See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227200812

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students: Theory, Factors, and

Cultural Expectations

Chapter · January 2009

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_25

CITATIONS

5READS

274

2 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Big Five Personality Traits as Predictors of Academic Achievement in Gifted Students: Mediation by Self-Regulatory Efficacy and Academic Motivation View project

Tracy L. Cross

College of William and Mary

102 PUBLICATIONS   1,331 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Tracy L. Cross on 23 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter 25

Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students: Theory,Factors, and Cultural Expectations

Laurie A. Hyatt and Tracy L. Cross

Abstract The dramatic increase in the rate of youthsuicide in the United States, including suicide amonggifted adolescents, emphasizes the need for more re-search in this area. The literature on suicide amonggifted adolescents is examined following a review ofthe literature on the incidence and causes of suicidein the general population. The literature on the possi-ble vulnerability to suicide among gifted adolescents isexplored through a focus on the social and emotionalissues faced by gifted adolescent males and females.An examination of the literature on the proneness ofgifted adolescents to suicide highlights the difficultiesin obtaining conclusive results. More research on thepossible correlations between the unique difficultiesexperienced by gifted youth and a propensity for sui-cide is needed.

Keywords Suicide · Suicide rates · Gifted · Giftedadolescents · Proneness to suicide · Vulnerability tosuicide · Theories of suicide

Introduction

Suicide has been a focus of research for sociol-ogists, psychologists, educators, and others whohave been interested in the incidence and etiologyof this self-destructive act. The French sociologist,Emile Durkheim, drew attention to suicide when hequantified demographic data among populations in hisbook, Le Suicide (1897, 1951). Quantitative research

L.A. Hyatt (B)University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USAe-mail: laurie01@uga.edu

on suicide has included statistics on the incidence ofsuicide completions, including the numbers of suicidecompletions in the United States by age group peryear (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006).Specific demographic data concerning methods,seasonal occurrence, and the most frequent time ofday that suicide has occurred in the United Stateshave been documented (Berman & Jobes, 1991). Thedramatically increasing suicide rate among the youngin the United States, as noted by some researchers(Cross, Gust-Brey, & Ball, 2002; Delisle, 1986), hasbrought the topic to the forefront of the Americanpublic’s awareness again.

In addition to interest in demographic and statisticaldata, the search for causes of suicide has led someresearchers to develop multicausal theories (Shneid-man, 1985: Stillion & McDowell, 1996). Individualfactors such as anger (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996), per-fectionism (Delisle, 1986), and social isolation (Kaiser& Berndt, 1985) have been noted. Other possibleinfluences on the increasing rate of suicide amongthe young include negative effects of media such astelevision and video games (Irwin & Gross, 1995;Mishara, 1999).

Noting that exceptionally talented young peopleseem to have unique social and emotional issuesand needs, some researchers have analyzed surveysand interview data in order to understand the par-ticular challenges of gifted adolescents (Kerr, 1994;Lovecky, 1993; Roeper, 1995). Whether or not giftedindividuals are more prone to complete suicide thanthose of average abilities has been another area ofinterest (Delisle, 1986; Kerr, 1991; Neihart, 1998).Research studies have not resulted in a deep under-standing of the motivating factors in suicide amonggifted adolescents (Gust-Brey & Cross, 1998).

L.V. Shavinina (ed.), International Handbook on Giftedness, 537DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 25, c© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

538 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

We begin this chapter with a review of the liter-ature on suicide in the general population, includingstatistical data on rates of suicide and literature con-cerning the causes of suicide, including two currentlyrecognized multicausal theories. Next, an overview ofthe research concerning the social and emotional chal-lenges faced by gifted adolescents is included becauseit seems that an inability to meet those challenges has,in some cases, led to suicide. Finally, literature address-ing the question of proneness to suicide among giftedyoung people will be reviewed as few studies have ad-dressed these particular vulnerabilities of gifted ado-lescents.

Suicide in the General Population

Demographic and Statistical Data

Most of the research that has been conducted onsuicide in the United States has dealt with generalizedconcerns about suicide. Journals such as Suicide andLife Threatening Behavior and associations suchasThe American Association of Suicidology have beencreated in response to a concern about the incidenceof suicide. Suicide among adolescents has been arather recent concern. Much research has addressedthe dramatically increasing suicide rate among theyoung, but few have focused their research on thepossible reasons that might explain why young peopletake their lives. No studies were found that could giveconclusive evidence that would lead to prediction andprevention.

In 2004, the most recent year for which final datawere available, suicide was the third leading cause ofdeath for those aged 15–24 years (following uninten-tional injuries and homicide), and the sixth leadingcause of death for those aged 5–14 years (NationalCenter for Health Statistics, 2006). Although the av-erage rate of suicide has remained fairly stable since1955 (10–12/100,000), the suicide rate in the youngerage groups has tripled (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996; Jami-son, 1999). Even more alarming is the possibility thatmany reported “accidents” might have, in fact, beensuicides that were not reported as such for personalor insurance reasons (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996; Pfef-fer, 1986). At least 10% of young people attempt sui-

cide (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996; National Center forHealth Statistics, 2006). Teens attempt suicide 10 timesmore frequently than adults (Maine, Shute, & Mar-tin, 2001). There were 31,484 deaths by suicide in 2003and 32,439 deaths by suicide in 2004 in the UnitedStates for all age groups combined (National Centerfor Health Statistics, 2006).

The statistical data that are available through the na-tional records on vital statistics validate the concernabout suicide rates among the young. For example,of the 32,439 completed suicides in the United Statesin 2004, those among young people aged 5–14 yearsnumbered 285 and completed suicides among youngpeople aged 15–24 years numbered 4,319 (NationalCenter for Health Statistics, 2006). Obtaining statisticson adolescent suicide was more difficult prior to 1995because the records were compiled in the age ranges of5–14 and 15–24 years rather than by specific chrono-logical ages by year or even in 10-year increments.New tables are beginning to list the age ranges 15–19and 20–24 years as well as the previous 15–24 years.This change will make it easier to figure suicide ratesduring adolescence, a period which is usually thoughtto include ages 10–19 years.

When completed suicides were viewed along a dis-tribution of school levels at the time of the completionof suicide, 3% occurred while in elementary school,11% while in secondary school, and 17% while incollege (Maine, Shute, & Martin, 2001). Ten percentof “normal” children, or children with no psychiatricdiagnosis such as major depression, report suicidalideation, according to Pfeffer (1986). Two studies ofAmerican high school students confirmed that suici-dal ideation was not uncommon. More than 15% ofNew York high school students reported that they had“thought about killing themselves” and 20% of Oregonhigh school students also described suicidal ideation(Jamison, 1999).

Looking at US statistics, we can examine thesuicide rate by race and gender in addition to age.In 2004, White males had the highest suicide rate(19.6/100,000), followed by American Indiansand Alaskan natives (12.9/100,000), Black males(9.0/100,000), Asian/Pacific islanders (5.6/100,000),and Hispanics (5.3/100,000) (National Center forHealth Statistics, 2006). There was an increase inthe rate of suicide among Black males aged 15–24years from 4.9/100,000 in 1950 to 14.2/100,000 in2000 (Maris, Berman, & Silverman, 2000; National

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 539

Center for Health Statistics, 2004). American malesexceed females by four to one in suicide completions,although females make more nonlethal attempts, oftenby taking an overdose of barbiturates (Maris, Berman,& Silverman, 2000). More males complete suicidelargely because they use more lethal means, suchas firearms. Guns were used in 51.6% of completedsuicides in the United States in 2004, followed by22.6% by suffocation/hanging, 17% by poisoning,1.8% by cutting, and 11.1% by drowning (NationalCenter for Health Statistics, 2006).

There was a 240% increase in the rate of sui-cide among young people from 1955 to 1995 (seeTable 25.1).

This table is a compilation that we made from manylists of mortality statistics available online from theNational Center for Health Statistics. After a slightdecline in 1999, suicide rates among the young haveoscillated between 0.6 and 0.7 per 100,000 population.The rate among ages 5–14, 15–24, 25–34 years, and,to a degree, 35–44 years rose through 1995, while therates for those over age 45 years decreased. Youngerchildren are completing suicide at unacceptablyhigh rates. Many have noted the increased rate ofsuicide among adolescents (Dixon & Scheckel, 1996;Jamison, 1999; Gust-Bey & Cross, 1998; Maris,Berman, & Silverman, 2000). The reasons for thechanges and the effectiveness of prevention strategieswere unclear (National Center for Health Statistics,2004).

Suicides in the United States have occurred mostoften in the spring in the months of March, April,May, and June. Suicides were usually completed onMondays and least often on the weekends (Berman &Jobes, 1991). They have usually occurred in the late af-ternoon or evening. The home has been the site of mostsuicides (National Center for Health Statistics, 2006;Berman & Jobes, 1991).

Literature on the Causes and WarningSigns of Suicide

Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, pointed out thatsuicide must be considered in cultural and historicalcontexts (Durkheim, 1897/1951). Rather than viewingsuicide as a sin or as something either to be reveredor judged, Durkheim noted the differences in rates ofsuicides in many cultures and countries and attemptedto provide explanations for those differences. His con-clusion was that suicide occurs more frequently in so-cieties where people feel isolated, alone, and with nosense of community.

Others have posited alternative reasons for the in-crease in suicide rates among the young. Lester (1999)stated that adolescents have “no meaningful rites ofpassage and few wise elders or mentors to shepherdthem” (p. 587). Hopelessness, sadness, and angermight be felt by many due to family conflicts and a

Table 25.1 Rates of suicide in the United States per 100,000 population

Age range

Year 5–14 15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75–84 85+ All ages

1955 0.1 4.1 8.4 12.3 19.6 24.8 25.0 27.5 27.9 10.21965 0.3 6.2 12.2 16.7 20.9 23.7 21.2 24.7 24.2 11.11975 0.4 11.7 16.1 17.4 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.7 18.6 12.61985 0.8 12.8 15.3 14.6 15.7 16.8 18.7 23.9 19.4 12.41995 0.9 13.3 15.4 15.2 14.6 13.3 15.8 20.7 21.6 11.91996 0.8 12.0 14.5 15.5 14.9 13.7 15.0 20.0 20.2 11.61997 0.8 11.4 14.3 15.3 14.7 13.5 14.4 19.3 20.8 11.41998 0.8 11.1 13.8 15.4 14.8 13.1 14.1 19.7 21.0 11.31999 0.6 10.3 13.5 14.4 14.2 12.4 13.6 18.3 19.2 10.72000 0.7 10.2 13.4 14.5 14.4 12.1 12.5 17.6 19.6 10.72001 0.7 9.9 12.8 14.7 15.2 13.1 13.3 17.4 17.5 10.82002 0.6 9.9 12.6 15.3 15.7 13.6 13.5 17.7 18.0 11.02003 0.6 9.7 12.7 14.9 15.9 13.8 12.7 16.4 16.9 10.82004 0.7 10.4 12.7 15.1 16.6 13.8 12.3 16.3 16.4 11.1

We created this table based on an analysis of the material in the Mortality Database of the National Center for Health Statistics (2004).

540 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

higher rate of divorce with its loyalty issues (Dixon &Scheckel, 1996). Increasing external or self-imposedpressure to perform well may create perfectionism,which sometimes results in a fear of failure and asense of guilt (Lester, 1999). Some young people feelsocially isolated, partly because they prefer solitary orsingle-friend activities to group activities and partlybecause no one seems to understand their concernsand values in a world that is increasingly materialisticand violent (Lester, 1999; Torrance & Sisk, 1997).

Bullying has become recognized as a contributingfactor in some suicides (Hazler & Denham, 2002;Ross, 1996). The bullying issue came to the attentionof the American public after the 1999 school shootingat Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.The two young males who murdered classmatesand killed themselves complained of being bulliedand feeling alienated from others. As Hazler andDenham (2002) noted, “Peer-on-peer abuse hasbeen recognized as a precursor to potential youthsuicides. . .” (p. 403).

Exposure to the violence seen on television, evenduring the earlier hours when children are usuallywatching, has been a concern for years. A study byMishara (1999), however, focused on how youngchildren learn about suicide. Interviews with childrenin grades 1–5 were conducted. The responses showedthat by the third grade, most of the 65 children in thestudy had “an elaborate understanding of suicide”(p. 105). Mishara stated, “Children learn about suicidefrom television and discussions with other children,but they rarely discuss suicide with adults” (1999,p. 105). Some young males who have completed sui-cide have been interested in music, books, movies, orvideo games with “dark themes” or asocial characters(Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996; Delisle, 1986).

Recently, more research has been focused on vio-lent video games (Irwin & Gross, 1995; Griffiths &Hunt, 1998). Video games came on the market around1972 and have become a multibillion dollar indus-try. On March 21, 2000, the US Senate Committeeon Commerce, Science, and Transportation conducteda “Hearing on the Impact of Interactive Violence onChildren.” At the hearings, David Walsh, Ph.D., thePresident of the National Institute on Media and theFamily, gave testimony entitled “Interactive Violenceand Children” (Walsh, 2001). Lt. Colonel Dave Gross-man, a former professor of psychology at the Univer-sity of Arkansas, a professor at West Point, a former

Army Ranger and the author of On Killing: The Psy-chological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Soci-ety (Grossman, 1996) testified that video games suchas Doom, a favorite of the two young men who killedothers and themselves at Columbine High School, aresimilar to simulators used by the military to conditionsoldiers to kill.

Factors that seem to correlate with or be associatedwith suicide may, according to some, serve as warn-ing signs. A family history of suicide, an experienceof loss, and a family environment marked by conflict-ual relationships or poor communication also seem tocontribute to a higher risk (Ayyash-Abdo, 2002). An-other correlate may be extreme introversion that leadsto social isolation (Kaiser & Berndt, 1985). A suddendecrease in academic performance or sudden mood orbehavioral changes may be warnings of potential sui-cide (Lajoie & Shore, 1981).

Two Recent Theories of Suicide

The Suicide Trajectory Model

The complexity and multicausal nature of suicide wasemphasized in the suicide trajectory model, which firstappeared in the book, Suicide Across the Life Span(Stillion, McDowell, & May, 1989). Graphic represen-tations of the model depict the four major sources ofrisk factors (biological, psychological, cognitive, andenvironmental) as contributors to suicidal ideation (seeTable 25.2). Table 25.2 is the authors’ graphic repre-sentation of the ideas in Stillion and McDowell, not anactual table in the book.

The researchers looked at the cultural and histori-cal influences on human behavior as well, noting thattoday’s young people have been exposed to violenceand to suicide through the media to a far greater extentthan the Boomer generation, for example. In addition,they looked at oscillating cultural and religious viewsacross generations. An important observation was thatsome factors interact with each other which increasesthe risk. For example, when an individual is biologi-cally predisposed for depression and is in an environ-ment with a great deal of relationship conflict, loyaltyissues, and discord, the interaction of those factors ismore powerful than one factor alone.

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 541

Table 25.2 The suicide trajectory model risk factors

Biological Psychological Cognitive Environmental

Genetic bases Depressed mood Level of cognition Family discordBrain functioning Poor self-concept, poor

self-esteemNegative self-talk Negative life events, es-

pecially lossGender–male Lack of coping strategies Rigidity of thought Availability of firearms

Existential questions

We prepared this table as a graphic representation of the ideas of Stillion and McDowell (1996) toclarify the specific risk factors under each of the four main areas of influence.

Biological risk factors include genetic predisposi-tion and the decreased flow of the neurotransmitter,serotonin, which elevates mood. Also, the fact that inmost countries males complete suicide three to fourtimes more frequently than females puts males at ahigher risk. In addition to being more aggressive, ingeneral, than females, males are expected in our societyto meet certain stereotypical expectations through theirbehavior, such as playing sports and achieving materialsuccess.

Psychologically, the most important risk factor, ac-cording to the authors, is a feeling of hopelessnesswhich, when combined with feelings of helplessness,increases the suicide risk. Those who admit to suicidalideation also seemed to judge themselves harshly andoften labeled themselves negatively with words such as“failure.” A lack of effective coping strategies put anindividual at great risk for developing symptoms of de-pression, which has often been associated with suicide.Another apparent commonality of those who developsuicidal ideation is existential angst, according to thistheory.

All humans are influenced by their environment,which can be looked at in various levels of systems,from the family of origin to the neighborhood to theregion of the country to the country in which one lives.A family environment that is marked by negativity,loyalty issues, and poor communication is not fertileground for a healthy developing mind. Negative lifeevents, such as the loss of a loved one through deathor rejection, can add to the stresses that affect a per-son’s well-being. Also, since firearms are used in mostsuicides in the United States, the availability of thesepotentially lethal weapons has contributed to the riskof suicide.

Stillion and McDowell followed up with a secondedition of their book, Suicide Across the Life Span,in 1996 in order to expand on the applicability of thesuicide trajectory model. In summation, the suicidetrajectory model is an inclusive paradigm which

considers the biological, psychological, cognitive,and environmental factors, the possible interactions ofthese factors, and the cultural and historical context inwhich an individual has lived.

Shneidman’s Theory

In his book, Definition of Suicide (Shneidman, 1985),Shneidman discussed ten characteristics of suicide,which he divided into six categories:

Situational aspects

1. The common stimulus in suicide is unendurablepsychological pain.

2. The common stressor in suicide is frustrated psy-chological needs.

Willing and striving (conation)

3. The common purpose of suicide is to seek a solu-tion.

4. The common goal of suicide is cessation of con-sciousness.

Affective aspects

5. The common emotion in suicide is hopelessness–helplessness.

6. The common internal attitude toward suicide is am-bivalence.

Cognitive aspects

7. The common cognitive state in suicide is constric-tion.

Relational aspects

8. The common interpersonal act in suicide is commu-nication of intention.

9. The common action in suicide is egression.

542 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

Serial aspects

10. The common consistency in suicide is with lifelongcoping patterns.

Situational aspects include the desire to escape a sit-uation in which unbearable psychological pain is beingexperienced and in which basic psychological needsare not being met. Shneidman (1993) noted that theterm unendurable is an evaluation of a situation. Inother words, what one person considers “unendurable”might be considered relatively unimportant or certainlybearable by another. Some examples of psychologicalneeds would include the need not to be humiliated,shamed, blamed, or criticized and the need to feel asense of accomplishment and a sense of connectednessor relatedness.

The conative aspects of suicide, according to Shnei-dman (1993), include the purpose of suicide and theachievement of cessation of consciousness. As Shnei-dman pointed out, suicide is purposeful. It serves asthe solution to a perceived problem or problems oras a resolution to an issue or an answer to a ques-tion. Also, suicide serves as an escape from unbearablestress.

Feelings of hopelessness and helplessness and an at-titude of ambivalence comprise the affective dimensionof suicide. When one feels as if there is no hope that lifecircumstances will improve and that one is helpless toeffect a change, the risk of suicide is greatly magni-fied. Shneidman thought that those who take their liveswant to die on the one hand and want to be rescuedon the other. He referred to Freud’s ideas concerningthe life instinct and the death wish and the struggle be-tween the id and the superego. Both can be experiencedat once.

Constriction, or narrowed thinking, is the primaryfactor operating in the thinking processes of someonewho is suicidal, according to Shneidman (1993). Theinability to perceive many options to solve problems,for example, might result in thinking that taking one’slife is the only solution.

Relational factors of suicide include intentionsto communicate by actions, including the suicideitself, and in a relatively small percentage of cases,also through a suicide note. Many times a personwho is contemplating suicide gives cues or warningsin an attempt to relate the intention to completesuicide. The action of leaving, departing, or escap-ing relationships, whether with family members,

friends, or coworkers, communicates something aboutthe person.

Shneidman (1985) also concluded that suicide is theculmination of a lifelong pattern of coping strategies,albeit ineffective, for survival. When Shneidman accu-rately guessed 5of the first 6 of 30 suicides among the“Terman Kids” (Terman, 1925) he said that the cluesthat he examined which helped him to guess those whoeventually completed suicide were largely connectedto patterns of reacting to perceived threats, losses, andfailures (Shneidman, 1996).

Shneidman’s theory is also a multifaceted approachto delineating risk factors for suicide with the aim ofprediction and prevention. Similar to the suicide tra-jectory model, many factors were considered and alsolifelong patterns were studied. This is also a rathercomprehensive paradigm for theorizing about the eti-ology of suicide. A person’s level of perturbation andlethality must also be considered when assessing sui-cide risk, according to Shneidman (1996). How per-turbed one gets in response to life events and how dan-gerous a person is to himself or herself must also betaken into account.

In terms of explaining the factors that contribute tosuicide, both theories’ broad approaches make thempowerful paradigms. They both look at developmen-tal patterns. Shneidman’s theory seemed to focus moreon the role of motivational factors and temperamentwhen he discussed the need to escape pain, for ex-ample, and the degree to which an individual can be-come perturbed about a certain situation. He made itclear that different people respond to the same situa-tion in different ways. This certainly adds to the ex-planatory power of the theory. Stillion and McDow-ell (1996) also emphasized that a person’s responses tolife events, be it stoicism or rage, depend, to a degree,on the political and economic climate in which theywere raised.

Complementing these two broad theories with morein-depth case studies would add much to the body ofknowledge about suicide and to the ability to be able topredict and to prevent suicide. Shneidman (1996) men-tioned this need as he alluded to cases in which peo-ple who attempted suicide but did not complete andlived to be interviewed later recounted what they werethinking and what goals they were attempting to ac-complish. Also, emphasis on possible systemic as wellas individual changes would be powerful additions tothe research. The explanatory power of a theory or

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 543

model of suicide is determined by its catalyzing ef-fect on individual and systemic changes that promotewell-being and resilience. For example, Freud’s the-ory that talking with people about their problems couldhelp alleviate symptoms such as depression or hysteriaserved as a catalyst for the popularity and success of“talk therapy.”

Proneness to Suicide Among GiftedYouth

Social and Emotional Issues andChallenges of Gifted Adolescents

Being different is painful. (Balto, character in the movie,Balto II, Ross, 2002)

An area of research that is related to suicide amonggifted adolescents centered on the social and emotionalissues and challenges faced by gifted children and ado-lescents (Coleman & Cross, 2005; Cross, 1996). Giftedadolescents seem to have some unique emotional needsand issues due to the fact that they are different. Inthis section, the literature concerning some of the is-sues and challenges of being gifted and adolescent willbe reviewed. After reviewing the literature pertainingto the social and emotional issues which seem to befaced by gifted adolescents regardless of gender, theneeds and challenges associated with being adolescent,gifted, and male will be discussed, followed by a dis-cussion of the needs and challenges associated with be-ing adolescent, gifted, and female.

Many researchers have stated that being bothadolescent and gifted has often resulted in a uniqueset of problems and that the social and emotionalissues and challenges are in some ways quite difficult(Buescher, 1985; Delisle, 1992; Hollingworth, 1931;Roeper, 1995). For example, Buescher (1985) com-mented, “In many ways, though, being both gifted andadolescent means learning to understand and cope witha unique set of developmental circumstances that canreach beyond the normal dimensions of adolescence”(p. 11). He went on to add that adolescents betweenthe ages of 11 and 15 years “seem to be particularlyvulnerable to the confusion and misinterpretationprecipitated by their outstanding abilities” (p. 11).

Gifted adolescents may be more vulnerable to thepressures of establishing a sense of identity and estab-lishing meaningful relationships (Hollingworth, 1942;Torrance, 1962). Hollingworth addressed the social andemotional issues of being gifted when she noted thatgifted adolescents may have “the intelligence of anadult and the emotions of a child” (Hollingworth, 1942,p. 282).

Difficulties can result from the unique perceptionsand experiences of being gifted. The theme of An-nemarie Roeper’s paper about The Emotional Worldof Gifted Children presented at the National Associa-tion of Gifted Children annual conference in 2003 wasthat there were unique social and emotional difficultiesfaced by the gifted child. She expanded on some of thepoints that she had addressed in 1995 which included,“Gifted children’s thoughts and emotions differ fromthose of other children and, as a result, they perceiveand react to their world differently” (Roeper, 1995,p. 74).

When identifying some of the critical dynamicsof being adolescent and gifted, it becomes importantto realize that the social and emotional issues andchallenges are related to cultural values and to histor-ical context (Buescher, 1985; Cross, 2004). In manycases, a young person’s experiences in today’s schoolsare painful. Addressing the dynamics involved in theschool shootings at Columbine High School in 1999,Cross noted, “The lessons we should have learnedwere that our children’s experiences in high school(middle and elementary school) cause them to suffer”(Cross, 2004, p. 111). Many of the issues that affectboth males and females include establishing a senseof identity and forming supportive and meaningfulrelationships. When you are adolescent and gifted,however, these are very difficult social and emotionalchallenges. As the movie character, Balto, sorrowfullystated in reference to his daughter, who was a giftedleader, “Being different is painful” (Ross, 2002).

Some of the social and emotional issues andchallenges associated with being adolescent andgifted include boredom (Gross, 2004; Hebert &Speirs Neumeister, 2002; Kerr & Cohn, 2001),establishing a sense of identity and a positive self-concept (Dixon, 1998; Gross, 1998; Hebert, 2000a;Kline & Short, 1991), perfectionistic tendencies(Buescher, 1985; Delisle, 1986; Spiers Neumeis-ter, 2004), heightened sensitivity and intensity(Dabrowski, 1976; Silverman, 1994; Lovecky, 1993),

544 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

and advanced moral development and global con-cerns (Roeper, 1995; Cross, 2004; Hebert & SpeirsNeumeister, 2002). Many gifted adolescents expe-rience discouragement, hopelessness, insecurity, asense of meaninglessness, and eventual suppressedfeelings (Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Kline & Short, 1991;Roeper, 1995).

Social and Emotional Issues Commonto Both Genders

Boredom and Frustration

In 1942, Hollingworth remarked, “In the ordinaryelementary school situation, children with an IQ of140 waste half their time. Those with an IQ above 170waste practically all their time. With little to do, howcan these children develop power of sustained effort,respect for the task, or habits of steady work?” (p. 299).Young people report being bored and frustrated inschool with content that is not challenging or relevant(Egan, 1998). Discussing the plight of a gifted malewho was in a heterogeneous classroom, Gross (2004)remarked, “Requiring Ian to undertake all his schoolwork with age peers of average ability was rather likerequiring a child of average intelligence to spend sixhours a day, five days a week, interacting solely withchildren who were profoundly intellectually disabled”(p. 4).

When Kerr was an adolescent, the Russians sentSputnik into space, and, as a result, the United Statesbegan to single out gifted young people for advancededucational opportunities. Kerr was in a gifted cohortwhich included 17 males. She and Tom Anderson,a graduate student in counseling psychology, in-terviewed most of the group members as adults tocollect data about their school experiences. Theywere able to directly interview 13 of the original17, obtained secondhand information about three,and were not able to locate a young man who wasa creative artist while in school. At the time of thefollow-up, participants were about 50 years of age.All responded to interview questions by stating thatthey had been bored in school and that relation-ships were awkward or painful (and still were, inmany cases). One man would have liked to havehad exposure to subjects other than English, French,

math, and the other academic subjects included forthe cohort. He asked, “Why didn’t we get any shopclasses?” Curriculum was determined by the schoolsystem, with little or no input from the studentsconcerning their individual interests. Kerr and Cohnnoted that the gifted males were “bored in school,socially awkward, and somehow disconnected fromothers at a young age” (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Giftedadolescents are intensely fascinated with learning(Lovecky, 1993). In their 2002 article, Hebert andSpeirs Neumeister noted the frustration and boredomexperienced by bright young students. They suggestedthat gifted students could relate to the charactersin films such as October Sky, and their feelings offrustration could be validated as they relate to theboys in the movie. Utilizing guided reading canalso facilitate a validation of thoughts and feelingsthat the gifted adolescent feels are experiencedby no one but himself or herself (Halstead, 2002;Hebert, 1991). For some gifted adolescents, it isonly in books that they find like-minded characters(Halstead, 2002).

Julian Stanley was successful in being a catalyst forgrade-skipping for many young gifted students (Stan-ley, 2000). He helped seventh graders, for example,go directly into college. Since Stanley passed away,programs that he began, such as the Talent Identifica-tion Program, continue to accelerate the pace and en-rich the curriculum of learning for bright young minds.One of his favorite stories involved a middle schoolmale who was not allowed into an algebra I class dueto his age. Stanley encouraged the teacher to at leastlet the boy take a test to see if he could solve theproblems. When the boy made 100% on the test, theteacher invited the student into the class, at which pointthe student declined, asking why he would want totake a class on material that he already knew (Stanley,2004).

Perfectionism

Many researchers have studied the negative effectsof perfectionism (Hill, 1995; Kerr & Cohn, 2001;Roeper, 1995; Silverman, 1993; Spiers Neumeis-ter, 2004).While striving for perfection would seem anadmirable trait, for gifted adolescents perceived failurecan lead to guilt, depression, anxiety, and even suicide(Hayes & Sloat, 1990). Many gifted adolescents do

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 545

not give themselves permission to be less than perfect(Alvino, 1991). Roeper said, “These children carryan enormous burden of imagined responsibility waybeyond their years” (1995, p. 73). Their emotionalneed to be perfect is, of course, unrealistic, sheadded. When the prodigy Brandenn Bremmer wasasked about his giftedness in an interview in 2004,less than a year before taking his life at age 14, heresponded, “America is a society that demands perfec-tion.” The interviewer noted that “it was interestingthat I had asked him about giftedness, but the wordperfection was foremost in his mind” (Quart, 2006,p. 142).

Spiers Neumeister (2002) categorized perfec-tionism into two categories: socially prescribed andself-oriented. Those with socially prescribed perfec-tionism are concerned with the expectations of others.They evaluate their self-worth according to perceivedexternal standards which they are expected to meet.Those with self-oriented perfectionism are motivatedfrom within to reach self-imposed high standards. Sheexplored the anxiety and learned helplessness associ-ated with expecting more of yourself than is humanlypossible. She interviewed extensively and also did herown soul-searching concerning the roots of perfection-ism. Her findings included many factors that seemedto contribute to the participants’ socially prescribedperfectionistic tendencies including early awarenessof intelligence and ability to meet high achievementstandards of perfectionistic parents. Neumeis-ter noted that students with socially prescribedperfectionistic tendencies feared failure and thedisappointment of others. The perfectionistic ten-dencies of those, like herself, with self-orientedperfectionism, seemed to be linked to individualpersonality traits and intrinsic motivation. As SpiersNeumeister (2002) concluded, perfectionism canbe developed from the messages of others or itcan come from an inner-driven, extreme sense ofresponsibility to self and/or others. Delisle (1986)observed that “a number of gifted students withrecords of impeccable academic performancehave been preoccupied with suicidal thoughts. . .”(p. 64).

When singer Judy Collins was 15 years old, she at-tempted suicide because of her fear of not being goodenough, of not pleasing her father. Her father asked herto play the piano at an organized event in Denver. Sherelated being so terrified that her performance would

not be good enough, that, rather than sharing her fearswith him, she took an overdose of aspirin in a suicideattempt. He later apologized for being a perfectionisthimself and putting so much pressure on her. However,she noted that most of her pressure was self-imposed(Collins, 2003).

Sensitivity and Intensity

Researchers have addressed the apparent heightenedemotional and moral sensitivity experienced by giftedyouth (Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996; Dabrowski, 1964;Hebert, 2002; Nelson, 1989; Runco, 1998; Silver-man, 1994; Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997). Thesecharacteristics seem to often result in self-criticismand cynicism (Dabrowski, 1976; Nelson, 1989). Achallenge for sensitive gifted adolescents who expe-rience life intensely is to find avenues for emotionalexpression (Hebert, 2000a). The gifted males inHebert’s urban high school study embraced theirsensitivity, which seemed to contribute to the beliefin self. The sensitivities would fit with the emotionalover-excitability in Dabrowski’s theory of positivedisintegration (Dabrowski, 1964). Dabrowski’s over-excitabilities, explained in his theory of positivedisintegration, have been mentioned by some re-searchers as being associated with risk of suicide(Cross, Cook, & Dixon, 1996; Dabrowski, 1964;Delisle, 1992; Nelson, 1989). As young people evolvefrom Level II, in which they look to those outside ofthemselves for answers and validation, to Level III,in which they become more introspective, self-blameand self-criticism sometimes occur. This may be atime of increased risk of suicide. Often gifted childrenand adolescents feel as if they are too much. Theythink too much, talk too much, and feel too much.Something must be wrong with me, they may conclude(Roeper, 1995). Life was not easy for the gifted maledescribed by Lovecky (1993) who “took every fallenbird into his heart” (p. 37).

Morality, Justice, and Global Concerns

Gifted youth worry about global concerns and expe-rience existential dread (Ellsworth, 2003; Kerr, 1991;Nelson, 1989). Issues of social justice and being treatedfairly are important to many gifted adolescents. “Re-

546 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

searchers studying the highly and exceptionally giftedhave noted that these children are frequently found tohave unusually accelerated levels of moral develop-ment” (Gross, 2004). Gifted children are often wor-ried about problems in the world such as hunger or warthat other children do not think about (Roeper, 2003).At the same time, young people feel helpless to effectchange in the world (Hollingworth, 1942). While theyare aware of the devastation of war or hunger, they arenot able to solve global situations. A heightened senseof responsibility coupled with a heightened awarenessof the troubles in the world produces guilt and depres-sion. Similarly, gifted children and adolescents have adeep sense of justice. Being treated unfairly or with in-sensitivity or witnessing the unfair treatment of others,while upsetting to most, can be devastating to a giftedchild (Roeper, 2003).

Social Isolation and Being Bullied

Social isolation and feelings of alienation have beenaddressed by many researchers (Hazler & Den-ham, 2002; Hollingworth, 1942; Torrance, 1962). Thetragic results of being different, not fitting in, havingdifferent interests, concerns, and values, dressingdifferently, and not meeting the cultural expectationsfor normality often include social isolation andbeing bullied. Torrance (1962) wrote that “in mostclassrooms the child runs a calculated risk everytime he asks an unusual question or advances a newidea for fear of the ridicule by his classmates andperhaps his teacher” (p. 74). Being bullied and ha-rassed is a frequent occurrence for gifted adolescents(Cross, 2001; Graham, 2003; Gross, 1998; Kerr &Cohn, 2001). Today, in addition to being bullied atschool, adolescents are bullied online and by cellphone text messaging, a problem termed cyberbullying(Belsey, 2005; Willard, 2006).

Paul Graham (2003), author of Why Nerds areUnpopular, talked of his own experiences withbullying and harassment as well as his observationsabout them. He stated, “For me, the worst stretchwas junior high. . ..Nearly everyone I’ve talked toagrees” (p. 5). “In our school it was eighth grade,”he added.

“The difficulty of the gifted child forming friend-ships is largely a result of the infrequency of personswho are like minded.” (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 262).

In addition, Hollingworth noted that it is not easy for agifted student to “suffer fools gladly.” In an interviewstudy by Gross (1998), many gifted males respondedthat they had difficulty being accepted in school. Oneyoung man stated, “You’ve got to have mates andthere’s nobody round here who’s anything like me,so they’re all I’ve got. But I don’t know how longI’m going to be able to keep going” (p. 7). She addedthat “the need to escape from such bewilderment,frustration, and loneliness may become a compellingforce” (p. 7).

The more highly gifted the child, the more likely thechild will experience social isolation. Graham (2003)noted that “Nerds are unpopular because they’re dis-tracted. There are other kids who deliberately opt outbecause they’re so disgusted with the whole process”(p. 11). Being smart does not make you an outcast inelementary school, but it can in middle school and highschool. He began his article by stating that, “in a typ-ical American secondary school, being smart is likelyto make your life difficult” (p. 1).

Being Brilliant, Studious, and Nonathletic

Attitudes toward academically brilliant students havebeen the focus of some interesting studies (Cramond& Martin, 1987; Drews, 1972; Lee, Cramond, &Lee, 2004; Tannenbaum, 1962). Tannenbaum’s (1962)classic study asked high school students to rate thelikeability of hypothetical students according toacademic brilliance, studiousness, and athleticism.His finding was that the students least liked by otherstudents were academically brilliant, studious, andnonathletic. Cramond & Martin (1987) expandedTannenbaum’s research to include teachers’ attitudesconcerning the same three characteristics. “Thebrilliant–studious–nonathletic character, often thestereotype of the gifted student, was rated the lowest”(p. 17) they concluded. In 2004, Lee, Cramond, andLee conducted a study in Korea which replicated theTannenbaum study and repeated the Cramond andMartin study. The fact that the results were similarwas even more surprising in a country known forits emphasis on the value of education and effort. Inthis study, again, as in the two previous studies, thelowest rating was given to the academically brilliant,studious, nonathletic student. Another interestingfinding was that the hypothetical students that fit

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 547

with that description were considered to be girls.Girls who were academically brilliant were the leastpopular. The authors concluded, “Psychologically safeenvironments are necessary for all children to thrive,and the more different a child is from his or her peers,the more vulnerable he or she is to peer sanctions”(Lee, Cramond, & Lee, 2004, p. 52).

Creativity Misunderstood and Unappreciated

In a similar study of gifted high school students whichbegan in the 1950s, Drews (1972) categorized studentsas creative intellectual, studious, and social leader. Shenoted that creative intellectuals “were rated by theirteachers as less creative than their social leader class-mates whose attitudes and interests resembled those ofbankers or undertakers” (p. 36). Of the creative intel-lectuals, the social reformers and altruists were “mostoften condemned” (Drews, 1972, p. 37). She concludedthat perhaps the low ratings could “best be explainedby the fact that so many of these young people resistthe usual school routines” (p. 36).

Much has been written about a possible correla-tion between creativity and propensity for suicide(Jamison, 1999; Piirto, 2004; Rothenberg, 1990;Runco, 1998; Slaby, 1992). Some have cited the highincidence of suicide among artists and writers, espe-cially poets (Jamison, 1993; Ludwig, 1995; Richards& Kinney, 1990). A seeming correlation between“bipolar disorder” and the oscillation experiencedby creative artists between the intense passion andenthusiasm of periods of creative expansion and thedepths of darkness and tendencies toward unsocia-bility and feelings of emptiness at the other end ofthe pendulum has been discussed (Jamison, 1993;Richards & Kinney, 1990; Slaby, 1992; Piirto, 2004).Briggs (1990) noted that “the excited and quiescentstates that are a normal part of creative process”are often considered pathological (p. 247). Creativeartists often despise authoritarianism (Drews, 1972).Creative writers, for example, often attack society intheir writings. This aspect of creativity may contributeto difficulties with life. Rothenberg (1990) stated,“Society and creative people are often antagonistictoward each other” (p. 158).

Sylvia Plath, the writer of poetry and prose whotook her life at the age of 31, described how she some-

times felt enthusiastic about writing and wrote pro-lifically and at other times experienced life as if shewere in a bell jar, with its distortions and limitations(Plath, 1971). Rothenberg (1990) and Runco (1998)both discussed the creative artist’s drive for destructive-ness and creation that exemplify the Janusian paradox.Both researchers also noted the apparent inability ofsome writers to free themselves cathartically from theirconcerns and stressors through their writing (Rothen-berg, 1990; Runco, 1998).

Torrance (1962) was concerned about what hecalled “the psychological estrangement of creativechildren” (p. 121). Giftedness is often manifestedin creative pursuits because gifted children oftenthink “outside the box.” Torrance realized that andincorporated opportunities for creative expression inhis Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Those with themost imagination make the highest scores. The pointthat Torrance was making was that in our society thosewho think differently are often ostracized. Briggs,also, referred to “our ancient aversion to things thatare different” (1990, p. 247). Yet one of the traitsthat seem common to highly gifted, highly creativeyouth includes unconventionality (Hebert, 2002;Torrance, 1962). An example would be a fascinationwith dark themes (Cross, 2004; Cross, Gust-Brey,& Ball, 2002) and an identification with negative orasocial characters (Delisle, 2000).

Kerr and Cohn (2001) stated that “there are partic-ular subgroups within the population of gifted boyswhose members are indeed at much higher risk forvarious self-destructive behaviors, including suicide”(p. 144). Kerr and Cohn and others have concludedthat highly gifted, highly creative boys are at a higherrisk of suicide (Delisle, 1986; Kerr & Cohn, 2001;Lester, 1999).

Highly gifted, highly creative young people areoften thinking of new ideas. According to Tor-rance (1961) this has often resulted in a youngperson’s perception of self as “a minority of one”(p. 31). They have difficulties finding common groundfor establishing relationships. Their activities are notthe same as those of the average adolescent. Whilemost adolescent boys are interested in sports, cars,and girls and most adolescent girls are interested inconforming behaviors that lead to popularity duringthe adolescent years, the highly gifted, highly creativeadolescent may be drawing or writing in a journal orcomposing song lyrics.

548 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

To summarize, there are many social and emotionalchallenges facing adolescents who are gifted. Findingmeaningful relationships with adolescents and adultswho seem to understand, appreciate, and acceptthem and finding safe environments in which theycan be their creative selves is a challenge. Reachingself-understanding and developing a sense of identityin a milieu of age peers who do not experience theworld as intensely and deeply and who do not havethe global concerns and ethical values of the giftedadolescent is difficult.

Being Adolescent, Gifted, and Male

Establishing a Sense of Identity

Developing a sense of identity, including self-understanding and a strong belief in self, is necessaryfor personal and professional success (Hebert, 2000a).Following his study of six high-ability urban males,Hebert concluded that a strong belief in self “wasidentified as the single important factor influenc-ing the success of the urban males in this study”(Hebert, 2000a, p. 106). A sense of self-identity mayinclude acceptance of self as an individual, establish-ing autonomy, forming relationships based on trust,openness, and a similarity of values, and fulfilling theneed to achieve according to Gross (1998). One of thestruggles for gifted male adolescents is reaching self-understanding (Hebert & Speirs Neumeister, 2002).Being different from the majority at school compli-cates identity formulation. “The process of identitydevelopment in intellectually gifted children and ado-lescents is complicated by their innate and acquireddifferences from age peers” (Gross, 1998, p. 1).

Often, gifted boys experience loneliness and feel-ings of isolation when they perceive just how differ-ent they are from the majority (Kerr & Cohn, 2001).Delisle (1986) noted that gifted boys are often morepopular in elementary school but that this changes inmiddle school. He discussed the fact that gifted boysare often in accelerated or “gifted” classes which setthem apart from most of their classmates. In addition,the focus of most adolescents’ attention changes inthe middle school years to what many gifted maleswould consider unimportant, superficial, absurd inter-ests. Combine this difference with a gifted youngster’s

heightened concerns for global problems and the dif-ferences magnify. Frustration experienced by highlygifted adolescents who are bored and alienated can turnto anger (Dixon and Scheckel, 1996; Cross, 2001).

Cultural Expectations to be the Macho Male

Males in the United States are expected to pursuestereotypically masculine interests. The plight of theyoung, gifted male is difficult, noted Hebert (2002),who referred to the blend of masculine and feminineinterests that is often a characteristic of gifted boys.When a gifted adolescent male is not athletically in-clined, he has a difficult time fitting in (Alvino, 1991;Hebert, 1995; Hebert, 2000b). Not only does beingdifferent from the majority at school make the processof identity development more complicated, but beingpopular is valued, especially between the ages of 11and 17 years (Graham, 2003). Gifted males walk atight rope, according to Dixon (1998), often projectingseveral images to the world. Some do not try to puton a mask and are labeled “nerd” or “geek” whileothers try desperately to fit in. Social acceptance ishighly valued in middle school and high school, andnot fitting in can be particularly painful. Alvino (1991)added that self-concept problems are exacerbated bythe “traditional male ideal, on the one hand” (p. 177)and the need to be themselves on the other.

Being true to oneself in an anti-intellectual societyis particularly tough for gifted boys (Cross, 2004).“Receiving so little validation for the self fosters acorresponding internal negative self-image,” accordingto Silverman (1993, p. 33). Adolescents search forwho they are, but the life experiences and issues facedby gifted students are different, stated Cross (2004).Young adolescents are very exclusionary, formingcliques, deciding who is popular, and emphasizingparticipation in athletics as something to be admiredfor males. Finding a safe environment in which to becreative, to be different, is a challenge (Torrance &Sisk, 1997). Parents’ expectations for their sons com-bined with the greater sensitivity and perceptivenessof gifted adolescents make the sense of self, the ego,more vulnerable (Roeper, 2003).

In the United States, very few young men teach el-ementary school because it is thought to be a feminineprofession, with values such as nurturance emphasized.In a study of young gifted men who become elemen-

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 549

tary school teachers, Hebert (2000b) discovered that acombination of a firm belief in self, appreciation for an-drogyny in terms of interests, and empathy gave theseyoung men the self-confidence to break with tradition.Gifted young males are often less satisfied with them-selves because of the pressures and expectations of so-ciety (Kline & Short, 1991). Kerr and Cohn (2001)pointed out that there were few initiations into man-hood in our society. “Without these meaningful, sym-bolic ceremonies, today’s young men are bereft of ap-propriate ways of establishing their identity as men,”they added (p. 127).

In the book chapter entitled “Gifted Males,”Hebert (2002) remarked that it is a difficult time tobe a boy in this country. Gifted young males oftenstruggle to see themselves in a positive light, especiallybecause others criticize them if they do not meet theAmerican cultural expectations of the masculineimage (Hebert, 1995). The macho man is expectedto be “tough, competitive, independent, aggressive,self-reliant, logical, non-emotional, and lacking insensitivity” (Alvino, 1991, p. 175). American soci-ety has not changed its traditional expectations formales (Kline & Short, 1991), which include playingsports and being strong, silent, and stoic (Kerr &Cohn, 2001). Kerr and Cohn began their book, SmartBoys, by stating that “many gifted boys and menstruggle throughout their lives to ignore the urgingsof their intellectual and creative selves in order tofulfill socially ordained masculine roles” (p. 3). Theyadded that it is particularly tragic for the gifted malewho sees the superficiality and transitory nature of themasculine ideal but feels that he must adhere to it inorder to be accepted, to fit in. A boy who plays sportscan get away with reading books or even asking anunusual question in class. But a gifted male who is notinvolved in athletic pursuits and has unusual pastimesor challenges the teacher may not be accepted by mostof his schoolmates and even some of his teachers (Kerr& Cohn, 2001).

Messages come from the culture, the media, andschools about what is acceptable behavior and dress fora male (Hebert & Speirs Neumeister, 2002). The chal-lenges to gifted adolescents to be independent, strong,and competitive and to be able to prove their masculin-ity when their interests, ethical values, and dress differmarkedly from the mainstream are sometimes insur-mountable (Kerr & Cohn, 2001). Being highly intelli-gent is even seen as a threat in a dominator society that

values power, violence, and exploitation (Silverman,1994).

Being Adolescent, Gifted, and Female

Establishing a Sense of Identity

Rather than being able to focus on the adolescent iden-tity questions of “Who am I” and “Where am I going?”as teens always have, girls today are more worried about“Who am I supposed to be?” and in the process can dis-appear as the person they are. (Machoian, 2005, p. 8)

To understand the social and emotional issuesand challenges faced by adolescents who are giftedand female, it is necessary, as it was for males, toexamine the social context of our American culture(Cross, 2004, Kerr, 1994; Machoian, 2005). Giftedadolescent females struggle to be accepted in a societythat values their physical appearance more than theirintellectual ability (Gross, 1998; Kerr, 1994; Ma-choian, 2005). They are bored and frustrated in schoolbut often do not speak up or challenge the system(Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994). They areexpected to be the superwomen who are all things toall people and to be caring and nurturing (Callahan,Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994; Roeper, 1995;). Ingeneral, they do not aspire to the professional successof men and often do not take the rigorous coursesin school (Kerr, 1994). A conflict between theirtendencies to be perfectionistic and the lower culturalexpectations of achievement for females (Reis &Callahan, 1989) leaves them with a confused senseof identity and unfulfilled dreams (Hollinger, 1991;Tomchin, Callahan, Sowa, & May, 1996).

In a 12-month study of sixth, seventh, and eighthgrade gifted females, which included interviews andan analysis of school records, grades, and test scores,Callahan, Cunningham, and Plucker (1994), observedmany of the characteristics that seem to prevent giftedfemales from attaining success commensurate withtheir intellectual ability. Though they were bored, theydid not complain or challenge the teacher, preferringjust to get the high grades with less effort or “play thegame” (Rizza, 1999).

Cultural Expectations and Stereotypes

Roeper (1995) noted that “the manner in which thegifted girl is seen by society and how she herself re-

550 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

acts to this perception” (p. 58) determines her sense ofself-esteem.

“When I got to middle school, it changed. Every-one started to care about being popular, and I was intoreading and stuff. It just hit me, ‘Wow, everybody’schanged,’ and it really made me self-conscious to speakup in class to say what I thought” (Machoian, 2005,p. 43).

At a high school reunion, Kerr (1994) was asked byher gifted female classmates to determine the reasonsthat they, as a group, did not aspire to professional po-sitions equivalent to the males. Out of 24 women, 6attained no college degree, 12 attained bachelor’s de-grees, 3 attained master’s degrees, 1 attained a med-ical degree, and 1 received a law degree. Years later,Kerr (1994) reassessed the women and found that manyof them had gone on to higher educational and pro-fessional achievements while others were homemakersand mothers who had set aside their professional pur-suits. But why did not more of the gifted women inthe group achieve to their potential? Why had so manychosen vocations in education and nursing, rather thanthe hard sciences?

The conflict between career goals and the ex-pectations of others partially explained the disparity(Horner, 1972). Hollinger (1991) stated, “Of all theexisting barriers, sex-role socialization’s impact on thechild’s developing self-belief system is the most per-vasive and limiting” (p. 136). A decline in self-esteemrelated to not giving themselves credit seemed to beginfrequently somewhere in middle school or high school(Kerr, 1994).

In 1992, Hollinger and Fleming conducted a studyof the educational and career attainment of giftedyoung women. She stated that a “recurring theme ofconcern has been the degree to which gifted womenhave or have not realized their potential over thecourse of the lifespan” (p. 207). Dividing achievementresponses into three categories, traditional, personal,and relational, Hollinger found that many gifted fe-males responded that relational achievement was mostimportant. Also, many females chose traditionally fe-male occupations. She concluded that by adolescence,the young gifted female had already been exposed toyears of sex role socialization and societal stereotypes.

Horner (1970) framed this issue regarding femalesand achievement as a fear of success when she con-cluded that females anticipate social rejection if theyare successful. Thirty years later, Engle (2003) repli-

cated Horner’s study and found that the students in herstudy were concerned about the “psychological and so-cial” barriers faced by females in non-traditional fields(p. 2).

Reis and Callahan (1989) analyzed data on femaleperformance in professions, business, and finan-cial status. After pointing out that less then 2% ofAmerican inventions were patented by females, forexample, and that females were underrepresented inhigh government positions, they concluded, “It is clearfrom the above statistics that bright women are clearlyadult underachievers (p. 102). The challenge, then,is to encourage gifted adolescent females to achieveaccording to their potential (Rizza, 1999). Also, Tor-rance (1961) found that the females in his longitudinalstudy were not as likely as the males to hold on to theirchildhood creativity and express it in adult creativeproducts.

Several researchers have noted the expectation tobe caring that is directed to females (Callahan, Cun-ningham, & Plucker, 1994; Reis & Callahan, 1989;Roeper, 1995). Adolescent females make decisionsmore from an ethic of caring” than from a senseof what is best for them (Callahan, Cunningham,& Plucker, 1994). Reis and Callahan (1989) posedthe question of whether this difference in moralpsychology in females should be addressed with somedifferences in curriculum.

Smutney (1999) noted that gifted girls often facea range of social pressures in schools, causing themto shift priorities. Smart girls may fear being shunnedby other girls who may view them as showoffs or astoo academically competitive (Dixon, 1998). Girlsare likely to be rejected by peers for being smart(Machoian, 2005). As one gifted adolescent femalereplied in an interview, “I didn’t want to be too muchof a brain because I wanted guys to be attractedto me. If you’re too smart or too successful, girlswon’t like you, either” (p. 23). Machoian (2005)stated in her book, The Disappearing Girl, thathigh intelligence becomes a depression risk factorfor girls during adolescence. Relationships withothers are defined by the gifted adolescent femaleas a source of personal satisfaction and a necessarycontributor to happiness (Hollinger, 1991). If youare not accepted, you are alone (Machoian, 2005).As a result, many gifted females hide their in-telligence for fear of losing relationships (Kerr,1994).

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 551

To summarize, some of the challenges facingadolescents who are gifted and female includesex role stereotyping, harassment, lowered ex-pectations, and loss of self-esteem (Rizza, 1999).Developing confidence in herself and trustingher own internal voice was considered importantfor personal and professional success (Hollinger,1991).

Are Gifted Adolescents EspeciallyVulnerable to Suicide?

Addressing claims that gifted adolescents are moreprone to suicide is particularly difficult because deathcertificates, which have a category for cause of deathby suicide, do not contain information on whetherthe young person who completed suicide was gifted,in gifted classes, or had a high IQ. It is, therefore,impossible at this time to compare national statisticsfor suicides among gifted adolescents with statisticsfor suicides among adolescents in general. Conse-quently, research on suicide among gifted adolescentsis limited (Gust-Brey & Cross, 1998). However, someresearchers have been interested in what they thinkmay be a vulnerability for suicide by gifted youngpeople.

Terman’s conclusion following his well-known lon-gitudinal study of 1,528 young boys and girls (857males, 671 females) with IQ’s of at least 140 wasthat gifted children become professionally successfuland personally and mentally healthy adults (Termanand Oden, 1959; Oden, 1968). By 1960, when themedian age of the participants was 49.6 years, therewere 146 known deaths, of which 110 were by naturalcauses, 24 related to accidents, and 22 by suicide (14males, 8 females). By 1970, there had been a total of28 suicides. This rate of 28/1,528 or 1/55 greatly ex-ceeded the usual suicide rate of 12/100,000 or 1/8,333.Two of the participants completed suicide at ages 18and 19 years (Shneidman, 1996). Terman’s study wasunusual in that data were collected frequently overmany years. However, one of the drawbacks of thestudy was that giftedness was determined by IQ TESTSalone.

In longitudinal studies of individuals with high IQ’s(Subotnik, Karp, & Morgan 1989; Subotnik, Kasson,Summers, & Wasser, 1993), students with a mean IQ of

159 who had graduated from Hunter College Elemen-tary School between 1948 and 1960 were followed.The purpose was to compare the results with thoseobtained from the Terman and Oden (1959) group.The results were comparable. Subjects achieved suc-cess professionally, had stable interpersonal relation-ships, and good mental and physical health. Whereas inthe Terman study, males far exceeded females in pro-fessional achievement, the difference was not as greatbetween the Hunter boys and girls. The Hunter girls,however, lived in an era in which females and malesachieved higher levels of education and worked outsidethe home.

In 1926, Catharine Cox published a work titled TheEarly Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses. Thiswas a retrospective study of men born after 1450 whohad achieved historical eminence. Of the 301 studied,only 1, Thomas Chatterton, took his life, at age 17years. Variables not considered in this study were othergifted men who did not achieve eminence, perhaps be-cause of illness or suicide.

Several studies have purposively studied suicideamong gifted adolescents. Seiden (1966) studiedcompleted suicides at the University of California,Berkeley. His findings indicated that 67% of thestudents who completed suicide had above-averagegrades. Of undergraduates, 91% who completedsuicide had grades that were above average. Thesedata are valuable, but the criteria of “above-averagegrades” at Berkeley is difficult to compare with otherstudies about suicide in gifted adolescents.

Sargent (1984), after analyzing 1,500 suicide com-pletions, suggested that adolescents who completedsuicide were more intelligent than adolescents whoattempted suicide. He stated that “better studentsmade the most severe attempts” (Sargent, 1984, p. 50),adding that they used more lethal means such as guns.The problem in applying or generalizing these data,also, is the lack of a definition of intelligence or “betterstudent” that allows you to compare these results withstudies about suicide in gifted adolescents.

Some studies have considered whether studentswho completed suicide attended more selectiveschools or schools for the highly talented. For exam-ple, several studies analyzing suicide rates at variouseducational institutions have concluded that suiciderates were higher at more competitive schools (Lester& Lester, 1971; Ross, 1969; Seiden, 1966). This maybe due in part to the pressure at the selective schools.

552 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

This would seem to indicate a higher prevalenceof suicide among gifted young people. However,Harvard University reported a 50% decrease in suicideincidence between 1949 and 1965 (Farnsworth, 1972).Many variables could account for the drop in suiciderates in these studies. Whether or not the young personwas gifted may or may not have been a contributingfactor.

Following a discussion of the representation of thegifted among dropouts, delinquents, and those whocomplete suicide, Lajoie and Shore (1981) stated, “Sui-cide statistics and theories about the causes of sui-cide are the most accommodating to the idea of over-representation of the gifted, especially at college age.No major theory of suicide includes high ability as acontributor. . .” (p. 141). Giftedness was not cited asan influence in any major theory of the contributorsto suicide, including those of Stillion, McDowell, &May (1989) and Shneidman (1985).

In response to a “marked increase in youth suiciderates over the last thirty years in a number of coun-tries, including the United States, Great Britain, andAustralia” (p. 23), Fergusson, Woodward, and Hor-wood (2000) conducted a longitudinal study concern-ing risk factors for suicide in adolescents living in NewZealand. Even though the results may not be general-izable to the population of adolescents in the UnitedStates or elsewhere, it could be useful because it is alongitudinal study conducted over a period of 21 yearswith frequent data collections. A sample of 1,265 chil-dren (635 males, 630 females) born in New Zealandin a 4-month period in 1977 were evaluated at birth,at 4 months of age, 1 year, and then annually up toage 16 years, again at age 18 years, and finally at age21 years. Data consisted of parent interviews, teacherassessments, child interviews, psychometric tests, andmedical records. Results indicated that by the age of 21years, 28.8% of the sample participants reported hav-ing suicidal ideation and 7.5% of the total had madean attempt. Participants took the WISC-R and the re-port concluded that no correlation between intelligencelevel and suicide was found. Variables studied for pos-sible correlations to suicide were family background,SES, substance abuse, and parent–child attachment.This seemed to be an example of the common lackof particular attention to the variable of intelligenceor attributes of the highly intelligent as an independentvariable(s) which might affect the decision to completesuicide.

In 1999, Lester commented, “The academicallygifted have been thought to be more susceptibleto depression and suicide, not only because of thetypical suicidogenic risk factors (such as psychiatricdisturbance, drug and alcohol abuse, and dysfunctionalfamily backgrounds), but also because of factors as-sociated with their giftedness” (p. 587). He continuedby listing specific factors that might contribute tothis vulnerability, including perfectionism, sensitivity,boredom and alienation, frustration that they cannotachieve change in the world, and social isolation. Henoted that gifted adolescents often prefer to be aloneor engage in activities with one friend.

In an article titled “The Impact of Giftedness onPsychological Well-Being: What Does the EmpiricalLiterature Say?”, Neihart (1998) noted that thereseemed to be evidence from previous studies thatgiftedness enhanced resiliency, on the one hand, andalso evidence that giftedness increased vulnerability.Neihart pointed out that though views concerningwhether giftedness increased vulnerability have oscil-lated over the years “they are not immune to problems”(Neihart, 1998, p. 10).

Nail and Evans (1997) reported that they comparedresults on the Self-Report of Personality of the Be-havioral Assessment System for Children between 115gifted adolescents and 97 nongifted students from highschools in Atlanta, Georgia. The gifted students werevolunteers from the gifted programs. The nongiftedstudents were randomly chosen from English classes.Results indicated that the gifted showed fewer indica-tors of maladjustment, even though both groups scoredgenerally within normal limits. Neihart (1998) notedthat the gifted participants may not have been repre-sentative of the population of identified gifted students.Also, even though the gifted students volunteered toparticipate, they may not have been truthful in their re-sponses. In-depth interviews following the scoring ofthe instrument might have added to the strength of thefindings. Also, many gifted students who exhibit symp-toms of emotional problems may not be in gifted pro-grams in high school.

The weakness of standardized measures ofdepression was also evidenced in the results of Nei-hart’s (1998) study in which she compared giftedmiddle school students with students of average abilityon “standardized, objective measures of depression”(p. 12). Three groups of 30 adolescents respondedto the Multiscore Depression Inventory (MDI). The

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 553

groups were high-ability students who were in giftedclasses, high-ability students who were not in giftedclasses, and students of average ability. Neihartreported that the gifted students did not have moreadjustment problems than the nongifted students anddifferences in the groups’ responses seemed to indi-cate more positive mental health for the high-abilityindividuals. She concluded, however, that factors suchas type and degree of giftedness, educational fit, andindividual characteristics interact to affect psychologi-cal well-being. The results were questionable becausethey were dependent on the honesty of the participantsand because of the small sample size.

Hayes and Sloat (1990) gathered data from 69schools and noted that 8 of 42 suicide attempts in-volved academically gifted students. In a recent studylooking into the factor structure of gifted adolescents’responses on the Suicide Ideation Questionnaire,Cassady and Cross (2006) concluded that a differenceexisted between the gifted sample and the nongiftedgroup. They went on to note that the difference sug-gests that gifted adolescents have a more multifacetedconception of suicidal ideation.

Summary

None of the studies that have been reviewed haveyielded firm evidence for a claim that gifted adoles-cents are more prone to suicide than other adolescents.Some of the factors that increase the difficulties withmaking conclusions based on research to this pointinclude varied definitions of “gifted” or “academicallytalented.” In some studies, IQ scores determinedgiftedness and in others GPAs or participation ingifted classes were the determinants. Also, nationaldata do not report on level of intelligence since it isnot included on death certificates. Another problemis that studies which focus on suicide attempts havesometimes been compared with studies that involvesuicide completion. An additional factor that affectsthe applicability of findings is the possibility thatresponses on psychometric inventories of suiciderisk or depression may not be honest. Consideringmore than one type of data collection might in-crease the usefulness of findings. Perhaps, ratherthan asking whether gifted students are more proneto suicide than other adolescents, we could pursue

the question, “Which, if any, attributes of giftednessseem to increase a young person’s vulnerability tosuicide?”

References

Alvino, J. (1991). An investigation into the needs of gifted boys.Roeper Review, 13(4), 174–180.

Ayyash-Abdo, H. (2002). Adolescent suicide: An eco-logical approach. Psychology in the Schools, 39(4),459–475.

Belsey, B. (2005). Cyberbullying: An emerging threat to the al-ways on generation. Retrieved on November 20, 2005 fromhttp://www.cyberbullying.ca.

Berman, A. L., & Jobes, D. A. (1991). Adolescent suicide: As-sessment and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psy-chological Association.

Briggs, J. (1990). Fire in the Crucible. Los Angeles: Jeremy P.Tarcher, Inc.

Buescher, T. M. (1985). A framework for understanding the so-cial and emotional development of gifted and talented ado-lescents.Roeper Review, 8(1), 10–15.

Callahan, C. M., Cunningham, C. M., & Plucker, J. A. (1994).Foundations for the future: The socio-emotional develop-ment of gifted, adolescent women. Roeper Review, 17(2),99–105.

Cassady, J. C., & Cross, T. L. (2006). A factorial represen-tation of suicidal ideation among academically gifted ado-lescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(3),290–304.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2005). Being Gifted in School: AnIntroduction to Development, Guidance, and Teaching (2nded.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Collins, J. (2003). Sanity and Grace. New York: Penguin Group,Inc.

Cox, C. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundredgeniuses. (Genetic Studies of Genius, vol.2). Stanford, CA:Stanford University Press.

Cramond, B., & Martin, C. E. (1987, winter). Inservice and pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward the academically brilliant.Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1), 15–19.

Cross, T. L. (1996, May/June). Examining claims about giftedchildren and suicide. Gifted Child Today, 18(3), 46–48.

Cross, T. L. (2001, spring). Social/emotional needs: The rage ofgifted students. Gifted Child Today, 24(2), 43–45.

Cross, T. L. (2004). On the Social and Emotional Lives of GiftedChildren (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Cross, T. L., Cook, R. S., & Dixon, D. N. (1996). Psychologi-cal autopsies of three academically talented adolescents whocommitted suicide. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,7(3), 403–409.

Cross, T. L., Gust-Brey, K., & Ball, B. (2002). A psychologicalautopsy of the suicide of an academically gifted student: Re-searchers’ and parents’ perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly,46(4), 247–264.

Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little,Brown and Co.

554 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

Dabrowski, K. (1976). On the philosophy of developmentthrough positive disintegration and secondary integration, Di-alectics and Humanism, 4(3), 131–144.

Delisle, J. R. (1986). Death with honors: Suicide among giftedadolescents. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64,558–560.

Delisle, J. R. (1992). Guiding the social and emotional devel-opment of gifted youth: A Practical guide for educators andcounselors. New York: Longman Publishing Group.

Delisle, J. R. (2000). Once Upon a Mind: The stories and schol-ars of gifted child education. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt BraceCollege Publishers.

Dixon, D. N., & Scheckel, J. R. (1996). Gifted adolescent sui-cide: The empirical base. Journal of Secondary Gifted Edu-cation, 7(3), 386–392.

Dixon, F. A. (1998). Social and academic self-concepts of giftedadolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(1),80–94.

Drews, E. M. (1972). Learning together: how to foster creativity,Self-fulfillment, and social awareness in today’s students andteachers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Durkheim, E. (1897/1951). Le Suicide (J.A.S. Spaulding, G.,trans.). New York: The Free Press.

Egan, T. (1998, June 14). From adolescent angst to shooting upschools. New York Times.

Ellsworth, J. (November, 2003). Adolescence and gifted: Ad-dressing existential dread. Retrieved on March 2, 2005, fromwww.sengifted.org.

Engle, J. (2003, April). “Fear of success” Revisited: A replica-tion of Matina Horner’s study 30 years later. Paper presentedat the annual conference of the American Education ResearchAssociation annual conference, Chicago, Il.

Farnsworth, D. (1972). Death of the college student. New York:Behavioral Publications.

Fergusson, D. M., Woodward, L. J., & Horwood, L. J. (2000).Risk factors and life processes associated with the onset ofsuicidal behavior during adolescence and early adulthood.Psychological Medicine, 30, 23–39.

Graham, P. (2003). Why nerds are unpopular. Retrievedon February 12, 2004 from http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html .

Griffiths, M. D., & Hunt, H. N. (1998). Dependence on com-puter games by adolescents. Psychological Reports, 82,475–480.

Gross, M. U. M. (1998). The “me” behind the mask: Intellec-tually gifted students and the search for identity. Roeper Re-view, 20(3), 5–21.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally Gifted Children (2nd ed.).New York: Routledge Falmer.

Grossman, D. (1996). The psychological cost of learning to killin war and society. New York: Little, Brown, and Company.

Gust-Brey, K., & Cross, T. L. (1998). An examination of the liter-ature base on the suicidal behaviors of gifted students, RoeperReview, 22(1), 28–35.

Halstead, J. W. (2002). Some of my best friends are books (2nded.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Hayes, M. S., & Sloat, R. (1990). Suicide and the gifted adoles-cent. Journal for the Education of the gifted, 13, 229–244.

Hazler, R. J., & Denham, S. A. (2002). Social isolation of youthat risk: Conceptualization and practical implications. Journalof Counseling and Development, 80, 403–409.

Hebert, T. P. (1991). Meeting the affective needs of bright boysthrough bibliotherapy. Roeper Review, 13(4), 207–212.

Hebert, T. P. (1995). Using biography to counsel giftedyoung men. Journal for Secondary Gifted Education, 6,208–219.

Hebert, T. P. (2000a). Defining belief in self: Intelligent youngmen in an urban high school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2),91–114.

Hebert, T. P. (2000b). Gifted males pursuing careers in elemen-tary education: Factors that influence a belief in self. Journalfor the Education of the Gifted, 24(1), 7–45.

Hebert, T. P. (2002). Gifted males. In M. Neihart, S. M.Reis, N.M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.) The social and emotionaldevelopment of gifted children: What do we know? Waco,TX: Prufrock Press, Inc.

Hebert, T. P., & Speirs Neumeister, K. L. (2002). Fostering thesocial and emotional development of gifted children throughguided viewing of film. Roeper Review, 25(1), 17–21.

Hill, K. (1995). The long sleep: Young people and suicide. Lon-don: Virago Press Ltd.

Hollinger, C. L. (1991). Facilitating the career development ofgifted young women. Roeper Review, 13(3), 135–139.

Hollinger, C. L., & Fleming, E. S. (1992). A longitudinal exam-ination of life choices of gifted and talented young women.Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 207–212.

Hollingworth, L. (1931). The child of very superior intelligenceas a special problem in social adjustment. Mental Hygiene,15(1), 1–16.

Hollingworth, L. (1942). Children Above 180 IQ. New York: Oc-tagon Books.

Horner, M. (1970). Femininity and successful achievement:A basic inconsistency. In J. M. Bardwick, E. Douvan,M. S. Horner, & D. Gutmann (Eds.), Feminine person-ality and conflict. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole PublishingCompany.

Horner, M. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement re-lated conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2),157–175.

Irwin, A. R., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Cognitive tempo, violentvideo games, and aggressive behavior in young boys. Journalof Family Violence, 10(3), 337–350.

Jamison, K. R. (1999). Night falls fast: Understanding suicide.New York: Vintage Books.

Jamison, K. R. (1993). Touched with fire: Manic-depressive ill-ness and the artistic temperament. New York: The FreePress.

Kaiser, C. F., & Berndt, D. J. (1985). Predictors of loneli-ness in the gifted adolescent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29,74–77.

Kerr, B. A. (1991). Handbook for counseling the gifted and tal-ented. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counselingand Development.

Kerr, B. A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls,women, and giftedness. Scottsdale, AZ: Great PotentialPress.

Kerr, B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: talent, manhood,and the search for meaning . Scottsdale, AZ: Great PotentialPress.

Kline, B. E., & Short, E. B. (1991). Changes in emotionalresilience: Gifted adolescent boys. Roeper Review, 13(4),184–187.

25 Understanding Suicidal Behavior of Gifted Students 555

Lajoie, S. P., & Shore, B. M. (1981). Three myths? The over-representation of the gifted among dropouts, delinquents, andsuicides. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25(3), 138–143.

Lee, S., Cramond, B., & Lee, J. (2004, winter). Korean teachers’attitudes toward academic brilliance. Gifted Child Quarterly,48(1), 42–53.

Lester, D. (1999). Suicide. Encyclopedia of Creativity, 2,585–589.

Lester, G. L., & Lester, J. L. (1971). The gamble with death.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lovecky, D. V. (1993). The quest for meaning: Counseling is-sues with gifted children and adolescents. In L. K. Silverman(Ed.), Counseling the Gifted and Talented. Denver, CO: LovePublishing Company.

Ludwig, A. (1995). The price of greatness. New York: Guilford.Machoian, L. (2005). The disappearing girl: Learning the lan-

guage of teenage depression. New York: Penguin Group, Inc.Maine, S., Shute, R., & Martin, G. (2001). Educating parents

about youth suicide. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior,3(3), 320–332.

Maris, R. W., Berman, A. L., & Silverman, M. M. (2000). Com-prehensive textbook of suicidology. New York: The GuilfordPress.

Maris, R. W., Canetto, S. S., & McIntosh, J. L., & Silverman, M.M. (2000). Review of suicidology. New York: The GuilfordPress.

Mishara, B. L. (1999). Conceptions of death and suicidein children ages 6–12 and their implications for suicideprevention. Suicide and life threatening behavior, 29(2),105–118.

Nail, J. M., & Evans, J. G. (1997). The emotional adjustmentof gifted adolescents: A view of global functioning. RoeperReview, 20, 18–22.

National Center for Health Statistics (2006). Causes of deathreport. Retrieved December 20, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars.

National Center for Health Statistics (2004). Advanced reportof final mortality. Retrieved June 10, 2005, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm.

Neihart, M. (1998). The impact of giftedness on psychologicalwell-being: What does the empirical literature say? RoeperReview, 22(1), 10–17.

Nelson, K. C. (1989). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegra-tion. Advanced Development Journal, 1, 1–13.

Oden, M. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow-up of the Terman gifted group. Genetic Psychology Mono-graphs, 77, 3–93.

Pfeffer, C. R. (1986). The suicidal child. New York: The GuilfordPress.

Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: GreatPotential Press.

Plath, S. (1971). The Bell Jar. Evanston: New York: Harper andRow.

Quart, A. (2006). Hothouse kids: The dilemma of the gifted child.New York: The Penguin Press.

Reis, S. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1989). Gifted females: they’vecome a long way—or have they? Journal for the Educationof the Gifted, 12(2), 99–117.

Report (2000). Hearing on the impact of interactive violence onchildren (Report, 2000). March 21, 2000. United States Sen-ate Committee on commerce, science, and transportation.

Richards, R., & Kinney, D. K. (1990). Mood swings and creativ-ity. Creativity Research Journal, 3(3), 202–217.

Rizza, M. G. (1999). Learning to play the game: Female studentsdiscuss their success in high school. Journal for the Educa-tion of the Gifted, 22(3), 243–265.

Roeper, A. (1995). Annemarie Roeper: Selected writings andspeeches. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Press, Inc.

Roeper, A. (2003, November 14). The emotional world ofgifted children. Paper presented at the annual conferenceof the National Association for Gifted Children, Indiana-polis, IN.

Ross, D. (1996). Childhood bullying and teasing. Alexandria,VA: ACA Press.

Ross, D. (Writer), & Weinstein, P. (Director) (2002). Balto II[animated film]: Universal Studios.

Ross, M. (1969). Suicide among college students. AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 126, 220–225.

Rothenberg, A. (1990). Creativity and Madness. Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Runco, M. A. (1998). Suicide and creativity: The case of SylviaPlath. Death Studies, 22(7), 637–654.

Sargent, M. (1984). Adolescent suicide: studies reported. Childand Adolescent Psychotherapy, 1(2), 49–50.

Shneidman, E. S. (1985). Definition of suicide. New York: Wiley.Shneidman, E. S. (1993). Suicide as psychache: A clinical

approach to self-destructive behavior. Northvale, JJ: JasonAronson, Inc.

Shneidman, E. S. (1996). The suicidal mind. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.

Seiden, R. (1966). Campus tragedy. Journal of Abnormal Psy-chology, 71, 389–399.

Silverman, L. K. (Ed.). (1993). Counseling the gifted and tal-ented. Denver, CO: Love Publishing Company.

Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted chil-dren and the evolution of society. Roeper Review, 17(2),110–115.

Slaby, A. E. (1992). Creativity, depression, and suicide. Suicideand Life-Threatening Behavior, 22(2), 157–166.

Smutney, J. (1999). Gifted girls. Understanding our Gifted,11(2), 9–13.

Spiers Neumeister, K. L. (2002). Perfectionism in gifted collegestudents: Family influences and implications for achieve-ment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Geor-gia, Athens, GA.

Spiers Neumeister, K. L. (2004). Understanding the relation-ship between perfectionism and achievement motivationin gifted college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3),219–231.

Stanley, J. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’talready know. Psychology, Public policy, and Law, 6(1),216–222.

Stanley, J. C. (2004). Don’t teach kids what they already know.Paper presented at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Stillion, J. M., McDowell, E. E., & May, J. H. (1989). SuicideAcross the Life span- Premature Exits. New York: Hemi-sphere Publishing Corporation.

Stillion, J. M., & McDowell, E. E. (1996). Suicide across the lifespan-premature exits. (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Taylor &Francis.

Subotnik, R. F., Karp, D. E., & Morgan, E. R. (1989). High IQchildren at mid-life: An investigation into the generalizabil-

556 L.A. Hyatt and T.L. Cross

ity of Terman’s “Genetic studies of genius,” Roeper Review,11(3), 139–144.

Subotnik, R. F., Kasson, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993).Genius revisited: High I.Q. children grown up. Norwood, NJ:Ablex.

Tannenbaum, A. (1962). Adolescent attitudes toward academicbrilliance. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Col-lege, Columbia University.

Terman, L. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousandgifted children. Genetic Studies of Genius (Vol. I). Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life: 35 years’ follow-up of the superior child. Genetic Studiesof Genius (Vol. V). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tomchin, E. M., Callahan, C. M., Sowa, C. J., & May, K. M.(1996). Coping and self-concept. Journal for SecondaryGifted Education, 8(1), 16–27.

Torrance, E. P. (1961). Problems of highly creative children.Gifted Child Quarterly, 5, 31–34.

Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Torrance, E. P., & Sisk, D. A. (1997). Gifted and talented chil-dren in the regular classroom. Buffalo, New York: CreativeEducation Foundation Press.

Tucker, B., & Hafenstein, N. L. (1997). Psychological intensi-ties in young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3),66–75.

Walsh, D. (2001). Video game violence and public pol-icy. Chicago: National Institute on Media and theFamily.

Willard, N. E. (2006). Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Respond-ing to the challenge of online social cruelty, threats, and dis-tress. Champagne, Il: Research Press.

View publication statsView publication stats