presentation power point

BRIEF REPORT

Masculine Norms, School Attitudes, and Psychosocial Adjustment
Among Gifted Boys

Samuel J. Shepard, Megan Foley Nicpon, James T. Haley, Michael Lind, and
William Ming Liu
The University of Iowa

Being an academically gifted boy may mean negotiating masculinity. In this explor-
atory study, 58 gifted and talented adolescent boys completed the Male Role Norms
Inventory–Adolescent (MRNI-A) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children–
Self-Report of Personality (BASC-SRP-A). Correlation results show endorsing tradi-
tional masculine norms was positively associated with feelings of competency, confi-
dence, self-reliance, and feeling self-assured. Feelings of inadequacy also decreased
when endorsement of masculine role norms increased. Adhering to achievement and
status norms was associated with higher positive interpersonal relationships in high
school and less social stress. Additionally, restricting emotions was associated with less
satisfaction with friendships and social relationships for all participants. Results gen-
erally show boys adherence to male role norms to be positively related to their
perceptions of academic achievement. Research and clinical implications are discussed.

Keywords: gifted boys, psychosocial adjustment, masculine norms

Professionals in gifted education commonly
refer to students who exhibit talent in various
domains (e.g., intellectual ability, creativity,
leadership) as gifted (Colangelo & Davis,
2003). Collectively, these children tend to be
emotionally well-adjusted (Bain & Bell, 2004;
Cross, Cassady, Dixon, & Adams, 2008; Nail &
Evans, 1997; Neihart, 1999; Roznowski, Reith,
& Hong, 2000); however, problems may arise
throughout development, such as depression,
perfectionism, social stigma, identity issues,
difficulty managing external expectations (Levy
& Plucker, 2003), or feeling unable to be one-
self in school (Cross & Coleman, 1993), due to
the “stigma of giftedness” (Cross, Coleman, &
Terhaar-Yonkers, 1991, p. 45). Among gifted
boys, Bartell and Reynolds (1986) found that

they reported lower self-esteem and higher lev-
els of depression than gifted girls. Others have
suggested that issues relating to masculinity can
interact with boys’ experience of giftedness in
ways that create unique challenges (Kerr &
Cohn, 2001) because what it means to be mas-
culine may have little in common with what it
means to be gifted. Rigid attitudes about mas-
culinity may result in conflict if thoughts and
behaviors they believe men should exhibit are
contrary to their own.

Current perspectives in the study of men and
masculinity view rigid adherence to traditional
male norms as problematic, even among ado-
lescent boys (Feder, Levant, & Dean, 2007).
Scholars view certain male problems–such as
violence, aggression, devaluation of women,
detached fathering, and underutilization of
physical and mental health services–as “unfor-
tunate but predictable results of the male role
socialization process” (Levant, 1996, p. 259).
Among adult males, adherence to traditional
male gender roles has been shown to be related
to depression (Good & Mintz, 1990), anxiety
(Davis, 1987), self-esteem (Davis, 1987), rela-
tionship satisfaction (Burn & Ward, 2005), and

Samuel J. Shepard, Megan Foley Nicpon, James T. Ha-
ley, Michael Lind, and William Ming Liu, Department of
Psychological and Quantitative Foundations, Counseling
Program, The University of Iowa.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Megan Foley Nicpon, 600 Blank Honors Center,
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. E-mail:
[email protected]

of Men & Masculinity © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 12, No. 2, 181–187 1524-9220/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019945

181

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t i

s
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
o

ne
o

f i
ts

a
lli

ed
p

ub
lis

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
tic

le
is

in
te

nd
ed

s
ol

el
y

fo
r t

he
p

er
so

na
l u

se
o

f t
he

in
di

vi
du

al
u

se
r a

nd
is

n
ot

to
b

e
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
b

ro
ad

ly
.

difficulties in intimacy (Maxton, 1994).
Whether such adherence is equally troublesome
among special populations of boys, such as
gifted boys, is unknown, yet scholars in gifted
education theorize that it is. For example, gifted
children often are regarded as having a height-
ened level of emotional sensitivity, increased
awareness of others’ feelings, and sensitivity to
criticism (Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert,
2002). These characteristics may be particularly
challenging for gifted boys because heightened
emotionality is incompatible with traditional
masculine norms like stoicism and emotional
suppression (Levant, 1992). Gifted boys may
repress feelings of loneliness, uncertainty, or
fear, as society teaches boys that these emotions
are not acceptable for men (Pollack, 1998).
Hébert (2002) cautions that gifted boys who
experience criticism from those who do not
value male sensitivity may withdraw emotion-
ally, putting them at risk for psychological
problems.

Gifted boys may find it difficult to reconcile
their abilities with their conceptualization of an
ideal masculine boy. Being “smart” or “brainy”
has little to do with traditional male stereotypes,
such as physical dominance, rugged self-
reliance, and aggression (Epstein, 1998; Leaper
& Van, 2008). They may perceive their abilities
are shunned and conceptualize their gifts as
social downfalls. Some gifted children deliber-
ately hide their abilities by dropping out of
advanced classes (Coleman & Cross, 1988;
Rimm, 2002). For gifted boys, it has been sug-
gested that certain activities (e.g., involvement
in student leadership) may be labeled as a fem-
inine, which could discourage them from enter-
ing these potentially beneficial environments
(Kerr & Foley Nicpon, 2003). It is important to
note that these ideas have not been empirically
tested, and some investigations suggest that
they may not be true. For example, research
examining the personality types of gifted stu-
dents suggests that they way gifted boys prob-
lem-solve and draw conclusions tends to be
based on logical, objective information more so
than with gifted girls (Cross, Speirs Neumeister,
& Cassady, 2007). Gifted boys also continue to
enter the math and sciences, fields with higher
male gender-linked expectations, with a higher
academic self-concept than gifted girls (Preckel,
Goetz, Pekrun, & Kleine, 2008). It is possible
that gifted boys’ adherence to some tradition-

ally masculine norms may not necessarily be
problematic.

The aforementioned review of the possible
effects of gifted boys’ adherence to masculine
norms has yet to be empirical investigated and
remains based on clinical experience; in fact,
few of the articles reviewed have an empirical
foundation (e.g., Bartell & Reynolds, 1986;
Coleman & Cross, 1988; Cross et al., 2008;
Cross & Coleman, 1993; Cross et al., 2007;
Preckel et al., 2008). Therefore, the purpose of
this exploratory study was to measure the en-
dorsement of traditional masculine norms
among gifted adolescent boys and to examine
how these values are related to levels of psy-
chosocial adjustment and engagement in school.
It was anticipated that greater endorsement of
traditional masculine norms would be associ-
ated with poorer psychosocial adjustment and
more negative attitudes toward school.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 58 middle and high school
males (ages 12 – 18) enrolled in summer en-
richment programs at a university-based center
for gifted education. Program participation was
determined through a rigorous admissions pro-
cess that involved reviewing records of ability
and academic test scores demonstrating high
ability, grades, examples of work products, es-
says, and teacher and/or self-nominations.
These scholarship programs are highly compet-
itive and attract high ability students in specific
content areas (mathematics, leadership, science,
etc.). Students were from urban and rural set-
tings and two-hundred survey packets were
mailed; the 58 participants reflect a 29% return
rate. This relatively low response rate may have
been influenced by timing (summer recruitment
when students typically are busy with extracur-
ricular activities) or a pathology-based percep-
tion of the BASC. Ninety percent identified as
Caucasian, 5% as Asian American, and 5%
“other.” Over 95% reported a GPA of 3.04 or
higher. Approximately 35% reported an annual
family income of more than $100,000; 29%
reported incomes between $61,000 and
$100,000, 17% between $41,000 and $60,000,
and 7% between $21,000 and $40,000.

182 SHEPARD, NICPON, HALEY, LIND, AND LIU

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t i

s
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
o

ne
o

f i
ts

a
lli

ed
p

ub
lis

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
tic

le
is

in
te

nd
ed

s
ol

el
y

fo
r t

he
p

er
so

na
l u

se
o

f t
he

in
di

vi
du

al
u

se
r a

nd
is

n
ot

to
b

e
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
b

ro
ad

ly
.

Procedures

Researchers mailed survey packets to par-
ents/guardians of students enrolled in the pro-
grams; if consent was granted, parents were
asked to give the surveys to their boys to com-
plete. Packets contained an informed consent,
assent to participate, demographic data sheet,
postage-paid return envelope, and the research
questionnaires. Forms emphasized that research
participation was voluntary and that lack of
participation would not affect program status.
Individuals were not compensated for their par-
ticipation and measures took approximately 20
to 30 minutes to complete.

Measures

Behavior Assessment System for Chil-
dren–Self-Report of Personality. The
BASC-SRP (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992) is
one of several assessments designed to inform
differential diagnosis and treatment of chil-
dren. While the BASC-SRP provides infor-
mation about maladjustment, it also assesses
positive, adaptive behaviors in respondents
that can be utilized in various environments.
The adolescent version of the Self-Report of
Personality (SRP-A; ages 12–18) consists of
186 true-false items and takes 30 – 45 minutes
to complete. These items yield scores on 14
different scales: 10 that measure maladjust-
ment (Anxiety, Attitude to School, Attitude to
Teachers, Atypicality, Depression, Locus of
Control, Sensation Seeking, Sense of Inade-
quacy, Social Stress, and Somatization) and
four that measure positive adjustment (Inter-
personal Relations, Relations with Parents,
Self-Esteem, and Self-Reliance). The instru-
ment is scored by computer, and results are
reported as T scores. Internal consistencies
(coefficient alpha reliabilities) for the 14
BASC-SRP-A subscales range from .64 –.89
(Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992). Test–retest
reliability is moderate to high (.57-.87), and
convergent and divergent is high when com-
paring children’s scores to those on other
self-report measures (for example, Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory; Hathaway
& McKinley, 1942/1970). Because reliability
has been well-established, BASC alpha val-
ues are not commonly reported in the research
literature (e.g., Demaray, Malecki, Davidson,

Hodgson, & Rebus, 2005; Mahone, Zabel,
Levey, Verda, & Kinsman, 2002; Nail & Ev-
ans, 1997). Based on the review of the liter-
ature on gifted boys, the following eight
scales that were thought to be most influenced
by adherence to masculine attitudes among
this population were examined: Anxiety, At-
titude to School, Depression, Sense of Inad-
equacy, Interpersonal Relations, Self-Esteem,
Self-Reliance, and Social Stress.

Male Role Norms Inventory–Adolescent.
The MRNI-A (Levant, Graef, Smalley, Wil-
liams, & McMillan, 2008) consists of 43 items
designed to measure boys’ masculinity atti-
tudes. Using a 7-point Likert scale, participants
indicate their level of agreement with state-
ments concerning male roles/behaviors (1 �
Strongly Disagree, 7 � Strongly Agree). Higher
scores indicate greater endorsement of tradi-
tional masculine norms. The MRNI-A has five
scales that assess these theoretically derived
traditional norms: Avoidance of Femininity
(e.g., “A boy should prefer football to sew-
ing.”); Self-Reliance (e.g., “A boy should never
doubt his own judgment.”); Aggression (e.g.,
“When the going gets tough, boys should get
tough.”); Achievement/Status (“A boy should
do whatever it takes to be admired and re-
spected.”); and Restrictive Emotionality (“A
boy should never reveal his worries to others.”).
Internal consistencies for the current study were
as follows: Self-Reliance (� � .58), Achieve-
ment/Status (� � .59), and Aggression (� �
.63), which were below the expected standard
(.70), and Avoidance of Femininity (� � .84)
and Restrictive Emotionality (� � .80), which
above the expected standard.

Results

Mean scores, standard deviations, and inter-
nal consistencies for the MRNI-A subscales,
Avoidance of Femininity, Self-Reliance, Ag-
gression, Achievement/Status, and Restrictive
Emotionality, and means and standard devia-
tions for the selected BASC-SRP-A subscales
are presented in Table 1. In keeping with liter-
ature that suggests gifted boys may be less
adherent to traditional masculine norms (e.g.,
Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert, 2002), it is
notable that participants’ mean scores on all
MRNI-A subscales except Self-Reliance were

183PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AMONG GIFTED BOYS

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t i

s
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
o

ne
o

f i
ts

a
lli

ed
p

ub
lis

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
tic

le
is

in
te

nd
ed

s
ol

el
y

fo
r t

he
p

er
so

na
l u

se
o

f t
he

in
di

vi
du

al
u

se
r a

nd
is

n
ot

to
b

e
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
b

ro
ad

ly
.

found to be significantly lower than those re-
ported by Levant et al. (2008) among a sample
of American boys. T tests comparing the two
groups were all significant at an alpha level
of 0.01. Because of the exploratory nature of
this study, an alpha level of 0.10 was used for
all subsequent analyses (e.g., Ford, Havstad,
Brooks, & Tilley, 2002; Marra et al., 2002;
Morris, 1957).

The correlations between all MRNI-A sub-
scales and participant age, grade, and BASC-
SRP-A subscales are presented in Table 2. The
correlations between the MRNI-A scales and
participant age and grade level were included in
the table because previous research has found
that age is negatively correlated with more tra-
ditional attitudes toward male roles among ad-
olescent males (Pleck, Sonenstein, & Ku,
1994). However, this was not observed in the
present study, as no significant correlations
were found between MRNI-A subscales and
participant age or grade.

Significant positive correlations were ob-
served between BASC-SRP-A Self-Reliance
and MRNI-A Achievement/Status, Self-Reli-
ance, Avoidance of Femininity, and Aggression
subscales. This suggests that greater endorse-
ment of these masculine norms was associated
with increased feelings of self-reliance. Signif-
icant negative correlations were observed be-
tween the MRNI-A Achievement/Status and the
BASC-SRP-A Sense of Inadequacy subscales
and between the MRNI-A Self-Reliance and the
Sense of Inadequacy subscales. This suggests
that greater endorsement of the norms of
Achievement/Status and Self-Reliance was as-
sociated with decreased feelings of inadequacy.
A significant negative correlation was observed
between the MRNI-A Achievement/Status and
the BASC-SRP-A Social Stress subscales, sug-
gesting that increased endorsement of the im-

Table 1
Descriptive for the Male Role Norms
Inventory-Adolescent (MRNI-A) and Behavior
Assessment System for Children–Self-Report of
Personality-Adolescent (BASC-SRP-A)

Subscale M SD

MRNI-A

Achievement/Status 3.93 0.72
Aggression 4.32 0.79
Avoidance of Femininity 3.89 1.10
Restrictive Emotionality 3.57 0.84
Self-Reliance 4.36 0.70

BASC-SRP-A

Anxiety 45.12 8.33
Attitude to School 47.02 7.79
Depression 45.67 4.82
Inadequacy 42.26 5.22
Interpersonal Relations 52.98 6.72
Self-Esteem 52.98 7.60
Self-Reliance 54.38 5.96
Social Stress 47.02 9.07

Table 2
Correlations Between Subscales of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Adolescent and Participant Age,
Grade, and Scores on the Behavior Assessment System for Children–Self-Report of Personality-Adolescent

Achievement/Status Aggression
Avoidance of

Femininity
Restrictive

Emotionality Self-Reliance

Age .06 .13 .06 .01 .01
Grade .08 .03 .10 �.02 �.04
Anxiety �.11 �.02 .05 �.01 �.13
Attitude/School �.02 .03 �.07 .11 �.15
Depression �.08 �.05 .02 .15 �.06
Inadequacy �.42�� �.06 �.09 .01 �.34��

Int/Relations .22 .14 .01 �.20 .15
Self-Esteem .09 �.02 .05 �.10 .11
Self-Reliance .32� .22� .25� .11 .33�

Social Stress �.24� �.08 .04 .13 �.09

Note. Attitude/School � Attitude to School; Attitude/Teachers � Attitude to Teachers; Inadequacy � Sense of Inade-
quacy; Int/Relations � Interpersonal Relations.
�Correlation is significant at the .10 level (2-tailed). �Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ��Correlation
is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

184 SHEPARD, NICPON, HALEY, LIND, AND LIU

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t i

s
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
o

ne
o

f i
ts

a
lli

ed
p

ub
lis

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
tic

le
is

in
te

nd
ed

s
ol

el
y

fo
r t

he
p

er
so

na
l u

se
o

f t
he

in
di

vi
du

al
u

se
r a

nd
is

n
ot

to
b

e
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
b

ro
ad

ly
.

portance of achievement and status was associ-
ated with fewer reports of stressful feelings in
social situations.

Discussion

The results of the current study run counter to
the literature on gifted boys presented earlier
and the expectations of the authors. It was an-
ticipated that, because academically gifted ado-
lescent males as a group are thought to be in
violation of traditional masculine norms–for in-
stance, by having increased emotional sensitiv-
ity (Edmunds & Edmunds, 2005; Hébert,
2002)–that greater endorsement of traditional
norms would result in dissonance that might
manifest itself as maladjustment. However, no
aspects of traditional masculinity were associ-
ated with greater levels of maladjustment as
measured by the BASC-SRP-A.

One possible explanation for these unex-
pected findings is that the adolescent boys in the
current study, despite having significantly lower
scores on most of the MRNI-A subscales than a
general sample of American boys, did not per-
ceive themselves to be in violation of traditional
masculine norms. As a result, the participants
may not have perceived any failure to live up to
the masculine norms they endorsed, resulting in
a lack of dissonance and maladjustment. With
regard to attitudes toward school, it is feasible
that the participants in the current study did not
view academic activities as feminine (as sug-
gested by Kerr & Foley Nicpon, 2003) and,
thus, did not perceive the need to avoid them.
Another possible explanation is that the tradi-
tional masculine norms measured by the
MRNI-A scales are simply not as harmful to
gifted adolescent boys as expected and, instead,
that some levels of endorsement of these norms
may even be adaptive.

Results from this exploratory study also dem-
onstrated that increased feelings of confidence
and self-reliance among gifted adolescent boys
were associated with increased endorsement of
the masculine norms of Achievement/Status,
Self-Reliance, Avoidance of Femininity, and
Aggression. Gifted adolescent boys who indi-
cated these constructs were important male at-
tributes reported feeling more self-assured. Be-
cause of the correlational nature of this study,
no causal relationship can be determined (e.g.,
feelings of self-reliance could lead to endorse-

ment of traditional masculine norms or endorse-
ment of these norms could lead gifted boys to
feel more self-assured). Decreased feelings of
inadequacy were associated with greater en-
dorsement of the norms of Achievement/Status
and Self-Reliance. Participants who felt that it
was important for men to be self-reliant and to
strive for achievement reported fewer feelings
of inadequacy and a greater sense of compe-
tency. Striving for achievement and status may
make gifted adolescent boys feel more worth-
while, or achievement and status may fulfill a
sense of mastery in competition (Pollack,
1998). Greater endorsement of Achievement/
Status was also associated with decreased re-
ports of social stress. It may be that gifted
adolescent boys generally value achievement
and, thus, experience less social stress when
meeting these expectations.

Clinical and Research Implications

For participants in our study, those who more
highly endorsed traditional male norms, partic-
ularly the importance of achievement and sta-
tus, appeared more psychosocially and interper-
sonally satisfied. Clinicians should consider this
relationship when conceptualizing clients’ dis-
tress. Would a gifted boy whose dream is to be
a high school music teacher feel self-doubt
about whether he is pursuing a career that has
enough social status? Clinicians should include
in their discussion what it means to be a gifted
male, how male norms influence this role, and
how they want to demonstrate their masculinity
developmentally. The same is true for educators
of gifted boys. Engaging boys in a discussion
about how their high ability interacts with their
perceptions of masculinity may be a meaningful
component to their educational experience.

Because endorsement of several aspects of
traditional masculinity (Self-Reliance, Aggres-
sion, Avoidance of Femininity, and Achieve-
ment/Status) was associated with positive psy-
chosocial adjustment, this study raises the need
for further research verifying the potential pos-
itive aspects of adherence to certain masculine
norms among gifted adolescent boys. Could the
importance of pursuing achievement among
gifted adolescent boys diminish problems with
academic underachievement? Are there optimal

185PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AMONG GIFTED BOYS

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t i

s
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
o

ne
o

f i
ts

a
lli

ed
p

ub
lis

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
tic

le
is

in
te

nd
ed

s
ol

el
y

fo
r t

he
p

er
so

na
l u

se
o

f t
he

in
di

vi
du

al
u

se
r a

nd
is

n
ot

to
b

e
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
b

ro
ad

ly
.

levels of adherence to constructs such as self-
reliance that predict adaptive levels of persis-
tence?

Limitations

First, the MRNI-A and the BASC-SRP-A
Self-Reliance scales were significantly corre-
lated, although the relationship was not very
strong. This low correlation may be because (a)
the scales, although similarly labeled, assess
different constructs; (b) the BASC-SRP-A may
be based on a less normal population than the
MRNI-A; (c) the MRNI-A Self-Reliance scale
consists of items embedded within a measure of
masculinity; and (d) the differences in wording
between the two measures. Therefore, partici-
pants may be primed to think of gender related
self-reliance, thereby leading to a different con-
ceptualization of self-reliance in the MRNI-A
than in the BASC-SRP-A. Second, although
positive aspects of adjustment were associated
with increased adherence to the Achievement/
Status and Self-Reliance norms, results should
be interpreted with caution because of poor
internal consistencies. Because these two scales
do not appear to measure a unified construct, it
is impossible to determine if they actually rep-
resent these intended constructs. Third, because
of the program specific admission criteria for
the various summer programs, participants do
not constitute a well-defined population of
gifted adolescent boys. While admission to the
scholarship programs is rigorous, the same abil-
ity and achievement data is not obtained for all
participants. However, admission is competitive
and students are not admitted unless they clearly
demonstrate talent in a specific program area
(i.e., science, creative writing, mathematics,
etc.). This domain specific talent identification
technique is a model consistent with progres-
sive conceptualizations of what it means to be
gifted (Lohman, 2005, 2006). Fourth, no com-
parison group of nongifted males was used;
such a group should be included in future re-
search to determine if and how gifted adolescent
boys differ from peers on these constructs. Fi-
nally, only the self-report section of the BASC
was used to measure psychosocial adjustment;
findings would be enriched by including the
teacher- and parent-report forms.

References

Bain, S. K., & Bell, S. M. (2004). Social self-concept,
social attributions, and peer relationships in fourth,
fifth, and sixth graders who are gifted compared to
high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(3),
167–178.

Bartell, N. P., & Reynolds, W. M. (1986). Depression
and self-esteem in academically gifted and non-
gifted children: A comparison study. Journal of
School , 24, 51– 61.

Burn, S. M., & Ward, A. Z. (2005). Men’s confor-
mity to traditional masculinity and relationship
satisfaction. of Men & Masculinity,
6(4), 254 –263.

Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (2003). Handbook of
gifted education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted
a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 11, 41–56.

Cross, T. L., Cassady, J. C., Dixon, F. A., & Adams,
C. M. (2008). The psychology of gifted adoles-
cents as measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 52(4), 326 –339.

Cross, T. L., & Coleman, L. J. (1993). The social
cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of
the stigma of giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review,
16(1), 37– 40.

Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Terhaar-Yonkers, M.
(1991). The social cognition of gifted adolescents
in the schools: Managing the stigma of giftedness.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15(1),
44 –55.

Cross, T. L., Speirs Neumeister, K. L., & Cassady,
J. C. (2007). Psychological types of academically
gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3),
285–294.

Davis, F. (1987). Antecedents and consequences of
gender role conflict: An empirical test of sex-role
strain analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University). Dissertation Abstracts International,
48/11, 3443.

Demaray, M. K., Malecki, C. K., Davidson, L. M.,
Hodgson, K. K., & Rebus, P. J. (2005). The rela-
tionship between social support and student adjust-
ment: A longitudinal analysis. in the
Schools, 42, 691–706.

Edmunds, A. L., & Edmunds, G. A. (2005). Sensi-
tivity: A double-edged sword for the preadolescent
and adolescent gifted child. Roeper Review, 27,
69 –77.

Epstein, D. (1998). Real boys don’t work: “Under-
achievement, masculinity, and the harassment of
sissies”. In D. Epstein, J. Elwood, V. Hey, & J.
Maw (Eds.), Failing boys? Issues in Gender and
Achievement (pp. 96 –108). Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.

186 SHEPARD, NICPON, HALEY, LIND, AND LIU

T
hi

s
do

cu
m

en
t i

s
co

py
ri

gh
te

d
by

th
e

A
m

er
ic

an
P

sy
ch

ol
og

ic
al

A
ss

oc
ia

tio
n

or
o

ne
o

f i
ts

a
lli

ed
p

ub
lis

he
rs

.
T

hi
s

ar
tic

le
is

in
te

nd
ed

s
ol

el
y

fo
r t

he
p

er
so

na
l u

se
o

f t
he

in
di

vi
du

al
u

se
r a

nd
is

n
ot

to
b

e
di

ss
em

in
at

ed
b

ro
ad

ly
.

Feder, J., Levant, R. F., & Dean, J. (2007). Boys and
violence: A gender-informed analysis. Profes-
sional : Research and Practice, 38(4),
385–391.

Ford, M. E., Havstad, S. L., Brooks, B. L., & Tilley,
B. C. (2002). Perceptions of diabetes among pa-
tients in an urban health care system. Ethnicity &
Health, 7, 243–254.

Good, G. E., & Mintz, L. B. (1990). Gender role
conflict and depression in college men: Evidence
for compounded risk. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 69(1), 17–21.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1970). Minne-
sota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneap-
olis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original pub-
lished in 1942)

Hébert, T. P. (2002). Gifted males. In M. Neihart,
S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.),
The social and emotional development of gifted
children: What do we know? (pp. 137–144). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.

Kerr, B. A., & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent,
manhood, & the search for meaning. Scottsdale,
AZ: Great Potential Press.

Kerr, B. A., & Foley Nicpon, M. (2003). Gender and
giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),
Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 493–
505). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Leaper, C., & Van, S. R. (2008). Masculinity ideol-
ogy, covert sexism, and perceived gender …