0
MUSICAL PREFERENCES, PERSONALITY
TRAITS AND SPOTIFY FEATURES
Sem Kaylee Dekkers 10555943
University of Amsterdam Master of Arts: Thesis 15th August
1
Introduction
I like to think I present an innocuous, well-socialized face to the world – nothing for anyone to worry about. But if you know that I like [alternative music] then you know a little
something else about me. You've gotten a new data point. If you have all of my songs, the points coalesce to form a picture, an intimate one that doesn't quite match the public persona (Schwarz, 2004).1
Music is everywhere around us. If we walk into our local grocers, shops, gym, when we turn on our radio during a car ride, even when we pay a visit to our dentist. In short, music is a ubiquitous phenomenon. One common use of music in today's society is enjoyment and aesthetic appreciation (Kohut & Levarie, 1950). Music is also the center of many social activities, concerts, dancing, singing such as choirs, and even in most social gatherings. Music may not always be the primary focus, but it is certainly an essential component – for example, try to imagine Christmas Eve without Christmas carols. Another common use is music's ability to inspire dance and physical movement (Dwyer, 1995; Large, 2000; Ronström, 1999). Music also satisfys a number of needs beyond social context; a personal music selection can serve as a tool to shape their physical and social environments to reinforce their dispositions and self-views (Buss, 1987; Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002; Snyder & Ickers, 1985; Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2002).2
For some, music is also used for mood regulation and enhancement (North & Hargreaves, 1996; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003; Roe, 1985).3 In studies involving the uses of music, adolescents have reported that they use music for a distraction from troubles, as a means of mood regulation, for reducing loneliness, and as a badge of identity for inter- and intra-group self-definition (Bleich, Zillmann, & Weaver, 1991; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006, 2007; Rentfrow, McDonald, & Oldmeadow, 2009; Zillmann & Gan, 1997). Additionally, music is also used to enhance concentration and
cognitive function, to maintain alertness and vigilance (Emery, Hsiao, Hill, & Frid, 2003; Penn & Bootzin, 1990; Schellenberg, 2004), and increase worker productivity (Newman, Hunt, & Rhodes, 1966). The final use of music worth mentioning is its role in social and protest movements, where music is used for motivation, group cohesion, and focusing on common goals (Eyerman & Jamison, 1998), whereas therapists encourage patients to choose music to meet various therapeutic goals
1 Peter J. Rentfrow and Samual D. Gosling. 'Message in a Ballad: The Role of Music Preferences in Interpersonal Perception.' Psychological Science, Vol. 17, No. 3 (2006): 236.
2 Peter J. Rentfrow and Samual D. Gosling. 'The Do Re Mi's of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (2003): 1237. 3 Peter J. Rentfrow, Lewis R. Goldberg and Daniel J. Levitin. 'The Structure of Musical Preferences: A Five-Factor
2 (Davis, Gfeller, & Thaut, 1999; Särkamö et al., 2008).4
Even though music can serve a wide variety of functions, this research aims to shed light on individual musical preferences. Individuals have preferences for different types of music, which undoubtedly will be influenced by psychological and social processes. Obviously, one person might have stronger feelings towards music than someone else, but what lies beneath these preferences? What determines one's music preferences? Is there a pattern that connects certain types of music to certain kind of people? Research suggests there are links between music preferences and personality (Arnett, 1992; Cattell & Anderson, 1953; Cattell & Saunders, 1954; Little & Zuckerman, 1986; McCown, Keiser, Mulhearn, & Williamson, 1997), physiological arousal (Gowensmith & Bloom, 1997; McCamara & Ballard, 1999; Oyama et al., 1983; Rider et al., 1985), and social identity (Crozier, 1998; North & Hargreaves, 1999; North, Hargreaves, & O'Neill, 2000; Tarrant, North, & Hargreaves, 2000).5
Previous research has provided the assumption that individuals seek musical environments that reinforce and reflect aspects of their personalities, attitudes, and emotions (Colley, 2008; Delsing, ter Bogt, Engels, & Meeus, 2008; George et al., 2007; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003;
Rentfrow & McDonald, 2009; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009). Also, more than preferences for books, clothing, food, movies, and television shows; individuals consider their preferences for music more revealing of their personality than any of the previously mentioned (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). Young adults report significantly stronger preference ratings for music than older people, which might be an explanation for the emphasis on music. According to Rentfrow et al. (2012), much of the research in this area had examined the structure of musical preferences with the aim of
developing a foundation on which to develop and test hypotheses about the role of music in everyday life.6
To dig a little deeper into this area, the aim of the present study is to broaden our understanding of the nature of musical preferences and attempt to gain insight into this matter. Nonetheless, we have to keep in mind that this research is an exploratory study. Toward that end, the current study is set out to investigate which aspects of music underlie individual differences in musical preferences. This work offers yet another insight into those aspects, specifically, musical features provided by the streaming service Spotify (https://www.spotify.com/). As Nave et al. (2018) mention: “With the proliferation of Internet-based services for sharing and streaming music
4 Peter J. Rentfrow, Lewis R. Goldberg and Daniel J. Levitin. 'The Structure of Musical Preferences: A Five-Factor Model'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 6 (2011): 1139.
5 Peter J. Rentfrow and Samual D. Gosling. 'The Do Re Mi's of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (2003): 1237. 6 Peter J. Rentfrow et al.. 'The Song Remains The Same: A Replication and Extension of the MUSIC Model'. Music
3 on demand, personalized music is becoming a more central and prominent fixture in many people’s lives. This increase coincides with a growing interest in understanding the psychological basis of musical preferences.”7 Incorporating Spotify's musical features in this study, resulting from individuals personal playlists, gives us an insight into a person’s musical preferences and listening behaviour of their everyday life.
The Structure of Musical Preferences
One of the first researchers who investigated individual differences in musical preferences where psychologists Cattell and Anderson (1953). They believed that preferences for certain types of music reveal information about unconscious aspects of personality that is overlooked by most personality inventories. Even though their beliefs in music preferences could open a window into one's unconscious, nowadays researchers view music preferences as a manifestation of more explicit personality traits. For instance, research has shown that sensation seeking appears to be positively related to preferences for rock, heavy metal, and punk music and negatively related to preferences for sound tracks and religious music. Also, personality traits as Extraversion and Psychoticism have been shown to predict preferences for music with exaggerated bass, such as rap and dance music.8
Research from North and Hargreaves (1999) provided evidence linking music preferences and personality. They found that people use music as a “badge” to communicate their values, attitudes, and self-views. However, this matter was moderated by participant's self-esteem. Participants with higher self-esteem perceived more similarity between themselves and the prototype music fan than participants with low self-esteem. Even in different populations, age groups, and cultures, similar results have been found for the notion that one's views and self-esteem influence music preferences.9
When it comes to the structure of music preferences, different researchers have begun to map this area with the aim of identifying this structure. For instance, Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) have created a four-factor model that was labelled reflective & complex (compromising classical, jazz, folk, and blues genres), intense & rebellious (rock, alternative, heavy metal), upbeat & conventional (country, pop, soundtracks, religious), and energetic & rhythmic (rap, soul,
7 Gideon Nave et al.. 'Musical Preferences Predict Personality: Evidence From Active Listening and Facebook Likes.' Psychological Science (2018): 1.
8 Peter J. Rentfrow and Samual D. Gosling. 'The Do Re Mi's of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (2003): 1237. 9 Cf. Idem.
4 electronica). Similar results stem from research from Delsing and others (2008), who also found four preferences factors, labelled:
rock (compromising rock, heavy metal/hard rock, punk/hardcore/grunge, gothic) elite (classical, jazz, gospel)
urban (hip-hop/rap, soul/R&B) pop (trance/techno, top40/charts)
Colley (2008) also found four factors for female participants, and five factors for male participants. Four factors emerged for both genders; sophisticated,(compromising classical, blues, jazz, opera), rebellious (rap, reggae), heavy (rock, heavy metal), and mainstream (country, folk, chart, pop). For male participants, the mainstream factor could be subdivided into two factors; traditional (country, folk) and pop (chart pop).
As you can see, in each of these studies there emerged three very similar factors. One factor was determined mainly by classical and jazz music, another was mainly defined by rock and heavy metal music, and the third factor was defined by rap and hip-hop music. However, not all studies have provided similar music preference-structure results. Studying individual preferences for 30 music genres in a sample of Canadian adults, George, Stcikle, Rachid, and Wopnford (2007) revealed nine music-preference factors. These factors were labelled as:
rebellious (grunge, heavy metal, punk, alternative, classic rock)
classical (piano, choral, classical instrumental, opera/ballet, Disney/Broadway) rhythmic & intense (hip-hop & rap, pop, R&B, reggae)
easy listening (country, 20th century popular, soft rock, disco folk/ethnic, swing) fringe (new age, electronic, ambient, techno)
contemporary Christian (soft contemporary Christian, hard contemporary Christian) jazz & blues (blues, jazz), and traditional Christian (hymns & southern Gospel, gospel)
Another study, by Schäfer and Seldmeier (2009), assessed individual differences in self-reported preferences for 25 music genres. Their analyses revealed six music-preference factors, labelled as:
sophisticated (compromising classical, jazz, blues, swing) electronic (techno, trance, house, dance)
rock (rock, punk, metal, alternative, gothic, ska)
rap (rap, hip-hop, reggae), pop (pop, soul, R&B, gospel) beat, folk, & country (beat, folk, country, rock 'n' roll)
5 in preferences for 14 music genres. Their results revealed six music-preference factors, labelled as rhythm 'n' blues (comprising jazz, blues, soul), hard rock (rock, heavy metal, alternative), heavy bass (rap, dance), country (country, folk), soft rock (pop, soundtracks), and classical (classical, religious).
Although these results may not be identical, there does appear to be a considerable degree of similarity across these studies. Three factors arose in all studies; one mainly defined by classical and jazz music, one that is mainly defined by rock and heavy metal music, and one mainly defined by rap and hip-hop music. There also appears to be a factor that is comprised mainly of country music, which occurred in nearly every sample that included singer-songwriter or storytelling music. In a few studies, there also appeared a factor that was mainly composed of new age and electronic music styles. In summary, looking at all these studies, there appears to be four to five robust music-preference factors: rock, classical, urban, pop, and perhaps country/folk.
Limitations of Past Research
Researchers have attempted to gain insight into musical preferences, and have taken crucial steps to develop a theory of music preferences – a theory that ultimately will explain when, where, how, and why people listen to music.10 Past research has presented a somewhat incomplete picture; most studies examined only a limited selection of music genres, other studies examined only a few personality dimensions.11
The problem with the selection of music genres is that every participant should have knowledge of lots of different music genres, which might not always be the case. Additionally, participants should also be able to express their preferences for each of these genres. When one has no knowledge of a certain genre, it will be impossible to express their preference for this genre. Furthermore, genre-based measures also assume that participants share a similar understanding of all the genres, which is also problematic. Although genres represent a level of analysis that most individuals will be familiar with (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003), retail stores have been classifying music this way for over 50 years, keeping in mind that music can change a lot over the years.12 Genre categories can change over time – for example, a band such as AC/DC was once considered
10 Peter J. Rentfrow and Samual D. Gosling. 'The Do Re Mi's of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (2003): 1236. 11 Cf. Ibid. 1237-1238.
12 Peter J. Rentfrow et al.. 'The Song Remains the Same: A Replication and Extension of the MUSIC Model'. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol 30, No. 2 (2012): 162.
6 heavy metal, but is now considered as classic rock.13 Research has shown that participants did not always agree on genre and subgenre labels under which their own favourite music should be placed (Rentfrow et al., 2012).
Another problem that can occur with genre-based measures, is the influence of stereotype fans of particular genres. Some genres can activate stereotypes that are associated with a suite of traits, which could influence one's stated musical preferences. Additionally, it is hard to find out which aspects of music influence preferences with genre-based measures. Listeners could be attracted to auditory or psychological facets, such as timbre, pitch, or intensity. These facets are not distinctive for one particular genre, for example, high intensity can be found in heavy metal music, but also in certain electronic music. Especially when these facets are combined with lyrics, specific emotional reactions can be triggered to the music that is genre-independent. In short, it could be that similar emotional reactions might occur to musical pieces from different genres, and different reactions might occur to musical pieces from within the same genre.14
Available research shows individual differences in preferences for vocal as opposed to instrumental music, fast versus slow music, and loud versus soft music (Kopacz, 2005; McCown, Keiser, Mulhearn, & Williamson, 1997; McNamara & Ballard, 1999; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006). Evidence showed that such preferences are related to personality traits such as extraversion,
neuroticism, psychoticism, and sensation seeking.15 In addition, personality traits extraversion and psychoticism have been shown to predict preferences for music with exaggerated bass, such as rap and dance music.16 There is also emerging evidence of individual preferences for pieces of music that evoke or signify emotions such as happiness, joy, sadness, and anger (Rickard, 2004;
Schellenberg et al., 2008; Zentner et al., 2008). Evidence that individuals are drawn to musical styles with particular social connotations such as toughness, rebellion, distinctiveness, and
sophistication also emerged in present studies (Abrams, 2009; Schwartz & Fouts, 2003; Tekman & Hortaçsu, 2002).
13 Cf. Idem.
14 Peter J. Rentfrow et al.. 'The Song Remains the Same: A Replication and Extension of the MUSIC Model'. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol 30, No. 2 (2012): 163.
15 Peter J. Rentfrow and Samual D. Gosling. 'The Do Re Mi's of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (2003): 1241. 16 Cf. Ibid. 1237.
7
Overview of Present Research by Peter J. Rentfrow and Colleagues
This section is dedicated to an overview of past research by social and personality psychologist Peter J. Rentfrow and his colleagues, which served as a major inspiration for this study. Therefore, I will summarize some of his research to highlight its importance, and why it is relevant for this work. According to Rentfrow et al. (2003), there has been criticism about the lack of attention to real-world behaviour within social, and personality psychology. One way researchers could address this issue, Funder (2001) says, is to extend their research on the structural components of
personality to include behaviour that occurs in everyday life.17 Rentfrow and his colleagues picked this up and implemented this matter in their studies as much as possible, which also accounts for the present study.
As mentioned above, previous studies shows a somewhat incomplete picture; researchers examined only a limited selection of music genres, or they examined only a few personality dimensions. In order to examine the importance of music in everyday life, Peter J. Rentfrow and Samuel D.
Gosling (2003) investigated how much importance individuals place on music compared with other leisure activities. In this research collection, six independent studies were conducted. In Study 1, participants were asked to complete a set of questionnaires that were designed to assess their attitudes and beliefs about various lifestyle and leisure activities, which consisted of 8 different domains. Participants were asked to indicate how personally important each domain was to them, to what extent this importance revealed their personality, and the frequency in which they engaged with that particular activity. Results showed that except for hobbies, participants considered music the most important item of the 8 domains (music, movies, books and magazines, TV programs, food preferences, bedrooms, hobbies and activities, and clothes). Participants indicated that along with hobbies and bedrooms, they believed that their music preferences revealed as much, if not more, information about themselves than the other domains. With the exception of hobbies, participants also believed that music preferences reveal at least as much about the personalities of others as the other lifestyle and leisure domains.
The second study was an exploratory analysis of music preferences. The primary objective was to identify the basic dimensions of music preferences. These preferences can be measured at different levels of abstraction, ranging from a highly descriptive subordinate level to a very broad subordinate level. Due to the fact that Rentfrow and Gosling's focus lies on everyday music
preferences, their goal was to assess music preferences at the level that naturally arises when people
8 think about and express their music preferences. People tend to describe their preferences first at the level of genres, then expand this to a level of subgenres and only later they step up to broader terms – for instance, loud, percussive – or down to specific artists or songs. In summary, Rentfrow and Gosling decided that the genre and subgenres were the optimal levels at which to start their investigation. These genres were selected in a multistep process, where five different judges were asked to list all the music genres and subgenres that came to mind. Additionally, five music stores were consulted to identify additional genres and subgenres which should also be taken into account. Eventually, this procedure generated a total of 80 music genres and subgenres that varied in
specificity. This list was then presented to a group of 30 participants who were asked to indicate their preference for each of the categories. If a participant was not familiar with a certain genre, they were allowed to skip that category. Results showed that very few participants were familiar with all of the specific subgenres, but nearly all of them were familiar with the broader music genres, which indicated that this level was the appropriate level for this research.
The final version of their findings resulted in a questionnaire to test a person's music
preferences, called the Short Test Of Music Preferences (STOMP). The final list was made up of 14 music genres: alternative, blues, classical, country, electronica/dance, folk, heavy metal, rap/hip-hop, jazz, pop, religious, rock, soul/funk, and sound tracks. Findings of Rentfrow and Gosling revealed a structure. Seven psychologists were asked to examine the factor structure and to come up with conforming labels that capture the main themes underlying these factors. All this resulted in a five-factor structure, where Factor 1 was named Reflective and Complex. The genres that had the strongest loading for this factor were blues, jazz, classical, and folk music – genres that seem to facilitate introspection and are structurally complex. Factor 2 was defined by the rock, alternative, and heavy metal – genres that all are full of energy and emphasize themes of rebellion – which was labelled as Intense and Rebellious. Factor 3 was defined by country, sound track, religious, and pop music – genres that emphasize positive emotions and are structurally simple – and was named Upbeat and Conventional. Factor 4 was defined by rap/hip-hop, soul/funk, and electronica/dance music – genres that are lively and often emphasize rhythm – and was labelled Energetic and Rhythmic.
The results from this exploratory investigation suggest that there is a clear underlying structure to music preferences. These four factors capture a broad range of music preferences. In order to see if this factor structure of the music preferences is generalizable, Rentfrow and Gosling conducted one more study to test this theory. Results showed, again, that there is compelling evidence for the existence of four music-preference dimensions. However, there were some limitations to this research. First, participants' music preferences were derived from self-reports. This measure assumes that participants are able to accurately report their music preferences, but fail
9 to control for the potential biases produced by impression-management motivations. Second, the participants from this study mainly college students who were attending a public university in central Texas, US, which is a hot spot for country music. In order to move away from these limitations, a fourth study was conducted. This study consisted of 500 participants, 10 randomly selected from each state in the US via an online music platform (www.audiogalaxy.com). Music – 20 randomly selected songs – from their personal library was downloaded to represent their music preferences. A user's preference for a particular genre was determined by the number of songs that appeared in each music genre. Again, results indicated a factor structure for four independent dimensions as described above.
Rentfrow and Gosling conducted a fifth study to identify the qualities that defined these four dimensions. Music attributes vary across a wide range of moods, energy levels, complexities, and lyrical content. Hence the objective of this study was to systematically examine the attributes of the four preference dimensions. A total of 20 lyrical attributes were supplemented with an additional 5 musical attributes (fast, slow, acoustic, electric, and voice) which formed a list of 25 music
attributes. Again, seven judges were asked to independently rate the songs on the attributes. Results showed that dimension 1, Reflective and Complex, was slower in tempo than the other dimensions, used mostly acoustical instruments, and had very little singing. Dimension 2, Intense and
Rebellious, was faster in tempo, used mostly electric instruments, and had a moderate amount of singing. Dimension 3, Upbeat and Conventional, was moderate in tempo, used both acoustic and electric instruments, and had a moderate amount of singing. Dimension 4, Energetic and Rhythmic, also moderate in tempo, used electric instruments, and had a moderate amount of singing.
The lyrical attributes were also divided into four general categories: complexity (e.g., simple or clever), positive affect (e.g., happy or romantic), negative affect (e.g., sad or angry), and energy level (e.g., relaxed or energetic). Results showed that the lyrics in the Reflective and Complex dimension were perceived as complex, expressing both positive and negative emotions, and having a low level of energy. The Intense and Rebellious dimension lyrics were perceived as moderately complex, low in positive affect, but high in negative affect and energy level. The lyrics of the Upbeat and Conventional dimension were perceived as simple and direct, low in negative affect, and energy level. Lyrics of the Energetic and Rhythmic dimension were perceived as being somewhat complex, unemotional, and moderate in energy level.
A sixth and final study was conducted to investigate how music preferences are related to existing personality characteristics. Participants were asked to fill in questionnaires about their personality (Big Five Inventory) and self-esteem (Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale), self-views, as well as tested on their cognitive abilities (Wonderlic IQ Test). Results revealed that the Reflective and Complex dimension was positively related to Openness to Experience, self-perceived intelligence,
10 verbal (but not analytic) ability, and political liberalism. This dimension was negatively related to social dominance orientation and athleticism. According to these findings, individuals who enjoy listening to reflective and complex music tend to be inventive, have active imaginations, value aesthetic experiences, consider themselves to be intelligent, tolerant of others, and reject
conservative ideals. The Intense and Rebellious dimension showed positive relations to Openness to Experience, athleticism, self-perceived intelligence, and verbal ability. According to these results, individuals who prefer music in this dimension do not appear to display signs of neuroticism or disagreeableness. In general, individuals who prefer this type of music tend to be curious about different things, enjoy taking risks, are physically active, and consider themselves intelligent. The Upbeat and Conventional dimension revealed positive correlations with Extraversion,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, conservatism, self-perceived physical attractiveness, and athleticism. Negative correlations were found with Openness to Experience, social dominance orientation, liberalism, and verbal ability. These findings suggest that individuals who enjoy listening to music from this dimension are cheerful, socially outgoing, reliable, enjoy helping others, see themselves as physically attractive, and tend to be relatively conventional. The Energetic and Rhythmic dimension showed positive relations with Extraversion, Agreeableness,
blirtatiousness, liberalism, self-perceived attractiveness, and athleticism. Negative relations were found with social dominance orientation and conservatism. These results suggest that individuals who enjoy music from this dimension tend to be talkative, full of energy, are forgiving, see
themselves as physically attractive, and tend to eschew conservative ideals. In Figure 1, you can see how the musical attributes are lined with each of the music-preference dimensions.
11
Fig. 1: Music attributes of each of the music-preference dimensions as described above.18
In summary, Rentfrow's and Goslings research revealed that individuals believe music preferences reveal information about their personalities and that music preferences are used to convey
information about one's self. They also showed that music preferences and personality are related to their previous work. In this study, Rentfrow and Gosling (2006) investigated what message a
person's musical preferences convey about their personality. Additionally, they also examined what features of these preferences convey interpersonal information. In this research collection, two independent studies were conducted.
The first study in this collection investigated conversation topics that naturally seem to arise among young adults during conversations. The content of these conversations between strangers as they were getting acquainted, was measured over a period of 6 weeks and took place on the
Internet. Participants were instructed to interact with one another for 6 weeks and were asked to talk about anything that they thought would be best to get to know one another better. The topics that arose from these conversations were coded in terms of seven topics: books, clothing, movies, music, television shows, football, and sports other than football. Participants were students from the
University of Texas at Austin, which explains the choice to label football as an individual topic. Results showed that music was the most commonly discussed topic overall and among the most
18 Peter J. Rentfrow and Samual D. Gosling. 'The Do Re Mi's of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (2003): 1249.
12 commonly talked about topics for every 1 of the 6 weeks tested.
The second study involved the impact of this information on the impressions participants got from one another's personalities and values and how these are related to one's music preferences. Rentfrow and Gosling assumed that two different sources of music-based information seemed potentially relevant for forming these impressions. First, there can be relied on specific features of one's musical preferences (e.g., fast tempo) that could provide information about that person's behaviours and personality. Second, judgments about one another could be influenced by a stereotype (e.g., heavy metal fan) that is associated with a whole suite of traits (rebellious and disagreeable). These two types of information were examined where one's observations were linked to someone's judgments. This link can work both ways, only if it did – one's music preference links with that person's actual level of the underlying construct (e.g., agreeableness) – one's judgment should converge with the underlying construct that was being observed, which results in an accurate impression of that construct.
Participants were asked to complete several personality measures and had to create a list of their top-10 favourite songs. Two types of information on participants' music preferences were then collected: information about the specific features of the songs (e.g., tempo) and information about the genre of each song (e.g., rock). The musical attributes that were created in Rentfrow and Gosling's previous research have been used to rate every song by the participants. Observers were asked to listen to each top-10 list and rate each song on several personality measures and also had to fill in a self-report on their personality. A list of 12 terminal values was selected from 74 targets, which resulted in the next values: a comfortable life, a world at peace, a world of beauty, an exciting life, family security, inner harmony, national security, salvation, self-respect, social recognition, true friendship, and wisdom. The instrumental values resulted in a list of 6 values: ambition, courage, forgiveness, imagination, intellect, and love. The ratings by the observer's on self-reports on self-esteem, positive affect, and negative affect were also collected.
Results revealed that the strongest consensus was found for Openness to Experience, followed by Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, the value of social recognition, Extraversion, and the value of imagination. Furthermore, results from the observers show that music preferences convey information very different from that conveyed through the stimuli used in past research, such as photographs or short videos. Music preferences provide more information about
participants' Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience. Also, the findings suggest that observers' judgments of participants were associated with a number of music attributes and genres. For example, observers' ratings of participants' Extraversion were positively related to such music attributes as energy, enthusiasm, and amount of singing, together with the genres country and hip-hop. Additionally, the top-10 lists of extraverted participants contained music with
13 high energy levels, enthusiasm, and singing, together with the genres country and hip-hop. In sum, specific attributes of individuals' music preferences and music-genre stereotypes differentially influenced observers' impressions of participants' personality traits, values, and effect.
In order to expand the research that had already been carried out, Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Levitin (2011) investigated affective reactions to excerpts of musical excerpts. The goal of this research is to broaden the understanding of the factors that shape the music preferences of ordinary music listeners, as opposed to trained musicians. In this research collection, four independent studies were conducted. According to Rentfrow et al., the advantages of using authentic music as opposed to manufactured music designed for an experiment, is that it is much more likely to represent the music people encounter in their daily lives. This means that those musical excerpts from authentic music will more likely present a more accurate picture of one's music preferences. Also, each piece of music can be coded on a range of musical qualities. Each piece can be coded in both music-specific attributes (e.g., tempo, instrumentation, duration) and psychological attributes (e.g., joy, anger, sadness). Some of the problems that arise with genre-based measures are also tackled using musical excerpts, because these excerpts are far more specific than genres. Participants do not need to have knowledge of a wide variety of genres in order to indicate their liking for a musical excerpt. The same might go for the problem with stereotypes of fans that are associated with particular genres. One could have a different initial impression of a genre but yet another impression by a musical excerpt from that particular genre, which could result in a different indication of liking a musical excerpt. The liking of musical excerpts, thus, serve as a representation of musical
preferences that capture both external and intrinsic musical properties.
However, it is important that the musical excerpts that are presented to participants are extracted from musical pieces that are not familiar to participants. Past research has provided evidence that well-known pieces of music can serve as powerful cues to autobiographical memories (Janata, Tomic, & Rakowski, 2007) and that familiar music tends to be liked more than unfamiliar music (Dunn, 2011; North & Hargreaves, 1995). The objective of this study was to assess individual differences in preferences for the many different styles of music that people are likely to encounter in their daily lives. Music that served as music-preference stimuli was gathered through an online advertisement on the Internet, where participants were asked to identify broad music styles that would appeal to most people. Another set of participants, consisting of university students, were asked to fill out an open-ended questionnaire to name their favourite music genres (e.g., rock) and subgenres (e.g., classic rock) along with an example of music for each one. All this resulted in 23 identified genres and subgenres that occurred most often on lists. Then, 3 subgenres were added which were mentioned only a small number of times in a previous pilot study, due to the fact that
14 the aim was to cover as wide a range of musical styles as possible. Next, pieces of music were selected that were not hailed from obscure artists, but pieces that were of a similar quality to hits yet were unknown. A group of 10 professionals (musicologists and recording industry veterans) were asked to identify representative pieces for each of the 26 subgenres. They selected pieces from artists from major record labels and had been commercially released, but did not achieve high sale figures. This means that it was unlikely that participants have heard the pieces of music before. Finally, the lists the participants provided were reduced and presented to 500 listeners. They were asked to name the genre or subgenre to each piece and to indicate how well they thought the piece represented that particular (sub)genre. Thus, music preferences were measured by asking
participants to indicate their degree of liking for each of the 52 musical excerpts.
Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Levitin conducted five-factor solutions in total in order to obtain their results. Firstly, findings showed a two-factor solution that resembles the well-documented highbrow (or sophisticated) and lowbrow music-preference dimensions. The excerpts with high loadings on the Sophisticated/Aesthetic factor were mainly drawn from classical, jazz, and world music. The excerpts with high loadings on the second factor were predominantly country, heavy metal, and rap. Secondly, their three-factor solution revealed a split in the lowbrow
music-preference dimensions. This factor split into subfactors that appeared to differentiate music based on its forcefulness or intensity. One subfactor was labelled as Intense/Aggressive and was
comprised of heavy metal, punk, and rock excerpts. The other subfactor was less intense and comprised excerpts from the country, rock 'n' roll (early rock, rockabilly), and pop genres, and was named. Unpretentious/Sincere. Third, this factor remained in the five-factor solution, which was named Contemporary/Danceable and comprised mainly rap and electronica music. In Figure 2, you can see how these factors emerged from the factor solutions.
15
Fig. 2: Varimax-rotated principal components derived from preferences ratings for 52 commercially released
musical excerpts in Study 1. The figure should be read from top to bottom.19
A second study was conducted to test the generalizability of the music-preference factor structure across samples as well as musical stimuli. A new set of music-preference stimuli was created that included only previously unreleased music from unknown, aspiring artists. The musical pieces were hailed from the database of Getty Images (http://www.Getty.com) and should represent the 26 subgenres. Eventually, four pieces of music were compiled for each subgenre. Again,
participants were gathered through advertisements on the Internet and were asked to indicate their liking for each of the 94 musical excerpts. This time, a six-factor solution was conducted. Findings revealed a virtually identical final five-factor solutions for both studies. Apparently, the first factor in their two-factor solution was difficult to interpret because it comprised a wide array of musical styles – from classical and soul to electronica and country. The second factor, Intense/Aggressive, remained virtually unchanged through all solutions. The three-factor solution, however, a factor resembling the Sophisticated dimension emerged. This factor comprised classical, jazz, and world music excerpts. A factor resembling the Unpretentious/Sincere factor also emerged in the three-factor solution, and was mainly comprised of country and rock 'n' roll music excerpts. The four-factor solution provided a four-factor that was mainly composed of rap, electronic, and soul/R&B music excerpts. This factor split into two factors in the five-factor solution, resembling the
19 Peter J. Rentfrow, Lewis R. Goldberg and Daniel J. Levitin. 'The Structure of Musical Preferences: A Five-Factor Model'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 6 (2011): 1144.
16 Contemporary/Danceable and a factor labelled as Mellow. The Contemporary/Danceable factor mainly included rap and electronica music, whereas the Mellow factor predominantly included pop, soft rock, and soul/R&B music excerpts. In Figure 3, you can see how these factors emerged from the factor solutions.
Fig. 3: Varimax-rotated principal components derived from preference ratings for 94 unknown musical
excerpts in Study 2.20
A third study in this collection was designed to investigate the generalizability of the music-preference factors across samples and methods. A subset of 25 of the musical excerpts from Study 2 was presented to the participants who were then asked to rate their liking for each excerpt. The results revealed factors that clearly resembled those observed in the previous studies. The first factor emerged from primarily classical, jazz, and world music, and clearly resembled the Sophisticated preference dimension. The second factor clearly resembled the Intense preference dimension, and was mainly composed of heavy metal, rock, and punk music excerpts. The third factor reflected the Contemporary preference dimension and mainly included rap and electronica music excerpts. The fourth factor was mainly comprised of soft rock and adult contemporary music excerpts, which resulted in the resemblance of the Mellow dimension. The fifth factor was mainly composed of country and rock 'n' roll excerpts, and thus resembled the Unpretentious dimension. In
20 Peter J. Rentfrow, Lewis R. Goldberg and Daniel J. Levitin. 'The Structure of Musical Preferences: A Five-Factor Model'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 6 (2011): 1147.
17 Figure 4, you can see how these factors emerged from the factor solutions.
Fig. 4: Varimax-rotated principal components derived from preference ratings for 25 musical excerpts in
Study 3.21
All three studies together provide compelling evidence for a five-factor music preferences structure; the same five factors emerged from three independent studies that used different methods, stimuli, and participants. Taken together, the five factors form the MUSIC model. These findings, however, are mainly characterized in terms of (sub)genres. Nonetheless, some genres load on more than one music-preference dimension. For example, the genre jazz is represented on both the Sophisticated and the Contemporary factors. Genres are party defined by an emphasis on certain musical
attributes, but it could be that individuals have preferences for particular attributes that can be found in more than one genre or factor. Thus, a fourth study was conducted to examine those variables that contribute to the structure of musical preferences.
A list of attributes was created, based on sound-related and psychological attributes on which pieces of music could be judged. The set 25 music-descriptive adjectives by Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) was used. Next, to increase the range of music attributes, two expert judges were asked to supplement the initial list with a new set of music-descriptive adjectives. Then, two other
21 Peter J. Rentfrow, Lewis R. Goldberg and Daniel J. Levitin. 'The Structure of Musical Preferences: A Five-Factor Model'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 100, No. 6 (2011): 1150.
18 judges independently evaluated the extent to which each music descriptor could be used to
characterize various aspects of music. All this resulted in seven sound-related attributes – dense, distorted, electric, fast, instrumental, and percussive – and seven psychological oriented attributes – aggressive, complex, inspiring, intelligent, romantic, and sad. A total of 40 judges with no formal music training independently rated the 146 excerpts that were used in Studies 1 and 2 on each of these 14 attributes. Correlations were conducted with factor loadings of each excerpt on each MUSIC factor with the mean sound-related attributes, psychological attributes, and genres of the excerpts. Findings revealed the following:
first, the excerpts with high loadings on the Mellow factor, musically speaking, were perceived as slow, quiet, and not distorted. In terms of psychological attributes, the excerpts were perceived as romantic, relaxing, not aggressive, sad, somewhat simple, but intelligent. The genres that were associated with this factor are soft rock, R&B, quiet storm, and adult contemporary.
Second, the Unpretentious factor was musically perceived as not distorted, instrumental, loud, electric, nor fast. The psychological attributes were perceived as somewhat
romantic, relaxing, sad, and not aggressive, complicated, nor intelligent. The musical styles that are most strongly associated with this factor were subgenres of country music. Third, the Sophisticated factor revealed that the musical excerpts were, in musical terms,
perceived as instrumental and not electric, percussive, distorted, or loud. In terms of psychological attributes, the excerpts were perceived as intelligent, inspiring, complex, relaxing, romantic, and not aggressive. The genres that were highly associated with this factor were classical, marching band, avant-garde classical, polka, world beat, traditional jazz, and Celtic.
Fourth, the Intense factor was musically perceived as distorted, loud, electric, percussive, and dense. In psychological terms, the excerpts were perceived as
aggressive, not relaxing, romantic, intelligent, or inspiring. Classic rock, punk, heavy metal, and power pop music styles were associated most with this factor.
Fifth, the excerpts with high loadings on the Contemporary factor were perceived as percussive, electric, and not sad. The genres that were primarily related to this factor are rap, electronica, Latin, acid jazz, and Euro pop music.
Taken together, the results indicate that the MUSIC factors are not the result of preferences only based on genres, but are driven by preferences for certain musical characteristics. The preferences for each dimension are independent of preferences for the other dimensions.
19 Rentfrow, Goldberg, Stillwell, Kosinski, Gosling, and Levitin (2012) developed new measurement approaches – and abandon the genre-based selection of experimental music entirely – that would allow them to access the diversity of music that exists within a genre, and those that latent cross-genre consistencies may exist. In this research, a broader set of attributes and their relation to music preferences was examined. As an extension on their work from 2011, the goal was to develop a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the factors underlying musical preferences. In this research collection, three independent studies were conducted.
Study 1 was designed to test whether the MUSIC preference model, as described above, would replicate in a large and representative sample of Internet users, as opposed to music fans. The study was also designed to expand the set of auditory and psychological attributes that were also previously examined. Participants were recruited over the Internet via an online social media platform, Facebook (http://www.facebook.com), where an application called “My Personality” was used. When users agreed to use the application, they were asked for their consent to use their responses to the surveys for research purposes. The participants were presented multiple excerpts and were asked to indicate their degree of liking for each excerpt. A subset of the musical pieces that were used in Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Levitin's (2011) Study 2 were also used in this study. Excerpts of 50 musical pieces from 21 music genres and subgenres were selected. We should keep in mind that these excerpts were hailed from real musical pieces, because people will probably encounter real music most in their daily lives. Two experts were asked to independently generate a list of adjectives that could be used to describe psychological characteristics of music. Both lists then were compared and both experts agreed on a preliminary set of 100 psychological attributes. Afterward, 10 people were presented these 100 adjectives and were then asked to indicate the extent to which each adjective could be useful in describing a musical piece. This resulted in 29 new psychological attributes that were added to the set of seven psychological attributes that were provided by Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Levitin (2011). The attributes were grouped into four general categories: positive affect (e.g., amusing, animated, dreamy, enthusiastic, fun, happy), negative affect (e.g., abrasive, angry, depressing, intense, tense), energy level (e.g., calming, danceable, forceful, gentle, lively, manic, mellow, party music, thrilling), and perceived complexity (e.g., deep, reflective, sophisticated, thoughtful).
The sound-related attributes were also broadened. One expert independently generated a list of descriptors in terms of general instrumental timbres. That list was then reviewed and evaluated by a second expert, who was able to add and delete items from that list. This eventually resulted in a set of seven new auditory attributes that were added to the list of seven auditory attributes provided by Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Levitin (2011). The new attributes were: brass, heavy bass, piano, raspy voice, synthesizer, woodwind, and yelling voice. Following this, 40 judges were divided into four
20 groups and asked to rate 25 musical excerpts on 25 attributes. Again, a five-factor solution was conducted and was consistent with results from Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Levitin (2011) and, thus, clearly resembled the MUSIC model.
First, the Mellow factor comprised music as easy listening, R&B/soul, soft rock, adult contemporary, and electronica. Excerpts were perceived as slow, quiet, not distorted, and acoustic. In terms of psychological characteristics, mixed patterns of positive relations were found with the positive affect attributes; the excerpts were perceived as dreamy, romantic, warm, sensual, and inspiring, but not animated, enthusiastic, amusing, or fun. There were also negative relations found for abrasive, tense, intense, angry, and aggressive. Positive relations were found with sad, also, a pattern of correlations appeared with the energy attributes. This indicated that the excerpts from this dimension were perceived as low, gentle, calming, and relaxing, but not lively, forceful, manic, thrilling, party music, or danceable. Furthermore, the excerpts were generally considered cerebral, with positive relations with reflective, thoughtful, deep, sophisticated, and intelligent.
Second, the Unpretentious factor comprised excerpts from the avant-garde classical, classical, Latin, traditional jazz, world beat, electronica, and adult contemporary genres. Excerpts were perceived as lacking heavy bass and distortion, and having primarily acoustic instruments and vocals. In psychological terms, the pieces in this factor were perceived as possessing some degree of positive effect, revealed by positive relations with amusing, fun, warm, but a negative relation with strong. Excerpts were also perceived as being low in negative affect, revealed by negative relations with tense, intense, angry, abrasive and aggressive. Additionally, excerpts were perceived as being low in energy, with negative relations to thrilling, manic, and forceful. Pieces in this dimension were generally not perceived as cerebral, with negative correlations with complex and sophisticated.
Third, the Sophisticated factor comprised of excerpts from genres as country, bluegrass, country-rock, and rock 'n' roll. Pieces with high loadings on this factor were perceived as quiet, clear sounding, slow, and lacking heavy bass or percussion. They were also perceived as having sounds produced by acoustic instruments, pianos, brass instruments, and not having vocals. Psychologically speaking, the pieces were associated with multiple positive affect attributes, including joyful, inspiring, merry, romantic, warm, dreamy, sensual, and amusing. Excerpts were also perceived as lacking in negative effect, indicated by its negative relations with abrasive, angry, aggressive, and depressing. Furthermore, pieces in this dimension were also perceived as having a somewhat low energy level, as indicated by its positive relations with relaxing, calming, gentle, and mellow, but negative relations associations with party music, forceful, danceable, and manic. Pieces in this factor were generally perceived as being cerebral, with strong positive correlations with sophisticated, intelligent, and thoughtful.
21 Fourth, the Intense factor comprised of excerpts from the punk, classic rock, and heavy metal genres. Sound-related attributes that showed high loadings with this factor were perceived as loud, distorted, fast, percussive, dense, and having heavy bass. The vocalists in these excerpts were perceived as yelling and having raspy voices, whereas the instruments were predominantly electric. In psychological terms, the excerpts were perceived as lacking many aspects of positive affect, with strong negative relations with warm, romantic, sensual, dreamy, joyful, merry, inspiring, happy, and had positive relations with strong, enthusiastic, and animated. The pieces were also perceived as possessing considerable negative effect, revealed by strong positive correlations with angry, abrasive, intense, and tense. Moreover, the excerpts were perceived as being high in energy, as indicated by the strong positive relations with forceful, manic, thrilling, party music, and lively, whereas there were negative relations found with gentle, mellow, calming, and relaxing. These pieces were not perceived as being cerebral, indicated by negative correlations with reflective, thoughtful, sophisticated, and intelligent.
Fifth, the Contemporary factor comprised of excerpts from rap, R&B/soul, Europop, and electronica genres. The excerpts in this dimension were associated with a few attributes. In terms of sound-related attributes, the pieces with high loadings in this factor had heavy bass sounds,
synthetic sounds, and electric instruments. In terms of psychological attributes, excerpts were perceived as sensual but not inspiring, as well as being low in negative affect, revealed by negative relations with depressing and sad. The excerpts were also perceived as energetic, indicated by positive relations with danceable and party music, whereas the pieces were not perceived as
cerebral, as indicated by a negative relation with thoughtful. Overall, these findings indicate that the MUSIC model is robust and raises the possibility that attributes (rather than genre) could be the driving force behind the music-preference dimensions.
22
Fig. 5: An overview of the MUSIC preferences dimensions with attributes.
Attributes Mellow Unpretentious Sophisticated Intense Contemporary
Sound-related
Auditory features slow lacking heavy bass clear sounding loud heavy bass quiet lacking distortion slow distorted synthetic sound
not distorted lacking heavy bass fast
lacking percussion percussive dense heavy bass yelling voice raspy voice
Instruments acoustic acoustic acoustic electric electric
vocals pianos
brass instruments not vocal
Psychological
Positive affect dreamy amusing joyful strong sensual
romantic fun inspiring enthusiastic not inspiring
warm warm mercy animated
sensual not strong romantic not warm
inspiring warm not romantic
not animated dreamy not sensual
not enthusiastic sensual not dreamy
not amusing amusing not joyful
not fun not merry
not inspiring not happy
Negative affect sad not tense not abrasive angry not depressing not abrasive not intense not angry abrasive not sad not tense not angry not aggressive Intense
not intense not abrasive not depressing tense not angry not aggressive
not aggressive
Energy low not thrilling relaxing forceful danceable
gentle not manic calming manic party music
calming not forceful gentle thrilling
relaxing mellow party music
not lively no party music lively
not forceful not forceful not gentle
not manic not danceable not mellow
not thrilling not manic not calming
no party music not relaxing
not danceable
Cerebral reflective not complex sophisticated reflective not thoughtful thoughtful not sophisticated intelligent thoughtful
deep thoughtful sophisticated
sophisticated intelligent
intelligent
Genre R&B/soul avant-garde classical country punk rap soft rock classical bluegrass classic rock R&B/soul adult contemporary Latin country-rock heavy metal Europop electronica traditional jazz rock 'n' roll electronica
world beat electronica
23 The aim of the Study 2 and 3 in this research collection was to investigate the hypothesis that the MUSIC model reflects individual differences in preferences for particular combinations of musical characteristics, even within a certain genre. Their previous research showed that attributes are not distributed evenly across genres, so in order to broaden their knowledge on the role of musical attributes in music preferences, Rentfrow et al. decided to run their MUSIC model on two different genres that have multiple subgenres that differ greatly from one another. In this study, the individual differences in the structure of preferences for pieces of music from within the same genre. To test this hypothesis, a genre has to be selected that spans a wide variety of musical styles and also has strong connotations. On the basis of these criteria, two genres were selected. First, jazz which is a broad and diverse genre that comprises several subgenres, from Dixieland, swing, and bebop, to modal, free, and fusion. It also contains certain social connotations or stereotypes with jazz music fans; jazz listeners are believed to be creative, laidback, and introspective (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2007; Rentfrow et al., 2009). Second, rock is also a broad genre that comprises several subgenres, from hard rock, classic rock, and alternative, to soft rock and rock 'n' roll. In this genre, there are also clearly defined stereotypes with rock music fans; rock listeners are believed to be aggressive and hedonistic (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2007; Rentfrow et al., 2009).
In Study 2, the genre jazz was being examined. Musical preference data were collected from a large and diverse sample of Internet users. In addition, Rentfrow et al. also collected data from an undergraduate student sample, where there was more control possible over the assessment
conditions. Again, the Internet sample was recruited using the same methods as in Study 1; via the online application “My Personality” on online platform Facebook. The participants from the Internet sample were asked to listen to a total of 50 musical excerpts and indicate their degree of liking for each excerpt, whereas the undergraduate student sample participants were asked to indicate their degree of liking for 25 excerpts. The musical pieces that were used, were selected by one judge with an extensive jazz music library, and selected songs with a wide variety of styles. Then, a second judge with extensive knowledge of jazz music examined the selected pieces and removed, or added pieces that thought were more suitable. This resulted in a list that was subsequently judged by a group of three experts – including the aforementioned judges – and contained 50 jazz music excerpts. Rentfrow et al. also compared the musical attributes that defined jazz-preference factors with the musical attributes that were used in Study 1. Results revealed the emergence of a five-factor solution from the Internet sample that was highly consistent with previous work and resembled the MUSIC model.
The first factor comprised excerpts from smooth jazz by artists as Kenny G and Norah Jones, which were interpreted as corresponding to the Mellow factor. Excerpts with high loadings in
24 this factor were perceived as quiet, slow, clear sounding, and to use synthesized sounds. In terms of psychological attributes, the excerpts were perceived as having a positive effect which was
indicated by low potency. They were perceived as dreamy and romantic, but not strong or
enthusiastic. Also, excerpts were perceived as low in negative effect, as indicated by the negative correlations with many of the negative variables, and were perceived as low in energy. Positive associations were found with the reflective, thoughtful, and deep attributes.
The second factor comprised excerpts of early jazz, blues, and jazz vocals music by artists such as Bessie Smith and Louis Armstrong, and resembled the Unpretentious factor. Excerpts with high loadings in this factor were perceived as slow, quiet, clear sounding, and lacking heavy bass and density, and as having primarily vocals and fewer electric instruments. They were also perceived as low in negative affect, with negative correlations with aggressive and abrasive. Furthermore, excerpts in this factor were perceived as being low in energy, with negative associations to forceful and party music, and were perceived as thoughtful but not complex.
The third factor comprised excerpts of bebop, modal, and fusion by artists such as Charlie Parker, Pharaoh Sanders, and Bud Powell, and resembled the Sophisticated factor. Excerpts with high loadings on this factor were perceived as fast, loud, and lacking heavy bass; they were also perceived as having sounds produced by non-electric instruments, pianos, woodwinds, and not having vocals. In psychological terms, the excerpts were perceived as having a positive effect, high in potency, as indicated by the strong relations with enthusiastic and strong. Excerpts were also positively related to many of the negative affect variables, suggesting that they were perceived as being high in energy, as they were perceived as lively, manic, and forceful. Excerpts were also perceived as complex and intelligent, but not thoughtful or deep.
The fourth factor resembled the Intense factor and was mainly comprised of jazz-fusion pieces from artists such as Jeff Beck and Stanley Clarke. Excerpts with high loadings on this factor were perceived as very loud, fast, distorted, dense, and percussive, and the instruments were predominantly electric. They were also high in positive affect with high potency, as indicated by positive associations with animated and strong, but negative relations with sensual, warm, and romantic. Moreover, pieces were perceived as high in negative affect, as reflected by positive links with most of the negative attributes. They were also perceived as very high in energy, as indicated by the strong positive relations with thrilling and forceful. Excerpts in this factor were perceived as complex, but low in all the other cerebral attributes.
The fifth factor resembled the Contemporary factor, with excerpts of acid jazz and jazz rap pieces by artists like St. Germain and Us3. Excerpts with high loadings on this factor were
perceived as having heavy bass, percussion, and dense synthetic sounds, with electric instruments. They were also perceived as amusing, fun, but not inspiring; they were thought to be low in
25 sadness, and to have some energy, as indicated by the positive correlations with the party music and danceable attributes. The pieces were not perceived as especially cerebral, as indicated by a
negative relation with intelligent and reflective.
Furthermore, the five factors and attributes that emerged in the Internet sample were very similar to the undergraduate student's sample. Most of the jazz-preference factors were very similar to the cross-genre MUSIC model. However, there was one exception for the Sophisticated jazz factor. The psychological attributes differed in this factor with the cross-genre Sophisticated factor. In the jazz factor, correlations of the psychological attributes suggested that they expressed stronger forms of positive and negative effect and more energy, compared to the cross-genre factor. The pieces of the jazz factor were also perceived as less thoughtful and deep, yet intelligent and more complex than the cross-genre pieces. This means that, in general, four of the five jazz-preference factors resemble the MUSIC factors.
In Study 3, Rentfrow et al. conducted a similar experiment as Study 2, however, they
assessed individual differences in preferences for a variety of rock music pieces. Again, researchers collected data from an Internet sample and an undergraduate student sample and were recruited via the same methods as before. The selection of the musical preferences stimuli followed the same steps as Study 2, which resulted in a list of 50 rock music excerpts. Participants from the Internet sample were asked to indicate their degree of liking for each of the 50 excerpts, whereas the undergraduate student sample participants were asked to indicate their degree of liking for 25 excerpts. Again, a five-factor solution emerged from the findings of this study.
The first factor resembled the Mellow factor, with excerpts of alternative and soft rock by artists as Radiohead, Jeff Buckley, and Arcade Fire. Excerpts with high loadings on this factor were perceived as slow, quiet, clear sounding, and airy, and to use acoustic instruments and synthesized sounds. In terms of psychological attributes, excerpts were perceived as having positive affect low in potency, with positive relations with dreamy and romantic, but nog animated or enthusiastic. They were also negatively related with most of the negative affect descriptors, except for sad and depressing. Furthermore, excerpts were perceived as being low in energy and were considered cerebral with positive relations thoughtful, deep, and reflective.
The second factor resembled the Unpretentious factor, with excerpts from classic rock and country rock, by artists such as the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Simon and Garfunkel. Excerpts with high loadings on this factor were perceived as airy and clear sounding with little percussion, and as having primarily acoustic instruments. They were also perceived as having some degree of positive effect, indicated by the positive relations with amusing, joyful, merry, and happy. Negative
correlations were found with negative affect descriptors, suggesting that excerpts were perceived as lacking negative effect. Also, negative relations with forceful and manic emerged, and excerpts
26 were perceived as not complex.
The third factor that emerged resembled the Sophisticated factor, and comprised pieces of jazz-rock, fusion, and avant-garde rock, by artists including The RH Factor, Frank Zappa, and Phish. Excerpts with high loadings on this factor were perceived as clear sounding, quiet, and slow, but also as having sounds produced by acoustic instruments, pianos, woodwinds, and as not having vocals. In psychological terms, they were perceived as having positive affect low in potency, as reflected by the positive links with warm and joyful, but negative links to almost all negative affect descriptors. Excerpts were also perceived as being low in energy, as indicated by positive relations with relaxing and calming, and negative relations with forceful and party music. Furthermore, excerpts were positively associated with some of the cerebral descriptors, such as sophisticated, intelligent, and complex.
The fourth factor resembled the Intense factor and comprised excerpts of heavy, industrial, and punk music by artists like Queens of the Stone Age, Ministry, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Excerpts with high loadings on this factor were perceived as dense, loud, fast, and percussive, and the instruments were predominantly electric along with yelling and raspy voices. The pieces were strongly and negatively correlated with most of the positive effect descriptors except strong, which indicated that this factor is low in positive effect. The pieces were also strongly positively related to nearly all the negative affect descriptor except sad, suggesting that the excerpts were high in
negative affect. Pieces were also perceived as being very high in energy, with strong relations with forceful and manic, and negative relations with most of the cerebral descriptors.
The fifth factor that emerged was similar to the Contemporary factor and comprised excerpts of progressive rock, synthpop, and new wave pieces. Excerpts with high loadings in this factor were perceived as clear sounding and quiet with singing. Pieces were positively related to almost all the positive affect descriptors. Also, excerpts were perceived as low in negative affect, indicated by the negative links with nearly all the descriptors. Pieces were also perceived as danceable and yet relaxing and had positive links with almost all the cerebral descriptors.
In summary, the five factors that emerged in this study were similar in both samples. Results from all three independent studies support the hypothesis that individual differences in musical preferences are based on affective reactions to particular combinations of musical attributes in addition to genre classifications or social connotations.
To overcome limitations that emerged in previous studies, Nave, Minxha, Greenberg, Kosinski, Stillwell, and Rentfrow (2018) conducted two studies where links between musical preferences and personality were investigated, and whether the results from these studies can be generalized across different assessment methods and across age-diversified samples. The primary objective was to
