Perceptions of musical ability among a sample of adults in Turkey

Abstract

This study explored how adults in Turkey conceptualize musical ability through a mixed-methods design. Open-ended responses from 1,153 participants were thematically analyzed and categorized into six overarching themes. The most prevalent conceptualization defined musical ability as an innate, divinely inspired “gift from God” and an expression of the soul (32.7%), followed by themes of effort and learning (27.7%), emotional expressiveness (14.9%), privilege and specialness (9.4%), harmony with nature (8.2%), and creative freedom (7.1%). Quantitative analyses revealed significant demographic variations: women more frequently emphasized innate and spiritual qualities, while men highlighted creativity and autonomy; amateur musicians associated ability with emotion, whereas professionals placed less emphasis on this theme. Instrument players stressed discipline and learning, whereas non-players prioritized expressiveness. Regional patterns also emerged (e.g., Mediterranean participants favored spiritual definitions; Southeastern Anatolians highlighted nature-based intuitions). In contrast, perceptions were relatively stable across age, education, occupation, and socioeconomic status (SES), though subgroup trends (e.g., lawyers emphasizing effort) suggested nuanced social influences. These findings support socio-constructivist views of musical ability as both culturally situated and experientially shaped. The study contributes to cross-cultural music psychology by emphasizing the need for culturally responsive pedagogies that acknowledge diverse beliefs, experiences, and developmental trajectories in musical potential.

Keywords

musical ability social perceptions demographic variation content analysis mixed methods

Music is widely recognized as a universal human phenomenon, serving a broad range of social, emotional, and communicative functions across cultures (Brown & Jordania, 2013; Mehr et al., 2019; Savage et al., 2015). As both a cultural artifact and a personal experience, music plays a pivotal role in shaping identity, fostering group cohesion, and facilitating emotional expression (Malloch & Trevarthen, 2018; Savage et al., 2021). These multifaceted functions have generated diverse theoretical frameworks to explain how individuals perceive and develop musical abilities, often shaped by sociocultural contexts (McPherson & Welch, 2018).

Despite the shared importance of music across societies, conceptions of musical ability vary considerably, reflecting different cultural, educational, and aesthetic values (Hallam & Prince, 2003; Jacoby et al., 2024). In Western contexts, the debate has long centered on whether musical ability is primarily innate or acquired through training. Sloboda (2005) and Mosing et al. (2014) emphasize the role of genetic predispositions and deliberate practice, while others propose multifactorial models that highlight cognitive, motivational, and environmental influences (McPherson et al., 2012; Schellenberg & Weiss, 2013). For instance, Hallam (2010b) emphasizes the developmental interaction of formal and informal musical experiences, Shouldice (2019) demonstrates how educational discourse shapes children’s beliefs about musical ability, suggesting that these conceptions are socially constructed and pedagogically reinforced. The notion of musical plasticity further challenges deterministic views, as studies show that musical ability can be developed at any stage of life through structured engagement (Losch et al., 2024).

These findings support a constructivist understanding of musical ability as a dynamic attribute shaped by personal experience, cultural expectations, and social opportunity (Corrigall & Schellenberg, 2015; Zatorre, 2013). Cultural background, in particular, has been shown to influence mental representations of rhythm and pitch, suggesting that even perceptual aspects of music are not entirely universal but socially informed (Jacoby et al., 2024).

In Turkey (Türkiye), musical ability is deeply embedded in cultural narratives shaped by the country’s historical and geographical complexity. Positioned at the crossroads of Eastern, Western, Middle Eastern, and Mediterranean civilizations, Turkey possesses a rich musical heritage that blends multiple traditions and identities (Çiftçi, 2010). This unique positioning has contributed to diverse and sometimes competing conceptions of musical ability—for instance, viewing it either as a divine gift rooted in spiritual traditions or as a cultivated skill emphasized in Western-oriented pedagogies. In the Turkish cultural context, music consumption functions as a means of social distinction, reflecting individuals’ social positions and cultural identities (Rankin & Ergin, 2016). Within the field of music, factors such as socioeconomic status (SES) and education lead to inequalities, affecting access to and participation in music education (Akkol, 2018). These structural disparities not only shape opportunities for musical training but also reinforce beliefs that ability is unequally distributed—either perceived as an innate gift accessible only to privileged groups or as something attainable through education when resources allow. Research on the musical profession highlights the importance of qualities such as patience, discipline, cooperation, and hard work for career success (Güven, 2020).

However, empirical studies exploring how adults in Turkey conceptualize musical ability remain limited. Existing research has predominantly focused on specific subgroups within educational contexts. For instance, studies involving children and adolescents have typically examined developmental aspects of perception and early talent identification (Dursun & Sağer, 2023), while research on university-level music students has emphasized technical aptitude, skill acquisition, and exam-based evaluations (Yilmaz, 2023). While valuable for educational contexts, these studies do not examine musical ability perceptions among the wider adult population—a gap constraining Turkey’s contribution to cross-cultural scholarship on musical identity.

To address this gap, the current study investigates how adults in Turkey conceptualize musical ability, particularly in relation to individual traits and broader sociocultural dynamics. Drawing on mixed-methods research, it explores the demographic and contextual factors—such as gender, age, occupation, education level, SES, region of origin, and instrumental engagement—that may influence conceptions of musical ability. The study aligns with prior research suggesting that perceptions of ability are influenced not only by cognitive or genetic factors but also by cultural narratives, educational access, and social values (McPherson & McCormick, 2006; Shouldice, 2019).

Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research question:

What are the perceptions of musical ability among a sample of adults in Turkey and how do these perceptions vary across different demographic and contextual backgrounds?

This study, therefore, seeks to shed light on these nuanced perceptions, offering a more holistic understanding of musical ability within the complex sociocultural context of contemporary Turkey.

Aim of the research

This study aims to explore perceptions of musical ability among a sample of adults living in Turkey. In line with this objective, it examines how participants’ views on what constitutes musical ability are shaped by individual, social, and experiential factors. Specifically, the study investigates whether these perceptions differ according to demographic characteristics—such as age, gender, education, occupation, region of birth, and region of residence—as well as contextual variables, including participants’ level of musical engagement (professional, amateur, or other) and whether they play a musical instrument. Rather than attempting to redefine musical ability, the study provides descriptive insights into the diversity of conceptualizations within the sample and the ways these may vary across different backgrounds.

Method

This study used a mixed-methods design, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to explore how adults in Turkey perceive musical ability. A relational survey model was applied to examine associations between participants’ perceptions and demographic characteristics without manipulating variables (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Fraenkel et al., 2023). Participants’ open-ended responses were thematically categorized and then converted into numerical codes to allow for descriptive (frequency distributions) and inferential analyses. This approach aligns with explanatory mixed-methods research, where qualitative insights are followed by quantitative interpretation to enhance comparison (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

During the qualitative phase, participants completed the sentence “Musical ability is . . .” to capture their personal definitions (see Perceptions of Musical Ability Questionnaire below for details). Responses were analyzed through content analysis, a widely used method for organizing textual data into themes (e.g., Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Mayring, 2014), following international guidelines (Zhang & Wildemuth, 2017) and the four-stage procedure of coding, categorization, organization, and interpretation (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2011).

Two researchers manually analyzed the data. Both independently coded the responses to identify key meaning units, then compared and reconciled their coding through discussion to develop a shared codebook. This consensus-based approach ensured intercoder reliability and analytical reflexivity (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2023; Schreier, 2012).

Manual coding was preferred due to the nature of the data, which consisted largely of short or culturally specific phrases (e.g., “gift from God,” “emotion”), best interpreted by human coders to preserve contextual meaning.

This approach also allowed for nuanced distinctions between conceptually similar but distinct participant views. For instance, codes related to emotional expression were separated to distinguish between musical ability as a general capacity to convey emotion and the specific act of conveying it through sound and music. Similarly, codes containing references to “hard work” were retained as separate to reflect distinct underlying conceptions: one viewing effort as a component alongside innate talent (“the ear, knowledge, hard work”), and another framing it as the primary basis of a learnable skill (“can be learned, requires effort”). Coding decisions were therefore guided by the holistic meaning of each participant’s response rather than isolated keywords.

After coding, each response was assigned to one of six overarching themes, and labeled with a numerical code for statistical analysis. Frequencies and percentages of each theme were calculated, and cross-tabulations examined their distribution across demographic variables such as age, gender, and educational background. This integration of qualitative and quantitative data provided a comprehensive view of how musical ability is conceptualized among participants.

Participants

Convenience sampling method was employed, in which individuals were invited via online platforms. This technique, which targets readily available and willing participants, is commonly used in online social science research where random sampling is often impractical due to cost or access limitations (Babbie, 2016; Bryman & Bell, 2019).

Participants were invited via a SurveyMonkey link, which was disseminated through various social media platforms (e.g., WhatsApp, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook). Prior to starting the questionnaire, all participants were presented with an informed consent form, which they were required to read and approve in order to proceed. Participation was entirely voluntary.

The survey initially received responses from 1,278 individuals. However, the data were carefully reviewed for quality and completeness. Responses that were incomplete, left questions unanswered, or included irrelevant or logically inconsistent information were excluded. After data cleaning, a total of 1,153 valid responses were retained for statistical analysis.

The study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Yıldız Technical University (approval no. 2023.09, date: 03/09/2023).

Despite the employment of convenience sampling method, the study utilized a substantial and demographically diverse adult sample (N = 1,153), thereby enhancing the descriptive insights. The demographic characteristics of the participants included in the main study are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N = 1,153).

Variable	Group	n	%	Variable	Group	n	%
Gender	Female	787	68.3	Occupation	Academic	52	4.5
Gender	Male	366	31.7		Lawyer	23	2.0
Age	18–25	191	16.5		Not working	52	4.5
	26–35	359	31.1		Finance	36	3.1
	36–45	345	29.9		Engineer	64	5.6
	46–55	170	14.7		Student	114	9.9
	56+	88	7.6		Teacher	461	40.0
Education	Primary School	16	1.4		Health	41	3.6
	High School	84	7.3		Artist	80	6.9
	Associate Degree	47	4.1		Other	230	19.9
	Undergraduate	636	55.2	SES	A	324	28.1
	Postgraduate	370	32.1		B	492	42.7
Region of Birth	Mediterranean	90	7.8		C1	94	8.2
	Eastern Anatolia	94	8.2		C2	217	18.8
	Aegean	93	8.1		D & E	26	2.3
	Southeastern Anatolia	63	5.5	Music involvement	Amateur	612	53.1
	Central Anatolia	173	15.0		Professional	275	23.9
	Black Sea	187	16.2		Other	266	23.1
	Marmara	444	38.5	Instrument playing	Yes	740	64.2
Region of residence	Abroad	9	0.8	Instrument playing	No	413	35.8
	Mediterranean	44	3.8
	Eastern Anatolia	60	5.2
	Aegean	111	9.6
	Southeastern Anatolia	20	1.7
	Central Anatolia	118	10.2
	Black Sea	120	10.4
	Marmara	680	59.0

Note. SES categories correspond to the socioeconomic status scale: A (High), B (Upper-middle), C1 (Middle), C2 (Lower-middle), and D & E (Lower).

The primary sample consisted of 68.3% women. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 65 years, with a mean age of 36.82 years (SD = 11.27). The largest age group was those aged 26–35 years (31.1%), whereas the smallest group comprised participants aged 56 years and above (7.6%). Regarding educational attainment, 55.2% of the participants held an undergraduate degree, whereas only 1.4% had completed primary education. Teaching was the most frequently reported occupation (40.0%), whereas law was the least represented (2.0%). Other notable occupational groups included students (9.9%), engineers (5.6%), artists (6.9%), and individuals not currently employed (4.5%).

An analysis of SES, based on participants’ educational background and occupational status, revealed that Group B (upper-middle SES) was the most prevalent (42.7%), followed by Group A (high SES, 28.1%), Group C2 (18.8%), Group C1 (8.2%), and Groups D & E (lower SES, 2.3%). For detailed definitions of SES groups, please refer to Appendix 1.

In terms of region of birth, the majority of participants were born in the Marmara Region (38.5%), while the smallest group were born abroad (0.8%). Regarding current residence, the Marmara Region again had the highest proportion (59.0%), whereas the Southeastern Anatolia Region had the lowest (1.7%). In relation to participants’ engagement with music, 53.1% identified as amateurs, 23.9% as professionals, and 23.1% reported other (no musical involvement or practical musical engagement) of involvement. Last, 64.2% of the participants reported playing at least one musical instrument, whereas 35.8% stated they did not.

Data collection tools

Within the scope of the research, two complementary data collection tools were utilized. These include the “Personal Information Form” designed by the first author to determine the socio-demographic characteristics and SESs of the participants, and the “Perceptions of Musical Ability Questionnaire,” also developed by the first author to explore how musical ability is perceived among a sample of adults in Turkey.

Personal information form

This form, consists of 10 questions, including inquiries about age, gender, region of birth, region of residence, educational level, occupation, the musical instrument they play best (if any), and their level of musical involvement (e.g., professional, amateur, other).

SES was determined using the Socio-Economic Status Scale developed by the Turkish Researchers Association and updated in 2012 (Türkiye Araştırmacılar Derneği [TÜAD], 2023). To ensure alignment with this classification system, participants’ responses regarding education and occupation from the Personal Information Form were used to assign SES groups (see Appendix 1).

Perceptions of musical ability questionnaire

We developed a questionnaire based on Hallam and Prince’s (2003) “Conceptions of Musical Ability” study, which prompted participants with the open-ended phrase, “Musical ability is . . .”

In the present study, this item was retained as a foundational element but was slightly revised to better align with the study’s aim and enhance clarity for the target population. Specifically, an additional prompt (“What does musical ability mean to you? Please briefly complete the sentence”) was included. This revision aimed to promote deeper engagement in light of the participants’ diverse educational and cultural backgrounds in Turkey.

Analyzing and interpreting the data

Prior to analysis, the dataset was screened for missing or inconsistent entries. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) summarized participants’ demographic characteristics and thematic distributions.

Quantitative analyses were conducted in R (Version 4.5.1; R Core Team, 2025). Chi-square (χ²) tests were used to assess associations between thematic categories and demographic variables, with a significance threshold of p < .05. Effect sizes were calculated using Cramer’s V and interpreted according to Morgan et al. (2011).

Standardized residuals were computed using the vcd package (Meyer et al., 2024) to identify cells contributing most to the observed associations. Residual values exceeding ±2 were considered noteworthy (Agresti, 2002). While the focus was on significant chi-square results, selected non-significant cases were also explored to uncover potential subgroup patterns. This complementary analysis enriched the interpretation of how social, educational, and occupational factors may shape participants’ implicit theories of musical ability.

Results and interpretation

In this section, statistical analyses and interpretations are presented in response to the overarching research question: “What are the perceptions of musical ability among a sample of adults in Turkey, and how do these perceptions vary across different demographic and contextual backgrounds?” In line with this aim, participants’ perceptions of musical ability were first examined in terms of their general distribution and subsequently analyzed to determine whether these perceptions differed significantly based on selected demographic and contextual variables.

A total of 1,278 participants were initially included in the primary sample. It was determined that 1,153 responses (90.2%) met the necessary inclusion criteria (see the “Participants” section for details). Fourteen codes were identified for further analysis based on the responses provided.

Table 2 presents the frequency and percentage distributions of the codes derived from participants’ responses to the question “What is musical ability?” A total of 14 codes were identified, with the most frequently cited being: “innate, a gift, a gift from God” (30.0%; n = 346), “the ear, it’s knowing, it’s working hard” (27.3%; n = 315), and “to convey emotions through sound and music” (12.6%; n = 145). Within the prominent code “the ear, it’s knowing, it’s working hard,” the phrase “the ear” was interpreted as referring both to an innate predisposition (i.e., having a “good ear”) and to a developed skill (i.e., a “trained ear”), since participants frequently invoked it alongside themes of learning and effort. These codes were subsequently grouped into six overarching themes based on their semantic and conceptual similarities, as shown in Table 3.

Table 2.

Frequency Distributions and Percentage Values of Codes Related to Participants’ Views on What “Musical Ability is . . .” (n = 1,153).

Musical ability is . . .	n	%
privilege, special and to be special (Code 1)	108	9.4
harmony with nature, with life (Code 2)	12	1.0
innate, a gift, a gift from God (Code 3)	346	30.0
to be able to convey emotions (Code 4)	26	2.3
universality, being able to connect (Code 5)	32	2.8
life itself, it’s feeling (Code 6)	83	7.2
the ear, it’s knowing, it’s working hard (Code 7)	315	27.3
to feel the music (Code 8)	1	0.1
to become one with music (Code 9)	3	0.3
something that can be learned, requires effort and hard work (Code 10)	4	0.3
freedom, to know and find oneself (Code 11)	10	0.9
spirituality, the self-expression of the soul (Code 12)	31	2.7
to convey emotions through sound and music (Code 13)	145	12.6
intelligence, creativity (Code 14)	37	3.2
Total	1,153	100.0

Table 3.

Main Themes Formed Regarding Participants’ Views on “What Musical Ability is . . .”.

Codes	Main themes
privilege, special and to be special (Code 1)	Privilege, exclusivity, and being special
harmony with nature, with life (Code 2)	Feeling in harmony with nature and life
life itself, it’s feeling (Code 6)	Feeling in harmony with nature and life
innate, a gift, a gift from God (Code 3)	Innate, a gift from God, and an expression of the soul itself
spirituality, the self-expression of the soul (Code 12)
to be able to convey emotions (Code 4)	To be able to convey emotions through sound and music
to feel the music (Code 8)
to convey emotions through sound and music (Code 13)
universality, being able to connect (Code 5)	To be able to connect with music, to have a free, creative mind
to become one with music (Code 9)
freedom, to know and find oneself (Code 11)
intelligence, creativity (Code 14)
the ear, it’s knowing, it’s working hard (Code 7)	To know, learn and work hard
something that can be learned, requires effort and hard work (Code 10)	To know, learn and work hard

Table 4 presents the frequency distributions and percentage values of the themes derived from participants’ views on what musical ability is. The most prominent theme defines musical ability as innate, a gift from God, and an expression of the soul (32.7%; n = 377). This is followed by the themes of knowing, learning, and working hard (27.7%; n = 319), being able to convey emotions through sound and music (14.9%; n = 172), privilege, exclusivity, and being special (9.4%; n = 108), feeling in harmony with nature and life (8.2%; n = 95), and connecting with music and having a free, creative mind (7.1%; n = 82).

Table 4.

Frequency Distributions and Percentage Values of Themes Regarding Participants’ Views on “What Musical Ability is . . .” (n = 1,153).

Musical ability is . . .	n	%
Privilege, exclusivity and being special (1)	108	9.4
Feeling in harmony with nature and life (2)	95	8.2
Innate, a gift from God, and an expression of the soul itself (3)	377	32.7
To convey emotions through sound and music (4)	172	14.9
To be able to connect with music, to have a free, creative mind (5)	82	7.1
To know, learn and work hard (6)	319	27.7
Total	1,153	100.0

Following the thematic analysis, representative participant quotations were identified to enrich interpretation. Selected examples illustrating each theme are provided in Appendix 2.

Subsequent analyses examined whether participants’ perceptions of musical ability significantly differed according to various demographic variables. These results are presented below.

Table 5 shows that gender was significantly associated with participants’ views on what constitutes musical ability, χ²(5) = 15.54, p = .008. Although the effect size was small (Cramer’s V = 0.116), notable differences emerged in the distribution of specific themes across gender groups. According to the standardized residual analysis (Appendix 3):

Theme 3, which conceptualizes musical ability as innate, a gift from God, and an expression of the soul itself, was more frequently endorsed by female participants (+2.65), and significantly less so by male participants (–2.65). This suggests that women in the sample were more inclined to view musical ability as something inherent or spiritually bestowed.

Theme 5, which links musical ability to being able to connect with music and to having a free, creative mind, displayed an inverse pattern: it was considerably more endorsed by male participants (+ 3.19) and underrepresented among females (–3.19). This may reflect gendered tendencies in associating creativity with musical ability.

The remaining themes (1, 2, 4, and 6) did not yield residuals above ±2.0, indicating no statistically significant deviations. However, Theme 1 (privilege/specialness) showed a mild positive trend among female participants (+0.71), and Theme 6 (effort/learning) was slightly more endorsed by males (+0.95), though these differences remained below interpretative thresholds.

Overall, these findings indicate that while most gender-based differences in perceptions of musical ability were modest, women tended to emphasize innate and spiritual traits, whereas men were more likely to highlight creativity and autonomy.

Table 5.

Comparison of Participants’ Views on “What Musical Ability is . . .” According to Gender (n = 1,153).

Variable		Gender
Variable	n	Female	Male	χ²	p
Musical ability is . . .
Privilege/Special (1)	108	77	31	15.54	.008**
Harmony with nature (2)	95	63	32
Innate/Divine Gift (3)	377	277	100
Emotional Expression (4)	172	116	56
Creative Freedom (5)	82	43	39
Effort and Learning (6)	319	211	108
Total	1,153	787	366

p < .01.

Table 6 shows a significant association between participants’ region of residence and their conceptualizations of musical ability, χ²(30) = 55.79, p = .003. Although the effect size was small (Cramer’s V = 0.099), the standardized residual analysis revealed distinct regional patterns (Appendix 4).

Theme 1 (privilege or special gift) was more commonly endorsed by participants from the Black Sea (+2.90) and Central Anatolia (+1.65), and underrepresented in Southeastern Anatolia (–1.45), Aegean (–1.16), and Eastern Anatolia (–1.19).

Theme 2 (feeling in harmony with nature and life) stood out in Southeastern Anatolia (+2.75), suggesting a regional inclination toward embodied and spiritual interpretations. It was less prominent in the Black Sea (–1.36) and Marmara (–0.66) regions.

Theme 3 (innate or divine gift) was strongly endorsed in the Mediterranean (+3.81) and Eastern Anatolia (+1.52), but less frequently cited in Central Anatolia (–2.61) and Southeastern Anatolia (–0.74).

Theme 4 (expressing emotions through music) showed a mild positive trend in Marmara (+1.10) and was less prevalent in the Mediterranean (–1.97) and Eastern Anatolia (–1.47).

Theme 5 (creative freedom and intelligence) exhibited no major regional differences. Slightly higher values were observed in Black Sea (+1.30) and Central Anatolia (+0.61), though these remained below the interpretative threshold.

Theme 6 (effort and learning) was relatively stable across regions, with no residuals exceeding ±1.55—indicating broad consensus regardless of geographic location.

Overall, while regional differences were modest, the patterns observed reflect culturally nuanced understandings of musical ability, ranging from spiritual and intuitive interpretations to effort-based and expressive views.

Table 6.

Comparison of Participants’ Views on “What Musical Ability is . . .” According to Region of Residence (n = 1,153).

Variable		Region of residence
Variable	n	Mediterranean	Eastern Anatolia	Aegean	Southeastern Anatolia	Central Anatolia	Black Sea	Marmara	χ²	p
Musical ability is . . .
Privilege/Special (1)	108	4	3	7	0	16	20	58	55.79	.003**
Harmony with nature (2)	95	2	6	11	5	12	6	53
Innate/Divine Gift (3)	377	26	25	33	5	26	41	221
Emotional Expression (4)	172	2	5	17	3	22	15	108
Creative Freedom (5)	82	3	2	6	1	10	12	48
Effort and Learning (6)	319	7	19	37	6	32	26	192
Total	1,153	44	60	111	20	118	120	680

p < .01.

Table 7 shows a statistically significant association between participants’ instrument playing status and their conceptualizations of musical ability, χ²(5) = 11.11, p = .049. Although the effect size was small (Cramer’s V = 0.098), certain theme-based differences emerged (Appendix 5):

Theme 2 (feeling in harmony with nature and life) was more frequently endorsed by participants who played an instrument (+2.02) and less frequently by non-players (–2.02), suggesting that those with instrumental experience were more inclined to view musical ability as a natural and embodied connection to the world.

Theme 4 (to be able to convey emotions through sound and music) showed the opposite trend: it was more commonly endorsed by non-instrumental participants (+2.14), and less so by instrumental ones (–2.14). This indicates that individuals without instrumental practice tended to prioritize the expressive aspects of musical ability.

Theme 6 (to know, learn and work hard) showed a mild positive trend among instrument players (+ 1.82) and a corresponding dip among non-players (–1.82). Although these residuals did not surpass the standard interpretive threshold (±2.0), they may indicate a tendency among musicians to associate musical ability with sustained practice and discipline.

Taken together, these findings highlight experiential differences in how musical ability is understood, suggesting that active musical engagement may foster more intuitive and effort-based conceptions of ability.

Table 7.

Comparison of Participants’ Views on “What Musical Ability is . . .” According to Instrument Playing (n = 1,153).

Variable		Instrument playing
Variable	n	Yes	No	χ²	p
Musical ability is . . .
Privilege/Special (1)	108	67	41	11.11	.049*
Harmony with nature (2)	95	70	25
Innate/Divine Gift (3)	377	238	139
Emotional Expression (4)	172	98	74
Creative Freedom (5)	82	49	33
Effort and Learning (6)	319	218	101
Total	1,153	740	413

p < .05.

Table 8 presents participants’ conceptualizations of musical ability according to their level of musical involvement (amateur, professional, or other). A statistically significant association was observed, χ²(10) = 27.02, p < .01, with a small to moderate effect size (Cramer’s V = 0.11). Standardized residual analysis (Appendix 6) revealed the following patterns:

Theme 2 (feeling in harmony with nature and life) was particularly endorsed by amateur (+ 1.84) and professional participants (+1.09), but significantly underrepresented among the “other” group (–3.28), indicating that those with less direct musical engagement were less likely to adopt this interpretation.

Theme 3 (innate or divine gift) was significantly less emphasized by amateurs (–2.03), while showing a moderate increase among professionals (+1.49).

Theme 4 (emotional expression) was notably overrepresented among amateurs (+2.44) and underrepresented among professionals (–2.14), suggesting differing priorities in how ability is valued depending on involvement level.

Theme 5 (creative freedom) showed lower endorsement among professionals (–2.30) and a slight increase in the “other” group (+1.65).

Residuals for Themes 1 (privilege, exclusivity, and being special) and 6 (to know, learn, and work hard) remained within ±2.0, indicating no statistically meaningful deviations, though minor trends were noted.

Table 8.

Comparison of Participants’ Views on “What Musical Ability is . . .” According to Music Involvement (n = 1,153).

Variable		Music involvement
Variable	n	Amateur	Professional	Other	χ²	p
Musical ability is . . .
Privilege/Special (1)	108	53	24	31	27.02	.003**
Harmony with nature (2)	95	59	27	9
Innate/Divine Gift (3)	377	184	100	93
Emotional Expression (4)	172	106	30	36
Creative Freedom (5)	82	46	11	25
Effort and Learning (6)	319	164	83	72
Total	1,153	612	275	266

p < .01.

In contrast, no statistically significant associations were found between conceptualizations of musical ability and other demographic variables: age, occupation, educational attainment, SES, and region of birth (all p > .05).

These results suggest that participants’ views on musical ability were relatively stable across these background characteristics.

However, standardized residual analysis revealed subgroup-specific tendencies:

Education: Participants with associate degrees overemphasized Theme 2 (feeling in harmony with nature and life) (+2.24), while those with only primary education significantly under-emphasized Theme 6 (–2.49), pointing to differing interpretations of musical ability based on educational background (Appendices 7 and 8).

Occupation: Lawyers notably emphasized Theme 6 (to know, learn, and work hard) (+2.65), aligning musical ability with structured effort. In contrast, non-working participants under-emphasized Theme 2 (–2.21), reflecting a reduced tendency to define ability in intuitive or embodied terms (Appendices 9 and 10).

Together, these findings suggest that while broader demographic variables showed no significant effects, specific social and educational roles may subtly shape individuals’ implicit theories of musical ability.

Discussion

This study explored how adults in Turkey conceptualize musical ability, revealing a range of perspectives that reflect both innate and developmental views. Some participants described ability as a divine gift or natural ability, whereas others emphasized learning, effort, and emotional expression—suggesting a multidimensional perception shaped by both essentialist and constructivist assumptions.

The most frequently endorsed view portrayed musical ability as innate or spiritual, consistent with research framing music as a spiritually embedded human function (Brown & Jordania, 2013; Mehr et al., 2019). At the same time, many participants highlighted the importance of practice and experience. This duality resonates with Hallam’s (2010a) integrated model and Sloboda’s (2005) emphasis on environmental influences.

Gender differences emerged: women tended to associate ability with innate or divine origins, whereas men emphasized creativity, autonomy, and effort. These findings may reflect broader cultural narratives linking gender to emotionality and self-expression.

Musical engagement also shaped beliefs. Amateur musicians were more likely to link ability to emotional expressiveness, whereas professionals placed less emphasis on this theme. Instrumentalists highlighted effort and discipline, whereas non-players prioritized emotional qualities. This distinction underscores the value of informal engagement such as singing or listening, which may foster expressive conceptions of ability even outside formal training. Indeed, the divergence between different levels of musical engagement is a key finding. While amateurs championed emotional and intuitive definitions of ability, professionals significantly distanced themselves from these same notions, particularly emotional expression and creative freedom. This suggests that as musical engagement becomes professionalized, perceptions of ability may shift from expressive qualities toward more disciplined or technical aspects.

While variables like age, SES, education, and occupation did not show strong statistical associations, standardized residual analysis revealed important subgroup differences. For education, participants with associate degrees more often endorsed intuitive or nature-based views. In contrast, those with primary education, while significantly under-emphasizing the theme effort and learning, showed their strongest positive tendency toward perceiving ability as an innate or divine gift. Regarding occupation, lawyers favored structured knowledge and discipline, whereas unemployed participants—though less inclined to use intuitive or embodied terms—showed a strong inclination to define musical ability as an innate or divine gift. These patterns suggest that social roles and educational background subtly influence musical beliefs.

Regionally, Mediterranean participants more frequently described musical ability as innate or spiritual, whereas those from Southeastern Anatolia highlighted harmony with nature and intuition. While the scope of the current study does not permit a deep analysis of the specific historical or social factors driving these regional distinctions, the emergence of such clear patterns is itself a significant finding. It underscores that conceptions of musical ability are not monolithic even within a single country, but instead are shaped by nuanced, localized cultural narratives. This aligns with Hallam’s (2010a) broader argument about the role of cultural background and suggest a valuable direction for future research focusing on intra-cultural variations in musical beliefs.

Findings align with previous research showing that beliefs about musical talent are shaped by social and educational contexts (e.g., Shouldice, 2019), and support the socio-constructivist perspective that motivation and identity guide musical development (McPherson et al., 2012). For example, in our data, connection with music and creative freedom (Theme 5) was linked to two distinct demographic patterns. It was significantly more endorsed by male participants than by female participants. Separately, it was also more strongly endorsed by participants with non-professional musical engagement (amateurs and the “other” group), whereas professionals significantly under-emphasized this theme. Together, these patterns suggest that creative freedom may reflect broader notions of individual freedom shaped by both gender and the degree of musical professionalization, consistent with socially mediated identity constructs.

These results echo socio-constructivist models suggesting that even informal musical interaction supports expressive and flexible understandings of ability. However, experience alone does not explain all variation. Mosing et al. (2024) show that both musical ability and motivation have heritable components. Schellenberg and Weiss (2013) offer a model in which innate and learned factors interact. Neuroscientific studies also demonstrate brain changes following training, moderated by individual differences (Herholz & Zatorre, 2012). Jacoby et al. (2024) add that rhythmic cognition reflects both universal and culturally learned elements.

Altogether, these perspectives suggest that musical ability is shaped by the interplay of cultural, psychological, and neurophysiological factors. Losch et al. (2024), for example, found that older adults with no prior training could still develop musical skills as part of their broader musical ability, highlighting brain plasticity and the role of motivation and opportunity throughout life. McPherson and Williamon (2016) similarly emphasize that musical growth is lifelong, influenced by commitment, sociocultural context, and self-perception.

Corrigall and Schellenberg (2015) note that personality traits, especially openness to experience, predict musical training depth, independent of socioeconomic factors. In Turkey, where access to formal education often depends on family resources, such personality–environment interactions may shape perceptions of ability in meaningful ways.

The study’s findings also reflect the broader impact of cultural and socioeconomic contexts in Turkey. The cultural landscape is shaped by the widespread accessibility of popular music (Çiftçi, 2010) and significant inequalities in formal music education access (Akkol, 2018), which together create a complex environment for how ability is perceived. This context is further illuminated by Güven’s (2020) research with Turkish musicians; as Güven’s interviewees noted, technical mastery is often equated with talent in public discourse, while stylistic creativity is overlooked. This provides a compelling explanation for our results, where themes of “effort and learning” (27.7%) were far more prevalent than those of “creative freedom” (7.1%). Similarly, Rankin and Ergin (2016) show that cultural consumption in Turkey is stratified by education and religiosity. Their framework helps contextualize the prominence of the “innate or divine gift” theme (32.7%) in our study, as this view may resonate more strongly with the religious and local-oriented cultural segments they identify. Together, these studies reinforce the notion that the perceptions of musical ability found in our study are not arbitrary, but are deeply intertwined with educational access, market values, and broader cultural divisions in Turkey.

Although this study provides valuable insight, its reliance on self-reported data limits the objective assessment of ability. Future research could integrate perceptual or performance-based measures, such as auditory discrimination tasks, to validate participants’ views.

Educationally, the findings support the value of equitable, culturally responsive music education. Hallam and Prince (2003) and Hallam (2010a, 2010b) argue that teaching should extend beyond technical skills to embrace broader musicality. Informal engagement, like singing or listening, may nurture self-efficacy and inclusive conceptions of ability, particularly for those outside institutional settings.

Teacher beliefs are central to this process. Shouldice (2019) found that many pre-service music teachers held fixed ideas about talent, which can reinforce exclusion. In contexts like Turkey, where essentialist views of ability as an innate gift are prevalent, it is essential to promote growth-oriented approaches that value learning and accessibility. Challenging essentialist assumptions can empower learners who might otherwise be discouraged.

This view aligns with Suzuki’s (1983) “mother tongue” approach, which frames musical development as a socially grounded process akin to language learning. In this study, participants involved in informal music-making, especially amateur musicians, often expressed more flexible and reflective beliefs. Informal experiences may thus shape inclusive definitions of musical ability.

Self-efficacy again emerges as a pivotal factor. McPherson and McCormick (2006) showed that students with strong self-beliefs persisted regardless of performance level. Especially in contexts with limited formal access, community-based musical opportunities can build confidence, motivation, and a sense of musical identity.

Finally, the dual framing of ability—as both innate and acquired—echoes Hallam’s (2010a) view that contemporary conceptions are multidimensional and context-dependent. Musical ability, rather than being universally defined, appears socially constructed—shaped by personal experience, culture, access, and prevailing values. Recognizing and embracing this diversity is vital for both future research and inclusive pedagogy.

Conclusion

This study provides a culturally embedded and multidimensional perspective on how musical ability is perceived among adults in Turkey. Rather than treating musical ability as a fixed or purely innate trait, participants defined it in terms of spiritual depth, emotional expression, effort, and learning. These perceptions reflected not only individual experiences, but also broader cultural, social, and regional influences.

The findings suggest a dual perception of musical ability in Turkey: while frequently described in essentialist terms as an innate or spiritual gift, it is also broadly understood as a capacity that can be cultivated over time through effort, motivation, and learning. Such views challenge essentialist notions of ability and highlight the significance of contextual and sociocultural factors in shaping how musical potential is recognized and valued.

This dual contribution strengthens the relevance of current frameworks and broadens their applicability by incorporating insights from an underrepresented adult population in the global music education literature.

Moreover, this study addresses a notable gap in the literature by offering one of the first large-scale empirical explorations of musical ability perceptions among adults in Turkey, a demographic that has remained largely underrepresented in music psychology research. The results emphasize the importance of examining how cultural narratives, educational access, and lived musical experiences interact to shape individuals’ beliefs about ability.

These insights offer important implications for music education practices. Approaches that embrace cultural diversity, recognize multiple pathways to musical development, and foster self-efficacy may help build more inclusive and responsive learning environments. In particular, efforts to shift teacher beliefs from essentialist to growth-oriented conceptions of musical ability could empower a broader range of learners.

Future research could benefit from integrating performance-based or longitudinal methods to examine how individuals’ self-perceptions align with actual musical engagement and progress over time. Comparative studies across different cultural and educational contexts would also enrich our understanding of how musical potential is socially constructed and differentially valued.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

Appendix 7

Appendix 8

Appendix 9

Appendix 10 Acknowledgements

The authors thank all participants for their valuable contributions and colleagues who supported the data collection and interpretation phases of this study.

Authors’ note

This article is based on a section of the first author’s PhD dissertation, conducted under the supervision of the second author. The data were re-analyzed and extended for the purposes of the present manuscript. Turan Sağer is currently affiliated with Alanya University, Antalya, Türkiye.

ORCID iDs

Yusuf Dursun

Turan Sağer

Funding

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

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions and the need to protect participant confidentiality.

References

Agresti

(2002). Categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Akkol

M. L.

(2018). Türkiye’deki müzik eğitiminde toplumsal ve ekonomik statüye dayalı eşitsizlikler [Inequalities based on social and economic status in music education in Turkey]. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(1), 463–492. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/cbayarsos/article/411517

Babbie

(2016). The practice of social research (14th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Brown

Jordania

(2013). Universals in the world’s musics. Psychology of Music, 41(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735611425896

Bryman

Bell

(2019). Social research methods (5th Canadian ed.). Oxford University Press.

Çiftçi

(2010). Popüler kültür, popüler müzik ve müzik eğitimi [Popular culture, popular music and music education]. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 149–161. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/erziefd/issue/6000/80010

Corrigall

K. A.

Schellenberg

E. G.

(2015). Predicting who takes music lessons: Parent and child characteristics. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00282

Creswell

J. W.

Guetterman

T. C.

(2019). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating qualitative and quantitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

10.

Dursun

Sağer

(2023). Müzik yeteneğini konu alan araştırmaların bibliyometrik analizi [Biometric analysis of research on musical ability]. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken, 15(3), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.46291/ZfWT/150312

11.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

12.

Fraenkel

J. R.

Wallen

N. E.

Hyun

H. H.

(2023). How to design and evaluate research in education (11th ed.). McGraw Hill.

13.

Güven

U. Z.

(2020). Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst: A sociological study on being a musician in Turkey. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, Supp(1), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.26650/JECS2019-0105

14.

Hallam

(2010a). 21st century conceptions of musical ability. Psychology of Music, 38(3), 308–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735609351922

15.

Hallam

(2010b). 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/10.1177/0255761410370658

16.

Hallam

Prince

(2003). Conceptions of musical ability. Research Studies in Music Education, 20(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X030200010101

17.

Herholz

S. C.

Zatorre

R. J.

(2012). Musical training as a framework for brain plasticity: Behavior, function, and structure. Neuron, 76(3), 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.011

18.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

19.

Jacoby

Polak

Grahn

J. A.

Cameron

D. J.

Lee

K. M.

Godoy

Undurraga

E. A.

Huanca

Thalwitzer

Doumbia

Goldberg

Margulis

E. H.

Wong

P. C. M.

Jure

Rocamora

Fujii

Savage

P. E.

Ajimi

Konno

. . .McDermott

J. H.

(2024). Commonality and variation in mental representations of music revealed by a cross-cultural comparison of rhythm priors in 15 countries. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 846–877. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01800-9

20.

Kuckartz

Rädiker

(2023). Qualitative content analysis. Sage.

21.

Losch

Altenmüller

Marie

Passarotto

Kretschmer

C. R.

Scholz

D. S.

Kliegel

Krüger

T. H. C.

Sinke

Jünemann

James

C. E.

Worschech

(2024). Acquisition of musical skills and abilities in older adults—Results of 12 months of music training. BMC Geriatrics, 24, Article 1018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-05600-2

22.

Malloch

Trevarthen

(2018). The human nature of music. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01680

23.

Mayring

(2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173

24.

McPherson

G. E.

Davidson

J. W.

Faulkner

(2012). Music in our lives: Rethinking musical ability, development, and identity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199579297.001.0001

25.

McPherson

G. E.

McCormick

(2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34(3), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606064841

26.

McPherson

G. E.

Welch

G. F.

(Eds.) (2018). Music learning and teaching in infancy, childhood, and adolescence (Vol. 2). Oxford University Press.

27.

McPherson

G. E.

Williamon

(2016). Building gifts into musical talents. In McPherson

G. E.

(Ed.), The child as musician: A handbook of musical development (pp. 340–360). Oxford University Press.

28.

Mehr

S. A.

Singh

Knox

Ketter

D. M.

Pickens-Jones

Atwood

Lucas

Jacoby

Egner

A. A.

Hopkins

E. J.

Howard

R. M.

Hartshorne

J. K.

Jennings

M. V.

Simson

Bainbridge

C. M.

Pinker

O’Donnell

T. J.

Krasnow

M. M.

Glowacki

(2019). Universality and diversity in human song. Science, 366(6468), Article eaax0868. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0868

29.

Meyer

Zeileis

Hornik

Friendly

(2024). vcd: Visualizing categorical data (R package version 1.4-13) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vcd

30.

Morgan

G. A.

Leech

N. L.

Gloeckner

W. G.

Barrett

K. C.

(2011). IBM SPSS for introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. Routledge.

31.

Mosing

M. A.

Madison

Pedersen

N. L.

Kuja-Halkola

Ullén

(2014). Practice does not make perfect: No causal effect of music practice on music ability. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1795–1803. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614541990

32.

Mosing

M. A.

Verweij

K. J. H.

Hambrick

D. Z.

Pedersen

N. L.

Ullén

(2024). Testing the deliberate practice theory: Does practice reduce the heritability of musical expertise? Journal of Intelligence, 12(9), Article 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12090087

33.

Rankin

Ergin

(2016). Cultural omnivorousness in Turkey. Current Sociology, 65(7), 1070–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392116634817

34.

R Core Team. (2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org

35.

Savage

P. E.

Brown

Sakai

Currie

T. E.

(2015). Statistical universals reveal the structures and functions of human music. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(29), 8987–8992. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414495112

36.

Savage

P. E.

Loui

Tarr

Schachner

Glowacki

Mithen

Fitch

W. T.

(2021). Music as a coevolved system for social bonding. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, Article e59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20000333

37.

Schellenberg

E. G.

Weiss

M. W.

(2013). Music and cognitive abilities. In Deutsch

(Ed.), The psychology of music (3rd ed.; pp. 499–550). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381460-9.00012-2

38.

Schreier

(2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.

39.

Shouldice

H. N.

(2019). “Everybody has something”: One teacher’s beliefs about musical ability and their connection to teaching practice and classroom culture. Research Studies in Music Education, 41(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X18773109

40.

Sloboda

J. A.

(2005). Exploring the musical mind: Cognition, emotion, ability, function. Oxford University Press.

41.

Suzuki

(1983). Nurtured by love: The classic approach to talent education ( Suzuki

, Trans.; 2nd ed.). Summy-Birchard.

42.

Türkiye Araştırmacılar Derneği [TÜAD]. (2023, August 24). Sosyo-ekonomik statü ölçeği [Socio-economic status scale]. https://tuad.org.tr

43.

Yıldırım

Şimşek

(2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Seçkin.

44.

Yilmaz

(2023). A systematic review of theses on musical talent and creativity in Turkey. Journal of Gifted Education and Creativity, 10(1), 55–71. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jgedc/issue/75832/1256103

45.

Zatorre

R. J.

(2013). Predispositions and plasticity in music and speech learning: Neural correlates and implications. Science, 342(6158), 585–589. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1238414

46.

Zhang

Wildemuth

B. M.

(2017). Qualitative analysis of content. In Wildemuth

B. M.

(Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (2nd ed.; pp. 318–329). Libraries Unlimited.