Book contents
- The Nature and Nurture of Talent
- The Nature and Nurture of Talent
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Rationale, Goals, and Overview of the Book
- Chapter 1 The Evolving Complexity Theory of Talent Development
- Chapter 2 The Question of What Develops
- Chapter 3 The Question of How Talent Develops
- Chapter 4 The Question of When Critical Events Should Take Place
- Chapter 5 The Question of Where
- Chapter 6 How ECT Explains Various Talent Achievements
- Chapter 7 ECT in a Broader Landscape of Theoretic Models
- Chapter 8 Implications of ECT for Talent Identification and Assessment of Developmental Progressions
- Chapter 9 Implications of ECT for Promoting Human Excellence
- Chapter 10 Implications of ECT for Research Methodology
- Epilogue Is AI a Threat to Human Excellence?
- Postscript
- Glossary
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 June 2024
Book contents
- The Nature and Nurture of Talent
- The Nature and Nurture of Talent
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction Rationale, Goals, and Overview of the Book
- Chapter 1 The Evolving Complexity Theory of Talent Development
- Chapter 2 The Question of What Develops
- Chapter 3 The Question of How Talent Develops
- Chapter 4 The Question of When Critical Events Should Take Place
- Chapter 5 The Question of Where
- Chapter 6 How ECT Explains Various Talent Achievements
- Chapter 7 ECT in a Broader Landscape of Theoretic Models
- Chapter 8 Implications of ECT for Talent Identification and Assessment of Developmental Progressions
- Chapter 9 Implications of ECT for Promoting Human Excellence
- Chapter 10 Implications of ECT for Research Methodology
- Epilogue Is AI a Threat to Human Excellence?
- Postscript
- Glossary
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Nature and Nurture of TalentA New Foundation for Human Excellence, pp. 265 - 290Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Ackerman, P. L. (2003). Aptitude complexes and trait complexes. Educational Psychologist, 38, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interest: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambrose, D. (2012). Finding dogmatic insularity in the territory of various academic disciplines. In Ambrose, D. & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), How dogmatism harms creativity and higher-level thinking (pp. 9–25). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrose, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., Coleman, L. J., & Cross, C. T. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anastasi, A. (1958). Heredity, environment, and the question “how?” Psychological Review, 65(4), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angoff, W. H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, and group differences. American Psychologist, 43, 713–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bamberger, J. (1986). Cognitive issues in the development of musically gifted children. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 388–413). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Pyke, C. (2002). Teacher ratings of student engagement with educational software: An exploratory study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(2), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). smart people or smart context? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, 113(3), 628–647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barron, B. (2006). Interest and self-sustained learning as catalysts of development: A learning ecology perspective. Human Development, 49, 193–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounding symbolic operations in the brain’s modal systems. In Semin, G. R. & Smith, E. R. (eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 9–42). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & Carnevale, G. F. (1993). New directions in research on language development. Developmental Review, 13, 436–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, D. J., & Reyes, H. L. M (2010). Modeling variability in individual development: Differences of degree or kind? Child Development Perspective, 6, 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, D. W. et al. (2016). The genetics of success: How single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with educational attainment relate to life-course development. Psychological Science, 27, 957–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Open Court.Google Scholar
Bergman, L., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Developmental Psychopathology, 9, 291–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, R. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children (Kite, E. S., trans.). Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Borland, J. H. (2003). The death of giftedness. In Borland, J. H. (ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105–124). Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Borland, J. H. (2014). Identification of gifted students. In Plucker, J. A. & Callahan, C. M. (eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 323–342). Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, T. J. (1997). IQ similarities in twins reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. In Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. (eds.), Intelligence, heredity, and environment (pp. 126–160). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P. (1976). Science and statistics, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(356), 791–799. doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1976.10480949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61–100.Google Scholar
Brody, N. (2000). History of theories and measurements of intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 16–33). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In Vasta, R. (ed.), Annals of child development, Vol. 6: Six theories of child development. JAI Press.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evan, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J. (1979). On knowing: Essays for the left hand. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist, 53, 533–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cairns, R. B., Elder, G. H., & Costello, E. J. (eds.). (1996). Developmental science. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantor, N., Markus, H., Niedenthal, P., & Nurius, P. (1986). On motivation and the self-concept. In Sorrentino, R. M. & Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 96–121). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carse, J. P. (2013). Finite and infinite games: A vision of life as play and possibility. Free Press.Google Scholar
Case, R. (1992). The mind’s staircase: Exploring the conceptual underpinnings of children’s thought and knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J. (1996). On intelligence: A biological treatise on intellectual development (expanded edition). Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J. (2018). Women in academic science: Experimental findings from hiring studies. Educational Psychologist, 53, 22–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. M. (2021). Stewart-Williams and Halsey argue persuasively that gender bias is just one of many causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. European Journal of Personality, 35, 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Liker, J. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 255–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the “have-nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ceci, S. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). The mathematics of sex: How biology and society conspire to limit talented women and girls. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J., Williams-Ceci, S., & Williams, W. M. (2016). How to actualize potential: A bioecological approach to talent development. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377, 10–21. doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55–81. doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterton, W. T. (2023). The people who don’t read books: Identifying as someone who categorically rejects books suggests a much larger deficiency of character. The Atlantic. 25 January. Retrieved from www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/kanye-west-sam-bankman-fried-books-reading/672823/.Google Scholar
Cheng, K.-m. (2011). Shanghai: How a big city in a developing country leaped to the head of the class. In Tucker, M. S. (ed.), Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems (pp. 21–50). Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Chess, S., & Thomas, A. (1996). Temperament theory and practice. New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2009). The achievements and future promises of developmental psychopathology: The coming of age of a discipline. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. (2001). Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, M. (2006). Culture and cognitive development in phylogenetic, historical, and ontogenetic perspective. In Damon, W. & Lerner, R. M. (eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Volume II. Cognition, perception, and language, 3. Cognitive processes (pp. 636–683). Wiley.Google Scholar
Coyle, D. (2009). The talent code: Greatness isn’t born. It’s grown. Here’s how. Bantam.Google Scholar
Creanza, N., Kolodny, O., & Feldman, M. W. (2017). Cultural evolutionary theory: How culture evolves and why it matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), 7782–7789.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cribbs, J. D., Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2015). Establishing an explanatory model for mathematics identity. Child Development, 86, 1048–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crofoot, M. C., & Wrangham, R. W. (2010). Intergroup aggression in primates and humans: The case for a unified theory. In Kappeler, P. M. & Silk, J. B. (eds.), Mind the gap: Tracing the origins of human universals (pp. 171–195). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, D. H., Cropley, A. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Runco, M. A. (eds.). (2010). The dark side of creativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosnoe, R., & Johnson, M. K. (2011). Research on adolescence in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 439–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csermely, P. (2015). Cutting-edge research on talent development in Europe. Presentation at the Nuremberg Conference on Talent Development, Nuremberg.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K., & Whalen, S. (1993). Talented teenager. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1986). Culture, time, and the development of talent. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 264–284). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2002). Are gifted girls motivationally disadvantaged? Review, reflection, and redirection. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25, 315–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2005). Reductionism versus emergentism: A framework for understanding conceptions of giftedness. Roeper Review, 27(3), 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2011). Hopeless anarchy or saving pluralism? Reflections on our field in response to Ambrose, VanTassel-Baska, Coleman, and Cross. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 705–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2012). The nature-nurture debate regarding high potential: Beyond dichotomous thinking. In Ambrose, D., Sternberg, R. J., & Sriraman, B. (eds.), Confronting dogmatism in gifted education (pp. 41–54). Routledge.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2016). Envisioning a new century of gifted education: The case for a paradigm shift. In Ambrose, D. & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Giftedness and talent in the 21st century: Adapting to the turbulence of globalization (pp. 45–63). SensePublishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2017). Envisioning a new foundation for gifted education: Evolving complexity theory (ECT) of talent development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 172–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2018). A century of quest for identity: A history of giftedness. In Pfeiffer, S. (Ed.), The APA handbook on giftedness and talent (pp. 3–23). American Psychological Association Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2019). New directions in talent development research: A developmental systems perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 168, 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2020a). Evolving complexity theory of talent development: A developmental systems approach. In Cross, T. L. & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (eds.), Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development (pp. 1–27). Prufrock Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2020b). Rethinking human potential from a talent development perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2021). Epilogue: A historical narrative of scientific discourse on human potential. In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Scientific inquiry into human potential: Historical and contemporary perspectives across disciplines (pp. 247–265). Routledge.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (2022) Engaging the world and building the self: A primer on evolving complexity theory (ECT) of talent development. Mensa Research Journal, 53(2), 54–61.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y. (with contributions by Xue, Y., & Sun, Q.) (2023). Talent development from a developmental science perspective: A guide to use-inspired research on human excellence. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Chen, F. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based, practice-focused research. Prufrock Press.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y., Cheng, H., & Yang, P. (2019). QEOSA: A pedagogy that harnesses cultural resources to foster creative problem solving. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, article 433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Fu, Y. (2019). An anatomy of selective high schools in the United States (in Chinese). East China Normal University Press.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Li, X. (2013). Beyond school walls: Gifted and talented education as a social enterprise. In Dai, D. Y. & Cai, J. (eds.), Gifted education in the USA (in Chinese, pp. 105–115). Zhejiang Education Press.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Li, X. (2020). Behind an accelerated scientific research career: Dynamic interplay of endogenous and exogenous forces in talent development. Education Sciences, 10(9), 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Li, X. (2023). A multi-case study of accelerated trajectories of science talent development: Matthew effects re-examined. Gifted Education International, 39(2), 148–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Niu, W. (2023). Looking at intelligence, creativity, and wisdom in the Chinese way: A Troika Model of mind power. In Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Karami, S. (eds.), Intelligence, creativity, and wisdom: Exploring their connections and distinctions (pp. 79–102). Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Renzulli, J. S. (2008). Snowflakes, living systems, and the mystery of giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 114–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Rinn, A. N. (2008). The big-fish-little-pond effect: What do we know and where do we go from here? Educational Psychology Review, 20, 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., Rinn, A. N., & Tan, X. (2013). When the big fish turns small: Effects of participating in gifted summer programs on academic self-concepts. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Steenbergen-Hu, S. (2015). Special class for the gifted young: A 34-year experimentation with early college entrance programs in China. Roeper Review, 37, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Zhou, Y. (2015). Cope and grow: A grounded theory approach to early college entrants’ lived experiences and changes in a STEM program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Beyond cognitivism: Toward an integrated understanding of intellectual functioning and development. In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 3–38). Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.). (2021). Scientific inquiry into human potential: Historical and contemporary perspectives across disciplines. Routledge.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y., Tan, X., Marathe, D., Valtcheva, A., Pruzek, R. M., & Shen, J. (2012). Influences of social and educational environments on creativity during adolescence: Does SES matter? Creativity Research Journal, 24, 191–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Wang, T. (in press). The role of Chinese culture in musical talent development: For better or for worse. In Proceedings of SwissSino Conference on the China-West comparative studies of music talent development, sponsored by Lucerne University.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Wang, X. (2007). The role of need for cognition and reader beliefs in text comprehension and interest development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 332–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Wind, A. (2011). Computer games and opportunity to learn: Implications for teaching students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. In Tobias, S. & Fletcher, J. D. (eds.), Computer games and instruction (pp. 477–500). Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Dai, D. Y., & Zhao, Y. (2020). In search of explanation for an East Asian approach-avoidance pattern of achievement motivation. In Smith, S. (ed.), The Australian-Pacific handbook of gifted education. Springer.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Harcourt Brace & Company.Google Scholar
Dampier, W. C. (1966). A history of science, and its relations with philosophy and religion. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Den Hartigh, R. J., Van Dijk, M. W., Steenbeek, H. W., & Van Geert, P. L. (2016). A dynamic network model to explain the development of excellent human performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, article 532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (2002). Intelligence without representation – Merleau-Ponty’s critique of mental representation: The relevance of phenomenology to scientific explanation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, G. M. (1995). Memory and the individual soul: Against silly reductionism. In Cornwell, J. (ed.), Nature’s imagination: The frontiers of scientific vision (pp. 200–206). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Einstein, A. (1936). Physics and reality. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221, 348–382 (translation by Jean Piccard).Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 23(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emde, R. N. (1994). Individuality, context, and the search for meaning. Child Development, 65, 710–737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elman, B. A. (2004). The Needham question: Some problems of evidence, method, and theory in the study of the history of science. Isis, 95(4), 724–732.Google Scholar
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmons, R. A. (1999). The psychology of ultimate concerns: Motivation and spirituality in personality. The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Encyclopaedia Britannica (n.d.). The age of early printing, 1450–1550. Retrieved from: www.britannica.com/topic/publishing/The-age-of-early-printing-1450-1550.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–703). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1993). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49, 725–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Lehmann, A. C. (1996). Expert and exceptional performance: Evidence of maximal adaptation to task constraints. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2005). Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2007a). Giftedness and evidence for reproducibly superior performance: An account based on the expert-performance framework. High Ability Studies, 18, 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Nandagopal, K., & Roring, R. W. (2007b). Misunderstandings, agreements, and disagreements: Toward a cumulative science of reproducibly superior aspects of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 18, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Pool, R. (2017). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. Mariner Books.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Bradford Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Ward, P. (2007). Capturing the naturally occurring superior performance of experts in the laboratory: Toward a science of expert and exceptional performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 346–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Williams, A. M. (2007). Capturing naturally occurring superior performance in the laboratory: Translational research on expert performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13, 115–123.Google ScholarPubMed
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life‐course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues, the 2002 Sutherland Award address. Criminology, 41(2), 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 57–82). American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2006a). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest, and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J. (2006b). The development of scientific talent in Westinghouse finalists and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Journal of Adult Development, 13, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feixa, C. (2011). Past and present of adolescence in society: The “teen brain” debate in perspective. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(8), 1634–1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, D. H. (1986). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of human potential. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. H. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In Borland, J. H. (ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9–33). Teachers College Press, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Feldman, D. H. (2020). Nonuniversal theory and the development of gifts and talents. In Cross, T. L. & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (eds.), Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development (pp. 181–201). Prufrock Academic Press.Google Scholar
Feldhusen, J. F. (1992). TIDE: Talent identification and development in education. Center for Creative Learning.Google Scholar
Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Motivating academically able youth with enriched and accelerated learning experiences. In Benbow, C. P. & Lubinski, D. (eds.), Intellectual talent (pp. 145–158). The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Feniger, Y., & Lefstein, A. (2014). How not to reason with PISA data: An ironic investigation. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 845–855. doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.892156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, N. (2018). The square and the tower: Networks and power, from the Freemasons to Facebook. Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought. In Damon, W. & Lerner, R. M. (eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.): Vol. 1, Theoretical model of human development (pp. 313–399). John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W., & Connell, M. W. (2003). Two motivational systems that shape development: Epistemic and self-organizing. BJEP Monograph Series II 2: Development and Motivation, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, K. W., & Pipp, S. L. (1984). Process of cognitive development: Optimal level and skill acquisition. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 45–75). Freeman.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W., & van Geert, P. (2014). Dynamic development of brain and behavior. In Molenaar, P. C. M., Lerner, R. M., & Newell, K. M. (eds.), Handbook of developmental systems theory and methodology (pp. 287–315). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W., & Yan, Z. (2002). Darwin’s construction of the theory of evolution: Microdevelopment of explanations of variation and change in species. In Granott, N. & Parziale, J. (eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 294–318). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, M. E. (1994). A living systems approach to the integration of personality and intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. & Ruzgis, P. (eds.), Personality and intelligence (pp. 188–217). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When it is worse to know better? In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 157–188). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gagné, F. (1985). Gifted and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–119). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, F. (2009). Debating giftedness: Pronat vs. antinat. In Shavinina, L. (ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 155–198). Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagné, F. (2020). Differentiating giftedness from talent: The DMGT perspective on talent development. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, F. (1883/1907/1973). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. AMS Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, F. (1892). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences (2nd ed.). Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary minds: Portraits of 4 exceptional individuals and an examination of our extraordinariness. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (2020). Of human potential: A 40-year saga. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43, 12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H. (2021). Of human potential: A forty-year saga. In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Scientific inquiry into human potential: Historical and contemporary perspectives across disciplines (pp. 247–265). Routledge.Google Scholar
Gardner, H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Damon, D. (2001). Good work: When excellence and ethics meet. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (1995). Reflections of evolution and culture in children’s cognition. American Psychologist, 50, 24–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geary, D. C. (2005). The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence. American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, J. P. (2007). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Mamillan.Google Scholar
Gershenson, C. (2014). Requisite variety, autopoiesis, and self-organization. Invited keynote at WOSC. Retrieved from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1409/1409.7475.pdf.Google Scholar
Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1987). Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanism, associations, and pathology. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Shaw, R. & Bransford, J. (eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Wiley.Google Scholar
Glăveanu, V. P. (2015). Creativity as a sociocultural act. Journal of Creative Behavior, 49(3), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glăveanu, V. P. et al. (2013). Creativity as action: Findings from five creative domains. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 40417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gobet, F. (2021). Ignoring boundaries between disciplines. In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Scientific inquiry into human potential: Historical and contemporary perspectives across disciplines (pp. 60–74). Routledge.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and Issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72. doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0101_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, K. (1939). The organism: A holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man. American Book Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, T. R., Lerner, M. D., & Winner, E. (2017). The arts as a venue for developmental science: Realizing a latent opportunity. Child Development, 88, 1505–1512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Editorial: Mainstream science on intelligence – an editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfried, A. E., & Gottfried, A. W. (2004). Toward the development of a conceptualization of gifted motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel behavior. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, G. (1998). Normally occurring environmental and behavioral influences on gene activity: From central dogma to probabilistic epigenesis. Psychological Review, 105, 792–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science, 10, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool or an evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrals of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 205, 581–598.Google Scholar
Gould, S. & Vrba, E. (1982). Exapation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granott, N., & Parziale, J. (2002). Microdevelopment: A process-oriented perspective for studying development and learning. In Granott, N. & Parziale, J. (eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 1–28). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, W. D., & Lindstedt, J. K. (2017). Plateau, dips, and leaps: Where to look for inventions and discoveries during skilled performance. Cognitive Science, 41, 1838–1870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruber, H. E. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity (Rev. ed.). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, H. E. (1986). The self-construction of the extraordinary. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 247–263). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (2001). Creative work: The case of Charles Darwin. American Psychologist, 56, 346–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guberman, S. R. (1996). The development of everyday mathematics in Brazilian children with limited formal education. Child Development, 67, 1609–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haier, R. J. (2001). PET studies of learning and individual differences. In McClelland, J. L. & Siegler, R. S. (eds.), Mechanisms of cognitive development: Behavioral and neural perspectives (pp. 123–145). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Haier, R. J. (2016). The neuroscience of intelligence. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education. Appleton.Google Scholar
Hambrick, D. Z., Oswald, F. L., Altmann, E. M., Meinz, E. J., Gobet, F., & Campitelli, G. (2014). Deliberate practice: Is it all it takes to become an expert? Intelligence, 45, 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambrick, D. Z., Burgoyne, A. P., Macnamara, B. N., & Ullén, F. (2018). Toward a multifactorial model of expertise: Beyond born versus made. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1423, 284–295. doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harden, K. P. (2021). The genetic lottery: Why DNA matters for social equality. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hatano, G. (1988). Social and motivational bases for mathematic understanding. In Saxe, G. B. & Gearhart, M. G. (eds.), Children’s mathematics (pp. 55–70). Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Hawking, S. (1995). Life in the universe. Retrieved from: www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/life-in-the-universe (accessed February 24, 2024).Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. (1989). Cognitive processes in creativity. In Glover, J. A., Roning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 202–219). Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychological Review, 117, 32–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henshilwood, C. S., & Marean, C. W. (2003). The origin of modern human behavior: Critique of the models and their test implications. Current Anthropology, 44, 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. Free Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, J. C., & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirschfeld, L. A., & Gelman, S. A. (1994). Toward a topography of mind: An introduction to domain specificity. In Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman, S. A. (eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 3–35). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffer, T. B., Welch, V., Webber, K., Williams, K., Lisek, B., Hess, M., Loew, D., & Guzman-Barron, I. (2005). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2003 (revised 2005). University of Chicago, NORC.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1981). Thematic presuppositions and the direction of scientific advance. In Heath, A. F. (ed.), Scientific explanation (pp. 1–27). Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1988). The thematic origins of scientific thought. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Horowitz, F. D. (2000). Child development and the PITS: Simple questions, complex answers, and developmental theory. Child Development, 71, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horowitz, F. D. (2009). Introduction: A developmental understanding of giftedness and talent. In Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (eds.), The development of giftedness and talent across the lifespan (pp. 3–19). American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R. W. (2009). Individual differences in expertise development over decades in a complex intellectual domain. Memory and Cognition, 37, 194–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, R. W. (2012). Longitudinal effects of different types of practice on the development of chess expertise. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 399–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, W. (1997). Selected writings (The variety of religious experience). Book-of-the-Month Club.Google Scholar
Jolly, J. L. & Robins, J. H. (2014). Paul Witty, a gentleman scholar. In Robinson, A. & Jolly, J. L. (eds.), A century of contributions to gifted education: Illuminating lives (pp. 118–129). Routledge.Google Scholar
Kagan, J. (2002). Surprise, uncertainty, and mental structures. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kanevsky, L. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of problem-solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2004). Bates’ emergentist theory and its relevance to understanding genotype/phenotype relations. In Tomasello, M. & Slobin, D. I. (eds.), Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates (pp. 219–236). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kanevsky, L. (1990). Pursuing qualitative differences in the flexible use of problem-solving strategy by young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 115–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanevsky, L. (2020). Tannenbaum’s psychosocial conception of giftedness. In Cross, T. L. & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (eds.), Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development (pp. 93–144). Prufrock Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. (2000). Principles of dynamic pattern formation and change for a science of human behavior. In Bergman, L. R., Cairns, R. B., Nilsson, L.-G., & Nystedt, L. (eds.), Developmental science and the holistic approach (pp. 63–83). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (2000). Social intelligence. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 359–379). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klinger, E., & Cox, W. M. (2011). Motivation and goal theory of current concerns. In Cox, W. M. & Klinger, E. (eds.), Handbook of motivational counseling: Goal-based approaches to assessment and intervention with addiction and other problems (pp. 1–47). John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Koch, S. (1992). The nature and limits of psychological knowledge: Lessons of a century qua “science.” In Koch, S. & Leary, D. E. (eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 75–97). American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozbelt, A. (2008). Longitudinal hit ratios of classical composers: Reconciling “Darwinian” and expertise acquisition perspectives on lifespan creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and Arts, 2, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzweil, R. (1999). The age of spiritual machines: When computers exceed human intelligence. Viking.Google Scholar
Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labouvie-Vief, G. (1990). Wisdom as integrated thoughts: Historical and developmental perspectives. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), Wisdom: Its nature, origins, and development (pp. 52–83). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programs. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, B. M., Ullman, T. D., Tennenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lauden, L. (1981). A problem-solving approach to scientific progress. In Hacking, I. (ed.), Scientific revolutions (pp. 144–155). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laursen, B., & Hoff, E. (2006). Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to longitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 377–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, D. N. (2003). The early years of Mozart’s compositional career. Mozart-Studien, 13, 93–109.Google Scholar
Lerner, R. M. (2004). Genes and the promotion of positive human development: Hereditarian versus developmental systems perspectives. In Coll, C. G., Bearer, E. L., & Lerner, R. M. (eds.), Nature and nurture: The complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development (pp. 1–33). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lewis, H. (2007). Excellence without a soul: Does liberal education have a future? PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. D. (2000). The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child Development, 71, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C. (2000). Triple helix: Gene, organism, and evolution. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2006). Exceptional intellectual performance: A neo-Piagetian perspective. High Ability Studies, 17, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohman, D. F. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent identification: Implications for identification of academically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohman, D. F. (1993). Teaching and testing to develop fluid abilities. Educational Researcher, 22(7), 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohman, D. F., & Korb, K. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precious youth after 35 years. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman? Gifted Child Quarterly, 65, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1991). What’s wrong with psychology anyway? In Cicchatti, D. & Grove, W. M. (eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Vol. 1, Matters of public interest (pp. 3–39). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Creative Education Foundation.Google Scholar
MacNamara, Á., Holmes, P., & Collins, D. (2008). Negotiating transitions in musical development: The role of psychological characteristics of developing excellence. Psychology of Music, 36(3), 335–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, D. (2001). The holistic-interactionistic paradigm: Some directions for empirical developmental research. European Psychologist, 6(3), 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M., & Smith, C. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (Vol. 26). Routledge.Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P. (1996). Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7(4), 295–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martindale, C. (2001). Oscillations and analogies: Thomas Young, MD, FRS, genius. American Psychologist, 56(4), 342–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masataka, N. (2007). Music, evolution, and language. Developmental Science, 10, 35–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D. J., & Foster, J. F. (2006). Mystery to mastery: Shifting paradigms in gifted education. Roeper Review, 28(2), 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdams, D. P. (1996) Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for studying persons. Psychological Inquiry, 7(4), 295–321, doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0704_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCall, R. B. (1981). Nature-nurture and the two realms of development: A proposed integration with respect to mental development. Child Development, 52, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, K. A. (2016). Future directions in childhood adversity and youth psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 45, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKeough, A., Genereux, R., & Jeary, J. (2006). Structure, content, and language usage: How do exceptional and average storywriters differ? High Ability Studies, 17, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, L. K. (2005). What the savant syndrome can tell us about the nature and nurture of talent. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. H. (1993). Theories of developmental psychology (3rd ed.). W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2012). Hofstede’s fifth dimension: New evidence from the World Values Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2, 201–218.Google Scholar
Murray, C. (2003). Human accomplishments: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B. C. to 1950. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. K. (2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 24, 882–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neisser, U. (1986). Nested structure in autobiographical memory. In Rubin, D. C. (ed.), Autobiographical memory (pp. 71–81). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neisser, U. et al. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neurath, O. (1983). Protocol statements. In Cohen, R. S. & Neurath, M. (eds.), Philosophical Papers 1913–1946 (pp. 91–99). Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obler, L. K., & Fein, D. (1988). The exceptional brain: Neuropsychology of talent and special abilities. The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
O’Boyle, M. W. (2000). A new millennium in cognitive neuropsychology research: The era of individual differences? Brain and Cognition, 42, 135–138.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Boyle, M. W. (2008). Mathematically gifted children: Developmental brain characteristics and their prognosis for well-being. Roeper Review, 30, 181–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Boyle, M. W., Benbow, C. P., & Alexander, J. E. (1995). Sex differences, hemispheric laterality, and associated brain activity in the intellectual gifted. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11, 415–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohlsson, S. (2011). Deep learning: How the mind overrides experience. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okamoto, Y., Curtis, R., Jabagchourian, J. J., & Weckbacher, L. M. (2006). Mathematical precocity in young children: A neo-Piagetian perspective. High Ability Studies, 17, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2014). Relational developmental systems and developmental science: A focus on methodology. In Molenaar, P. C. M., Lerner, R. M., & Newell, K. M. (eds.), Handbook of developmental systems theory and methodology (pp. 19–65). The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Papierno, P. B., Ceci, S. J., Makel, M. C., & Williams, W. W. (2005). The nature and nurture of talent: A bioecological perspective on the ontogeny of exceptional abilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 312–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences. Psychological Science, 18, 948–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2008). Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matters for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 957–961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penrose, R., & Mermin, N. A. (1990). The emperor’s new mind: Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. American Journal of Physics, 58, 1214–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perkins, D., & Ritchhart, R. (2004). When is good thinking? In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative perspectives on intellectual functioning and development (pp. 351–384). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, S. I. (ed.). (2018a) APA handbook of giftedness and gifted education. American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, S. I. (ed.). (2018b) Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (2nd ed.). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brains will rule the future. Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Craig, I. W., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era. American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plucker, J. A., & Barab, S. A. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: Learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 201–216). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Toward a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1991). Of clouds and clocks: An approach to the problem of rationality and the freedom of man. In Cicchetti, D. & Grove, W. M. (eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 100–139). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Porath, M. (2006a). Introduction: A developmental view of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 17, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porath, M. (2006b). The conceptual underpinnings of giftedness: Developmental and educational implications. High Ability Studies, 17, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portin, P. (2015). A comparison of biological and cultural evolution. Journal of Genetics, 94(1), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53–92). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
Renzulli, R. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98–119). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Resnick, M. (2017). Lifelong kindergarten: Cultivating creativity through projects, passion, peers, and play. The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2015) Creative schools: The grassroots revolution that’s transforming education. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Roe, A. (1953). A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67(2), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, K. (1995). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. HarperOne.Google Scholar
Root-Bernstein, R. (2009). Multiple giftedness: The case of polymaths. In Shavinina, L. (ed.), Handbook on giftedness (pp. 853–870). Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roring, R. W., & Charness, N. (2007). A multilevel model analysis of expertise in chess across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 22, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How we succeed in a world that values sameness. HarperOne.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (2003). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Crown.Google Scholar
Runco, M. (2010). Education based on a parsimonious theory of creativity. In Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 235–251). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saariluoma, P. (1992). Error in chess: the apperception-restructuring view. Psychological Research, 54, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salas, E., & Klein, G. (eds.). (2001). Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sawyer, R. K. (1999). The emergence of creativity. Philosophical Psychology, 12, 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2002). Emergence in psychology: Lessons from the history of non-reductionist science. Human Development, 45, 2–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Emergence in creativity and development. In Sawyer, R. K., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Sternberg, R. J., Feldman, D. H., Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihayi, M. (eds.), Creativity and development (pp. 12–60). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2006). Conclusion: The schools of future. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 567–580). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and Arts, 3, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scardamalia, M. (1977). Information processing capacity and the problem of horizontal” decalage”: A demonstration using combinatorial reasoning tasks. Child Development, 28–37.Google Scholar
Schlaug, G. (2001). The brain of musicians: A model for functional and structural adaptation. In Zatorre, R. J. & Peretz, I. (eds.), The biological foundations of music (Annals of the New York Academy Sciences) (Vol. 930, pp. 281–299). New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Schleicher, A. (2018a). Educating learners for their future, not our past. ECNU Review of Education, 1(1), 58–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleicher, A. (2018b). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (2002). The evolution of mathematical reasoning: Everyday versus idealized understandings. Developmental Review, 22(2), 242–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seok, B. (2006). Diversity and unity of modularity. Cognitive Science, 30(2), 347–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shiffrin, R. M. (1996). Laboratory experimentation on the genesis of expertise. In Ericsson, K. A. (ed.), The road to expertise (pp. 337–345). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shavinina, L. V. (1999). The psychological essence of the child prodigy phenomenon: Sensitive periods and cognitive experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shavinina, L. V. (2004). Explaining high abilities of Nobel laureates. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1987). Individual differences in strategy choices: Good students, not-so-good students, and perfectionists. Child Development, 59, 833–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: The process of change in children’s thinking. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegler, R. S., & Kotovsky, K. (1986). Two levels of giftedness: Shall even the twain meet. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 417–435). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, A. (1988). An Aristotelian resolution of the idiographic versus nomothetic tension. American Psychologist, 43(6), 425–430. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1975). Age and literary creativity: A cross-cultural and transhistorical survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6(3), 259–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research? Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104, 66–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 3, 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonton, D. K. (2004). Creativity in science: Chance, logic, genius, and zeitgeist. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2005). Giftedness and genetics: The emergenic-epigenetic model and its implications. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 270–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2007). Creative life cycles in literature: Poets versus novelists or conceptualists versus experimentalists? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(3), 133–139. doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.3.133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2008). Scientific talent, training, and performance: Intellect, personality, and genetic endowment. Review of General Psychology, 12, 28–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2014). Creative performance, expertise acquisition, individual differences, and developmental antecedents: An integrative research agenda. Intelligence, 45, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2018). From giftedness to eminence: Developmental landmarks across the lifespan. In Pfeiffer, S. I. (ed.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 273–285). American Psychological Association Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2021). Human potential at the achievement pinnacle: A life-long preoccupation with history-making genius. In Dai, D. Y. & Sternberg, R. J. (eds.), Scientific inquiry into human potential: Historical and contemporary perspectives across disciplines (pp. 113–125). Routledge.Google Scholar
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivin, N. (ed.). (1996). The scientific revolution in China reconsidered (Needham Research Institute Series). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, L. D., & Thelen, E. (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development: Applications. The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1992). Aptitude theory: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Educational Psychologist, 27, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, R. E. (1995). Foreword. In Saklofske, D. H. & Zeidner, M. (eds.), International handbook of personality and intelligence (pp. xi–xv). Plenum.Google Scholar
Sosniak, L. A. (2006). Retrospective interviews in the study of expertise and expert performance. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 287–301). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2000). Core knowledge. American Psychologist, 55, 1233–1243. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiro, J., & Deschryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: When it’s the wrong idea and when it’s the only idea. In Tobias, S. and Duffy, T. M. (eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure (pp. 106–123). Routledge.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, M. (1998). The rise of the image, the fall of the word. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). GENECES: A framework for intellectual abilities and theories of them. Intelligence, 10, 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Costs of expertise. In Ericsson, K. A. (ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports and games (pp. 347–354). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2(4), 347–365. doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.4.347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1999a). A propulsion model of types of creative contributions. Review of General Psychology, 3, 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1999b). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. J. (2010). Teaching for creativity. In Beghetto, R. A. & Kaufman, J. C. (eds.), Nurturing creativity in the classroom (pp. 394–414). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2020). Transformational giftedness: Rethinking our paradigm for gifted education. Roeper Review, 42(4), 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2021a). A new model of giftedness emphasizing active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership that can make a positive, meaningful, and potentially enduring difference to the world. In Sternberg, R. J. & Ambrose, D. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 407–424). Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2021b). Identification for utilization, not merely possession, of gifts: What matters is not gifts but rather deployment of gifts. Gifted Education International. doi.org/10.1177/02614294211013345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2021c). Transformational vs. transactional deployment of intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 9(15). doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9010015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R. J. (2022). The emperor has no clothes: The naked truth about the construct validity of traditional methods of gifted identification. Roeper Review, 44(4), 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Ambrose, D. (eds.). (2021). Conceptions of giftedness and talent. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Ambrose, D., & Karami, S. (eds.). (2022). Palgrave handbook of transformational giftedness for education. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1986). Conceptions of giftedness: A map of the terrain. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 3–18). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Desmet, O. A., Ford, D., Gentry, M. L., Grantham, T., & Karami, S. (2021). The legacy: Coming to terms with the origins and development of the gifted-child movement. Roeper Review, 43(4), 227–241. doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1967544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press.Google Scholar
Stewart-Williams, S., & Halsey, L. G. (2021). Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done? European Journal of Personality, 35, 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institute Press.Google Scholar
Stroebe, W. (2010). The graying of academia: Will it reduce scientific creativity? American Psychologist, 65, 660–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., & Coleman, L. J. (1996). Establishing the foundations for a talent development school: Applying principles to creating an ideal. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., & Jarvin, L. (2005). Beyond expertise: Conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 343–357). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Jarvin, L., Moga, E., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom from gatekeepers: Secrets of success in music performance. Bulletin of Psychology and Arts, 4(1), 5–9.Google Scholar
Subotnik, R., Kassan, L., Summers, E., & Wasser, A. (1993). Genius revisited: High IQ children grown up. Ablex.Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (eds.). (2019). The psychology of high performance: Developing human potential into domain-specific talent. American Psychological Association Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45(8), 913–920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51(2), 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children: Psychological and educational perspectives. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1986). Giftedness: A psychosocial approach. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 21–52). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. In Colangelo, N. & Davis, G. A. (eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 27–42). Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1998). Programs for the gifted: To be or not to be. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A. J. P. (1957). The trouble makers: Dissent over foreign policy, 1792–1939 (The Ford Lectures). Hamish Hamilton.Google Scholar
Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford revision and extension of the Binet-Simon intelligence scale. Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1999). The human adaptation for culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 509–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Slobin, D. I. (eds.). (2004). Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates. Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tordjman, S., Pereira Da Costa, M., & Schauder, S. (2020). Rethinking human potential in terms of strength and fragility: A case study of Michael Jackson. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treffinger, D. S., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1996). Talent recognition and development: Successor to gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treffinger, D. J., & Selby, E. C. (2023). Levels of service: A contemporary approach to programming for talent development. In Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., McMillen, K. S., Eckert, R. D., & Little, C. A. (eds.), Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp. 629–654). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, M. (ed.). (2011). Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems. Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Ullén, F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Mosing, M. A. (2016). Rethinking expertise: A multifactorial gene–environment interaction model of expert performance. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 427–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uttal, W. R. (2007). The immeasurable mind: The real science of psychology. Prometheus.Google Scholar
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Domain-specific giftedness. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Wende, M. (2011). The emergence of liberal arts and sciences education in Europe: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 24, 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscente, K. J., & Wang, J. H. (1998). An ecological theory of expertise effects in memory recall. Psychological Review, 105, 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wachs, T. D. (2000). Necessary but not sufficient: The respective roles of single and multiple influences on individual development. American Psychological Association Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, I. (2015). Producing excellence: The making of virtuosos. Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860–871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, J., & Gardner, H. (1986). The crystallizing experience: Discovering an intellectual gift. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 306–331). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, H. (1995). On “computabilism” and physicalism: Some subproblems. In Cornwell, J. (ed.), Nature’s imagination: The frontier of scientific vision (pp. 161–189). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Modes of expertise in creative thinking: Evidence from case studies. In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J., & Hoffman, R. R. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 761–787). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, H. (1967). The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. In Harris, D. B. (ed.), The concept of development (pp. 125–148). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wile, J. M., & Tierney, R. J. (1996). Tensions in assessment: The battle over portfolios, curriculum, and control. In Calfee, R. & Perfumo, P. (eds.), Writing portfolios in the classroom: Policy and practice, promise and peril. Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Willett, J. B., & Sayer, A. G. (1994). Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates and predictors of individual change over time. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wineburg, S. S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert–expert study in the interpretation of historical texts. Cognitive Science, 22, 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, P. K. (2014). The landscape of inductive developmental systems. In Molenaar, C. P., Lerner, R. M., & Newell, K. M. (eds.), Handbook of developmental systems theory and methodology (pp. 465–484). Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Wu, W.-T., & Kuo, Y-L. (2016). Gifted and talented education in Taiwan: A 40-year journey. In Dai, D. Y. & Kuo, C. C. (eds.), Gifted education in Asia: Problems and prospects (pp. 33–50). Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Yan, Z., & Fischer, K. (2002). Always under construction: Dynamic variations in adult cognitive Microdevelopment. Human Development, 45(3), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, A. B. (1996). Ultimate life concerns, self, and Chinese achievement motivation. In Bong, M. H. (ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 227–246). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students. Corwin.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2014). Who’s afraid of the big bad dragon: Why China has the best (and worst) education system in the world. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2016). Who’s afraid of PISA: The fallacy of international assessments of system performance. In Harris, A. & Jones, M. S. (eds.), Leading futures (pp. 7–21). Sage.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y. (2018). What works may hurt: Side effects in education. Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y., & Meyer, H.-D. (2014). High on PISA, low on entrepreneurship? What PISA does not measure. In Meyer, H.-D. (ed.), PISA, power, and policy (pp. 267–278). Routledge.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y., & Wang, Y. (2018). Guarding the past or inventing the future: Education reforms in East Asia. In Zhao, Y. & Gearin, B. (eds.), Imagining the Future of Global Education: Dreams and Nightmares (pp. 143–159). Routledge.Google Scholar
Ziegler, A. (2005). The Actiotope model of giftedness. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 411–436). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, A., & Phillipson, S. N. (2012). Toward a systemic theory of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 23, 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, H. (1983). The scientific elite: Nobel laureates’ mutual influences. In Albert, R. S. (ed.), Genius and eminence: The social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement (pp. 241–252). Pergamon Press.Google Scholar