The study was a comparison of general students of promise affect and mathematical students of promise affect after doing a mathematical modeling activity. Participants’ gender (n=160), in grades 7-8, were nearly equal in number (81 girls & 79 boys). After completing a Model-eliciting Activity (MEA) in groups of three, participants completed the 31-item Chamberlin Affective Instrument for Mathematical Problem Solving, hereafter referred to as CAIMPS (Chamberlin, Moore, & Parks, 2017). Using four subconstructs, it was determined that the only statistically significant difference in student affect among the groups was self-esteem and self-efficacy (SS) with the general students of promise group having a mean of 3.43 and the mathematical students of promise group having a mean of 3.76. Implications are that the difference in SS may have surfaced because of the mathematical demands of the problems that ultimately influenced participants’ ratings. Three subconstructs (Attitude Value Interest [AVI], Anxiety [ANX], and Aspiration [ASP]) may not have realized a statistically significant difference because they were not as contingent upon mathematical content knowledge as was SS. The final implication is that similar affective ratings may be an indication that MEAs are similarly suitable for use with groups containing individuals with varying talents.