Between Potential and Performance: What Helps Underachieving Gifted Adolescents?

Healthcare professionals who work with gifted adolescents are often confronted with a paradox: young people with exceptional intellectual potential who nonetheless perform below their capabilities at school. These students stand out due to low grades, lack of motivation, or a marked disinterest in academic activities, despite clearly being capable of processing complex information and thinking abstractly. Parents, teachers, and therapists often feel powerless in the face of this kind of underachievement. This raises the question: where does this behavior come from, and how can we, as professionals, address it effectively? In this article, we explore recent scientific insights and translate them into practical strategies for clinical use.

What is underachievement, really?

Underachievement is generally defined as a discrepancy between a student’s intellectual potential and their actual academic performance. In the case of gifted individuals, it refers to adolescents with a high IQ or clear cognitive advantages who nevertheless perform below their capabilities. This gap may manifest in low grades, limited effort, or a lack of engagement with schoolwork. It is important not to confuse underachievement with learning difficulties: in underachievement, it’s not the ability that’s lacking, but the execution.

Moreover, underachievement can be either temporary or persistent. Some students underperform only in certain subjects or during specific periods, while others struggle with motivation and alignment throughout their entire school career. This complexity makes it all the more crucial not to view underachievement as an individual deficiency, but as a dynamic process shaped by personal, social, and educational factors.

Underachievement: complex and context-dependent

Recent research confirms that underachievement among gifted students rarely has a single clear cause. On the contrary, it typically results from a combination of personal traits, school-related factors, and environmental influences. Rubenstein et al. (2012), for example, highlight the importance of goal valuation—the extent to which students perceive school tasks as meaningful and worthwhile. When students see little value or relevance in their schoolwork, they are more likely to disengage, even if they are cognitively capable.

The learning environment also plays a crucial role. Studies show that underachieving gifted students often feel unseen or misunderstood in regular education. They may struggle to connect with peers, find the curriculum repetitive or uninspiring, and experience a lack of autonomy. This can lead to frustration, withdrawal, or even oppositional behavior. Snyder et al. (2019) stress the importance of interventions that not only address the student's behavior but also the broader context in which that behavior arises. In other words, underachievement is often not just an individual issue but a response to an environment that lacks sufficient challenge or recognition.

What works? Four key research insights

1. Focus on meaningful tasks and autonomy

The study by Baum et al. (1995) clearly demonstrates the powerful impact of meaningful education. They worked with underachieving gifted adolescents through a so-called Type III Enrichment intervention, where students developed their own research question and explored it independently, with guidance. The results were striking: nearly 82% of participants showed significant improvements in motivation, self-image, and academic performance. Key success factors included a strong relationship with the mentor, a sense of ownership over the learning process, and the opportunity to work on a self-chosen topic that matched their interests. These findings highlight how essential it is to give students space for autonomy and intrinsic motivation.

2. Choose tailored interventions

Not every underachieving student has the same needs or motivational issues. That’s why Rubenstein et al. (2012) developed interventions targeting the student’s specific motivational barrier, based on the Achievement Orientation Model (Siegle et al., 2007). They focused on three areas: self-efficacy (believing you can do it), goal valuation (believing it’s worth doing), and environmental perceptions (believing you have a chance to succeed). Interventions that aligned with the student’s specific motivational challenge proved to be the most effective—especially in improving academic performance. For healthcare professionals, this means avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches and first identifying the beliefs or experiences that are maintaining the underachievement.

3. Don’t focus solely on grades—prioritize psychosocial development

In their large-scale meta-analysis, Steenbergen-Hu et al. (2020) found that interventions for underachieving gifted students rarely led to dramatic improvements in academic performance (effect size g = .09, not significant), but did result in significant gains in psychosocial functioning (g = .22). These included increased motivation, improved self-regulation, greater school engagement, and a more positive self-image. These are far from trivial outcomes—psychosocial well-being is a key predictor of long-term development and future success. Support that emphasizes emotional well-being, confidence, and motivation is therefore just as important as academic performance.

4. Start early and take a systemic approach

Multiple studies highlight the importance of early intervention. The longer underachievement persists, the more deeply it becomes ingrained in a young person’s self-image and behavior. Interventions at that point tend to be slower, more difficult, and less effective. Snyder et al. (2019) therefore urge professionals not to wait until the later years of secondary school, but to take early signs of demotivation or boredom seriously—even in the lower grades or primary school. At the same time, it’s essential that interventions don’t focus solely on the student, but also address the broader school context. Adjustments to the curriculum, teacher attitudes, and parent involvement are all factors that can significantly enhance—or hinder—the success of any intervention.

What does this mean for practice?

The implications of this research for healthcare professionals are both clear and encouraging. Underachievement is not a fixed condition, but a process that can be reversed—provided there is sufficient attention to motivation, autonomy, relationships, and context. Crucially, the young person should not be approached in isolation, but as part of a broader environment involving school, family, and peers.

As a professional, you can support these adolescents by creating space for meaningful conversations about purpose, interests, and self-perception. A student who feels disconnected from school tasks is unlikely to feel intrinsically motivated. By showing genuine curiosity about their passions, values, and interests, professionals can uncover valuable entry points to reignite motivation.

Equally important is working together to find tasks or projects that genuinely resonate with the student. Self-directed projects not only foster autonomy, but also strengthen the student’s sense of ownership and pride. This process requires creativity and flexibility from the professional—and a willingness to think beyond the standard curriculum.

Working on self-regulation skills is also an important part of the support process, but it is crucial not to start too early. Often, interventions focus on study skills too quickly, while students are still stuck in a fixed mindset or lack motivation because they view schoolwork as boring or meaningless. Self-regulation depends on motivation and a sense of personal engagement; developing it first requires attention to meaning, relevance, and restoring a sense of purpose. Only then should skills like managing procrastination, coping with performance anxiety, and setting achievable goals be introduced. Self-regulation doesn’t grow from rigid schedules—it emerges through self-awareness, small wins, and meaningful learning experiences.

Relational dynamics also deserve consistent attention. Adolescents who feel socially isolated or lack support at home are more likely to struggle with regaining motivation and engagement. For this reason, it’s essential for professionals not only to work with the student but also to involve parents, teachers, and other key people in their lives to strengthen the support system.

Finally, it is vital to actively involve the student’s broader network in the guidance process. Underachievement can rarely be addressed sustainably without a shared, coordinated approach in which both school and family play active roles. Multidisciplinary collaboration, regular communication, and a joint focus on growth opportunities can make all the difference.

A powerful example of an effective approach based on these insights is the Wijs op Weg program by Hoogbloeier®. This intervention is aligned with the Pathways to Underachievement Model (PUM; Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013) and offers a personalized trajectory tailored to each adolescent’s motivational profile. By providing modules that address personal beliefs, values, and future perspectives, Wijs op Weg helps young people not only strengthen their motivation and engagement, but also reconnect with an authentic sense of direction in both study and life.

Conclusion

Underachievement in gifted adolescents is not a sign of laziness or defiance, but often a signal of mismatch between potential and context. As a professional, you can make a real difference—by looking beyond grades, uncovering the story behind motivation, and helping students reclaim ownership of their learning. The combination of connection, autonomy, meaning, and challenge holds the key to lasting change.

Interested in Wijs op Weg? Visit our webshop for materials designed specifically for healthcare and educational professionals.

References

• Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S., & Hébert, T. P. (1999). Reversing underachievement: Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 224-235.

• Rubenstein, L. D., Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., & Burton, M. G. (2012). A complex quest: The development and research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 678-694. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21620

• Siegle, D., McCoach, D. B., & Roberts, A. (2017). Why I believe I achieve determines whether I achieve. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 59-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1302873

• Snyder, K. E., Fong, C. J., Painter, J. K., Pittard, C. M., Barr, S. M., & Patall, E. A. (2019). Interventions for academically underachieving students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100294

• Snyder, K. E., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 209-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.835597

• Steenbergen-Hu, S., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Calvert, E. (2020). The effectiveness of current Interventions to reverse the underachievement of gifted students: Findings of a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 132-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220908601

Copyright © 2025 Dr. Sabine Sypré – All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author. Sharing online is permitted provided the author is credited and a link to this article is included.