children

Article
The Relationship between Giftedness and Sex and Children’s
Theory of Mind Skills and Social Behavior
Abdullah Bozkurt 1, * and Zekai Ayık 2

1 Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Ataturk University, Erzurum 25240, Turkey
2 Department of Special Education, Harran University, Şanlıurfa 63290, Turkey; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Background: Theory of mind (ToM), the ability to recognize the mental states and emotions
of others, is central to effective social relationships. Measuring higher-order ToM skills in gifted
children may be a useful way to identify the tendency to experience difficulties in social behavior. The
aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between intelligence and sex in children using
ToM and social behavior measures. Methods: Children aged 10–12 years constituted both the gifted
(n = 45) and non-gifted (n = 45) groups. The participants were assessed for prosocial behaviors and
peer problems using the subscales of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire and in terms of ToM
using the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test-Child Version (RMET-C) and the Faux Pas Recognition
Test-Child Version (FPRT-C). Results: ToM test results were higher in gifted children and girls. Peer
problems were lower in gifted children. Prosocial behavior was higher in girls. No relationship was
determined between ToM tests and peer problems or prosocial behavior in gifted children, but such
a relationship was observed in the non-gifted group. Conclusions: This study shows that gifted
children with high cognitive skills also possess superior social cognition skills. Advanced ToM skills
in gifted children may be important to supporting their social and cognitive development. The
differences between boys and girls should be considered in educational interventions applied to
children in the social sphere.

Keywords: gifted; theory of mind; social behavior; sex

Citation: Bozkurt, A.; Ayık, Z. The

Relationship between Giftedness and
1. Introduction
Sex and Children’s Theory of Mind
Skills and Social Behavior. Children Gifted individuals demonstrate advanced intellectual development in comparison to
2024, 11, 253. https://doi.org/ their social, emotional, and physical development trajectories that are typically similar to
10.3390/children11020253 their chronological age peers [1]. As these development fields are interconnected, superior-
ity in intellectual development may be expected to affect other developmental trajectories
Academic Editor: Mark A. Gottlieb
and skills among gifted individuals [2]. Social skills are one of those competencies thought
Received: 13 December 2023 to be affected by high intellectual abilities. Cross et al. suggested that social skills bestow
Revised: 4 February 2024 abilities to assess experiences in the social context, to evaluate actions in terms of the degree
Accepted: 8 February 2024 to which they lead to the desired end results, and ultimately to adapt behavior accord-
Published: 16 February 2024 ingly [3]. Furthermore, several studies [2,4] have suggested that social development is a
crucial phenomenon for the healthy functioning of gifted individuals and the development
of their gifts and talents, and that these are affected by intellectual abilities. In light of
this importance, social competencies are viewed as predictors of success among gifted
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
students [4]. Since the talent development process is affected by the social and interpersonal
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
skills of gifted students, the social skills of such individuals have attracted the attention of
This article is an open access article
researchers in the field of giftedness for several decades.
distributed under the terms and
Prosocial behavior, a social skill which includes actions intended to benefit others,
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
has become a topic of interest in various fields. Research has shown that prosocial be-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
havior is influenced by various factors, such as empathy, genetic predispositions, and
4.0/).
social contexts [5–7]. Findings also highlight the positive effects of prosocial behavior on

Children 2024, 11, 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/children11020253 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/children

Children 2024, 11, 253 2 of 11

children’s academic achievement, cognitive development, and social relationships [8–10].

Gifted children have been shown to exhibit high levels of empathy and sensitivity, thus
contributing to their prosocial behaviors [11]. Promoting empathy and prosocial behaviors
in gifted children is regarded as essential for their social and emotional development [8].
Intervention programs aimed at promoting prosocial behaviors in children were found to
show significant effectiveness for these behaviors [12,13]. A meta-analysis study reported
that programs targeting prosocial behavior and empathy-related skills were more effective
on social and academic outcomes when implemented at earlier ages and included more
empathy skills [14]. The empathy training program was found to have lasting effects on
gifted adolescents with low empathy scores [15]. In a recent systematic review, experiential
learning programs among learning programs were determined to be more effective in
developing empathy [16]. A systematic review by Cheang et al. suggested mindfulness-
based interventions increase empathy in children and adolescents [17]. Implementing these
programs for psychosocial competence in gifted children may be helpful.
In order to ensure appropriate social interaction and communication, one needs to
recognize that others have beliefs that differ from one’s own and to be able to behave
in relation to these beliefs. This ability, known as theory of mind (ToM), is described as
recognizing other people’s mental states and emotions and can be regarded as of pivotal
importance to successful social interactions [18]. Underlying mental states including beliefs
and intentions are known to be significantly associated with children’s behaviors that
function successfully in their relationships with peers. Children who are unable to grasp
that actions result from underlying mental states may be less successful in their peer
relationships. Such children may be exposed to continuing peer problems and, thus, to
long-term social adjustment difficulties [19]. The relationships between ToM abilities and
children’s social interactions therefore require investigation. Since poor social competence
in middle childhood is a significant indicator of subsequent mental health problems and
less successful academic achievement, it is vitally important to understand variations in
the ability to build, manage, and maintain social relationships in this period [20,21].
The assumption that diversity in ToM is important for children’s social lives has in-
creased interest in their understanding of the minds of others [22]. Devine and Hughes
have shown that individual differences in ToM are related to loneliness and dissatis-
faction in relationships with classmates [23]. A meta-analysis suggested that children
with better ToM were more likely to be accepted and less likely to be rejected by their
peers [24]. Banerjee et al.’s study provides evidence not only of a contemporaneous rela-
tionship between ToM and children’s social experiences with peers at school, but also of a
longitudinal relationship [25].
Children with advanced ToM abilities tend to engage in more complex social and com-
municative behaviors [26]. High ToM performance is predicted to benefit social competence
over and above any effect of general cognitive factors [27]. In their study of school-age
children, Liddle et al. observed a correlation between the degree of social competence and
higher-level ToM performance. This suggests that more nuanced, recursive mental state
understandings are crucial to social behavior [28]. Measuring higher-order ToM skills in
gifted children may be a valuable means of identifying a tendency to experience difficulties
in social behavior.
Studies of the social abilities of gifted students have reported inconsistent results. For
example, some studies [29,30] have found that gifted students possess better social abilities
than their peers of average intelligence. This is because their advanced cognitive abilities
enable them to accurately assess social settings, and to select and implement courses
of action which result in the desired consequences [31]. However, other studies [31,32]
show that gifted children experience difficulties in social adaptation and interpersonal
relationships, resulting in low-level social skills. Eren et al. compared gifted children and
adolescents across a wide age range (9–18 years) with a non-gifted group and found no
difference in the parents’ prosocial behavior and peer relationship scores [33]. The fact that
in terms of methodology the researchers methodologically used self-generated questions,
Children 2024, 11, 253 3 of 11

valid and reliable scales, and parent or self-report scales in those studies may account for
the differences in the findings.
The relationship between gifted children’s ToM skills and social situations is a highly
important one. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have compared the
high-level ToM skills of gifted children with those of their peers with typical development.
The relationships between social relationships and ToM in gifted children have not been
clearly demonstrated, and may differ between the sexes. These relationships are essential
when designing educational programs for gifted children and may be related to different
needs in boys and girls.
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between intelligence
and sex in children using ToM and social behavior measures. The specific aim was to deter-
mine differences in ToM and social behavior by comparing gifted and non-gifted children.
We also set out to evaluate whether there are sex differences in ToM and social behavior
between gifted and non-gifted children and to determine the relationships between ToM
and social behavior in both groups. We hypothesized that gifted children would exhibit
better ToM skills and social behavior than non-gifted children and that girls would exhibit
better ToM and social behavior than boys.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants
The study was conducted with 45 gifted (22 boys, 23 girls) and 45 non-gifted
(18 boys, 27 girls) children aged 10–12 years. The gifted population consisted of stu-
dents attending Science and Arts Center (SAC) pull-out enrichment schools for gifted
individuals. Students at SACs also attend mainstream schools. In order to select partici-
pants from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, non-gifted students were selected from the
five general schools attended by the selected gifted students. SACs are public institutions
found in cities all over Turkey intended to provide supplementary education for gifted
students. Students are selected in three stages. In the first stage, they are nominated by their
classroom teacher. In the second stage, students take a valid, reliable, and standardized
intelligence test applied during individual examinations. The current intelligence test is the
Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale (ASIS) developed by [34]. Students who pass the screening
exam and those who score 130 or above on the ASIS test for each grade level and for each
talent area are enrolled in a SAC. In the third stage, students take a screening exam which
identifies the areas of talent, and they are educated at SACs according to these talent fields.
The non-gifted population in this study consisted of students who were not nominated
by their classroom teachers for tests of SACs or nominated by scoring below 130 on the
ASIS test.
Participants with no previous chronic medical illness or psychiatric diagnosis and
who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study were assessed for prosocial behaviors
and peer problems using the subscales of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
and for ToM using the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test-Child Version (RMET-C) and the
Faux Pas Recognition Test-Child Version (FPRT-C).

2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire
The SDQ is a 25-item scale used for assessing mental health problems in children
aged 4–16 years [35]. As a mental health screening tool, the SDQ has been widely used in
research and clinical settings across numerous different countries and cultures [36]. The
peer problems and prosocial behavior subscales were used in this study. The Cronbach
Alpha values in this study were 0.72 and 0.80, respectively. The scale was adapted into
Turkish by Güvenir et al. [37].
Children 2024, 11, 253 4 of 11

2.2.2. ToM Tests

Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test-Child Version (RMET-C). This advanced ToM test
assesses the individual’s ability to make inferences about another’s mental state simply by
looking at eye photographs. The participants were shown various pictures of the eye area
accompanied by four labels referring to different feelings. They were then asked to select
which word best described the eyes in the photograph [38]. The Turkish-language version
was used in the present study [39]. The Cronbach Alpha value in this study was 0.73.
Faux Pas Recognition Test-Child Version (FPRT-C). Baron-Cohen et al. created and
applied the Faux Pas Test to assess higher mental attributions [40]. Recognizing a faux
pas is commonly regarded as the most difficult developmental skill and as a sensitive
evaluation instrument for ToM. A faux pas happens when an individual says something
he or she should not have said without realizing or being aware of it. After listening to a
narrative, the child answered four comprehension questions. In order to identify a faux
pas, the child must correctly respond to all inquiries, answer a comprehension question,
and understand that the faux pas resulted from an erroneous belief. In the control stories,
the child must establish that no faux pas occurred. Any of these questions being answered
incorrectly will result in a score of zero for that particular narrative. The lowest possible
score on the entire test is 0 and the highest possible score 20, with a range of 0–10 for the
faux pas stories and 0–10 points for the control stories. The Turkish-language version was
used in this study [41]. The Cronbach Alpha value in this study was 0.77.

2.2.3. Anadolu Sak Intelligence Scale

The Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale (ASIS) is an individually implemented intelligence
test battery developed for Turkish-speaking children aged 4 to 12 and normed in Turkey in
2016 [34,42]. ASIS is theoretically based on the Cattell–Horn–Carroll model of intelligence
and cognitive abilities [43]. It consists of 256 items, seven subtests, and three factors. Several
researchers have investigated the reliability and validity of ASIS [34,42,44]. The validity of
ASIS was studied and confirmed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Sak
et al. determined correlations between ASIS scores and the UNIT and the RIAS intelligence
test scores ranging from 0.50 to 0.82 [34]. Studies investigating the reliability of ASIS
demonstrate that the internal consistency of the subtests and the component scores range
from 0.81 to 0.94 in the standardization sample [45]. Inter-coder reliability has been reported
at 0.96 and above [34]. Test–retest reliability for the subtests ranges from 0.66 to 0.85, and
between 0.91 and 0.95 for the factors [44].

2.3. Procedure and Data Collection

The study data were collected in SACs and general public schools using the same
procedure for both the gifted and non-gifted groups. The data were collected between
9 September and 10 October 2023. The effect size (Cohen’s d) was calculated as 0.64, with
80% power and a 95% confidence interval, analysis showing that 40 children in each group
should be included in the study [46]. Based on a 10% probability of dropouts in each group,
a minimum of 88 participants with 44 patients in each group was required. The teacher
was first informed about the process and the content of the data collection tools. Written
informed consent forms were obtained from the children and parents. A socioeconomic
demographic form was completed for students consenting to take part, and the RMET-C
and FPRT-C were administered by an educator trained in ToM testing. The children also
completed the SDQ scale. Approval for the study was granted by the Harran University
Social Science Ethical Committee (number E-76244175-050.01.04-230032).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The collected data were analyzed on SPSS version 26.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago,
IL, USA). There were no missing data for any of the variables. Descriptive statistics were
applied for the sociodemographic data. Parametric methods were applied for normally
distributed variables. A chi-squared test was performed to assess differences between the
Children 2024, 11, 253 5 of 11

study and control groups in terms of sex distribution. Student’s t or the Mann–Whitney U
test were applied in comparing differences between two groups in line with their distribu-
tion. The Pearson test was implemented to calculate correlation coefficients and significance
between two normally distributed parameters. The Spearman test was used to investigate
the correlation coefficients and significance of non-normally distributed parameters. In
addition to the whole sample, the same analyses were performed separately for both sexes
to assess the potential sex-specific association between the targeted measures and groups.
Two-way analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA) was applied to determine the main effects
of group (gifted and non-gifted) and sex (male and female) and the interaction effect of
group × sex on the scale and ToM test scores. The effect size was calculated according to
Cohen’s d and Cramer’s V statistics. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results
No significant sex or age differences were observed between the gifted and non-gifted
groups. Peer problem scores were statistically significantly higher in the non-gifted group
than in the gifted group at medium effect size, but no significant difference was found in
prosocial behavior scores. Boys in the gifted group had significantly fewer peer problems
(large effect size) and more prosocial behaviors (medium effect size) than boys in the
non-gifted group, while no significant difference was found between the girls in the two
groups. ToM tests were statistically significantly higher for boys in the gifted group than in
the non-gifted group at large effect size; only the FPRT-C scores were higher for girls in
the gifted group. ToM test results were statistically significantly higher in the gifted group
than in the non-gifted group at medium and large effect sizes (Table 1).

Table 1. Age, sex, ToM tests, and SDQ subscale scores in the gifted and non-gifted children.

t or t or t or
Total
Boys z or p d Girls z or p d z or p d/V
Sample
χ² χ² χ²
Gifted Non- Gifted Non- Gifted Non-
children Gifted children Gifted children Gifted
(n = 22) (n = 18) (n = 23) (n = 27) (n = 45) (n = 45)
Sex
22/0 18/0 - - 0/23 0/27 - - 22/23 18/27 0.720 0.396 0.089
(boy/girl)
Age (years) 11.7 ± 0.5 11.5 ± 0.5 1.337 0.189 0.425 11.6 ± 0.6 11.6 ± 0.6 −0.115 0.909 0.033 11.6 ± 0.6 11.5 ± 0.5 0.711 0.481 0.150
SDQ
Peer
2.3 ± 1.5 4.2 ± 1.9 −3.437 0.001 1.092 2.4 ± 2.1 2.7 ± 1.7 −0.810 0.418 0.229 2.4 ± 1.8 3.3 ± 1.9 −0.244 0.017 0.515
problems
Prosocial
8.1 ± 1.6 6.8 ± 2.1 2.127 0.040 0.676 8.0 ± 2.1 8.7 ± 1.6 −0.994 0.320 0.281 8.1 ± 1.9 7.9 ± 2.0 −0.190 0.849 0.040
behavior
ToM tests
RMET-C 20.0 ± 2.3 17.2 ± 3.2 3.178 0.003 1.009 20.7 ± 2.9 19.6 ± 3.8 1.133 0.263 0.322 20.4 ± 2.6 18.7 ± 3.7 2.515 0.014 0.530
FPRT-C 15.9 ± 2.2 12.5 ± 2.6 4.403 <0.001 1.399 16.9 ± 1.9 14.8 ± 2.7 2.927 0.006 0.808 16.3 ± 2.1 13.9 ± 2.8 4.545 <0.001 0.958

SDQ—Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire; ToM—theory of mind; RMET-C—Reading the Mind in the Eyes
Test-Child Version; FPRT-C—Faux Pas Recognition Test-Child Version; d/V—effect size.

Girls from the non-gifted group exhibited significantly lower peer problem scores and
higher prosocial behavior, RMET-C, and FPRT-C scores than boys, although no significant
differences were determined between boys and girls from the gifted group (Table 2).
The group effect (F1,86 = 8.237, p = 0.005) had a medium significant effect on peer
problems, while sex (F1,86 = 3.301, p = 0.073) was not significant. The interaction of group
and sex (F1,86 = 3.991, p = 0.049) also exerted a small to medium significant effect on
peer problems. The gifted group registered lower peer problem scores. In the non-gifted
group, peer problems were higher in the boys. Sex (F1,86 = 4.300, p = 0.041) had a small to
medium significant effect on prosocial behavior scores, while the group effect (F1,86 = 0.613,
p = 0.436) was not significant. Group and sex interaction (F1,86 = 5.837, p = 0.018) resulted
in medium significant differences in prosocial behavior scores. Girls registered higher
prosocial behavior scores. In the non-gifted group, the prosocial behavior score was lower
among the boys. The group effect (F1,86 = 8.374, p = 0.005) and sex (F1,86 = 5.148, p = 0.026)
Children 2024, 11, 253 6 of 11

had a medium significant effect on RMET-C scores. However, the interaction of group
and sex (F1,86 = 1.563, p = 0.215) was not significant on RMET-C scores. The group effect
(F1,86 = 26.832, p < 0.001) and sex (F1,86 = 10.127, p = 0.002) exerted large and medium
significant effects on FPRT-C scores, respectively, although the interaction of group and sex
(F1,86 = 1.923, p = 0.169) was not significant on FPRT-C scores. ToM test scores were higher
in the gifted group and in girls (Table 3).

Table 2. A comparison of SDQ subscales and ToM tests between gifted and non-gifted boys and girls.

Gifted Non-Gifted
Boys Girls Boys Girls
t or z p d t or z p d
(n = 22) (n = 23) (n = 18) (n = 27)
SDQ
Peer
2.3 ± 1.5 2.4 ± 2.1 −0.150 0.881 0.045 4.2 ± 1.9 2.7 ± 1.7 −2.427 0.015 0.724
problems
Prosocial
8.1 ± 1.6 8.0 ± 2.1 0.140 0.889 0.042 6.8 ± 2.1 8.7 ± 1.6 2.849 0.004 0.809
behaviors
ToM tests
RMET-C 20.0 ± 2.3 20.7 ± 2.9 1.088 0.277 0.323 17.2 ± 3.2 19.6 ± 3.8 2.187 0.029 0.652
FPRT-C 15.9 ± 2.2 16.9 ± 1.9 1.603 0.109 0.478 12.5 ± 2.6 14.8 ± 2.7 2.701 0.007 0.805

SDQ—Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire; ToM—theory of mind; RMET-C—Reading the Mind in the Eyes
Test-Child Version; FPRT-C—Faux Pas Recognition Test-Child Version; d—effect size.

Table 3. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) applied to the main effects of group and sex, and
the group × sex interaction effect on scale scores and ToM test results.

MS F η2 p MS F η2 p MS F η2 p
Group Sex Group × Sex Interaction
SDQ
Peer
28.066 8.237 ** 0.087 11.247 3.301 0.037 13.599 3.991 * 0.044
problems
Prosocial
2.205 0.613 0.007 15.483 4.300 * 0.048 21.015 5.837 * 0.064
behaviors
ToM tests
RMET-C 85.044 8.374 ** 0.089 52.279 5.148 * 0.056 15.868 1.563 0.018
FPRT-C 154.204 26.832 ** 0.238 58.199 10.127 ** 0.105 11.051 1.923 0.022

SDQ—Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire; ToM—theory of mind; RMET-C—Reading the Mind in the Eyes
Test-Child Version; FPRT-C—Faux Pas Recognition Test-Child Version; * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

In the non-gifted group, peer problems and prosocial behavior scores were correlated
with RMET-C and FPRT-C scores, but there was no correlation in the gifted group (Table 4).

Table 4. Correlations between peer problems and prosocial behavior scores and ToM test scores in
gifted and non-gifted children.

ToM Tests SDQ

Peer Problems Prosocial Behaviors
r −0.032 −0.116
Gifted RMET-C
p 0.833 0.450
r −0.278 0.227
FPRT-C
p 0.064 0.134
r −0.445 0.464
Non-Gifted RMET-C
p 0.002 0.001
r −0.471 0.346
FPRT-C
p 0.001 0.020
SDQ—Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire; ToM—theory of mind; RMET-C—Reading the Mind in the Eyes
Test-Child Version; FPRT-C—Faux Pas Recognition Test-Child Version.
Children 2024, 11, 253 7 of 11

4. Discussion
ToM test results in this study were higher among the gifted children and girls. Peer
problems were lower among the gifted children but higher in boys from the non-gifted
group, while no sex difference was observed among the gifted children. Prosocial behavior
was higher in girls. While no sex differences were observed in the gifted children, prosocial
behavior was lower in boys from the non-gifted group. No relationship was determined
between ToM tests and peer problems or prosocial behavior in the gifted children, but such
an association was observed in the non-gifted group.
The higher medium and large effect sizes of the ToM test results in gifted children
indicate that this difference is practically significant. ToM skills are closely linked to
children’s social relationships [26]. Children with advanced ToM skills have a greater
likelihood of recognizing and appreciating their peers’ thoughts, feelings, and perspectives,
making them more socially competent and popular in their peer groups [47]. Children
with high ToM skills are more likely to engage in learning activities such as explaining
and demonstrating new concepts to their peers [2]. This suggests that ToM is involved in
children’s ability to understand and communicate information effectively [48]. The high
level of ToM skills in gifted children determined in the present study may contribute to
these strategies. It may also contribute to their success in social situations by generating
valuable strategies and overcoming difficulties. To the best of our knowledge, no previous
study has evaluated high-level ToM in gifted children. The current study thus fills this
important gap in the literature.
In the literature, it is reported that girls have better ToM skills than boys [23]. This
study’s finding that ToM test results were higher in the large effect size for girls reinforces
the previous literature. The absence of group differences on the RMET-C test among
the girls in this study may be explained by the high performance of girls with average
intelligence on the RMET-C and the ceiling effect of the test. While affective ToM is assessed
in the RMET-C test, both affective and cognitive ToM are assessed in the FPRT-C test [49].
The assessment of both affective and cognitive domains in the FPRT-C test is a more
complex and advanced ToM skill than other ToM skills [50]. The superiority of gifted girls
in ToM tasks is revealed through more challenging tests such as the FPRT-C test.
Whether high intelligence constitutes a risk or a protective factor for social behaviors is
still controversial. While there are reports that gifted children exhibit better socio-emotional
adaptation, more cooperative behaviors towards their peers, and fewer behavioral problems
compared to their peers, other studies have reported social-emotional problems or no
difference [34,51–53]. The gifted group in the present study having fewer peer problems
and exhibiting more prosocial behavior in early adolescence suggests that being gifted
is a protective factor in social behaviors. Higher ToM skills may also contribute to this
process. The present study’s finding of higher prosocial behaviors in gifted boys with small
to medium effect sizes should be confirmed in a larger sample or with further studies.
Programs aimed at developing empathy skills in gifted children have been shown to yield
positive results [15]. Since prosocial behaviors play a crucial role in social adjustment to
and academic success in school [54], the education of gifted students should be reinforced
with high prosocial behaviors exhibited by gifted individuals.
Studies have shown sex differences in peer problems and prosocial behavior and that
girls generally exhibit higher levels of prosocial behavior and have better relationships
with their peers than boys [55,56]. In this study, and consistent with the literature, prosocial
behavior was higher in girls than boys. While no sex difference was determined among the
gifted children, the finding of lower prosocial behavior in boys from the non-gifted group
suggests that giftedness improves social responsibility and sensitivity among boys. The
differences between boys and girls may need to be considered in terms of the effectiveness
of educational interventions applied to children in the social sphere.
ToM skills, which are thought to represent a protective factor in social relationships,
were associated with peer relationships and prosocial behavior in the non-gifted group but
not in the gifted group. It has been suggested that children with high IQs may not exhibit
Children 2024, 11, 253 8 of 11

socio-emotional problems until later in childhood [57]. Considering that problems in social
behaviors may emerge at later ages, there may be a relationship between ToM skills and
social behaviors in gifted children at older ages. Cognitive skills other than ToM, such as
executive functions and pragmatic skills, are related to peer relationships in children [58,59].
In addition, Holmes et al. reported that the effect of executive functions on peer relations
decreases as children progress into adolescence [60]. Social behaviors in gifted children
may be related to other cognitive abilities, such as executive functions and language skills.
The relationship between ToM and peer relationships may decrease during adolescence, as
shown in executive functions.
This study is important since there has been no previous evaluation of high-level ToM
skills in gifted children in the literature. The strong points of this study are that the age
range was narrow, sex differences were evaluated, the groups were composed of individuals
with similar sociocultural characteristics, and the study involved a heterogeneous sample
representing gifted children in various areas of ability, including science, mathematics,
technology, and arts.
However, there are also a number of limitations to this study that need to be considered.
First, its cross-sectional study design prevented us from assessing the direction of the
reported association between ToM, sex, and social behaviors. The sample size was limited,
and further research is now needed if our results are to be confirmed and generalized.
Another limitation is that we focused on a single self-report measure when assessing
social behaviors. Future studies should adopt a multi-informant approach to obtain a
robust index of social ability. This study evaluated peer relations, prosocial behaviors,
and ToM skills. Also, taking social relations such as parental relations, relations with
authority, and sibling relations into account may reveal the situation in social fields more
clearly. Two different areas of cognition have been defined as hot and cold cognition
from the perspective of understanding cognitive processes [61]. In the present study, ToM
tests mainly assessed hot cognition, and cold cognition areas, such as executive functions
(e.g., working memory), were not examined. The literature emphasizes the relationship
between social behavior and other cognitive abilities, such as executive functions [58]. At
the same time, Di Tella et al. determined no relationship between emotional/cognitive
ToM and executive functions, while Stone and Gerrans espoused the opposite view [62].
Further studies evaluating ToM skills and executive functions in gifted children may help
clarify this issue. Researchers have proposed that children with high IQs may not exhibit
socio-emotional problems until later in childhood [57]. Longitudinal studies are now
needed to understand how this relates to problems that increase later in adolescence. The
concept of giftedness to a large extent relies on an IQ-based categorization. Children
with the same IQ levels can still possess very different intellectual profiles. Children with
higher verbal intelligence than non-verbal intelligence may exhibit a completely different
pattern of social behavior and ToM skills than those with higher non-verbal intelligence. It
may be more appropriate to plan future research into social behavior patterns and ToM
skills by also considering interpersonal variability. Different behavioral patterns have been
reported among individuals with “high” and “low” gifted profiles [2]. Future research may
need to evaluate social behaviors and ToM in “high” and “low” giftedness levels. Gifted
children with a history of psychiatric illness were excluded from the present study. Autism
spectrum disorder, learning disabilities, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder may
affect social behavior and ToM in gifted children. Future research should consider such
additional problems.
This study is important in showing that gifted children with high ToM skills also
exhibit higher abilities in social cognition. Advanced ToM skills in gifted children can be
considered an important cognitive ability for the promotion of social and cognitive devel-
opment. Sex-specific differences observed between boys and girls should be recognized
and integrated into educational interventions for children in the social sphere.
Children 2024, 11, 253 9 of 11

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.B. and Z.A.; methodology, software, and validation, A.B.
and Z.A.; formal analysis, A.B. and Z.A.; investigation, A.B. and Z.A.; resources and data curation,
A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, A.B. and Z.A. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Approval for the study was granted by the Harran University
Social Science Ethical Committee (number E-76244175-050.01.04-230032), ethics date: 12 May 2023.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Renzulli, J.S. The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In Conceptions of Giftedness;
Davidson, R.J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 246–279.
2. Rinn, A.N.; Majority, K.L. The Social and Emotional World of the Gifted. In Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Psychoeducational
Theory, Research, and Best Practices, 2nd ed.; Pfeiffer, S.I., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 49–63.
3. Cross, T.L.; Coleman, L.J.; Terhaar-Yonkers, M. The social cognition of gifted adolescents in schools: Managing the stigma of
giftedness. J. Educ. Gift. 1991, 15, 44–55. [CrossRef]
4. Hebert, T.P. Understanding the Social and Emotional Lives of Gifted Students; Prufrock Press Inc.: Austin, TX, USA, 2011.
5. Scrimgeour, M.B.; Blandon, A.Y.; Stifter, C.A.; Buss, K.A. Cooperative coparenting moderates the association between parenting
practices and children’s prosocial behavior. J. Fam. Psychol. 2013, 27, 506. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Knafo, A.; Plomin, R. Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on stability and
change. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 42, 771–786. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Poelker, K.E.; Kuebli, J.E. Does the Thought Count? Gratitude Understanding in Elementary School Students. J. Genet. Psychol.
2014, 175, 431–448. [CrossRef]
8. MacFarlane, B.; Mina, K. Cyberbullying and the Gifted: Considerations for Social and Emotional Development. Gift. Child Today
2018, 41, 130–135. [CrossRef]
9. Noten, M.M.P.G.; Van der Heijden, K.B.; Huijbregts, S.C.J.; Van Goozen, S.H.M.; Swaab, H. Associations between empathy,
inhibitory control, and physical aggression in toddlerhood. Dev. Psychobiol. 2020, 62, 871–881. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Huang, M.Y.; Tu, H.Y.; Wang, W.Y.; Chen, J.F.; Yu, Y.T.; Chou, C.C. Effects of cooperative learning and concept mapping
intervention on critical thinking and basketball skills in elementary school. Think. Skills Creat. 2017, 23, 207–216. [CrossRef]
11. Wood, V.; Laycraft, K. How can we better understand, identify, and support highly gifted and profoundly gifted students? A
literature review of the psychological development of highly-profoundly gifted individuals and overexcitabilities. Ann. Cogn. Sci.
2020, 4, 143–165. [CrossRef]
12. Shin, J.; Lee, B.Y. The effects of adolescent prosocial behavior interventions: A meta-analytic review. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2021, 22,
565–577. [CrossRef]
13. Mesurado, B.; Guerra, P.; Richaud, M.C.; Rodriguez, L.M. Effectiveness of Prosocial Behavior Interventions: A Meta-analysis.
In Psychiatry and Neuroscience Update: From Translational Research to a Humanistic Approach; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018;
Volume 3, pp. 259–271.
14. Malti, T.; Chaparro, M.P.; Zuffianò, A.; Colasante, T. School-Based Interventions to Promote Empathy-Related Responding in
Children and Adolescents: A Developmental Analysis. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2016, 45, 718–731. [CrossRef]
15. Nedim Bal, P. Examining the Permanence of the Effect of an Empathy Program for the Acquisition of Empathy Skills on Gifted
Adolescents. Educ. Res. Rev. 2015, 10, 2314–2323.
16. Chan, H.H.K.; Kwong, H.Y.C.; Shu, G.L.F.; Ting, C.Y.; Lai, F.H.Y. Effects of Experiential Learning Programmes on Adolescent
Prosocial Behaviour, Empathy, and Subjective Well-being: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12,
709699. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Wellman, H.M.; Cross, D.; Watson, J. Meta-Analysis of Theory-of-Mind Development: The Truth about False Belief. Child Dev.
2001, 72, 655–684. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Walker, S. Gender Differences in the Relationship Between Young Children’s Peer-Related Social Competence and Individual
Differences in Theory of Mind. J. Genet. Psychol. 2005, 166, 297–312. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Burnside, K.; Wright, K.; Poulin-Dubois, D. Social orienting predicts implicit false belief understanding in preschoolers. J. Exp.
Child Psychol. 2018, 175, 67–79. [CrossRef]
20. Burt, K.B.; Obradović, J.; Long, J.D.; Masten, A.S. The Interplay of Social Competence and Psychopathology Over 20 Years:
Testing Transactional and Cascade Models. Child Dev. 2008, 79, 359–374. [CrossRef]
Children 2024, 11, 253 10 of 11

21. Hughes, C. Theory of mind grows up: Reflections on new research on theory of mind in middle childhood and
adolescence. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2016, 149, 1–5. [CrossRef]
22. Devine, R.T.; Hughes, C. Silent Films and Strange Stories: Theory of Mind, Gender, and Social Experiences in Middle Childhood.
Child Dev. 2013, 84, 989–1003. [CrossRef]
23. Slaughter, V.; Imuta, K.; Peterson, C.C.; Henry, J.D. Meta-Analysis of Theory of Mind and Peer Popularity in the Preschool and
Early School Years. Child Dev. 2015, 86, 1159–1174. [CrossRef]
24. Banerjee, R.; Watling, D.; Caputi, M. Peer Relations and the Understanding of Faux Pas: Longitudinal Evidence for Bidirectional
Associations. Child Dev. 2011, 82, 1887–1905. [CrossRef]
25. Hughes, C.; Leekam, S. What are the Links Between Theory of Mind and Social Relations? Review, Reflections and New Directions
for Studies of Typical and Atypical Development. Soc. Dev. 2004, 13, 590–619. [CrossRef]
26. Apperly, I.A. What is “theory of mind”? Concepts, cognitive processes and individual differences. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 2012, 65,
825–839. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Liddle, B.; Nettle, D. Higher-order theory of mind and social competence in school-age children. J. Cult. Evol. Psychol. 2007, 4,
231–244. [CrossRef]
28. Abdulla Alabbasi, A.M.; Alaa, A.E.; Ziegler, A. Are gifted students more emotionally intelligent than their non-gifted peers? A
meta-analysis. High Abil. Stud. 2021, 32, 189–217. [CrossRef]
29. Košir, K.; Horvat, M.; Aram, U.; Jurinec, N. Is being gifted always an advantage? Peer relations and self-concept of gifted students.
High Abil. Stud. 2016, 27, 129–148. [CrossRef]
30. Shantz, C. The Development of Social Cognition; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1975.
31. Eren, F.; Ömerelli Çete, A.; Avcil, S.; Baykara, B. Emotional and behavioral characteristics of gifted children and their families.
Arch. Neuropsychiatry 2018, 55, 105. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Shechtman, Z.; Silektor, A. Social Competencies and Difficulties of Gifted Children Compared to Nongifted Peers. Roeper. Rev.
2012, 34, 63–72. [CrossRef]
33. Sak, U.; Sezerel, B.B.; Dulger, E.; Sozel, K.; Ayas, M.B. Validity of the Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale in the identification of gifted
students. Psychol. Test Assess. Model. 2019, 61, 263–283.
34. Goodman, A.; Goodman, R. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a Dimensional Measure of Child Mental Health.
J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2009, 48, 400–403. [CrossRef]
35. Masoom Ali, S.; Yildirim, M.; Abdul Hussain, S.; Vostanis, P. Self-reported mental health problems and post-traumatic growth
among children in Pakistan care homes. Asia Pac. J. Soc. Work. Dev. 2020, 30, 62–76. [CrossRef]
36. Güvenir, T.; Özbek, A.; Baykara, B.; Arkar, H.; Şentürk, B.; İncekaş, S. Güçler ve güçlükler anketi’nin (gga) Türkçe uyarlamasinin
psikometrik özellikleri. Turk. J. Child Adolesc. Ment. Health 2008, 15, 65–74.
37. Baron-Cohen, S.; Jolliffe, T.; Mortimore, C.; Robertson, M. Another Advanced Test of Theory of Mind: Evidence from Very High
Functioning Adults with Autism or Asperger Syndrome. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1997, 38, 813–822. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Girli, A. Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Child and Adult Form of “Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test”. Psychology 2014,
2014, 1321–1337. [CrossRef]
39. Baron-Cohen, S.; O’Riordan, M.; Stone, V.; Jones, R.; Plaisted, K. Recognition of faux pas by normally developing children and
children with asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J. Autism. Dev. Disord. 1999, 29, 407–418. [CrossRef]
40. Sahin, B.; Onal, B.S.; Hosoglu, E. Adaptation of Faux Pas Recognition Test Child Form to Turkish and investigation of psy-
chometric properties/Gaf Tanima Testi Cocuk Formunun Turkceye uyarlanmasi ve psikometrik ozelliklerinin incelenmesi.
Anadolu. Psikiyatri. Derg. 2020, 21 (Suppl. S2), 54–63. [CrossRef]
41. Sözel, H.K.; Öpengin, E.; Sak, U.; Karabacak, F. The Discriminant Validity of the Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale ASIS for Gifted
and Other Special Education Groups. Talent 2018, 8, 160–180.
42. Schneider, W.J.; McGrew, K.S. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories,
Tests, and Issues, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 99–144.
43. Tamul, Ö.F.; Bal Sezerel, B.; Sak, U.; Karabacak, F. Anadolu-Sak Zekâ Ölçeği’nin (ASIS) sosyal geçerlik çalışması.
Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Derg. 2020, 49, 393–412.
44. Arslan, D.; Sak, U. Factorial Invariance of the Anadolu Sak Intelligence Scale Across Gender. J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 2023, 41,
542–555. [CrossRef]
45. Bastien, L.; Théoret, R.; Godbout, R. Association between sleep and problematic behaviours in gifted children: A polysomno-
graphic study. J. Sleep Res. 2023, 32, e13807. [CrossRef]
46. Slaughter, V.; Dennis, M.J.; Pritchard, M. Theory of mind and peer acceptance in preschool children. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 2002, 20,
545–564. [CrossRef]
47. Strauss, S.; Ziv, M.; Stein, A. Teaching as a natural cognition and its relations to preschoolers’ developing theory of mind.
Cogn. Dev. 2002, 17, 1473–1487. [CrossRef]
48. Şahin, B.; Önal, B.S.; Hoşoğlu, E. Gaf Tanıma Testi Çocuk Formunun Türkçeye uyarlanması ve psikometrik özelliklerinin
incelenmesi. Anatol. J. Psychiatry/Anadolu Psikiyatr. Derg. 2020, 21, 54–62. [CrossRef]
49. Tesfaye, R.; Gruber, R. The Association between Sleep and Theory of Mind in School Aged Children with ADHD. Med. Sci. 2017,
5, 18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Children 2024, 11, 253 11 of 11

50. Francis, R.; Hawes, D.J.; Abbott, M. Intellectual giftedness and psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic
literature review. Except. Child. 2016, 82, 279–302. [CrossRef]
51. Bell, S.M.; Schindler, W.J. Collaboration at a professional development school: Investigation of variables affecting student
achievement and adjustment. Tenn. Educ. 2002, 31, 5–10.
52. Lacour, A.G.; Zdanowicz, N. IQ Over 130 and Phobia: Correlation, Consequences and Other Psychopathologies. Psychiatr. Danub.
2019, 31, 386–389.
53. Brouwer, J.; Engels, M.C. The role of prosocial attitudes and academic achievement in peer networks in higher education.
Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2022, 37, 567–584. [CrossRef]
54. Gómez-Pérez, M.M.; Calero, M.D. The influence of intelligence and sex on interpersonal skills and executive functions in children.
High Abil. Stud. 2023, 34, 21–37. [CrossRef]
55. Van der Graaff, J.; Carlo, G.; Crocetti, E.; Koot, H.M.; Branje, S. Prosocial Behavior in Adolescence: Gender Differences in
Development and Links with Empathy. J. Youth Adolesc. 2018, 47, 1086–1099. [CrossRef]
56. Tasca, I.; Guidi, M.; Turriziani, P.; Mento, G.; Tarantino, V. Behavioral and Socio-Emotional Disorders in Intellectual Giftedness: A
Systematic Review. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2022, 1–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Waller, R.; Hyde, L.W.; Baskin-Sommers, A.R.; Olson, S.L. Interactions between Callous Unemotional Behaviors and Executive
Function in Early Childhood Predict later Aggression and Lower Peer-liking in Late-childhood. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2017, 45,
597–609. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Coplan, R.J.; Weeks, M. Shy and soft-spoken: Shyness, pragmatic language, and socio-emotional adjustment in early childhood.
Infant. Child Dev. 2009, 18, 238–254. [CrossRef]
59. Holmes, C.J.; Kim-Spoon, J.; Deater-Deckard, K. Linking Executive Function and Peer Problems from Early Childhood through
Middle Adolescence. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2016, 44, 31–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Roiser, J.P.; Sahakian, B.J. Hot and cold cognition in depression. CNS Spectr. 2013, 18, 139–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Stone, V.E.; Gerrans, P. What’s domain-specific about theory of mind? Soc. Neurosci. 2006, 1, 309–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Di Tella, M.; Ardito, R.B.; Dutto, F.; Adenzato, M. On the (lack of) association between theory of mind and executive functions: A
study in a non-clinical adult sample. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17283. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.