We Can't Change What We Don't Recognize:

Understanding the Special Needs of Gifted Females

 

Sally M. Reis

The University of Connecticut

 

Abstract

 

In this article, an overview of some of the major issues, questions and problems related to gifted females will be presented. These issues include the underachievement of gifted females; creative productivity of females; male dominance in mathematics and science; cultural stereotyping, sex roles and mixed messages; lack of planning; the perfection complex and the imposter syndrome; concerns about counseling and special populations. Research related to the issues of ability, achievement, personality, social and environ­mental pressures related to gender will be briefly dis­cussed and suggestions for future research directions will be made.

 

In 1976, Heather, a sixth grade student who had spent seven months studying robotics and designing and building a life-sized robot as a part of her work in our gifted program, approached me with a disturbing observation. It seemed, she said, that the men and women who had been visiting our resource room had different comments and questions about her robot. Heather observed that the women who came to see the robot asked her about how she designed it what kind of motor she had used, how she had gotten the idea, and other questions related to the process of building the robot. The men who visited, however, seemed to con­centrate on asking one question in a rather teasing and playful way: Did you build the robot to do housework? At the time I was surprised by Heather's observation and thought she was mistaken in her conclusions. Yet, in the weeks that followed our conversation; I listened to the comments of those who visited our program and discovered that Heather's observation had been remarkably accurate. The first or second question that most male visitors, regard­less of their age, asked about the robot concerned its ability to do housework. The question that we as educators and researchers must ask is: To what degree do the socializa­tion and stereotypic experiences bright young girls have in their formative years impact upon their ability to fulfill their potential in their adult lives?

 

Few questions can be raised about whether or not the underachievement of bright women exists; the fact remains that in almost all professional fields and occupations, men overwhelmingly surpass women in both the professional accomplishments they achieve and the financial benefits they reap. Today, statistics show that women earn only 60% of men's wages and continue to receive only 60% as much Social Security benefits. It may be argued that these facts alone are not an adequate measurement of female under­achievement; however, it is important to recognize that many gifted women look back at what they perceive as lost opportunities (Sears & Barbee, 1977; Goleman, 1980 a & b; White, 1984). If female underachievement is best measured by the many older women in our society who look back at their lives with feelings of regret and missed opportunities and say: "I might have but..." or "I could have if..." or "I never had time to...", it then becomes our responsibility to help future generations of females before it is too late.

 

In this article, an overview of some major issues, questions, and problems related to gifted females will be presented. Research related to the issues of ability, achievement, per­sonality, social and environmental pressures, and gender will be discussed. After these issues are presented, sug­gestions will be made for new research to help females both recognize and realize their potential.

 

Underachievement of Gifted Females

 

What is meant by underachievement of gifted females and at what age does it surface? The answer to these questions is important if we are to understand the disparity between male and female achievement and if our efforts to improve the situation are to be successful.

 

The definition of underachievement will vary with the age of the person being considered. For example, underachieve­ment in young girls may best be described as failing to do as well as might be expected in school. Sex differences in underachievement have been found to first emerge in sixth grade or in junior or senior high school. According to Shaw & McCuen (1960), females differed from male underachievers who demonstrated a significant pattern of underachievement from first grade through high school. Fitzpatrick (1978) also found that the underachievement of females appears after puberty and that underachieving secondary students have grades that are equal or superior to those of later achievers in their elementary school years.

 

In more recent work, Stockard & Wood ( 1984) challenge what they term ". . . the myth of female underachieve­ment..." (p. 825). In data gathered from students" cumulative secondary records (7-12th grades), they found that males were more likely than females to have total averages and grades in both English and mathematics that were lower than might be predicted by their scores on standardized tests of ability. However, since females receive higher grades than males throughout elementary school, high school, and college (Achenbach, 1970; Coleman, 1961; Davis, 1964), it might be argued that grades in school should not be equated with underachievement as has been suggested in these studies; for even though females receive higher grades throughout school, their adult professional productivity is lower. Stockard and Wood conclude from the results of their research, as well as other studies (Alexander & Ecklund, 1974, p. 679; Hauser, 1971, p. 110) ". . . that achievement, as measured by grades, must be seen as distinct from achievement measured by educational and occupational aspirations and attainment, and supports the contention that school achievement may well be perceived as an area where it is appropriate for females to excel . . ." (p. 835).

 

The underachievement of adult women, then, is a totally different concept than underachievement of younger women for it defies measurement by the grades one achieves in school. We might consider it in comparison with male standards of profession, status, career related accomplishments, satisfaction and productivity, or it may be that we have to reexamine the concept of underachievement of bright women who do not achieve similar professional accomplishments as their male counterparts. The realization of giftedness in women may need to be redefined to include the nurturance of one's children and family, the success of being an outstanding teacher or the joy of accomplishment from the pursuit of a career that still allows time for a satisfying personal life. However, every attempt must be made to help bright young females realize the myriad of choices and options available to them and to provide the advice and support they need to realize their potential in an area of their own choice. It then becomes our responsibility to work with bright young females and monitor their progress to watch for signs of underachievement in their school experiences. If they begin to consciously refrain from doing their best work because of fears of being rejected socially (Homer, 1972; Lavach & Lanier, 1975; Stockard, 1980), counseling and support from parents and teachers can help to change the situation before it is too late. We must keep in mind that underachievement of gifted females is often not reflected in grades or how well one "goes to school" but rather, in what a person believes can be attained or accomplished in life.

 

Creative Productivity of Females

 

"Men professors produce more creative work in the form of research publication and books than women professors" (Groth, 1975, p. 334). Callahan (1979) observed "...that girls earn higher grades in school, yet men write more books, earn more degrees, produce more works of art, and make more contributions in all professional fields" (p. 402). The lack of adult creative productivity in females has been noted in various research studies. Even in areas such as literature, where both sexes believe that females excel, men are more productive. A recent National Endowment for the Arts list of 100 recipients for Fellowships in Literature included only 30% women.

 

One of the major reasons that males are demonstrating more creative productivity may simply be that they have more time for their work and less home-related duties and outlets. Many extremely bright women who assume the primary responsibility for domestic chores or who are single parents demonstrate their own creativity in ways related to their family‑ or home: in the Halloween costumes they design for their children, the way they decorate their homes, the meals they prepare, the errands they run, and even the clothes that they make. Because women still assume the primary responsibility as family nurturer and caretaker, many creative energies are directly channeled into the family and home while their spouse's creative energy is free to be directly applied to his work.

 

Women who work within or outside of the home, or who are married or single parents may simply not have the time to be creative producers. Some of the counseling techniques that are recommended for bright girls to encourage them to learn the techniques of being "Queen Bees" (Staines, Tavris & Jayaratne, 1974) from adult mentors may need to be examined. The "Queen Bee Syndrome" describes a woman who is able to succeed like a male in work related activities while simultaneously maintaining her femininity and succeeding as a mother and wife. A reexamination of those older role models may be necessary because many highly productive women classified as high achievers exist by puffing out maximum energy at all times, trying to do everything and do it well. It is not enough that they attempt to be outstanding in their work; their perfection complex also causes them to strive for a Jane Fonda body, a house that could be on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens, and perfect children. They wear themselves out trying to do everything well, often with minimal help from their spouses, and yet still feel plagued by guilt that they may not have given their husbands, children, home, and career enough time, care, and attention.

 

The answer to this dilemma, of course, lies in the education of men to assume an equal partnership in a relationship to enable women to be freed from some of their responsibilities and given the same kind of opportunities as men have. Until this occurs, however, teaching young gifted females to be Queen Bees may be a disservice to them. Instead, we may be better off to teach them that it is impossible to be perfect in everything we do so that we may not be able to do everything well, and that choices about careers, marriage, and children will have to be made.

 

Male Dominance in Mathematics and Science

 

When Barbara McClintock won the Nobel Prize for Science in 1983, she was only the fifth woman to receive this award in the 80 years since it was established (Dembart, 1984). According to recent statistics compiled by the National Science Foundation, the number of women and minorities pursuing scientific careers has increased in the last fifteen years. Between 1972 and 1982, the number of women scientists and engineers increased 200%. However, of the nearly 2 million American engineers, only 3.5% are women and of the 225,000 physical scientists, only 12% are women (Dembart, 1984). Similar trends are apparent in mathematics.  Research about the decline in both mathematics and scientific ability of females has been well reported and has caused considerable controversy (Fennema, 1974; Fennema & Sherman, 1977; MacCoby & Jacklin, 1974). Most notable is the attention given to an article (Benbow and Stanley, 1980) which attributes higher math scores of boys to endogenous variables rather than social factors. The controversy that has erupted from that article has produced both speculation and further research. Pallas & Alexander (1983) have suggested that females need to be encouraged to pursue advanced course work in math and science in high school in order to overcome their deficiencies. Concerns about the advice young women receive from guidance counselors, parents, and teachers have been noted in previous articles related to gifted females (Callahan, 1979; Casserly, 1975; Fitzgerald & Crites, 1980). The Benbow and Stanley research may lead some counselors and teachers to conclude that females are inferior in mathematics and science. The following letter from a parent emphasizes an attitude problem that may be more prevalent in our country than any of us realize:

 

My daughter, an honors student who was later admitted to the biology honors program at The University of Connecticut, was experiencing difficulty in an Honors Physics class of 10 students. Only two girls were in the class and when I contacted her teacher (a male), he threw up his hands and told me that girls were never good at physics! I wonder if part of the problem might have been his attitude and kick of understanding?

 

O'Keefe, D. Personal Communication July 25, 1985.

 

There are still no definitive answers to the question of why men outperform women in mathematics and science. Thus, a proper concern for equity dictates maximum efforts be made to help men and women (boy and girls also) achieve to the highest levels possible.

 

Factors Contributing to Underachievement

 

Cultural Stereotyping, Sex Roles and Mixed Messages

 

Sexual stereotyping regarding females exists throughout our society; one need only glance at a magazine, turn on a television, or read some popular children's books to be reminded of the differences in cultural expectations for males and females. The September, 1985 edition of Psychology Today, for example, features an advertisement on the back cover depicting a man using a telescope (caption . . . he likes the planets.) and a woman reading a book about Hollywood (caption...she likes the stars.). This stereotyping delivers powerful messages to bright young females about their role in life, their own importance, and their worth as a person (Callahan, 1979; Pogrebin, 1980; Schwartz, 1980). Bright young girls are often caught in a bind between their intelligence and their sex (Rodenstein, Pfleger & Colangelo, 1977; & Schwartz, 1980). For example, an eager, questioning mind may cause a bright student to call out in class, to debate, to argue, to ask questions. A young boy who does this may be labeled precocious while a bright young girl who asks too many questions may be labeled obnoxious, aggressive, or even unfeminine.

 

In a recent study, Myra and David Sadker (1985) found that boys vocally dominate the classroom. In more than a hundred fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classes in four states and the District of Columbia, they found that boys get more attention and encouragement than do girls. "We found that at all grade levels, in all communities, and in all subject areas, boys dominated classroom communication" (pp. 54, 56). The Sadker research also demonstrated that teachers behaved differently when boys or girls called out in class without raising their hand. When boys answered without being called on, teachers accepted their answers; the same behavior from girls, however, resulted in negative responses about raising their hands. The Sadkers believe that their research indicates a subtle but powerful message for girls: "Boys should be academically assertive and grab teacher attention; girls should act like ladies and keep quiet" (p. 56). Being eager and assertive in the questions that one may want to ask in school may also contrast sharply with the polite manners parents expect from their daughters. This confusion about appropriate behavior and the mixed messages received from parents and peers is best described in a letter written by a nineteen-year-old female who attended a workshop on the problems faced by gifted females:

 

Caught in the double-blind of being labeled gifted, being told I can do anything, being treasured as a bright young person, and at the same time being told not to compete, not to try to "run with the guys ' not to show off, to "be a lady," l spent many years and much invaluable energy in the psychic bind of the gifted girl. Even now, although the circumstances have changed (after all, I am in college!), I still fight the same old battles of outside expectations, awkward roles, and self-sabotage. Just seeing that there are actually people thinking about these issues was enormously supportive for me, and here, too, I thank you for the doors you opened.

 

Brush, L., Personal Communication September 2, 1982.

 

Current research indicates that girls are treated differently in classrooms in college as well as elementary and secondary school (Schmidt, 1982) Bright females with many questions and ideas suffer perhaps more than any other group in the mixed messages they receive from their parents, teachers, and peers. Counseling for parents and students and the support that may be received in gifted programs may help to alleviate these mixed messages (Bardwick, 1972; Callahan, 1979; Rodenstein, Pfleger & Colangelo, 1977; Stein & Bailey, 1973).

 

Fear of Success

 

The fear of success syndrome first introduced by Homer (1972), is believed by many researchers to be another key factor in understanding the problems facing bright women. Fear of success may cause some females to believe that they may be rejected by their peers or appear undesirable to the opposite sex if they are too competent or successful (Homer, 1972; Lavach & Lanier, 1975). Counseling work with adolescent gifted females has demonstrated that some do hold back from answering in class for fear that their peers and prospective boyfriends may think that they are "too smart." Fear of success may lead to a change in confidence in one's ability that can have devastating effects if it occurs during college or graduate school. Although more current research suggests that fear of success can be eliminated with age and experience, (Birnbaum, 1975; Hoffman, 1977) preliminary findings in a study of high school valedictorians found that female students, who had done Well in high school, lose confidence in their ability after a few years of college (Arnold & Denny, 1985). The effects of this loss of self-confidence can influence the rest of a young woman's life if it causes changes in college plans or goals for graduate study.

 

Lack of Planning

 

Another issue that has emerged in counseling and has been reported in the literature (Wolleat, 1979) is the inability of many bright young females to plan for the future in a realistic way. Many bright young females ignore or are unaware of the economic realities of womens' lives and the fact that most of them will have to work their entire lives to support themselves and/or their families. Many young females believe that someone will come along who will take care of them and support them and consequently never even consider long-term planning for a career or the financial implications of their choices. Males, on the other hand, grow up realizing that they must plan for a lifetime career and, accordingly, make better choices and select more appropriate long range goals. Because women do not learn to plan, they often have not thought about how they can juggle a marriage, a career, family, and/or graduate school. Some bright young women have totally unrealistic views of how they can go through college, graduate school, and then interrupt their career to be married and have children without realizing what this can do to chances of advancement in their professional lives Could a bright young male executive interrupt his newly developing career for seven or eight years without serious ramifications? Females need to be aware of these consequences and encouraged at an early age through counseling to begin planning their education and considering careers will allow them to flourish both professionally and personally.

 

The Perfection Complex and the Imposter Syndrome

 

In working with gifted young females during the last ten years, some issues have emerged that seem to be factors in the realization of potential. One issue related to the problems faced by gifted females is a personality trait that might be labeled the "perfection complex." Many bright young females believe that they must be perfect in everything they attempt to do. Accordingly, they invest considerable energy in trying to be the best athlete, the best dancer, the best scholar, the best friend, and the best daughter. Additionally, bright young girls often feel that they must also be slender, beautiful, and popular. The perfection complex causes them to set unreasonable goals for themselves and to constantly strive to achieve at ever higher levels. The fascinating anomaly of this perfection complex occurs when high levels of success have been achieved by females and has been labeled "the Great Imposter Syndrome" (Clance, 1985; Machlowitz, 1982; Warschaw, 1985). This syndrome describes what may be interpreted as an extremely low sense of self‑esteem and occurs when females attribute their success to factors other than their own efforts and see their outward image as a bright successful achiever as being undeserved or accidental. "I was lucky, I was in the right place at the right time, I really didn't do as well as it seems, I had a lot of help" are all statements that females may make when they are complimented on their success. This reaction to success does not seem to affect males to the same degree. In short, bright young males seem to attribute their achievements to their own efforts, while girls attribute their accomplishments to external forces and not to themselves (Parsons, Ruble, Hodges, & Small, 1976; Deaux & Emswiller, 1974).

 

Concerns About Counseling

 

The last issue related to bright young women that should be considered by those who work in the field of gifted education is the kind of counseling used to encourage them to pursue advanced course work, graduate school, and fulfilling professional lives. Without making any value judgements, we must realize that a demanding professional career will undoubtedly result in choices having to be made. As Carol Gilligan so sensitively points out in her book, In a Different Voice (1982), the value systems of women are different. If, as Gilligan believes, women view moral concerns in terms of interpersonal relationships and responsibilities to others, they may have a difficult, if not impossible, time putting their own needs in front of the needs of those they care about. The different voice that Gilligan discusses lies in an ethic of caring and a tie between relationship and responsibility.

 

Gilligan's cogent observations should have an impact on anyone doing counseling work with bright young women.  Until men begin to assume a partnership approach to relationships, encouraging young females to pursue demanding careers may, to some extent, discourage them from marriage and motherhood or cause them to feel constantly guilty about their work and its effect on their home life. Any counseling work should include a discussion of options and a consideration of balance; young women should be encouraged to think about what is important to them and to realize that a possibility exists for combining what they value with a meaningful career. At the same time, they should also realize that it may not be possible to combine some professional careers with a happy marriage, the raising of children, and the care of a home and family. If the ethic of caring that Gilligan describes is so important to women, the way we view female "giftedness" may have to be expanded beyond an assessment of womens' professional accomplishments.

 

Special Populations

 

Underlying the problem of achievement of gifted females are certain cultural and environmental factors that are overwhelming influences in their lives. Without a doubt, these cultural and environmental influences can be positive; women who complete a doctorate are more apt to come from higher socioeconomic homes and have professional or successful executive parents (Anastasi & Schaefer, 1969; Astin, Suniewick & Dweck, 1974; Gysbers, Johnston, Gust, 1975; as cited in Groth, 1975). Higher socioeconomic status may not only result in financial capacity to send a daughter to college and graduate school, but also in the encouragement, expectation, and counseling that parents provide to help their daughters gain the independence and self-confidence necessary to leave home and attend college. This encouragement and counseling may be less prevalent in lower socioeconomic families where parents do not have the experience of having attended college themselves or the knowledge to help their daughters examine scholarship opportunities or loan applications.

 

We cannot measure the lost potential of gifted females without calling special attention to the problems of disadvantaged, minority females. How many Black, native American, or Hispanic girls have the potential to become scientists, writers, artists, or musicians, but will not because they never believe it to be within their reach? We must acknowledge that escaping poverty and ignorance to meet one's potential is difficult enough for males who expect to have a lifetime of work. Females who are expected to care for brothers and sisters, cook the family's meals, keep the house clean, marry young and have children of their own, may lose the opportunity for a different future. Therefore, intervention and counseling strategies should be provided for minority, disadvantaged, and special population gifted females at an early age to help them explore their options and make a choice that will reflect their interests and talents.

 

Current Research and Future Research Directions

 

Although research related to gifted females is more prevalent than it was a decade ago, it is certainly not being carried on to the degree that it might. As Callahan (1979) has stated, "Underlying the problems of achievement and motivation of gifted and talented females lie hypotheses yet to be tested and perhaps untestable in the experimental tradition" (p. 412). A major concern related to research in the area is lack of control over the environmental and societal factors that influence young girls. "Until cultural or environmental factors are altered considerably to neutralize the potential effects, there will be no way of asserting how great that impact is" (p. 412) (Callahan, 1979). Since we will not be able to radically change the cultural or environmental factors in our society within the next few years, research related to gifted females should be concentrated in three areas.

 

The first area is the identification of the degree that cultural, societal, and environmental factors impact upon the educational experiences of students and how the impact, if negative, can be controlled. For example, the Sadker (1985) research on sexism in schools in the 80's included a treatment involving sixty teachers from the study who received four days of training to establish equity in classroom interactions. The Sadkers found that teachers who received the training succeeded in eliminating classroom bias as well as improving overall teaching effectiveness, and enabling teachers to initiate a higher level of intellectual discussion. A similar type of research questioned the socialization explanations for sex differences in mathematical performance (Pallas & Alexander, 1983) and found that SAT math performance differs considerably when sex differences in quantitative high school coursework are controlled. The Pallas & Alexander research suggests that increasing females' enrollment in advanced math courses would reduce differences in SAT math performance. Since this research suggests that experience and socialization have an impact upon performance, it also clarifies the need for research in which these factors can be controlled by the school experiences we provide.

 

The second area of research currently being considered relates to the internal barriers experienced by females that might have an impact on their ability to realize their potential. These personality and socialization factors include: self‑esteem, efficacy, locus of control, fear of success, underachievement, and others Research of this type has been conducted by Hollinger and Fleming (1984), who studied the effects of the internal barriers of underachievement, non-assertiveness, fear of success, social competence, and self-esteem on the realization of potential, and Kramer (1985) who studied the effects of social interactions and perception of ability. In both of these studies, no treatment was offered to assist the subjects in overcoming their internal barriers If a counseling program had been initiated, successful female role models introduced, and teacher/ counselor/parent training provided, results of the posttreatment analysis might have yielded different findings. One problem with research on high school age females which is not longitudinal is that differences in motivation, fear of success, and other personality variables, may not surface until college years.

 

The third type of research relates to longitudinal/developmental studies of both females and males. This type of research is, of course, influenced by the societal changes that may result in the emergence of a culture that differs from the beginning to the ending years of the study. Longitudinal research can provide valuable information related to the time in life at which various blocks to achievement occur.

 

Future efforts in research should concentrate on treatments that can alleviate the problems that have been identified by prior research. In order to provide a gauge by which we can measure the impact of the women's movement and history upon societal changes, research on the different social and emotional development of gifted females and males should continue. For example, a recent study (Leroux, 1985) conducted with 60 grade twelve students in Ontario found differences in reaming, social interactions, career aspiration, and self-image between gifted males and females. This research also indicates that females still believe males are more capable in mathematics and science, and males perceive females as more capable in English and literature. This points to the need for even more counseling in this area.

 

Longitudinal research is also needed on the effect of single‑ sex advanced math and science classes coupled with counseling and the presence of female role models over a prolonged period of time. If, as Fox (1977) has determined, young girls do better in math if they have a female teacher and are in predominately female classes, we need to examine what effects an early and prolonged program of that kind might have on both the ability scores and the pursuit of scientific and mathematical careers. This type of intervention might also be extremely beneficial for minority or disadvantaged females.

 

Qualitative research relating to the attributes of women who have achieved is also needed. If we can identify the personalty and societal factors that enabled women to become successful, we can share this information with parents and educators and provide the advice, guidance, and insights needed for young females to successfully embark upon their road to self-fulfillment.

 

No doubt exists that research on the abilities of females has made progress from the Victorian age when scientists argued that if women used their brains excessively, they would impair their fertility by draining off blood cells needed to support their menstrual cycle (Newsweek, 1981). However, until young women have the same opportunities to grow, flourish, and achieve without the sexual stereotypes and negative influences reported in the literature, more research must be conducted to determine how we can make schools, homes, and society in general, more sympathetic to and supportive of the special problems faced by gifted females.

 

References

 

Achenbach, T. M. (1970). Standardization of a research instrument for identifying associative responding in children. Developmental Psychology, 2, 283 29L

 

Alexander, K. L,& Ecklund, B. K. (1974). Sex differences in the educational attainment process. American Sociological Review, 39, 668 682.

 

Anastasi, A., & Schaefer, C. (1969). Biographical correlates of artistic and literary creativity in adolescent girls. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(4), 267 278.

 

Astin, H., Suniewick, N., & Dweck, S. (1974). Women: A bibliography on their education and careers. New York: Behavioral Publications, Inc.

 

Bardwick, J. M. (Ed.). (1972). Readings on the psychology of women. New York: Harper & Row.

 

Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262-1264.

 

Birnbaum, J. A. (1975). Life patterns and self-esteem in gifted family oriented and career committed women. In M. T. S. Mednick, S. S. Tangri, & L. W. Hoffman(Eds.), Women and achievement (pp. 396 419). New York: John Wiley.

 

Brush, L (September 2,1982). Personal Communication.

 

Callahan, C. M. (1979). The gifted and talented woman. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented (pp. 401-423). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education.

 

Casserly, P. L. (1975). An assessment of factors affecting female participation in advanced placement programs in mathematics, chemistry, and physics. Report of National Science Foundation. (Grant GY-11325). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

 

Coleman, J. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press.

 

Clance, P. R. (1985). The imposter phenomenon. New Woman, 15(7), 40-43.

 

I Davis, J. A. (1964). Great aspirations: The school plans of American's college seniors. Chicago: Aldine.

 

Deaux, K., & Emswiller, T. ( 1974). Explanations of successful performance e in sex linked tasks: What's skill for the male is luck for the female. Journal of Personalty and Social Psychology, 29, 80-85.

 

Dembart, L. (1984, March 7). Science: Social and cultural factors limit women's job opportunities. Los Angeles Times, p. 2.

 

Fennema, E. (1974). Mathematics learning and the sexes: A review. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5, 126-139.

 

Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. (1977). Sex related differences in mathematics achievement spatial visualization and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51-71.

 

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Crites, J. O. (1980). Toward a career psychology of women: What do we know? What do we need to know? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 44-42.

 

Fitzpatrick, J. L. (1978). Academic underachievement, other-direction, and attitudes toward women's roles in bright adolescent females. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 645-650.

 

Fox, L. H. (1977). Sex differences: Implications hr program planning for the academically gifted. In J. C. Stanley, W. C. George, & C. H. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty year perspective (pp. 113-138). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University.

 

Goleman, D. (1980a, February). Still learning from Terman's children. Psychology Today, 13(9), 44-53.

 

Goleman, D. (1980b, February). 1,528 little geniuses and how they grew. Psychology Today, 13(9), 28-43.

 

Groth, N. J. (1975). Success and creativity in male and female professors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 328-335.

 

Gysbers, M., Johnston, J, & Gust, T. (1968). Characteristics of homemaker and career-oriented women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 15(6), 541-546.

 

Hauser, R. M. (1971). Socioeconomic background and educational performance. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

 

Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1984). Internal barriers to the realization of potential correlates and inter relationships among gifted and talented female adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 135-139.

 

Hoffman, L. W. (1977). Fear of success in 1955 and 1974:  A follow-up study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 310‑32L

 

Harper, M. S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157-175.

 

Just how the sexes differ. (1981, May 18). Newsweek, p. 72-83.

 

Kramer, L. R. (1985). Social interaction and perceptions of ability: A study of gifted adolescent females. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, Illinois.

 

Lavach, J. F., & Lanier, H. B. (1975). The motive to avoid success in 7th 8th, 9th, and 10th grade high achieving girls.  The Journal of Educational Research, 68, 216-218.

 

Leroux, J. A. (1985). Gender differences influencing gifted adolescents: An ethnographic study of cultural expectations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

 

Machlowitz, M. (1982). The great imposters. Working Women, 7(2),97‑98.

 

Maccoby, E. E.,& Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

 

O'Keefe, D. (July 25, 1985). Personal Communication.

 

Pallas, A. M., & Alexander, K. L. (1983). Sex differences in quantitative SAT performance: New evidence on the differential coursework hypothesis. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 165‑182

 

Parsons, J. E., Ruble, D. N., Hodges, K. L., & Small, A. (1976) Cognitive developmental factors in emerging sex differences in achievement related expectancies. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 47-61.

 

Pogrebin, L. C. (1980). Dear old sexist days: The fourth 'r is role-playing. In Growing up free: Raising your child in the 80's (pp. 491-518). New York: McGraw Hill.

 

Rodenstein, J., Pfleger, L., & Colangelo, N. (1977). Career development needs of the gifted: Special consideration for gifted women. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 340-347.

 

Sadker, M & D. (1985). Sexism in the schoolroom of the 80's. Psychology Today, 19(3), 54-57.

 

Schmidt, P. J (1982). Sexist schooling. Working Women, 7(10), 101-102.

 

Schwartz, L. L. (1980). Advocacy for the neglected gifted: Females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 113-117.

 

Sears, P. S., & Barbee, A. H. (1977). Career and life satisfactions among Terman's gifted women. In J. S. Stanley, W. C. George, & C. H. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty year perspective (pp. 28-65). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

 

Shaw, M. C., & McCuen, J. T. (1960). The onset of academic under achievement in bright children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 103-108

 

Staines, G, Tavris, C, & Jayaratne, C (1974). The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7, 55-60

 

Stein, A. H., & Bailey, M. M. (1973). The socialization of achievement orientation in females. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 345-366.

 

Stockard, J. (1980). Why sex in equalities exist for students. In J. Stockard, P A. Schmuck, K. Kempner, P. Williams, S. K. Edson, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Sex equality in education. New York: Academic Press.

 

Stockard, J., & Wood, J. W. (1984). The myth of female underachievement: A reexamination of sex differences in academic underachievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 825-838.

 

Tobias, S. (1982). Sexist quotations. Psychology Today, 16(1), 14-17.

 

Warschaw, T. (1985). The "I-don't-deserve-it" syndrome. New Women, 15(4), 134-137.

 

White, W. L. (1984). The perceived effects of an early enrichment experience: A forty year follow-up study of the Speeder School experiment for gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

 

Wolleat, P. L. (1979). Guiding the career development of gifted females. In N. Colangelo & R. T. Zaffran (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.