Counseling & Human Development Services

Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs

Fall 2002

GCPA Home

Editor's Note

Articles

From The Field

Assessment Standards and Football Programs

Book Reviews

Psychosocial Development in the University: A Study of Freshman Honors Students
Jennifer A. Lease, Doctoral Student, The University of Georgia

Abstract

The developmental needs of honors students appear to be intrinsically different than those of non-honors students. However, little research has been done on these differences. This effectively makes it difficult to precisely address the needs of honors students through intentional programming initiatives. This study examines the psychosocial developmental levels of freshman honors students in comparison to a normative population of freshman students as measured by the SDTLA. In addition, attention is given to gender differences between male and female honors students' measures of psychosocial development. Several statistical tests will be used to help pinpoint exact differences between these groups of students. Implications for practice as a result of the research findings are also included.

Honors Student Development

The psychosocial development of college students has been a major concern of student affairs professionals for decades. As research in this area has progressed, more and more has been added to the literature helping to describe how students move through developmental tasks while attending college. A more applicable understanding of developmental processes can occur when students are studied in the groups they associate with in college. For example, research has shown that gender differences occur in student development. There is a body of research regarding the impact that campus involvement may have on a student's developmental outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Research can educate us about the developmental needs and growth patterns of student athletes, students involved in Greek social fraternities or sororities, and even students involved in intramurals. Yet little is known about the effect that participation in an honors program has on student's psychosocial development. We know who the honors students are on campus, but student affairs staff members have little research-based evidence about what programs, services, and delivery structures need to be in place to educate the whole honors student.

The gifted education literature offers important insight about the psychosocial development of gifted students. Gifted students are generally acknowledged to have intellectual abilities above that of the average student. Dabrowski's theory of Positive Disintegration (1964) states that gifted students possess overexciteabilites, or super sensitivities, which have the potential to become the building blocks of extremely high moral development. While many articles have been written that address the psychosocial developmental needs of gifted students in elementary and secondary schools, few articles exist discussing the needs of these students at the collegiate level. Often gifted students are supported with special programs in the K-12 environment only to have this support diminished when they enter college.

The support mechanism for gifted students is generally the honors program. Honors programs generally bear the responsibility of meeting the needs of gifted students. Historically honors programs began to appear on campuses after World War II. While today there are many colleges and universities that offer an honors curriculum for gifted students, a true honors program should also contain additional features such as special facilities, educational programs, extracurricular activities, and social programs designed to meet the out of class needs of honors students. As Byrne (1997) notes, 'The true honors program, then, is a composite of curricular options and extracurricular opportunities designed to support the development of a motivated and challenged core of bright students.'

Statement of the Problem

There is an underlying assumption that students involved in Honors Programs on college campuses display higher levels of cognitive complexity and intellectual development than non-honors students. Given that most honors programs have higher SAT requirements or GPA requirements than most admissions policies, this assumption does not seem to be incongruous. However, when other aspects of development are considered, the above assumptions may not be quite as obvious. One way to understand and educate this population of students is to examine the ways in which they progress through certain developmental processes. Being better informed about what this developmental progression looks like in honors students can assist student affairs professionals, faculty members, and honors program administrators in truly meeting the needs of honors students. In achieving this end, it is valuable to know whether or not there are differences between the psychosocial development of honors students and the psychosocial development of non-honors students. Investigating as to whether or not there are gender differences between the psychosocial development of male and female honors students may also be helpful in better understanding this population.

It is the goal of this research project to determine whether or not there are psychosocial developmental needs specific to gifted students and different from the general college student population. This project attempts to bridge the gap between research on gifted students and research on the general college student population as a means of better serving honors students. This will enable student affairs practitioners, as well as honors program staff members, to make better-informed decisions about the programmatic needs of honors students. The purpose of this study is to provide much needed research on the psychosocial development of honors students in order to better inform the programs, services, and delivery structures used with these students. Hopefully this new information will be used as a platform for student affairs professionals and honors program staff members and faculty members to work together to educate honors students with a developmental perspective.

In considering the research on this topic, a review of the literature on student development theory is appropriate. In addition, attention to the psychosocial development of gifted adolescents offers vital background information. Discussion of gender and its impacted on gifted males and females is also noteworthy. Finally, the literature discussing honors programs and their applications will also be reviewed.

Theoretical Context

The Developmental Process in College

It is generally agreed that changes occur in students as a result of the rich educational environment in college. These changes occur on various levels, including intellectual changes, psychological changes, social changes, and personal changes. Research has shown that college can help students establish personal identity and self-worth (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Cohen, 1985; Erikson, 1968). As part of these changes, students begin to separate from their parents and form ideas about autonomy (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kegan, 1982). In addition, students begin to shape their values, their ideation about career focus, their modes of interpersonal behavior, and their individual lifestyle choices (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Super, 1984). Other research has shown that students can attain self-knowledge while in college (Astin, 1993). Life skills are also a developmental task that can be learned in college (Gazda, Childers, & Brooks, 1987; Miller & Prince, 1976).

Havinghurst defines a developmental task as "a task which arises at or about a certain period in the life of an individual, successful achievement of which leads to happiness and to success with later tasks, while failure leads to unhappiness in the individual, disapproval by society and difficulty with later tasks" (1953, p. 2). Chickering listed seven vectors as developmental tasks for young adults (1969, p. 8-19). These areas are developing competence, managing emotions, moving through autonomy, developing mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity. According to this theory, "emotional, personal, and ethical development deserves equal billing with intellectual development" (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 39). In terms of career development, researchers have used developmental theory to explain vocational maturity (Tiedeman & O'Hara, 1963; Gribbons & Lohnes, 1968; Super, Starishevsky, Matalin, & Jordaan, 1963; Super, 1984, 1986).

When reviewing developmental theories, there are three basic principles about the developmental process that emerge. They are that development is continuous, cumulative, and a continuum (Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999). Growth occurs as young adults move through life's experiences and through to more complex patterns of behavior. Understanding how this process of development occurs is vital for professionals working with college students. Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998) highlight the importance of assessing these developmental changes in students in order to provide the best environment for growth to flourish.

Psychosocial Development in the Gifted

Theories of human development are obviously applicable to honors students in many of the same ways that they have been applied to the college student population as a whole. Yet specific insight as to how being gifted might shape development can be derived focusing on certain theorists and researchers who have paid considerable attention to this population. Dabrowski's theory of Positive Disintegration (1964) is one example of a theory with particular applications for the gifted, stating that gifted students may possess overexciteabilites, or heightened awarenesses, which have the potential to become the building blocks of extremely high moral development. Silverman (1993a) describes the Polish translation of overexcitability to be "superstimulatability," meaning "an unusual capacity to care, an insatiable love of learning, vivid imagination, endless energy, and so forth" (p. 13). These overexcitabilities occur in five areas, psychomotor, intellectual, emotional, imaginational, and sensual. The theory of Positive Disintegration holds that people who possess these overexcitabilities have the potential for advanced development in personal, ethical, and psychosocial matters, especially as delineated by Dabrowski's (1964, 1967) five levels of integration.

Research on the applicability of Dabrowsk's theory to the gifted adds further to this discussion. Piechowski (1986) asserts that possessing overexcitabilities includes an increased likelihood of attaining self-actualization and moral development. Psychomotor overexcitability may be seen in a student's ability to work long hours, function on less sleep, and move at a physically quick pace (Piechowski, 1991; Silverman & Kearney, 1989). However, the psychomotor overexcitability has been found to be developmentally different in the gifted only when it occurs in an individual possessing additional overexcitabilities (Piechowski & Cunningham, 1985).

Sensual overexcitabilities may include issues such as reactions to certain types of fabric or clothing, such as lace around a collar or a constricting turtleneck. One study has found sensual overexcitabilities to be present at a higher level in gifted adults (Silverman & Ellsworth, 1980). However other studies are inconclusive, indicating no differences between gifted and average adolescents (Gallager, 1985; Schiever, 1985) or even lower levels of sensual overexcitabilities among the gifted (Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984). This overexcitability, like psychomotor, may be an enigma that is best understood when considered in context with other overexcitabilities.

Imaginational overexcitability and intellectual overexcitability are two areas where gifted students exhibit consistently higher levels that those of average students. Research shows imaginational overexcitability to be found at higher levels than their adolescent peers (Gallagher, 1985; Schiever, 1985; Piechowski and Colangelo, 1984). In addition, the intellectual overexcitability, which is different from intelligence, has been seen at high levels among the artistically gifted (Piechowski and Cunningham, 1985). Both of these patterns indicate reasoning and imagination at high levels that could lead to the intensely curious nature that is often associated with the gifted. Finally, emotional overexcitabilities, which can be exhibited as high levels of empathy or high intensities of emotions, have also been found at extremely high levels among the gifted (Gallagher, 1985; Schiever, 1985; Piechowski and Colangelo, 1984; Silverman and Ellsworth, 1980). Research in the areas of the overexcitabilities seem to indicate that each of these areas, whether viewed alone or in conjunction with each other, may be indicators of how the gifted develop differently than others.

Other developmental differences among the gifted have also been studied. The need to focus on the emotional development of the gifted was first noted by Leta Hollingworth in her work with the highly gifted (1939). Lewis Terman has also been highly concerned about the psychosocial nature of the gifted. In his landmark research on the gifted during the early twentieth century, he noted that there is an inversely proportional relationship between high intelligence and social ease and acceptance (Terman, 1931). It is important to remember, though, that the gifted, like others, achieve advanced development through "the strengthening of one's value system, the creation of greater and greater challenges for oneself, and the development of broader avenues for expression compassion" (Silverman, 1993a, p. 22). The process of development among the gifted may occur in a similar fashion as that of others; however the differences that are inherent in the gifted may offer fertile ground for further research as to whether or not there are nuances present that create a contextually different developmental process for the gifted.

Gender Issues in Development

Gender differences have been noted in the way that men and women develop ideas of autonomy and independence (Josselson, 1987). In her research on the intellectual developmental process for male and female college students, Marcia Baxter Magolda (1992) noted that there were preferences or patterns exhibited by men and women, but would not go so far as to label them differences. The presence or lack of gender differences has been an area of research in many fields, including the field of gifted education. Several gender-based issues, especially as they relate to females, are worthy of consideration.

Gifted females

Several research articles point to the special needs of gifted females as an area of concern for educators. One of the areas of concern is underachievement. While women tend to receive higher grades than men in courses in high school and college, as adults their productivity is often lower than that of their male counterparts (Stockard & Wood, 1984; Achenbach, 1970; Coleman, 1961; Davis, 1964). It has also been argued that underachievement for gifted women is a much greater concept than can be measured by grades (Reis, 1987). Part of the difficulty occurs in the fact that women face societal pressures to have families in addition to (or instead of) careers. As a result, some women may show signs of refraining from academic challenges in order to relieve societal pressure (Horner, 1972; Lavach & Lanier, 1975; Stockard, 1980). This relief can reveal itself in the need to conform that is experienced by some gifted women (Kramer, 1991) and the need to fit in where peers are concerned (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990).

Research on the self-perception of gifted women has also revealed a challenge for educators. Stipek (1998) noted that all theories of motivation are tied to a person's perception of ability. The role of parents also plays a key role in the self-perception of children (Entwisle & Baker, 1983; Kramer, 1991; McBride, 1990; Parsons, Adler, & Kaczlal, 1982). Other authors have noted that some women who do attain success exhibit lower self-esteem than their male counterparts. This phenomenon has been called the "imposter syndrome" (Clance, 1985; Machlowitz, 1982; Warschaw, 1985). As a result of this poor self-image, women attribute successes to a variety of reasons other than the fact that they deserved the success. Reasons can include luck, outward factors that were beyond their control (as opposed to internal factors), and the help of others (Reis, 1987). One of the detrimental aspects of this syndrome is that it involves extreme self-criticism and can often cause a gifted woman a great deal of personal frustration and agony (Bell, 1990).

Another phenomenon that women may experience is known as the "Superwoman syndrome" (Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994). This idea includes the notion that women can (and should) be able to take on multiple roles from mother to athlete to successful student with great success. Other specific needs of gifted women which should be addressed by educators include a tendency to have undefined goals for the future and therefore no plan to attain those goals as well as dealing with the contradictory messages that women receive from society, parents, school personnel, and peers (Callahan, Cunningham, & Plucker, 1994).

Gifted Males

A disconnect is often noted between the talents and abilities of a gifted men and the emotional and behavioral difficulties they face in adulthood, especially during adolescence. In addition, research indicates several traits found in gifted males that offer insight about their development. Kerr and Cohn (2001) point out that many gifted boys are highly intense and may engage in high levels of activity. Gifted males have also been noted to possess high levels of sensitivities to issues and intense emotionality (Kerr and Cohn, 2001). These traits in particular may put a gifted male at odds with his peers if he is perceived as being more feminine than masculine as a result of these deep feelings and his sensitive nature.

Some gifted boys may refuse to do work or procrastinate with assignments as an expression of perfectionistic tendencies. Silverman (1993b) notes that perfectionism is a trait often exhibited by gifted students and might be attributed to asynchronous development. Morelock (1992) describes asynchronous development as the conflict that occurs when one's physical, emotional, and intellectual development occurs at different rates. All of these issues may integrate to form heavy challenges for gifted men as they struggle to grow and develop.

A final issue seen in the literature on gifted males is that of difficulty in relating to his peers. Lovecky (1993) notes that confusion and self-doubt can occur because peers are unable to see the important issues that are so clear to the gifted male. As is the case with emotional sensitivities, gifted males who feel qualitatively different from their peers may choose to separate further from peer interactions. Pollack (1998) describes a Boy Code that dictates appropriate behavior for males in our society. In the Boy Code, crying is not permitted, and boys are expected to be macho and tough. Gifted males who do not ascribe to the masculine standards set by society may have a difficult time developing peer relationships. All of these challenges in conjunction with giftedness may be forces at play impacting the development of gifted men in the college environment.

Honors Programs

As noted earlier, honors programs have been in place for several decades, and those that are "programs" in the truest sense of the word are striving to educate the student through more than an advanced curriculum. "In order to foster intellectually autonomous learners, an honors program's primary goal must be to recognize that the developmental needs of bright students are a wonderful invitation for us to contribute to their success, and that educationally responsive nurturing is especially important and effective when it is consistently and warmly practiced" (Haas, 1992, p. 21).

According to Day, honors programs need to provide the following items for honors students: a positive support climate; a place to foster self-awareness and self-esteem; an academic challenge; a flexible learning environment; interactions with other students and faculty; a special orientation session; programs to develop social and academic skills; academic, career, and personal counseling; and opportunities to develop creativity and leadership skills (1989). Research has also noted the need for honors students to be provided with an environment that is conducive to intellectual inspiration, exploration of the liberal arts, co-curricular involvement, moral development, and peer groups development (German, 1995). Shepherd and Shepherd observed that, especially at large universities, the honors program functions like a small, liberal arts college within the context of a large university (Shepherd & Shepherd, 1996).

"One of the most obvious problems that beginning honors teachers everywhere experience is the failure to recognize the development levels of honors students." In every area except academic accomplishment, honors students are much the same as their less-gifted friends." These students are not necessarily freer of problems, more emotionally mature, or inherently more daring than non-honors students of the same age" (Haas, 1992, pg. 21). It is clear that honors students have educational and developmental needs that colleges should be trying to address outside of the classroom. In order to do this well, there must be research into the nature of these needs and the role that gender plays in psychosocial development. Prescriptive measures in the form of intentional programmatic changes can only be made on the basis of further exploration into the area of psychosocial development.

Given the theoretical contexts described above, the following research questions guided this investigation:

Are there differences in psychosocial development levels between honors and non-honors students as measured by the tasks and subtasks of the SDTLA?
Are there gender differences between male and female honors students as measured by the tasks and subtasks of the SDTLA?

Methodology

Participants

The participants in this study were freshman honors students at The University of Georgia. Honors students were identified as students enrolled in the Honors Program at UGA. An email invitation to participate in the research study was sent to the freshman honors student listserv. There were approximately 417 honors students who signed on to the listserv at the beginning of fall semester. Of those students, fifty-two completed the instrument, with thirty-seven females responding and fifteen males responding to the invitation to participate in the study, indicating a response rate of 12.5%.

Instrumentation

Using the Student Developmental Task and Lifestyle Assessment (SDTLA: Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999) to measure psychosocial development that typically occurs during the college years, the researcher searched for correlations between the scores of honors students and the scores of non-honors students. Because the SDTLA is divided into several developmental tasks, markers can be chosen to highlight particular areas of development in these students. The purpose of the Student Developmental Tasks and Lifestyle Assessment "is to provide an assessment tool and procedure that educational practitioners can use with young adult college students to facilitate development of life purpose, mature interpersonal relationships, and academic autonomy as well as the establishment of healthy lifestyles. The assessment procedure is based on concepts and principles of human development, specifically that of developmental task achievement that typically occurs within the college setting" (Winston, Miller, & Cooper, 1999, p. 3).Test-retest and internal consistency checks were employed to estimate the reliability of the SDTLA. A total of fifty-two pre- and post-tests were collected from students, with correlations falling around .80. Alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1970) for students (n=1822) at thirty-two colleges in the United States and Canada showed ranges of .88 to .62.

The validity estimates for the SDTLA resulted from a variety of scales (Winston, Miller & Cooper, 1999). Tasks and subtasks for Establishing and Clarifying Purpose were checked scales from several instruments, including Career Development Inventory (Super et al., 1981), College Student Experiences (Pace, 1983), and Life Skills Development Inventory, (Picklesimer, 1991). Developing Autonomy Tasks and subtasks were compared with the Georgia Autonomy Scales (Winston et al., 1997) and scale measures from the College Student Questionnaire (Peterson, 1968). The tasks and subtasks for Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships were correlated using total scores from the Multi-group Ethnic Identity Measure (Phinney, 1992). The Salubrious Lifestyle scale was correlated with an instrument measuring wellness designed by Baker and Cooper (in press). Finally, validity estimates on the Response Bias scale arose from comparisons with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).

Research Design

This quantitative study looked at the outcomes from a single test offering of the SDTLA. The scores on the SDTLA obtained from the honors students were compared with the normative sample data from the SDTLA. In order to account for the unequal sample sizes in the honors student data set and the normative data set, the researcher took a random sample of 40% of the freshman respondents in the normative set, resulting in a comparison group of 249 students.

Data Collection

The data was collected through test administration by the researcher. Honors students were identified through cooperation with the Honors Program at The University of Georgia. Student participants were sent an email invitation and given a website address to go to in order to take the instrument. Participants were notified about the length of the tests prior to test administration. An explanation of the purpose of the study as well as testing procedures was also included in the invitation to participate in the study. Consent from all the participants was obtained prior to the viewing of the instrument. After data collection, statistical computer programs were employed in order to guarantee the confidentiality and security of data and interpret results.

Results

The first comparisons were t-tests on each subtask and scale of the SDTLA to determine if differences occurred between the honors students and the normative sample. Levene's Tests for equality of variances were administered, and equal variances were assumed for each task and subtasks except Peer Relationships and Emotional Autonomy. Adjustments were made in the t-scores reported due to the fact that the assumption of equal variances was not met.

Significant differences were not seen in the Career Planning or Lifestyle Planning subtasks between the two groups. However, differences were noted in each of the other subtasks, including Instrumental Autonomy, Cultural Participation, Peer Relationships, Tolerance, Emotional Autonomy, Salubrious Lifestyle, Academic Autonomy, Interdependence, and Educational Involvement. In addition, differences were measured by all three of the SDTLA tasks, Purpose, Autonomy, and Mature Interpersonal Relationships (see Table 1). In every case but one, the mean score for the honors group was higher than the mean score for the normative group. The Peer Relationships subtask indicated a lower mean for the honors students (M=37.0588) than normative students (M=40.5373).

In order to investigate whether or not gender differences were present among the students, the participants were divided into four groups, normative males (NM), normative females (NF), honors males, (HM) and honors females (HF). One-way ANOVA's were run on each subtask and task in order to determine whether or not differences were evident among the groups. Statistical differences were not noted in three subtasks, Career Planning, Lifestyle Planning, and Emotional Autonomy. In addition, there were no statistical differences seen in the Purpose task. Differences between the groups are reported below (see Table 2).

Tukey's Post-Hoc tests revealed statistical differences between several of the groups (see Table 3). It is important to note that standardization information about the SDTLA predicts that women would score higher than men on all subtasks and tasks, even though this statistical difference did not bear out in the relationships between the randomly selected normative sample males and females.

Discussion

Results from this study offer important insight for professionals working with honors students. Honors females scored higher than both normative males and females on several developmental subtasks, including Instrumental Autonomy, Cultural Participation, Tolerance, Academic Autonomy, and Interdependence. Honors males scored higher than their normative male counterparts only on the Cultural Participation subtask. On the tasks, honors males and females had higher scores than both normative males and females on the Autonomy task, and honors females scored higher than normative males on the Mature Interpersonal Relationship task.

Interestingly, honors females scored lower than all other groups on the Peer Relationship subtask, with honors males scoring the third lowest mean. Even though the difference is only statistically significant for the honors females, these scores might indicate that the formation of peer relationships is an area where more intervention needs to occur for both honors males and females. Grouping honors students together for core classes or creating an honors residence hall might be means of encouraging the development of peer relationships among their honors peers.

Additionally, it could be helpful to design programs that couple honors students that may be struggling with peer relationships with a mentor student who is more adept at making these connections. Mentor relationships have been cited as highly beneficial for honors students who are choosing careers (Silverman, 1993c), looking for academic counseling (VanTassel-Baska, 1993), and dealing with the pressures of societal gender expectations (Pollack, 1998; Kerr, 1994; Kerr & Cohn, 2001). It may be reasonable to infer that if mentorships are beneficial to honors students in the above situations that they would also be beneficial in the formation of peer relationships. The literature noted both a tendency for a decrease in productivity among college women (Stockard & Wood, 1984; Achenbach, 1970; Coleman, 1961; Davis, 1964) and a decline in self-perception (Stipek, 1998). Placing a programmatic emphasis on building positive peer relationships might help alleviate some of these issues and the struggle women have with conforming to peers (Holland & Eisenhart, 1990).

It is also noteworthy that no significant differences were noted between the four groups in the Career Planning subtask, the Lifestyle Planning subtask, the Emotional Autonomy subtask, and the Purpose task. This might indicate that honors students are facing the same dilemmas in these areas that their non-honors freshman counterparts on campus are facing. Honors students are grappling with career choices, lifestyle choices, and developing emotional autonomy. Professional working with honors students should work to ensure that the level of programming in these areas is similar to levels designed for the typical college freshman.

Limitations

While this research study has contributed much-needed data on the psychosocial development of honors students, there are certainly limitations that must be considered. This research was conducted at a single institution in the southeastern United States . Generalizations to other institutions should be made with caution since it is impossible to have all populations represented in the study. In addition, a limitation to the study could occur since the researcher is using the normative data as a comparison to the results collected from honors students. There is no way to know if honors students were included in this data collection. However, since the normative sample is so large, this should not be a statistical concern.

In addition, the use of the normative data in and of itself could be viewed as problematic. However, the researcher did take steps to minimize this limitation. One is that the normative data set has been recently collected. This set included over 1800 college students from institutions that varied by size and region in 1999, making it a reliable data set for comparisons. Additionally, a random sample was drawn from the freshman student population of that normative data set, and this act helped to lessen the limitation of using the normative data.

Finally, the participants in this study were volunteers from the larger population of honors students at The University of Georgia. Since this was not a random selection, there may be some difficulty making generalizations to other honors students. The small sample size may be viewed as a limitation, and the small numbers of honors males are also a limitation of the current study.

Implications for future research

Results from this study offer several suggestions for future research. More investigation needs to be done on the nature of the peer relationships formed by female honors students. The findings in this research leave many questions as to the nature of these relationships for honors women especially, since they scored the lowest mean of all four groups. Qualitative studies designed to probe deeply into friendships and peer relationships held by these women would offer a great deal of insight on this issue and would help professionals working with these students understand how programmatic interventions might be more conducive to forming these important relationships. Given the important roles that peer relationships play in many developmental processes such as psychosocial, cognitive, and ego development, this is a critical area in much need of continued research.

More research should be conducted in the several areas where honors students scored higher than the normative student population. It would benefit researchers and practitioners of student development to know more about the behaviors, the reasoning, and the emotions that may be contributing to these differences. Insight might be gained through investigating the behaviors or activities honors students are participating in that might be contributing to their developmental growth above and beyond that of their non-honors student peers. Knowing more about these areas would benefit all students by providing further information and support for programmatic interventions. Both quantitative and qualitative studies can play a significant role in addressing these issues.

Researchers may also find areas for future exploration by studying honors males. Honors males scored significant differences in only the cultural participation subtask and the autonomy task while honors females scored significantly higher than their normative male and female counterparts on seven subtasks and two tasks. This suggests that males are developmentally more congruent with the non-honors students than they are the honors females. Further qualitative and quantitative study on these developmental differences between honors males and females would provide much needed data for professionals working with honors students. Analysis of the developmental needs of honors students is instrumental in partnering with academic affairs and offering honors programs highly necessary research support as to the variety of program components most needed by honors students.

Tables

Table 1: Mean SDTLA Scores by Student Group

Table 2: Mean SDTLA Scores by Gender and Student Group

Table 3: Tukey Post-Hoc Differences by Gender and Student Group

References

Achenbach, T.M., (1970). Standardization of a research instrument for identifying associative responding in children. Developmental Psychology, 2, 283-291.

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Baxter Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patters in students' intellectual development. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Bell, L.A. (1990). The gifted woman as imposter. Advanced Development, 2, 55-64.

Byrne, J. P. (1997). Honors programs in community colleges: A Review of recent issues and literature (pp. 1-29). Washington , D.C. : EDRS. (417 785).

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

Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd Ed.). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

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

Cohen, R.D. (1985). From in loco parentis to auxilio parentum. In R.D. Cohen (Ed.), Working with parents of college students (pp. 3-14). New Directions for Student Services, no. 32. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

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

Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Cronbach, L.J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York : Harper & Row.

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

Dabrowski, K. (1967). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration. Boston : Little, Brown.

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

Day, A. L. (1989). Honors Students. In M. Upcraft & J. N. Gardner (Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Entwisle, J.S., & Baker, D.P. (1983). Gender and young children's expectations for performance in arithmetic. Developmental Psychology, 19, 200-209.

Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York : Norton.

Evans , N.J. , Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Gallagher, S. A. (1985). A comparison of the concept of overexcitabilities with measures of creativity and school achievement in sixth grade students. Roeper Review, 8, 115-119.

Gazda, G.M., Childers, W.C., & Brooks, D. K., Jr. (1987). Foundations of counseling and human services. New York : McGraw-Hill.

German, R. E. (1995, June 30). Co-curricular involvement characteristics of Bowling Green State University Honors Students (pp. 1-17). Washington , D.C. : EDRS. (386 138).

Gribbons, W.D., & Lohnes, P.R. (1968). Emerging careers. New York : Teachers College Press.

Haas, P. E. (1992). Honors programs: Applying the reflective judgment model. Liberal Education, 78(1), 20-23.

Havinghurst, R.J. (1972). Human development and education (3rd ed.). New York : McKay.

Holland , D.C. , & Eisenhart, M.A., (1990). Educated in romance: Women, achievement, and the college culture. Chicago : University of Chicago .

Hollingworth, L.S. (1939). What we know about the early selection and training of leaders. Teachers College Record, 40, 575-592.

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

Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Kegan. R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press.

Kerr, B.A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women, & giftedness. Scottsdale , AZ : Gifted Psychology Press.

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

Kramer, L.R., (1991). The social construction of ability perception: An ethnographic study of gifted adolescent girls. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 340-362.

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

Lovecky, D.V. (1993). The quest for meaning: Counseling issues with gifted children and adolescents. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver , CO : Love Publishing Co.

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

McBride, M. (1990, April). Gender and the discourse of mathematics education: A study of the effects of the consequences of socialization. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston .

Miller, T.K., & Prince, J.S. (1976). The future of student affairs: A guide to student development for tomorrow's higher education. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Morelock, M.J. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(3), 11-15.

Pace, C. R. (1983). College student experiences: A questionnaire (2nd ed.). Los Angeles : University of California, Higher Education Research Institute.

Parsons, J., Adler, T., & Kaczala, C. (1982). Socialization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53, 310-321.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Phinney, J.S. (1992). The multi-group ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156-176.

Picklesimer, B. K. (1991). The development and evaluation of the life-skills development inventory'college form. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia .

Piechowski, M. M. (1986). The concept of developmental potential. Roeper Review, 8, 190-197.

Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional giftedness. In N. Collangely & G. Davis , (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 285-306). Needham Heights , MA : Allyn & Bacon.

Piechowski, M. M. & Colangelo, N. (1984). Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 80-88.

Piechowski, M. M. & Cunningham, K. (1985). Patterns of overexcitability in a group of artists. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19 (3), 153-174.

Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood. New York : Henry Holt and Company.

Reis, S. M. (1987). We can't change what we don't recognize: Understanding the special needs of gifted females. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 83-88.

Schiever, S. W. (1985). Creative personality characteristics and dimensions of mental functioning in gifted adolescents. Roeper Review, 7, 223-226.

Shepherd, G., Shepherd, G. (1996). War attitudes and ideological orientation of honors directors in American higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 298-321.

Silverman, L.K., (1993a). The gifted individual. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver , CO : Love Publishing Co.

Silverman, L.K., (1993b). A developmental model for counseling the gifted. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver , CO : Love Publishing Co.

Silverman, L.K., (1993c). Career counseling. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver , CO : Love Publishing Co.

Silverman, L. K. & Kearney , K. (1989). Parents of the extraordinarily gifted. Advanced Development, 1, 41-56.

Stipek, D. (1988). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stockard, J. (1980). Why sex inequalities exist for students. In J. Stockard, P.A.

Schmuck, K. Kempner, P. Williams, S.K. Edson, & M.A. Smith (Eds.), Sex equity in education. New York : Academic Press.

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

Super, D.E., Starishevsky, R., Matlin, R,. & Jordaan, J.P. (Eds.). (1963). Career Development: Self-Concept theory. New York : College Board.

Super, D.E., Thompson, A.S., Lindeman, R.H., Jordaan, J.P. & Myers, R.A. (1981). The Career development inventory (college and university form). Palo Alto , CA : Consulting Psychologist Press.

Super, D.E. (1984). Career and life development. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates, Career choices and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (pp. 192-234). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Super, D.E. (1986). Life career roles: Self-realization in work and leisure. In D.T. Hall (Ed.), Organizing careers. New York : College Board.

Terman, L.M (1931). The gifted child. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A handbook of child psychology (pp. 568-584). Worcester , MA : Clark University Press.

Tiedman, D.V., & O'Hara, R.P. (1963). Career development: Choice and adjustment. New York : CEEB.

VanTassel-Baska, J. (1993). Academic counseling for the gifted. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented. Denver , CO : Love Publishing Co.

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

Whitmore, J.R. (1979). The etiology of underachievement in highly gifted young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 3, 38-51.

Winston, R.B., Jr., Phelps, R. E., Mazzeo, S., & Torres, V. (1997). A short measure of students' autonomy development: The Georgia Autonomy Scales. College Student Affairs Journal, 17, 4-17.

Winston, R.B., Jr., Miller, T.K., & Cooper, D.L. (1999). Preliminary technical manual for the student development task and lifestyle assessment. Athens, GA : Student Development Associates, Inc.