Perceptions of Musicians: Gender Stereotypes and Social Role Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research reports of consistent gender differences in the selection of musical instruments (i.e. trumpets for boys and flutes for girls). As observed in other domains, social perception research shows comparably negative evaluations of individuals engaged in activities atypical to their gender. The present study investigated college students' evaluations of fictitious male or female musicians playing either a masculine (drum and tuba) or feminine (flute or harp) instrument. Using a semantic differential scale, the 98 students were asked their impressions of each of the four fictitious musicians according to masculine (dominant, leadership, activity), feminine (warm, sensitive, caring), or gender-neutral (adjustment, happiness, success) descriptors. Results showed that female musicians were perceived as more dominant, active, and better leaders than male musicians. Moreover, musicians of feminine instruments were perceived as more caring, warm, sensitive, and better adjusted; but less dominant and prone to leadership than musicians of masculine instruments. Finally, the hypothesised interaction between instrument gender and musician sex was significant. Specifically, males and females were judged equivalently for masculine instruments, but males playing feminine instruments were perceived as less dominant, active, and better leaders than females playing the same instruments. Implications for gender stereotypes and social role theory are discussed, and directions for future research are outlined.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".