"Underachieving Gifted" Child - Reclaiming Children and Youth

humor also emerged as important issues related to careerchoice. In addition, low achievers usually had only onecareer choice and had difficulty thinking of other options;achievers usually could list at least five other options.Compare this to the high-ability students who wereachieving at the expected levels and those who wereachieving at levels higher than expected. These students'interests and career choices were highly congruent withthe academic environment. In fact, the profile thatemerged would be one many of us consider that of the"ideal student." Achieving students tended to have intereststhat centered on ideas and social issues. As a result, asa group they were intellectual, highly verbal, responsible,persistent, analytical, and task oriented. Their learningpatterns tended to conform to those found in academicenvironments.Personality IssuesAs with career interests, clear differences in personality issuesexisted among the different achievement-level groups. Thehigh-ability, high-achievement students appeared veryinvested in making a good impression. They consistently hadvery high standards and were very competitive, but they alsoconsistently needed and wanted a good deal of reassuranceand advice. They sought to conform and were highly dependentupon the opinions of others.The expected-achievement-level group had the greatestamount of internal variety with regard to personality variables.The only variable that tended to be consistently highamong all members of this group was a good deal ofautonomy and self-reliance.The high-ability, low-achievement group members tendedto present themselves in an unfavorable light and to bemore argumentative and self-protective. As expected, theywere impulsive and playful but also possessed a greatcapacity for understanding and insight. Within the lab, wecame to recognize these students as individuals who spokefreely. They were spontaneous, willing to take risks, quickthinking, and impatient but passionate. Although thesestudents had often been described as unmotivated, wefound individuals who were noncompetitive and easygoing,less focused on the future and more concerned withthe present.ValuesThe values one possesses are an important ingredient inmaking choices about one's lifestyle and career; therefore,we administered the Rokeach Values Survey (Rokeach,1973) to lab participants. This survey lists 20 values, withno explanation, and asks the participant to rank them.Survey takers must define what each value actually meansto them. The high-ability, low-achievement students tendedto possess values that were the exact opposite of theother two groups, whose values were those most oftensupported in academic environments. The achievinggroups ranked Altruism, Social Recognition, Achievement,Affiliation, and Family Security as their greatest priorities,whereas the low achievers saw these as leastimportant. Instead, they ranked An Exciting Life, Wisdom,Self-Respect, Pleasure, and Inner Harmony as most important."There are only a handful of 4.0spontaneous, creative peopleothersachieve their 4.0 atexpense of theirDreyfus (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Perspectives From Pioneering ResearchThe concept of underachievement among gifted studentshas itself been subject to considerable scrutiny in the lastseveral decades. In 1961, Kowitz and Armstrong notedthat "many are willing to believe that, while it is sinful fora child's scores to be warped in one direction, an equalwarp in the opposite direction is virtuous. A correct interpretationof the score patterns would be that no warp representsvirtue, while a significant warp in either directionis an indicator of some sort of trouble" (p. 348). Our findingssupport this conclusion: We found that some of thehigh-achieving students who consistently exhibited such aconcern for the approval of others were achieving at theexpense of some other facet of their lives. As Dreyfus(1972) noted, "there are only a handful of 4.0 spontaneous,creative people-others achieve their 4.0 at the expense oftheir humanness" (p. 86).In our lab, high-ability students achieving at differentlevels differed from each other in consistent ways onmeasures of personality characteristics, interests, andvalues. The major dimension of differences involvedissues of socialization or conformity. The group achievingat expected levels appeared to have incorporated societalvalues but balanced them with self-reliance and autonomy.This is consistent with the findings of Cross andAllen (1970) that students who have achieved a strongidentity perform academically as expected. However, forthe members of the two other groups (those achievingVOLUME 6, NUMBER 4 WINTER 1998 .. 205

elow or above expected levels), there appeared to be amajor conflict involving their ability to balance thedemands and expectations of culture and society withtheir own interests and values.Individuals in the low-achieving group seemed to addressthis conflict by rejecting societal expectations and values.In a sense, their underachievement was but one facet oftheir alienation from the societal mainstream. Brown,Abeles, and Iscoe (1954); Kipnis and Resneck (1971); andPropper and Clark (1970) suggested that underachieversrespond to cultural pressures for conformity with a rejectionof these demands; consequently, they cannot be motivatedby social approval.The high achievers reconciled this same conflict by subordinatingtheir interests and values to the expectations andvalues of their society. Consequently, they were more conforming,less likely to take risks, and frequently uncertainas to what career path to follow. As Heck (1971), Hoganand Weiss (1974), and Pemberton (1968) have suggested,high-achieving individuals tend to have a high need forapproval; they achieve because it is expected.liThe central issue is whetherlack of achievement can really beconsidered to be underament at all. "A range of studies (Calhoun, 1956; Curry, 1961; Schwitzgebel,1965) provided evidence that factors other thanintellectual abilities are associated with academic achievement.Also, as noted, an interaction exists among personalitycharacteristics, interests, and values, suggesting thatthe variables involved in academic achievement are likelyto be multiple and complex. This calls into question thereliance on indicators of mental ability as the sole predictorof academic achievement. Extremes of achievement ineither direction among students should generate concernfor professionals working with these students.The idea that a remedy exists for underachieving behaviorsreduces underachievement to the level of a disease.What this suggests is that the problem-a maladjustmentor lack of health-resides in the individual. Many studiesconcerned with underachievement have raised the issue ofpersonality disturbances or maladjustment (Grau, 1985;Mandel & Marcus, 1988; Mandel, Roth, & Berenbaum,1968; Riger, 1976; Westman & Bennett, 1985). The majorityof researchers have discussed these disturbances as influencingunderachievement. For example, an individual whois extremely anxious consequently underachieves becausethe anxiety level interferes with academic ability. However,Sattler and Neuringer (1965) maintained that the relationshipis strictly correlational and perhaps indicates that personalitydisturbance and underachievement are results ofsome other causal factor. Another possibility that seems tohave been overlooked is that personality disturbancesindicated by the literature (e.g., anxiety, hostility, difficultyinteracting with others) could possibly be a result of a student'srejection of social mores, especially those dealingwith academic achievement.The central issue is whether lack of achievement can reallybe considered underachievement at all. By defining"lack of achievement" (usually indicated by low grades) asunderachievement, researchers and educators make thestudent the failure rather than the adults who predictedhigh achievement, the limited resources, the schools andtheir policies, or even a culture's belief that academicachievement and credentials are the only key to success.This myth is easily repudiated by considering Hoyt's(1966) review of the literature relating college grades topostcollege performance. This research clearly demonstratedthat adult accomplishment, no matter how it isdefined, has little correlation to grades earned in school. Inaddition, we must consider that students who are notattaining the expected grades often appear to be more creative(Eisenmann & Platt, 1968) and to have interests thatdo not appear compatible with those currently provided inacademic settings. As Allen (1971) suggested, ''before weassign the pejorative, slightly despairing label 'underachiever'to a student, we ought to know what it is he aimsto achieve. He may, in fact, be achieving exactly what hewants, even if it is not what we want" (p. 530).In determining whether or not we want to "cure" underachievement,we need to ask ourselves if students have amoral obligation to strive for maximum academic achievementregardless of their personal interests or values. Dowe really believe that low grades are equivalent to total lifefailure and the squandering of individual opportunity forself-fulfillment? This becomes especially critical givenDreyfus' (1972) statement that "our educational system ispredicated on the achievement of external goals andgrades rather than love of learning or discovery" (p. 80).Continuing in the tradition of early research, Spence (1985)drew attention to contemporary instances of "malignantforms of achievement" in which productivity was pursuedfor its own sake, resulting in narrow self-interest or formsof achievement indifferent to the public good. Furthermore,she challenged professionals to consider that our206 .. RECLAIMING CHILDREN AND YOUTH

society, with its emphasis on individualism, may be encouragingyoung scholars to produce the superficial andflashy to make the grade or get ahead, rather than committingthemselves to larger causes. This implication,while clearly important in understanding the high-ability,low-achieving student, also clearly places these studentsand their behavior in context-as a symptom within asocial system. Our society needs to reassess its achievementvalues and educational policies.Cathann A. Kress, PhD, is heading Iowa State UniversityExtension's state initiative on youth and family violence preventionand is coordinating a National 4-H Vi' ntioncurriculum based on the Circle of Couragecontacted at: ISU Outreach Center, PO Box 2IA 52406.REFERENCESAllen, D. A. (1971). Underachievement is many-sided. Personnel & GuidanceJournal, 49, 529-532.Brown, D. R (1956). Some educational patterns. Journal of Social Issues, 7(4), 44.Brown, W. F., Abeles, N., & Iscoe, I. (1954). Motivational differences betweenhigh and low scholarship students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 45,215-223.Calhoun, S. R (1956). The effect of counseling on a group of underachievers.School Review, 64, 312-316.Cross, H. L & Allen, J. G. (1970). Ego identity status, adjustment and academicachievement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 288.Curry, R L. (1961). Certain characteristics of underachievers and overachievers.Peabody Journal of Education, 39, 41-45.Dowdall, C. B., & Colangelo, N. (1982). Underachieving gifted students: Reviewand implications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(4), 179-184.Dreyfus, E. A. (1972). Youth: Search for meaning. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Eisenmann, R., & Platt, J. J. (1968). Underachievement and creativity in highschool students. Psychology, 5(4), 52-55.Grau, P. N. (1985). Two causes of underachievement: The scapegoat phenomenonand the Peter Pan Syndrome. Gifted Child Today, 8(4), 47-50.Heck, R. A. (1971). Need for approval and its relationship to under, expectedand overachievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 32, 3688A.Hogan, R, & Weiss, D. S. (1974). Personality correlates of superior academicachievement. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21(2), 144-149.Hoyt, D. P. (1966). College grades and adult accomplishment: A review ofresearch. The Educational Record, 47, 70-75.Kipnis, D., & Resnick, J. H. (1971). Experimental prevention of underachievementamong intelligent impulsive college students. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 30(1), 53-60.Kowitz, G. T., & Armstrong, C. M. (1961). Underachievement: Concept or artifact?School & Society, 89, 347-349.Mandel, H. P., & Marcus, S. I. (1988). The psychology of underachievement:Differential diagnosis and differential treatment. New York: Wiley.Mandel, H. P., Roth, R M., & Berenbaum, H. L. (1968). Relationship betweenpersonality change and achievement change as a function of psychodiagnosis.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15, 500-505.Pemberton, C. (1968). A comparison of high ability underachievers with low abilityoverachievers. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 077 398)Propper, M. M., & Clark, E. T. (1970). Alienation: Another dimension of underachievement.Journal of Psychology, 75(1), 13-18.Riger, A. L. (1976). The male college underachiever: Differential personality patterns andtreatment programs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 141-681)Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Sattler, J. M., & Neuringer, C. (1965). Personality characteristics associated withunder and overachievement. Journal of College Student Personnel, 6(5),284-289.Schwitzgebel, R. (1965). Underachievement: A common fallacy. In M. Kornrich(Ed.), Underachievement (pp. 484-487). Springfield, IL: Thomas.Spence, J. T. (1985). Achievement American style. American Psychologist, 40(12),1285-1295.Westman, J. c., & Bennett, T. M. (1985). Learning impotence and the Peter Panfantasy. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 15, 153-166.ReleArCh ScholllrlhiplThe .DtnudJ D. lImnttIill Fo lI'IIIIAtion isMIIAniing lIP ttl foe scIJolanbip' to ItS8i#8tfUIents tlJbo reqtIi", ji'lUl1ldtJ tdJ in ctnIIp1etingthIIir tl. for IIPplielltitm mY III fllJottJs:1. The muly 'III/IUt pertain to clNmtcteruti", ser'lliees, or Ismes ",lRteti totllslllJlng cotulidtJ'IU.2. The ,t1ItItmt's tbN:torttJ committeem1l# INwe app'1'tnletl the JiuertlltionIn'OPOI4I.3. The muknt sboJtl Imve pltnu toctJmplete the struly tltWlng the1998-1!J99 .cttJemJ.c ye.r.4. The II,mQrmt rillflU*tI MntuJtexceetl $5, 000.wtite for tletllila rel4ling to the ,.". ..afor - applielltitm .form. The tletIJline forreceiving comp lsteJ IIJIPIiMtions u .M.y 29,19!J8; 1I:IHf'tls tlJill become lUIIIilMle withthe 1998-1999 fl.'Cll.tiemJ.e ye.r. Mo ney e_he wetl for litJing expense, , tJ.t.colleetion., ""ition., clerielll sertJices, or othergernuzne P";'''PtJ,es. Preforence Is giwm toIIJIPlie .. ts ",110 hIItJtI • tlistIhility or who II,reg sm.Otu foutneUd tlIstren.J. Lee WuJerholt, PmUltmtThe DontIltI D. Hmnmill Fo.1UIMio"8700 Sholll Creek BWAtuti", TeNIU 78757-68975121451-0784 • FAX 5121451-8542VOLUME 6, NUMBER 4 WINTER 1998 ... 207