![](https://csdnimg.cn/release/download_crawler_static/19913153/bg1.jpg)
Parents
’
Mainstream
in
g
Preferences
301
FERGUSON,
G.
A.
(1966).
Statistical analysis in psychology and education.
(2nd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
GERBER,
M.
M.
(1988).
Tolerance and technology of instruction implications for special education reform.
HELLER,
H.
W.,
&
SCHILIT,
J.
(1987).
The regular education initiative: A concerned response.
Focus
on
Ex-
IDOL,
L.,
&
PAOLUCCI-WHITCOMB, P.
(1986).
Collaborative consultation.
Rockville, MD: Aspen.
MYLES, B.
S.,
&
SIMPSON,
R.
L.
(1989).
Regular educators’ modification preferences for mainstreaming mildly
handicapped children.
Journal of Special Education,
22(4), 479-491.
MYLNEK,
S.,
HANNAH, M.
E.,
&
HAMLIN, M. A.
(1982).
Mainstreaming: Parental perceptions.
Psychology
in the Schools,
19,
354-359.
PAUL,
J.
L.,
TURNBULL,
A.
P.,
&
CRUICKSHANK, W. M.
(1977).
Mainstreaming: Apracticalguide.
Syracuse:
Syracuse University Press.
REYNOLDS, M. C.,
WANO,
M. C.,
&
WALBERG, H.
J.
(1987).
The necessary restructuring of special and regular
education.
Exceptional Children,
53(5),
391-398.
SIEGEL,
S.
(1956).
Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.
New York: McGraw Hill.
STAINBACK,
W.,
STAINBACK,
S.
(1984).
Teacher opinion poll: Professional satisfaction.
(1975).
Exceptional Children,
54,
309-3 14.
ceptional Children,
20(3), 1-6.
A rationale for the merger of special and regular education.
Ex-
ceptional Children,
51,
102-1
11.
Today’s Education,
64, 14.
Psychology
in
the
Schools
Vohme
26.
July
1989
LABELS OF GIFTEDNESS AND GENDER-TYPICALITY:
EFFECTS ON ADULTS’ JUDGMENTS OF CHILDREN’S TRAITS’
JENNIFER
J.
HALPERN ZELLA LURIA
University
of
California, Berkeley
Tufts University
The study examines the impressions adults form
of
children as a function of labels
of
giftedness and gender-typicality. Participants read about a child described as
male/female, “gifted”/“average,” and
gender-typicaVgender-atypical
in academic in-
terests; they then responded
on
30 adjective scales. Compared with children labeled
“average,” children labeled “gifted” are
seen
as
closer to
odd
than tofits
in
well.
Gender-
atypical boys were considered more
odd
and gender-atypical girls were rated less
odd
than were gender-typical children, regardless
of
giftedness. There was
no
additive
negative effect of being both gifted and gender-atypical. Basically, participants
described gifted and gender-atypical children differently; some overlap exists between
adjectives used to describe these children (e.g.,
odd).
Giftedness and gender-atypicality
are related but separate concepts, each with many facets. The interrelationships and
diversity of the two concepts must be assessed when individuals consider the impres-
sion that gifted
or
gender-atypical children make
on
others.
Despite the work of Terman, his colleagues, and many contemporary researchers,
negative stereotypes of “gifted” individuals persist (Terman,
1930;
Terman
&
Oden,
1947;
Tannenbaum,
1962, 1983).
Past studies have indicated that although academic brilliance
by itself may not impair a child’s social standing among peers (Miller,
1956;
Terman,
1925),
such brilliance combined with other traits, particularly adolescent studiousness
and nonathleticism, has a negative effect on social status for both boys and girls
(Tannebaum,
1962).
Terman
(1925)
asked teachers of his gifted and control subjects
if
each child was considered “queer”
or
different from the other children in their classes.
Reprint requests should be addressed to Jennifer Halpern, School of Business Administration, Universi-
‘The assistance of David Feldman and David Levine in the preparation of this article is gratefully
ty of California, Berkeley, CA
94720.
acknowledged.