Vol.:(0123456789) Social Psychology of Education (2024) 27:1009–1041 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09833-8 1 3 S.I. : STEREOTYPES AND PREJUDICE IN SCHOOL Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers about musically gifted students Laura Bareiß1  · Friedrich Platz2  · Maria Wirzberger1,3 Received: 3 November 2022 / Accepted: 24 July 2023 / Published online: 22 November 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Stereotypical assumptions associating high levels of giftedness and outstanding per- formance with maladaptive behavioral characteristics and personality traits (cf. dis- harmony stereotype) are rather prevalent in the school context as well as in the musi- cal domain. Such preconceptions among teachers can influence student assessment and corresponding performance expectations, which might, in turn, impact future lesson planning. In an experiment using a controlled vignette approach, the current study, with N = 211 (prospective) German music school teachers, investigated how background information, combined with a manipulated music recording, affected (prospective) music school teachers’ assessment of a fictive student’s performance, behavioral characteristics, personality traits, and teachers’  consequential lesson planning. Experimental variations included the fictive student’s supposed level of giftedness, social interaction, age, and duration of instrumental lessons. Results indicated that music school teachers’ preconceptions of students assumed to be musically gifted were a high level of intellectual and musical abilities with behavio- ral characteristics and personality traits rated at least equivalent to those of students assumed to have average giftedness. Teachers’ lesson planning was not influenced by any of the manipulated background information. Taken together, the observed pattern of effects contradicts the disharmony stereotype but tends to align more with the harmony stereotype as music school teachers’ prevailing preconceptions about students supposed to be musically gifted. Keywords Musical giftedness · Musical assessment · Teachers’ assumptions · Implicit theories · (Dis)harmony stereotype · Teachers’ lesson planning 1 Introduction Highly gifted but maladjusted—these assumptions are widely assumed to be key attributes of musically gifted persons and are often promoted by their visibility in the media in addition to subjective experiences (Baudson, 2016; Gnas et al., 2020; Extended author information available on the last page of the article http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11218-023-09833-8&domain=pdf http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5414-8105 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9758-9434 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3072-2875 1010 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 la Motte-Haber, 1996). In our Western society, it is not uncommon that individuals with an attributed giftedness experience incorrect and partially negatively connoted assumptions, especially in highly competitive domains such as music (Bullerjahn, 2004; la Motte-Haber, 1996; cf. Gnas et al., 2020). Socially shared beliefs such as stereotypes regarding a certain group may evoke rapid top–down categorizations to facilitate cognitive processes due to generalizations and lead to simplified informa- tion processing through the retrieval of existing knowledge about this group (Fiske et al., 1999; Schindler & Bartsch, 2019; VandenBos, 2007). 1.1 Harmony versus disharmony hypothesis Existing research literature distinguishes between two conflicting theories of ste- reotypical assumptions regarding giftedness, which could influence a person’s psy- chological well-being (e.g., Preckel & Vock, 2021). Whereas the harmony theory emphasizes a stereotypical  view of giftedness as accompanied by high resilience, superior intellectual abilities, strong social skills, and adaptability (e.g., Baudson, 2016; Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Persson, 1998), the disharmony theory suggests a stereotype of giftedness as a combination of high intellectual abilities and maladap- tive behavioral characteristics and personality traits; in brief, a vulnerability through giftedness (e.g., Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Gallagher, 1990; Neihart, 1999; Preckel & Baudson, 2013; Preckel & Vock, 2021; Preckel et al., 2015). The latter stereotype is also reflected in psychiatric genius research and within biographical analyses of famous writers, artists, or musicians, following the myth of the “mad genius”, even though the evidence that such a condition exists is low and mostly anecdotal (e.g., Baudson, 2016; Dietrich, 2014; Gallagher, 1990; Gnas et al., 2020; Gordon, 2015; Lombroso, 1891; Neihart, 1999; Preckel & Vock, 2021; Preckel et al., 2015; Simon- ton, 2014). 1.2 Behavioral characteristics and personality traits of musically gifted individuals Numerous studies have investigated behavioral characteristics and personality traits in relation to exceptional musical giftedness (for an overview, see Costa-Giomi, 2015) with results tending to support the stereotype indicated by the harmony the- ory rather than the one implied by the disharmony theory as a suitable description of people with high giftedness. For example, Greenburg and MacGregor (1966) revealed some low positive correlations (.16 ≤ r ≤ .20) between factors of musical abilities and behavioral characteristics among elementary school children. Further- more, Greenberg et al. (2015) were able to identify personality traits as predictors of musicality in their national study with N = 7870 participants, whereby open- ness acted as the best predictor. Similarly, Rose et  al.’s (2019) findings indicate that musicians exhibit higher openness to experience than non-musicians. Kemp’s (1996) research compared musicians from different fields and with different levels of education with non-musicians in terms of personality and temperament and found that professional musicians described themselves as more introverted, sensitive, 1011 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… imaginative, and independent. In her study, Mund (2007) compared participants in the German “Jugend forscht” competition for young scientists and the German “Jugend musiziert” competition for non-professional instrumental students  (in the age of 12 to 21 years) with a representative control group of peers  (in the age of 15 to 17 years) who did not participate in either competition. Participants in both competitions showed better academic performance (see also Bullerjahn & Gem- bris, 2019;  Gembris & Bullerjahn, 2019 for the domain of music), higher socio- economic status, higher scores in creativity, conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability, and higher self-satisfaction than the participants in the control group (Mund, 2007). Furthermore, participants in the “Jugend musiziert” competi- tion were also found to be more sensitive and warm-hearted (Mund, 2007) and to have high (competition-related) motivation and self-regulatory skills (cf. Bullerjahn & Gembris, 2019; Gembris & Bullerjahn, 2019). 1.3 Teachers’ implicit assumptions about students with attributed (musical) giftedness Teachers’ implicit theories about their supposedly highly gifted students appear to be particularly problematic (Baudson, 2016; Baudson & Preckel, 2016), due to their impact on both motivation and behavior in educational settings (Spinath & Freiberger, 2011). Thus, stereotyping can influence teachers’ grading of their stu- dents, lesson planning, and teaching activities, possibly resulting in reduced teach- ing quality or failure to support gifted students (Jussim & Haber, 2005; Kunter et al., 2013). According to the Pygmalion effect (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), students who are attributed an above-average giftedness by their teachers will be more likely to show better learning results compared to their classmates due to the optimized support or improved individualized teaching quality they receive. In contrast, as a result of self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton, 1948), stereotyped attributes of teach- ers regarding negatively connoted behavioral characteristics and personality traits of their students can have a negative impact on students’ abilities and development (cf. e.g., Boser et al., 2014; Missett et al., 2014; Murphy et al., 1999; Pajares, 1992; Reis & Renzulli, 2004). Experiencing stereotype threat, students may perceive their giftedness as a social handicap and therefore try to minimize or eliminate its vis- ibility (Baudson, 2016; Coleman & Cross, 1988; Cross, 2005; Gross, 1998; Spen- cer et al., 2016). In consequence, students’ learning progress might be affected, and their learning outcomes might not truly reflect their ability (cf. underachievement; Appel et al., 2015; Baudson, 2016; Baudson & Preckel, 2013; Gallagher, 1990; Hol- ling et al., 1999; Preckel & Vock, 2021; Spencer et al., 1999, 2016; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Moreover, stereotyping can have an impact on teachers’ assessments of a stu- dent’s musical performance due to cognitive biases such as expectancy errors or the halo effect, which over-illuminates characteristics and qualities due to one particu- larly salient characteristic (cf. Kahneman, 2011). According to Cohrdes and Kopiez (2015) as well as Cohrdes et al. (2012), background information about the performer can have an influence on musical assessments. Furthermore, musical (e.g., playing 1012 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 technique, interpretation, musical expression), extra-musical (e.g., room acoustics, visual impression of the musicians), and non-musical (e.g., stereotypes or precon- ceptions of the assessing persons) factors play a significant role in musical assess- ments (McPherson & Schubert, 2022). Thus, misconceptions regarding musical gift- edness or the failed recognition of musically gifted students can also prevent target group-oriented and appropriate support for music students. In the field of educational research, studies focusing on the relationship between students’ (exceptional) levels of giftedness and their stereotyped attributed behav- ioral characteristics and personality traits reveal ambivalent results; evidence yields mainly positive assumptions (e.g., Galloway & Porath, 1997; Rizza & Morrison, 2003), predominantly negative attitudes (e.g., Cramond & Martin, 1987; Lee et al., 2004), or mixed findings (e.g., Geake & Gross, 2008; McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Morris, 1987; Needham, 2012). This ambivalence may be explained by the fact that previous studies have often investigated attitudes toward gifted students explicitly, evoking both socially desirable response behavior and response bias (De Houwer, 2006; Kahneman, 2011; Preckel et al., 2015). In contrast, implicit measures assess attitudes indirectly by examining their effects on spontaneous behaviors and thus reveal automatic and unconscious attitudes (De Houwer, 2006; Deutsch & Strack, 2006). To date, the results of more recent and better controlled experimental studies with active control groups have revealed the prevalence of the disharmony stereotype as a mental representation of both practicing and prospective teachers (e.g., Baudson & Preckel, 2013, 2016; Matheis et al., 2017, 2020; Preckel et al., 2015). Baudson and Preckel (2013, 2016) used a short vignette approach for their investigations with N = 321 preservice and practicing (Baudson & Preckel, 2013) or N = 246 practic- ing teachers (Baudson & Preckel, 2016), examining teachers’ implicit personality theories about students described along three dimensions including students’ abil- ity (gifted vs. average), gender (female vs. male), and age (eight vs. 15 years). The results of their multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and of the repeated- measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc univariate tests respectively were in line with the disharmony stereotype. In Baudson and Preckel (2013), the level of giftedness had the strongest effect on teachers’ judgments (η2 p = .60). Here, highly gifted students were rated as more open to new experiences (η2 p = .42) but less extraverted (η2 p = .09), less emotionally stable (η2 p = .04), and less agreeable (η2 p = .14). Furthermore, teachers rated highly gifted students as more intellectually capable (η2 p = .64), more motivated (η2 p = .03), less prosocial (η2 p = .14), and more maladjusted (η2 p = .28) in Baudson and Preckel (2016). In another study, level of giftedness, adjustment difficulties, and gender were used as predictors for triggering stereotypes among N = 182 preservice teachers, control- ling for effects within a single-target implicit association test (ST-IAT) as well as an affective priming task (Preckel et  al., 2015). Automatic associations between giftedness and maladjustment, analyzed through a between-subjects ANOVA, were stronger for male than for female students (d = 0.29). This finding was confirmed by the affective priming task, when this assessment was made after the ST-IAT that had already assessed associations of giftedness with adjustment difficulties: Teachers’ evaluations then were significantly more positive for gifted female than for gifted 1013 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… male students (d = 1.07). Thus, implicit associations, which are in line with the dis- harmony stereotype, seem to have been made only for male students within this investigation. The first study, which provided data on conceptions of gifted individuals with a representative sample of N = 1029 German adults, revealed two conceptions of gift- edness within the latent class analysis (LCA): Twice as many participants were rated as being in line with the disharmony than with the harmony stereotype (Baudson, 2016). Matheis et  al. (2017, 2020) used a longer version of the vignette approach for their samples with N = 690 German and Australian (Matheis et  al., 2017) and N = 315 Australian preservice teachers (Matheis et  al., 2020). In both studies, the fictive situation included a social interaction between the central fictive student and others. Since there was no variation of the social interaction and since the other students were described as uninterested in communicating with the central fictive student, their experimental setup led to a negatively connoted communication situa- tion, which could support stereotypical assumptions. While the fictive student’s level of giftedness and gender acted as independent variables, intellectual ability, lack of social–emotional ability, maladjustment, teachers’ self-efficacy, and enthusiasm served as dependent variables (cf. Hachfeld et al., 2012; Matheis et al., 2017,  2020). Repeated-measures ANOVAs with follow-up univariate tests (Matheis et al., 2017, 2020) as well as structural equation modeling (Matheis et al., 2017) were used to analyze the data. Participants in Matheis et al.’s study (2017) associated giftedness with high intellectual abilities (η2 p = .12) and maladjustment (η2 p = .12) and showed lower self-efficacy for teaching the gifted (η2 p = .05). No significant main effect was found for lack of social–emotional ability or teachers’ enthusiasm. Matheis et  al. (2020) examined both the influence of giftedness and gender on teachers’ stereotyp- ing. In total, participants associated students’ high giftedness with high intellectual abilities (η2 p = .12) and maladjustment (η2 p = .16; controlled for social desirability). Moreover, regarding teachers’ ratings on students’ maladjustment, they found a significant interaction effect (giftedness × gender: η2 p = .04; including social desir- ability as covariate). Whereas averagely gifted female  students were assessed as less maladjusted than averagely gifted  male students, highly gifted students were assessed as equally maladjusted (regardless of their gender) and more maladjusted than averagely gifted. As an extension of the aforementioned vignette approach, Weyns et  al. (2021) examined the effect of contextual information that contrasts with stereotypical assumptions about gifted students. In their study, involving N = 522 preservice teachers for elementary or middle school, they used a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects design where participants received one of eight different vignettes. In addition to the varied level of students’ giftedness and gender, they included the variation of social background information (having friends vs. neutral). However, this variation had no moderating effect on teachers’ stereotypical attitudes. The first study regarding teachers’ stereotyping of highly gifted students in the domain of music was conducted by Gnas et  al. (2020). Based on a sample of N = 169 practicing music school teachers, they revealed results similar to previous studies. Following the methodological vignette approach of the aforementioned 1014 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 studies within the school context, the authors tried to find effects on personality traits (using the “Five Factor Questionnaire for Children”; Asendorpf, 1998) and behavioral characteristics (using the questionnaire regarding “assumptions about gifted persons”; Preckel & Matheis, 2017) by means of MANOVAs and discri- minant analyses. Level of giftedness (musically gifted vs. average) and gender (female vs. male) served as independent variables within the vignettes, result- ing in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. Similarly to Matheis et al. (2017, 2020), the researchers included a social interaction situation without variation in the fictitious description, which could support stereotypical assessments. While fic- tive students’ gender had a medium effect on the assumed behavioral characteris- tics and personality traits (.08 ≤ η2 p ≤ .10), the level of giftedness showed a large effect (.29 ≤ η2 p ≤ .44). No significant interaction effect of the two independent variables could be observed. Participants rated musically gifted students as more intellectually and musically capable, conscientious, motivated, and open to new experiences. In contrast to the findings of Baudson and Preckel (2013), partici- pants rated gifted students as emotionally more stable (which is not in line with the disharmony stereotype) but also as more behaviorally challenging (in terms of externalizing problem behavior and disruptive behavior), less agreeable, and more socially incompetent. No differences were found in the areas of internal- izing problem behavior and extraversion. Taken together, there are considerable differences between the assumptions of music school teachers about musically highly gifted students and musically averagely gifted ones, which partially sup- port the existence of the disharmony stereotype in the musical domain. In contrast to prevalent findings, which are predominantly in line with the dis- harmony stereotype, implicit assumptions that giftedness is necessarily connected with social–emotional deficits have been refuted by numerous empirical and epi- demiological studies, countering the media’s common portrayal of an intellectually outstanding but emotionally unstable and socially incompetent individual (see, e.g., DeYoung et al., 2014; Freund–Braier, 2009; Limont et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2010; Neihart, 1999; Preckel & Vock, 2021; Preckel et al., 2015; Reis & Renzulli, 2004; Richards et al., 2003; Rost, 1993, 2009a; Wirthwein & Rost, 2011; Wirthwein et al., 2019; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). Results illustrate that highly and averagely gifted students do not essentially differ with respect to their social and emotional characteristics or personality traits; discrepancies are generally observed to be in favor of individuals with attributed giftedness. Hence, highly gifted individuals face advantages and problems comparable to those of averagely gifted individuals (Rost, 2009b). Divergent teachers’ assumptions about (musically) highly gifted students’ behavioral characteristics and personality traits may indicate the influence of stereo- typed assumptions (cf. Gnas et al., 2020). Dealing with an unsuitable school envi- ronment, a lack of support services, and an unfavorable social or home environment can be risk factors for the social–emotional development of above-average gifted individuals (Preckel & Vock, 2021; Reis & Renzulli, 2004). Accordingly, it is not giftedness per se that is problematic but inappropriate reactions, unfavorable social interactions, or even misperceptions of the social environment, which can be fos- tered by teachers or social groups of peers, for example, and ultimately lead to error- laden implicit theories (Fiedler, 1999; Preckel & Vock, 2021; Preckel et al., 2015). 1015 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… 1.4 Aims and hypotheses As the current state of research shows, teachers’ assumptions about (musically) gifted students might follow the disharmony stereotype. Within the present study, assessments of (prospective) music school teachers regarding musically gifted stu- dents are of particular relevance, since few results are yet available for this domain (cf. Gnas et  al., 2020). The recording of such assumptions can draw attention to existing stereotypes and, by means of corresponding practical implications, contrib- ute to raising awareness among teachers. The present study extends and refines the method reported in Gnas et al. (2020) to trigger participants’ stereotyping of musically gifted students by adding more (reinforcing) variables into the vignette approach and by using additional audio recordings to investigate the impact of stereotyping on (implicit) musical perfor- mance assessments and further planning of instrumental instruction. Hence, the pre- sent study seeks to identify which kind of implicit assumptions—regarding behav- ior-, personality-, and performance-related dimensions—(prospective) music school teachers hold about allegedly musically gifted students. A confirmation of the exist- ence of the disharmony stereotype in the musical context is expected, which should at least align with participants’ prototypical response patterns as presented in Gnas et  al. (2020): Higher scores in the subscales of intellectual and musical abilities, performance and motivation, externalizing problem behavior, disruptive behavior, conscientiousness, and openness, as well as lower scores in social skills and agreea- bleness. To represent the disharmony stereotype in its entirety, additionally higher scores in internalizing problem behavior, and lower scores in extraversion and emo- tional stability (as measured by neuroticism) should be obvious for highly gifted stu- dents compared to averagely gifted ones (cf. Gnas et al., 2020). Hypothesis 1 Students with an attributed musically high giftedness will be assessed more positively by music school teachers in terms of performance (e.g., more intel- lectually and musically capable, more motivated) and predominantly more nega- tively in terms of other behavioral characteristics and personality traits (e.g., mal- adjusted, socially incompetent, less agreeable) than students with an attributed musically average giftedness. While Gnas et  al. (2020) and Matheis et  al. (2017, 2020) only used negatively connoted social interaction between fictive students in their vignettes, the current study extends this approach by varying between positive and negative connoted social interactions to balance information related to both kinds of stereotypes (har- mony and disharmony stereotype; cf. the approach of Weyns et al., 2021). Since atti- tudes of other students (friendly vs. dismissive) toward musically highly gifted ones may trigger (prospective) music school teachers’ assumptions, this variable should be controlled. 1016 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 Hypothesis 2 A positively connoted social interaction moderates teachers’ stereo- typical assessment of behavioral characteristics and personality traits of students with an attributed musically high giftedness. Accordingly, negative attitudes regard- ing behavioral characteristics and personality traits, which are in line with the dis- harmony stereotype (cf. Hypothesis 1), are expected to be attenuated; therefore, add- ing counter-stereotyping information has a buffering effect. In addition, the present study examines whether differences can be observed in terms of implicit performance assessment and subsequent decisions on lesson plan- ning between highly gifted and averagely gifted students (in combination with other reinforcing variables) when musical performance is held constant. Hypothesis 3 Variation in the background information of a performing student (level of giftedness, age, training duration) will influence teachers’ implicit perfor- mance judgments and consequently have an impact on their further lesson planning and goal setting. Accordingly, musically highly gifted students will be implicitly assessed more positively in terms of their musical performance and will therefore receive music pieces with a more difficult level for further lessons. A young age as well as a short duration of education will reinforce these effects (cf. assumptions about child prodigies; e.g., Feldman, 1986; Feldman & Goldsmith, 1990; Feldman & Morelock, 2010). 2 Method 2.1 Participants Participants were invited to take part in the study via the mailing list of the Asso- ciation of German Music Schools (Verband deutscher Musikschulen e. V.), via the universities of music, with the help of the general students’ committee or students’ council, or by means of advertising on social media. All participants had the oppor- tunity to take part in a lottery at the end of the study and win one of ten 20 € vouch- ers from a music shop. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Uni- versity of Stuttgart (approval number 22-010). An a priori power analysis conducted with G*Power (version 3.1.9.7; Faul et al., 2007, 2009) revealed a minimum sam- ple size of N = 153 participants required to detect effects of medium size within a MANOVA (� = .05, 1 − � = .80, f 2 = .06). In total, N = 230 participants took part in the study. However, n = 19 (8%) of the participants were excluded from subsequent analyses due to their answers when the manipulation check was carried out (see below), resulting in a final sample of N = 211 (prospective) music school teachers as participants. n = 133 (63%) participants of our sample identified themselves as female, n = 70 (33%) as male, and n = 2 (1%) as diverse, whereas n = 6 (3%) participants did not give any information about their gender identification. The sample reported an average age of M = 45.00  years (SD = 14.23, min = 19, max = 70) along with a 1017 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… working experience of M = 20.89  years (SD = 13.59, min = 0, max = 47). Most of the participants were teaching instrumental or singing lessons at the time of the research (n = 198; 94%) or had previously taught but no longer gave lessons (n = 8; 4%). N = 189 (92%) reported an (ongoing) teaching activity at a music school, mainly in the field of classical music (n = 152; 72%). Whereas n = 130 (63%) participants indicated having experience of teaching children assumed to be musically gifted, only n = 26 (13%)  took part  as a teacher in an education program with a special focus on musically highly gifted children. Finally, n = 47 (22%) participants indicated woodwind, n = 45 (21%) keyboard instruments, n = 39 (18%) bowed strings, n = 26 (12%) plucked strings, n = 24 (11%) vocals, n = 19 (9%) brass, and n = 7 (3%) percussion as their main instrument. 2.2 Design Followed Gnas et al. (2020), the present design was extended by including more independent variables. The four dichotomous independent variables were (1) stu- dents’ level of giftedness (musically gifted vs. average), (2) students’ age (eight vs. 15 years; ages are based on Baudson & Preckel, 2013, 2016), (3) students’ expertise in terms of duration of education (two vs. four years of instrumental lessons), and (4) social interaction (positive vs. negative; cf. the approach of Weyns et al., 2021). Therefore, an experimental 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial between- subjects design was conducted resulting in 16 conditions which were realized by a vignette approach (see below). Participants were randomly assigned to one of 16 vignette types. The central variable here is the level of giftedness, as ste- reotypes of musically highly gifted students are of interest; the expression of average giftedness was considered as a control group. The other background information served to possibly strengthen or weaken the stereotyping process. Behavioral characteristics, personality traits, and further lesson planning served as dependent variables. In addition, participants’ professional experience was recorded as a potentially confounding variable. 2.3 Measures In accordance with Gnas et  al. (2020), a survey-based approach to measuring assumptions about the behavioral characteristics of gifted people (Preckel & Matheis, 2017; cf. the extension by Gnas et al., 2020) with seven subscales and a standardized measure for children’s personality traits (Asendorpf, 1998) with five subscales was used. Lesson planning was prompted by three piano pieces of increasing difficulty, one of which had to be chosen by the participants. If none of the proposed piano pieces would suit their expectation, participants had the opportunity to suggest an alternative choice. The selection of pieces was based on expert judgments of German teachers at music schools or universities of music. 1018 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 2.4 Materials 2.4.1 Vignettes The vignette approach has been used in previous studies of the stereotyping of stu- dents with assumed giftedness (Baudson & Preckel, 2013, 2016; Matheis et  al., 2017, 2020) and has already been adapted to the musical context (cf. Gnas et al., 2020). Here, the fictive situation description simulates real-life experiences and is particularly suitable due to its systematic variation of the concepts under investi- gation (Schoenberg & Ravdal, 2000). Hence, it enabled socially desirable response behavior to be controlled, as this seems to be problematic in research on assump- tions about giftedness (Mõttus et al., 2008). The vignettes were kept brief so that participants would rely on their own sub- jective, implicit beliefs when answering the questionnaires (cf. Weyns et al., 2021). Since the results in Gnas et al. (2020) were found to be independent of gender, only the female gender is represented in the vignettes. The variety in the description of the fictive female student “Siri” was composed of the four dichotomous variables, that is, her giftedness, age, duration of instrumental lessons, and type of social inter- action with other students. The variety in social interactions provides information about whether contextual information has a reinforcing effect, no effect, or a mod- erating effect in terms of stereotyping. Figure 1 illustrates the English version of the vignette approach used in this study. Text in boldface indicates one of the differ- ent options of the independent variables that were experimentally varied within the vignettes. The second expression of each independent variable is displayed in the respective bracket. The remaining narrative parts were kept constant. An example of a fictive music performance was added to the narrative part of the vignette in order to provide further information about the proficiency level of the fictive student “Siri.” In detail, a music performance of Johann Sebastian Bach’s Invention No. 8, F major (BWV 779) was recorded on a Midi-Keyboard. Subsequently, musical parameters (pitch, tempo, dynamics, and articulation), which are responsible for the appreciation of music performance (McPherson & Imagine that today, together with a colleague, you were in charge of the children of your music school’s orchestra at the final concert before the summer vacation. While your colleague leaves the concert hall for a short time during the break, you observe Siri, whom you already know from various events at the music school. Siri is musically highly (averagely) gifted. She is eight (fifteen) years old and has been taking piano lessons at the music school for two (four) years. During the break, you allow the children to continue practicing on their instruments or doing things on their own. After a while, Siri walks over to two other children who are flipping through their sheet music. She asks: “Do you already know what piece we will practice after summer vacation?” One of the children replies: “Yes, we’re going to play the Forrest Gump soundtrack, I even have the sheet music with me.” The other child says: “We can practice it together, we still have a little break. Why don’t you sit down with us and we can look at the sheet music together?” Siri then sits down with the other two orchestra members and they practice together during the entire break. She says: “It’s really fun to play music together with you.” (says: “Why do you want to know?” The other child continues to flip through the sheet music. Siri says: “Oh, never mind.” After a while, Siri asks: “So, when does the break end?”) Fig. 1 Sample vignette for musically highly gifted, eight-year-old student Siri with two years of training duration and positive social interaction  1019 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… Schubert, 2022; cf. also Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, 2017), were manipulated in a controlled manner (see App., Tab. 6 and Fig. 2). For the manipulation, Melodyne 5 editor (version 5.1.1.003; Celemony, 2020) was inte- grated as a plug-in in Cubase Pro 11 (version 11.0.0; Steinberg Media Technolo- gies GmbH, 2020). The music example was kept constant across all conditions. 2.4.2 Measures of teachers’ assumptions about gifted students Behavioral characteristics. Preckel and Matheis’ (2017) questionnaire, originally developed for the school context, was used to measure teachers’ “assumptions about gifted persons” (cf. Gnas et al., 2020). In their study, Gnas et al. (2020) added seven items to the original measurement with a special focus on musical abilities (.66 ≤ α ≤ .91). This extended version was also used in the present study. Included items refer to the dimensions of performance with the subscales intellectual abilities (six items, e.g., “This student is intelligent”), performance/motivation (six items, e.g., “This student gets good grades”), and musical abilities (seven items, e.g., “This student can play expressively musically”); socio-emotional abilities with the sub- scales internalizing problem behavior (five items, e.g., “This student is withdrawn”) and social skills (seven items, e.g., “This student is considerate”); and behavioral problems with the subscales externalizing problem behavior (five items, e.g., “This student is intolerant”) and disruptive behavior (five items, e.g., “This student dis- rupts class”). All items were assessed on a unipolar 6-point Likert scale (where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 6 = “strongly agree”). Personality traits. For the external assessment of the assumed personality traits of the fictive student “Siri”, the “Five Factor Questionnaire for Children” by Asen- dorpf (1998) was used. This questionnaire is based on the Big Five of personal- ity (see, e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992a, 1992b; McCrae & Costa, 1987), whereby each of the following dimensions is represented by eight items: extraversion (e.g., “sociable—withdrawn”), agreeableness (e.g., “peaceful—belligerent”), conscien- tiousness (e.g., “careless—conscientious”), openness (e.g., “little interested—many- sided interested”), and neuroticism (e.g., “nervous—calm”). Accordingly, the ques- tionnaire includes 40 pairs of opposite descriptions of a child’s personality traits based on a 5-point bipolar scale. For external raitings by parents, Asendorpf (1998) reported a median Cronbach’s α of .86 (.83 ≤ α ≤ .91). Lesson planning. Lesson planning was measured as a dependent variable by a list of three music pieces from the same era but with different difficulty levels, sug- gested as the basis for future instrumental lessons. Participants were asked to choose one of the three listed music pieces for further lesson planning. In detail, they had the opportunity to choose between (1) the Minuet in G major, BWV App. 114 (from The Music Book for Anna Magdalena Bach), (2) the Invention No. 1, BWV 772, and (3) the English Suite No. 3, Prelude, BWV 808. The difficulty level of the sug- gested music was rated by experts in the field of instrumental pedagogy or teaching piano, resulting in an ascending order where the difficulty level of (1) was rated as lowest. The difficulty level of (2) was intended to be similar to that of the recording 1020 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 (i.e., Invention No. 8, F major, BWV 779), whereas the difficulty level of (3) was rated higher than that of the recording. In addition to the three choice options, par- ticipants had the opportunity to suggest an alternative or explain why they would not choose one of the three music pieces. 2.5 Procedure An online questionnaire was created using SoSci Survey (version 3.2.40; Leiner, 2021), which took an average duration of M = 23.38  min (SD = 6.45, min = 10.02, max = 38.38) for the participants to complete. First, participants were welcomed. After giving their informed consent to take part in the study, participants were informed about the (technical) requirements and procedure of the study and were asked to reply spontaneously, intuitively, and completely. After the presentation of the vignette to which they were randomly assigned, a manipulation check was car- ried out to ensure that participants had carefully read the vignette and to determine whether their subsequent responses were actually related to the vignette they had been shown to counteract manipulation or bias. In detail, participants had to remem- ber and indicate the introduced information about the fictive student described in the vignette; thus, they were asked the student’s name (i.e., Siri), level of gifted- ness, age, and training duration. To pass the manipulation check, at least 75% of the answers had to be correct. An additional condition was the correct reproduction of the level of giftedness, regardless of what else was correctly or incorrectly remem- bered, since implicit theories concerning students with an attributed giftedness were ultimately under investigation. After the manipulation check, participants were asked to assess the behavioral characteristics and personality traits of the fictive student introduced by the vignette. Next, they listened to the music recording as the second part of the vignette and were requested to either select one of the three music pieces or to write a reason that another (specific) piece could be more suitable for future teaching than those suggested. Finally, participants’ background information was gathered. Here, items selected from the Goldsmith’s Musical Sophistication Index (Gold-MSI; Müllensiefen et al., 2014; Schaal et al., 2014) were used as well as items eliciting demographic details. After creating an individual code which gave them the option to revoke their partici- pation and thus their response data in the future, participants had the opportunity to take part in a lottery. Lastly, they were fully debriefed, as information about the pur- pose of the study was not fully disclosed at the outset to avoid response biases and socially desirable reactions. 2.6 Data analysis Data were analyzed with R (version 4.2.3; R Core Team, 2022) using RStudio (ver- sion 4.2.3; RStudio Team, 2020). First, participants’ responses were checked for qual- ity, cleaned, and aggregated to prepare them for subsequent analyses. Participants who did not pass the manipulation check were excluded from subsequent analyses, 1021 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… resulting in a final sample of N = 211. After that, five to seven items for the assumed behavioral characteristics (cf. Preckel & Matheis, 2017) and eight items for each of the assumed personality traits (cf. Asendorpf, 1998) were combined into subscale scores. Descriptive analyses were followed by multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCO- VAs, using type II sums of squares). To test the initially derived hypotheses, students’ level of giftedness and social interaction were used as independent variables, seven subscales for behavioral characteristics and five subscales for personality traits as dependent variables. Participants’ teaching experience was added as covariate, since Gnas et al. (2020) were able to demonstrate its significant impact on the results. When there were significant main effects, follow-up univariate post-hoc tests (ANCOVAs, using type II sums of squares) were conducted to inspect them more closely. The Ben- jamini–Hochberg procedure was used to correct false discovery rate (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995; see Haynes, 2013). If the requirements for a MANCOVA were not satisfied, Chi2-tests for possible main effects and log-linear analyses for possible inter- action effects were performed. Open text fields (e.g., giving space for alternative piece suggestions for further lesson planning) were analyzed in a qualitative manner via MAXQDA 2022 (VERBI Software, 2021). To sort participants’ answers thematically, categories were created and reviewed by a second rater; interrater reliability indicated substantial agreement between the two raters with κ = .66 (Landis & Koch, 1977). 3 Results Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the total final sample size (N = 211) for the behavioral characteristics and personality traits are provided in Table 1. For all statistical analyses, α < .05 was used. Scale reliability was estimated by computing Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951), which is also listed in Table  1. Here, values ranged between .68 ≤ α ≤ .93, indicating  mainly acceptable to excellent reliability (Streiner, 2003; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Overall, these values are mostly simi- lar to or higher than those of Gnas et  al. (2020). An inter-scale correlation indi- cated significant associations between most of the scales with values ranging from −.79 ≤ r ≤ .83 (see Table 1). Table 2 shows means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of teachers’ assessments with regard to the dependent variables (seven subscales for behavioral characteristics and five subscales for personality traits). Following hypotheses 1 and 2, the analyses considered only the level of giftedness and the social interaction as independent variables. On a descriptive level, group differences can already be identified on various scales. 3.1 Testing of hypotheses 1 and 2: teachers’ assumptions about musically highly gifted students’ behavioral characteristics and personality traits Following hypotheses 1 and 2, only the level of giftedness and social interaction as inde- pendent variables were considered in the MANCOVAs. However, to acknowledge the full scope of the present experimental design, analyses of students’ age and duration of edu- cation were also conducted. Since neither students’ age nor training duration displayed 1022 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 Ta bl e 1 M ea ns (M ), st an da rd d ev ia tio ns (S D ), sc al e re lia bi lit ie s, an d in te rc or re la tio ns o f s ub sc al es re la te d to b eh av io ra l c ha ra ct er ist ic s an d pe rs on al ity tr ai ts o f g ift ed s tu - de nt s a ss um ed b y (p ro sp ec tiv e) m us ic sc ho ol te ac he rs *p < .0 5. * *p < .0 1 M SD α (1 ) (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 ) (6 ) (7 ) (8 ) (9 ) (1 0) (1 1) Be ha vi or al c ha ra ct er is tic s Su bs ca le s: (1 ) i nt el le ct ua l a bi lit ie s, (2 ) p er fo rm an ce a nd m ot iv at io n, (3 ) i nt er na liz in g pr ob le m b eh av io r, (4 ) s oc ia l s ki lls , ( 5) d is ru pt iv e be ha vi or , ( 6) e xt er na liz in g pr ob - le m b eh av io r, (7 ) m us ic al a bi lit ie s (1 ) 4. 50 0. 73 .8 7 (2 ) 4. 65 0. 75 .8 4 .8 1* * (3 ) 2. 83 0. 90 .8 0 − .2 9* * − .2 8* * (4 ) 4. 36 0. 77 .8 5 .3 2* * .3 8* * − .7 1* * (5 ) 2. 56 0. 71 .6 8 − .2 1* * − .3 7* * .3 9* * − .5 7* * (6 ) 2. 05 0. 78 .8 1 − .1 6* − .2 7* * .4 6* * − .6 1* * .6 6* * (7 ) 4. 23 0. 85 .9 3 .8 3* * .7 5* * − .2 4* * .2 4* * − .1 8* * − .0 9 Pe rs on al ity tr ai ts Su bs ca le s: (8 ) e xt ra ve rs io n, (9 ) a gr ee ab le ne ss , ( 10 ) c on sc ie nt io us ne ss , ( 11 ) o pe nn es s, (1 2) n eu ro tic is m (8 ) 3. 74 0. 80 .9 3 .1 8* * .2 0* * − .6 7* * .5 8* * − .2 0* * − .2 6* * .1 8* (9 ) 3. 77 0. 57 .8 9 .2 3* * .2 6* * − .4 6* * .6 8* * − .5 9* * − .5 3* * .1 7* .4 7* * (1 0) 3. 78 0. 61 .9 1 .5 0* * .6 3* * − .1 3 .2 7* * − .3 6* * − .2 5* * .4 4* * .0 4 .3 5* * (1 1) 3. 85 0. 57 .8 6 .7 3* * .6 7* * − .2 7* * .3 2* * − .2 2* * − .1 8* * .6 1* * .2 7* * .3 1* * .6 5* * (1 2) 3. 50 0. 73 .9 1 .3 9* * .3 6* * − .7 9* * .6 2* * − .3 3* * − .3 3* * .3 7* * .7 3* * .5 2* * .2 8* * .4 9* * 1023 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… significant main effects, the reporting of our results focuses on the 2 × 2 design corre- sponding to the hypotheses; the results of the MANCOVAs are listed in Table 3. To inter- pret the results, Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for effect sizes were used (cf. Ellis, 2010). Significant main effects were found for both independent variables and for the covariate in both, the behavioral characteristics and the personality traits. To test hypothesis 1, the statistically significant main effects were further explored in post- hoc tests; teachers’ professional experience continued to be included as a covariate due to its significant impact on the results. However, the interaction effect of level of giftedness and social interaction was non-significant in both cases. Thus, hypothesis 2 cannot be confirmed, since the social interaction did not exhibit a moderating effect. Based on the results of the MANCOVAs, follow-up ANCOVAs—including the covariate professional experience—were calculated only for the two significant main effects (level of giftedness, social interaction), since the interaction effects did not reach statistical significance. Overall, both the level of giftedness and the social interaction had a significant influence on teachers’ assessment of the fictive student with regard to several scales of behavioral characteristics and personality traits (see Table  4): For the level of giftedness, significant values were found for intellectual abilities, performance and motivation, musical abilities, conscientiousness, and open- ness. For the social interaction, significant values resulted for all scales of behav- ioral characteristics except musical abilities and for all scales of personality traits except conscientiousness. Furthermore, depending on their professional experience, Table 2 Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of dependent variables as a function of level of gifted- ness and social interaction Level of giftedness Social interaction Gifted Average Positive Negative M SD M SD M SD M SD n = 100 n = 111 n = 112 n = 99 Behavioral characteristics Intellectual abilities 4.92 0.60 4.11 0.62 4.61 0.71 4.37 0.74 Performance and motivation 5.02 0.62 4.30 0.69 4.78 0.67 4.50 0.81 Internalizing problem behavior 2.82 0.87 2.84 0.93 2.32 0.73 3.41 0.72 Social skills 4.31 0.82 4.41 0.72 4.77 0.59 3.91 0.68 Disruptive behavior 2.63 0.71 2.49 0.71 2.38 0.65 2.76 0.72 Externalizing problem behavior 2.16 0.77 1.96 0.79 1.85 0.74 2.28 0.77 Musical abilities 4.77 0.67 3.74 0.68 4.32 0.80 4.13 0.89 Personality traits Extraversion 3.69 0.78 3.79 0.81 4.05 0.69 3.39 0.76 Agreeableness 3.70 0.61 3.83 0.52 3.94 0.56 3.58 0.52 Conscientiousness 3.95 0.56 3.62 0.62 3.84 0.60 3.71 0.62 Openness 4.06 0.51 3.66 0.55 3.93 0.57 3.76 0.56 Neuroticism 3.58 0.66 3.43 0.78 3.83 0.66 3.12 0.62 1024 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 Ta bl e 3 R es ul ts o f M A N CO VA s i nc lu di ng th e co va ria te p ro fe ss io na l e xp er ie nc e a In te lle ct ua l a bi lit ie s, pe rfo rm an ce a nd m ot iv at io n, in te rn al iz in g pr ob le m b eh av io r, so ci al sk ill s, di sr up tiv e be ha vi or , e xt er na liz in g pr ob le m b eh av io r, m us ic al a bi lit ie s b Ex tra ve rs io n, a gr ee ab le ne ss , c on sc ie nt io us ne ss , o pe nn es s, ne ur ot ic is m *p < .0 5. * *p < .0 1. * ** p < .0 01 D ep en de nt v ar ia bl e Eff ec t Pi lla i’s tra ce F df (d f N , d f D ) p η p 2 Be ha vi or al c ha ra ct er is tic sa Pr of es si on al e xp er ie nc e 0. 10 3. 04 7, 1 91 .0 05 ** .1 0 Le ve l o f g ift ed ne ss 0. 46 23 .3 3 7, 1 91 < .0 01 ** * .4 6 So ci al in te ra ct io n 0. 41 18 .9 7 7, 1 91 < .0 01 ** * .4 1 Le ve l o f g ift ed ne ss x so ci al in te ra ct io n 0. 05 1. 48 7, 1 91 .1 77 .0 5 Pe rs on al ity tr ai ts b Pr of es si on al e xp er ie nc e 0. 06 2. 58 5, 1 96 .0 27 * .0 6 Le ve l o f g ift ed ne ss 0. 21 10 .2 2 5, 1 96 < .0 01 ** * .2 1 So ci al in te ra ct io n 0. 25 12 .9 7 5, 1 96 < .0 01 ** * .2 5 Le ve l o f g ift ed ne ss × so ci al in te ra ct io n 0. 02 0. 90 5, 1 96 .4 82 .0 2 1025 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… Table 4 Results of follow-up univariate tests (ANCOVAs) Note. Main effects = level of giftedness and social interaction; calculations including the covariate profes- sional experience; p-values were adjusted according to Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) Effect Dependent variable F df (dfN, dfD) p ηp 2 Level of giftedness Behavioral characteristics Intellectual abilities 94.02 1, 200 < .001*** .32 Performance and motivation 65.96 1, 200 < .001*** .25 Internalizing problem behavior 0.13 1, 200 .785 < .01 Social skills 0.82 1, 199 .441 < .01 Disruptive behavior 1.70 1, 200 .268 < .01 Externalizing problem behavior 3.14 1, 200 .126 .02 Musical abilities 121.93 1, 199 < .001*** .38 Personality traits Extraversion 0.89 1, 201 .441 < .01 Agreeableness 2.02 1, 201 .226 .01 Conscientiousness 17.42 1, 201 < .001*** .08 Openness 32.49 1, 201 < .001*** .14 Neuroticism 3.09 1, 201 .126 .02 Social interaction Behavioral characteristics Intellectual abilities 7.52 1, 200 .014* .04 Performance and motivation 9.63 1, 200 .005** .05 Internalizing problem behavior 107.32 1, 200 < .001*** .35 Social skills 86.63 1, 199 < .001*** .30 Disruptive behavior 13.64 1, 200 < .001*** .06 Externalizing problem behavior 13.25 1, 200 < .001*** .06 Musical abilities 3.53 1, 199 .106 .02 Personality traits Extraversion 38.46 1, 201 < .001*** .16 Agreeableness 21.89 1, 201 < .001*** .10 Conscientiousness 2.55 1, 201 .168 .01 Openness 5.67 1, 201 .036* .03 Neuroticism 61.04 1, 201 < .001*** .23 Professional experience Behavioral characteristics Intellectual abilities 1.12 1, 200 .389 < .01 Performance and motivation 0.85 1, 200 .441 < .01 Internalizing problem behavior 14.63 1, 200 < .001*** .07 Social skills 8.67 1, 199 .008** .04 Disruptive behavior 0.00 1, 200 .991 < .01 Externalizing problem behavior 3.57 1, 200 .106 .02 Musical abilities 0.33 1, 199 .639 < .01 Personality traits Extraversion 5.47 1, 201 .039* .03 Agreeableness 0.05 1, 201 .881 < .01 Conscientiousness 0.01 1, 201 .944 < .01 Openness 0.50 1, 201 .556 < .01 Neuroticism 10.00 1, 201 .005** .05 1026 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 teachers significantly differentiated between differently described students in the areas of internalizing problem behavior, social skills, extraversion, and neuroticism. Taking these results together, hypothesis 1 can be partially confirmed, since stu- dents with an attributed high giftedness were assessed more positively in terms of performance (intellectual und musical abilities, performance, and motivation) but— contrary to expectations—similarly (internalizing and externalizing problem behav- ior, social skills, disruptive behavior, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) or more positively (conscientiousness and openness) in other behavioral characteris- tics or personality traits than students with an attributed average giftedness. 3.2 Testing of hypothesis 3: teachers’ lesson planning To test hypothesis 3, participants’ answers were sorted by the dichotomous levels of independent variables (students’ level of giftedness, age, and training duration) to identify potential group differences regarding their lesson planning and goal set- ting for further instruction (see Table 5). A considerable number of respondents also decided not to select any of the music pieces mentioned (= answer 4) and to leave a comment within an open text field. Most participants’ comments indicated the desire to provide music pieces with more variety regarding style, composer, or era (k = 34; 51%). In addition, a fundamentally different level was desired (k = 14; 21%), since the proposed pieces were too easy (Minuet in G Major, BWV App. 114), too similar (Invention No. 1, BWV 772), or too difficult (English Suite No. 3, Prelude, BWV 808) for the upcoming lessons. To test whether piece selection was influenced by any of the independent variables (cf. hypothesis 3), a Chi2-test was used. Only answer options 1 to 3 were considered for the calculations, since these include the music pieces proposed for selection (N = 169). No significant association between piece selection and level of giftedness (χ2 = 5.03, df = 2, p = .08, V = 0.17), students’ age (χ2 = 3.81, df = 2, p = .15, V = 0.15), or students’ training duration in instrumental lessons (χ2 = 0.15, df = 2, p = .93, V = 0.03) could be *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Table 4 (continued) Table 5 Relative frequencies of piece suggestions for further instruction as a function of level of gifted- ness, age, and training duration (cf. hypothesis 3) Independent variable Levels N Minuet BWV App. 14 (%) Invention BWV 772 (%) Prelude BWV 808 (%) None of the pieces mentioned (%) Level of giftedness Gifted n = 100 6 59 17 18 Average n = 111 14 55 10 21 Age 8 years n = 113 14 57 14 15 15 years n = 98 5 57 12 24 Training duration 2 years n = 111 10 58 14 18 4 years n = 100 10 56 12 21 1027 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… observed. This finding was confirmed by log-linear analyses, which were conducted to test for a potential dependency between teachers’ lesson planning and the interaction of two independent variables (level of giftedness × age: χ2 = 23.16, df = 165, p = 1; level of giftedness × years of instrumental education: χ2 = 23.11, df = 165, p = 1; obtained val- ues according to Pearson). Thus, hypothesis 3 cannot be confirmed within the current sample. 4 Discussion The present study investigated how (prospective) music school teachers’ stereotypes of students’ musical giftedness could be triggered by means of their assumptions concerning students’ performance, behavioral characteristics, and personality traits. Further, the study investigated how teachers’ views on giftedness might impact their subsequent lesson planning. Thereby, the examination of the so-called (dis)harmony stereotype played a central role; this stereotype states that a key characteristic of highly gifted people is the association of an exceptional achievement level and (mal) adaptive behavioral characteristics and personality traits. Similar findings to those of previous studies in the school context and especially in the musical domain were expected. However, the results of the present study are only partially consistent with the find- ings of Gnas et al. (2020). In line with Gnas et al. (2020), music school teachers differ- entiated between individuals with an attributed high level of giftedness and those with an attributed average giftedness. In detail, highly gifted students were rated as being more intellectually and musically capable and motivated, as well as more conscien- tious and open to new experiences, without differing in terms of internalizing problem behavior and extraversion from students assumed to be musically averagely gifted. In contrast to the results of Gnas et al. (2020), the present findings revealed no significant differences between students whose level of giftedness was attributed dif- ferently with respect to externalizing problem behavior, disruptive behavior, socially competence and compatibility, and emotional stability. Overall, students with attrib- uted high giftedness were rated more positively within the performance domain and—contrary to expectations—either equally to or better than averagely gifted students regarding other behavioral characteristics and personality traits within the present study. Thus, hypothesis 1 can only be partially supported; the existence of the disharmony stereotype in the musical context cannot be confirmed by the present study, since the negative component of the stereotype is not reflected in the results (i.e., higher scores in internalizing and externalizing problem behavior, disruptive behavior, as well as lower scores in social skills, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability (as measured by neuroticism) for highly gifted students com- pared to averagely gifted ones). These results are in line with empirical and epide- miological findings of earlier studies, in which the disharmony stereotype was also disproved (cf. Martin et al., 2010; Neihart, 1999; Reis & Renzulli, 2004; Rost, 1993, 2009a; Zeidner & Shani-Zinovich, 2011). Rather, the obtained evidence points more in the direction of the harmony stereotype, whereby high abilities are associated with positive behavioral characteristics and personality traits. One reason for the 1028 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 difference between the results of Gnas et al. (2020) and the present study could be related to differences in sample characteristics. However, against the background of self-selection bias (see, e.g., Heckman, 1990, 2010), most of the participating teach- ers were interested in this topic anyway (cf. Gnas et al., 2020) and might therefore have already been informed and sensitized about teaching musically gifted students by further programs and training. Furthermore, in terms of prognostic validity, it is only possible for a small number of individuals to enroll in programs of universities of music after passing an entrance examination; thus, these seem to be mainly musi- cians who have reached a high level of musical expertise due to their own above- average musical giftedness (besides practicing). Consequently, teachers could have less disharmonical assumptions about musically gifted students due to their own experience with high musical abilities. In addition, context effects may be responsible for the difference between the results of the present study and those from studies in the school context (Schwarz & Sudman, 2012). Even though teachers are generally able to correctly assess the per- formance of their students within the school context, there is evidence that teachers’ assessments are less successful with regard to motivational–affective student charac- teristics (Spinath, 2005; Urhahne et  al., 2010, 2011). However, since music lessons are mostly held on an individual basis or in small groups, there is a closer relationship between students and teachers, which could lead to a more accurate teacher assess- ment of students’ characteristics within the musical domain (cf. Gnas et al., 2020). For example, Baudson and Preckel (2013, 2016) and Matheis et al. (2017, 2020) reported results that are consistent with the disharmony stereotype due to participants’ associa- tion between high intellectual abilities and maladaptive behavioral characteristics and personality traits. Similar results were only found in the school context and the present study in relation to the participants’ assumptions about highly gifted students regard- ing higher intellectual abilities, openness, and motivation than the reference group. The participants’ judgments revealed in the present study are consistent with most results of previous studies in the musical domain, according to which musi- cally gifted individuals are more conscientious, opener to new experiences, and more motivated and perform better than musically averagely gifted ones (Bullerjahn & Gembris, 2019; Gemrbis & Bullerjahn, 2019; Mund, 2007; Rose et al., 2019). In contrast, musicians described themselves in Kemp’s research (1996) as reserved or introverted, which cannot be confirmed by the present study. However, these former studies focused on explicit investigations or self-assessments of musicians, whereas the present study captured implicit theories regarding highly gifted individuals by means of external assessments. Moreover, no evidence of a moderating effect of social interaction was revealed in the present study, since there were no significant interaction effects between the level of giftedness and social interaction. Thus, hypothesis 2 cannot be confirmed. These findings are in line with the results of Weyns et al. (2021), who also found no moderating effect through adding counter-stereotyping information. Nevertheless, 1029 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… the variation of social interaction revealed up to large effects regarding students’ assumed behavioral characteristics and personality traits within the present study, emphasizing the relevance of this independent variable. Thus, participants receiving a vignette that described a successful social interaction between Siri and the other orchestra members assessed the fictive student as intellectually more capable as well as more motivated.  Furthermore, the fictive student was rated more positively in the areas of internalizing and externalizing problem behavior, disruptive behavior, social skills, extraversion, aggreeableness, openness, and neuroticism. Finally, based on the results of the Chi2-test and the log-linear analyses, hypoth- esis 3, stating that background information regarding a student’s characteristics will influence teachers’ implicit performance judgments and consequently have an impact on their further lesson planning and goal setting, cannot be supported by the present data. Contrary to expectations, no correlation between the choice of music piece  for educational purposes and the level of giftedness (in combination with background information about the students’ age or duration of education) could be observed in the present study. A possible explanation for the unexpected results could relate to participants’ response biases, for example, responses due to a ten- dency toward the middle to avoid anxiety about making extreme judgments on the basis of only a short auditory stimulus (McPherson & Schubert, 2022). 4.1 Practical implications Musically highly gifted students may suffer from both the harmony and disharmony stereotypes: Exerting the dynamics of self-fulfilling prophecies (Merton, 1948; see also, e.g.,  Jussim & Harber, 2005), teachers’ expectations and stereotypical atti- tudes—particularly those which are in line with the disharmony stereotype—can significantly influence students’ behavior, performance, and development, espe- cially in early learning phases when support is crucial (Davidson et  al., 1998; Gagné, 2009; Gagné & McPherson, 2016; Kemp, 1996). Furthermore, stereotypical assumptions can evoke a negative (musical) self-concept (Gnas et al., 2020), which is related to musical performance (Austin & Vispoel, 1998; Fiedler & Spychiger, 2017) and taking up and continuing music lessons (Demorest et al., 2017). Missing lessons or even dropping out of lessons ultimately hinders students from fully real- izing their potential. In order to provide appropriate support, teachers should be able to adapt to changing learner demands in order for students to achieve musical excel- lence (Davidson et al., 1998; Hallam, 2018). However, the existence of the harmony stereotype can also produce negative consequences: For example, teachers’ attitudes and expectations might put stu- dents under pressure and make them feel that they cannot live up to expectations (cf. Baudson & Preckel, 2016). Furthermore, according to the stigma of gifted- ness theory (Coleman & Cross, 1988; Cross, 2005), there may be a worry among 1030 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 students about being excluded because of their giftedness. In consequence, gifted people try to hide or even deny their own giftedness, resulting in dysfunctional behaviors. Training programs in initial and continuing teacher education can make a targeted contribution to raising awareness and, ultimately, counteracting stereotypi- cal assumptions in the long term (cf. Gnas et al., 2020). 4.2 Limitations Gnas et al. (2020) have already discussed several aspects of the vignette approach with respect to the possibility of its biasing impact. From their point of view, there might be limitations in terms of ecological validity in the narrative context, such as the mention of the fictive orchestra and its members, as the size of the orchestra in music schools might be a function of its number of students in total as well as the distribution of instruments among them. For instance, smaller music schools may not be able to offer orchestra rehearsals and performances as they have too few stu- dents (Gnas et al., 2020). Nevertheless, trained music school teachers should have sufficient experience to be aware of such scenarios and able to assess them accord- ingly. Due to the sample size and the variety of instruments taught by the partic- ipants, it is reasonable to assume that the variation in the sizes of music schools might be large enough to avoid such a bias within the present study. Furthermore, the vignette approach offers the possibility of investigating the desired variables experimentally with a high level of external validity by manipulating everyday situa- tions in narrative fashion. The findings of the present study—especially the observed effects of the social interaction manipulated within the vignettes—should stimulate researchers to critically reflect on, validate, and experimentally vary scenarios, ter- minologies, and conceptualizations. It may seem trivial at first that Siri, who was allegedly musically highly gifted, was rated by teachers as both intellectually and musically capable. However, the vignettes present only dichotomously categorized variables (e.g., musically highly gifted vs. averagely gifted), while the efficacy of the independent variables is plotted on a multilevel continuum (e.g., a 6-point Likert scale), which provides a much more differentiated insight into teachers’ assessment. Furthermore, intel- lectual and musical giftedness do not necessarily have to be mutually depend- ent (Thalmann-Hereth, 2009); clear evidence regarding the long-term effects of music lessons on intelligence is still lacking, although Costa-Giomi (2015) was able to determine in her review the short-term general cognitive benefits as well as neurological changes associated with music instruction (cf. Hallam, 2010; Schellenberg, 2006). The present study is the first to present a musical performance that had previ- ously been manipulated in a technically controlled manner using various param- eters (pitch, tempo, dynamics, and articulation) without losing external validity. It was linked to narrative aspects of the vignette approach to record the impact of the independent variables on music school teachers’ further lesson planning and to gain insights into teachers’ goal setting. For this, the varied level of giftedness was 1031 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… reinforced by combinations with other variables, namely students’ age and training duration. Thereby, the recording was kept constant for reasons of controllability and due to the underlying design to check whether the evaluation of the teachers differed on the basis of the different combinations of variables. 4.3 Future perspectives Due to the heterogeneity of results available in the musical context, it is necessary to re-examine the results of the present study in future research. Musical perfor- mance could be included in the design as another independent variable, and thus another possible influencing factor, to investigate the interaction of students’ bio- graphical characteristics and performative performance characteristics for stereotype formation. However, studies should not be repeated only within the musical context. Cross- domain comparisons are equally valuable to gain a general picture of implicit assumptions about individuals with a special (domain-specific) giftedness. Syner- gies within these findings could be used to achieve cross-disciplinary knowledge on this topic as well as education and sensitization, for example at schools or clubs by means of training programs. Various event formats within education and training programs are suitable for this purpose, as such training can significantly contrib- ute to improving teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students (Geake & Gross, 2008). Furthermore, studies would benefit from considering additional target groups. The implicit response behavior of parents and fellow students could be compared with teachers’ response behavior, for instance (cf. Gnas et  al., 2020). Such compari- sons should examine whether different target group-related assumptions are in line with previous empirical and epidemiological findings to prove if special training programs are needed to raise awareness of and ensure adequate support for highly gifted individuals. Furthermore, it might be of interest to record teachers’ achievement level or expertise in order to include this as a further covariate in the analyses (cf. Gnas et al., 2020). It can be assumed that (prospective) music school teachers have reached a high achievement level; nevertheless, it would be interesting to determine whether music school teachers with attributed high musical abilities systematically assess their students differently than teachers with lower musical abilities, since experi- ences due to one’s own abilities could well influence assessments. For future research, it seems useful to first capture teachers’ (implicit) assess- ments of students’ musical performance. This can be done by means of an appropri- ate set of criteria. In this way, influencing factors could be determined on the basis of the experimentally varied vignettes, and possible biases could be recorded more systematically. It would be interesting to further vary the manipulation in terms of selection, intensity, frequency, and possible combinations of diverse parameters. A change of perspective also seems exciting: While in this approach a manipulated version with errors was presented, a very good performance could equally be pre- sented and linked to the different levels of giftedness. Based on the participants’ comments, the selection of the presented pieces should be refined and expanded in 1032 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 the future for the subsequent recording of teachers’ further lesson planning and goal setting. For example, other pieces from different eras could be provided for selec- tion. Nevertheless, both technically and musically comparable pieces from the same era were deliberately chosen to enable better control by excluding, as far as pos- sible, further challenges and confounding features such as the use of pedal, atten- tion to rubato passages, or subjective preferences. A possible solution for further research projects is to provide a broader selection of pieces. On the one hand, it would be conceivable to present more than three levels. On the other hand, differ- ent levels could be represented by several pieces from different eras, assuming that a clear classification can be achieved. Orientation may be provided by music lists, such as those of the competition “Jugend musiziert” (DEUTSCHER MUSIKRAT gGmbH, n. d.), which were created in cooperation with the Association of German Music Schools, the Federal Academy for Musical Youth Education Trossingen, and other professional associations. However, these are not explicit recommendations, but merely suggestions and ideas. Accordingly, a critical attitude remains even after careful examination of the mentioned lists, since the classification of musical works to different levels seems to be intricate. To date, abstract metrics for evaluating the complexity of music pieces have not been devised. 4.4 Conclusion Contrary to most findings of prior studies in both the school and the musical context, the disharmony stereotype could not be confirmed in its a priori assumed strength by the present study. Rather, there are indications that point to the harmony stereotype. The present study underlines the ambivalence, complexity, and relevance of this research field and suggests further investigation of implicit theories (in the musi- cal domain) to educate and sensitize teachers regarding existing assumptions about (musically) gifted students and to fully exploit available potential in the future. 5 Supplementary material Supplementary material can be accessed via https:// osf. io/ u6nxq/. Appendix See Table 6 and Fig. 2. https://osf.io/u6nxq/ 1033 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… Ta bl e 6 O ve rv ie w o f t yp es (p ar am et er s) a nd p la ce s ( ba rs ) o f t ec hn ic al m an ip ul at io n N ot e. C f. Fi g.  2 (A pp .) fo r v is ua liz at io n Pa ra m et er Si gn in th e sc or e (s ee F ig . 2 ) D es cr ip tio n B ar (s ) i n th e m us ic sc or e Te m po /ti m in g C oo rd in at io n di ffi cu lti es : Te m po ra l s hi ft of le ft an d rig ht h an d; Le ft ha nd sl ow er d ue to te m po ra l s hi ft b. 5 –6 ; b. 2 7– 28 A fte r e rr or p as sa ge (w ro ng p itc he s) : Ti m e to le ve l o ff an d re tu rn to c or re ct p itc h (b ot h ha nd s) ; Ti m e to o ve rc om e sh oc k du e to e rr or → A dj us tm en t o f b as ic te m po b. 1 4– 15 Pa ss ag es w ith d iff er en t m et ro no m e in di ca tio ns b. 1 4– 17 → In co ns ist en cy V A fte r c oo rd in at io n di ffi cu lti es : s ho rt br ea k to so rt th e ha nd s a nd to st ar t a ga in w ith a li ttl e m or e co or di na tio n b. 2 7 → 28 Pi tc h (S ee st itc h no te s) Pi tc h sh ift in g in th e in te rv al o f o ne se co nd d ow nw ar ds → F or p la us ib ili ty re as on s o nl y w hi te k ey s w er e ch os en , a s t hi s i s s up po se d to e vo ke th at th e pe rfo rm er m er el y sl ip pe d on th e ke ys , b ut th e pl ay in g fe el is a si m ila r o ne → “F ol lo w -u p er ro rs ” b. 1 4 (w ith u pb ea t) D yn am ic s ( > ) Ex ce ss iv e ac ce nt ua tio ns b. 7 (b ea t 2 .5 ); b. 1 0 (b ea t 3 ), b. 1 1 (b ea ts 1 .5 a nd 2 .5 ); b. 2 1 (b ea ts 1 , 2 a nd 3 ), b. 2 2 (b ea ts 1 a nd 3 .5 ), b. 2 3 (b ea ts 1 a nd 2 .5 ); b. 3 2 (b ea t 3 ), b. 3 3 (b ea ts 1 .5 , 2 .5 a nd 3 .5 ) A rti cu la tio n Le ga to p as sa ge s ( no t t ru e to st yl e) d ue to te m po ra l c ha ng e/ pr ol on ga tio n of to ne d ur at io ns b. 1 2 (le ft ha nd ); b. 2 3 (le ft ha nd , b ea t 2 .5 ); [+ ch an ge o f t on e le ng th (e xt en si on s) a s a m ea ns to a n en d, to b et te r p er ce iv e in te ns ity o f lo ud ne ss ] b. 2 5 (r ig ht h an d) 1034 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Beatrice Michalski (Institute for Musicology, Music Education and Aesthetics, State University of Music and Performing Arts Stuttgart, Germany) for techni- cal support and Jessica Gnas and Franzis Preckel (Department of Giftedness Research and Education, University of Trier, Germany) for open scientific communication and advice. Furthermore, the authors Fig. 2 Music score of Johann Sebastian Bach’s Invention No. 8 (F major, BWV 779) indicating the types (parameters) and places (bars) of the technical manipulations. Note. Manipulations are drawn in (cf. Table 6). Transcribed by the first author 1035 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… are indebted to the reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments and suggestions on improve- ment on an earlier version of the manuscript. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. We acknowledge the support of the Stuttgart Research Focus Interchange Forum for Reflecting on Intelligent Systems (IRIS), funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under the DFG reference number UP 31/1. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. Ethical approval The study (involving human participants; informed consent) was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Stuttgart (approval number 22-010). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Appel, M., Weber, S., & Kronberger, N. (2015). The influence of stereotype threat on immigrants: Review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(900), 1–15. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2015. 00900 Asendorpf, J. B. (1998). Fünf–Faktoren–Fragebogen für Kinder (FFFK) [Five factor questionnaire for children]. Humboldt University. Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (2017). Criteria. https:// gb. abrsm. org/ media/ 12057/ mmcri teria_-_ updat ed_ 2017. pdf Austin, J. R., & Vispoel, W. P. (1998). How American adolescents interpret success and failure in class- room music: Relationships among attributional beliefs, self-concept and achievement. Psychology of Music, 26(1), 26–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03057 35698 261004 Baudson, T. G. (2016). The mad genius stereotype: Still alive and well. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(368), 1–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2016. 00368 Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted. School Psy- chology Quarterly, 28(1), 37–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ spq00 00011 Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2016). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-relevant dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 212–225. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00169 86216 647115 Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 2517- 6161. 1995. tb020 31.x Boser, U., Wilhelm, M., & Hanna, R. (2014). The power of the Pygmalion effect: Teachers’ expectations strongly predict college completion. Center for American Progress, 1–7. Bullerjahn, C. (2004). Der Mythos um das kreative Genie: Einfall und schöpferischer Drang [The myth about the creative genius: Imagination and creative drive]. In C. Bullerjahn & W. Löffler (Eds.), Musikermythen—Alltagstheorien, Legenden und Medieninszenierungen (pp. 125–161). Olms. Bullerjahn, C., & Gembris, H. (2019). Erste Ergebnisse der Paderborner Studie zum Bundeswettbewerb “Jugend musiziert” 2017: Üben, Motivation und Lampenfieber [First results of the Paderborn study on the 2017 national competition “Jugend musiziert”: Practicing, motivation and stage fright]. In http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00900 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00900 https://gb.abrsm.org/media/12057/mmcriteria_-_updated_2017.pdf https://gb.abrsm.org/media/12057/mmcriteria_-_updated_2017.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735698261004 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00368 https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000011 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216647115 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216647115 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x 1036 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 H. Gembris, J. Menze, & A. Heye (Eds.), Jugend musiziert. Musikkulturelle Vielfalt im Diskurs (Schriften des Instituts für Begabungsforschung in der Musik (IBFM), Vol. 12, pp. 65–97). LIT. Celemony (2020). Melodyne 5 editor (version 5.1.1.003) [Computer software]. https:// www. celem ony. com/ Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum. Cohrdes, C., & Kopiez, R. (2015). Optimal distinctiveness and adolescent music appreciation: Develop- ment of music- and image-related typicality scales. Psychology of Music, 43(4), 578–595. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03057 35614 520851 Cohrdes, C., Lehmann, M., & Kopiez, R. (2012). Typikalität, Musiker-Image und die Musikbewertung durch Jugendliche [Typicality, musician image, and adolescents‘ music evaluation]. Musicae Sci- entiae, 16(1), 81–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10298 64911 423150 Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (1988). Is being gifted a social handicap? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 11(4), 41–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01623 53214 521486 Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Dif- ferences, 13(6), 653–665. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0191- 8869(92) 90236-I Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO per- sonality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 1040- 3590.4. 1.5 Costa-Giomi, E. (2015). The long-term effects of childhood music instruction on intelligence and general cognitive abilities. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 33(2), 20–26. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 87551 23314 540661 Cramond, B., & Martin, C. E. (1987). Inservice and preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the academi- cally brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1), 15–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00169 86287 03100 103 Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297– 334. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF023 10555 Cross, T. L. (2005). Nerds and geeks: Society’s evolving stereotypes of our students with gifts and tal- ents. Gifted Child Today, 28(4), 26–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10762 17505 02800 406 Davidson, J. W., Moore, D. G., Sloboda, J. A., & Howe, M. J. (1998). Characteristics of music teach- ers and the progress of young instrumentalists. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(1), 141–160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 33457 66 De Houwer, J. (2006). What are implicit measures and why are we using them? In R. W. Wiers & A. W. Stacy (Eds.), The handbook of implicit cognition and addiction (pp. 11–28). Sage. Demorest, S. M., Kelley, J., & Pfordresher, P. Q. (2017). Singing ability, musical self-concept, and future music participation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(4), 405–420. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00224 29416 680096 Deutsch, R., & Strack, F. (2006). Duality models in social psychology: From dual processes to interact- ing systems. Psychological Inquiry, 17(3), 166–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 7965p li1703_2 DEUTSCHER MUSIKRAT gGmbH (n. d.). Literaturlisten [Literature lists]. Jugend musiziert. https:// www. jugend- musiz iert. org/ aussc hreib ung/ liter aturl isten. html DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., Peterson, J. B., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96(1), 46–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00223 891. 2013. 806327 Dietrich, A. (2014). The mythconception of the mad genius. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(79), 1–3. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2014. 00079 Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes. Cambridge University Press. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BRM. 41.4. 1149 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analy- sis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BF031 93146 Feldman, D. H. (1986). Giftedness as a developmentalist sees it. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 285–305). Cambridge University Press. Feldman, D. H., & Goldsmith, L. T. (1990). Nature’s gambit: Child prodigies and the development of tal- ent. https:// files. eric. ed. gov/ fullt ext/ ED323 686. pdf Feldman, D. H., & Morelock, M. J. (2010). Prodigies and savants. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 210–234). Cambridge University Press. Fiedler, D., & Spychiger, M. (2017). Measuring “musical self-concept” throughout the years of adoles- cence with MUSCI_youth: Validation and adjustment of the musical self-concept inquiry (MUSCI) https://www.celemony.com/ https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735614520851 https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735614520851 https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864911423150 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214521486 https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5 https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314540661 https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123314540661 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628703100103 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 https://doi.org/10.1177/107621750502800406 https://doi.org/10.2307/3345766 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416680096 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429416680096 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1703_2 https://www.jugend-musiziert.org/ausschreibung/literaturlisten.html https://www.jugend-musiziert.org/ausschreibung/literaturlisten.html https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.806327 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.806327 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00079 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00079 https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED323686.pdf 1037 1 3 Implicit assumptions of (prospective) music school teachers… by investigating samples of students at secondary education schools. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 27(3), 167–179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pmu00 00180 Fiedler, E. D. (1999). Gifted children: The promise of potential/the problems of potential. In V. L. Schwean & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of psychosocial characteristics of exceptional chil- dren (pp. 401–441). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-1- 4757- 5375-2_ 16 Fiske, S., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum model. Ten years later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 231–254). The Guilford Press. Freund–Braier, I. (2009). Persönlichkeitsmerkmale [Personality traits]. In D. H. Rost (Ed.), Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Befunde aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt (2nd, expanded ed., pp. 161–210). Waxmann. Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. Gifted, 152, 5–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3316/ aeipt. 177085 Gagné, F., & McPherson, G. E. (2016). Analyzing musical prodigiousness using Gagné’s integrative model of talent development. In G. E. McPherson (Ed.), Musical prodigies: Interpretations from psychology, education, musicology and ethnomusicology (pp. 3–114). Oxford University Press. Gallagher, J. J. (1990). The public and professional perception of the emotional status of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(3), 202–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01623 53290 01300 302 Galloway, B., & Porath, M. (1997). Parent and teacher views of gifted children’s social abilities. Roeper Review, 20(2), 118–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02783 19970 95538 72 Geake, J. G., & Gross, M. U. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect toward academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00169 86208 319704 Gembris, H., & Bullerjahn, C. (2019). Die Paderborner Studie zum Bundeswettbewerb “Jugend musi- ziert” 2017: Die Teilnehmenden und ihr sozioökonomischer und familiärer Hintergrund [The Paderborn study on the 2017 German national competition “Jugend musiziert”: Participants and their socioeconomic and family backgrounds]. In H. Gembris, J. Menze, & A. Heye (Eds.), Jugend musiziert. Musikkulturelle Vielfalt im Diskurs (Schriften des Instituts für Begabungsforschung in der Musik (IBFM), Vol. 12, pp. 31–64). LIT. Gnas, J., Müllensiefen, D., & Preckel, F. (2020). Was denken Musikschullehrkräfte über musikalisch hochbegabte Schülerinnen und Schüler? Eine experimentelle Untersuchung [What do music school teachers think about musically gifted students? An experimental investigation]. Beiträge Empirischer Musikpädagogik, 11, 1–33. Gordon, F. (2015). Robert Schumann’s mental illnesses. (Genius and madness), by Mlle Dr Pascal (1908a). History of Psychiatry, 26(3), 359–371. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09571 54X15 589457 Greenberg, D. M., Müllensiefen, D., Lamb, M. E., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2015). Personality predicts musical sophistication. Journal of Research in Personality, 58, 154–158. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrp. 2015. 06. 002 Greenburg, M., & MacGregor, B. (1966). Correlation of musical talents and behavioral traits in elemen- tary school children. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 7, 24–33. Gross, M. U. (1998). The “me” behind the mask: Intellectually gifted students and the search for identity. Roeper Review, 20(3), 167–174. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02783 19980 95538 85 Hachfeld, A., Schroeder, S., Anders, Y., Hahn, A., & Kunter, M. (2012). Multikulturelle Überzeugungen. Herkunft oder Überzeugung? Welche Rolle spielen der Migrationshintergrund und multikulturelle Überzeugungen für das Unterrichten von Kindern mit Migrationshintergrund? [Multicultural beliefs. Origin or conviction? What role do immigrant background and multicultural beliefs play in teaching children with immigrant backgrounds?]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 26(2), 101–120. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1024/ 1010- 0652/ a0000 64 Hallam, S. (2010). The power of music. Its impact on the intellectual, social, and personal development of children and young people. International Journal of Music Education, 28(3), 269–289. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02557 61410 370658 Hallam, S. (2018). Entwicklungsphasen [Development phases]. In M. Dartsch, J. Knigge, A. Niessen, F. Platz, & C. Stöger (Eds.), Handbuch Musikpädagogik. Grundlagen—Forschung—Diskurse (pp. 101–112). Waxmann. Haynes, W. (2013). Benjamini–Hochberg method. In W. Dubitzky, O. Wolkenhauer, K.-H. Cho, & H. Yokota (Eds.), Encyclopedia of systems biology (p. 78). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-1- 4419- 9863-7_ 1215 Heckman, J. J. (1990). Varieties of selection bias. The American Economic Review, 80(2), 313–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/pmu0000180 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5375-2_16 https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.177085 https://doi.org/10.3316/aeipt.177085 https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300302 https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300302 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199709553872 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319704 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319704 https://doi.org/10.1177/0957154X15589457 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.06.002 https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553885 https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000064 https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410370658 https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761410370658 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9863-7_1215 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9863-7_1215 1038 L. Bareiß et al. 1 3 Heckman, J. J. (2010). Selection bias and self-selection. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), Micro- econometrics (pp. 242–266). Palgrave Macmillan. Holling, H., Kanning, U. P., Wittmann, A. J., & Preckel, F. (1999). Hochbegabung: Forschungsergeb- nisse und Fördermöglichkeiten [Giftedness: Research findings and support options]. Hogrefe. Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2), 131–155. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 7957p spr09 02_3 Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books. Kemp, A. E. (1996). The musical temperament. Oxford University Press. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional compe- tence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0032 583 La Motte-Haber, H. de (Ed.). (1996). Handbuch der Musikpsychologie [Handbook of music psychology] (2nd ed.). Laaber. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biom- etrics, 33(1), 159–174. Lee, S. Y., Cramond, B., & Lee, J. (2004). Korean teachers’ attitudes toward academic brilliance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 42–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00169 86204 04800 105 Leiner, D. J. (2021). SoSci Survey (version 3.2.40) [computer software]. https:// www. sosci survey. de Limont, W., Dreszer-Drogorób, J., Bedyńska, S., Śliwińska, K., & Jastrzębska, D. (2014). ‘Old wine in new bottles’? Relationships between overexcitabilities, the Big Five personality traits and giftedness in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 199–204. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2014. 06. 003 Lombroso, C. (1891). The man of genius. Walter Scott. https:// www. guten berg. org/ files/ 50539/ 50539- h/ 50539-h. htm Martin, L. T., Burns, R. M., & Schonlau, M. (2010). Mental disorders among gifted and nongifted youth: A selected review of the epidemiologic literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 31–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00169 86209 352684 Matheis, S., Keller, L. K., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2020). Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student charac- teristics in Australia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213–232. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13598 66X. 2019. 15760 29 Matheis, S., Kronborg, L., Schmitt, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Threat or challenge? Teacher beliefs about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation. Gifted and Talented Interna- tional, 32(2), 134–160. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 15332 276. 2018. 15376 85 McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246–254. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00169 86207 302719 McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 52.1. 81 McPherson, G. E., & Schubert, E. (2022). Enhancing music performance appraisal. In G. E. McPher- son (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of music performance (Vol. 2, pp. 103–134). Oxford Univer- sity Press. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ oxfor dhb/ 97801 90058 869. 013.7 Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193–210. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 46092 67 Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Price Azano, A. (2014). Exploring teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37(3), 245–268. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01623 53214 541326 Morris, S. K. (1987). Student teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 12(2), 112–114. Mõttus, R., Allik, J., Konstabel, K., Kangro, E. M., & Pullmann, H. (2008). Beliefs about the rela- tionships between personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 457–462. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2008. 05. 029 Müllensiefen, D., Gingras, B., Musil, J., & Stewart, L. (2014). The musicality of non-musicians: An index for assessing musical sophistication in the general population. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e89642. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 00896 42 Mund, W. (2007). Jugend forscht und Jugend musiziert: Kognitive Fähigkeiten und Persönlichkeits- merkmale erfolgreicher Teilnehmer [Jugend forscht and Jugend musiziert: Cognitive abilities https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583 https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800105 https://www.soscisurvey.de https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.003 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50539/50539-h/50539-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50539/50539-h/50539-h.htm https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209352684 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029 https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1537685 https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81 https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190058869.013.7 https://doi.org/10.2307/4609267 https://doi.org/10.2307/4609267 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214541326 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.029 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089642 1039 1 3