This study examined differences in prosocial giving behavior of gifted and nongifted young adolescents towards five targets (a friend, disliked person, a stranger, and the participant’s father and...Show moreThis study examined differences in prosocial giving behavior of gifted and nongifted young adolescents towards five targets (a friend, disliked person, a stranger, and the participant’s father and mother), and the effects of perspective taking. 93 Dutch students between the ages of 9 and 12 were assessed using the Perspective Taking scale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and the Prosocial Donation task, a donation game in which participants divided ten coins between themselves and various targets. Findings showed that gifted young adolescents showed less prosocial giving towards their mother than nongifted young adolescents. No difference in prosocial giving behavior was found between gifted and nongifted young adolescents towards the other targets (a friend, a disliked person, a stranger, and the participant’s father). Gifted young adolescents overall donated an equal number of coins as their nongifted peers, despite differentiating differently across targets. Furthermore, participants showed more prosocial giving behavior towards friends than strangers, which supports previous findings involving prosocial giving behavior and ingroup-outgroup differentiation. Contrary to expectations, perspective taking did not have an effect on the level of prosocial giving in young adolescents – neither gifted nor nongifted, and no difference in perspective taking was found between gifted and nongifted young adolescents. These findings show that gifted young adolescents are not so dissimilar from their nongifted peers. Our results challenge false stereotypes of gifted youth as possessing characteristic social and emotional problems. This study expanded on previous research by including giftedness and examining prosocial giving behavior to parents. Future research into prosocial giving behavior of early adolescents could include even more detailed assessments of interpersonal relationships between participants and their parents.Show less
This study examined how empathy and self-concept influence giving to friends, fathers, mothers, disliked people, and strangers in gifted and non-gifted adolescents. Adolescents (N = 141, ages 9 –...Show moreThis study examined how empathy and self-concept influence giving to friends, fathers, mothers, disliked people, and strangers in gifted and non-gifted adolescents. Adolescents (N = 141, ages 9 – 12 years) from both gifted and non-gifted education played a Dictator Game in which they divided coins between themselves and one of five other targets. The Dutch versions of the Self-Perception Profile for Children and the Interpersonal Reactivity index were used to measure global self-concept, social acceptance (measures of self-concept), perspective-taking, and empathic concern (measures of empathy), respectively. The Raven Standard Progressive Matrices task was used as a measure of intelligence. We found that the number of coins that adolescents donated during the Dictator Game differed significantly between the targets (F(3, 464) = 120.32, p < .001, η 2 partial = .47). Adolescents donated most coins to their friends, father, and mother, less to an unknown person, and least to a disliked person. The number of coins adolescents gave away to the different targets did not differ significantly for gifted and non- gifted adolescents (F(3, 464) = 0.92, p = .437, η 2 partial = .01). Non-gifted adolescents showed higher levels of global self-concept and social acceptance than gifted adolescents, but they did not differ in perspective-taking and empathic concern. We found that global self-concept, social acceptance, empathic concern, and perspective-taking did not significantly mediate the relationship between giftedness and mean giving behaviour. Empathy and self-concept did not predict how many coins adolescents gave away in total. However, higher levels of perspective- taking were associated with more giving behaviour towards a disliked person (r = .18, p < .05). Overall, our findings suggest that gifted and non-gifted adolescents show similar levels of context-dependent giving behaviour, and that this is not influenced by empathy or self-concept.Show less
Self-esteem is an accumulation of cognitive and emotional self-reflections. Perfectionism and self-esteem in adolescence are associated to later life (mal)adaptive development. Whereas self...Show moreSelf-esteem is an accumulation of cognitive and emotional self-reflections. Perfectionism and self-esteem in adolescence are associated to later life (mal)adaptive development. Whereas self-oriented perfectionists (SOP) aspire to an ideal standard for themselves, socially prescribed perfectionists (SPP) experience pressure from others. While striving traits of SOP (SOP-S) are associated with healthy adjustment, critical SOP (SOP-C) and SPP tendencies have been associated with maladjustment. It remains unclear whether intellectual giftedness, a high cognitive ability level, serves as a risk factor or a protective factor for self-esteem. Nevertheless, subgroups of gifted individuals seem vulnerable to maladaptive perfectionism. Therefore, this study investigated associations between perfectionism and self-esteem through multiple linear regression. SOP-S was assumed to have a positive relationship to self-esteem, whereas SOP-C and SPP, respectively, were predicted to have a negative relationship to self-esteem. Moreover, giftedness was hypothesized to be a moderator for all three relationships. Gifted and nongifted children, ages 10 through 12, completed the Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). SOP-C was indeed negatively associated with self-esteem. Neither SOP-S or SPP appeared significantly related to self-esteem. No moderation effect of giftedness was found, suggesting a similar effect of SOP-C on self-esteem for gifted and nongifted students. The lack of associations for either SOP-S or SPP with self-esteem was not in line with past literature. The CAPS may have failed to capture the essence the SOP-S dimension and the developmental stage of participants might have influenced their experience of SPP. Future studies should include larger sample sizes and preferably additional measures of perfectionism. Multiple reporters would be beneficial.Show less
