Rethinking Underachievement: Maybe Practice Sometimes Runs Ahead of Research

Underachievement is one of those concepts everyone thinks they understand — until you really start looking at it more deeply. Because what does it actually mean to perform “below your potential”? Who determines that potential? And when are we dealing with a problem within the young person themselves, versus a mismatch with the environment?

A recent literature review by Dai and Desmet (2026) attempts to fundamentally rethink the concept of gifted underachievement. Their analysis aligns strikingly well with the way we at Hoogbloeier® have viewed underachievement for years: dynamic, context-dependent, systemic, and far less black-and-white than it was traditionally understood.

At the same time, their article raises important questions about how we currently think about giftedness, education, potential, and success.

Is a “Dropout” Always a Failure?

One of the most interesting shifts in the article by Dai and Desmet is their move away from the traditional idea that dropouts are automatically failures. In a 21st-century society, where learning is far less linear than it once was, they question whether some young people consciously choose a different path because the learning environment does not sufficiently match their interests, pace, or developmental needs.

That perspective immediately made me think of one of my own sons. Within a traditional school system, he felt insufficiently challenged in the areas that genuinely interested him. He eventually stopped pursuing a conventional high school diploma and consciously chose a different trajectory, one in which he could fully immerse himself in computer science, programming, and technology. Today, he is in his third bachelor year in computer science at university.

So is he still a “dropout”?
Or was it rather a selective choice to invest in a domain where he did find challenge, motivation, and opportunities for growth?

The same applies to young people who train intensively in high-level sports, study music, or invest deeply in other domains of talent, causing school performance to become less central. Are they automatically underachievers? Or are they making different priorities within a broader process of talent development?

This way of looking at things reminded me of James Delisle, who years ago already spoke about “selective consumers” in his work on underachievement (Delisle, 2017): young people who are not necessarily failing, but who consciously choose where to invest their energy.

This perspective aligns strikingly well with what Snyder and Linnenbrink earlier described as the “Declining Value Beliefs Pathway” (2013): young people who gradually begin to see school as less valuable because it no longer connects to their interests, goals, or identity.

There are, of course, differences. Delisle places stronger emphasis on the young person’s conscious choice, whereas Snyder and Linnenbrink frame the process more from a motivational and developmental psychology perspective. But the overlap is substantial: in both views, the mismatch between the young person and the context is central.

When Is Someone Actually Performing “Below Their Potential”?

A second important discussion in the article concerns the concept of potential itself. Dai and Desmet distinguish between three concepts that are often used interchangeably in research:

• Aptitude: the potential to develop within certain domains.
• Ability: what someone demonstrates at a given moment, for example through an IQ test.
• Achievement: concrete performance within education or other contexts.

This distinction may seem technical, but it has major implications. When we say someone is underachieving, we are often comparing performance to an assumed potential. But how objective is that potential, really?

Recently, during a training session, someone asked me: “If a person does not fall within the percentages of underachievers, does that automatically make them an achiever? And if someone functions well in society, does that mean they have reached their full potential?” Those are important questions.

Because the moment we talk about “performing below potential,” we implicitly assume that somewhere there exists a fixed, fully attainable potential. But does anyone ever fully reach their potential? And if not, are we then not all underachievers in some way?

That is where classical thinking sometimes becomes problematic. Underachievement is not an objective mathematical gap between IQ and grades. It is far more complex, dynamic, and context-sensitive than that.

An Interesting Critique of Classical Giftedness Models

Dai and Desmet also engage critically with classical models of giftedness and talent development, such as Gagné’s. In models like Gagné’s DMGT (2004), a distinction is made between natural abilities and realized performance. Talent development is viewed as a progression from potential to achievement, influenced by personal and environmental factors.

Dai and Desmet argue, however, that potential and performance cannot be separated so neatly. Performance also shapes potential. A young person who receives little challenge over many years does not simply perform less well. They often also develop less motivation, less self-confidence, weaker self-regulation, and sometimes even less cognitive growth within certain domains. The influence therefore does not move in only one direction.

This discussion is reminiscent of how we once viewed nature and nurture as entirely separate, whereas today we understand that both continuously interact with one another.

At the same time, while reading the article, I also found myself wondering whether some of these critiques are perhaps less sharp than they appear on paper. Because, honestly, Gagné’s model is already quite dynamic. It already takes heterogeneity across domains into account. It already includes environmental factors. Project TALENT (2017) and Kuipers’ model (2010) also do not depart from a purely static view. Perhaps the difference lies more in how these models are sometimes interpreted than in the models themselves.

Where I do fully agree with Dai and Desmet is in their view that the environment is not merely a “catalyst.” The educational context is not simply an additional factor alongside the child. It actively shapes the reality in which talent may — or may not — develop. In one learning environment, we might speak of an underachiever. In another environment, perhaps not at all.

Twice-Exceptional or Simply Poorly Matched?

Another interesting point is that Dai and Desmet no longer automatically classify certain groups as underachievers. For example, twice-exceptional students. Because is a student with dyslexia, dyscalculia, or ADHD automatically underachieving when traditional school results are lower? Or are we again dealing with a mismatch between the student and the learning environment?

When a student with dyslexia is allowed to be assessed orally, when technology is used, when instruction is adapted, or when strengths are given more space, we often see that performance suddenly becomes possible. Here too, it becomes clear how crucial the environment is. The problem does not necessarily lie within the child.

The same applies to so-called selective consumers. Not every young person who invests less in school is demotivated or “lost.” Sometimes that young person is simply making a conscious choice to invest in other domains that feel more meaningful at that moment.

Practice May Already Have Been Ahead of the Research

What struck me most while reading the article is that many of these “new” insights have actually been strongly present in the practice of many professionals for quite some time.

Certainly within Hoogbloeier®, we have been working from a holistic perspective for years. When a young person is referred because of underachievement, we do not only look at grades or at whether there is a discrepancy between IQ and school performance. We first try to understand what is happening within the interaction between the young person and their environment.

This means that together with parents, school, and the young person themselves, we explore what the educational context looks like. Is the student receiving enough challenge? Is there room for autonomy? Is the young person allowed to pursue personal interests or make their own choices? Is there continuous repetition, too little depth, or a lack of cognitive alignment?

Sometimes, during conversations, it becomes clear that a young person has spent years doing almost everything on autopilot. That the student mainly learned to invest as little effort as possible because school never truly became challenging. In other cases, we see young people who completely freeze the moment something does not work immediately, because they never learned how to cope with frustration or failure.

But just as often, an important part of the issue lies within the environment. I think, for example, of young people who begin to thrive again the moment a school is willing to compact the curriculum, offer enrichment, or provide more autonomy. Young people who remained disengaged in class for years, suddenly regain motivation when they are allowed to develop their own project around programming, science, philosophy, or creativity.

Even small adjustments can sometimes make an enormous difference. A student with dyslexia who is allowed to be assessed orally instead of exclusively through written evaluations. A young person who is allowed to move more quickly through certain parts of the curriculum. A student who no longer receives endless extra exercises “to stay busy,” but is finally offered genuinely complex cognitive challenges.

Parents also play an important role in this process. Some young people grow up in environments where performance is constantly emphasized. These adolescents may develop perfectionism or fear of failure because they feel that making mistakes is not an option. Others never really had the opportunity to develop a genuine learning attitude because everything came easily for so many years.

Underachievement is therefore rarely a purely individual problem. It usually emerges through a continuous interaction between the person, expectations, and context.

Perhaps that is also why some of Dai and Desmet’s critiques feel less revolutionary to me than they may appear on paper. Many professionals have already been working in this way for quite some time in practice. Perhaps practice was, in some ways, simply ahead of the research.

Wijs op Weg: Starting Not from IQ, but from the Young Person’s Question for Help

That perspective is also strongly embedded in our Wijs op Weg program [Wise on Your Way, Eng.]. The program is based on both the Pathways to Underachievement Model by Snyder and Linnenbrink (2013) and the Achievement Orientation Model by Siegle and McCoach (2017).

We do not start from the question of whether someone is “intelligent enough” to be considered an underachiever. We start from the young person’s own experience. If a young person indicates that they feel stuck, no longer experience direction, have lost motivation, or simply no longer feel well, then that alone is already sufficient reason for support to be meaningful.

This also aligns with the way we increasingly look at giftedness today. No longer exclusively through IQ scores, but through cognitive learning characteristics, observations, developmental needs, and context.

In Flanders, we are actually already well on our way in that regard.

Identity Development as a Crucial Factor

Another strong aspect of the article by Dai and Desmet is the attention they give to identity development. This is something we strongly recognize from our own research on Wijs op Weg (Sypré et al., 2026). What perhaps changed most for many young people during the program was not necessarily their academic performance. Rather, many of them began to regain a sense of direction. They became better able to express who they were, what mattered to them, and why certain contexts drained them while others gave them energy.

Some young people discovered that they had spent years mainly trying to meet the expectations of others. Others suddenly understood why they had felt so alienated within their school environment. Still others learned for the first time that their need for autonomy, intensity, or depth was not “difficult behavior,” but an essential part of how they learn and function.

These kinds of insights do not always translate immediately into perfect grades. But they often do lead to greater calm, more self-understanding, and a stronger internal compass. And perhaps that is sometimes more important than the report card. Because what is ultimately the goal of an intervention?

During intake conversations, we usually hear parents express the same wish as their child: that their son or daughter starts feeling better again, finds more inner calm, and regains some sense of direction. But after the intervention, the focus sometimes shifts back once more to academic performance. Then we hear comments such as: “Yes, but he’s still not performing.”

That is precisely where we need to remain cautious. If the original goal was for the young person to feel better again, to regain perspective, and to reconnect with themselves and with learning, then that is not a secondary outcome. Perhaps it is even the necessary condition for academic performance to emerge again later on.

A New Definition of Underachievement

Dai and Desmet define gifted underachievement as:

“A dynamic, contextually bound phenomenon that reflects a persistent pattern or trajectory of unrealized potential in specific domains, a situation where individuals or groups fail to achieve desirable and attainable levels of excellence based on their demonstrated capabilities.”

A New Definition of Underachievement

What is important here is that they explicitly describe underachievement as a dynamic and context-dependent process, which can also occur within specific domains. They further emphasize that the barriers leading to underachievement are malleable and therefore open to targeted intervention.

In this sense, their perspective differs from older definitions, such as that of Reis and McCoach (2000), in which underachievement was more strongly approached as a discrepancy between expected performance and actual performance. The new definition places much greater emphasis on developmental trajectories, context, and the possibility of change.

Does this mean that older research is no longer useful? Not necessarily. Many earlier studies remain highly valuable because they reveal important patterns and mechanisms. However, we do need to be careful in how we interpret their findings. When definitions change, the group we classify as “underachievers” changes as well. Young people who were previously automatically considered underachievers because their school performance did not match their cognitive abilities might, in some cases today, be viewed differently.

Do All These Types Really Need to Exist Separately?

Dai and Desmet describe four major types of underachievement. In a first type, the emphasis lies mainly on Internal barriers, such as perfectionism, fear of failure, motivational difficulties, or limited self-regulation. A second type focuses more on External barriers, such as an ill-fitting learning environment, insufficient challenge, negative expectations, or a lack of support. In addition, they describe a type they call Lack of Synergistic Play, in which internal and external factors continuously reinforce one another. Finally, they describe Mismatch, where the young person’s needs, interests, or way of learning do not sufficiently align with the educational context.

Yet I find myself wondering whether these types are really so clearly distinguishable in practice. If we truly take a holistic view of underachievement, internal and external factors are constantly intertwined and continuously influence one another over time. Motivation, identity development, expectations, previous experiences, personality factors, and educational context never exist independently from each other.

For example, a young person who has not felt cognitively challenged for years often also develops lower motivation, less self-confidence, and reduced engagement with school. Conversely, a young person struggling with perfectionism or fear of failure may increasingly clash with a school system that strongly emphasizes performance.

In practice, we therefore often see that the different “types” of underachievement ultimately come back to a complex interplay between internal and external factors. Underachievement rarely emerges from one clear cause. Rather, it develops through an ongoing interaction between the young person and the context in which they are trying to learn, grow, and find meaning.

What Does This Mean in Practice for Professionals?

Perhaps this is ultimately the most important message of all: when a young person is underachieving, do not look exclusively at the child straight away.

A young person who spends hours gaming, no longer does homework, and seems completely disengaged is often quickly labeled as unmotivated. But sometimes, during conversations, it becomes clear that this young person has been functioning on cognitive autopilot at school for years, while outside school they are solving complex problems, programming, thinking strategically, or immersing themselves in highly specialized interests.

A student who refuses to complete assignments may be a young person trapped in perfectionism. A student who constantly argues may be someone with a strong need for autonomy and meaning. A student with low grades may be someone who never learned how to study because learning came effortlessly for so many years.

That is why it is so important to first explore the broader context. Is the young person receiving enough challenge? Is there autonomy? Are their learning characteristics being taken into account? Do they feel psychologically safe? Is there room for interests and identity development? Does the form of assessment actually fit the student?

Only when the environment is also examined and adjusted can we honestly explore which internal barriers may still be playing a role. And those internal barriers are not fixed; they can be addressed. A young person can learn how to plan. Can learn how to study. Can learn to cope with perfectionism, fear of failure, or procrastination. Can develop a more growth-oriented mindset. Can improve reflection and self-regulation skills.

But this usually only becomes possible when the environment feels sufficiently safe and appropriate. There is little point in intensively training study skills when that same young person continues to spend every day in a learning environment that is fundamentally demotivating. Just as it makes little sense to focus exclusively on mindset when a student consistently receives insufficient challenge.

That is why, within Hoogbloeier®, we always try to look at both sides simultaneously: the environment and the young person themselves.

Important for Professionals

Underachievement requires slowing down and approaching situations with nuance. Not every young person with low grades is an underachiever. And not every young person with high grades feels well or is developing their abilities optimally. So dare to look beyond the grades.

Do not only ask what a young person is doing, but also why. Do not only ask why motivation is lacking, but also which experiences may have undermined that motivation. And do not look exclusively at the child, but also at the context in which that child is trying to function every day.

Sometimes the greatest leverage does not lie in an individual intervention aimed at the young person, but in adapting the learning environment, changing expectations, or reintroducing autonomy and meaning.

And perhaps most importantly of all: start from the young person’s own experience. A young person who begins to feel better again, regains a sense of perspective, and reconnects with learning and development has often already taken a huge step forward — even if the report card is not yet perfect.

In Conclusion

Perhaps the most important conclusion of all is this: everything is interconnected.

Underachievement does not arise in isolation. It develops through the interaction between the young person, the environment, expectations, identity, motivation, and opportunities. The literature is now increasingly making this explicit. But perhaps practice was already ahead of this insight. Because those who work daily with cognitively strong young people have long known that underachievement cannot be addressed by focusing only on the child. You also have to examine the context in which that child is trying to grow.

And perhaps that is ultimately the most important shift: no longer asking, “What is wrong with this young person?” but rather, “What does this young person need in order to experience direction, meaning, and growth again?”

References

• Dai, D.Y., & Desmet, O.A. (2026). Gifted underachievement redefined and reconceptualized. Gifted Child Quarterly, 00(0), 1-15.
• Delisle, J. (2017). Doing poorly on purpose. Libri GmbH.
• Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147.
• Kuipers, J. (2010). De kracht in jezelf. Drachten: Eduforce.
• Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152-170.
• Siegle, D., McCoach, D. B., & Roberts, A. (2017). Why I believe I achieve determines whether I achieve. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 59-72
• 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.
• Verschueren, K., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Donche, V., Struyf, E., & De Fraine, B. (2017). Tailoring education and care to talents of youth [Grant]. Belgium.

Copyright © 2026 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.