Roeper Review, 32:249–258, 2010
Copyright © The Roeper Institute
ISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X online
DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2010.508156
UROR
UNDERACHIEVEMENT AND GOAL SETTING
Can Personal Goal Setting Tap the Potential
of the Gifted Underachiever?
Personal Goal Setting
Dominique Morisano and Bruce M. Shore
Although underachieving gifted students have been largely ignored in empirical research,
there has been a modest surge of interest in describing and “treating” this population in recent
years. It is estimated that nearly half of gifted youth achieve significantly below their potential. In the realm of school psychology, gifted children have special needs that must be
addressed. In this article, gifted underachievement is briefly reviewed, and personal goal
setting is explored as a possible intervention. Goal setting’s applicability is reviewed in light
of recent expressive writing, neuropsychology, and goal-theory literature. Although personal
goal-setting exercises are often reserved for young adults, the reported heightened metacognitive capabilities of gifted children indicate that they might benefit from this type of focus
much earlier.
Keywords: counseling, education, gifted youth, personal goal setting, psychology, success,
underachievement
We should see potential not as potential for being good at
the handful of skills and acquisitions that can be developed
at or gotten from school, but as the potential for realizing
the possibilities of the spirit, the potential, more specifically, for selecting from and integrating school learning and
other learning into a meaningful, worthy, passionate, and
satisfying life path. (Grant, 1995, p. 133)
Between 15% (Pendarvis, Howley, & Howley, 1990)
and 50% (Reis, 1998; Richert, 1991; Ross, 1993) of gifted
children achieve significantly below their intellectual and
creative potential in their personal, work-related, and academic lives. According to Richert, the latter figure might
even be an underestimate, because most reports identify
their participants via IQ scores and thus exclude gifted students
who are identified through means other than intelligence tests
(e.g., performance, recommendation, audition, creative
Received 1 June 2009; accepted 6 August 2009.
Address correspondence to Dominique Morisano, PhD, CPsych, Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology (Department of Psychiatry), The
Child and Family Institute, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center/Columbia
University, College of Physicians & Surgeons, 17th Floor (South), 1090
Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY10025. E-mail: [email protected]
products, self-nomination). Not surprisingly, the issue of
underperforming gifted students is rarely addressed in society-at-large. It is often mistakenly assumed that bright children are guaranteed high achievement and success
(Vlahovic-Stetic, Vidovic, & Arambasic, 1999), and the
exceptions are not perceived as presenting an immediate
danger or concern. The problem of giftedness with underachievement persists, but the number of research studies has
dropped off considerably since about the year 2000, perhaps
because of the need for new insights into possible causes
and treatments.
Extremely bright children have special needs that must
be addressed by educators, parents, and psychologists, arguably as much as children with developmental delays or
other learning disorders. The gifted underachiever who
passes through school without intervention might be
thought of metaphorically as an untapped well. Both the
child and society benefit when professionals search for
solutions to increase the productivity and achievement of
the underperforming bright student. As Butler-Por (1993)
noted, “When underachievement patterns of behavior persist, they create damage both to the individual who fails to
reach full development and to society which is deprived of
250
D. MORISANO AND B. M. SHORE
his or her possible contributions” (p. 649). Unfortunately,
the solutions that have been proposed in the literature to
address the issue of underachieving gifted youth have not
only been costly and resource intensive but also few and far
between, with as yet unestablished levels of effectiveness
(Baum, Renzulli, & Hébert, 1995; Fehrenbach, 1993; Peters,
Grager-Loidl, & Supplee, 2000; Reis & McCoach, 2000).
Too often, in the pieces written about the education and
upbringing of gifted youth, teachers and parents concentrate
on providing aims and objectives for their children. For
instance, in VanTassel-Baska and Stambaugh’s (2005)
book, Comprehensive Curriculum for Gifted Learners, educators are asked to set a pace and depth of teaching that will
allow for individual mastery of material by bright students.
They are asked to encourage critical thinking and reasoning
abilities, to stimulate inquiry, to provide an atmosphere that
promotes divergent thinking and to help students develop
advanced oral and research-methods skills. They are
advised to foster an understanding of systems of knowledge
and problems that frame the external world, to facilitate
external opportunities for learning in the present, and to
enhance opportunities for future development. Further, they
are asked to help students develop self-understanding. This
raises the following question: Can any educational system
efficaciously develop a child without the motivation, effort,
and permission of the child? Self-understanding cannot be
cultivated exclusively through external instruction or directives, and goals are much more valuable coming from the
source. Wesolowski (1982) noted that students who develop
their own objectives are able to realize what is possible
within their means and thus gain better knowledge of self.
McCoach and Siegle (2003) have directed some attention
to goals, particularly academic goals, and have especially
looked at goal valuation, though this relies on the presence
of goals to be valued. They concluded that “future research
should examine whether interventions to reverse underachievement can increase motivation/self-regulation and
whether increased motivation translates directly into
increased academic achievement” (p. 152). The focus on
goals is encouraging but leaves the question of whether a
case could be made for exploring a more direct path. What
if we could engage students in the process of creating any
kind of personal goals, not necessarily academic, and thereby
directly increase achievement? In a literature search of nearly
70 years of research on gifted underachievers, the approach
of personal goal setting appears not to have been addressed.
This article explores the possibility that participation in
regular, intensive, and personal goal-setting activities might
serve as an effective intervention, not only for developing
self-understanding but also for cultivating the creative and
academic potential and productivity of underachieving
bright students. Although personal goal-setting exercises
have typically been reserved for university students or adults,
research into the heightened cognitive and metacognitive
capabilities of gifted children indicates that they might
benefit from such focus at an earlier age. Gifted students
appear to develop metacognitive abilities earlier and faster
than nongifted students (Alexander, Carr, & Schwanenflugel,
1995; Shore, 2000). Some researchers have even proposed
that metacognition can be a useful marker for distinguishing
gifted from nongifted children, significantly contributing to
individual differences in general intelligence (Alexander
et al.; Cheng, 1993; Shore & Dover, 1987; Sternberg,
1998). McCoach and Siegle (2003) demonstrated that selfregulation also helped distinguish achieving from underachieving gifted learners. The present purpose is to go
beyond merely restating what has already been written
about giftedness and underachievement, but we shall begin
by placing our propositions in the context of that existing
literature before diverging.
What Is Gifted Underachievement?
The most basic definition of gifted underachievement in the
literature points to a discrepancy between actual achievement and intelligence (or potential or ability, depending on
the author; Baum et al., 1995; Peters et al., 2000; Reis &
McCoach, 2000; Richert, 1991; Rimm, 1997; Whitmore,
1980). There has been extensive debate among researchers
about how best to define the terms ability and achievement
(Reis & McCoach; Richert), let alone underachievement and
its root causes (Colangelo & Assouline, 2000; Pendarvis
et al., 1990; Reis & McCoach; Rimm, 2005; Whitmore,
1980, 1986). Some writers have been very specific, differentiating between short-term and chronic academic underachievement (Reis, 1998; Whitmore, 1980), whereas others
dismiss underachievement as a useless term altogether, such
as Seely (1994), who stated, “Underachievement is a complex phenomenon which is value-laden and ambiguous as a
generic term to describe student behavior” (p. 155). Underachievement in a broad sense might be reflected in low
grades and occasionally in performance on achievement
tests (Pendarvis et al.), in low levels of effort on extracurricular tasks or within interpersonal relationships, in a lack of
life goals or general direction, or in avoidance of challenging or creative projects in and out of school, among other
possibilities. In 2005, Hoover-Schultz was prompted to
observe that “the sheer amount of information and inconsistencies in definition muddies the waters” (p. 46) and labeled
the connection between giftedness and underachievement as
puzzling, perplexing, and oxymoronic.
It is not the intention of this article to bring closure to the
debate about what constitutes gifted underachievement or to
delineate an exhaustive list of its potential causes. There is
little agreement on its contributing factors in the literature
and, as Reis and McCoach (2000) stated, “The underachievement of gifted students remains an enigma” (p. 152).
Furthermore, there is not a large repertoire of ways to
resolve it (Reis, 2007). However, some researchers suspect
that underachievement results from a combination of factors
PERSONAL GOAL SETTING
related to the child (e.g., self-esteem, willingness to take
risks, need for achievement), the child’s parents (e.g., educational level, economic status, expectations, values), and
the child’s school (e.g., educational policies, ability level of
peers, teaching methods; Fehrenbach, 1993; Reis, 1998;
Vlahovic-Stetic et al., 1999). Some writers noted a loss of
motivation that accompanies decreasing achievement (Baum
et al., 1995; Butler-Por, 1993; Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994),
whereas others argued that it is inaccurate to speak of a lack
of motivation altogether, because even students with mediocre grades or dwindling interest in school might be quite
motivated to engage in learning activities unrelated to
specific schoolwork assignments (Grant, 1995; Whitmore,
1986). It is also possible that some bright children underachieve due to a poor sense of self-efficacy. According to
Bandura (1977), “People will approach, explore, and try to
deal with situations within their self-perceived capabilities, but
they will avoid transactions with stressful aspects of their environment they perceive as exceeding their ability” (p. 203).
In a review of the literature, Peters et al. (2000) offered the
following list of potential contributors to gifted underachievement: (a) geographical–ecological factors (e.g., living in a
third-world country), (b) ethnic factors, (c) economic factors,
(d) gender factors, (e) educational deprivation, (f) subcultural
factors, (g) physical or psychological problems, (h) family
factors, (i) active disrespect for societal norms, and (j) being
highly creative (see Willings, 1980, for vivid examples).
Externally applied pressure to succeed and missed identification can also be debilitating.
Pressure to Succeed
Silverman (1998) described how some gifted individuals
grapple with excessive pressure to succeed, perfectionism,
performance anxiety, fear of failure, asynchronous development, and an inability to fit in socially. She noted that when
the term giftedness is defined as a “potential for recognized
achievement” (p. 2), a heavy onus is placed on the identified
child. With the potential for the disappointment of self and
others and consequential emotional pain, it is no wonder that
some of these students prefer to remain undetected, displaying
poor grades, little goal direction, and a denial of their abilities.
In the end, many are successful in their avoidance of success.
Missed or Misidentification
There are also those gifted students who perform or
aspire below their true potential simply because they are
missed—misdiagnosed or just not recognized for their giftedness (Richert, 1991; Silverman, 1998). A number of these
children are underachievers in classroom settings, exhibiting high levels of extroversion and energy or excessive daydreaming during boring or otherwise unchallenging class
periods; this adversely impacts their academic performance
and achievement. Adults working with such students often
misunderstand the factors contributing to their lack of attention
251
and other inappropriate behaviors, instead attributing their
difficulties to an underlying attentional or organizational
disorder, a lack of motivation, or insufficient ability to
effectively process information.
Alternatively, a bright child with a learning disability in a
specific academic area might not be identified as gifted
because he or she only performs in the average range or
below on tasks in that area when compared to peers. In
essence, a significant weakness in one area might in the eyes
of the unsophisticated observer diminish an exceptional
strength in another academic area. A visual or auditory
impairment might also interfere with a student’s academic
performance and make it more difficult for educators and parents to recognize a child’s unusually high cognitive abilities.
In addition, conscious and unconscious stereotypes regarding
socioeconomic status, gender, and cultural and ethnic identities could serve to blind teachers and other educators to the
intellectual gifts of a particular student (e.g., Speirs Neumeister,
Adams, Pierce, Cassady, & Dixon, 2007). As noted by Peters
et al. (2000), “Because of the hidden characteristics of underachievement, it may be hard for teachers to recognize underachievement when it is taking place” (p. 615). Furthermore,
Rimm (1997) pointed out that in the case of chronic academic
underachievement, both achievement test scores and IQ may
decline over time, which would make identification even
through intelligence-screening tests difficult.
In all of the aforementioned cases, too little might be
expected from unrecognized gifted children, which in turn
might cause them to expect little from themselves. Clearly,
accurate identification is key. Silverman (1998) stressed
that this means “being tuned in to the whole child, not just
academic performance” (p. 209).
Previously Attempted Interventions
Many of the interventions reported over the last 2 decades
were designed to inspire immediate change in a group of
students earning poor grades for only a short period of time
(Reis & McCoach, 2000). However, even among these studies, comparison is difficult due to the fact that each
approach was based in a different theoretical and practical
background (Peters et al., 2000). Furthermore, the number
of reported interventions is small, and the efficacy of any of
these methods is yet to be established (Baum et al., 1995;
Fehrenbach, 1993; Reis & McCoach). Peters et al. reviewed
many of the attempted approaches to reversing underachievement and found that they generally included one or
more of the following components: (a) working with parents to enhance the child’s self-esteem, (b) raising the
child’s level of self-efficacy, (c) elevating general psychological well-being, (d) improving work and study skills, (e)
counseling, (f) early training of metacognitive skills, (g)
subject- and grade-skipping, (h) increasing motivation, and
(i) individualizing goals within an academic program. Interestingly, most of the purportedly successful programs
252
D. MORISANO AND B. M. SHORE
integrated aspects of short-term and long-term personal and
academic goal setting within the context of otherwise
resource-intensive programs (e.g., Fehrenbach). Whitmore
(1986), for example, suggested that parent–teacher conferences should be held regularly and on an as-needed basis with
gifted children in order to help them monitor their academic
accomplishments and establish goals for improvement. A
common quality of all these interventions is that they are indirect with regard to goals. To the extent that they address goals
at all, they focus on academic goals, clearly because the perceived problem lies in academic performance. Perhaps academic goals per se are not the primary underlying issue,
however. We would like to somewhat refocus the question
and explore an alternative set of theoretical and research links
that have generally not been at the forefront of the discourse
about goals and gifted underachievement: Theory and
research on general goal setting and on the conditions underlying successful goal setting, including some hints from the
emerging neuropsychological literature.
General Benefits of Goal Setting
Goal-setting theory falls within the general domain of cognitive psychology and is rooted in the premise that conscious
goals influence action (Latham & Locke, 2007; Locke &
Latham, 2002; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981; T. A.
Ryan, 1970). Holahan (1988) and others (Bandura, 1997;
Locke & Latham) have suggested that the ability to set and
maintain appropriate goals and think purposefully is an
essential marker of human development. Goals affect performance through four mechanisms: (a) both cognitively and
behaviorally directing attention and effort toward goal-relevant
activities and away from goal-irrelevant activities; (b) energizing, with high goals leading to greater effort than low
goals; (c) increasing persistence, with demanding goals prolonging effort; and (d) affecting action indirectly by leading
to the arousal, discovery, and utilization of task-relevant
knowledge and strategies (Locke & Latham; Locke et al.;
Smith, Locke, & Barry, 1990). Indeed, it has even been suggested that there is a form of happiness, labeled “pregoal
attainment positive affect,” that arises as an individual anticipates a future positive outcome (Davidson, 1994, 1998).
When personal goals are written out, other gains are
achieved. King and Miner (2000) proposed that any writing
that might be thought to improve self-regulation should lead to
health benefits. According to Bandura (1991), “Self-regulatory
systems . . . provide the very basis for purposeful action”
(p. 248), mediating divergent influences and allowing individuals control over their own thoughts, feelings, incentives, and
actions. The self-regulatory processes involved in establishing,
planning, striving, and deciding on goals should help to monitor emotions and internal conflict (Austin & Vancouver, 1996).
King (2001) explored the physical and mental health benefits of narrating life goals and ideals. Participants engaged in a
writing task in which they were asked either to write about
their best possible self or their plans for the day, for 20 minutes a day over 4 consecutive days. Three weeks later, those
who wrote about their ideal selves scored significantly higher
on measures of subjective psychological well-being than those
who described short-term plans (control condition). Furthermore, in the 5 months following the writing manipulation,
individuals who wrote about their ideal future visited a health
center for medical reasons significantly less often than those in
the control condition, despite baseline similarities in health.
In a study related to the effects of written goals on specific
types of psychological well-being in adults, Stein, Folkman,
Trabasso, and Richards (1997) found that the creation of
explicated goals was predictive of adaptive coping for a population of caregivers who had lost their partners to AIDS.
Along these lines, Emmons and Diener (1986) found that
goal attainment was strongly correlated with positive affect
among undergraduates and that the lack of goal attainment
was correlated with negative affect, although somewhat less
strongly. They also discovered that the mere presence of selfrated “important” goals was as strongly correlated with positive affect as actually attaining those goals.
In addition to physical and mental health benefits, cognitive benefits as a result of explicitly narrating long-term personal goals seem likely, given the steps involved in laying
out one’s ideal future. Creating a narrative is a highly intricate endeavor that integrates numerous cognitive processes;
for example, cause-and-effect reasoning, theory of mind,
language, and spatial reasoning (Sugiyama, 2001). Klein
and Boals (2001) demonstrated in two studies that university students who completed an expressive writing task
(e.g., thoughts and feelings about coming to university)
displayed significant increases in working memory, a fundamental component of cognition. Working memory increases
were also associated with higher grade-point averages
earned over the following two semesters. Furthermore, in a
randomized, controlled trial of two brief interventions for
highly able but academically struggling undergraduate students, Morisano, Hirsh, Peterson, Pihl, and Shore (2010)
found that those students who completed a brief (2.5-hour),
structured, written, personal goal-setting program significantly raised their grade-point averages (∼30%) over the
course of one academic year and were much less likely to
drop courses or quit university altogether.
It is probable that some of the benefits of goal setting are
similar to those observed in expressive writing studies—the
process of setting goals and organizing plans likely minimizes intrusive and avoidant thinking. Such invasive
thoughts often characterize stress and can lead to impairments in cognitive functioning; for example, in diminished
memory, attention, and planning abilities. These types of
impairments can, in turn, contribute to inefficient study habits, disorganization, and mediocre academic performance;
that is, academic underachievement. When these intrusive
thoughts decline, cognitive resources (such as working
memory) are freed up. Furthermore, when more cognitive
PERSONAL GOAL SETTING
resources are available, one is likely to be more successful
in endeavors requiring mental power; for example, challenging school assignments, creative projects, and the establishment of more demanding goals.
Conditions Related to Successful Goal Setting
Structure
Koestner, Lekes, Powers, and Chicoine (2002) summarized the reasons why not all goals are good goals and why
simply making a list of goals is not especially beneficial.
They concluded that one of the most important components
of successful goal setting involves structure. Oftentimes, people set too many goals at once, or they establish goals that
create internal conflicts; for example, a smoker who wishes to
quit but also hopes to avoid the headaches and cravings that
come with smoking cessation (Baumeister & Heatherton
1996; Koestner et al., 2002). The goals that are established
must be specific (Locke & Latham, 2002; Locke et al., 1981),
attainable (Brunstein, 1993; Schunk, 1991), optimally challenging, and relatively close at hand (Koestner et al.).
Motivation
Furthermore, when people settle on goals, they should
have positive outcome expectations regarding their
ability to actually achieve these goals, or they will be
unlikely to be highly motivated to follow through with
goal-relevant behavior (Bandura, 1977; Perrone,
Civiletto, Webb, & Fitch, 2004; Schunk, 1991). Even the
perception of an external obstacle—for example, a poor
emotional support system—can hinder the conversion of
goals into action (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000). Goals
that are too vague, difficult, or distal are unlikely to serve
as effective guides for behavior (Austin & Vancouver,
1996; Koestner et al., 2002). Also, when children set
inappropriate goals, it can put their developing selfesteem at risk. Goals that are set too high, or too low, or
in terms that are too vague (e.g., to be “nice”) might lead
the child to think of himself or herself as a failure (Webb,
Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982).
In addition, people do not always think through why they
want to reach certain goals. The motivation behind a goal
directly affects both the regulation of goal pursuit and the
ultimate success of goal attainment (Koestner et al., 2002;
R. M. Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996). In fact, the
very process of representing future consequences of a goal
might provide a cognitively based source of motivation
(Bandura, 1977; Schunk, 1991). According to Gollwitzer
(1999), “Forming good intentions or setting goals is understood as committing oneself to reaching desired outcomes
or to performing desired behaviors” (p. 493). It is almost as
if the act of establishing a goal sets forth a binding agreement with one’s self.
253
Implementation
People often fail to develop specific implementation
strategies for goal attainment. Without time frames and
alternate game plans for persistence when distractions and
obstacles arise, even the best goals can fall apart (Gollwitzer,
1999). Goal progress is optimized when goals are specific,
personally motivating, in line with one’s values, and bolstered by detailed implementation plans (Gollwitzer; Koestner
et al., 2002; Locke et al., 1981).
Personalization
A 2001 study by Sheldon and Houser-Marko demonstrated that when an individual progresses toward goal
attainment, well-being is enhanced. Brunstein (1993) provided preliminary evidence that even the perception of
progress toward goal achievement can be a catalyst for
increased feelings of subjective well-being. This enhanced
sense of well-being promotes the setting of more selfconcordant goals, which are linked to greater goal progress
than externally defined goals (Diener, 1984; Koestner et al.,
2002). Levels of perceived self-efficacy are also likely to
increase as progress is made and one’s sense of well-being
rises (cf., Latham & Seijts, 1999). According to Bandura
(1977), “Having accomplished a given level of performance, individuals often are no longer satisfied with it and
make further self-reward contingent on higher attainments”
(p. 193). In other words, goals beget goals. Furthermore, if
participating in goal setting improves self-efficacy, then
individuals are not only encouraged to set higher goals, but
they are also likely to have higher expectations of success in
reaching their goals (Karakowsky & Mann, 2008).
Neuropsychological Functioning
Another less often considered but fundamental contributor
to goal setting involves specific neuropsychological functioning. Recent discoveries in neuropsychology provide a link
between goal setting, the brain, and high-ability youth. Miller
and Cohen (2001) noted that one of the most basic mysteries
of neuroscience is how “coordinated, purposeful behavior
arises from the distributed activity of billions of neurons in
the brain” (p. 167). The prefrontal lobes reach their phylogenetic and ontogenetic peak in adult humans, occupying
between 30% and 40% of the neocortical area (Fuster, 2002;
Kane & Engle, 2002). Although historically there has existed
speculation regarding the importance of the prefrontal cortex
for cognition, and many even thought that this part of the
brain was dispensable (e.g., frontal lobotomies), the evolutionary and physical prominence of the lobes has led many
theorists to assign them the highest and most abstract of
human cognitive reasoning capabilities (Fuster; Higgins,
Peterson, Pihl, & Lee, 2007; Kane & Engle). Miller and
Cohen (2001) outlined a comprehensive theory of prefrontal
cortex function and concluded that the prefrontal cortex, in
254
D. MORISANO AND B. M. SHORE
particular, maintains the representation of goals and one’s
means for achieving them.
The three subdivisions of the primate prefrontal cortex
that have been consistently distinguished include the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex,
and the orbitofrontal cortex (good visual representations of
these areas are widely available on the web). The lateral
prefrontal cortex’s most general executive function is the
temporal organization of goal-directed actions in the areas
of behavior, reasoning, and language (Kalbfleisch, 2004).
The dorsolateral sector of the prefrontal cortex has long
been considered an important part of the circuit underlying
working memory and the representation of mental activity for
stimuli and events not physically present (Goldman-Rakic,
1987; Kane & Engle, 2002). This kind of mental activity is
key for operations that require the anticipation of possible
future outcomes, such as planning (Davidson, 2000). In
fact, neuropsychological studies have shown that when certain parts of the prefrontal cortex are damaged, so is an individual’s capacity to anticipate future emotional outcomes—
this loss of capacity results in an inability to guide behavior
and make adaptive decisions (Davidson, 2004). Individuals
with prefrontal damage frequently lose the ability to perform complex, goal-directed actions (Higgins et al., 2007).
On the other hand, when a healthy person’s behavior meets
with success, reinforcement signals augment the corresponding pattern of activity by strengthening connections
between the prefrontal cortex neurons activated by that
behavior and other neurons whose activity represents the
situation in which the behavior was useful, establishing an
association between these circumstances and the prefrontal
pattern that supports the correct behavior (Huettel,
Misiurek, Jurkowski, & McCarthy, 2004). It is clear, then,
that many aspects of goal setting and goal follow-through
are intimately intertwined with the prefrontal cortex and
associated higher-order cognitive processes.
There is important evidence that cognitive processes play
a key role in the attainment and maintenance of new behavior patterns; even fleeting experiences are coded and
retained symbolically in memory representation (Bandura,
1977; Gollwitzer, 1999). In a situation in which the availability of an immediate reward does not fit with the overall
goals of a person, the prefrontal cortex would be required to
produce a bias signal to other brain regions that guide
behavior toward the attainment of a more adaptive goal;
that is, the delay of gratification (Davidson, 2003; Miller
& Cohen, 2001). When one purposefully decides to pursue
a goal and makes anticipatory decisions about how to
behave in a goal-relevant situation, goal-directed behaviors can immediately be activated upon confrontation with
such a situation, with little to no conscious intent required
(Gollwitzer).
For many reasons, then, the prefrontal cortex is of special
importance in discussions of ability and talent. It not only
facilitates sophisticated cognitive abilities such as fluid
intelligence, problem framing, decision making, planning,
and problem solving but also plays a prominent role in
one’s reactions to novel situations, ability to delay gratification and anticipate consequences to actions, and general
reasoning ability (Higgins et al., 2007; Kalbfleisch, 2004).
All of these forms of cognitive activity are associated, in
principle, with academic success. They are also essential
components of effective goal setting.
Goals and Gifted Children
In 1991, Shore, Cornell, Robinson, and Ward reported that
“there is no empirical literature . . . that tells us that engaging explicitly in goal setting has any particular beneficial
effect, in general, or specifically for the gifted” (p. 101).
This gap in the literature shows signs of at least partially
closing. The aforementioned studies highlight growing evidence for the efficaciousness of personal goal setting in
improving mood, subjective well-being, and physical health
in several populations. Furthermore, although many of the
interventions aimed at gifted underachievement involve the
establishment or prioritization of goals, few if any researchers have specifically addressed the importance of the goalsetting process in impacting the positive results of these
interventions. There is still a large amount of work to be
done in the empirical exploration of the effects of delineating specific, proximal, and attainable personal goals on
cognitive processes (e.g., working memory, attention) and
achievement in the general population, but the future
appears promising.
The unique benefits of explicit goal setting for underachieving gifted children also remain to be empirically
examined, although there have been some studies performed with gifted adults. For example, Holahan (1988)
demonstrated that life goals made both direct and indirect
contributions to health and well-being in 70-year-old adults
identified as gifted. It is not difficult, however, to contemplate the mechanisms that would allow the process of goal
setting to positively affect the underachieving gifted child.
In 1947, Terman and Oden reported the results of a longitudinal study on a large population of gifted children and concluded that, as adults, the males who failed to succeed in
school or in their careers exhibited the following personality
traits (as observed by teachers, parents, and spouses): (a)
inability to persevere, (b) failure to integrate goals, (c)
tendency to drift rather than take action, and (d) poor selfconfidence (as cited in Pendarvis et al., 1990). When
researchers looked at teacher ratings for the males when
they were preadolescents, they found that the teachers had
made similar observations about the men when they were
youths (as cited in Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994). In
essence, the personality patterns of underachievement
started well before these gifted individuals entered middle
age. The men, though highly intelligent, appear to have
lacked a sense of purpose and direction from childhood
PERSONAL GOAL SETTING
straight through to adulthood. According to Webb and
colleagues (1982),
Gifted children, like most others, must learn the skill of goal
setting. They must learn to set tentative, attainable, shortterm goals, as well as long-term goals. . . . The intellectual
abilities of gifted children . . . allow them to comprehend
and use these mental approaches early in life. (pp. 72–73)
Although, as mentioned previously, the functioning of the
prefrontal lobes reaches its zenith in adulthood, it is likely
still heightened in gifted children, given their metacognitive
advancements, for example (Alexander et al., 1995). It is
not expected that functioning must be at its peak for goal
setting to be an important or useful exercise (cf. Morisano
et al., 2010, for an empirical exploration of goal-setting utility with college students).
Reis and McCoach (2000) proposed that interventions
aimed at enhancing self-efficacy and self-regulation could
be useful complements to more systemic school- or homebased approaches aimed at gifted underachievement, potentially increasing their effectiveness. Also, Richert (1991)
argued that it is fundamental to develop self-concept in adolescence and stated that the social, emotional, and ethical
development of a child should be considered more important than academic achievement. Intensive and structured
personal goal setting, even with the aid of a mentor, could
certainly be seen as a means of ripening self-concept, selfefficacy, and self-regulation skills, all of which could be
viewed as contributing to a child’s positive social and emotional development and achievement capability. When children learn how to break down difficult goals into
intermediate and manageable tasks, a sense of control and
proficiency is triggered; this both bolsters further motivation and thwarts any burgeoning feelings of discouragement
(Webb et al., 1982). In addition, when underachieving children establish goals, it is almost as if they are creating a new
set of personal standards. According to Bandura (1977),
“Perceived negative discrepancies between performance
and standards create dissatisfactions that motivate corrective changes in behavior” (p. 193).
Multipotentiality
There is an important caveat, however, in encouraging
gifted students to set goals. Students’ goal pursuit should be
carefully monitored. Multipotentiality, or the prospect for
success in numerous domains (Perrone et al., 2004; Sajjadi,
Rejskind, & Shore, 2001), is often a characteristic of very
bright children and can lead to problems of follow-through
in one or more specific areas. On the one hand, if done
properly, goal setting can be very useful in helping gifted
children to decide which of their possibly multiple talents or
interests they should nurture and which they should set
aside. Many students, however, cannot choose and are
255
driven to use all of their gifts to maximum capacity
(Gallagher & Gallagher, 1994). These children can quickly
fall into the trap of setting too many difficult goals at once
(Koestner et al., 2002) and might then face the negative
emotional consequences of frustration and an inability to
focus, which can in turn lead to underachievement. Hence,
parents and professionals must provide guidance and modeling in the goal mentoring of gifted students. By helping
students pinpoint their strengths and facilitating smaller
performance accomplishments, self-confidence will rise,
thereby paving the way for larger independent accomplishments (Perrone et al., 2004).
According to Richert (1991),
Children must be given choices and required to make
decisions while setting their own goals. Discipline and
motivation must be shifted from dependence on teachers or
parents to internal feelings and values as the prime basis for
action. . . . It is particularly important for exceptional children, who must eventually function independently while
developing their unique abilities, to be involved in goal
setting, as well as in changing plans and goals as needed.
(p. 157)
Parents and educators must remember that there is an
important difference between their goals for the child and
the child’s goals. Internal emotional conflict and underachievement can result when parents and educators push
gifted youth to excel in areas that are not intrinsically motivating or when they encourage future plans that are out of
line with their children’s personal goals (Reis, 1998). In
school, the highest levels of productivity result when students self-select topics to investigate (Baum et al., 1995).
The same reasoning should also apply outside of academic
settings (e.g., career, hobbies, extracurricular activities, personal creative projects).
Anxiety
It is also the case that placing too much emphasis on academic performance can lead to perfectionistic tendencies,
the setting of unrealistically high goals, and a debilitating
emotional burden. Demanding goals and high pressure can
often precipitate high levels of anxiety. According to
Brunstein (1993), “High levels of goal commitment combined with negative appraisals of goal attainability may
have detrimental effects on the development of subjective
well-being” (p. 1068). When anxiety grows too intense, it
can cause an individual to worry excessively and to be
unable to concentrate effectively on the tasks at hand and
mastery of subgoals, contributing to significant disruption
in performance on complex tasks (Locke et al., 1981; Wine,
1971). Thus, in fostering achievement per se, parents and
educators must address the difficult task of moderating the perceived importance of grades and test scores for a child (Grant,
1995) and instead place greater emphasis on encouraging the
256
D. MORISANO AND B. M. SHORE
process of personal goal setting. When children are able to
clearly specify intrinsically appealing short-term and longterm life goals, their levels of motivation, self-concept, selfefficacy, and subjective well-being should be enhanced. In
turn, as discussed earlier, their cognitive processes are
likely to operate more efficiently, and it can be expected
that they will perform more successfully on relevant tasks
both in and out of school. It is imperative that children be
encouraged and enabled to assume increasing responsibility
for their own learning. They need to understand for themselves how an academic education can impact the attainment of their long-term goals. Gifted individuals, with their
enhanced cognitive and metacognitive capabilities (Alexander
et al., 1995; Cheng, 1993; Shore, 2000; Shore & Dover,
1987; Sternberg, 1998), should be prepared for this challenge at a younger age than nongifted individuals.
CONCLUSION
In the life of the spirit, academic achievement is not an end,
or even a means, but a consequence of pursuing certain
goals and enacting certain motivations. Love of learning,
curiosity about the natural world, the pursuit of a vocation;
the desire to create, improve the world, develop oneself,
devise a philosophy of life, acquire virtue, and find truth—
these are motivations and goals of the spirit. Academic
achievement may or may not accompany them. (Grant,
1995, p. 132)
Although, in general, gifted children are far more intrinsically driven than intellectually average children, Winner
(2000) and others have argued that the intense drive characterizing gifted children must still be acknowledged, celebrated, and cultivated. According to Winner, “We do not
know how many . . . high-potential children never develop
their ability because they are not challenged but are instead
captured by the potent messages from their peer culture to
avoid work and be like everyone else” (p. 162). In a government report on National Excellence published by the U.S.
Department of Education, Ross (1993) suggested that, at the
same time parents and educators raise the “floor” (that is,
the minimum levels of accomplishment considered to be
acceptable), they also must raise the “ceiling” (the highest
academic level toward which to strive). Parents and schools
should hold and model high expectations in order for gifted
children to reach their full potential (Winner). At the same
time, however, they need to teach children how to set goals
that are specific, proximal, and reasonable, so that selfefficacy is bolstered and motivation grows.
Of course, structured, personal goal setting alone is not
guaranteed to reverse underachievement in every gifted
child who does not meet his or her true potential. As Reis
and McCoach (2000) noted, “Underachievers are a very
heterogeneous group. . . . Because students underachieve
for so many different reasons, no one intervention strategy
can possibly reverse these behaviors in all underachieving
gifted students” (p. 152). Nevertheless, encouraging highability youth to set and work toward personally motivating
goals could provide them with significant benefits in both
school and life. According to Kalbfleisch’s (2004) paper on
the functional neural anatomy of talent, exceptional talent is
the outcome of interactions between goal-directed behavior
and nonvolitional perceptual processes in the brain. Recent
research provides support for the idea that physical and
functional aspects of brain development appear to be accelerated in certain children and that high-ability children
access adult-like neural circuits at earlier-than-expected
ages (Kalbfleisch). The understanding that these children
are often tenacious in pursuits that interest them should
prompt parents and educators to work hard to help them
identify, specify, prioritize, and rigorously pursue their
personally relevant goals. As Richert (1991) stated, “Giftedness . . . requires nonacademic abilities unrelated or even
inversely related to school achievement, such as creativity,
risk taking, and intrinsic motivation” (p. 139). The implication for action is that direct engagement in personal goal
setting should be explored as a mechanism to address
academic underachievement, because it might allow learners
to set themselves on a course toward enhanced performance.
The process of setting goals should help gifted children
to become even more efficient at certain cognitive processes
than they already are and provide them with even greater
neural power to meet and go beyond the challenges of their
academic environments. Some researchers argue that current descriptions of neural plasticity, the brain’s ability to
respond to environmental influences and individual experiences at the levels of the synapse and individual neurons, do
not account for the array of responses that the brain has to
experience (Grossman, Churchill, Bates, Kleim, &
Greenough, 2002; Kalbfleisch, 2004). The results of recent
cognitive neuroscience studies, combined with findings
from goal-setting research, provide a strong impetus to
explore just how plastic the human brain is and just how
talented our talented children can become.
AUTHOR NOTE
We thank Dr. Frank A. Morisano for his careful reviews,
critiques, and edits of the manuscript and Dr. Robert O. Pihl
and Dr. Jordan B. Peterson for their encouragement to
explore goal setting and its potential implications.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J. M., Carr, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1995). Development
of metacognition in gifted children: Directions for future research.
Development Review, 15, 1–37.
PERSONAL GOAL SETTING
Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology:
Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 338–375.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:
Freeman.
Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hébert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 39, 224–235.
Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An
overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–15.
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.
Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K. A. Heller,
F. J. Mönks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of
research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 649–668).
New York, NY: Pergamon.
Cheng, P. (1993). Metacognition and giftedness: The state of the relationship. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 105–112.
Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S. G. (2000). Counseling gifted students. In K.
A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 595–607). Oxford,
England: Elsevier.
Davidson, R. J. (1994). Asymmetric brain function, affective style and psychopathology: The role of early experience and plasticity. Development
and Psychopathology, 6, 741–758.
Davidson, R. J. (1998). Affective style and affective disorders: Perspectives from affective neuroscience. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 307–320.
Davidson, R. J. (2000). Cognitive neuroscience needs affective neuroscience (and vice versa). Brain and Cognition, 42, 89–92.
Davidson, R. J. (2003). Darwin and the neural bases of emotion and affective style. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1000, 316–336.
Davidson, R. J. (2004). Well-being and affective style: Neural substrates
and biobehavioural correlates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society (London), 359, 1395–1411.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
Emmons, R. A., & Diener, E. (1986). A goal–affect analysis of everyday
situational choices. Journal of Research in Personality, 20, 309–326.
Fehrenbach, C. R. (1993). Underachieving gifted students: Intervention
programs that work. Roeper Review, 16, 88–90.
Fuster, J. M. (2002). Frontal lobe and cognitive development. Journal of
Neurocytology, 31, 373–385.
Gallagher, J. J., & Gallagher, S. A. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1987). Circuitry of primate prefrontal cortex and regulation of behavior by representational memory. In V. B. Mountcastle
(Ed.), Handbook of physiology (Vol. 5, pp. 373–417). Bethesda, MD:
American Physiological Society.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503.
Grant, B. (1995). The place of achievement in the life of the spirit and the
education of gifted students. Roeper Review, 18, 132–134.
Grossman, A. W., Churchill, J. D., Bates, K. E., Kleim, J. A., & Greenough,
W. T. (2002). A brain adaptation view of plasticity: Is synaptic plasticity an
overly limited concept? Progress in Brain Research, 138, 91–108.
Higgins, D. M., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Lee, A. G. M. (2007).
Prefrontal cognitive ability, intelligence, Big Five personality and the
prediction of advanced academic and workplace performance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 298–319.
Holahan, C. K. (1988). Relation of life goals at age 70 to activity participation and health and psychological well-being among Terman’s gifted
men and women. Psychology and Aging, 3, 286–291.
Hoover-Schultz, B. (2005). Gifted underachievement: Oxymoron or educational enigma? Gifted Child Today, 28(2), 46–49.
257
Huettel, S. A., Misiurek, J., Jurkowski, A. J., & McCarthy, G. V. (2004).
Dynamic and strategic aspects of executive processing. Brain Research,
1000, 78–84.
Kalbfleisch, M. L. (2004). Functional neuroanatomy of talent. The Anatomical Record, 277B(1), 21–36.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in
working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin and
Review, 9, 637–671.
Karakowsky, L, & Mann, S. L. (2008). Setting goals and taking ownership:
Understanding the implications of participatively set goals from a causal
attribution perspective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
14, 260–270.
King, L. A. (2001). The health benefits of writing about life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 798–807.
King, L. A., & Miner, K. N. (2000). Writing about the perceived benefits
of traumatic events: Implications for physical health. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 220–230.
Klein, K., & Boals, A. (2001). Expressive writing can increase working
memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130,
520–533.
Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attaining
personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals
success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 231–244.
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions
for goal-setting research. European Psychologist, 12, 290–300.
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1999). The effects of proximal and distal
goals on performance on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 421–429.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and
barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory
of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting
and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125–152.
McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 47, 144–154.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal
cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.
Morisano, D., Hirsh, J. B., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Shore, B. M.
(2010). Personal goal setting improves academic performance in university students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 255–264.
Pendarvis, E. D., Howley, A. A., & Howley, C. B. (1990). The abilities of
gifted children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Perrone, K. M., Civiletto, C. L., Webb, L. K., & Fitch, J. C. (2004). Perceived barriers to and supports of the attainment of career and family
goals among academically talented individuals. International Journal of
Stress Management, 11, 114–131.
Peters, W. A. M., Grager-Loidl, H., & Supplee, P. (2000). Underachievement in gifted children and adolescents: Theory and practice. In K. A.
Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 609–620). Oxford,
England: Pergamon.
Reis, S. M. (1998). Underachievement for some—Dropping out with dignity for others. Communicator: The Journal of the California Association for the Gifted, 29(1), 19–24.
Reis, S. M. (2007). The underachievement of gifted students: Multiple
frustrations and few solutions. In K. Kay, D. Robson, & J. F. Brenneman
(Eds.), High IQ kids: Collected insights, information, and personal stories from the experts (pp. 124–142). Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit.
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted
students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152–170.
258
D. MORISANO AND B. M. SHORE
Richert, E. S. (1991). Patterns of underachievement among gifted students.
In M. Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent:
Educational, developmental and multicultural issues (pp. 139–162).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rimm, S. B. (1997). An underachievement epidemic. Educational Leadership, 54(7), 18–22.
Rimm, S. B. (2005). When gifted students underachieve: What you can do
about it. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s
talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved
from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/DevTalent/intro.html
Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals
are not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals
and their regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 7–
26). New York, NY: Guilford.
Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional behavior. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
Sajjadi, S. H., Rejskind, F. G., & Shore, B. M. (2001). Is multipotentiality a
problem or not? A new look at the data. High Ability Studies, 12, 27–43.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational
Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
Seely, K. (1994). Review of the book Reaching the gifted underachiever:
Program strategy and design. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 154–155.
Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal
attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 152–165.
Shore, B. M. (2000). Metacognition and flexibility: Qualitative differences
in how gifted children think. In R. C. Friedman & B. M. Shore (Eds.),
Talents unfolding: Cognition and development (pp. 167–187). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analysis. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Shore, B. M., & Dover, A. C. (1987). Metacognition, intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 37–39.
Silverman, L. K. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness. Roeper Review,
20, 204–210.
Smith, K., Locke, E., & Barry, D. (1990). Goal setting, planning and organizational performance: An experimental simulation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 118–134.
Speirs Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., &
Dixon, F. D. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness:
Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479–499.
Stein, N., Folkman, S., Trabasso, T., & Richards, T. A. (1997). Appraisal
and goal processes as predictors of well-being in bereaved caregivers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 872–884.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27, 11–20.
Sugiyama, M. S. (2001). Food, foragers, and folklore: The role of narrative
in human subsistence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 221–240.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4.
The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Comprehensive curriculum
for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vlahovic-Stetic, V., Vidovic, V. V., & Arambasic, L. (1999). Motivational
characteristics in mathematical achievement: A study of gifted highachieving, gifted underachieving and non-gifted pupils. High Ability
Studies, 10, 37–49.
Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted
child: A practical source for parents and teachers. Columbus, OH: Ohio
Psychology Publishing.
Wesolowski, R. J. (1982). Real educational objectives. Roeper Review, 5, 32–35.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict and underachievement. New
York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Whitmore, J. R. (1986). Understanding a lack of motivation to excel.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 66–69.
Willings, D. (1980). The creative gifted: Recognizing and developing the
creative personality. Cambridge, England: Woodhead-Faulkner.
Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological
Bulletin, 76, 92–104.
Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 159–169.
AUTHOR BIOS
Dominique Morisano, PhD, CPsych, is a supervising psychologist and research liaison for the Child and Family
Institute at St. Luke’s–Roosevelt Hospital Center (New York, NY) as well as Assistant of Professor of Clinical Psychology (in Psychiatry) in the Department of Psychiatry of Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons.
Her current research interests relate to applications of personal goal setting (and outcomes), as well as online brief
interventions for substance abuse and other psychopathology. She is professionally and clinically interested in underachievement and associated difficulties sometimes experienced by gifted young people (e.g., social or legal difficulties, hidden learning disabilities, substance abuse and dependence, anxiety regarding multipotentiality). She has
worked with gifted youth both in clinical practice and as a teacher (Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins
University). E-mail: [email protected]
Bruce M. Shore, PhD, LPsych, is a professor emeritus in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology
at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. His research is on the cognitive nature of giftedness and on the
processes and outcomes of engaging in inquiry-based learning and teaching. E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.