| Literature DB >> 26985998 |
Abstract
Individual differences in the strength of music preference are among the most intricate psychological phenomena. While one person gets by very well without music, another person needs to listen to music every day and spends a lot of temporal and financial resources on listening to music, attending concerts, or buying concert tickets. Where do these differences come from? The hypothesis presented in this article is that the strength of music preference is mainly informed by the functions that music fulfills in people's lives (e.g., to regulate emotions, moods, or physiological arousal; to promote self-awareness; to foster social relatedness). Data were collected with a diary study, in which 121 respondents documented the goals they tried to attain and the effects that actually occurred for up to 5 music-listening episodes per day for 10 successive days. As expected, listeners reporting more intense experience of the functional use of music in the past (1) had a stronger intention to listen to music to attain specific goals in specific situations and (2) showed a larger overall strength of music preference. It is concluded that the functional effectiveness of music listening should be incorporated in existing models and frameworks of music preference to produce better predictions of interindividual differences in the strength of music preference. The predictability of musical style/genre preferences is also discussed with regard to the present results.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26985998 PMCID: PMC4795651 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151634
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Multilevel model of the proposed relationships between past functional experiences, the effects of music listening, and the strength of music preference.
Fig 2Mean intensity of goals and effects of music listening, calculated from 1,502 everyday music-listening situations.
HLM estimates of Model 1. Dependent variable: effects of music listening.
| Level 2 predictors of the intercept (χ2 = 3.8, | Δσ2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Past functional experiences | 0.23 | 0.05 | 4.6 | < .001 | 113 | 14.8 |
| Control: age | -0.01 | 0.01 | -0.7 | .47 | 113 | |
| Control: sex | 0.26 | 0.19 | 1.4 | .17 | 113 | |
| Control: singing | 0.25 | 0.21 | 1.2 | .24 | 113 | |
| Control: instrument | -0.07 | 0.18 | -0.4 | .70 | 113 | |
| Control: music studies | 0.44 | 0.26 | 1.7 | .09 | 113 | |
| Control: musician | -0.26 | 0.26 | -1.0 | .30 | 113 |
Note. The b statistic is the unstandardized regression coefficient. Δσ2 is the amount of variance in the criterion the predictor is able to explain. The χ2 statistic is calculated from the difference between the deviance of the unconditional model and the deviance of the conditional model.
See Path A in Fig 1.
HLM estimates of Model 2. Dependent variable: strength of music preference.
| Predictor | Δσ2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part A: Level 2 predictors of the intercept (χ2 = 37.1, | ||||||
| Past functional experiences | 0.42 | 0.04 | 9.4 | < .001 | 113 | 49.1 |
| Control: age | -0.01 | 0.01 | -1.5 | .14 | 113 | |
| Control: sex | 0.09 | 0.18 | 0.5 | .63 | 113 | |
| Control: singing | 0.22 | 0.22 | 1.0 | .32 | 113 | |
| Control: instrument | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.1 | .92 | 113 | |
| Control: music studies | -0.16 | 0.23 | -0.7 | .49 | 113 | |
| Control: musician | 0.37 | 0.22 | 1.7 | .10 | 113 | |
| Part B: Level 1 predictor (χ2 = 277.8, | ||||||
| Effects of music listening | 0.58 | 0.05 | 12.0 | < .001 | 113 | 20.5 |
| Part C: Level 2 predictors of the slope of the relationship between the effects of music listening and the strength of music preference (χ2 = 257.5, | ||||||
| Past functional experiences | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.7 | .51 | 113 | 0.0 |
| Control: age | 0.00 | 0.05 | 0.2 | .81 | 113 | |
| Control: sex | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.1 | .92 | 113 | |
| Control: singing | -0.10 | 0.10 | -1.0 | .30 | 113 | |
| Control: instrument | 0.23 | 0.10 | 2.4 | .02 | 113 | |
| Control: music studies | -0.08 | 0.11 | -0.7 | .49 | 113 | |
| Control: musician | 0.02 | 0.10 | 0.2 | .84 | 113 | |
Note. The b statistic is the unstandardized regression coefficient. Δσ2 is the amount of variance in the criterion the predictor is able to explain. The χ2 statistics are calculated from the difference between the deviance of the unconditional model and the deviance of the conditional model.
aSee Path B in Fig 1.
bSee Path C in Fig 1.
cSee Path D in Fig 1.