Gay- and Straight-Sounding Auditory Cues Elicit Stereotyping About Teaching Effectiveness

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a “gay-sounding” voice on heterosexual music teachers’ perceptions of music teaching effectiveness. Music teachers across the United States (N = 575) listened to two men between the ages of 18 and 25 years old with stereotypically gay and straight voices, respectively, reading a short paragraph. After hearing each speaker in counterbalanced order, participants rated the likelihood of each speaker’s ability to demonstrate top skills and behaviors associated with effective teaching using a 4-point Likert-type scale. Listeners rated the gay voice higher on measures of maintaining high musical standards and organization; they rated the straight voice higher on measures of leadership, classroom management, and maturity. Strategies to combat these stereotypes are discussed.

Keywords

LGBTQ gay stereotype teaching effectiveness voice

Rule (2017) noted that as a highly social species, humans are wired to make quick assessments about each other with the briefest information. Coining the term “thin-slicing” to describe judgments made via brief observations, Ambady and Rosenthal (1992) reported that determinations made in less than 30 seconds are sometimes quite accurate and often do not differ from those made in 5 minutes. Moreover, these snap judgments can predict evaluations made after months of observation and interaction (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993).

To make sense of the world, people often utilize these assessments to categorize others based on their physical attractiveness, size, gait, gender, or race (Macrae & Quadflieg, 2010). Stereotyping as a result of categorizations is often unconscious and unintentional (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000); however, the extent to which people act on initial assumptions often varies according to context (Macrae & Quadflieg, 2010). Internal reactions to stereotypes may manifest clearly as conscious, explicit bias or may be less evident, as detected in unconscious, implicit bias. To examine how subconscious attitudes may affect social and professional outcomes, many scholars have utilized the Implicit Associations Test (IAT), which measures the strength of association between a target concept and positive/negative attributes. Reported findings in a variety of areas have been alarming. Jackson et al. (2014) uncovered implicit bias against women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, and Zestcott et al. (2016) reported that many health care providers exhibited negative subliminal judgment toward overweight patients, low-income earners, individuals with disabilities, and the gay community. Similarly, scholars have reported that individuals from marginalized groups may have greater difficulty securing employment based on their ethnicity (Rooth, 2010), age (Zaniboni et al., 2019), weight (Agerström & Rooth., 2011; Flint et al., 2016), disability (McDonnall et al., 2019), or sexual orientation (Badgett et al., 2009; Nadler et al., 2014; Rule et al., 2016; Tilcsik, 2011; Weichselbaumer, 2003). Within music education, past studies examining stereotyping based on appearance and demeanor have revealed that external factors can impact people’s perceptions.

In a study examining the effects of physical attractiveness, Wapnick et al. (1998) reported that graduate students and university music faculty rated attractive performers higher than unattractive musicians, even in audio-only conditions, leading to speculation that earlier in life, attractive students may receive more attention than less attractive pupils, resulting in higher achievement. Ryan et al. (2006) found that nonmusicians were particularly susceptible to audiovisual conditions (attractiveness, dress, and stage presence), which affected their ratings of performer effectiveness. In other studies, researchers reported interactions by gender. Ryan and Costa-Giomi (2004) and Ryan et al. (2006) found that although attractive female performers fared better than their less attractive peers, the opposite was true for male performers. Similarly, Ryan et al. (2006) noted that males assigned higher ratings to performers who were well dressed, whereas females did not alter their ratings based on performer attire.

In studies examining perceptions of music teachers, researchers also have observed particular preferences, noting that students often favor conductors who demonstrate high levels of magnitude (varied facial expression and body movement, vocal pitch inflection, and eye contact; Fredrickson, 1992; Price & Winter, 1991; Yarbrough, 1975). Similarly, Montemayor and Silvey (2019) reported that conductor expressivity affected university band students’ perceptions of instructional effectiveness during rehearsal. In studies examining potential bias, VanWeelden (2002) found that female conductors’ posture and facial expression had more impact than body size on undergraduate music majors’ evaluations of ensemble performance, conducting skill, and confidence in the conductor. However, in a study examining racial bias, she reported that undergraduate music majors rated Black conductors’ ensemble performances lower than White conductors’ ensemble performances, even when audio conditions were the same (VanWeelden, 2004).

Music teachers who identify as gay often have feared that stereotypes and biases against the LGBTQ community could threaten their job security; therefore, some have tried to pass as heterosexual (e.g., Natale-Abramo, 2011; Paparo & Sweet, 2014). Although gay men often are assumed to be communal (i.e., warm, empathetic) and highly competent (Barrantes & Eaton, 2018; Burke & LaFrance, 2016), they also are considered less masculine and agentic (i.e., confident, ambitious, dominant) than straight men (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Burke & LaFrance, 2016; Kite & Deaux, 1987; LaMar & Kite, 1998; Madon, 1997). Although communal skills may be seen as a positive asset in teaching settings, lack of masculine agency may be seen as a detriment. In addition to effeminate stereotyping based on gait, style, and fashion (Cox & Devine, 2014, 2015; Johnson et al., 2007; Matthews & Hill, 2011; Shelp, 2002), people often assume that gay men speak with particular affects.

In measures of explicit bias, people often presume that gay men speak with a lisp (Mack, 2010; Panfili, 2011; Piccolo, 2008), prolong the voiceless /s/ sound (Panfili, 2011), and speak in an overall softer, breathier (Piccolo, 2008), and more nasal tone (Mack, 2010) than straight men. Likewise, they often assume that straight men speak at a lower pitch level (Mack, 2010; Panfili, 2011; Piccolo, 2008; Rogers & Smyth, 2003), with less pitch variability (Piccolo, 2008), and with poorer articulation (Mack, 2010; Panfili, 2011; Piccolo, 2008) than gay men. In measures comparing gay and straight men’s actual speech patterns (as opposed to listeners’ perceptions), results have been mixed, with more data refuting stereotypes than those supporting them (Kachel et al., 2018). When Kachel et al. compared listener-based perceptions to speakers’ actual speech patterns, they concluded that differences within gay and straight groups were more evident than differences between groups. Whether gay or straight, men who identified as more masculine exhibited more stereotypically straight vocal qualities, whereas those who identified as more feminine exhibited more stereotypically gay vocal qualities.

Although many linguists have studied speech patterns among gay and straight men, few have investigated how vocal stereotypes might impact professional and social interactions. In an Italian study examining how these stereotypes might impact perceptions in the workplace, Fasoli et al. (2017) found that heterosexual listeners perceived men with stereotypically gay-sounding voices to be less suitable for leadership in CEO positions than men with stereotypically straight-sounding voices. After reading this study, we questioned whether similar biases might be found in music education settings within the United States. Would listeners perceive men with stereotypically gay-sounding voices to be less effective teachers than those with straight-sounding voices? We surmised that attitudes might vary according to various demographic factors because researchers have reported that homonegativity is more prevalent in southern (Barth & Overby, 2003) and rural environments (Rosenkrantz et al., 2017) and that older individuals are less accepting of homosexuality than their younger peers (Walch et al., 2010). In addition, men are more likely than women to embrace more negative views about gay men (e.g., Herek, 2002; Walch et al., 2010). Given the prevalence of men in secondary school band positions and women in elementary and secondary choral positions (Music Educators National Conference, 2001), examining attitudes according to teaching setting also seemed warranted. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a stereotypically gay-sounding and straight-sounding voice, respectively, on heterosexual music teachers’ perceptions of music teaching effectiveness in light of these demographic variables. Research questions were as follows:

Without having any information about a man’s actual sexual orientation, do K–12 music educators perceive differences in teaching effectiveness between men with stereotypically gay- or straight-sounding voices?

If so, are differences predicted by demographic variables, including gender, age, residential location, teaching environment, teaching area, or teaching level?

Theoretical Framework

Heilman’s (1983) lack-of-fit model served as the theoretical framework for our study. According to this model, an individual whose traits are perceived to be inconsistent with their vocational role will be perceived as unqualified for that role and deemed unlikely to succeed. Originally conceived as a means of investigating perceptions of women’s credibility in the workplace, we utilized the same concept to investigate whether men’s voices might affect perceptions of credibility as music teachers. Heilman offered, “The model [has] relevance for any stereotyped group. Assumptions of incompetence or unsuitability for responsible positions are not unique to women” (p. 294). Examples extending this model to other groups include Heilman and Wallen’s (2010) study of bias against men who succeed in professions that violate gender expectations and Stewart and Perlow’s (2001) examination of racial bias in the workplace.

Method

Participants and Procedures

After obtaining institutional review board approval, we distributed email invitations three times to all members in the K–12 divisions of the National Association for Music Education (NAfME) and the Texas Music Educators Association (TMEA) to participate in a Qualtrics-based questionnaire. Because scholars have described heteronormativity as especially stringent in K–12 settings (Grace & Benson, 2000; Pascoe, 2011; Robinson & Davies, 2008), we limited participation to teachers who work in these settings.

Thirty-four percent of the 14,634 NAfME members who received an email invitation to participate opened the email message. From those individuals, 7.67% (n = 1,122) opened the survey link. Of those who initiated the survey, 51% completed it. Although we were unable to ascertain how many TMEA members opened their email invitations, we received 63 completed responses out of 5,070. Because this study is focused on heterosexual teachers’ perceptions of male music teachers, we removed data from participants who identified as LGBTQ (n = 85). To avoid a possible instrumentation threat, we did not ask people to indicate their own sexual orientation until they had completed all perception questions. With these exclusions, 575 music teachers across the United States were included in the final analysis.

All volunteers were asked to be in a quiet environment and to turn up their computer volume for adequate sound production. Participants were informed that they would hear two men between the ages of 18 and 25 years old reading a short paragraph and then would answer questions about these speakers based on their first impressions. The two speakers chosen had the gayest- and straightest-rated voices, respectively, out of 20 voices in a prestudy.¹ The gayest-rated speaker was 22 years old, and the straightest-rated speaker was 20 years old. As individuals with ethnic, regional, or foreign accents may be subject to discrimination (Boucher et al., 2013; Brennan & Brennan, 1981; Giles & Rakić, 2014), we consulted with a panel including one linguistic researcher and two certified music teachers to evaluate any possible differences between the voice samples used in this study. Panel members confirmed that neither voice demonstrated a noticeable regional, ethnic, or foreign accent, nor did the two voices seem to be different from each other in these regards. The differences they observed between voices were consistent with stereotypes of gay and straight speech cues that we sought for this study (i.e., pitch, nasality, vowel elongation, and consonant placement). Speaker order in the present study was counterbalanced to prevent order effects. After hearing each speaker, participants rated the likelihood of each speaker’s ability to demonstrate 11 top skills and behaviors associated with effective teaching (Teachout, 1997) using a 4-point Likert-type scale (very unlikely, unlikely, likely, very likely).² Although this study is the first known use of the instrument, its content validity was established through a three-member panel of experienced LGBTQ researchers in a two-round pilot study. Test–retest reliability was acceptable at .86 (see Figure S1 in the supplementary files included with the online version of this article for the full survey).

At the end of the questionnaire, participants provided their gender, age, sexual orientation, location of teaching residence, teaching environment, teaching level, and teaching area. Gender was a categorical variable with six levels: male, female, transgender female, transgender male, other, and prefer not to answer. Age was a categorical variable according to decade. We coded residential location according to the U.S. Census division, which was a categorical variable with nine levels: Division 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont), Division 2 (New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania ), Division 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin ), Division 4 (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota), Division 5 (Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, District of Columbia, and West Virginia), Division 6 (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee), Division 7 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas), Division 8 (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming ), and Division 9 (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington). Teaching environment was operationalized as three dichotomous variables based on participant response to whether they lived in an urban, a suburban, or a rural environment. Teaching level was a categorical variable with three levels: elementary, middle, and high school. Teaching area was a categorical variable with three levels: band, choir, and orchestra.

Data Analysis

Research Question 1

To address whether there were perceived differences in music teacher effectiveness based on the sound of the men’s voices, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) followed by multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA). EFA is an iterative process used to identify latent variables (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2018). Although all the items on the Music Teaching Effectiveness Scale had content validity, EFA helps to establish construct validity by adding factorial validity to the nomological network. Two EFAs were conducted: one for perceptions of the gay voice and another for perceptions of the straight voice. This ensured that items represented the theoretical construct well in both groups.

Each iteration of EFA includes determining the number of factors to retain, extracting factors, possibly rotating, and then inspecting the solution (Tabachnick & Fiddell, 2017). We used the traditional Kaiser rule as well as modern robust techniques of parallel analysis, acceleration factor, and optimal coordinates to determine the number of factors to retain (Horn, 1965; Kaiser, 1960; Raîche et al., 2013). We extracted factors using principal axis factoring because it supports the theoretical relationship between the latent construct and the items (Kline, 2015).

MGCFA allows a close inspection of the constituent parts of items and the overall variance-covariance matrix. Specifically, items can be deconstructed, such that $X_{g k} = τ_{g k} + λ_{g k} ξ_{g} + δ_{g k}$ and $Σ_{g} = Λ_{g X} Φ_{g} Λ_{g X}' + Θ_{g δ}$ , where subscript $g$ is a group identifier, subscript $k$ is a factor identifier, $X$ is an item score, τ is an intercept, λ is a slope, ξ is a factor score, δ is an item residual, $Σ$ is a variance-covariance matrix of items, $Λ$ is a matrix of pattern/structure coefficients, subscript $X$ is an item identifier, $Φ$ is a matrix of factor disturbances, superscript " indicates matrix transposition, and $Θ$ is a matrix of item residuals. MGCFA directly models measurement error, which is a general advantage of CFA over other procedures of the general linear model. MGCFA also allows a comparison of items across groups based on slopes, intercepts, residuals, and disturbances rather than a simple means comparison. Additionally, MGCFA specifically tests for the goodness of fit of compared models, which honors latent variables rather than making assumptions about them (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000).

Research Question 2

To test the effect of demographic variables on the underlying teaching effectiveness construct, we used factor scores as dependent variables and the demographic variables as dummy-coded independent variables in two multiple regression equations. For example, gender was dummy coded as 0 = female and 1 = male. As results show later, there were just a few participants in the 70-or-older group, so the 60-to-69 and 70-or-older groups were collapsed. Likewise, there were just a few participants who indicated that they live in a multifaceted environment by choosing more than one of rural, suburban, or urban environment choices, so we created three dummy-coded categories (rural, urban, and suburban) and participants were able to exist in more than one category. For example, a participant who indicated they teach in an “urban/suburban” environment had a dummy-coded 1 for urban and a dummy-coded 1 for suburban. Thus, the reference groups for the categorical variables were female gender, from Division 1, age 60 or older, high school teaching level, choir teaching area, and suburban teaching environment.

We used slope coefficients and structure coefficients to interpret effects. Structure coefficients are the proportion of variance explained by a variable compared to the total variance explained, $r_{s} = r / R$ , so it is an effect size measure (Courville & Thompson, 2001; Kraha et al., 2012). One way to determine large effects is to create a bright line for practical significance (Kirk, 1996). Any effect size we found is a measure of risk for biased attitudes, but it is up to the wider scholarly community to determine what is a “practically significant” risk of bias. For this study, we used the word meaningful to refer to effect sizes for variables that are large, relative to the other variables in the analyses. Additionally, we reported a post hoc power analysis in the results to determine the probability of failing to reject a false null hypothesis (false negative). Finally, it is possible to operationalize age of the participant as a continuous variable since this would answer a question about relationship between age and the dependent variable, but this research question is specifically about group differences. Thus, we operationalized age as categorical by decade.

Results

Sample and Participants

Participants identified as female (n = 369) and male (n = 206). Other options, such as transgender female and transgender male were offered, but no respondent identified with these labels. Participants represented the following age categories: 20 to 29 (n = 150), 30 to 39 (n = 180), 40 to 49 (n = 113), 50 to 59 (n = 102), and 60 or older (n = 30). Participants represented all nine of the U.S. Census divisions: Division 1 (n = 30), Division 2 (n = 73), Division 3 (n = 74), Division 4 (n = 73), Division 5 (n = 126), Division 6 (n = 23), Division 7 (n = 67), Division 8 (n = 55), and Division 9 (n = 51). Three participants declined to list their geographical locations. They also indicated that they taught in suburban (n = 262), rural (n = 195), urban (n = 104), urban/rural (n = 3), rural/suburban (n = 4), urban/suburban (n = 6), and urban/suburban/rural (n = 1) schools such that the three categories used for the analysis were rural (n = 203), suburban (n = 273), and urban (n = 114). Among this sample, teaching levels included high school band (n = 51), middle school band (n = 60), high school orchestra (n = 6), middle school orchestra (n = 12), high school choir (n = 36), middle school choir (n = 36), elementary general music (n = 142), a combination of grade levels and areas (n = 186), and other (n = 46).

Data Analysis

Research Question 1

Many rounds of model fitting were required to find the best-fitting model. In the initial solution, all items contributed meaningfully to the overall reliability of this sample. (See Figure S1 in the supplementary files included with the online version of this article for item labels.) Factor retention method statistics were ambiguous, suggesting either a one-, two-, or three-factor model. Oblique and orthogonal rotations were compared for solutions with more than one factor. Based on pattern/structure coefficients and communalities, this initial solution showed that Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 were poor indicators of the theoretical underlying construct. After dropping Items 7 and 4, reliability analysis showed that Item 3 lowered the overall reliability of the sample, so it was dropped. Factor retention methods here showed that either a two- or one-factor solution would be best. However, Items 4, 6, and 9 continued to indicate poor fit. Continuing the iterated process of checking factor solutions, it became apparent that a one-factor model would fit best. Furthermore, Item 2 became problematic and Items 4, 6, and 9 remained poor indicators of the theoretical underlying construct. Thus, the final model was a one-factor solution with five items, which were Items 1, 5, 8, 10, and 11. We named this factor “music teaching effectiveness” because it aligned with the theoretical construct and the findings from the content validity research.

The final, one-factor solution explained 49.2% of the variance in the original correlation matrix for the gay-sounding voice and 60.8% for the straight-sounding voice. Pattern/structure coefficients and communalities are reported in Table S1 (see Table S1 in the supplementary files included with the online version of this article). All items had high pattern/structure coefficients. All communalities were acceptable but were higher for the gay voice.

The confirmatory solution across voice groups had fair to great fit (comparative fit index [CFI] = .972, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = .944, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.11, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = 0.028). All parameter estimates across groups were statistically significant (see Table 1). Measurement invariance procedures revealed that the weak invariant model (with slopes constrained) was not significantly different from the configural model, $χ_{diff}^{2} (4) = 8.38, p = 0.79$ , and that model fit statistics did not change by a meaningful amount ( ${CFI}_{diff} = - 0.002, {TLI}_{diff} = + 0.012, {RMSEA}_{diff} = - 0.013, {SRMR}_{diff} = + 0.013$ ). However, the strong invariant model (with intercepts constrained) was significantly different from the weak invariant model, $χ_{diff}^{2} (4) = 3020.27, p < . 001$ , and model fit statistics changed by a large amount ${CFI}_{diff} = - 0.192, {TLI}_{diff} = + 0.204, {RMSEA}_{diff} = = + 0.135, {SRMR}_{diff} = + 0.078$ ). Further inspection of parameter estimates revealed that the intercepts of all five items were significantly different. Specifically, the straight voice scored statistically significantly higher on Items 1, 8 and 11 (maintains student behavior, mature, leader), and the gay voice scored significantly higher on Items 5 and 10 (organized, high musical standards); (see Figure 1).

Table 1.

MGCFA Parameter Estimates.

Item^a/Factor	Slopes				Variances				Intercepts
	Gay Voice		Straight Voice		Gay Voice		Straight Voice		Gay Voice		Straight Voice
	Est.	95% CI	Est.	95% CI	Est.	95% CI	Est.	95% CI	Est.	95% CI	Est.	95% CI
Item 1	1	[1, 1]	1	[1, 1]	0.31	[0.27, 0.30]	0.21	[0.17, 0.24]	3.38	[3.32, 3.44]	3.92	[3.86, 3.98]
Item 5	0.98	[0.83, 1.13]	0.811	[0.73, 0.90]	0.27	[0.23, 0.32]	0.24	[0.20, 0.28]	3.94	[3.89, 4.00]	3.62	[3.56, 3.68]
Item 8	1.2	[1.05, 1.35]	1.041	[0.95, 1.13]	0.21	[0.17, 0.25]	0.18	[0.14, 0.21]	3.61	[3.55, 3.67]	3.74	[3.68, 3.80]
Item 10	0.97	[0.81, 1.14]	0.839	[0.76, 0.92]	0.25	[0.20, 0.29]	0.18	[0.14, 0.21]	4.01	[3.95, 4.06]	3.88	[3.83, 3.94]
Item 11	1.03	[0.88, 1.18]	0.779	[0.69, 0.87]	0.25	[0.20, 0.31]	0.22	[0.18, 0.26]	3.70	[3.64, 3.76]	4.01	[3.95, 4.06]
MTE	—	—	—	—	0.23	[0.18, 0.29]	0.40	[0.33, 0.47]	0	[0, 0]	0	[0, 0]

Note: MGCFA = multiple group confirmatory factor analysis; Est. = estimate; CI = confidence interval; MTE = music teaching effectiveness (latent factor).

Item 1 = maintain student behavior; Item 5 = be organized; Item 8 = be mature; Item 10 = maintain high musical standards; Item 11 = exhibit leadership skills.

Figure 1.

Music teaching effectiveness for (a) gay voice and (b) straight voice. The slopes were not statistically significantly different across voices, but the mean intercepts (τ) were, making the music teaching effectiveness model weakly invariant. See also Table 2.

Research Question 2

Demographic variables explained 4.3% (gay voice) and 3.4% (straight voice) of variance in the music teaching effectiveness factor score and achieved statistical power of 88.3% and 81.7%, respectively. There were two statistically significant demographic variables in predicting music teaching effectiveness factor scores in the gay voice, including whether the participant was from the Division 7 regional location and whether the participant was in the 20-to-29 age group, which both had negative relationships with teaching effectiveness scores. Division 7 consists of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. All other demographic variables were not statistically significant predictors of the music teaching effectiveness factor score in either group. However, according to their relatively large squared structure coefficients, being from Division 4 explained a lot of variance in the music teaching effectiveness scores for both gay and straight voices. Additionally, being from Division 5 and being age 20 to 29 explained a lot of variance in music teaching effectiveness scores for the gay voice, whereas being from Division 2, being age 30 to 39 or 40 to 49, and being male explained a lot of variance in music teaching effectiveness scores for the straight voice. Parameter estimates for these two models are reported in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Variables Predicting Music Teaching Effectiveness Factor Scores by Voice.

	Straight Voice			Gay Voice
Variable	b	95% CI	$r_{s}^{2}$	b	95% CI	$r_{s}^{2}$
Intercept	−.025	[–.271, .221]	−	−.062	[–.243, .118]	−
Male (ref. female)	−.101	[–.211, .008]	.19**	.028	[–.053, .108]	.003
Age (ref. 60+)
20–29	.005	[–.232, .242]	0	.183*	[.009, .357]	.13**
30–39	−.069	[–.303, .165]	.2**	.117	[–.054, .289]	.007
40–49	.070	[–.174, .314]	.107**	.129	[–.05, .307]	0
50–59	.047	[–.198, .292]	.051	.12	[–.06, .3]	.01
Teaching environment (ref. suburban)
Rural	.016	[–.096, .129]	.029	−.044	[–.126, .038]	.004
Urban	.043	[–.088, .174]	.002	.031	[–.065, .128]	.001
U.S. Census division (ref. Division 1)
2	.109	[–.095, .313]	.177**	−.06	[–.21, .089]	.032
3	.024	[–.155, .202]	.038	−.04	[–.17, .091]	.017
4	.173	[–.016, .361]	.136**	.042	[–.096, .18]	.119**
5	.083	[–.077, .242]	.033	−.017	[–.134, .1]	.366**
6	−.248	[–.583, .087]	.032	−.232	[–.478, .014]	.006
7	.127	[–.063, .316]	.013	−.23*	[–.369, –.091]	.068
8	−.019	[–.218, .18]	.004	−.041	[–.187, .105]	.035
Teaching level (ref. high school)
Elementary	.036	[–.076, .147]	.081	−.03	[–.112, .052]	.005
Middle	.014	[–.097, .125]	.008	−.014	[–.095, .068]	.033
Teaching area (ref. band)
Choir	−.038	[–.157, .081]	.031	−.03	[–.118, .057]	.011
Orchestra	−.023	[–.202, .157]	.02	−.085	[–.216, .047]	.031

Note: b = standardized regression coefficient; CI = confidence interval; $r_{s}^{2}$ = squared structure coefficient; ref = reference group. $R_{gay}^{2} = 0.043$ ; $R_{straight}^{2} = 0.034$ .

Statistically significant at $α = 0.05$ . **Relatively large structure coefficient.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a stereotypically gay voice might engender different perceptions of men’s teaching effectiveness than a stereotypically straight voice, thereby extending Fasoli et al. (2017) from a business environment to teaching. We utilized vocal samples from males who were 20 and 22 years old, respectively, because many individuals in this age range may be working to establish credibility within the field of music education. Utilizing Heilman’s (1983) lack-of-fit model, we found that heterosexual in-service music teachers perceived gay- and straight-sounding voices differentially, favoring each in different categories of music teaching effectiveness. In many ways, our findings align with results in other fields. Congruent with previous research examining perceptions of competence among gay men (Barrantes & Eaton, 2018; Burke & LaFrance, 2016), heterosexual in-service music teachers rated the gay voice higher than the straight voice on measures of maintaining high musical standards and organization. Conversely, consistent with findings reported by Fasoli et al. and stereotypes of gay men lacking masculine agency (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Burke & LaFrance, 2016; Kite & Deaux, 1987; LaMar & Kite 1998; Madon 1997), our participants rated the straight voice higher on measures of leadership, classroom management, and maturity. Although Barth and Overby (2003) reported that homonegativity is most prevalent in the Deep South, outside Division 7 (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas), we did not detect statistically significant negative effects among other southern states. However, listeners who were in the youngest group, ages 20 to 29, were more likely to rate the man with the gay voice as having higher music teaching effectiveness. In contrast to previous researchers who have reported that men are usually more homophobic than women (Herek, 2002; Walch et al., 2010), we did not detect differences by gender, nor did we find differences by teaching area, teaching level, or teaching environment. As men historically have been overrepresented in instrumental teaching positions, whereas women have represented the majority of choral and elementary positions (Delzell, 1993; Kruse et al., 2015; McWilliams, 2003), our findings regarding teaching area and gender seem complementary. For preservice music teachers who might be concerned about entering the male-dominated world of instrumental conducting, our findings provide some evidence that homonegativity may be not any more prevalent in band than in other settings. Further research would be needed to determine if straight male music educators might be less homophobic than men in other fields. Our survey included top skills and behaviors that experienced music teachers identified as most important for success (Teachout, 1997); however, only one of these (maintains high musical standards) could be considered music specific. In fact, of the 40 skills Teachout (1997) reported, only six were particular to music (e.g., piano skills, sight-reading). With the exception of “maintains high music standards,” all others were ranked in the lower half of the list. Future research investigating whether our findings would hold true in other subject areas may be warranted.

Strategies to Combat Stereotyping

Regardless of whether a man’s voice sounds stereotypically gay or straight, people may make both positive and negative assumptions, and these perceptions may be heightened according to the listener’s age and cultural climate. Considering the history of discrimination against the LGBTQ community, young teachers with gay-sounding voices may be particularly concerned about encountering negative biases. Music teacher educators have an opportunity to combat these biases via instructional materials, but sharing information alone may not be sufficient. Scholars have reported that information-based cognitive approaches have limited success in bias reduction (Finlay & Stephan, 2000). Similarly, West (2016) reported that although LGBTQ activism may help promote social and legal inclusion, antigay attitudes might persist. Alternatively, engaging individuals in empathy and perspective-taking activities may induce greater understanding of out-group experiences (Hodson et al., 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). In addition, short-term exposure to admired gay and lesbian individuals may reduce further antigay attitudes and intentions to discriminate (Dasgupta & Rivera, 2008). Inviting successful music teachers with stereotypically gay voices to share their pedagogical expertise may help alleviate unchallenged cultural prejudice. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which these strategies may be successful. Hegemonic cultural associations may require great effort to overcome. Until then, music teacher educators can also provide guidance to help students cope with biases they may encounter in the world at large. No one should bear the burden of changing their voice to assimilate into dominant culture. Rather, highlighting pedagogical strengths would be more appropriate. Suggestions related to our findings offered next could apply for any music teacher who seeks to establish credibility but may be especially important for those concerned about possible bias.

Leadership and Classroom Management

In this study, in-service music teachers rated the stereotypically gay speaker less likely to exhibit leadership skill and manage classroom behaviors than the stereotypically straight speaker. A variety of leadership styles can be effective, depending on students’ backgrounds and teachers’ natural dispositions. If people assume that men with stereotypically gay voices may lack masculine agency but be high in communal skills (Barrantes & Eaton, 2018; Burke & LaFrance, 2016), novice teachers may want to highlight any communal forms of leadership with which they resonate. Stone et al. (2004) described two forms of leadership that share communal traits: Transformational leaders strive to build personal relationships with others to inspire an intellectually stimulating, ethical vision for the organization; servant leaders function in similar ways but with more emphasis on the followers than the organization. The authors explained, “Both transformational leadership and servant leadership emphasize the importance of appreciating and valuing people, listening, mentoring or teaching, and empowering followers. In fact, the theories are probably most similar in their emphasis upon individualized consideration and appreciation of followers” (Stone et al., 2004, p. 354). As Steele (2010) noted, scholars have identified many effective teaching behaviors that are closely symbiotic with servant leadership, such as compassion, positive communication skills, the ability to motivate others, respect, and fairness. She included a quote from Leonard Bernstein (1963) that bears repeating:

The conductor must not only make the orchestra play, he must make them want to play. . . . It is not so much imposing his will on them like a dictator, it is more like projecting his feelings around him so that they reach the last man in the second violin section. (p. 150)

Maturity

In addition to leadership and classroom management, participants in this study rated the gay speaker less likely to be mature compared with the straight speaker. People perceive maturity in a variety of social, cognitive, and physical ways. Young teachers entering the field may relate to pop culture in ways that help build connections with their students yet also may wish to establish boundaries that affirm their role as teacher rather than as a peer. We urge music teacher educators to respect young teachers’ autonomy regarding the ways they choose to present themselves physically. Yet for those students who may express concern about not appearing old enough, Schneider (2017) offers the following strategies: maintain a classic haircut and fashion palette rather than following the trendiest styles, consider a neatly trimmed beard if the jawline lacks definition, cover tattoos and remove piercings, limit cellphone usage, and improve communication skills by omitting verbal fillers (e.g., “like,” “um,” and “uh”). Although these strategies may help improve others’ perceptions of physical maturity, we encourage music teacher educators to help students focus more on social aspects of maturity that will be more impactful on the job. Autonomy and social responsibility are two primary indicators of psychosocial maturity (Greenberger, 1984). Sears et al. (2011) explained,

Autonomy is the individual’s capacity to function on one’s own, displaying the specific characteristics of self-reliance, a positive work orientation, and a clear sense of personal identity. Social responsibility is the individual’s capacity to contribute to a cohesive society, displaying the specific characteristics of social commitment, tolerance of others’ differences, and openness to social and political change. (p. 494)

From these dimensions, we suggest that men concerned about being perceived as mature may alleviate others’ concerns by listening to others respectfully, working positively to solve problems rather than complaining, being punctual, and keeping one’s word.

Organization

In contrast to negative assumptions about leadership and classroom management, participants rated the gay speaker as more organized than the straight speaker. Although this assumption may work in favor of men with stereotypically gay voices, it may work against men with stereotypically straight voices. Teachout (1997) reported that successful music teachers recognize the importance of organizing both musical and procedural tasks to achieve curricular goals; therefore, lesson plans need to be well organized. Teachers who might be concerned about perceptions of their organizational abilities in an interview may want to present portfolio examples of lesson plans that demonstrate a mature understanding of the planning process. Researchers have reported that young teachers often have limited planning skills (Lane, 2006; Schmidt, 2005); therefore, lessons that include specific learning outcomes, viable assessment, logical sequencing, and succinct verbiage might help alleviate some concerns. In addition to musical organization, teachers often need to plan ahead to handle procedural matters (e.g., ordering buses, hotels, and meals for out-of-town trips; reserving performance venues for concerts). By maximizing efficiency, teachers are more likely to have time to hone their vision of musical excellence.

High Musical Standards

Listeners in this study also rated the gay speaker more likely to maintain high musical standards than the straight speaker. Teachers concerned that their musicianship might be questioned may want to highlight their artistry. Strong musicianship and a commitment to high standards can be demonstrated in a variety of ways. High transcript grades in music theory, aural skills, and music history may signal some level of mastery; however, the ability to articulate how these skills inform daily teaching practice likely would be more impactful. For instance, in a discussion of Baroque music, teachers should be able to articulate decisions related to historical practice (e.g., the proper application of note inégales, ornamentation, and instrumentation), theoretical concepts (e.g., suspensions and resolutions related to phrasing), and the ways that they can sequence instruction to help students master these concepts. In addition, teachers who understand varying approaches to ensemble blend and sound concepts can tailor their own teaching to help achieve these timbral goals. Likewise, an understanding of instrumental and vocal technique is crucial not only for technical instruction but also for healthy performance that maximizes students’ potential. Understanding and carrying out these concepts is important, but being able to articulate them to others might be crucial in interview settings.

Conclusion

Given the heteronormative structure of many K–12 school environments (Grace & Benson, 2000; Pascoe, 2011; Robinson & Davies, 2008), men with stereotypically gay voices might be especially vulnerable to possible effects of negative stereotyping. However, music teacher educators should never recommend that men with stereotypically gay voices (or straight voices) try to change their speech patterns. According to Ron Smyth (personal communication, August 10, 2018), a noted scholar frequently cited in studies of stereotypical gay speech patterns (e.g., Smyth et al., 2003), it is almost impossible to adopt a straighter voice due to the many minute and subtle differences that would need to be understood and practiced). Moreover, attempting to change one’s natural speech patterns would take enormous mental and physical energy that should be spent on the art of teaching. Yet, highlighting strengths in particular areas might quell potential concerns among some administrators and colleagues.

Limitations and Further Research

Although we were able to include 575 teachers throughout the United States, overall response was limited to those who opened their email invitations and then proceeded to the survey. Data collected in person, albeit challenging to facilitate nationally, could yield higher response rates. We focused our study on two men’s recorded voices who were 20 and 22, respectively, to capture perceptions listeners might have of men in that age category who might be trying to establish credibility as music teachers in K–12 settings. In-service music teachers served as participants so that we could gauge how they might perceive these men as future colleagues in the field. Future studies using older men’s recorded voices are needed to shed light on how stereotypes might apply for them. In addition, studies including school administrators and parents as listeners could clarify key stakeholders’ perceptions in the educational system. Likewise, including adolescents would help us understand how young people perceive men’s voices. Beyond K–12 settings, studies examining higher education teachers’ perceptions also could help provide a broader picture of possible biases beyond K–12 settings. We acknowledge that the voices in our study represented extreme stereotypes, as determined by a prestudy. Further investigation with men’s voices that are not as extreme is needed to capture a wider range of timbres, and studies with women as recorded speakers could provide insights into possible gender differences. Future research is needed to consider the discriminant validity of our music teaching effectiveness model using multitrait-multimethod analyses in order to control for other factors that might describe the sound of a man’s voice (Brown, 2006; Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Shadish et al., 2003). Nonetheless, the use of a panel of experts to determine content validity is a best practice that provides a trustworthy measure of the sound of a man’s voice (Lissitz & Samuelson, 2007). Additionally, although we were interested in differences in perceptions between the two men’s voices, a more complex analysis, specifically a two-parameter logistic function from an item response theory (IRT) framework, could show differences between the items. Such an IRT analysis may also show similar results to this study using differential-item-functioning procedures (Embretson & Reise, 2000), which could help the wider scholarly community define bright lines for practically significant risk of biased attitude (Kirk, 1996).

Supplemental Material

Figure_S1_Online_Supplement_FINAL – Supplemental material for Gay- and Straight-Sounding Auditory Cues Elicit Stereotyping About Teaching Effectiveness

Supplemental material, Figure_S1_Online_Supplement_FINAL for Gay- and Straight-Sounding Auditory Cues Elicit Stereotyping About Teaching Effectiveness by Donald M. Taylor and Jay S. Raadt in Journal of Research in Music Education

Supplemental Material

Table_S1_Online_Supplement_FINAL – Supplemental material for Gay- and Straight-Sounding Auditory Cues Elicit Stereotyping About Teaching Effectiveness

Supplemental material, Table_S1_Online_Supplement_FINAL for Gay- and Straight-Sounding Auditory Cues Elicit Stereotyping About Teaching Effectiveness by Donald M. Taylor and Jay S. Raadt in Journal of Research in Music Education

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Ron Smyth’s guidance during the planning stages of this study. As one of the most frequently cited linguists on gay speech stereotypes, his expertise was invaluable.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Donald M. Taylor

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article at .

Notes

Author Biographies

Donald M. Taylor is an associate professor of music education at the University of North Texas. His research interests are related to social justice, including LGBTQ+ experiences in music education and teaching students with disabilities.

Jay S. Raadt recently received a PhD from the University of North Texas and is a research consultant with Radical Determinant, LLC. His research interests include mixed-effects regression, structural equation models, and mixing qualitative inquiry with Bayesian inference. His website is www.radicaldeterminant.com and can be found on Twitter .

References

Agerström

Rooth

D. O.

(2011). The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021594

Ambady

Rosenthal

(1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256

Ambady

Rosenthal

(1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431

Badgett

M. V.

Lau

Sears

(2009). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Williams Institute, University of California. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=faculty_publications

Barrantes

R. J.

Eaton

A. A.

(2018). Sexual orientation and leadership suitability: How being a gay man affects perceptions of fit in gender-stereotyped positions. Sex Roles, 79(9/10), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0894-8

Barth

Overby

L. M

. (2003). Are gay men and lesbians in the South the new “threat”? Regional comparisons of the contact theory. Politics & Policy, 31(3), 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2003.tb00157.x

Bernstein

(1963). The joy of music. Simon & Schuster.

Blashill

A. J.

Powlishta

K. K.

(2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue for gender related attributes. Sex Roles, 61(11/12), 783–793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9684-7

Boucher

C. J.

Hammock

G. S.

McLaughlin

S. D.

Henry

K. N.

(2013). Perceptions of competency as a function of accent. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 18(1), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.24839/2164-8204.JN18.1.27

10.

Brennan

E. M.

Brennan

J. S.

(1981). Accent scaling and language attitudes: Reactions to Mexican American English speech. Language and Speech, 24(3), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098102400301

11.

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.

12.

Burke

S. E.

LaFrance

(2016). Lay conceptions of sexual minority groups. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(3), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0655-5

13.

Campbell

D. T.

Fiske

D. W.

(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016

14.

Courville

Thompson

(2001). Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles: β is not enough. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164401612006

15.

Cox

W. T. L.

Devine

P. G.

(2014). Stereotyping to infer group membership creates plausible deniability for prejudice-based aggression. Psychological Science, 25(2), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1177=0956797613501171

16.

Cox

W. T. L.

Devine

P. G.

(2015). Stereotypes possess heterogeneous directionality: A theoretical and empirical exploration of stereotype structure and content. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0122292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122292

17.

Crist

(1997). Duration of onset consonants in gay male stereotyped speech. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4(3), 53–70. http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol4/iss3/4

18.

Dasgupta

Rivera

L. M.

(2008). When social context matters: The influence of long-term contact and short-term exposure to admired outgroup members on implicit attitudes and behavioral intentions. Social Cognition, 26(1), 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.1.112

19.

Delzell

J. K.

(1993). Variables affecting the gender-role stereotyping of high school band teaching positions. Quarterly Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4(5), 77–84.

20.

Embretson

S. E.

Reise

S. P.

(2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Fasoli

Maass

Paladino

M. P.

Sulpizio

(2017). Gay- and lesbian-sounding auditory cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(5), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0

22.

Finlay

K. A.

Stephan

W. G.

(2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720–1737. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x

23.

Flint

S. W.

Čadek

Codreanu

S. C.

Ivić

Zomer

Gomoiu

(2016). Obesity discrimination in the recruitment process: “You’re not hired!” Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 647. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00647

24.

Fredrickson

W. E.

(1992). Research on eye contact with implications for the conductor: A review of literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 11(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/875512339201100106

25.

Giles

Rakić

(2014). Language attitudes: Social determinants and consequences of language variation. In Holtgraves

T. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 11–26). Oxford University Press.

26.

Grace

A. P.

Benson

F. J.

(2000). Using autobiographical queer life narratives of teachers to connect personal, political and pedagogical spaces. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/136031100284830

27.

Greenberger

(1984). Defining psychosocial maturity in adolescence. In Steffen

J. J.

Karoly

(Eds.), Adolescent behavior disorders: Foundations and contemporary concerns (pp. 3–37). Free Press.

28.

Heilman

M. E.

(1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.

29.

Heilman

M. E.

Wallen

A. S

. (2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 664-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.008

30.

Herek

G. M.

(2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39(4), 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552150

31.

Hodson

Choma

B. L.

Costello

(2009). Experiencing Alien-Nation: Effects of a simulation intervention on attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 974–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.010

32.

Horn

J. L.

(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447

33.

Jackson

S. M.

Hillard

A. L.

Schneider

T. R.

(2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5

34.

Johnson

K. L.

Gill

Reichman

Tassinary

L. G.

(2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality: Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.321

35.

Kachel

Simpson

A. P.

Steffens

M. C.

(2018). “Do I sound straight?” Acoustic correlates of actual and perceived sexual orientation and masculinity/femininity in men’s speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(7), 1560–1578. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_jslhr-s-17-0125

36.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116

37.

Kirk

R. E.

(1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 746–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056005002

38.

Kite

M. E.

Deaux

(1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x

39.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed). Guilford Press.

40.

Kraha

Turner

Nimon

Zientek

L. R.

Henson

R. K.

(2012). Tools to support interpreting multiple regression in the face of multicollinearity. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 44. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00044

41.

Kruse

A. J.

Giebelhausen

Shouldice

H. N.

Ramsey

A. L.

(2015). Male and female photographic representation in 50 years of Music Educators Journal. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(4), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414555910

42.

LaMar

Kite

(1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 35(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551932

43.

Lane

J. S.

(2006). An analysis of undergraduate instrumental music education majors’ approaches to score study in varying musical contexts. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/4151343

44.

Lissitz

R. W.

Samuelson

(2007). A suggested change in terminology and emphasis regarding validity and education. Educational Researcher, 36(8), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07311286

45.

Mack

(2010). Perception and identity: Stereotypes of speech and sexual orientation in Puerto Rican Spanish. In Borgonovo

Español-Echevarría

Prévost

(Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 136–147). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/12/paper2412.pdf

46.

Macrae

C. N.

Bodenhausen

G. V.

(2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.93

47.

Macrae

C. N.

Quadflieg

(2010). Perceiving people. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (p. 428–463). Wiley.

48.

Madon

(1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength. Sex Roles, 37(9/10), 663–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02936334

49.

Matthews

Hill

(2011). Gay until proven straight: Perceptions of male interior designers from male practitioner and student perspectives. Journal of Interior Design, 36(3), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2011.01060.x

50.

McDonnall

M. C.

Cmar

J. L.

Antonelli

Markoski

K. M.

(2019). Professionals’ implicit attitudes about the competence of people who are blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113(4), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X19865391

51.

McWilliams

H. J.

(2003). Gender equity issues in the depiction of females in “The Instrumentalist” magazine (August 2000-July 2002) (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin–Madison. http://search.proquest.com/docview/305283344

52.

Montemayor

Silvey

B. A.

(2019). Conductor expressivity affects evaluation of rehearsal instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 67(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419835198

53.

Music Educators National Conference. (2001). Gender trends among MENC music educators. Teaching Music, 8(6), 52–53. http://search.proquest.com/docview/870778

54.

Nadler

J. T.

Lowery

M. R.

Grebinoski

Jones

R. G.

(2014). Aversive discrimination in employment interviews: Reducing effects of sexual orientation bias with accountability. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1(4), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000079

55.

Natale-Abramo

(2011). Sexuality and the construction of music teacher identity. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 188, 38–41. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.202.0051

56.

Panfili

(2011). Vowel duration and perceptions of the gay accent. [Honors Project, Macalester College]. http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/ling_honors/7/

57.

Paparo

Sweet

(2014). Negotiating sexual identity: Experiences of two gay and lesbian preservice music teachers. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 199, 19–37. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.199.0019

58.

Pascoe

C. J.

(2011). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. University of California Press.

59.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504

60.

Piccolo

(2008). Listener-identified phonetic correlates of gay-, lesbian- and straight-sounding speech [Doctoral thesis, University of Hawaii at Manoa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

61.

Price

H. E.

Winter

(1991). Effect of strict and expressive conducting on performances and opinions of eighth-grade band students. Journal of Band Research, 27(1), 30–43.

62.

Raîche

Walls

T. A.

Magis

Riopel

Blais

(2013). Non-graphical solutions for the Cattell’s Scree Test. Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000051

63.

Robinson

Davies

(2008). Docile bodies and heteronormative moral subjects: Constructing the child and sexual knowledge in schooling. Sexuality & Culture, 12(4), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-008-9037-7

64.

Rogers

Smyth

(2003). Phonetic differences between gay- and straight-sounding male speakers of North American English. In 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 1855–1858). http://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2003/p15_1855.html

65.

Rooth

D. O.

(2010). Automatic associations and discrimination in hiring: Real world evidence. Labour Economics, 17(3), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2009.04.005

66.

Rosenkrantz

D. E.

Black

W. W.

Abreu

R. L.

Aleshire

M. E.

Fallin-Bennett

(2017). Health and health care of rural sexual and gender minorities: A systematic review. Stigma and Health, 2(3), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000055

67.

Rule

N. O.

(2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(1), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0779-2

68.

Rule

N. O.

Bjornsdottir

R. T.

Tskhay

K. O.

Ambady

(2016). Subtle perceptions of male sexual orientation influence occupational opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), 1687–1704. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000148

69.

Ryan

Costa-Giomi

(2004). Attractiveness bias in the evaluation of young pianists’ performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345436

70.

Ryan

Wapnick

Lacaille

Darrow

A. A.

(2006). The effects of various physical characteristics of high-level performers on adjudicators’ performance ratings. Psychology of Music, 34(4), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606068106

71.

Schmidt

(2005). Preservice string teachers’ lesson-planning processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345603

72.

Schneider

S. R.

(2017, November). How to look older than you are. Gentleman’s Gazette. https://www.gentlemansgazette.com/how-look-older-than-you-are

73.

Sears

K. L.

Intrieri

R. C.

Papini

D. R.

(2011). Sexual harassment and psychosocial maturity outcomes among young adults recalling their first adolescent work experiences. Sex Roles, 64(7/8), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9928-6

74.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2003). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

75.

Shelp

S. G.

(2002). Gaydar: Visual detection of sexual orientation among gay and straight men. Journal of Homosexuality, 44(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v44n01_01

76.

Smyth

Jacobs

Rogers

(2003). Male voices and perceived sexual orientation: An experimental and theoretical approach. Language in Society, 32(3), 329–350. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404503323024

77.

Steele

N. A.

(2010). Three characteristics of effective teachers. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 28(2), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123310361769

78.

Stewart

Perlow

(2001). Applicant race, job status, and racial attitude as predictors of employment discrimination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011113301301

79.

Stone

A. G.

Russell

R. F.

Patterson

(2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A difference in leader focus. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410538671

80.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2018). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.

81.

Teachout

D. J.

(1997). Preservice and experienced teachers’ opinions of skills and behaviors important to successful music teaching. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345464

82.

Tilcsik

(2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 586–626. https://doi.org/10.1086/661653

83.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002

84.

VanWeelden

(2002). Relationships between perceptions of conducting effectiveness and ensemble performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345820

85.

VanWeelden

(2004). Racially stereotyped music and conductor race: Perceptions of performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 160, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761407074886

86.

Walch

S. E.

Orlosky

P. M.

Sinkkanen

K. A.

Stevens

H. R.

(2010). Demographic and social factors associated with homophobia and fear of AIDS in a community sample. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(2), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360903489135

87.

Wapnick

Mazza

J. K.

Darrow

A. A.

(1998). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage behavior, and dress on violin performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(4), 510–521. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345347

88.

Weichselbaumer

(2003). Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics, 10(6), 629–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-5371(03)00074-5

89.

West

(2016). Jamaica, three years later: Effects of intensified pro-gay activism on severe prejudice against lesbians and gay men. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(9), 1107–1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1221028

90.

Yarbrough

(1975). Effects of magnitude of conductor behavior on students in selected mixed choruses. Journal of Research in Music Education, 23(2), 134–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345286

91.

Zaniboni

Kmicinska

Truxillo

D. M.

Kahn

Paladino

M. P.

Fraccaroli

(2019). Will you still hire me when I am over 50? The effects of implicit and explicit age stereotyping on resume evaluations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1600506

92.

Zestcott

C. A.

Blair

I. V.

Stone

(2016). Examining the presence, consequences, and reduction of implicit bias in health care: a narrative review. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(4), 528–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216642029

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB

0.06 MB