Students’ Social Perceptions of Humility and Arrogance Among Band Directors

Participants

Before recruiting participants, I conducted a power analysis using G*Power to determine the minimum required sample size for ensuring statistical power of .80 (Cohen, 1988). Given the intended use of a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with an alpha level of .05 and an effect size of .05, I calculated a minimum sample of 72 participants. A convenience sample of 117 participants volunteered to complete the study, divided between middle school (n = 38), high school (n = 38), and undergraduate (n = 41) band students. ¹ Middle and high school participants were from the same school district in the southwestern United States, and undergraduate students were culled from the author’s academic institution, all within the same midsized suburban city. The average ages were 12.68 years for middle school students (SD = 7.44 months; range = 12–14 years; 57.9% male, 39. 5% female, 2.6% nonbinary), 15.58 years for high school students (SD = 14.12 months; range = 14–18 years; 50.0% female, 50.0% male), and 19.85 years for undergraduates (SD = 14.76 months; range = 18–32 years; 56.1% male, 43.9% female). Self-reported racial-ethnic identities for the full sample of participants were as follows: 54.7% White, 18.8% Latinx and/or Hispanic, 13.7% Multiracial, 8.5% Black and/or African American, 0.9% Asian American, 0.9% Native American, and 0.9% Middle Eastern; 1.7% did not respond. ²

Because of the challenges associated with obtaining parental consent/assent for child participants in public schools, middle and high school participants were entered into a drawing for a $25 gift card incentive (one awarded to each school site). Students were not required to participate in the study to be entered into the drawing. Both the institutional review board and school district approved the study protocol prior to data collection.

Development of the Recording Tool

I composed fictional scripts of brief one-on-one interviews with a humble and an arrogant band director target following their successful performances at a fictitious band festival. This adaptive strategy of using role-playing actors to perform humbly or arrogantly was inspired by recent studies in intellectual humility (Hagá & Olson, 2016) and leader humility (Owens & Hekman, 2016). The composed scripts were based on the literature of humility and arrogance in social and musical settings. For example, the humble director (Mr. Frye) demonstrated nonsuperiority and other-orientedness and acknowledged his room for growth and learning in his interview (Coppola, 2019; Davis et al., 2010; Tangney, 2000). In contrast, the arrogant director (Mr. Stevens) spoke with a degree of grandiosity, self-importance, an inflated self-view, and a desire for credit and prestige in his interview (Coppola, 2019; Leary, 2004; Leary et al., 1997; Roberts & Cleveland, 2017).

First, the scripts were reviewed for content validity by three music education colleagues and one social psychologist specializing in humility research to confirm that they appeared to portray each condition accurately and fairly (i.e., not exaggeratedly). I edited the scripts following their feedback, and two White male music education graduate students recorded several takes of both conditions (the final scripts are available in the supplementary file included with the online version of this article). I specifically elected to use White men as actors to control for problematic judgments of humility toward marginalized groups, particularly women (Code, 1991; Heatherington et al., 1998) and people of color (Collins, 2000; Moon & Sandage, 2019). The actors were directed to avoid adding additional emotion or sounding overly agreeable or unpleasant with either condition, since that may have unduly influenced the participants’ ability to judge the single constructs of humility and arrogance (Landrum et al., 2013). Additionally, I elected to use audio recordings rather than video recordings because while humility and arrogance might be inferred from physical gestures and body language, the targets’ physical characteristics also might have confounded the participants’ overall evaluations.

After selecting the best-quality recording from the two actors’ humble and arrogant conditions, I pilot-tested the resulting four recordings with 26 participants, each of whom was assigned randomly one humble recording and one arrogant recording. They evaluated each recording with a 10-item, brief version of the Musical Humility Scale (MHS-10). This scale was adapted from the MHS-30 (Coppola et al., 2020) by deliberately choosing items that (a) were aligned with the content of the interviews, (b) revealed the strongest factor loadings from previous literature, and (c) struck a balanced proportion of positively and negatively worded items (the MHS-10 is included in the supplementary file included with the online version of this article). Factor loadings for the 10 chosen items ranged from .72 to .94. A high MHS-10 score corresponded with musical humility, and a low MHS score corresponded with musical arrogance, with a possible range of 10 to 50. Both actors’ recordings were rated similarly for Mr. Frye’s humble condition, t(24) = .50, p = .62, and Mr. Stevens’s arrogant condition, t(24) = –.67, p = .95, indicating that (a) the two actors equally embodied each condition and (b) the unique vocal characteristics and inflections of the actors likely did not introduce confounding variables above and beyond the use of a single actor’s voice. Because the use of two different voices was thought to yield a more convincing research protocol than a single voice representing both conditions, Actor 1’s recording was subsequently used for Mr. Frye (humble condition; M_Actor1 = 45.08, SD = 5.20; M_Actor2 = 43.46, SD = 10.50), and Actor 2’s recording was used for Mr. Stevens (arrogant condition; M_Actor1 = 24.00, SD = 10.31; M_Actor2 = 24.23, SD = 7.04). Internal consistency of the MHS-10 was strong for both the resulting humble (Cronbach’s α = .95) and arrogant recordings (α = .93).

Procedure

Within each school site, students from all wind band ensembles (i.e., upper bands and lower bands) were invited to participate in the study. After obtaining permission from the hosting band directors, I met with students at the start of their rehearsal to explain the nature of the study and answer questions. I then provided a link to an online survey, which students accessed using either a school-issued computer or a personal device with headphones. Participants were informed that they would be listening to audio recordings of two fictional band directors, Mr. Frye and Mr. Stevens, and were asked to form an impression of them both (i.e., “Think about what they are typically like as a band director”). The recordings were presented in a counterbalanced way to account for order effects. To maintain continuity with extant literature (i.e., Hagá & Olson, 2016), participants used 4-point scales to rate how much they liked that band director (1 = strongly dislike; 4 = strongly like) and how knowledgeable they perceived them to be (1 = not at all knowledgeable; 4 = very knowledgeable). Next, they completed the MHS-10 to answer the question, “How do you think this band director typically carries himself?” using 5-point scales. Then, after listening to both recordings and completing a memory check to ensure that they tracked each director’s name properly, participants answered by dichotomous choice which band director they hypothetically would prefer to serve as their director. For this final question, data from one middle school student were excluded from analysis because they failed the memory check, resulting in reduced confidence that this participant was stating a preference for their intended band director (n = 116). Finally, in order to detect potential influences that students’ perceptions of competitiveness might have had on these findings, participants also rated the degree to which they viewed their ensemble to be competitive as well as their general feelings about this perceived climate (1 = not at all competitive/strongly dislike it; 4 = highly competitive/strongly like it). Overall, students across all school levels rated their ensembles to be similarly competitive, F(2, 114) = 2.04, p = .14 (M = 2.86, SD = 0.82), and felt similarly positive about this climate, F(2, 114) = .21, p = .81 (M = 3.01, SD = 0.87).

The Aversiveness of Arrogance and the Benefits of Humility

Leary and colleagues (1997) offer three possible justifications surrounding one’s underlying motivations for behaving arrogantly despite its clear social undesirability. First, they argue that someone might engage in veridical egotism if they buy into a personal sense of superiority but fail to recognize that this perception may not be shared by others. Band directors who distinguish themselves according to their accomplishments—perhaps through trophies, awards, and high enrollment numbers—might succumb to veridical egotism if they struggle to keep their sense of self appropriately balanced with the praise and positive reinforcement they receive. Second, a person might attempt to compensate for a lack of confidence or expertise by self-aggrandizing, resulting in displays of defensive egotism. An early-career music teacher, for instance, might self-protectively seek to convince themselves and others that they are more competent and self-assured than they actually feel in order to offset their lack of experience. Finally, strategic egotism can result when a person knowingly alters their self-presentation in an attempt to impress or intimidate others. For example, a band director at a competition might seek to project heightened confidence toward their competitors through their speech, dress, and body language. See Coppola (2020b) for a descriptive account of competitive high school jazz musicians performing strategic egotism through a dramaturgical display of impression management (Goffman, 1959).

Certainly, one’s predilection for responding arrogantly within various social interactions may include several of these motivations simultaneously (Leary et al., 1997). Still, the findings from this study highlight the paradoxical nature of egotism in all its forms: It may be human nature to some degree (Leary, 2004), but nonetheless, it is widely frowned upon. As such, any expected social benefits that might justify a band director’s implicit expression of arrogance—whether manifesting as a defense mechanism against feelings of incompetence (defensive egotism) or a protective tool for positive self-presentation (strategic egotism) or simply emanating from social adulation (veridical egotism)—appear to be empirically unjustified, at least among their students.

Despite the pervasiveness of egotism in human life—virtually everyone has egotistic tendencies, after all (Leary, 2004)—such behaviors can become aversive to relationships with students and colleagues alike. For example, Leary and colleagues (1997) argue that those who regularly succumb to an egotistic mindset might make ill-informed choices, fail to learn from personal mistakes, and ignore sage advice from experts and peers. Furthermore, Paulo Freire (1970/2010) famously argued that arrogant teachers also can reinscribe authoritarian and oppressive tendencies toward their students, often unwittingly. Specific to music education, Allsup (2016) warns of an implicit form of arrogance that may be bound within master–apprentice traditions, pulling music teachers seductively into the role of gatekeeper through an earned induction of power and control. In any form, the presence of egotism within any musical teaching act therefore might be viewed as deeply unethical to our professional ethos.

In relating these findings to the broader humility literature, the importance of practicing humility in music settings extends far beyond a desire for band directors to be viewed as well liked and/or knowledgeable, as desirable as these personal aspirations might be. Most immediately, an ensemble climate rooted in humility can lead to empowered social relationships between teachers and students (Davis et al., 2013), reciprocally resulting in the potential for more meaningful musical experiences (Coppola, 2019). These benefits, in turn, might influence positively students’ social-emotional competencies, character development, and other social skills that might be considered necessary for students’ holistic development (Coppola, 2020a), although further research still is needed in this area. These sociomusical benefits of humility are in addition to those that have been recognized widely by social psychologists but have yet to be specifically investigated in music contexts—for example, better team performance and leadership skills (Owens & Hekman, 2016) and improved cultural sensitivity (Hook et al., 2013).

Fortunately, researchers also conceive of humility as a malleable state rather than a fixed personality trait (Lavelock et al., 2014, 2017; Ruberton et al., 2017), suggesting that humility indeed can be reasonably taught (Lavelock et al., 2014). Although training interventions to promote humility have been successful in psychological counseling (Lavelock et al., 2017), more research is necessary to better understand how humility might be taught and promoted best in educational contexts. Although strategies for developing musical humility among music students have been articulated (Coppola, 2019, 2020a), incisive investigations into how practicing and preservice teachers might develop their own humility should be a complementary goal, as well, as these efforts can both model desirable dispositions for students and improve the social climate of the band program overall.

Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough that judgments of humility and arrogance are rooted inextricably in normative cultural, racial, gendered, and other social expectations. Ostensibly, assumptions regarding what constitutes ethical or prosocial behavior from others easily can reproduce dominant (i.e., White, male, bourgeois) values if not critically examined (see Collins, 2000; hooks, 1994). To this point, Whitcomb and colleagues (2020) quipped, “Humility is exactly what you need, if you’re a White male!” (p. 72, emphasis in original). Kochman (1981) suggested that African Americans are judged for arrogance more harshly than White people who behave in the same manner. Additionally, Collins (2000) argued that women—and Black women in particular— historically have been socialized to carry themselves deferentially, causing righteous displays of self-empowerment to be viewed as acts of arrogance. Such social complexities reinforce the need to operationalize humility as socially constructed. Furthermore, humility is also quite valued in collectivistic cultures, and given the diversity of school music programs throughout the United States, students from diverse backgrounds might assess variously the importance of humility from their cultural standpoint (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, a socially conscious view of humility and arrogance ought to accompany any normative judgment of how a humble (or arrogant) person should look and act, especially as educators actively seek to avoid reinscribing dominant and oppressive narratives.

Limitations and Future Research

Importantly, the two targets presented in this study were presented in a brief and isolated fashion. In everyday life it can be much more difficult to pinpoint whether someone truly possesses humility or arrogance, and expectedly there will be much greater nuance in these perceptions given the typical complexity of social life. Not only is humility subjective (Davis et al., 2011), but people also rarely will behave in an outright humble or arrogant manner throughout all facets of their lives. Therefore, impressions of humility and arrogance in everyday life will be subtler than those found in this controlled study. These findings also must be framed with the recognition that the sample consisted of student volunteers, all of whom were members of their school band. As such, all 117 participants were students of one of six band directors from the various school sites, and this lack of widespread sampling imposes some limits on the overall generalizability of these claims.

Additionally, because humility is context specific, people may be viewed more humbly in some contexts than in others. Especially given the power dynamics that may be perceived between teachers and students, social perceptions of humility or arrogance are particularly context dependent in educational settings. Future research should examine how these social perceptions might manifest similarly or differently among other music educators—for example, choral directors, orchestra directors, jazz band directors, marching band directors, studio teachers, and general music teachers. Exploring these manifestations through various sociomusical interactions (e.g., peer musicians, musicians and audiences) also would be beneficial. This research necessarily should include qualitative perspectives, as well, which would allow for a more nuanced view of humility and arrogance through context-rich lived experiences (e.g., Coppola, 2019, 2020b; Owens & Hekman, 2012).

Moreover, it must be acknowledged that this study relies upon a comparative element in evaluating these two directors, in that students were asked to form impressions of one director relative to another. As evidenced in this study, impressions of humility and arrogance are identified more easily when one director behaves quite differently from another. However, it may be more challenging for a student to detect these behaviors if the differences between two (or more) directors are less discernable or if there is only one band director at a particular school. Additionally, one should keep in mind that as fictional targets, both Mr. Frye and Mr. Stevens were strangers to the participants. In reality, the depth of the teacher–student relationship likely will play a factor in these impressions. For example, a director who is seen generally as arrogant nevertheless might be quite likable among students with whom a strong, long-term relationship has been established previously. Therefore, future research also might examine the humility and arrogance of a band director as perceived by insiders (i.e., students in the band) compared with outsiders (i.e., audiences or external observers).

Finally, recalling that humility contains both interpersonal and intrapersonal traits, the fictional scenarios presented in this study may have fallen short in lending themselves to the full spectrum of possible humble or arrogant behaviors. For example, a brief interview may be insufficient for determining whether the directors genuinely possessed an openness to new ideas, cultures, and worldviews (Hook et al., 2013; Tangney, 2000) or whether they would behave similarly in a classroom context as they did during the interview (which might have been interpreted as a setting in which self-promotion was more socially expected). Whenever possible, future research ought to prioritize longer term social engagements so that the full spectrum of humility and/or arrogance may come to the fore (Kenny, 2004; Meagher et al., 2015).

There are several ways in which this research should be extended. First, recall that humility represents an equilibrium between arrogance and deference. While this study was intended to focus on one side of this binary (humility–arrogance), future research might include the full spectrum of what is actually an arrogance–humility–deference ternary. I elected not to include a listening condition for deference in this study because I was concerned that adding a third condition might lead to participant fatigue, but it would be helpful to understand social perceptions of teachers better across the full spectrum of arrogance, humility, and deference in the future.

As mentioned, future studies that more directly highlight the role of competition in these social perceptions could be informative. For example, while the majority of students stated a preference for the humble director, it is possible that students were responding to their general ability to get along with their teacher (a characteristic that they probably value quite highly) rather than responding to the target’s specific potential for leading them to victory at a competition. To investigate the role of competitiveness more directly, it could be insightful to ask students explicitly to choose the director that they think would help them excel in a competitive situation.

Finally, I reiterate that an incisive examination into how social perceptions of humility and arrogance play out among marginalized populations, such as women and people of color, is both relevant and necessary, as well. While the matter has been explored philosophically (e.g., Code, 1991; Collins, 2000; hooks, 1994; Whitcomb et al., 2020), few researchers have addressed expressly this question from an empirical standpoint. It might be considered an ethical imperative, then, for researchers to continue examining critically the ways in which various social constructs, including humility and arrogance, may be wielded, judged, and upheld as they implicitly serve to either reinscribe or transcend dominant voices and values.