ability, and/or e) psychomotor
ability" (Richert, 1985, p. 68).
More recently, Gardner (1993, 1983) proposed a theory
of multiple intelligences. Specifically, he stated that
there are seven different types of intelligence:
linguistic, musical, spatial, logical-mathematical, bodily
kinesthetic, and interpersonal and intrapersonal
intelligences (Gardner, 1993). This notion is in agreement
14
with Sternberg's (1985) "triarchic" theory of intelligence
and Guilford's (1967) and Guilford and Hoepfner's (1971)
empirical findings that there are intellectual abilities
that are independent of one another. Additionally, there is
a great deal of evidence that, not only are there different
types of giftedness (Gardner, 1993; Noble, 1987; Perleth et
al., 1992; Richert, 1985; Treffinger & Renzulli, 1986), but
there also are different sets of specific behaviors
associated with the different types of giftedness (Gardner,
1993; Renzulli, Hartman & Callahan, 1971).
In fact, it is a mistake to add scores on different
giftedness scales because different scales assess different
types of giftedness (Renzulli et al., 1971; Richert, 1985).
Richert (1985) has asserted that this is like "adding apples
and oranges.1 1 Nevertheless, many studies continue to use
only IQ or achievement test scores as indicators of
giftedness (Birch, 1984; Kerr, 1991; Richert, 1985; Yee et
al., 1993).
To reflect the prevailing views and to adequately
assess the different types of giftedness, the broad and
pluralistic U.S. Office of Education's official definition
of giftedness, which expands the construct of giftedness to
areas in addition to intellect, was adopted for the present
study. Giftedness was operationalized as high scores on the
15
Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior
Students (SRBCSS; Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan &
Hartman, 1976), which reliably and validly assesses four
separate areas of giftedness: learning, motivation,
creativity, and leadership. Using the SRBCSS, it is
possible for individuals to be classified as gifted in one
or more of four areas.
Given the domain-specific nature of talent,
generalizations about common characteristics are difficult
to make (Sternberg & Davidson, 1985). Nevertheless, certain
generalizations exist and apparently hold true without
regard to domain (Clark, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Lovecky, 1986;
Martinson, 1974; Noble, 1987; Sternberg & Davidson, 1985;
Terman, 1925). For example, gifted individuals possess a
heightened ability to process large amounts of information,
and they are able to perceive varied and uncommon
relationships among people, circumstances, and ideas. They
also tend to have unusually diverse interests and tend to be
curious, tenacious, and goal-directed (Clark, 1979;
Sternberg, 1985). Second, gifted individuals experience
feelings in a profound, passionate, and very differentiated
manner. They have the tendency to be quite sensitive to the
needs and feelings of others and are somewhat
perfectionistic in their expectations (both for themselves
16
and for others) (Clark, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Lovecky, 1986).
In addition, gifted individuals have been noted to be
idealistic, have a sharp sense of humor, and have a history
of sensing that they are somehow different from others
(Clark, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Lovecky, 1986). Third, early on,
gifted individuals tend to recognize that they possess a
keen ability for intuitive knowing and often become
fascinated with spiritual and philosophical conceptions
(Clark, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Lovecky, 1986; Terman, 1925).
Finally, gifted individuals are very motivated by self-
actualization needs and the need for challenge. They also
tend to possess leadership qualities and frequently possess
the desire to be meaningfully involved with society's social
problems (Clark, 1979; Kerr, 1985; Terman, 1925).
Interestingly enough, many of the common
characteristics of the gifted are similar to the
characteristics of Maslow's self-actualizing individuals
(Maslow, 1971). He found that, in general, self-actualizers
(like the gifted) tend be more perceptive and observant,
accepting, genuine, autonomous, intrinsically motivated,
dedicated, appreciative, fulfilled, empathic, and creative.
Ethnicity. Before proceeding further, a review of
literature regarding gifted racial/ethnic minority
17
individuals is warranted. Contrary to widely held (but
erroneous) assumptions, sizable percentages of gifted
African-American, Latino, Native American, and Asian-
American individuals score at or above the 95th percentile
on achievement tests, such as the ACT (Kerr, Colangelo,
Maxey & Christensen, 1992). Moreover, it has been reported
that gifted racial/ethnic minority individuals are faced
with difficulties not only due to struggling with their
giftedness, but also due to the struggle for cultural
identity (Colangelo & Zaffran, 1979).
If parents are insensitive to these and other issues,
their children may never achieve to their full potential
(Lindstrom & Van Sant, 1986). Therefore, similar to gifted
women in general, gifted racial/ethnic minority individuals
achieve despite great obstacles. For these individuals
especially, parents seem to provide the important
determinant regarding whether or not a racial/ethnic
minority child's giftedness will be realized.
Racial differences in achievement have been explained
as the result of family characteristics (Mordkowitz &
Ginsberg, 1987). Steinberg, Dornbusch, and Brown (1992)
similarly argued that parents influence the achievement of
racial/ethnic minority individuals. In particular, they
found that parents are influential in the achievement of
18
Caucasian, Latino, Asian-American, and African-American
children (Steinberg et al., 1992).
Assessing aiftedness
Throughout history, giftedness has predominantly been
measured by intelligence tests, and, for the most part, the
contributions of other types of giftedness (such as
motivation, creativity, and leadership) have been neglected
(Birch, 1984; Garrison, 1992; Noble, 1987; Perleth et al.,
1992; Richert, 1985; VanTassel-Baska, 1984). In addition,
there is ongoing debate regarding whether intelligence tests
actually and accurately measure intelligence at all in non
white individuals (or if they merely measure proficiency in
white culture itself) (e.g., Helms, 1992). There is not yet
any consensus regarding the best way to identify gifted
individuals (Martinson, 1974; Sternberg & Davidson, 1985;
VanTassel, 1981). Some general identification procedures
include standardized IQ tests; achievement history; teacher,
parent, and/or peer nominations; and professional and self-
report ratings (Garrison, 1992). However, self-report
rating scales and checklists assessing giftedness traits and
abilities are very useful and accurate in identifying
giftedness (Birch, 1984; Garrison, 1992; Martinson, 1974;
Richert, 1985; VanTassel-Baska, 1984). Hence, a well-
19
developed questionnaire (such as the one employed in the
present study) can provide a fruitful means of assessing
giftedness.
Influences on aiftedness
Research suggests that certain environmental factors
influence giftedness. These include the family, friends,
school, and society. One popular school of thought contends
that positive environmental influences are associated with
giftedness. For example, Walker and Mehr (1992) have stated
that parents are crucial to their gifted daughters in that
they instill and demonstrate confidence and risk-taking, as
well as provide support and encouragement.
Many other studies also have reported the important
influence of parents in the lives of gifted individuals
(e.g., Colangelo & Dettman, 1983; Maccoby & Martin, 1983;
Morrow & Wilson, 1961; O'Neill, 1978). In fact, few will
disagree that positive parent-child relationships promote
the healthy development of gifted individuals (Morrow &
Wilson, 1961; O'Neill, 1978). According to McMann and
Oliver (1988), parents are very powerful in the roles they
play in gifted individuals' development. Clark (1979) went
one step further by stating, "Parents and the home play a
20
significant part...I am firmly convinced that the home is
the true cradle of eminence" (p. 348).
Similarly, Kerr (1985) noted that gifted children,
especially gifted females, need parental guidance if they
are to maximally achieve. A famous quote by Sanborn (1979)
seems to sum up well the powerful role played by parents of
gifted individuals: "For better or for worse, the
capacities and proclivities of the child reflect the impact
of the parents" (p. 396).
Tannenbaum (1983) noted, however, that there is "no
simple connection between extraordinary accomplishment and a
favorable environment" (p. 184). In addition, some gifted
individuals have not been raised by supportive parents
(Foster & Seltzer, 1986). For these individuals, a
surrogate parent (such as a supportive adult coach, for
example) may be sufficient to promote and influence a
child's giftedness (Foster & Seltzer, 1986). Again, it may
be that perceptions play a more important role than whether
or not a gifted individual was raised in within a positive
home environment. Perceptions may constitute the link
missing from previous studies.
A third school of thought is that of behavioral
genetics research, which suggests that genetics may
influence giftedness (Lykken, McGrue, Tellegen, & Bouchard,
21
1992; Rowe, 1990). Briefly, behavioral genetics research
investigates the origin of differences in behavior and in
psychological functioning (Baker & Clark, 1990). According
to Plomin, DeFries, and McClearn (1990), two propositions of
quantitative genetic theory are: a) genetic differences
among people can lead to individual differences, and b)
environmental differences among individuals can lead to
individual differences. Thus, an important feature of
quantitative genetic theory is that it recognizes the
importance of both environmental and genetic influences on
behavior (Plomin et al., 1990).
Plomin et al. (1990) discussed the genetic component of
intelligence (as measured by IQ). IQ correlations between
0.26 and 0.42 have been found between parents and their
biological offspring, which suggests that heritability
should be no greater than 0.52 to 0.84 (Plomin et al.,
1990). The median IQ correlation for identical twins and
their biological parents is 0.86, and for fraternal twins,
the median correlation is 0.62, which suggests that
heritability should be no greater than 0.48 (Plomin et al.,
1990). Finally, for adoptive families, a correlation of
0.22 was found for biological parents and their adopted-away
children, which is similar to the 0.19 correlation between
adoptive parents and adopted children, suggesting that
22
heritability of intelligence should be no greater than 0.38
to 0.44 (Plomin et al., 1990). Thus, if roughly one-half of
the phenotypic (observed) variation in IQ is due to genetic
differences, then the other half must be caused by other
sources of variance (e.g., environment) (Plomin et al.,
1990).
In sum, environment and genetics both seem to influence
the development of giftedness (Plomin et al., 1990;
Willerman, 1979; Yee et al., 1993). Although the present
study investigated gifted women's perceptions of their
parents' behaviors (an environmental factor), it is
important to acknowledge that this is only one possible
factor affecting development of giftedness.
Parent behaviors
For the present investigation, the following
definitions were used in accordance with Schludermann and
Schludermann (1988). Acceptance refers to the degree to
which an individual perceives that her or his parents accept
or reject her or him. Psychological Control refers to the
degree to which an individual perceives that the parents
attempt to control her or him through psychological pressure
techniques. Behavioral Control refers to the degree to
which an individual perceives that the parents control her
23
or his behavior by direct means (Schludermann &
Schludermann, 1988).
It is important to keep in mind that, as stated
earlier, most of the existing research has been conducted
either with male samples or with samples that have pooled
males and females together. In addition, although there may
be differential experiences of siblings within families
(Daniels & Plomin, 1985), gifted individuals tend to be
treated similarly across families (e.g., Cornell &
Grossberg, 1987; McMann & Oliver, 1988), regardless of their
particular birth order, just as there are similar
characteristics that are commonly found in gifted women
(Noble, 1987).
Parental acceptance versus rejection. Research in this
area suggests that gifted individuals generally tend to have
accepting parents. For instance, Steinberg (1990) suggested
that warmth and parental acceptance contribute to
achievement. Rohner (1986) also stated that gifted
individuals most often have accepting parents. Baumrind
(1978) stressed that parental acceptance helps foster
competence in their children. In addition, Colangelo and
Dettman (1983) and Morrow and Wilson (1961) reported that
students who achieve freguently have parents that are
24
accepting and affectionate. Supportive parents also have
been found to foster giftedness in their children (Khatena,
1982).
In a similar vein, parental involvement also has been
positively associated with achievement (Child Development
Institute, 1976). In the nongifted parent-child arena, it
has been found that well-adjusted and competent individuals
tend to experience harmony in the family (Vaughn, Block &
Block, 1988) and tend to have accepting, supportive, and
warm parents (Block, 1971).
Psychological control versus psychological autonomy.
In this area, research suggests that gifted individuals tend
to have parents who are supportive of their psychological
autonomy. For instance, Steinberg (1990) suggested that
parents who grant autonomy to their children contribute to
their achievement. Baumrind (1978) also has found that
parental support of their children's autonomy helps foster
competence in their children. Fine (1977) concurred with
this and added the factor of encouraging independence in the
positive development of giftedness.
It also has been found that gifted children's parents
tend to allow more freedom in making choices and decisions
(Dewing, 1970). Furthermore, parents of gifted individuals
25
have been found to be more permissive and less likely to
exert pressure on their children (Getzels & Jackson, 1962),
as well as less psychologically controlling (Morrow &
Wilson, 1961). In a similar vein, parental trust and
approval have been shown to positively affect children's
achievement (Morrow & Wilson, 1964).
Firm versus lax behavioral control. Research in this
area indicates that gifted individuals7 parents tend to
exert firm behavioral control over them. Steinberg (1990),
for example, suggested that firm parental control (or
behavioral supervision) contributes to achievement.
Baumrind (1978) concurred and stated that firm behavioral
control by parents fosters competence in their children.
Similarly, parents of gifted individuals have been found to
be vigilant regarding their children's achievement (Getzels
& Jackson, 1961).
In a similar vein, parents are frequently overinvested
in their gifted children (Zuccone & Amerikaner, 1986) and
presumably maintain firm behavioral control. Two possible
results of this overinvestment are: a) triangulation with
the parents (whereby the gifted individual may act as a
buffer caught in the middle of a poor relationship between
the parents) (Zuccone & Amerikaner, 1986), and b) a sibling
26
of the gifted individual may become a scapegoat (whereby
displaced frustrations, criticisms, and hostilities are
directed at the sibling) (Fine & Pitts, 1980).
Purpose of the study
Given the aforementioned, it is evident that there is a
sore lack of research on gifted women and perceptions of
their parents' behaviors. Thus, the logically derived
research questions for the present study were: a) "What is
the relationship between giftedness in women and perceptions
of their mothers' and fathers' acceptance, psychological
control, and behavioral control?" b) "Is it possible to
predict these three perceived parental behaviors
(acceptance, psychological control, and behavioral control)
from women's giftedness?" and c) "Are there significant
differences between formally identified gifted and nongifted
women regarding their perceptions of how their parents
treated them in terms of acceptance, psychological control,
and behavioral control?"
The purpose of the present investigation was to attempt
to resolve limitations of past research by assessing four
different types of giftedness and by including a sample of
ethnically diverse women, as well as extend previous
research by examining perceptions of both maternal and
27
paternal behaviors. Specifically, this study attempted to
provide insight into the relationship between giftedness in
women and certain perceived behaviors of their parents
(acceptance, psychological control, and behavioral control).
28
Chapter 2
Method
This chapter describes how the study was conducted.
The first section describes the participants. The second
section describes the instrumentation employed. The last
section describes the procedures followed in the execution
of the research.
Participants
Although a single sample was employed in the study,
participants were drawn from two sources: graduate classes
in counseling and educational psychology at a large research
university and a large metropolitan airport. For clarity,
they will be described separately. Thirty-three percent of
the entire sample scored in the giftedness range (n=22).
Graduate school. The participants from this group were
females who responded to requests for volunteers made in
graduate classes in counseling and educational psychology at
a large western university (n=44). Of those approached, 40
agreed to participate, for a response rate of 91%. Five
were excluded from analysis on the basis of incomplete
questionnaires. This final subsample was comprised of 35
29
women. Female graduate students from counseling and
educational psychology were selected because they are
branches of Social Science, which is the academic major and
occupation most often chosen by gifted women (Perrone & Dow,
1992). In addition, because the practice of professional
psychology is often described as both an art and a science
(e.g., Goodyear & Benton, 1986), the different types of
giftedness had a higher likelihood of being represented in
this sample.
Giftedness was assessed using the SRBCSS (Renzulli et
al., 1976). Nine out of 35 scored in the gifted range on
this measure (26%). For the MANOVA design, the women were
divided into two distinct groups based on whether or not
they were formally identified as gifted during their
elementary school education. Forty-nine percent of these
women were identified as gifted (n=l7), and the 51% who were
identified as not gifted (n=18) served as a comparison group
for the MANOVA procedure.
The majority of respondents identified themselves as
Caucasian (57%) (n=20), 14% were self-identified African-
Americans (n=5), 14% were Asian-American (n=5), 12% were
Latina (n=4), and 3% were Persian (n=l). The participants
ranged in age from 21 to 46, with a mean age of 28. Almost
all (97%) of this subsample indicated that their primary
30
maternal caretaker was their biological mother (n=34), and
3% indicated that their primary maternal caretaker was their
adoptive mother (n=l). Eighty-eight percent indicated that
their primary paternal caretaker was their biological father
(n=31), 3% indicated that their primary paternal caretaker
was their adoptive father (n=l), and 9% were raised by a
stepfather (n=3). The self-reported family incomes growing
up are presented in Table 1, and parental educational levels
are presented in Table 2. Participation in the study was
voluntary, and none of the participants were reimbursed.
Airport. The participants from this group were females
who responded to requests for volunteers made in the waiting
area at a large metropolitan airport (n=36). Of those
approached, 31 agreed to participate, for a response rate of
86%. Women also were recruited from the airport to increase
the likelihood of obtaining a heterogeneous sample and to
increase the likelihood of obtaining an adequate range of
giftedness scores. According to Heppner, Kivlighan, and
Wampold (1992), heterogeneous populations are desirable
because generalizability is enhanced with the wide variety
of characteristics contained therein. Thirteen of the 31
women scored in the giftedness range on the SRBCSS (42%).
Twenty-three percent of the women selected at the airport
31
Table 1. Self-reported family incomes
Graduate
School Airport
Income Level N % N %
0-11,999 0 0 2 6
12,000-23,999 6 17 5 16
24,000-35,999 5 15 7 23
36,000-49,999 6 17 4 13
50,000-59,999 0 0 3 10
60,000 and above 18 51 10 32
Totals 35 100 31 100
Table 2. Parental educational levels
Some high school
High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
Professional degree
Totals
Mothers
Graduate
School Airport
N
*
N
%
2 6 2 6
7 20 11 36
6 17 4 13
16 46 10 32
4 11 4 13
35 100 31 100
Fathers
Graduate
School Airport
N
%
N %
2 6 4 13
6 17 8 26
6 17 7 22
14 40 4 13
7 20 8 26
35 100 31 100
32
were formally identified as gifted in their elementary
school education (n=7), and the 77% who were identified as
not gifted (n=24) served as a comparison group for the
MANOVA procedure.
The majority of respondents identified themselves as
Caucasian (81%) (n=25), 13% were self-identified African-
Americans (n=4), 3% were Latina (n=l), and 3% were American
Indian (n=l). The participants ranged in age from 21 to 47,
with a mean age of 31. Eighty-seven percent of this
subsample indicated that their primary maternal caretaker
was their biological mother (n=27), and 13% indicated that
their primary maternal caretaker was their adoptive mother
(n=4). Seventy-seven percent indicated that their primary
paternal caretaker was their biological father (n=24), 13%
indicated that their primary paternal caretaker was their
adoptive father (n=4), and 10% were raised by a stepfather
(n=3). The reader is referred to Tables 1 and 2 for the
self-reported family incomes growing up and parental
educational levels, respectively. Participation was
voluntary, and none of the participants were reimbursed for
participation in the study.
33
Instrumentation/measures
The questionnaire contained items assessing demographic
information, giftedness, and perceived parental behaviors.
Demographic information. Respondents indicated their
gender, ethnicity, age, who their primary caretakers were
(biological parents, adoptive parents, stepparents, or
"other"), parents' income and educational levels, and
whether or not they were formally identified as gifted
during their elementary school education.
Giftedness. The Scales for Rating the Behavioral
Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) (Renzulli et
al., 1976) was employed to assess giftedness in the sample
because it is reported to be the best-known giftedness scale
(Colangelo & Fleuridas, 1986) and was designed to assess
four distinct types of giftedness: learning, motivation,
creativity, and leadership. It was standardized with a
large sample of gifted individuals from a variety of
socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds (Renzulli et
al., 1976) and is reliable and valid for use with adults (J.
S. Renzulli, personal communication, February 25, 1993;
Trentham & Hall, 1987). This scale considers it possible
for individuals to be classified as gifted in one or more of
four areas. Significant differences were found in the four
34
subscales between gifted (mean>25) and nongifted (mean<25)
individuals (Renzulli et al., 1971).
Renzulli et al. (1971) reported test-retest
reliabilities between .77 and .91 [learning (.88),
motivation (.91), creativity (.79), and leadership (.77)].
They also determined the validity of the instrument
(Renzulli et al., 1971). The validity of the Learning and
Motivation subscales was determined by comparing the scores
with those from standardized tests of intelligence and
achievement. These subscales correlate well with measures
that traditionally have been used to select students for
gifted programs (Birch, 1984; Renzulli et al., 1971).
The validity of the Creativity subscale was determined
by comparing the scores with scores from the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking (TTCT). The Creativity subscale
compares favorably with the verbal subscores of the TTCT.
The validity of the Leadership subscale was determined
by comparing individual items with total leadership ratings.
The validity of the Leadership subscale also was determined
by comparing scores with peer ratings on hypothetical
situations involving social, athletic, and intellectual
skills (Renzulli et al., 1971).
Sample items from the Learning subscale include "I have
verbal behavior characterized by richness of expression,
35
elaboration, and fluency;1 1 "I have rapid insight into cause-
effect relationships;" and "I try to understand complicated
material by separating it into its respective parts."
Sample items from the Motivation subscale include "I am
persistent in seeking task completion;" "I strive toward
perfection and am self-critical;" and "I prefer to work
independently and require little direction from others."
Sample items from the Creativity subscale include "I
generate a large number of ideas or solutions to problems
and questions;" "I am often concerned with adapting,
improving, and modifying institutions, objects, and
systems;" and "I am sensitive to beauty and attend to
aesthetic characteristics of things."
Sample items from the Leadership subscale include "I
generally direct the activity in which I am involved;" "I
have good verbal facility and am usually well understood;"
and "I carry responsibility well and can be counted on to do
what I have promised."
The subscales have 8 items each, for a total of 32
items. Responses to the items are indicated on a 4-point,
Likert-type scale ranging from Never Characteristic (1) to
Almost Always Characteristic (4). Scores for each of the
subscales are obtained by adding weighted items, so that the
subscale scores range from 8 to 32, with scores of 25 and
36
above (the recommended cut-off score) indicating the
presence of giftedness.
Perceived parent behaviors. Schludermann and
Schludermann's (1988) 30-item Children's Report of Parent
Behavior Inventory (CRPBI-30) was employed. It was designed
to assess perceived parental behaviors in the areas of
acceptance, psychological control, and behavioral control.
The instrument is culturally sensitive and is suitable for
cross-cultural studies and for use with adults (E.
Schludermann, personal communication, February 25, 1993;
Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970).
Schludermann and Schludermann (1988) report test-retest
reliabilities from .79 to .89 [mother's acceptance (.84),
mother's psychological control (.84), mother's behavioral
control (.79), father's acceptance (.89), father's
psychological control (.80), and father's behavioral control
(.83)]. The validity of the CRPBI-30 was determined by
comparing subscale scores with scores from Olson's Family
Satisfaction Scale (Schludermann & Schludermann, 1988). The
subscales compared favorably. In addition, high
replicability of the CRPBI-30's factor structure was found
(Schludermann & Schludermann, 1970).
The questionnaire separately assesses three aspects of
parental behavior for the mother and for the father. The
37
Acceptance subscale assesses the degree to which an
individual perceives that her or his parents accept or
reject her or him. It measures acceptance, child
centeredness, possessiveness, positive involvement,
acceptance of individuation, and hostile detachment. Sample
items from this scale include: "My mother (father) smiled
at me very often;" "My mother (father) made me feel like the
most important person in her (his) life;" and "My mother
(father) gave me a lot of care and attention."
The Psychological Control subscale represents the
degree to which the individual perceives that the parents
attempt to control her or him through psychological pressure
techniques. It measures intrusiveness, control through
guilt, hostile control, inconsistent discipline, instilling
persistent anxiety, and withdrawal of relations. Sample
items include "My mother (father) said if I really cared for
her (him), I would not do things that caused her (him) to
worry;" "My mother (father) was always trying to change me;"
and "My mother (father), if I had hurt her (his) feelings,
stopped talking to me until I pleased her (him) again."
The Behavioral Control subscale assesses the degree to
which the individual perceives that the parents controlled
her or his behavior by direct means. It measures control,
enforcement, nonenforcement, lax discipline, and extreme
38
autonomy. Sample items include "My mother (father) believed
in having a lot of rules and sticking to them;" "My mother
(father) was very strict with me;" and "My mother (father)
gave me as much freedom as I wanted."
The subscales have 10 items each, for a total of 60
items. Responses to the items are indicated on a 3-point,
Likert-type scale ranging from Not Like (1) to Like (3).
Scores for each of the subscales are obtained by adding
weighted items so that the subscale scores range from 10 to
30, with a midpoint score of 20. Scores at or above 20
reveal that individuals experienced more acceptance,
psychological control, and firm behavioral control,
respectively. Scores less than 20, on the other hand,
reveal that individuals experienced more rejection, support
of autonomy, and lax behavioral control, respectively.
Procedures
Requests for female volunteers were made in graduate
classes in counseling and educational psychology at a large
western university. Each prospective participant was asked
to take part in a study concerning women and their parents.
Those people agreeing to participate were asked to respond
to all of the items on the questionnaires, which took
approximately 15 minutes to complete. The questionnaires
39
were group administered by the present researcher in the
classes and collected upon their completion. The women were
instructed to complete the questionnaires confidentially.
Participants were informed in the letter of consent that
participation was voluntary and that no risk would be
involved by completing the questionnaire. Further, they
were made aware that the Human Subjects Committee of the
University of Southern California could be contacted if they
had questions regarding their participation in the study.
Requests for female volunteers also were made in the
waiting area of a large metropolitan airport. Women seen
waiting in the area were approached individually and asked
if they would mind participating in an important study being
conducted at a large university concerning women and their
parents. Every effort was made to include a heterogeneous
subsample of women in this location; for this reason, every
woman in the airport waiting area who appeared to be over
the age of 21 was approached. Those people agreeing to
participate were asked to respond to all of the items on the
questionnaire. The questionnaires were individually
administered by the present researcher in the waiting area
and collected upon their completion. Participants were
informed in the letter of consent that participation was
voluntary and that no risk would be involved by completing
40
the questionnaire. Further, they were made aware that the
Human Subjects Committee of the University of Southern
California could be contacted if they had questions
regarding their participation in the study.
Upon completion of the questionnaires, participants in
both subgroups were thanked for their participation and
debriefed about the study goals and research questions.
Research desicm. The present study employed a
descriptive (survey), correlational design. The predictor
variables for the study were giftedness in the areas of
learning, motivation, creativity, and leadership. The
criterion variables were the perceived maternal and paternal
behaviors of acceptance, psychological control, and
behavioral control. It could have been equally plausible to
have the perceived parent behaviors as predictors and
giftedness as criterion variables. However, I chose the
former method for this study because I was specifically
interested in predicting gifted women's perceptions of their
parents' behaviors toward them.
Data analysis. Scoring, input, and analysis of the
data were conducted by the present investigator.
41
Chapter 3
Results
Psychometric properties of the instrumsnts
Psychometric properties of the SRBCSS (Renzulli, et
al., 1971) and the CRPBI-30 (Schludermann & Schludermann,
1988) were examined in order to determine their suitability
with the present sample of women. Cronbach's coefficient
alpha estimates of internal consistency for giftedness were:
.81 for the Learning subscale, .79 for the Motivation
subscale, .78 for the Creativity subscale, and .74 for the
Leadership subscale.
Subscale reliabilities for the perceived maternal
behaviors were as follows: .94 for the Acceptance subscale,
.90 for the Psychological Control subscale, and .87 for the
Behavioral Control subscale.
Subscale reliabilities for the perceived paternal
behaviors were as follows: .96 for the Acceptance subscale,
.93 for the Psychological Control subscale, and .91 for the
Behavioral Control subscale. Therefore, the measures
employed were suitable for the present sample of women.
42
Preliminary analyses
Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 3.
As can be seen from the table, a range of scores was
obtained on the measures employed in the study. As stated
earlier, scores greater than or equal to 25 on the SRBCSS
indicate giftedness, and scores greater than or equal to 20
on the CRPBI—30 Acceptance and Behavioral Control subscales
indicate perceptions of being accepted and behaviorally
controlled by parents, whereas scores less than 20 on the
Psychological Control subscale indicate perceptions of
support of psychological autonomy by parents. Proportions
of the sample regarded as gifted in each of the four areas
can be seen in Table 4.
Relationships between aiftedness and perceptions of parental
behaviors
Preliminary analysis revealed that there were
significant relationships between giftedness and perceptions
of parental behaviors (see Table 5). SRBCSS Learning,
Motivation, Creativity, and Leadership subscale scores were
the predictor variables that were significantly related to
measures of perceived parental behaviors. Specifically,
there was a significant positive relationship between
Learning and Maternal Acceptance (r=.25, p<.05), as well as
43
Table 3. Means and standard deviations for giftedness and
perceived parental behaviors for the entire sample of women
Variable Mean
Standard
Deviation Range
Giftedness
Learning 23.62 4.26 8-32
Motivation 23.30 4.62 8-32
Creativity 22.73 4.23 8-32
Leadership 24.50 3.76 8-32
Perceived Maternal Behavior
Acceptance 23.70 5.91 10-30
Psychological Control 16.36 5.72 10-30
Behavioral Control 21.42 4.69 10-30
Perceived Paternal Behavior
Acceptance 20.24 7.00 10-30
Psychological Control 16.02 6.32 10-30
Behavioral Control 22.35 6.12 10-30
Note. N=66.
Table 4. Proportions of the sample regarded as gifted
in each of the four areas
N 1
Learning 27 41
Motivation 26 39
Creativity 23 35
Leadership 33 50
Overall score 22 33
Note. N=66.
44
Table 5. Correlation natrix of giftedness and perceived parental behavior
1
Predictor
2 3 4 5 6
Criterion
7 8 9 10
Predictor
LRU 1
—
HTV 2 .68** —
CRTV 3 .71** .65** --
LDR 4 .45** .48** .46** —
Criterion
HACC 5 . 2 4 * .09 . 0 9 .41** —
HPC 6 -.09 -.08 -.06 -.31** -.67**
—
HBC 7 .28** .26** .20* . 1 4 -.16 . 2 0 —
PACC 8 .14 .04 .03 .2 3* .22* -.10 . 1 4
PPC 9 -.19 -.05 . 0 3 -.23* -.28* .29** -.26* -.53**
—
PBC 10 . 1 7 . 1 3 .21 * .2 4* .21* -.25* .30** -.28* .33** --
Hote. LRN=Leaming, HTV=Hotivation, CRTV=Creativity, LDR=Leadership, HACC=Haternal Acceptance,
HPC=Haternal Psychological Control, HBC=Haternal Behavioral Control, PACC=Paternal Acceptance,
PPC=Paternal Psychological Control, PBC=Paternal Behavioral Control. **=p<.01, *=p<.05. H=66.
45
between Leadership and Maternal Acceptance (£=.41, p<.01).
There also was a significant positive relationship between
Leadership and Paternal Acceptance (£=.23, p<.05). There
was a significant negative relationship between Leadership
and both Maternal and Paternal Psychological Control (£=-31,
pc.Ol and £=-.23, p<.05, respectively). A significant
positive relationship between Learning and Maternal
Behavioral Control (£=.28, pc.01), as well as between
Motivation and Maternal Behavioral Control(£=.26, pc.Ol),
was found. Finally, there was a significant positive
relationship between Creativity and Paternal Behavioral
Control (£=.21, pc.05) and between Leadership and Paternal
Behavioral Control (£=.24, pc.05).
Predicting parental behavior
A series of standardized multiple regression analyses
were conducted to examine giftedness relative to perceived
behaviors by parents. Predictor variables in each of the
regression equations were respondents' total scores on each
of the four SRBCSS subscales (e.g., Learning, Motivation,
Creativity, and Leadership). Participants' total scores on
the CRPBI-30 subscales of Maternal and Paternal Acceptance,
Psychological Control, and Behavioral Control served as
successive criterion measures, one for each of the six
46
multiple regression equations. Results of the regression
analyses are presented in Table 6.
Perceived parental acceptance. The variables that
predicted a significant proportion of variance in the
Perceived-Acceptance-by-Mother subscale scores were the
Leadership and the Learning subscales, overall R^=.24,
pc.Ol. The overall adjusted for cross-validation
shrinkage was .19. Beta weights indicated that scores on
both the Leadership and Learning subscales were positively
related to Perceived-Acceptance-by-Mother subscale scores.
Table 6. Summary of standardized multiple regressions of
giftedness predicting perceptions of maternal and paternal
behaviors
Criterion Variables
Acceptance Psych. Cntl. Beh. Cntl.
Mat. Pat. Mat. Pat. Mat. Pat.
Predictors
Learning .34* .23 -.02 -.41* .22 .03
Motivation -.22 -.13 .05 .13 .14 -.08
Creativity -.23 -.17 .10 .37* -.05 .14
Leadership .47** .27 -.37** -.28* -.01 .20
Adj. R2 .19** .02 .05 .09* .03 .01
Note. Psych. Cntl.=Psychological Control, Beh. Cntl.=
Behavioral Control. Mat.=Maternal, Pat.=Paternal.
**=£><.01, *=£><.05. N=66.
47
None of the giftedness subscales contributed
significantly to the explained variance in the Perceived-
Acceptance-by-Father subscale scores, overall B^=.08, p>.05.
Perceived parental psychological control. The variable
that predicted a significant proportion of variance in the
Perceived-Psychological-Control-by-Mother subscale scores
was the Leadership subscale, overall r2=.11, p>.05. The
overall R— adjusted for cross-validation shrinkage was .05.
Beta weights indicated that Leadership subscale scores were
inversely related to Perceived-Psychological-Control-by-
Mother subscale scores.
The variables that predicted a significant proportion
of variance in the Perceived-Psychological-Control-by-Father
subscale scores were the Learning, Creativity, and
Leadership subscales, overall R^=.15, p<.05. The overall R—
adjusted for cross-validation shrinkage was .09. Beta
weights indicated that Learning and Leadership subscale
scores were inversely related to Perceived-Psychological-
Control-by-Father subscale scores, whereas scores on the
Creativity subscale were positively related to them.
Perceived parental behavioral control. None of the
giftedness subscales contributed significantly to the
48
explained variance in the Perceived-Behavioral-Control-by-
Mother subscale scores, overall R— .09, p>.05. Similarly,
none of the giftedness subscales contributed significantly
to the explained variance in the Perceived-Behavioral-
Control-by-Father subscale scores, overall R— . 07, p>.05.
Best predictor variables. Examination of the beta
weights for best predictor variables revealed the following:
exceptional leadership ability was the best predictor
variable for maternal acceptance and psychological control.
Exceptional learning ability, however, was the best
predictor variable for paternal psychological control.
Group differences in perceptions of parental behaviors
A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to
determine if there were significant differences between the
formally identified gifted and nongifted women on their
perceptions of their parents' behaviors toward them. As can
be seen in Table 7, no significant differences were found
between the two groups, F(6,59)=1.07, p>.05. Although not
statistically significant, the findings deserve mention.
The gifted group had higher Perceived-Maternal-Acceptance
scores (H=25.13 versus 22.88), higher Psychological Control
scores (M=16.67 versus 16.19), and higher Behavioral Control
49
Table 7. Means, standard deviations, and multivariate
analysis of variance of perceived parental behaviors between
formally identified gifted and nongifted women
Variable
Gifted
(N=24)
Mean S. D.
Nongifted
(N=42)
Mean S.D. F
P
Pillai's, DF(6,59) 1.09 .39
Maternal
Acceptance 25.13 5.08 22.88 6.25 2.24 .14
Psyc. Cntl 16.67 6.05 16.19 5.58 .11 .75
Beh. Cntl 21.46 4.18 21.41 5.00 .00 .97
Paternal
Acceptance 20.83 7.68 19.91 6.66 .27 .61
Psyc. Cntl 15.04 5.17 16.57 6.89 .89 .35
Beh. Cntl 22.21 5.32 22.43 6.59 .02 .89
Note. S.D.=Standard Deviation. Psych. Cntl=Psychological
Control, Beh. Cntl=Behavioral Control. DF=(1,64). N=66.
scores (£1=21.46 versus 21.41) than did the nongifted group.
The gifted women also had higher Perceived-Paternal
Acceptance scores (M=20.83 versus 19.91), lower
Psychological Control scores (M=15.04 versus 16.57), and
50
lower Behavioral Control scores (M=22.21 versus 22.43) than
did the nongifted group.
Group differences in SRBCSS aiftedness subscales
Because of the discrepancies between the multiple
regression analyses and the multivariate analysis of
variance, a follow-up MANOVA was conducted to determine if
there were significant differences between the formally
identified gifted and nongifted women (IV) on their
giftedness subscale scores (DVs). Results of this analysis
are summarized in Table 8. With the use of Pillai's trace
criterion, the combined DVs were significantly related to
the IV, F(4,61)=3.52, p=.01. Univariate analysis revealed
that a reliable difference was present on the Learning
subscale, with formally identified gifted women possessing
more ability in this area, univariate £(1,64)=3.38, p=.05.
Univariate analysis revealed that a reliable difference also
was present on the Motivation subscale, with formally
identified gifted women possessing more ability in this
area, univariate F(1,64)=11.92, p=.01. There were no
significant differences on the Creativity subscale,
£(1,64)=.99, e>•05, or on the Leadership subscale,
F(l,64)=1.51, p>.05.
51
Table 8. Means, standard deviations, and multivariate
analysis of variance of SRBCSS subscale scores between
formally identified gifted and nongifted women
Variable
Gifted
(N=24)
Mean S.D.
Nongifted
(N=42)
Mean S.D. F
P
Pillai's, DF(4,61) 3.52 .01**
Learning 24.88 3.75 22.91 4.42 3.38 .05*
Motivation 25.71 3.33 21.93 4.73 11.92 .01**
Creativity 23.42 3.98 22.33 4.37 .99 .32
Leadership 25.25 3.65 24.07 3.80 1.51 .22
Note. S.D.=Standard Deviation. Psych. Cntl=Psychological
Control, Beh. Cntl=Behavioral Control. DF=(1,64).
**=p=.01, *=p=.05. N=66.
52
Chapter 4
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to: a) address
the limitations of past research and add to the sparse body
of literature on gifted women, as well as on their parents;
b) investigate the relationships between giftedness and
certain perceived parental behaviors; and c) explore if
there were differences in the way women perceived their
treatment by their parents depending on whether or not they
were formally identified as gifted. Results indicated that
perceptions of behaviors by parents, as assessed by the
CRPBI—30, were significantly related to giftedness in all
four areas, as assessed by the SRBCSS. In addition, it was
possible to predict perceived parent behaviors from
giftedness scores in women. Finally, it was possible to
determine whether there were any differences in perceptions
of parent behaviors and in giftedness scores between
formally identified gifted and nongifted women.
Relationships between qiftedness and perceptions of parental
behavior
Correlational analyses were conducted to test the first
research question: whether there would be a relationship
between giftedness and perceptions of acceptance by mothers
53
and fathers. Results showed that there was a significant
positive relationship between giftedness scores in the
learning area and perceived maternal acceptance. This means
that women with more giftedness in this area perceived
greater acceptance by their mothers. A significant positive
relationship also was found between giftedness scores in the
leadership area and both perceived maternal and paternal
acceptance. Women with higher leadership ability perceived
greater parental acceptance.
Another research question was whether there would be a
relationship between giftedness and perceptions of
psychological control by mothers and fathers. Results
showed that there was a significant negative relationship
between giftedness scores in the leadership area and both
perceived maternal and paternal psychological control. This
means that women with higher ability in this area perceived
less psychological control by parents. This also means that
women with more leadership ability perceived greater
parental support of their psychological autonomy.
The third research question was whether there would be
a relationship between giftedness and perceived behavioral
control by parents. Results indicated that there was a
significant positive relationship between giftedness scores
in the learning and motivation areas and perceived maternal
54
behavioral control. This means that women with more ability
in these areas perceived greater behavioral control by their
mothers. A significant positive relationship also was found
between giftedness scores in the creativity and leadership
areas and perceived paternal behavioral control. Women with
higher creative and leadership abilities perceived greater
paternal behavioral control.
Predicting parent behavior
Separate standardized multiple regression analyses were
conducted to test the fourth research question, whether it
would be possible to predict certain parental behaviors from
giftedness in women. Results indicated that it was possible
to predict perceptions of maternal acceptance from
giftedness scores. It also was possible to predict
perceptions of paternal psychological control from
giftedness scores. Finally, results indicated that
exceptional leadership ability scores emerged as the best
predictor variable for maternal acceptance and paternal
psychological control, while exceptional learning ability
scores emerged as the best predictor variable for maternal
psychological control.
55
Group differences in perceptions of parental behavior
A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to
test the final research question: whether there would be
significant differences in perceptions of parents' behaviors
as a function of formally identified gifted or nongifted
group membership. Results indicated that there were not
significant differences between the two groups. In other
words, the gifted and nongifted women perceived that their
parents behaved toward them in a similar manner.
Specifically, parents were perceived to be accepting,
supportive of their daughters' autonomy, and behaviorally
controlling in both the gifted and nongifted groups.
Rinnmary of results
In sum, results of the present exploratory study
indicated that perceived behaviors by parents, as assessed
by the CRPBI-30, were significantly related to giftedness in
women, as assessed by the SRBCSS. Gifted women do, indeed,
tend to perceive that their mothers and fathers accepted
them, were supportive of their psychological autonomy, and
exerted behavioral control over them.
Across the regression equations, giftedness was a
negative predictor of perceived psychological control,
whereas giftedness was a positive predictor of acceptance.
56
More specifically, giftedness scores in the area of
leadership were negatively related to CRPBI-30 maternal and
paternal psychological control subscales. Giftedness scores
in the area of learning also were negatively related to
paternal psychological control. Giftedness scores in the
areas of learning and leadership were positively related to
perceived maternal acceptance. These findings suggest that
women with high giftedness scores perceived greater maternal
acceptance, but less maternal and paternal psychological
control.
A multivariate analysis of variance revealed no
significant differences in perceived parental acceptance,
psychological control, and behavioral control between the
formally identified gifted and nongifted groups. However, a
follow-up MANOVA revealed significant differences in
giftedness scores between the formally identified gifted and
nongifted groups.
Convergence with existing research
The present findings suggest that there is a positive
relationship between giftedness in women and perceived
parental acceptance, support of psychological autonomy, and
behavioral control, supporting aspects of Object Relations
theory predicting that positive object relations lead to
57
healthy development and competencies (Mallinckrodt, 1992;
St. Clair, 1986). From an Object Relations perspective,
parental emotional responsiveness, acceptance, and support
of autonomy lead to a positive view of the self and one's
abilities (Cashdan, 1988) and to the development of
competencies and giftedness (Baumrind, 1978).
The significant results of the present exploratory
study also are consistent with those of Rohner (1986);
Steinberg (1990); Steinberg, Elmen and Mounts (1989); and
Baumrind (1978), who have found that parenting characterized
by acceptance, support of autonomy, and firm behavioral
control is consistently and positively correlated with
giftedness, whereas other parenting types, such as
authoritarian and permissive types (Baumrind, 1978), are
negatively correlated with giftedness, across ethnic and
socioeconomic groups.
Rohner (1986), for instance, concluded that, not only
do gifted females tend to have accepting parents, but that
most gifted children, in general, tend to be accepted by
their parents. Conversely, he found that children who
perceive that their parents rejected them suffer from
numerous problems, including intellectual-performance
problems, lower IQ scores, poor school performance,
58
delinquency, drug abuse, personality disorders, and even
health problems (Rohner, 1986).
Steinberg (1990) and Steinberg et al. (1992) reached a
similar conclusion. They suggested that giftedness is
associated with parental acceptance and warmth, support of
psychological autonomy, and firm behavioral control. Their
studies found that individuals who perceived that their
parents accepted them, granted psychological autonomy, and
exerted firm behavioral control performed better in school
than their peers (Steinberg et al., 1992; Steinberg, 1990).
They concluded that authoritative parenting (the parenting
style characterized by acceptance, support of psychological
autonomy, and firm behavioral control) facilitates
giftedness.
Baumrind (1978), the individual who coined the term
"authoritative parenting," has found that this style of
parenting helps to foster competence, which is associated
with giftedness and success. However, she concluded that
acceptance in and of itself is not a sufficient predictor of
competence. Rather, the most competent individuals had
parents who were accepting and supportive of their autonomy,
yet also were controlling of their children's behavior. The
gifted women in the present sample had authoritative
parents, which is consistent with the literature.
59
The nonsignificant group differences are in agreement
with Rohner (1986), who stated, for example, that most
children tend to have accepting parents. It may be that
many women in general are raised by accepting parents, who
support their daughters7 autonomy, yet also are behaviorally
controlling. Thus, a positive aspect of this nonsignificant
finding is that, regardless of giftedness level, this sample
was most likely a psychologically healthy one, raised by
psychologically healthy parents. The reason for this is
that researchers such as Rohner (1986), Steinberg (1990),
and Baumrind (1978), for example, have found that positive
mental health is consistently associated with these types of
parental behaviors, as well as with perceptions of these
parental behaviors.
In addition, for the comparison analyses, individuals
were assigned to one of two groups (gifted or nongifted)
based on whether they had been formally identified as gifted
in their elementary school education. It is important to
keep in mind, however, that not all gifted individuals are
identified nor are all identified individuals gifted. Thus,
perhaps, as current research indicates, the traditional ways
of measuring giftedness for placement into special education
continue to be problematic.
60
The multiple regression analyses were significant, but
the original multivariate analysis of variance was
nonsignificant. This discrepancy was puzzling and suggested
that, because the SRBCSS giftedness scores were employed for
the multiple regression analyses and formal identification
of giftedness was employed for the MANOVA, perhaps the two
ways of identifying giftedness were actually different from
one another. For this reason, a follow-up MANOVA was
conducted to explore this possibility. The IV was group
membership (formally identified as gifted or not), and the
DVs were scores on the SRBCSS subscales (learning,
motivation, creativity, and leadership). Significant
results were obtained on this analysis. The significant
differences between the two groups indicate that the
giftedness scores on the Learning and Motivation subscales
were significantly related to formal identification of
giftedness. This makes sense because the validity of these
subscales was originally determined by comparing the scores
with scores on standardized tests of intelligence and
achievement. Thus, these findings confirm that I was,
indeed, measuring the same thing, giftedness.
There may be several explanations for the other
nonsignificant findings. First, although the sample
perceived they had accepting fathers, perhaps this variable
61
is not significantly predictable from giftedness. In other
words, it may be that, although there was a significant
relationship between maternal acceptance and giftedness
scores, there is no such true relationship between paternal
acceptance and giftedness scores. This makes sense
according to Object Relations theorists such as Mahler
(1968), Kernberg (1988), and Cashdan (1988), who stated that
mothers are more influential in the development of their
children. In addition, since Object Relations theory states
that the core of one's selfhood is inextricably tied to the
infant's first and most fundamental object relationship, the
relationship with the mother (Cashdan, 1988; Mahler, 1968),
perhaps that is why it was possible to predict maternal
acceptance but not paternal acceptance. Or perhaps there is
a relationship between the two variables that was not
detectable by the current measures. It may be that GRE,
GPA, and IQ may better predict paternal acceptance.
Similarly, perhaps the sample size was too small to detect a
relationship, although it was sufficient for the statistical
analyses (Isaac & Michael, 1981; Tabachnik & Fidell, 1983).
Moreover, although the sample perceived they had
behaviorally controlling parents, neither perceived maternal
nor paternal behavioral control were predictable from
giftedness scores. Perhaps the construct of behavioral
62
control is truly not predictable from giftedness. Or,
perhaps there is a relationship, but it was not detectable
from the measures employed in the exploratory study. On a
similar note, it may be that the sample size, although
sufficient, was not large enough to detect a significant
relationship. Nevertheless, these variables continue to be
important ones to study because, for example, as Rohner
(1986) reported, the dimension of parental acceptance and
control repeatedly have been shown to explain the greatest
percentage of variance in parents7 behavior toward children.
There also may be behavioral genetics possibilities in
interpretation. The two propositions of quantitative
genetic theory are: a) genetic differences among people can
lead to individual differences, and b) environmental
differences among individuals can lead to individual
differences (Plomin et al., 1990). An important feature of
this theory is that it recognizes the importance of both
environmental and genetic influences on behavior (Plomin et
al., 1990)
Thus, the findings that there is a relationship between
giftedness scores in women and perceived parental
acceptance, support of psychological autonomy, and
behavioral control may reflect environmental and genetic
predispositions. In other words, the two main foci of the
63
present study, giftedness and perceptions of parenting
style, could be interpreted as being influenced or moderated
by behavioral genetics, as well as environment.
It is important to keep in mind that the present
exploratory study employed a correlational design; thus, one
cannot state that giftedness causes parental behavior or
even that parental behavior causes giftedness. Rather, one
can state that there is a significant relationship between
the two. In fact, it is probably more likely, as
researchers in the area of parents and their children have
suggested (e.g., Baumrind, 1978; Rohner, 1986; Steinberg,
1990; Tannenbaum, 1984), that parents influence their
children's behavior, just as children influence their
parents' behavior. In other words, the relationship between
parents and their children is reciprocal in nature, that
both influence each other. And we must not forget that
genetics also influence the behavior of both parents and
children as well (Plomin et al., 1990; Rowe, 1990).
Methodological assumptions
The following methodological assumptions governing
interpretation of results were implicit in the
investigation. First, the subjects responded honestly and
accurately. Second, the sample of women was sufficiently
64
representative of the target population to permit
generalization of findings. Third, the reliability and
validity of the instruments were sufficient to permit
accurate inferences. Fourth, the data were accurately
recorded and analyzed. Fifth, results of the data analysis
were interpreted fairly and accurately. Sixth, the design,
controls, sampling procedures, and data processing
techniques used in this study were appropriate to the intent
of the investigation.
An evaluation of the assumptions of the multiple
regression analyses (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1983) follow.
First, with 66 respondents and four predictor variables, the
cases-to-variables ratio was 66:4, which is well above the
minimum requirements for regression (Tabachnik & Fidell,
1983). Second, examination of standardized scores revealed
none greater than +3.00; hence, no outliers were detected.
Third, multicollinearity and singularity were not evident,
and default values were not exceeded. Fourth, examination
of frequencies, histograms, and scatterplots revealed
normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity. Thus, the
assumptions of multiple regression presented by Tabachnik
and Fidell (1983) were not violated.
An evaluation of the assumptions of the multivariate
analyses of variance (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1983) follow.
65
First, there were more cases than dependent variables in
each cell, which is a requirement for unequal sample sizes;
24 in the smallest sample was above the minimum requirement
to ensure robustness (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1983). Second,
calculation of standardized scores and examination of the
shape of frequencies revealed normal distributions. Third,
no outliers were detected. Fourth, the larger sample
produced the larger covariances, indicating homogeneity of
variance-covariance matrices. Fifth, examination of
scatterplots revealed that linearity was present. Finally,
multicollinearity and singularity were not present because
none of the correlation matrix values even closely
approached .99 (Tabachnik & Fidell, 1983), indicating
absence of redundant variables. Thus, the assumptions of
multivariate analysis of variance presented by Tabachnik and
Fidell (1983) were not violated.
Limitations
Interpretation of the findings of the present
investigation should be considered in light of several
possible limitations. First, although the sample size of 66
was sufficient to conduct the statistical analyses (Isaac &
Michael, 1981; Tabachnik & Fidell, 1983), a larger sample
may have been able to increase generalizability. Next, low
66
to moderate correlations were found among the giftedness
subscales and between the acceptance and psychological
control subscales. The relationships among predictors
suggest that the SRBCSS may not be measuring independent
constructs. Likewise, intercorrelations between the
acceptance and psychological control variables indicate
there may be some overlap between the two subscales for
which the CRPBI-30 were intended to measure independently.
Third, although children's perceptions are valid indicators
of actual parent behaviors and adults accurately report
their experiences as children (Rohner, 1986), they are self-
reports nonetheless. As such, validity may be limited to
the honesty of the participants' responses. Finally, the
women in this study were selected to represent a general
sample of gifted and nongifted women. Generalizations from
the findings, therefore, are intended for this particular
reference group.
Implications
The present study was important for the following
reasons. First, it added to the sparse body of knowledge on
gifted women. Second, it included an ethnically diverse
sample. Third, this study separately examined perceptions
of parental behaviors by the mothers and the fathers.
67
Findings of this study suggest implications for
counselors. First, results of this study could provide
counselors with information regarding early family dynamics
of their gifted female clients. For example, findings of
this study showed that gifted women share common perceptions
of their parents as being accepting, supportive of their
autonomy, and behaviorally controlling. As Cashdan (1988)
stated, early family dynamics are an important focus in
therapy. Second, findings of this study could provide
counselors with insight into possible problems gifted women
might encounter, such as those stemming from gifted
individuals' deep sensitivity to the feelings of others, as
well as those resulting from sensitivity to the ways others
behave toward them (Lovecky, 1986). Third, counselors could
provide support, validation, and normalization to gifted
women based upon the present findings, as well as educate
their gifted women clients about the findings of the present
exploratory study. Fourth, if family counseling is the
chosen modality, it could focus on enhancing the parent-
child relationship patterns described herein, as well as on
exploring the impact that such experiences had on all of the
family members. Finally, support groups could be formed to
help deal with the unique experiences associated with being
a gifted woman.
68
Findings from the present study also affirm the rewards
of parent-child relationships characterized by
"authoritative" parenting: the combination of acceptance,
autonomy granting, and behavioral control (Baumrind, 1978).
Perhaps parents should be taught how to be more
authoritative in their parenting style so that their
children can benefit and that giftedness can be facilitated.
Future research
Future research should attempt to replicate the
findings, as well as address the limitations of the present
study. For example, a larger sample could be employed, as
could measures of giftedness that are not moderately
correlated with one another. In addition, the multiple
regression design was an important step in adding to the
literature. However, a more sophisticated design, such as
structural equation modeling, could be used in the future to
make causal inferences from the present correlational
design.
It might be interesting for a future study to compare
men and women to examine, for example, if gender differences
exist between perceptions of how their parents behaved
toward them using a MANOVA design. Finally, it may be
fruitful to compare different birth orders (e.g., first born
69
to last born) since treatment by parents may reflect birth-
order effects, and the number of children in a family can
significantly affect perceptions of parental acceptance
(Rohner, 1986).
In conclusion, the study of gifted women provides
insight into a valuable part of our society. As such,
continued research on this often-neglected population is
important. Ultimately, the insight provided from an
expansion of the knowledge base by continued research can
only deepen our understanding, as well as enhance individual
experiences.
70
Chapter 5
References
Baker, L. A. & Clark, R. (1990). Introduction to special
feature. Genetic origins of behavior: Implications
for counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development.
68. 597-600.
Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and
social competence in children. Youth & Society. 9,
239-276.
Birch, J. W. (1984). Is any identification procedure
necessary? Gifted Child Quarterly. 28. 157-161.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA:
Bancroft Books.
Briere, J. & Runtz, M. (1988). Multivariate correlates of
childhood psychological and physical maltreatment among
university women. Child Abuse & Neglect. 12, 331-341.
Cashdan, S. (1988). Object relations theory; Using the
relationship. NY: Norton & Company.
Child Development Institute (1976). Child success data
strike home. Developmentsf 3./ 2-3.
Clark, B. (1979). Growing up gifted: Developing the
potential of children at home and at school. Columbus:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.
Colangelo, N. & Dettmann, D. F. (1983). A review of
research on parents and families of gifted children.
Exceptional Children. 50, 20-27.
Colangelo, N. & Fleuridas, C. (1986). The abdication of
childhood. Journal of Counseling and Development. 64,
561-563.
Colangelo, N. & Zaffran, R. (1979). Special issues in
counseling the gifted. Counseling and Human
Development. 2, 1-12.
71
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Ouasi-
experiroentation: Design analysis issues for field
settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cornell, D. G. & Grossberg, I. W. (1987). Family
environment and personality adjustment in gifted
program children. Gifted Child Quarterly. 31, 59-64.
Daniels, D. & Plomin, R. (1985). Differential experience of
siblings in the same family. Developmental Psychology.
21, 747-760.
Dewing, K. (1970). The reliability and validity of selected
tests of creative thinking in a sample of seventh grade
West Australian children. British Journal of
Educational Psychology. 40, 35-42.
Eccles, J. S. (1985). Why doesn't Jane run? Sex
differences in education and occupational patterns. In
F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and
talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 251-295).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fine, M. J. (1977). Facilitating parent-child relationships
for creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly. 21, 487-500.
Fine, M. J. & Pitts, R. (1980). Intervention with
underachieving gifted children: Rationale and
strategies. Gifted Child Quarterly. 24, 51-55.
Foster, W. & Seltzer, A. (1986). A portrayal of individual
excellence in the urban ghetto. Journal of Counseling
and Development. 64, 579-582.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
intelligences. NY: Basic Books.
Gardner, R. A. (1990). Childhood stress due to parental
divorce. In J. D. Noshpitz & R. D. Coddington (Eds.),
Stressors and the adjustment disorders (pp. 43-59).
NY: Wiley.
Garrison, L. (1992). Professionals of the future: Will
they be female? Will they be ethnically diverse?
Roeper Review. 15, 161-164.
72
Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. W. (1961). Family environment
and cognitive style: A study of the sources of highly
intelligent and of highly creative adolescents.
American Sociological Review. 26, 351-359.
Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and
intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New
York: John Wiley.
Goodyear, R. K. & Benton, S. (1986). The roles of science
and research in the counselor's work. In A. J. Palmo &
W. J. Weikel (Eds.), Foundations of mental health
counseling (pp. 287-308). Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of
intelligence. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hansen, J. B. & Linden, K. W. (1990). Selecting instruments
for identifying gifted and talented students. Roeper
Review, 13, 10-15.
Hare-Mustin, R. T. & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of
difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and
psychology. American Psychologist. 43, 455-464.
Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural
equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing?
American Psychologist. 47, 1083-1101.
Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M. , & Wampold, B. E. (1992).
Research design in counseling. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Herrnstein, R. & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve. NY:
Free Press.
Isaac, S. & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research and
evaluation. San Diego: EdITS Publishers.
Jensen, A. R. (1992). Understanding giftedness in terms of
information processing. Educational Psychology Review.
1, 271-308.
73
Kagan, J. (1978). The parental love trap. Psychology
Todayr 12, 54-61.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral
research, 3rd ed. NY: Hold, Rinehart & Winston.
Kernberg, 0. F. (1988). Object relations theory in clinical
practice. Psychoanalytic Quarterly. LVII. 481-504.
Kerr, B. A. (1985). Smart girls, gifted women. Dayton, OH:
Ohio Psychology Press.
Kerr, B. A. (1991). A handbook for counseling the gifted
and talented. Alexandria, VA: American Association
for Counseling and Development.
Kerr, B., Colangelo, N. Maxey, J. & Christensen, P. (1992).
Characteristics of academically talented minority
students. Journal of Counseling and Development. 70,
606-609.
Khatena, J. (1982). Educational psychology of the gifted.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lindstrom, R. R. & Van Sant, S. (1986). Special issues in
working with gifted minority adolescents. Journal of
Counseling and Development. 64, 583-586.
Lovecky, D. V. (1986). Can you hear the flowers singing?
Issues for gifted adults. Journal of Counseling and
Development. 64, 572-575.
Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Tellegen, A. & Bouchard, T. J.
(1992). Emergenesis: Genetic traits that may not run
in families. American Psychologist. 47, 1565-1577.
Maccoby, E. & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the
context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In
E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 4:_____Socialization. personality. and social
development (pp. 1-101). New York: Wiley.
Mahler, M. S. (1968). On human symbiosis or the
vicissitudes of individuation. New York:
International Universities Press.
74
Mallinckrodt, B. (1992). Childhood emotional bonds with
parents, development of adult social competencies, and
availability of social support. Journal of Counseling
Psvcholoay. 39. 453-461.
Martinson, R. A. (1974). The identification of the gifted
and the talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura
County Superintendent of Schools.
Maslow, A. (1971). The farther reaches of human nature.
New York: Viking.
McMann, N. & Oliver, R. (1988). Problems in families with
gifted children: Implications for counselors. Journal
of Counseling and Development. 66, 275-278.
Mordkowitz, E. & Ginsburg, H. (1987). Early academic
socialization of successful Asian-American college
students. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of
Comparative Human Cognition. 9., 85-91.
Morganthau, M. (1994). IQ: Is it destiny? Newsweek. 52-
55.
Morrow, W. R. & Wilson, R. C. (1961). Family relations of
bright high achieving and underachieving high school
boys. Child Development, 32., 501-510.
Morrow, W. R. & Wilson, R. C. (1964). Family relationships
of bright high-achieving and under-achieving high
school boys. Child Development. 35, 1041-1049.
Myers, D. G. & Ridl, J. (1981). Aren't all children gifted?
Today's Education. General Edition. 30GS-33GS.
Noble, K. D. (1987). The dilemma of the gifted woman.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 367-378.
O'Neill, K. K. (1978). Parent involvement: A key to the
education of the gifted child. Gifted Child Quarterly.
12, 235-242.
Perleth, C., Sierwald, W., & Heller, K. A. (1992). Selected
results of the Munich longitudinal study of giftedness:
The multidimensional/typological giftedness model.
Roener Review. 15, 149-155.
75
Perrone, P. & Dow, E. (1992). First and second year college
experiences of Wisconsin's academically talented 1988
high school graduates. Roeper Review. 15, 144-148.
Phares, V. (1992). Where's poppa? The relative lack of
attention to the role of fathers in child and
adolescent psychopathology. American Psychologist. 47,
656-664.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & McClearn, G. E. (1990).
Behavioral genetics: A primer. New York: W. H.
Freeman & Company.
Reis, S. M. (1987). We can't change what we don't
recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted
females. Gifted Child Quarterly. 31, 83-89.
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C., &
Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for rating the
behavioral characteristics of superior students.
Wethersfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S., Hartman, R. K., & Callahan, C. M. (1971).
Teacher identification of superior students.
Exceptional Children. 38, 211-214.
Richert, E. S. (1986). Toward the tao of giftedness.
Roeper Review. 8, 197-204.
Richert, E. S. (1985). Identification of gifted children in
the United States: The need for pluralistic
assessment. Roeper Review. 8, 68-72.
Rinsley, D. B. (1989). Developmental pathogenesis and
treatment of borderline and narcissistic personalities.
Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of
parental acceptance-reiection theory. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications.
Rowe, D. C. (1990). As the twig is bent? The myth of
child-rearing influences on personality development.
Journal of Counseling and Developmentf 68, 606-611.
76
Sanborn, M. P. (1979). Working with parents. In N.
Colangelo & R. T. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in
counseling the gifted. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children's report of parental
behavior: An inventory. Child Development. 36, 413-
424.
Schludermann, E. & Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability
of factors in children's report of parent behavior
(CRPBI). The Journal of Psychology. 76, 239-249.
Schludermann, E. & Schludermann, S. (1988). Children's
report of parent behavior inventory (Revised\.
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba.
Schwartz, L. L. (1980). Advocacy for the neglected gifted:
Females. Gifted Child Quarterly. 24., 113-117.
Sedlacek, W. E. & Adams-Gaston, J. (1992). Predicting the
academic success of student-athletes using SAT and
noncognitive variables. Journal of Counseling and
Development. 70. 724-727.
Shakeshaft, C. & Palmieri (1978). A divine discontent:
Perspective on gifted women. Gifted Child Quarterlyr
22, 468-477.
St. Clair, M. (1986). Object relations and self psychology:
An introduction. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in
the family relationship. In S. Feldman & G. Elliot
(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent
(pp. 255-276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S. M., and Brown, B. B. (1992).
Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An
ecological perspective. American Psychologist f 47,
723-729.
Steinberg, L. Elmen, J. D. & Mounts, N. S. (1989).
Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and
academic success among adolescents. Child Development.
60, 1424-1436.
77
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Bevond 10; A triarchic theory of
human intelligence. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (1985). Cognitive
development in the gifted and talented. In F. D.
Horowitz & M. 0'Brian (Eds.), The gifted and talented:
Developmental perspectives. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Tabachnick, B. E. & Fidell, L. S. (1983). Using
multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological
and educational perspectives. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. I.
Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted
children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M. & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of
genius: Vol. IV. The gifted at mid-life: Thirty-five
years follow-up of the superior child. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Treffinger, D. J. & Renzulli, J. S. (1986). Giftedness as
potential for creative productivity: Transcending IQ
scores. Roeper Review. 8., 150-154.
Trentham, L. L. & Hall, E. G. (1987). The relationship
between scores on the gifted student screening scale
and scores on IQ tests. Roeper Review. 9, 229-231.
VanTassel, J. (1981). An administrator's guide to the
education of gifted and talented children. Washington,
DC: National Association of State Boards of Education.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1984). The talent search as an
identification model. Gifted Child Quarterlyr 28, 172-
176.
Vaughn, B. E., Block, J. E. & Block, J. (1988). Parental
agreement on child-rearing during early childhood and
the psychological characteristics of adolescents.
Child Development. 59, 1020-1033.
78
Walker, B. A. & Mehr, M. (1992). The courage to achieve:
Why America's brightest women struggle to fulfill their
promise. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Walker, B. A., Reis, S. M. & Leonard, J. S. (1992). A
developmental investigation of the lives of gifted
women. Gifted Child Quarterly. 36. 201-206.
Willerman, L. (1979). Effects of families on intellectual
development. American Psychologist. 34. 923-929.
Yee, A. H., Fairchild, H. H., Weizmann, F. & Wyatt, G. E.
(1993). Addressing psychology's problems with race.
American Psychologist, 48 r 1132-1140.
Zuccone, C. F. & Amerikaner, M. (1986). Counseling gifted
underachievers: A family systems approach. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 64. 590-592.

Asset Metadata

Creator Rudin, Robynne Michelle (author)

Core Title Perceptions of parental behaviors by a sample of gifted and no gifted women: an exploratory study

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Counseling Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Guidance and Counseling,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, developmental,psychology, social,sociology, individual and family studies,women's studies

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-76997

Unique identifier UC11353949

Identifier 9625035.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-76997 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 9625035.pdf

Dmrecord 76997

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rudin, Robynne Michelle

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA