View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effects of Diagnostic Labels for Students with Learning Problems on Teachers' Stereotypes and Performance Expectations

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of Diagnostic Labels for Students with Learning Problems on Teachers' Stereotypes and Performance Expectations
Language: English
Authors: Linda Kashikar (ORCID 0000-0002-5207-4947), Timo Lüke, Michael Grosche
Source: Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2026 59(1):37-54.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Teacher Attitudes, Stereotypes, Identification, Learning Problems, Attitudes toward Disabilities, Teacher Student Relationship, Special Needs Students, Learning Disabilities, Labeling (of Persons), Foreign Countries, Special Education Teachers, Regular and Special Education Relationship, Beliefs, Teaching (Occupation), Teacher Expectations of Students, Students with Disabilities, Disability Identification, Special Schools, Inclusion, General Education
Geographic Terms: Germany
DOI: 10.1177/00222194251315187
ISSN: 0022-2194
1538-4780
Abstract: Labeling students with learning problems may change teachers' evaluations of them. Our study examined whether the "Special Learning Needs" (SLN) and "Learning Disability" (LD) labels influenced teachers' beliefs that the diagnosis was correct and activated a low-competence stereotype. We examined whether this stereotype lowered teachers' performance expectations and teaching intentions. A sample of 413 German general and special education teachers were randomly assigned to the control (no label) or one of the experimental groups (SLN/LD label). All teachers read the description of a fictitious student with learning problems. Only in the experimental groups was the student labeled with an LD or SLN. Results showed that both labels increased teachers' acceptance of the diagnosis as accurate. However, the labels did not change teachers' stereotypes of the fictitious student. The LD label lowered some of teachers' long-term performance expectations, resulting in more track recommendations to a special school. Unexpectedly, the SLN label increased the intention to foster the student's academic performance. Some performance expectations of special education teachers were lower than those of general education teachers, which did not manifest in different teaching intentions. The findings are discussed in the context of the Dilemma of Difference.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1492616
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHzY2QRPwFzk628bHUT4rtOAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDO-Vjg1EZFpX73MUTAIBEICBmsRWdCh4JrRNM53Ec5XcuhdcFDY3yPa3xZjxXNeYapOVLTfNcN84zOYY7Ajd09IdDOl5l1vLki2lKDDEq60gYuxOBVBPbPRpTo0VuxZtYPD37AHxe4QTp5XcOwbN03-1hJdUxFt_fH0N1ou6E1ZHndEhv3mea2iB3a-kj7shZbXw0805pnoKAHtbMmiLUQdm29pueJBkMJPUMHo=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189932662;led01jan.26;2025Dec12.04:10;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189932662-1">Effects of Diagnostic Labels for Students With Learning Problems on Teachers' Stereotypes and Performance Expectations </title> <p>Labeling students with learning problems may change teachers' evaluations of them. Our study examined whether the "Special Learning Needs" (SLN) and "Learning Disability" (LD) labels influenced teachers' beliefs that the diagnosis was correct and activated a low-competence stereotype. We examined whether this stereotype lowered teachers' performance expectations and teaching intentions. A sample of 413 German general and special education teachers were randomly assigned to the control (no label) or one of the experimental groups (SLN/LD label). All teachers read the description of a fictitious student with learning problems. Only in the experimental groups was the student labeled with an LD or SLN. Results showed that both labels increased teachers' acceptance of the diagnosis as accurate. However, the labels did not change teachers' stereotypes of the fictitious student. The LD label lowered some of teachers' long-term performance expectations, resulting in more track recommendations to a special school. Unexpectedly, the SLN label increased the intention to foster the student's academic performance. Some performance expectations of special education teachers were lower than those of general education teachers, which did not manifest in different teaching intentions. The findings are discussed in the context of the Dilemma of Difference.</p> <p>Keywords: learning disabilities; label; teachers' expectations; stereotypes; general education; special education</p> <p>Three teachers bullied my son. He was diagnosed with Special Learning Needs, and they thought he would not be able to achieve anything in the future. We got him out of the special education system, and now, he can graduate from college successfully. One must have a long breath as parents, but it is worth fighting.</p> <p>This quote from a mother in a parents' group reflects the problem often assumed on a theoretical level that the diagnosis of special educational needs can stigmatize these students. This phenomenon is known as the "Dilemma of Difference" ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref1">45</reflink>]). It means that the necessary resources provided to support these students are linked to an official diagnosis of special educational needs, which may result in stigmatization.</p> <p>A recent meta-analysis showed that labeling students with diagnoses (primarily medical and special educational needs) worsened teachers' evaluations of these students ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>]). A theoretical framework postulated that diagnostic labels were linked to stereotypes, leading to the stigmatization of individuals ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref3">40</reflink>]), which is also assumed for special education labels ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The relation between adverse label effects and stereotypes in special education has been discussed theoretically; this study empirically examined the presumed connection between labels, their link to stereotypes, and teachers' performance expectations of labeled students. Specifically, we investigated whether labeling students with learning problems with an official diagnosis affected teachers' judgments of these students. First, we examined whether the labels increased teachers' belief that the diagnosis was accurate. Second, we investigated whether this changed teachers' stereotypes and related emotions. Third, we examined whether the labels' link to stereotypes lowered teachers' performance expectations of labeled students and changed their teaching intentions. In addition, we investigated whether these judgments differed between general and special education teachers.</p> <p>Our theoretical model for this study is depicted in Figure 1 and can be summarized as follows: According to labeling theory ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref5">40</reflink>]), the special education labels "Learning Disability" and "Special Learning Needs" link labeled students to a negative group stereotype. The group stereotype of students with learning problems has previously been measured using the stereotype content model ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref6">17</reflink>]), showing that teachers perceived this group of students as low in academic competence ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref7">35</reflink>]). Low perceived competence resulted in low-performance expectations ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref8">34</reflink>]), which manifested in teachers' lower behavior intentions following the expectation effect model ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref9">31</reflink>]). However, it is not explicitly mentioned in labeling theory, but based on our previous research ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]), we postulate that diagnostic labels are only linked to the negative stereotype of low academic competence, resulting in lower performance expectations when perceived, actively remembered, and accepted as accurate. In the following sections, we will refer to our theoretical model as we explain every step in more detail.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Theoretical Model of this Study Explaining How Labels Are Linked to Stereotypes and Performance Expectations.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-2">Ableism in Education, Labeling, Stereotypes, and Stigma</hd> <p>Ableism is broadly defined as "stereotyping, prejudice, discrimination, and social oppression toward people with disabilities" ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>], p. 651). In schools, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>] described ableism as follows: "Individuals and groups who fail to achieve dominant standards are identified (marked, labeled, branded) with stigmatizing names (e.g., failure, disabled, and at-risk) and sent to separated locations (special education rooms, low tracks, and vocational schools). These distinction-making processes create a binary of (dominant) insiders and (subordinate) outsiders" (p. 200).</p> <p>The postulated connection between labeling and stigmatization of students in the school context can be explained by labeling theory ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref14">21</reflink>]). A stigma is an "attribute that is deeply discrediting" and reduces someone "from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one" ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref15">21</reflink>], p. 3). [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref16">40</reflink>] specified the connection between labels and stigmatization in a revised four-component theory: First, people distinguish and label human differences. Second, labeled individuals are linked to undesirable characteristics, that is, negative stereotypes. Third, the label facilitates categorizing into "them" and "us." Fourth, the labeled individuals experience status loss and discrimination, leading to poorer outcomes for labeled than nonlabeled individuals.</p> <p>One focus of this study was the link between labels and stereotypes, as presented in Figure 1. Labeling occurs when individual differences are interpreted as relevant, meaningful, and significant. These labeled differences are often linked to stereotypes ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>]). Stereotypes are defined as "people's beliefs (cognitions) about an individual based on group membership" ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref18">16</reflink>], p. 4). Thus, if the group's stereotype is negative, the label links a person to "a set of undesirable characteristics that form the stereotype" ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref19">40</reflink>], p. 369). As positive stereotypes do not lead to stigmatization, only labels with negative connotations have the potential to stigmatize ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]; see Note [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref21">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the school context, negative stereotypes are believed to lead to adverse effects of special education labels ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref23">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref24">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref25">51</reflink>]), which is usually explained with the stereotype content model (see Figure 1, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]). The model distinguishes the dimensions "competence" and "warmth," which can be "low" or "high," respectively, leading to four types of stereotypes and related emotions. Typically, the perceived competence of a group is predicted by its perceived status, and the perceived warmth is predicted by its perceived competition.</p> <p>For example, "rich people" are viewed as high in status, predicting high perceived competence. They are also perceived as competitive and thus predict low perceived warmth. This combination is called envious stereotypes. "Disabled people" are perceived with high warmth but low competence, a combination called paternalistic stereotypes ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Paternalistic stereotypes are believed to be expressed in paternalistic emotions, which are pity and sympathy ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]). Both emotions are usually felt toward groups with negative outcomes for which they are not responsible ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>]). Nevertheless, the two are distinctive emotions because "Pity combines sympathy with superiority" ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref31">17</reflink>], p. 899). Thus, higher sympathy than pity may indicate a more equivalent perceived status. Despite the negative connotation of the emotion pity, paternalistic emotions can evoke the willingness to provide help ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref32">17</reflink>]). However, they do not necessarily lead to active help but may instead evoke avoidance and neglect as well ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]). Thus, pity and sympathy as emotions related to stereotypes may manifest in different teaching behaviors. However, research about these theoretical assumptions for teachers' stereotypes of students with learning problems is scarce.</p> <p>Two studies examining teachers' stereotypes of students with learning problems using the stereotype content model showed that teachers perceived these students as less competent than warm ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref34">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref35">34</reflink>]), indicating a tendency toward paternalistic stereotypes, which may elicit paternalistic emotions of pity and sympathy. This pattern can have both beneficial and detrimental effects on students. On one hand, students who perceive pity from their teachers in the event of academic failure are likely to attribute their teachers' emotional response to the teachers' belief that their failure is due to low ability ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref36">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>]). This may undermine their self-esteem. On the other hand, because of the possibility that paternalistic emotions evoke the willingness to help, it can be argued that they may have a protective effect on students ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref38">34</reflink>]). However, unsolicited help may lower students' self-esteem like pity does ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref39">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref40">23</reflink>]). To summarize, students with learning problems are likely to be viewed by teachers with paternalistic stereotypes, which may evoke teachers' willingness to help but comes with a risk of a drop in students' self-esteem.</p> <p>How can the knowledge about labeling and stereotypes of students with learning problems be combined? If labeling students with learning problems with a special educational need diagnosis (i.e., a disability diagnosis) was linked to stereotypes described earlier, diagnostic labels for students with learning problems should result in lower perceived competence but higher warmth ratings for labeled students than identical but nonlabeled students. This assumption is supported by studies that showed that teachers expressed higher paternalistic emotions for students labeled with a LD than for similar nonlabeled students ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref41">11</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref42">62</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref43">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>As indicated in Figure 1 but not explicitly mentioned in the labeling theory, we assume that before the label is linked to stereotypes, teachers must first perceive and accept the diagnostic label as correct. If teachers do not perceive or doubt the diagnostic label, there would be no reason to link the label to group stereotypes, as the individual is not believed to belong to the group of students with a special needs diagnosis for learning problems. Indeed, our previous studies showed that the LD label makes it more likely that teachers believed that a fictitious student had a LD compared with an identical student without the assigned label ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref44">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-3">Diagnostic Labels for Students With Learning Problems and Teachers' Expectations</hd> <p>Our theoretical model postulates that teachers have low-performance expectations of students they perceive as low in competence (see Figure 1). Studies showed that teachers' ratings of students' competence (but not warmth) were significantly related to teachers' performance expectations of these students ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref47">34</reflink>]). Also, a recent meta-analysis showed that academic evaluations, such as teachers' performance expectations, were most negatively influenced by diagnostic labels for students compared with other assessments, like behavioral evaluations or attitudes toward students ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]). Thus, this study also examined the effects of diagnostic labels for students with learning problems on teachers' performance expectations.</p> <p>Teachers' performance expectations are "inferences that teachers make about the future behavior or academic achievement based on what they know about these students now" ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>], p. 32). They are essential because of their potential to influence students' performance in a way that high expectations are associated with better performances and vice versa ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref50">56</reflink>]). The simplified expectation effect model explains how teachers' expectations contribute to students' academic performances: First, teachers develop expectations. Second, based on these expectations, teachers treat students differently. Third, students react to teachers' behavior, and fourth, as a result, student outcomes improve or decline ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref51">31</reflink>]; see Figure 1 displaying Steps 1 and 2 of the expectation effect model).</p> <p>Studies showed that labeling students with learning problems with an official diagnosis lowered teachers' performance expectations of these students compared with similar unlabeled students. These effects were observed in different contexts and for different diagnostic labels, such as the "LD" label ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref53">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref54">58</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref55">60</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref56">62</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref57">63</reflink>]), the "Specific Learning Difficulties" label ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref58">61</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref59">64</reflink>]), and the "Dyslexia" label ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]). Most of these studies focused on "classic" performance expectations, such as the likelihood of failing the next examination as a relatively short-term or the expected graduation level as a long-term expectation (i.e., Step 1 of the simplified expectation effect model). Because these expectations are likely to manifest in differential treatment of students (i.e., Step 2 of the simplified expectation effect model), we examined not only the influence of diagnostic labels of students with learning problems on teachers' performance expectations but also their manifestation in behavioral intentions.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-4">Labels for Students With Learning Problems: Differential Effects on General and Special Educa...</hd> <p>We examined differences in the label effects on general education teachers (GETs) and special education teachers (SETs), as both teaching professions are involved in inclusive education. Studies suggested that diagnostic labels for students did not influence GETs' and SETs' judgments of the labeled students differently ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref63">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, regardless of the label, no previous study examined whether SETs and GETs hold different stereotypes of students with learning problems. Only careful and indirect conclusions can be drawn from studies that examined teachers' performance expectations and perceived stability of students' learning problems. However, these studies showed ambiguous results. Two studies demonstrated that GETs perceived learning problems as more stable and uncontrollable than SETs ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref65">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref66">65</reflink>]). If students' learning problems were perceived as stable, this may stem from a low perceived competence. Contrarily, our studies showed that SETs had lower performance expectations, which may result from low perceived competence ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref67">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>Due to these ambiguous results, this study aimed to examine whether the two teaching professions differed in their beliefs concerning the diagnosis, stereotypes, and performance expectations of students with learning problems and whether labeling students influenced these evaluations of the two teaching professions differently.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-5">Labels for Students With Learning Problems in This Study</hd> <p>This study was conducted in Germany. We examined two diagnostic labels for students with learning problems. The first label was the diagnosis "Lernbehinderung," which translates to "LD". The second was the "SLNs" label ("sonderpädagogischer Förder-/Unterstützungsbedarf im Lernen"). The German SLN expression emphasizes the need for support for the students. It is important to note that the two labels intended to describe the same group of students, but the SLN diagnosis officially replaced the LD diagnosis. The LD diagnosis was older, first introduced in 1972 as one of the ten different types of special schools, that is, the "school for the learning disabled" ("Schule für Lernbehinderte"; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref70">46</reflink>]). Due to a paradigm change to avoid a deficit-oriented and school-centered classification system, nine "categories of educational support" ("Fördersch-werpunkte") were defined in 1994, one of them was "learning," from which the current and official SLN diagnosis developed ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref71">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>To summarize, students who were formerly labeled with an LD are currently officially diagnosed with SLN. However, although the term LD is criticized for its stigmatizing effect ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref72">49</reflink>]), it is still informally used in everyday school life. Also, it is possible that the stereotypes linked to a former diagnostic nomenclature can be transferred to the newer diagnostic nomenclature ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref73">57</reflink>]). For this reason, we examined the influence of both the SLN and LD labels on teachers' judgments to identify possible differences in their effects on teachers' evaluations.</p> <p>It is also essential to describe the meaning of an LD and SLN in Germany, as the diagnostic criteria for special educational needs diagnoses differ between countries ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref74">25</reflink>]). Both diagnoses describe students who show serious, global (i.e., in more than one subject), long-lasting learning and performance problems ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref76">44</reflink>]). Thus, they differ from how a "specific LD" is defined by the <emph>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</emph> (fifth ed.; <emph>DSM-5</emph>; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>]). However, the definitions of the German concepts of LD and SLN differ in their assumption about the cognitive functioning of the diagnosed students. Specifically, the official SLN diagnosis does not include deficits in cognitive functioning, although cognitive functioning is frequently tested in the diagnostic process ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref78">41</reflink>]). The criteria of an LD include deficits in cognitive functioning ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>]). Both diagnoses are also distinguished from an "intellectual disability" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>]), as an LD/SLN primarily manifests in school problems. Contrarily, an intellectual disability will usually result in at least a minimal need for support in daily life ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref81">27</reflink>]). The former LD and now SLN diagnoses were and are reevaluated at least yearly ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref82">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-6">Research Questions and Hypotheses</hd> <p>Our study was an experiment in which teachers read a vignette describing a fictitious student with learning problems. We used a two-factorial design to test the main effects of the experimental group (vignette without label vs. vignette with an SLN label vs. vignette with an LD label) and the teaching profession (GETs vs. SETs) on teachers' judgments of the fictitious student. We also examined the differential effects of the two labels on teachers' judgments, that is, the interaction of the experimental groups and the teaching professions. Thus, our research questions were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Research Question 1 (RQ1): </bold> Do the experimental group, the teaching profession, and their interaction influence teachers' beliefs that the diagnosis was correct?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 2 (RQ2): </bold> Do the experimental group, the teaching profession, and their interaction influence teachers' stereotypical beliefs about the fictitious student?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 3 (RQ3): </bold> Do the experimental group, the teaching profession, and their interaction influence teachers' expectations of the fictitious student's future performances and their manifestation in teachers' behavioral intentions regarding the performance requirements for the fictitious student?</item> </ulist> <p>As indicated in Figure 1, our previous studies showed that labels only unfolded their adverse effects on teachers' expectations when teachers consciously remembered that the diagnosis was mentioned in the student's description ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref83">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref84">33</reflink>]). For this reason, the adverse effects of the labels in this study were only hypothesized for teachers who remembered the respective diagnosis in the fictitious student's description.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-7">Hypothesis 1</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> H1a: </bold> Teachers who remember that the fictitious student is labeled with an SLN/LD diagnosis believe more frequently that the diagnosis is correct.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> H1b: </bold> SETs believe more frequently that the diagnosis is correct than GETs.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0189932662-8">Hypothesis 2</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> H2a: </bold> Teachers who remember that the fictitious student is labeled with an SLN/LD diagnosis have higher paternalistic stereotypes of and emotions for the student than teachers who do not remember the diagnosis or who read the student's description without a diagnostic label.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> H2b: </bold> SETs have more paternalistic stereotypes and emotions than GETs.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0189932662-9">Hypothesis 3</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> H3a: </bold> Teachers who remember that a fictitious student is labeled with an SLN/LD diagnosis have lower performance expectations of the student than teachers who do not remember the diagnosis or who read the student's description without a diagnostic label. These lower performance expectations manifest in the intention to reduce the student's academic requirements.</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> H3b: </bold> SETs have lower performance expectations of the fictitious student than GETs. These lower performance expectations manifest in the intention to reduce the student's academic requirements.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0189932662-10">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-11">Procedure</hd> <p>Our study was conducted online with [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref85">39</reflink>]. Teachers were randomly assigned to the control (no label) or one of two experimental groups (LD or SLN label). In all groups, they read the same vignette describing a fictitious student with learning problems. Only in the experimental groups was the fictitious student labeled with either an LD or SLN diagnosis in addition to the description of the learning problems (see section "Vignette"). Teachers then answered three simple content questions to check for careful reading. After teachers assessed the dependent variables, the study finished with a manipulation check and the collection of demographic information. Participants received 40 € for their participation.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-12">Participants</hd> <p>Our participants were in-service GETs and SETs in North Rhine Westphalia, Germany. The questionnaire was started 543 times. Fifty-one teachers started or conducted the questionnaire more than once. We only kept the first participation of each teacher, which resulted in the removal of 63 participations (11.60%), leaving 480 participants. We excluded 28 teachers (5.8%) because they had not read the vignette carefully. They gave no or wrong answers to more than one of the three comprehension questions to check for careful reading. A further 22 participants (4.87%) were excluded because they did not indicate their profession, and four participants (0.93%) were neither a GET nor a SET. As in our previous studies ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref86">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref87">33</reflink>]) and thus expected, some teachers of the two experimental groups (SLN or LD diagnosis presented in the fictitious student's description) incorrectly reported that the respective diagnosis was not mentioned in the vignette (see Note [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref88">9</reflink>]). Although we did not hypothesize that the labels unconsciously influenced teachers' performance expectations, we did not exclude these teachers. Instead, we set up a separate experimental group to examine whether the diagnoses even influenced teachers' judgments when not consciously remembered. We thus adapted the one control group (CG) and the two experimental groups to four different label groups (LGs). LG0 contained teachers who read the fictitious student's description with no diagnosis and who correctly did not remember a diagnosis being mentioned. LG1 comprised teachers who read the vignette with the SLN or LD diagnosis but incorrectly did not remember that a diagnosis was mentioned. LG2 and LG3 consisted of teachers who read the vignette with the SLN (LG2) or LD (LG3) diagnosis and correctly remembered that the diagnosis was mentioned (see Table 1). This procedure resulted in the exclusion of 13 (3.05%) teachers of the former CG (vignette without diagnosis), who incorrectly stated that the SLN or LD label had been presented in the student's description, as the group was too small to form another LG. No outliers were excluded.</p> <p>Table 1. Distribution of General and Special Education Teachers in the Label Groups.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2">Description</th><th align="center">LG0</th><th align="center">LG1</th><th align="center">LG2</th><th align="center">LG3</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th align="center">No diagnosis was presented or remembered.</th><th align="center">SLN or LD diagnosis was presented but not remembered.</th><th align="center">SLN diagnosis was presented and remembered.</th><th align="center">LD diagnosis was presented and remembered.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GETs</td><td>76</td><td>56</td><td>60</td><td>53</td><td>245</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>53</td><td>39</td><td>34</td><td>42</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>129</td><td>95</td><td>94</td><td>95</td><td>413</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph> LG = label group; GETs = general education teachers; SETs = special education teachers. The new label groups were formed by the manipulation check: Teachers were asked to remember the vignette they had read in the beginning and to answer one of the following questions, which depended on the vignette they read: Was it mentioned in the description that L. has a learning disability or special learning needs? (no diagnosis in the student's description)/Was it mentioned in the description that L. has special learning needs? (SLN diagnosis in the student's description)/Was it mentioned in the description that L. has a learning disability? (LD diagnosis in the student's description). The question had to be answered with <emph>yes</emph> or <emph>no</emph>.</p> <p>The final sample included 413 teachers with an average age of 41.01 (standard deviation [<emph>SD</emph>] = 11.01) years. In the sample, there were 79.18% female teachers, 20.10% male teachers, and 0.01% were diverse or did not indicate their gender. At the time of data collection, 64.16% of the teachers worked in general schools, and the remaining 35.84% worked in special schools. Of the teachers in general education, 64.52% worked in inclusive schools. On average, teachers had 12.96 (<emph>SD</emph> = 9.83) years of professional experience. The distribution of GETs and SETs did not differ between the four LGs, χ<sups>2</sups> = 1.30, <emph>df</emph> = 3, <emph>p</emph> =.730, Cramer's <emph>V</emph> =.056.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-13">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-14">Vignette</hd> <p>The student description was adapted from [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref89">37</reflink>] and read in the initial CG and LGs as presented below. In the LGs, teachers were presented with either the SLN or the LD diagnosis, not with both diagnoses:</p> <p>L. is ten years old (<emph>and has Special Learning Needs/and has a Learning Disability</emph>). Since the first grade, L. has shown learning and performance problems in reading, writing, and mathematics, which have increased over time. L. works very slowly, is quickly overwhelmed, and appears helpless. It is difficult for L. to retain learned facts over a longer period. When calculating, L. often uses fingers. Moreover, L. reads familiar words very slowly and makes many spelling mistakes when writing.</p> <p>The instruction was also different in the CG and LGs: "You should now work on a few tasks. In this context, imagine you are the class teacher in the class of <emph>(the student with Special Learning Needs/the learning-disabled student)</emph> L."</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-15">Teachers' Beliefs on Whether the SLN/LD Diagnosis Is Correct</hd> <p>Depending on which vignette they read, teachers judged whether the fictitious student had SLN or an LD (vignette without label), SLN (vignette with SLN label), or an LD (vignette with LD label). The question had to be answered with <emph>yes</emph> or <emph>no</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-16">Stereotypes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-17">Stereotype Content Model</hd> <p>Teachers provided ratings of the fictitious students' <emph>warmth</emph> and <emph>competence</emph> using the scales of [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref90">17</reflink>]. Warmth and competence items were presented together in randomized order. Warmth was assessed by ratings of how well the adjectives "warm," "tolerant," "sincere," and "good-natured" described the fictitious student (α =.88). Competence was assessed by ratings of how well the adjectives "intelligent," "independent," "competent," and "confident" described the fictitious student (α =.76). All items were assessed on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1, <emph>does not apply at all</emph>, to 6, <emph>fully applies</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-18">Paternalistic Emotions</hd> <p>Teachers rated how much <emph>pity</emph> and <emph>sympathy</emph> they felt for the fictitious student on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1, <emph>none</emph>, to 6, <emph>a lot</emph>, for pity and 1, <emph>very unlikable</emph>, to 6, <emph>very likable</emph>, for sympathy.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-19">Performance Expectations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-20">Likelihood of a Poor Grade in the Next Class Test</hd> <p>Teachers were asked to indicate the likelihood that the fictitious student would score a bad grade in the next class assignment on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1, <emph>very unlikely</emph>, to 6, <emph>very likely</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-21">Likelihood of Achieving the Class Target</hd> <p>Teachers were asked to indicate the likelihood that the fictitious student would reach the curriculum class target for the current school year on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1, <emph>very unlikely</emph>, to 6, <emph>very likely</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-22">Highest Expected Graduation Level</hd> <p>Teachers were asked to estimate the highest graduation level the fictitious student could achieve. The item was assessed on a 6-point Likert-type scale, with 1 indicating <emph>no graduation</emph>, 2 indicating the <emph>graduation level that children who have a special education diagnosis in the category learning can legally achieve</emph>, 3 representing the <emph>basic track graduation</emph>, 4 representing the <emph>intermediate track graduation</emph>, 5 indicating the <emph>lower academic track graduation</emph>, and 6 meaning the <emph>highest academic track graduation</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-23">Likelihood of Completing Vocational Training</hd> <p>Teachers indicated the likelihood that the fictitious student would complete vocational training on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1, <emph>very unlikely</emph>, to 6, <emph>very likely</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-24">Likelihood of Completing a University Degree</hd> <p>Teachers were asked to indicate the likelihood that the fictitious student will graduate from university on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1, <emph>very unlikely</emph>, to 6, <emph>very likely</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-25">Likelihood of Working in the First Labor Market</hd> <p>In Germany, the first labor market is free and distinguished from the second labor market, which is the labor market for people with disabilities. Teachers rated the likelihood that the fictitious student would work in the first labor market on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1, <emph>very unlikely</emph>, to 6, <emph>very likely</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-26">Manifestation of Teachers' Expectations in Behavioral Intentions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-27">Choice of Math Tasks</hd> <p>Teachers were presented with 15 blocks of math tasks, each containing five multiplication tasks per block. They were instructed to select all blocks; they thought the fictitious student could solve successfully within 5 min. The task blocks varied in difficulty, with five blocks of easy tasks (e.g., 1 × 2, 10 × 5, presented in green), five blocks of medium tasks (e.g., 2 × 4, 3 × 3, presented in yellow), and five blocks of complex tasks (e.g., 3 × 7, 6 × 9, presented in red; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref91">9</reflink>]). A sum was calculated to examine the task choice: One point was given for each easy task block selected, two points for each medium task block, and three points for each complex task block. Thus, the point range was between 0 and 30 points.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-28">Intention to Foster Performance</hd> <p>We developed four items to measure the extent to which teachers would intend to adapt their teaching to foster the academic performance of the fictitious student (e.g., "I would adapt my teaching to ensure that L. develops a high-performance motivation" and "I would adapt my teaching to ensure that L. achieves good grades in examinations"). The items were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1, <emph>little adaption</emph>, to 6, <emph>strong adaption</emph> (α =.66).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-29">Track Recommendation for Secondary School</hd> <p>For the transition to a secondary school, teachers provide a (in some federal states binding) track recommendation at the end of primary school in Germany. The general secondary school system has traditionally been three-tiered, consisting of <emph>basic</emph>, <emph>intermediate</emph>, and <emph>academic track schools</emph>. Comprehensive schools have been growing and replacing basic and intermediate track schools in recent years. Most comprehensive schools also offer academic track education and thus combine all secondary education levels. Besides the general education system, special schools for students with disabilities exist. In our study, participants were informed that as class teachers, they have to give a track recommendation for the fictitious student's secondary school. The choice was between <emph>special</emph>, <emph>basic</emph>, <emph>intermediate</emph>, <emph>academic</emph>, or <emph>comprehensive school.</emph></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-30">Statistical Analyses</hd> <p>Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) using Type III sum of squares were conducted for all dependent variables except for the stereotypical perception of whether the fictitious student has an SLN/LD and the track recommendation. For these two variables, we carried out binomial logistic regressions. This was necessary for the track recommendation because although educational tracks in Germany can generally be ranked hierarchically according to their academic requirements, comprehensive schools cannot be positioned anywhere in this order, as they offer all graduation levels. Independent variables/predictors for all analyses was the LG (LG0 vs. LG1 vs. LG2 vs. LG3), the teaching profession (GETs vs. SETs), and their interaction. In the case of post hoc tests, we used the Tukey method to adjust the <emph>p</emph> values for multiple tests. We used pairwise deletion for analyses because of the very low percentage of missing data in the dependent variables (0.33%). Analyses were conducted with R 4.3.2 ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref92">47</reflink>]) and RStudio 2023.12.0 ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref93">48</reflink>]). We used <emph>afex</emph> 1.0-1 ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref94">52</reflink>]), <emph>tidyverse</emph> 1.2.1 ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref95">59</reflink>]), and <emph>WRS2</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref96">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-31">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-32">Descriptive Results and Correlations</hd> <p>Table 2 displays the frequencies of teachers' beliefs on whether the SLN/LD diagnosis is correct. Table 3 shows the results of the paternalistic stereotypes and emotions. Table 4 displays the results of the performance expectations; Tables 5 and 6 show their manifestation in behavioral intentions. The intercorrelations of the study variables are displayed in Table 7.</p> <p>Table 2. Frequency Table of the Stereotypical Perception of Whether the Fictitious Student Has Special Learning Needs/a Learning Disability.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Profession</th><th align="center">Assessment</th><th align="center">LG0</th><th align="center">LG1</th><th align="center">LG2</th><th align="center">LG3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">GETs</td><td>No</td><td>19</td><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>57</td><td>46</td><td>54</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">SETs</td><td>No</td><td>15</td><td>10</td><td>4</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>38</td><td>29</td><td>30</td><td>40</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph> The questions varied according to the vignette teachers read. Teachers who read the vignette without diagnosis judged whether the fictitious student had SLN or an LD. Teachers who read the vignette with the SLN diagnosis judged whether the fictitious student had SLN, and teachers who read the vignette with the LD diagnosis judged whether the fictitious student had an LD. LG = label group; GETs = general education teachers; SETs = special education teachers; SLN = special learning needs.</p> <p>Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations of the Paternalistic Stereotypes and Emotions.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">CG</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG1</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG2</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG3</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Variables</th><th align="center">Teaching Profession</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Stereotype—warmth</td><td>GETs</td><td>4.10</td><td>0.79</td><td>4.22</td><td>0.90</td><td>4.23</td><td>0.94</td><td>4.22</td><td>0.81</td><td>4.19</td><td>0.86</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>4.29</td><td>0.82</td><td>4.23</td><td>0.81</td><td>4.31</td><td>0.93</td><td>4.14</td><td>0.87</td><td>4.24</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>4.18</td><td>0.80</td><td>4.22</td><td>0.86</td><td>4.26</td><td>0.93</td><td>4.18</td><td>0.83</td><td>4.21</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Stereotype—competence</td><td>GETs</td><td>2.88</td><td>0.68</td><td>2.97</td><td>0.73</td><td>2.90</td><td>0.88</td><td>3.05</td><td>0.82</td><td>2.94</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>3.02</td><td>0.80</td><td>3.11</td><td>0.98</td><td>3.03</td><td>0.77</td><td>2.95</td><td>0.65</td><td>3.02</td><td>0.80</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>2.94</td><td>0.73</td><td>3.03</td><td>0.84</td><td>2.95</td><td>0.84</td><td>3.01</td><td>0.75</td><td>2.98</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Pity</td><td>GETs</td><td>4.26</td><td>1.25</td><td>3.84</td><td>1.41</td><td>4.35</td><td>1.33</td><td>3.92</td><td>1.40</td><td>4.11</td><td>1.34</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>3.34</td><td>1.41</td><td>3.97</td><td>1.33</td><td>3.59</td><td>1.56</td><td>3.40</td><td>1.48</td><td>3.55</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>3.88</td><td>1.39</td><td>3.89</td><td>1.37</td><td>4.07</td><td>1.45</td><td>3.69</td><td>1.45</td><td>3.89</td><td>1.42</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Sympathy</td><td>GETs</td><td>4.32</td><td>0.79</td><td>4.42</td><td>0.90</td><td>4.52</td><td>0.91</td><td>4.45</td><td>0.91</td><td>4.42</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>4.66</td><td>1.06</td><td>4.54</td><td>0.91</td><td>5.03</td><td>0.81</td><td>4.55</td><td>1.19</td><td>4.68</td><td>1.03</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>4.46</td><td>0.92</td><td>4.47</td><td>0.90</td><td>4.70</td><td>0.91</td><td>4.49</td><td>1.04</td><td>4.52</td><td>0.94</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. CG = control group; LG = label group; GETs = general education teachers; SETs = special education teachers.</p> <p>Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations of the Performance Expectations.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">LG0</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG1</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG2</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG3</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Variable</th><th align="center">Teaching Profession</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Likelihood of a poor grade in the next class test</td><td>GETs</td><td>3.73</td><td>0.95</td><td>3.57</td><td>0.91</td><td>3.67</td><td>1.10</td><td>3.87</td><td>1.37</td><td>3.71</td><td>1.08</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>3.77</td><td>1.02</td><td>3.61</td><td>0.89</td><td>3.41</td><td>1.21</td><td>3.67</td><td>1.10</td><td>3.63</td><td>1.05</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>3.75</td><td>0.98</td><td>3.59</td><td>0.90</td><td>3.57</td><td>1.14</td><td>3.78</td><td>1.25</td><td>3.68</td><td>1.07</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Likelihood of achieving the class target</td><td>GETs</td><td>2.83</td><td>1.11</td><td>2.95</td><td>1.07</td><td>2.72</td><td>1.17</td><td>2.36</td><td>1.00</td><td>2.73</td><td>1.11</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>2.92</td><td>1.05</td><td>2.59</td><td>1.09</td><td>2.68</td><td>1.20</td><td>2.79</td><td>1.07</td><td>2.76</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>2.87</td><td>1.09</td><td>2.80</td><td>1.09</td><td>2.70</td><td>1.17</td><td>2.55</td><td>1.05</td><td>2.74</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Highest expected graduation level</td><td>GETs</td><td>3.67</td><td>0.93</td><td>3.41</td><td>1.01</td><td>3.48</td><td>1.16</td><td>3.26</td><td>0.76</td><td>3.48</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>3.23</td><td>0.85</td><td>3.03</td><td>0.96</td><td>2.82</td><td>0.90</td><td>2.69</td><td>0.64</td><td>2.96</td><td>0.86</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>3.49</td><td>0.92</td><td>3.25</td><td>1.00</td><td>3.24</td><td>1.11</td><td>3.01</td><td>0.76</td><td>3.27</td><td>0.97</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Likelihood of completing vocational training</td><td>GETs</td><td>4.49</td><td>1.09</td><td>4.38</td><td>1.20</td><td>4.57</td><td>1.09</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.21</td><td>4.42</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.08</td><td>3.79</td><td>1.03</td><td>3.65</td><td>1.39</td><td>3.74</td><td>1.25</td><td>3.88</td><td>1.19</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>4.37</td><td>1.09</td><td>4.14</td><td>1.16</td><td>4.23</td><td>1.28</td><td>4.00</td><td>1.25</td><td>4.20</td><td>1.19</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Likelihood of completing a university degree</td><td>GETs</td><td>2.11</td><td>1.16</td><td>1.89</td><td>1.02</td><td>1.88</td><td>1.12</td><td>1.75</td><td>1.22</td><td>1.93</td><td>1.14</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>1.96</td><td>1.14</td><td>1.85</td><td>1.25</td><td>1.68</td><td>0.91</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.61</td><td>1.72</td><td>1.04</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>2.05</td><td>1.15</td><td>1.87</td><td>1.11</td><td>1.81</td><td>1.05</td><td>1.57</td><td>1.02</td><td>1.84</td><td>1.10</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Likelihood of working in the first labor market</td><td>GETs</td><td>4.28</td><td>1.10</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.04</td><td>4.07</td><td>1.06</td><td>3.96</td><td>1.30</td><td>4.14</td><td>1.12</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.17</td><td>3.79</td><td>1.08</td><td>3.74</td><td>1.58</td><td>3.98</td><td>1.20</td><td>3.96</td><td>1.25</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>4.25</td><td>1.13</td><td>4.04</td><td>1.07</td><td>3.95</td><td>1.27</td><td>3.97</td><td>1.25</td><td>4.07</td><td>1.18</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>. LG = label group; GETs = general education teachers; SETs = special education teachers.</p> <p>Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations of the Manifestation of Teachers' Expectations in Behavioral Intentions.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">LG0</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG1</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG2</th><th align="center" colspan="2">LG3</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Total</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Variable</th><th align="center">Teaching Profession</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Choice of math tasks</td><td>GETs</td><td>6.75</td><td>3.78</td><td>7.59</td><td>3.73</td><td>6.63</td><td>3.49</td><td>7.47</td><td>4.45</td><td>7.07</td><td>3.85</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>6.60</td><td>3.03</td><td>6.44</td><td>3.55</td><td>6.65</td><td>3.58</td><td>6.38</td><td>4.14</td><td>6.52</td><td>3.53</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>6.69</td><td>3.48</td><td>7.12</td><td>3.68</td><td>6.64</td><td>3.50</td><td>6.99</td><td>4.33</td><td>6.85</td><td>3.73</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Intention to foster performance</td><td>GETs</td><td>3.74</td><td>0.67</td><td>3.79</td><td>0.73</td><td>3.85</td><td>0.77</td><td>3.69</td><td>0.88</td><td>3.77</td><td>0.75</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>3.89</td><td>0.88</td><td>4.01</td><td>0.72</td><td>4.23</td><td>0.80</td><td>3.73</td><td>0.86</td><td>3.95</td><td>0.84</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>3.80</td><td>0.77</td><td>3.88</td><td>0.73</td><td>3.99</td><td>0.80</td><td>3.71</td><td>0.86</td><td>3.84</td><td>0.79</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>. LG = label group; GETs = general education teachers; SETs = special education teachers.</p> <p>Table 6. Frequency Table of the Track Recommendation to Special School versus a General School.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Teaching Profession</th><th align="center">Recommendation</th><th align="center">LG0</th><th align="center">LG1</th><th align="center">LG2</th><th align="center">LG3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">GETs</td><td>Special school</td><td>14</td><td>13</td><td>17</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>General school</td><td>62</td><td>43</td><td>42</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">SETs</td><td>Special school</td><td>21</td><td>16</td><td>17</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>General school</td><td>32</td><td>23</td><td>17</td><td>13</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note</emph>. LG = label group; GETs = general education teachers; SETs = special education teachers.</p> <p>Table 7. Correlations for the Dependent Variables.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Variable</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th><th align="center">9</th><th align="center">10</th><th align="center">11</th><th align="center">12</th><th align="center">13</th><th align="center">14</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> 1 Acceptance of diagnosis</td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 2 Stereotype warmth</td><td>−.02</td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 3 Stereotype competence</td><td>−.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.40<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 4 Pity</td><td>−.03</td><td>.11<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td>−.13<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 5 Sympathy</td><td>.01</td><td>.32<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.18<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 6 Poor grade</td><td>.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>−.09</td><td>−.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>−.08</td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 7 Class target</td><td>−.29<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.08</td><td>.18<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>−.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.04</td><td>−.33<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 8 Graduation level</td><td>−.30<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.08</td><td>.30<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.02</td><td>.01</td><td>−.20<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.29<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> 9 Vocational training</td><td>−.20<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.24<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.32<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.03</td><td>.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>−.21<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.23<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.43<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10 University degree</td><td>−.26<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.03</td><td>.33<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>−.05</td><td>.00</td><td>−.22<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.21<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.54<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.26<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11 First labor market</td><td>−.15<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.22<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.28<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>−.05</td><td>.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td>−.16<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.22<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.30<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.65<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.27<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>12 Track recommendation</td><td>−.26<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.05</td><td>.10<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td>.25<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.48<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.29<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.21<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>13 Choice of math tasks</td><td>−.05</td><td>.05</td><td>.16<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>−.01</td><td>.01</td><td>−.11<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td>.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.15<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.09</td><td>.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.06</td><td>.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td align="center">—</td><td /></tr><tr><td>14 Fostering of performance</td><td>−.06</td><td>.16<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td>.05</td><td>.09</td><td>−.17<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.13<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.12<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">*</xref></td><td>.14<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>.07</td><td>.13<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn8">**</xref></td><td>−.01</td><td>.08</td><td align="center">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>7 <emph>Note</emph>. Track recommendation coded with 0 = special school, 1 = any type of general school. Acceptance of diagnosis: Do you think L. has special learning needs/a learning disability? No (0), yes (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>).</item> <item>8 <emph>p</emph> <.05. **<emph>p</emph> <.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0189932662-33">Hypotheses Testing</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-34">Teachers' Beliefs on Whether the SLN/LD Diagnosis Is Correct</hd> <p>The binomial logistic regression model was significant. With the LG0 and GETs set as the respective reference groups, LG2 (i.e., teachers who remembered the SLN label), <emph>p</emph> =.030, and LG3 (i.e., teachers who remembered the LD label), <emph>p</emph> =.031, were significant predictors for believing in the presence of the respective diagnosis. Specifically, in LG0, 73.64% thought the fictitious student had SLN or an LD. In LG2, 89.36% of the teachers assumed the presence of SLN, and 92.63% of the teachers in LG3 assumed the presence of an LD. No other predictors were significant (see Table 8).</p> <p>Table 8. Result of a Logistic Regression Examining Whether the Label Group and Teaching Profession Influence the Teachers' Belief on Whether the SLN/LD Diagnosis Is Correct.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Variable</th><th align="center"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>z</italic></th><th align="center">Exp (<italic>B</italic>)</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>1.10</td><td>0.26</td><td>4.15</td><td>3.00</td><td><.001</td><td>[0.59, 1.64]</td></tr><tr><td>LG1</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.98</td><td>1.53</td><td>.329</td><td>[−0.41, 1.32]</td></tr><tr><td>LG2</td><td>1.10</td><td>0.51</td><td>2.17</td><td>3.00</td><td>.030</td><td>[0.16, 2.17]</td></tr><tr><td>LG3</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.54</td><td>2.16</td><td>3.20</td><td>.031</td><td>[0.17, 2.33]</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>−0.17</td><td>0.40</td><td>−0.42</td><td>0.84</td><td>.676</td><td>[−0.96, 0.63]</td></tr><tr><td>LG1 × SETs</td><td>−0.29</td><td>0.65</td><td>−0.45</td><td>0.75</td><td>.652</td><td>[−1.57, 0.98]</td></tr><tr><td>LG2 × SETs</td><td>−0.01</td><td>0.79</td><td>−0.02</td><td>0.99</td><td>.987</td><td>[−1.56, 1.61]</td></tr><tr><td>LG3 × SETs</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.95</td><td>2.47</td><td>.344</td><td>[−0.88, 3.01]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>9 <emph>Note.</emph> Reference groups: LG0 and GETs. Do you think L. has special learning needs/a learning disability? No (0) versus yes (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>). The binomial logistic regression model was significant, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref99">7</reflink>) = 20.63, <emph>p</emph> =.004, Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.081. SLN = special learning needs; LG = label group; SETs = special education teachers; GETs = general education teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-35">Stereotypes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-36">Stereotype Warmth</hd> <p>There was no significant effect of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.001, the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.001, and their interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.004 (see Table 9).</p> <p>Table 9. Results of ANOVAs Examining Whether the Label Group and Teaching Profession Influence Teachers' Stereotypes and Emotions.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Variable</th><th align="center">Sum of squares</th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><sub>partial</sub> η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><sub>partial</sub> η<sup>2</sup> 95% CI [LL, UL]</th></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="7">Stereotype warmth</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>6,821.9</td><td>1</td><td>9,304.99</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>0.4</td><td>3</td><td>0.19</td><td>.905</td><td>.001</td><td>[.000,.007]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>0.2</td><td>1</td><td>0.32</td><td>.569</td><td>.001</td><td>[.000,.015]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>1.1</td><td>3</td><td>0.48</td><td>.696</td><td>.004</td><td>[.000,.016]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>291.8</td><td>398</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="7">Stereotype competence</th></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>3,457.0</td><td>1</td><td>5,587</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>0.5</td><td>3</td><td>0.25</td><td>.859</td><td>.002</td><td>[.000,.010]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>0.5</td><td>1</td><td>0.89</td><td>.347</td><td>.002</td><td>[.000,.020]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>1.0</td><td>3</td><td>0.56</td><td>.639</td><td>.004</td><td>[.000,.018]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>248.1</td><td>401</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="7">Pity</th></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>5,731.1</td><td>1</td><td>3,003.28</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>4.9</td><td>3</td><td>0.85</td><td>.465</td><td>.006</td><td>[.000,.023]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>26.1</td><td>1</td><td>13.67</td><td><.001</td><td>.033</td><td>[.007,.072]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>16.1</td><td>3</td><td>2.82</td><td>.039</td><td>.020</td><td>[.000,.049]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>772.9</td><td>405</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Sympathy</td></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>8,034.7</td><td>1</td><td>9,208.12</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>5.4</td><td>3</td><td>2.06</td><td>.104</td><td>.015</td><td>[.000,.040]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>6.9</td><td>1</td><td>7.90</td><td>.005</td><td>.019</td><td>[.002,.053]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>2.6</td><td>3</td><td>1.01</td><td>.387</td><td>.007</td><td>[.000,.026]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>350.8</td><td>402</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189932662-37">Stereotype Competence</hd> <p>We found no significant effect of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.002, the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.002, and their interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.004 (see Table 9).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-38">Pity</hd> <p>The analysis indicated a main effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.033. GETs felt more pity for the fictitious student than SETs. The significant interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.020, indicated that the difference between GETs and SETs was significant in LG0, <emph>p</emph> <.001, and LG2, <emph>p</emph> =.011. We found no significant main effect of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.006 (see Table 9).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-39">Sympathy</hd> <p>A main effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.019, showed that SETs felt more sympathy for the fictitious student than GETs. The LG's effect, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.015, and the interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.007, were insignificant (see Table 9).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-40">Performance Expectations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-41">Likelihood of a Poor Grade in the Next Class Test</hd> <p>The Levene test showed that the assumption of variance homogeneity was violated, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref100">7</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib401" id="ref101">401</reflink>) = 2.78, <emph>p</emph> =.008. We, therefore, conducted a robust ANOVA. Instead of the <emph>F</emph> distribution, the pairwise trimmed mean difference psi hat ( <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mover accent="true"><mi>ψ</mi><mo stretchy="true">^</mo></mover></mrow></math> </ephtml> ) was evaluated ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref102">42</reflink>]). We found no significant main effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mover accent="true"><mi>ψ</mi><mo stretchy="true">^</mo></mover></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 1.30, <emph>p</emph> =.256, the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mover accent="true"><mi>ψ</mi><mo stretchy="true">^</mo></mover></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 2.46, <emph>p</emph> =.491, or their interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mover accent="true"><mi>ψ</mi><mo stretchy="true">^</mo></mover></mrow></math> </ephtml> = 3.00, <emph>p</emph> =.401.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-42">Likelihood of Achieving the Class Target</hd> <p>We found no significant effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.000, the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.011, or their interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.015 (see Table 10).</p> <p>Table 10. Results of ANOVAs Examining Whether the Label Group and Teaching Profession Influence Teachers' Classic Performance Expectation.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Variable</th><th align="center">Sum of squares</th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><sub>partial</sub> η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><sub>partial</sub> η<sup>2</sup> 95% CI [LL, UL]</th></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="7">Likelihood of achieving the class target</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>2,900.0</td><td>1</td><td>2,418.52</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>5.2</td><td>3</td><td>1.45</td><td>.228</td><td>.011</td><td>[.000,.032]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>0.1</td><td>1</td><td>0.08</td><td>.777</td><td>.000</td><td>[.000,.011]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>7.4</td><td>3</td><td>2.05</td><td>.107</td><td>.015</td><td>[.000,.040]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>485.6</td><td>405</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="7">Highest expected graduation level</th></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>3,987.8</td><td>1</td><td>4,670.67</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>12.4</td><td>3</td><td>4.86</td><td>.002</td><td>.035</td><td>[.005,.070]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>25.9</td><td>1</td><td>30.35</td><td><.001</td><td>.070</td><td>[.029,.120]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>1.1</td><td>3</td><td>0.42</td><td>.739</td><td>.003</td><td>[.000,.014]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>345.7</td><td>405</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><th align="center" colspan="7">Likelihood of completing vocational training</th></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>6,638.4</td><td>1</td><td>4,937.48</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>8.3</td><td>3</td><td>2.07</td><td>.104</td><td>.015</td><td>[.000,.040]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>30.8</td><td>1</td><td>22.89</td><td><.001</td><td>.053</td><td>[.019,.100]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>5.4</td><td>3</td><td>1.34</td><td>.261</td><td>.010</td><td>[.000,.030]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>544.5</td><td>405</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Likelihood of completing a university degree</td></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>1,271.8</td><td>1</td><td>1,072.43</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>13.2</td><td>3</td><td>3.71</td><td>.012</td><td>.027</td><td>[.001,.058]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>4.1</td><td>1</td><td>3.43</td><td>.064</td><td>.008</td><td>[.000,.034]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>1.8</td><td>3</td><td>0.50</td><td>.680</td><td>.004</td><td>[.000,.016]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>480.3</td><td>405</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Likelihood of working in the first labor market</td></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>6,324.5</td><td>1</td><td>4,566.22</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>7.3</td><td>3</td><td>1.76</td><td>.153</td><td>.013</td><td>[.000,.036]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>4.0</td><td>1</td><td>2.85</td><td>.092</td><td>.007</td><td>[.000,.031]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>3.1</td><td>3</td><td>0.74</td><td>.528</td><td>.005</td><td>[.000,.021]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>561.0</td><td>405</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189932662-43">Highest Expected Graduation Level</hd> <p>We found a main effect of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.035, and the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.065. GETs expected a higher graduation level than SETs. The variables did not interact, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.003. The post hoc test for the effect of the LG showed a significant difference between LG0 and LG3, <emph>p</emph> =.001. This means teachers who remembered the LD label expected a lower graduation level than teachers who read the vignette without a label (see Table 10).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-44">Likelihood of Completing Vocational Training</hd> <p>We found a main effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.053. GETs rated the likelihood higher than SETs. We observed no significant effect of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.015, or interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.010 (see Table 10).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-45">Likelihood of Completing a University Degree</hd> <p>We found a main effect of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.027. The post hoc test indicated that only the difference between LG0 and LG3 was significant, <emph>p</emph> =.006. Teachers who remembered the LD label perceived a lower likelihood that the fictitious student would graduate from university than teachers who read the vignette without a label. We found no significant effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.008, or interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.004 (see Table 10).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-46">Likelihood of Working in the First Labor Market</hd> <p>We found no significant effects of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.013, the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.007, or their interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.005 (see Table 10).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-47">Manifestation of Teachers' Expectations in Behavioral Intentions</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-48">Choice of Math Tasks</hd> <p>There were no significant effects of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.002, the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.006, or their interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.005 (see Table 11).</p> <p>Table 11. Results of ANOVAs Examining Whether the Label Group and Teaching Profession Influence the Manifestation of Teachers' Expectations in Behavioral Intentions.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Variable</th><th align="center">Sum of squares</th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center"><sub>partial</sub> η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="center"><sub>partial</sub> η<sup>2</sup> 95% CI [LL, UL]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7">Choice of math tasks</td></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>18,088.4</td><td>1</td><td>1,292.74</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>9.8</td><td>3</td><td>0.23</td><td>.874</td><td>.002</td><td>[.000,.009]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>34.4</td><td>1</td><td>2.46</td><td>.118</td><td>.006</td><td>[.000,.029]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>27.2</td><td>3</td><td>0.65</td><td>.585</td><td>.005</td><td>[.000,.019]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>5,666.9</td><td>405</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Intention to foster performance</td></tr><tr><td> Intercept</td><td>5,825.3</td><td>1</td><td>9,451.35</td><td><.001</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Label group</td><td>5.3</td><td>3</td><td>2.88</td><td>.036</td><td>.021</td><td>[.000,.049]</td></tr><tr><td> Teaching profession</td><td>3.7</td><td>1</td><td>6.04</td><td>.014</td><td>.015</td><td>[.000,.045]</td></tr><tr><td> Group × profession</td><td>1.4</td><td>3</td><td>0.76</td><td>.519</td><td>.006</td><td>[.000,.021]</td></tr><tr><td> Error</td><td>249.6</td><td>405</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0189932662-49">Intention to Foster Performance</hd> <p>We found a significant effect of the LG, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.021. The post hoc test showed a significant difference between LG2 and LG3, <emph>p</emph> =.025. This means teachers who remembered the SLN label intended to foster performance more than teachers who remembered the LD label. The teaching profession's main effect was also significant, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.015. SETs intended to foster performance more than GETs. There was no significant interaction, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.006 (see Table 11).</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-50">Track Recommendation for Secondary School</hd> <p>We tested the frequency of recommendations for a special school compared with any general school. The binomial logistic regression model was significant. With the LG0 and GETs set as the respective reference groups, LG3, <emph>p</emph> =.047, was a significant predictor for recommending a special school. Specifically, in LG0, only 27.13% recommended a special school, but 49.47% of teachers who remembered the LD label recommended a special school. Being an SET also predicted recommendations to a special school, <emph>p</emph> =.009. Specifically, 49.40% of the SETs advised a special school compared with 25.41% of the GETs. There were no significant interactions (see Table 12).</p> <p>Table 12. Result of a Logistic Regressions Examining Whether the Label Group and Teaching Profession Influence the Track Recommendation.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Variable</th><th align="center"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>z</italic></th><th align="center">Exp (<italic>B</italic>)</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="center">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>1.49</td><td>0.30</td><td>5.03</td><td>4.43</td><td><.001</td><td>[0.94, 2.11]</td></tr><tr><td>LG1</td><td>−0.29</td><td>0.43</td><td>−0.67</td><td>0.75</td><td>.501</td><td>[−1.15, 0.57]</td></tr><tr><td>LG2</td><td>−0.58</td><td>0.41</td><td>−1.42</td><td>0.56</td><td>.157</td><td>[−1.40, 0.22]</td></tr><tr><td>LG3</td><td>−0.82</td><td>0.41</td><td>−1.99</td><td>0.44</td><td>.047</td><td>[−1.65, −0.02]</td></tr><tr><td>SETs</td><td>−1.07</td><td>0.41</td><td>−2.62</td><td>0.34</td><td>.009</td><td>[−1.88, −0.28]</td></tr><tr><td>LG1 × SETs</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.38</td><td>1.26</td><td>.702</td><td>[−0.97, 1.43]</td></tr><tr><td>LG2 × SETs</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.27</td><td>1.18</td><td>.789</td><td>[−1.03, 1.35]</td></tr><tr><td>LG3 × SETs</td><td>−0.40</td><td>0.60</td><td>−0.67</td><td>0.67</td><td>.506</td><td>[−1.59, 0.78]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>10 <emph>Note.</emph> Reference groups: LG0 and GETs. Track recommendation: special school (0) versus any type of general school (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>). The binomial logistic regression model was significant, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref104">7</reflink>) = 39.32, <emph>p</emph> <.001, Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> =.125. LG = label group; SETs = special education teachers.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-51">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189932662-52">Summary of the Results</hd> <p>Our study examined whether the two special education needs labels "SLNs" and "LD" influenced teachers' judgments of a fictitious student with learning problems. We also examined whether the labels influenced GETs and SETs differently.</p> <p>For our RQ1, we hypothesized that teachers who remembered the SLN/LD diagnosis believed more frequently that the diagnosis was correct (H1a) and that SETs did so more frequently than GETs (H1b). Hypothesis 1a was confirmed because teachers who remembered the SLN and LD labels were more likely to believe that the diagnosis was accurate. However, the teaching profession was not a significant predictor (H1b).</p> <p>For the RQ2, we hypothesized that teachers who remembered the SLN/LD diagnosis had higher paternalistic stereotypes and emotions for the student than teachers who did not remember the diagnosis or read the student's description without a diagnostic label (H2a). We also assumed SETs have higher paternalistic stereotypes and emotions than GETs (H2b). However, the SLN and LD labels did not significantly alter teachers' perceived warmth or competence. The results regarding the influence of the teaching profession were more complex. As hypothesized, SETs felt more sympathy for the fictitious students. However, GETs felt more pity than SETs when no label was presented or they remembered the SLN label, which contradicts our assumption (discussed below).</p> <p>For the RQ3, we hypothesized that teachers who remembered the SLN/LD diagnosis in the student's description had lower performance expectations than teachers who did not remember or were not presented with a diagnosis. We also assumed that the lower performance expectations manifested in the intention to reduce students' academic requirements (H3a). Our data partially supported our hypothesis because teachers who remembered the LD label expressed lower long-term academic expectations. These lower expectations manifested in more recommendations to a special school. Unexpectedly, we found that teachers who remembered the SLN label intended to foster the academic performance of the fictitious student more than teachers who remembered the LD label (discussed below).</p> <p>We also hypothesized that SETs have lower performance expectations than GETs, which manifest in lower teaching requirements, regardless of the presence of a label (H3b). Our data supported this assumption somewhat because some of the SETs' expectations were lower than those of GETs. However, despite some lower expectations, SETs intended to foster academic performance more than GETs, contradicting the assumed connections between expectations and their manifestation in behavioral intentions.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-53">Interpretation of the Results and Outlook on Future Research</hd> <p>Like in other studies, the diagnostic labels increased the likelihood that teachers believed the diagnosis was accurate ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref105">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref106">33</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref107">50</reflink>]). However, unlike postulated by the label theory, the labels did not increase paternalistic stereotypes, which was previously observed for students with learning problems ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref108">34</reflink>]). Two interconnected explanations for this result could be considered. First, we measured teachers' explicit stereotypes; meaning teachers were aware of their judgments ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref109">24</reflink>]). It is possible that socially desirable responses influenced the results obtained. Although teachers perceived the student's warmth to be higher than the competence, typically associated with individuals with disabilities, the actual competence score was around the average point on the scale and not as low as predicted by the stereotype content model ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref110">17</reflink>]). Thus, teachers may have given socially desirable answers. Second, implicit bias needs to be considered. Unlike explicit measures, "implicit bias is thought to reflect the automatic cognitive association or affective predisposition individuals have with different social groups" ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref111">53</reflink>], p. 2). Individuals are believed to have limited awareness and control over their implicit biases ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref112">24</reflink>]). Teachers' implicit biases have primarily been studied for Caucasian versus non-Caucasian students ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref113">10</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref114">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref115">53</reflink>]). However, teachers may also have implicit biases toward students with special educational needs. Although implicit beliefs can be challenging to measure and may not manifest in behavior ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref116">38</reflink>]), future studies should examine teachers' explicit stereotypes and implicit bias of students with learning problems to achieve a more holistic view.</p> <p>As mentioned, the competence and warmth dimensions were higher and lower than anticipated by the stereotype content model. A caveat that needs to be considered is the meaning of "competence" and "warmth" in teacher–student relationships. Although the stereotype content model has been used to evaluate group stereotypes in many contexts ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref117">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref118">54</reflink>]), it has to be considered that a group's perceived competition conceptualizes the meaning of warmth, and a group's perceived status conceptualizes the meaning of competence ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref119">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref120">17</reflink>]). This means that groups perceived as competitive are not perceived as warm, and vice versa. And, if the group's status is perceived as high, it is perceived as competent, and vice versa. However, in the school context, there is a natural hierarchy where teachers have a higher status than students, and it is unlikely that teachers feel professional competition from students. This natural hierarchy might influence teachers' ratings, and the question of what warmth measures from a teacher–student perspective arises. One possibility is that instead of competence in the classic sense, it measures teachers' perceived self-efficacy to teach students with special educational needs in learning. Thus, when teachers feel unprepared to teach these students in inclusive settings ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref121">66</reflink>]), they might consider the needs of these students as a "threat" to teaching the curricular requirements.</p> <p>One reason why teachers' warmth and competence ratings were not as high or low for students with disabilities as suggested by the stereotype content model may be the difference between the overall stereotype of a group (like "students with SLN/an LD") and the judgment of an individual student. Specifically, judging members of a social group might lead to more stereotypical assumptions than judgments of an individual who (possibly) is a member of a particular social group.</p> <p>Even if this study did not indicate that the SLN/LD labels changed teachers' stereotypes, we must remember that we examined the teachers' perspectives. Although this perspective is critical, the stereotypes that labeled students perceive should not be neglected. Studies showed that labeled students perceived themselves as incompetent and thought others believed they were incompetent ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref122">43</reflink>]). They felt shame or humiliation and actively tried to conceal their disability to reduce negative stereotypes of teachers and peers ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref123">14</reflink>]). Thus, although one might argue that the results of this study do not strongly support the labeling-stereotype connection, it is likely that students labeled with learning disabilities still perceive stereotypes from their teachers, parents, peers, and other people in their environment.</p> <p>Looking at paternalistic emotions and differences between the two teaching professions, we found that SETs feel more sympathy for the fictitious student than GETs. However, a study showed that solid sympathy toward disabled people predicted stable attributions of learning problems ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref124">7</reflink>]). This might help explain why SETs had lower performance expectations than GETs, which will be discussed later. Specifically, it might indicate that teachers' sympathy for students is not closely related to performance expectations. More detailed, the intercorrelation table shows that sympathy was not related to performance expectations within the school context but to work-related expectations later in life.</p> <p>The result that GETs felt more pity for the fictitious student in the absence of a label or when they remembered the SLN label is difficult to explain, especially because the effect did not occur for the LD label. Before we draw far-reaching conclusions, this result should be replicated.</p> <p>As in previous studies, the LD label lowered teachers' performance expectations when they remembered the diagnosis ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref125">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref126">33</reflink>]). However, the SLN label did not result in significantly lower teacher expectations. This contradicts the results of other studies that found adverse effects of different labels for students with learning problems ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref127">30</reflink>]). It seems that the SLN and LD labels influence teachers differently. A possible explanation could be found in the wording itself. An LD includes the word "disability," which may evoke a medical perspective of an LD as inherent within the student ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref128">29</reflink>]). In contrast, the German translation of SLN emphasizes the educational need for support and may encourage the assumption that the student's problems could decrease with the right help. This may explain why teachers who remembered the SLN label intended to foster the fictitious students' performance more than teachers who remembered the LD label. Future studies should investigate the differential impact of the two diagnoses on other teacher judgments.</p> <p>It is noteworthy that the LD label only lowered teachers' long-term expectations. This might indicate that teachers perceived the diagnosis as stable. In other words, if the label only harmed short-term academic performance expectations, it would suggest that teachers were more likely to see learning problems as modifiable. This interpretation is reinforced because both labels led teachers to accept the respective diagnosis as correct more frequently.</p> <p>The simplified expectation effect model postulates that teachers' expectations manifest in their behavior ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref129">31</reflink>]). Looking at the correlations between the expectation variables and the behavioral intention measures, our data supported the hypothesis that higher expectations manifested in higher requirements. However, SETs, who partially had lower expectations, intended to foster academic performance more than GETs. Thus, our results suggest that other factors, such as the teaching profession, may moderate the relation between expectations and behavior. Regardless of the SLN and LD labels, the present and our previous studies showed that SETs had lower performance expectations than GETs ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref130">32</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref131">33</reflink>]). However, as previously stated, other studies concluded the opposite ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref132">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref133">65</reflink>]). Maybe the type of school (i.e. a general or a special school) teachers work at influenced the lower performance expectations we found in our studies. Specifically, in this study, most SETs worked in special education (87.50%), compared with a small percentage of GETs (0.41%). The lower academic standards of special schools might have decreased SETs' performance expectations. To examine this assumption, future studies should focus on the differences in the performance expectations of GETs and SETs depending on whether they teach in inclusive general or special schools.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-54">Limitations</hd> <p>Some limitations must be taken into consideration. First, our study was experimental, with a short vignette describing a fictitious student. Although such an approach is strong in internal validity, it typically lacks external validity. Likewise, measuring actual classroom behavior with a questionnaire is complex, such as the choice of tasks in experimental designs. Hence, labeling effects should be replicated in real-world classrooms. One possibility to measure teachers' performance expectations is observing dyadic teacher–individual student interactions, as several teacher expectation effects studies have shown that teachers' interaction with students can vary as a function of their perceived capability of the student ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref134">38</reflink>]). Second, we demonstrated that the LD label only unfolded adverse effects on teachers' judgments when consciously remembered. Future studies should investigate which teacher-related variables influence whether or not a label is perceived and remembered. Third, the group sizes of each LG were small. Thus, our data may lack the power to identify small labeling effects of some dependent variables. Fourth, although we know that the LD label affects teachers' performance expectations negatively, we do not see how relatively strong the influence of the LD label is compared with other factors that influence teachers' expectations. For example, the actual student performance might moderate the impact of the LD label on teachers' expectations. In this study, the learning problems of the fictitious student were described as profound, possibly making it easy not to question an LD diagnosis. This assumption is supported by the result that when no diagnosis was given (i.e., in the CG), nearly three-quarters of the teachers believed in the diagnosis. However, can the effects of the LD label also be found when the described academic performance is less severe? This question should be investigated in further studies. Fifth, it has to be considered that the description of our fictitious student also did not inform teachers about gender, whether or not the student had a migration background, or their socio-economic status. We know that these variables, among others not mentioned, influence teachers' judgments about students (for teachers' performance expectations, see [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref135">56</reflink>]). Hence, it is necessary to examine the possible interactions of these variables with the label effects in forthcoming studies.</p> <hd id="AN0189932662-55">Conclusion</hd> <p>In the context of ableism in schools and the Dilemma of Difference, our study empirically examined the theoretical assumption that the use of diagnostic labels for students with learning problems is linked to the stereotype of low academic competence, which results in teachers' lower performance expectations of this student. Our study showed that the "LD" label lowered teachers' long-term academic performance expectations. However, our data did not support the assumption that this was caused by the label's link to the stereotype of lower competence. Thus, more investigations and further studies measuring implicit bias are needed. If the label-stereotype/label-implicit bias connection was supported in forthcoming studies, it could be a starting point for teacher training to provide insights into the labeling effect. Our analysis also showed that different diagnostic labels for the same students lead to different teacher judgments. Although the development of diagnostic terms is carried out at a political level, it is essential to evaluate whether the changes in terminology lead to the intended changes in the perception of the diagnosed students.</p> <ref id="AN0189932662-56"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref46" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Akifyeva R., Alieva A. (2018). The influence of student ethnicity on teacher expectations and teacher perceptions of warmth and competence. Psychology in Russia: State of Art, 11(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2018.0109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref77" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref17" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Andersen M. M., Varga S., Folker A. P. (2022). On the definition of stigma. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 28(5), 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bianco M. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers' referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref62" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bianco M., Leech N. L. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409356392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bogart K. R., Dunn D. S. (2019). Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 75(3), 650–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12354</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref99" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brady K., Woolfson L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions for children's difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X268570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brantlinger E. A. (2006). Winners need losers: The basis for school competition and hierarchies. In Brantlinger E. A. (Ed.), Who benefits from special education? Remediating (fixing) other people's children (pp. 197–232). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref88" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Buchwald K., Lutz S., Gebhardt M. (2022). ZmuM100-Levumi N3. Test zu Rechenoperationen zur Lernverlaufsdiagnostik-„Zahlen multiplizieren (Zahlenraum 100)" der Onlineplattform www.levumi.de: Beschreibung der Testkonstruktion sowie der Items des Rechenoperationstests „Zahlen multiplizieren" in deutscher Sprache [ZmuM100-Levumi N3 - Test on arithmetic operations for learning progress diagnostics - "Multiplying numbers (number range 100)" of the online platform <ulink href="http://www.levumi.de">www.levumi.de</ulink>. Description of the test construction and the items of the arithmetic operation test "Multiplying numbers" in German]. https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/51600/1/Buchwald_et_al._%282022%29_Multiplizieren_N3.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chin M. J., Quinn D. M., Dhaliwal T. K., Lovison V. S. (2020). Bias in the air: A nationwide exploration of teachers' implicit racial attitudes, aggregate bias, and student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark M. D. (1997). Teacher response to learning disability: A test of attributional principles. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuddy A. J. C., Fiske S. T., Susan T., Glick P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuddy A. J. C., Fiske S. T., [Susan T.], Glick P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daley S. G., Rappolt-Schlichtmann G. (2018). Stigma consciousness among adolescents with learning disabilities: Considering individual experiences of being stereotyped. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718785565</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiske S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T., Lindzey G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 357–411). McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiske S. T. (2018). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. In Fiske S. T. (Ed.), Social cognition: Selected works of Susan Fiske (pp. 101–115). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P., Xu J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franz D. J., Richter T., Lenhard W., Marx P., Stein R., Ratz C. (2023). The influence of diagnostic labels on the evaluation of students: A multilevel meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09716-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gärtner L., Asbrock F., Euteneuer F., Rief W., Salzmann S. (2022). Self-stigma among people with mental health problems in terms of warmth and competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 877491. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.877491</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georgiou S. N., Christou C., Stavrinides P., Panaoura G. (2002). Teacher attributions of student failure and teacher behavior toward the failing student. Psychology in the Schools, 39(5), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goffman E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Good T. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718703800406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S. (1984). Teacher feelings and student thoughts: An attributional approach to affect in the classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/461394</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenwald A. G., Banaji M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grünke M., Cavendish W. (2016). Learning disabilities around the globe: Making sense of the heterogeneity of the different viewpoints. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14(1), 1–8. https://<ulink href="http://www.researchgate.net/publication/301221227%5fLearning%5fDisabilities%5fAround%5fthe%5fGlobe%5fMaking%5fSense%5fof%5fthe%5fHeterogeneity%5fof%5fthe%5fDifferent%5fViewpoints/citations">www.researchgate.net/publication/301221227%5fLearning%5fDisabilities%5fAround%5fthe%5fGlobe%5fMaking%5fSense%5fof%5fthe%5fHeterogeneity%5fof%5fthe%5fDifferent%5fViewpoints/citations</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grünke M., Grosche M. (2014). Lernbehinderung [Learning disability]. In Lauth G. W., Grünke M., Brunstein J. C. (Eds.), Interventionen bei Lernstörungen: Förderung, Training und Therapie in der Praxis [Interventions for learning disorders: Support, training, and therapy in practice] (2nd ed., pp. 76–89). Hogrefe.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Häßler F. (2011). Intelligenzminderung. Eine ärztliche Herausforderung [Intellectual disability. A medical challenge]. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12996-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heimlich U. (2009). Lernschwierigkeiten: Sonderpädagogische Förderung im Förderschwerpunkt Lernen [Learning difficulties: Special educational support for special learning needs]. Klinkhardt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho A. (2004). To be labelled, or not to be labelled: That is the question. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(2), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2004.00284.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornstra L., Denessen E., Bakker J., van den Bergh L., Voeten M. (2010). Teacher attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355479</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston O., Wildy H., Shand J. (2019). A decade of teacher expectations research 2008–2018: Historical foundations, new developments, and future pathways. Australian Journal of Education, 63(1), 44–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944118824420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashikar L., Soemers L., Lüke T., Grosche M. (2023). Does the "Learning Disability" label lower teachers' performance expectations? Social Psychology of Education, 26(4), 971–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-023-09775-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashikar L., Soemers L., Lüke T., Grosche M. (2024). Influence of the "Learning Disability" label on teachers' performance expectations—A matter of attitudes towards inclusion? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(3), 696–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12664</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krischler M., Pit-ten Cate I. M. (2019). Pre- and in-service teachers' attitudes toward students with learning difficulties and challenging behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 327. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krischler M., Pit-ten Cate I. M., Krolak-Schwerdt S. (2018). Mixed stereotype content and attitudes toward students with special educational needs and their inclusion in regular schools in Luxembourg. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 75, 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.02.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar R., Karabenick S. A., Burgoon J. N. (2015). Teachers' implicit attitudes, explicit beliefs, and the mediating role of respect and cultural responsibility on mastery and performance-focused instructional practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanfranchi A., Jenny G. (2005). Prozesse der Zuweisung von Kindern mit Problemen zu sonderpädagogischen Massnahmen [Allocation processes of children with problems to special education services]. In Häfelu K., Walter-Müller P. (Eds.), Das Wachstum des sonderpädagogischen Angebots im interkantonalen Vergleich: Steuerungsmöglichkeiten für eine integrative Ausgestaltung [The growth of special needs education provision in an intercantonal comparison: Steering options for an integrative design] (pp. 217–278). Edition SZH/CSPS.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavigne A. L., Good T. L. (2021). Using dyadic observation to explore equitable learning opportunities in classroom instruction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(149), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.29.6954</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LimeSurvey. (2021). LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool [Computer software]. <ulink href="http://www.limesurvey.org">http://www.limesurvey.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Link B. G., Phelan J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lüttich P. (2022). Beurteilung schulischen Förderbedarfs [Assessment of special educational needs]. In Dohrenbusch R. (Ed.), Psychologische Begutachtung [Psychological assessment] (pp. 1–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64801-8_90-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mair P., Wilcox R. (2020). Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 464–488. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01246-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May A. L., Stone C. A. (2010). Stereotypes of individuals with learning disabilities: Views of college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409355483</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministerium für Schule und Bildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. (2022). Verordnung über die sonderpädagogische Förderung, den Hausunterricht und die Klinikschule (Ausbildungsordnung sonderpädagogische Förderung—AO-SF) [Ordinance on special educational support, home schooling and the hospital school (Special Educational Support—AO-SF)]. https://bass.schul-welt.de/6225.htm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norwich B. (2009). Dilemmas of difference and the identification of special educational needs/disability: International perspectives. British Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Powell J. J. (2010). Change in disability classification: Redrawing categorical boundaries in special education in the United States and Germany, 1920-2005. Comparative Sociology, 9(2), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12536181351079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.3.2) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">www.R-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RStudio Team. (2023). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (Version 2023.12.0) [Computer software]. RStudio, PBC. <ulink href="http://www.rstudio.com">http://www.rstudio.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schröder U. (2005). Lernbehindertenpädagogik: Grundlagen und Perspektiven sonderpädagogischer Lernhilfe: [Learning disability education: Foundations and perspectives of special needs learning assistance] (2nd ed.). Kohlhammer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shifrer D. (2013). Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54(4), 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513503346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shifrer D. (2016). Stigma and stratification limiting the math course progression of adolescents labeled with a learning disability. Learning and Instruction, 42, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singmann H., Bolker B., Aust F., Ben-Shachar M. S. (2023). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments (Version R package version 1.3-0) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Starck J. G., Riddle T., Sinclair S., Warikoo N. (2020). Teachers are people too: Examining the racial bias of teachers compared to other American adults. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912758</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vervecken D., Gygax P. M., Gabriel U., Guillod M., Hannover B. (2015). Warm-hearted businessmen, competitive housewives? Effects of gender-fair language on adolescents' perceptions of occupations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1437. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vlachou A., Eleftheriadou D., Metallidou P. (2014). Do learning difficulties differentiate elementary teachers' attributional patterns for students' academic failure? A comparison between Greek regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.830440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang S., Rubie-Davies C. M., Meissel K. (2018). A systematic review of the teacher expectation literature over the past 30 years. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3–5), 124–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1548798</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Werner S., Abergel M. (2018). What's in a label? The stigmatizing effect of intellectual disability by any other name. Stigma and Health, 3(4), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitley J. (2010). Modelling the influence of teacher characteristics on student achievement for Canadian students with and without learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 88–97. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ909039.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wickham H., Averick M., Bryan J., Chang W., McGowan L. D., François R., Grolemund G., Hayes A., Henry L., Hester J., Kuhn M., Pedersen T. L., Miller E., Bache S. M., Müller K., Ooms J., Robinson D., Seidel D. P., Spinu V...Yutani H. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock S. (2014). Attributional beliefs of Canadian trainee teachers toward students with a learning disability. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/ajer.v60i1.55808</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock S. (2020). Teachers' beliefs in inclusive education and the attributional responses toward students with and without specific learning difficulties. Dyslexia, 27(1), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock S., Vialle W. (2010). Attributional beliefs of students with learning disabilities. The International Journal of Learning, 17(7), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i07/47160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock S., Vialle W. (2011). Are we exacerbating students' learning disabilities? An investigation of preservice teachers' attributions of the educational outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-011-0058-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock S., Vialle W. (2016). An examination of pre-service teachers' attributions for students with specific learning difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolfson L., Grant E., Campbell L. (2007). A comparison of special, general and support teachers' controllability and stability attributions for children's difficulties in learning. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066826</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wray E., Sharma U., Subban P. (2022). Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education: A systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103800</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189932662-57"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Linda Kashikar performed material preparation, data collection, and analysis. She wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and all authors commented on previous versions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The data supporting this study's findings are openly available at figshare.https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_frame_and_script/25334125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> All participants gave written informed consent.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The University of Wuppertal Ethics Review Panel approved the study on January 3, 2023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Linda Kashikar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5207-4947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> For readers interested in the underlying processes between the linking of labels and stereotypes: The social cognitive approach by [15] examines the cognitive processes between the categorization of individuals (e.g., by a label) and the activation of stereotypes ([40]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The fact that some teachers did not remember the diagnosis of SLN/an LD, although it was mentioned in the vignette, cannot be interpreted as inattentive reading, as they had correctly answered the three content questions that were asked immediately after reading the description of the fictitious student. Remember that the experimental manipulation was rather subtle and that the manipulation check as to whether the diagnosis was mentioned in the vignette was asked at the end of the questionnaire after around 15 min.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Linda Kashikar; Timo Lüke and Michael Grosche</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib401" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref122"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1492616
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of Diagnostic Labels for Students with Learning Problems on Teachers' Stereotypes and Performance Expectations
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Linda+Kashikar%22">Linda Kashikar</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5207-4947">0000-0002-5207-4947</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Timo+Lüke%22">Timo Lüke</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+Grosche%22">Michael Grosche</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Learning+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Learning Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2026 59(1):37-54.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stereotypes%22">Stereotypes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Identification%22">Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Problems%22">Learning Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes+toward+Disabilities%22">Attitudes toward Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Needs+Students%22">Special Needs Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Labeling+%28of+Persons%29%22">Labeling (of Persons)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regular+and+Special+Education+Relationship%22">Regular and Special Education Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Beliefs%22">Beliefs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+%28Occupation%29%22">Teaching (Occupation)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Expectations+of+Students%22">Teacher Expectations of Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disability+Identification%22">Disability Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Schools%22">Special Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22General+Education%22">General Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Germany%22">Germany</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00222194251315187
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-2194<br />1538-4780
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Labeling students with learning problems may change teachers' evaluations of them. Our study examined whether the "Special Learning Needs" (SLN) and "Learning Disability" (LD) labels influenced teachers' beliefs that the diagnosis was correct and activated a low-competence stereotype. We examined whether this stereotype lowered teachers' performance expectations and teaching intentions. A sample of 413 German general and special education teachers were randomly assigned to the control (no label) or one of the experimental groups (SLN/LD label). All teachers read the description of a fictitious student with learning problems. Only in the experimental groups was the student labeled with an LD or SLN. Results showed that both labels increased teachers' acceptance of the diagnosis as accurate. However, the labels did not change teachers' stereotypes of the fictitious student. The LD label lowered some of teachers' long-term performance expectations, resulting in more track recommendations to a special school. Unexpectedly, the SLN label increased the intention to foster the student's academic performance. Some performance expectations of special education teachers were lower than those of general education teachers, which did not manifest in different teaching intentions. The findings are discussed in the context of the Dilemma of Difference.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1492616
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1492616
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00222194251315187
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 37
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stereotypes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Problems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes toward Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Needs Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Labeling (of Persons)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regular and Special Education Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Beliefs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching (Occupation)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Expectations of Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disability Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: General Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Germany
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of Diagnostic Labels for Students with Learning Problems on Teachers' Stereotypes and Performance Expectations
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Linda Kashikar
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Timo Lüke
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael Grosche
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-2194
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1538-4780
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 59
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Learning Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1