-
5/28/2018 Greasley, Lamont - Musical Preferences
1/4
Alexandra Lamont and Alinka GreasleyMusical preferences
IS chapter explores our current under-standing of why we like
and choose to lis-ten to the music that we do. We begin bycarefully
defining terms and considering meth-ods, moving on to discuss the
biological influ-ences of arousal and other personality traits
onmusic preference, questions of style discrimina-tion, and nally
the cultural influences of expe-rience upon preference. The chapter
evaluatesexisting models of music preference and consid-ers further
directions and challenges in the freld.lntroductionLiking for music
in general is a strong humantrait which can be as rewarding as
food, sex, ordrugs (e.9. Blood and Z,atorre 2OOl; Pankseppand
Bernatz 2002). Certain features ofmusicsuch as consonance are also
liked from earlyinfancy (Trainor and Heinmiller 1998), andthese
uniquely human preferences for music arenot found in primates
(Iamont 2005).Research into liking for difierentkinds of
musicreveals a multitude of different concepts, some-times used
interchangeably. Over the last twodecades, researchers have
generally adoptedPrice's (198 ) defnition ofpreference as choos-ing
or giving advantage to one thing ov ranother. A relatively constant
distinction hasemerged between the concepts of taste (a rela-tiv
stable valuing) and preference (a shorter-term commitment),
occupying opposite ends ofa continuum (Abeles and Chung 199 ).
Morerecently, definitions of preference have alsoincluded specific
notions of temporalitp'a per-son's liking for one piece of music as
comparedwith another at a given point in time', whiletaste is held
to reflect'the overall patterning of
an individual's preferences over longer timeperiods' (Hargreavs
a al.2OO6,p. 135). In prac-tice, shorter-terrh experiences of
preferenceinform longer-term judge ents of taste andvie versa, in a
cycle of reciprocal feedback(Hargreaves et a l. 006).A further
implicit distinction exists b tweenresearch focusing on liking for
specific pieces ofmusic and that which explores liking for styles
ofmusic. Some theoretical explanatiors attempt tobring these two
dirnensions together (for exampleexperimental aesthetics: see North
and Hargreaves[2000a]). However, most of the research tends
toconfound r sponses to the piece and the stylelevel, or to draw
broader conclusions about slepreference from research using
specific pieces.This chapter will thus adopt a broad definitionof
musical preference as referring to the music,whether style or
piece, that people like andchoose to listen to at any given moment
and overtime, higblighting these important
dimensionsthrougbout.Methods of studyin l musicalpreferencesThe
moment of choice can be measured at anumber of levels and using a
divers of meas_ures (see also Abeles and Chung 1996). Thesemeasures
can take place either in artificial labo-ratorysettings' in more
ecologicallyvalid contexor somewhere in between (such as imagining
areal ifesetting and one's likely responses to it inthe
laboratory).First, behavioural choices include
listeners'psychophysiological responses to a given pieceof music,
short-term decisions about whichpiece to listen to, or realJife
patterns of
:,l:ir
t(i{tArousal and biological inlluences on music listening
behaviour . 161engagement with music over longer time spansas shown
by concert attendance or music pur_chasing. Comparisons between two
or moremusical stimuli can be studied in infants, chil_dren and
adults using preferential looking/lis-tening paradigms (Trehub
2006) or variaiionson the Operant Music Listening Recorder (Greera
al. 1974; North and Hargreaves 2000b), whichmeasures the amount of
time a pa(icipantspends listening to different sles ofmusic
play-ing simultaneous through different channet.A further
behavioural method involves ptaying: l".tr of music to participants
and asking fordifferent kinds of behavioural as we[ as
vJ.balresponse (e.g. Marshall and Hargreaves 2007).Secondly,
choices can be expressed verbally ineither spoken or written form,
using rating scalesor semantic differentials (either in response to
arange of music provided or more abstractly inresponse to
descriptions or names of types orpieces of music), individual
preference nomina_tions, or through interviews. The most
commonverbal report measure is the rating scale, pi_cally requiring
individuals to rate their prefer_ence for a list of predetermined
musical styles
on Likert scales. Several music preference sca.leshave been
developed, for example Litle andZuckerman's (198 ) Music preference
Scale,consisting of 60 established music categoriesfrom the US
record industry or Renrfroi andGosling's (2003) Short Test of
MusicalPreferences, although these have not been usedsystematically
throughout the literature.Another popular technique is in-depth
inter-viewing of participants to uncover the richnessand complexi
of their everyday musical tastes(e.8. DeNora 2000).The few studies
combining different methods(e.9. Hargreaves 1988) showthat
different meas_ures have different uses: self-report
measures(particrrla rating scates) are more suit d todescribing
general long-term preferences, whilebehavioural measures seem more
usefril in dis_criminating between examples within a particu-lar
style. There thus tends to be a relarively lowcorrelation between
results, and verbal meas_ures do not predict behaviour
consistently. It isimportant to consider the choice of
meihod.alongside research questions, and to considerhow far methods
limit the generalizability ofresults.
Arousal and biologicatinfluences on music listeningbehaviourAt a
biologicallevel, music that we prefer seems toafiect us
differentty. Some physiological responsesto familia and rrnfamiliar
rnusic are similar (e.g.Craig 2005; Lai 2004), but Blood and
Zatorre(2001) found that when listeners reported moreintense
'chills' or highly pleasurable intenseerperiences, areas of the
brain responsible forreward, emotion and arousal were more
stronglyactivated. One explanation for music preferencefocuses on
the notion ofarousal as the underingmotivator for music listening
behaviour.Experi mental aestheticsBerlyne's psychobiological rheory
(197t), seealso Chapter 14 this volume) argues that prefer_ence
results from the interaction between anindividual's level ofarousal
(held to be relativelystable) and the arousing properties of the
musicitself (more variable). Researchers have exploredthe musical
characteristics which contribute toits arousal potential including
protofypicality,complexity, familiarity, tempo, and volume(North
and Hargreaves 1995a, l99 b; Russell1986). This research typically
presents partici-pants with simpl often artificially contrived
andalways experimenter-selected, musical stimuliand then measuring
their verbal or behaviouralpreferences (North and Hargreaves
1997a,2000. Short-term preference for certain typesof unfamiliar
music can be consistently relaiedto characteristics of that music.
For example,North and Hargreaves (1995a) found a posiiivelinear
relationship between liking and familiar-ity for new age musi and
an inverted U-shapedrelationship between liking and subjective
com-
pledty of the musical examples.This complements recent
neuropsychologicalevidence about the arousing effects ofmusi onthe
brain (see Chapter ll this volume). It alsoassumes that preference
expressed in an experi_mental setting for a given piece will be
refleitiveof more generalized preference for a given musi-cal stle.
Using Beatles songs performed in differ-ent musical sryles, North
and Har greaves (lD7b)found style was a more important
determinantofliking than song: liking for yesterday in a jazz
-
5/28/2018 Greasley, Lamont - Musical Preferences
2/4
r[l162' CHAPTER't5 ruusical'prererencesstyle, for example,
related more to [steners' lik-ingfor jazz than to their liking for
Yuterday'Ttiis suggests there is some merit in using piecesas
representative of given styles, but mostresearih has not addressed
this explicitly'One strength of this approach in
explainingpreference is-that listeners' individuat ratings
ofiamiliarity and subjective complex with themusic are assessed
within each study, therebyaccounting for the effects ofprior
experience on-liking. However, it is limited through the use
ofpiecei of music tlat are tyPically and intention-ally unfamiliar
to the listeners, together with,theassumption that preferences for
a piece reflectmore general durable style preferences'Furthermore,
although Berlyne argued thatfamiliarity and exposure should change
indi-vidual preference, Iittle research has exPloredchanging
preferences ov r time. The effects of,.p.u:t J.t potore have been
studied over rela-tively short time sPans, from hours to weeks(e.g.
Peretz et al. i998; Hargreaves irs L yetdevelopmental evidence
suggests that stylisticpreferJnces cbange in resPonse to a
complexset of experiential factors over the lifespan
(e'g'Hargreaves and North 1999; see also Chapter 22this volume). It
is important not to over-inter-pret preferences expressed at a
given moment iniime as bei"g rePresentative of more
enduringpatterns of taste (see also Lamont and Webb
inpress).lndividual differencesResearch has also explored the
notion that dif-ferent individuals have unique, preferred levelsof
arousal which explain their global music pref-erences for style.
Temperament diff rencespredict differences in preferential
listeningLehaviour, even at 8 months ofage. Trehub atal(2002) found
that infants who Iistened longer toa soothing version of a nursery
song were ratedby their mothets as calm and easy-going, whilethose
who preferred a playfirl version of thc,"-. *^g *"." rated as higNy
active' Researchwith aduits in this individual differences
tradi-tion typically employs established personality*.u,,ri.,
together with questionnaire-basedmusic preference measures such as
Litle andZuckerman's Music Preferences Scale (1986)'looking for
correlations between the two'
Factors related to extraversion typically relateto Preference
for particular arousing styles of**i". Fo. "o-pie, sensation
seekers with higblevels of optimal stimulation prefer more
intenseand/or complex styles of music like hard rock'soft rock
foU< ana chssical music (Litle andZuckerman 1986). Preference
for higNy arousingmusic such as heavy metal, rocls dance and
rapcorrelates with high levels ofresting arousal
andsensation-seeking (McNamara and Ballard 1999)'Preference for
hard rock music islinked to excite-ment-seeking and extraversion
(Pearson andDollinger 2004), high levels ofpsychoticism andimpu
iveness (Rawlings et aL 1995), and a rela-tive dislike of other
forms of music (Rawlings andCiancarelli 1997). Conversely,
preferences for'softer' forms of music are associated with
lowerlevets of psychoticism and extraversion (Rawlingset al,
p6si'Pearson and Dollinger (20M) foundthat higNy intuitive people
showed a greaterprefereice-for classical, jazz, soul and folk
music'Some research has attempted to explain theconnection between
music preference and per-sonality in relation to characteristics
ofthe musicrather ihan style labels. For example, Rentfrowand
Gosling (2003; p..t"ttttd data indicatingthat music preferettces
can be organized intofour independent dimensions:I Reflective and
comPlex2 Intense and rebellious3 Upbeat and conventional, and4
Energetic and rhythmic.They then explored correlations between
thesedimensions and personality, self-views and-cognitive abil
ratings, finding a number ofsig-ni cant relationships. For example'
peoplewto preferred reflective and complex music alsohad aaive
imaginations, valued aesthetic expe-riences, and viewed themselves
as intelligentand tolerant; people who preferred upbeat
andconventional music were more extrovert' agfee-able,
conservative, and less open to new experi-ences, They Pres nt a
number of associations'some of which appear rather sPurious
(forexample, why should people who like-energeticrhythmic music be
more likely to eschew con-servative ideals?), but which they
suggest may mtime set the groundwork for a comprehensivetheory of
music Preferences.
Tol"o,'. a mort ..rnr'extuully grouna"o(unaerstanoilg ot musicai
preferenc"l ' rosRentfrow and Gosling's (2003) study reflectsa
comprehensive attempt to analyse the rela-tionship betr een liking
for music and aspects ofpersonality. However, they note care rlly
thatcultural and environmental influences alsoshape the music that
an individual will lite.Other personality researchers provide
evidencethat personali traits and music preferences arelinked by a
third factor of musical erqrerience.For example, Rawlings and
Ciancarelli (1997)
found that preferences for popular and rockmusic, associated
with extraversion and lessopenness to experience, were accompanied
by aIess intense interest in music and less musicaltraining (see
also Pearson and Dollinger 2004).This suggests that the influence
ofexperience onpersonality and on music preference has yet tobe
fully explored.The valid ofthe rating scale approach whichhas
dominated this research depends on suffi-cient awareness ofthe
differences between musi-cal styles and style labels. Litle and
Zuckerman's(1986) scale included specific stylistic examplesfor
guidance, but both their examples and stylesare culturally and
historically specific (seeRawlings and Ciancarelli 1997). Rentfrow
andGosling (2003) derived their scale from empiri-cal data about
spontaneously nominated cate-gories of liking, rated by judges and
comparedwith industry categorization processes, andfinally tested
for familiariq 29 out of 30 Partici-pants could provide preference
ratings for the14 items, which they suggest confirms theirvalidity.
However, no matt r how carefullylabels are construaed, the
fundamental problemremains that rating scales reflect a
reductionistapproach. Qualitative approaches show thatadults
typically report preference for many dif-ferent styles of music,
which they often label idi-osyncratically (Greasley and Lamont
2006). Thissophistication and level of complexity presentsan
enduring challenge for the field.Summary and evaluation
ofarousal-based explanationsIn addition to the issues raised above,
bothexperimental aesthetics and individual differ-ences approaches
focus exclusively on the intra-individual level. They thus remain
unable toidentify the nature ofthe relationship between
temperament and personality dimensions andmusical preferences.
For example, personalitytype maybe a dircct cause ofmusical
preferences,or, as suggsted above, may influence
individu-als'levels of engagement with music and musi-cal
activities which, in turn, affects their musicalpreferences. To our
knowledge, none of theresearch has yet addressed these
interactions.Finalln this emphasis on the intra-individuallevel
neglects the social context in which themusic listening is taking
place.Towards a more contextuallygrounded understanding ofmusical
preferencesKoneni (1982) argued that experimentalresearchers often
treat music as ifit existed in asocial vacuum, and that it is vital
to considersocial interactions, emotions, moods, and
otherenvironmental factors in order to understandmusic choices.
This raises the necessity ofexplaining how listening behaviour
changes as afunction of its immediate social and
non-socialantecedents, concurrent cognitive activity andresultant
emotional states.More naturalistic research has drawn on
realmusical stimuli and attempted to simulate real-life situations
to account for both the music andthe listening context. For
example, North andHargreaves (1996a, b, c, 2000b) investigated
thereciprocal relationship between listener andcontext. Specific
musical variables (mostlyarousal potential) were manipulated, but
theexperimental conditions were naturalistic set-tings such as yoga
classes, aerobics classes, and aunivers cafeteria. Listen rs
preferred highlyarousing music during periods of exercise
andarousal-moderating music when relaxing.However, although causal
relationships canbe established using experimental methodology,even
these more naturalistic investigations appearto be treating the
'social' as an experimental vari-able. Sloboda (1999) argues that
the continuinguse ofa traditional positivist paradigm (present-ing
listeners with music chosen by the experi-menter, in an environment
controlled andconstructed by the experimenter) may beresponsible
for slow progress in the scientificunderstanding ofresponses to
music. He argues
-
5/28/2018 Greasley, Lamont - Musical Preferences
3/4
. l"o"r.* ri uu.,..t oJr"r"n"".64
)
lli
.i,til',t'.i.r,irti,i
' ,j:ILrt :i rll
iJri,ilrill.lr.lll l'r'l:ltt,i tlilll'l: ::lIlt
rit,rlrlllir,i[]ilI .it l'u|iillil.rr
rliil.tililllililitrlllr,lliil
that music listening is 'intensely situational'(p. 355) and thus
context becomes central' Thishas led to another recent shift in
approachtowards a focus on capturing people's everydaymusical
pradices and preference behaviour inthe contexts in which they
naturally occur'Preferred music in everyday lifeStudies have begun
to investigate people's use ofmusic in everyday contexts (Juslin
and laukka2004; North et at.2004; North and Hargreaves2007; Sloboda
et aI. 2o}l). Typically usingExperience Sampling Methodology (ESM)'
par-tiants are contacted (via pagers or mobile tel-ephones) at
random intervals during the dayand asked to complete response
sheets abouttheir music listening- Although these
studiespredominantly focus on the functions of musicin everyday
life, the results emphasize the con'cept ofchoice. People choose
different types ofmusic for different reasons (i.e., they have
spe-cific goals and purPoses that music engagementfills), and their
motivations for music listeningare context-dependent. Personal
favourites alsochange over time, and daily favourites
reflectsituaiional and emotional'fit' while long-termfavourites are
more connected to personal lifehistories (Lamont and Webb in
press)' Slobodaet aI. (20O1) also found that greater personalchoice
was more likely to be associated withpositive valued outcomes such
as increasedirousal, present-mindedness, and positivity'These
findings underline the value of research-ing people's self-chosen
uses of music (see alsoChapter 40 this volume)'Reflecting on
Preferred musicAn alternative approach is articulated byresearch
that explores people's own music andthe meaning of this to them as
individuals' usingsocial constructionist methods such as
inter-viewing and ethnography' From such a perspec-tive, music does
not simPly act as a stimulus onan individual, but rattrer its
meaning and effectsbecome stabilized through discourse'
consump-tion practice, and patterns of use over time(DeNora
2000).For example, Batt-Rawden and DeNora (20O5)explored the
theraPeutic uses of music in every-day life using a unique
methodology involving
both researctrer-chosen and participant-chosenmusic, repeated
music listening over long time.p-r, uo-d repeated in-depth
interviews' Thissiudy led to a heightened awareness from
par-ticipants of the ways in which they use music in"u.rya"y hfe
(see also Carlton 2006; Sloboda"t ai. zoot1. Greasley and Lamont
(200 ) alsofound differences between more and less engagedmusic
listeners in terms of listening behaviour'preferences, and
self-awareness. Less musicallyengaged adults lacked a strong
commitment toarry musical style, and were more lik to listento an
eclectic mix of music acquired fromfriends. Conversely, more
musically engagedadults showed strong commitments to musicalswles
and a sense ofnecessity and urgency aboutbuying or obtaining music'
They expressed adeiail awareness ofthe styles they did and didnot
like list ning to, and a thorough and explicitunderstanding ofthe
effects that different srylesof music would have on them.Effects of
musicalpreferencesWe next consider the impact that musical
pref-erences can have on other areas of life in twoways. The first
relates to the use of anY kind ofpreferred music to achieve certain
non-musicalioals. The second relates to the preference forgeafc
kinds of music.- Pieferred music listening has been shown tobe
particula effective in achieving physicaland psychophysiological
goals, such as pain-*"gi-"ttt and relief. It leads to
enhancedcontrol over, and effective distraction from'parn-inducing
stimuli under laboratory condiiions, when ompared with
non-preferred orexperimenter-selected music (Mitchell er al'Z0OO;
tvtitchell and MacDonald 2006)' Similareffects in reducing pain,
anxiery and agitatedbehaviour have been found both in clinical
set-tings (MacDonald et l.2003; Siedliecki andCood zooe; Sung and
Chang 2005) and inchronic pain in everyday life settings
(Mitchellet al.2OO7)' Listening to preferred music ratherthan
experimenter-chosen music or silence pro-duces lower heart rate and
perceived exertionand fatigue rates (Pothoulaki'and Natsume2006),
and improves cognitive performance in
driving simulation tasks (Cassidy 2006). ThusIistening to
preferred music has powerfirl effectson asp cts of behaviour
outside voluntary con-trol as well as on mood and affect. In these
cases,the nature of the musical stimulus has no bear-ing whatsoever
on the phpical and psychologicaleffects.Other uses of musical
preferences are moreclosely tied to the particular music that an
indi-vidual or a group shows preference for. Duringadolescence,
musical preferences play an impor-tant role in the formation of
identity throughprocesses of in-group behaviour and
impressionmanagement (Finnes 1989; Tanant et al.2oo4).The social
ident effect ofmusical preferencesin bringing people together
operates even whenparticipants are unaware of precisewhat musi-cal
preferences the in- and out-groups have(Bagakiannis and Tarrant 200
). Although spe-cific music often has particular effects on
differ-ent groups, thes strong effects are more markedin
adolescence; young adults are more willing toshare and tolerate
others'music, and this toler-ance increases later in adulthood
(Carlton 200 ;Greasley and lamont 200 ). However, even inadulthood,
musical preferences can be used ininterpersonal perception to give
messages aboutpeople's personalities (Rentfrow and Gosling2006).
This catalytic or self-directed effect ofmusic in identity can be
contrasted with theemblematic outward-directed effect of music,such
as anthems, as symbols of national, ethnic,or cultural identity
(Hammarlund 1990, cited inFolkestad 2002). In multicultural
situations, thekind of music someone likes can play a signi6-cant
role in the proceses ofadjustment to a newculture and retaininglins
to the old (Ilari 2006;O'Hagin and Harnish 2006).
Explaining and predictingmusic pteferencesAlthough there has
been a great deal ofresearchexploring different facets of musical
preferenceand taste, only two explicit models of musicpreference
(LeBlanc 1982; Hargreaves et al.2006) have attempted to tie thes
together.kBlanc's interactive theory of music prefer-ence (1982) is
a complex and comprehensiveattempt to represent the influence of
input
i[llExplaining and predicting music preferences .
165information' (the musical stimulus and the lis-tener's cultural
environment) and listener char-acteristics and behaviour. The
approach is usefrilin formally identiSing the large number
oftypesofvariables that fall into the three broad catego-ries. For
example, the listener's culrural envi-ronment includes the
variables of media, peergroup, family, educators and authority
figures,and incidental conditioning. The model traces atrajectory
through listener characteristics suchas attention and mental
processing through to apreference decision at a given moment,
whichthen influences subsequent behaviour (e.g.,acceptance and then
repetition ofthe stimulus).While the detail is potentially usefirl,
the factthat every variable potentially interacts withevery other
means, as LeBlanc concedes, thatthis is unlikely to serve as a
usable predictivemodel, However, subsequent research hasattempted
to \,veight the relative contributionsof the various fuctors, and
kBlanc et aI. (2OOO)found that musical features accounted for
morevariation in children's expressed musical prefer-ences,
followed by'culture' and finally age (seeChaptet 22 this
volume).
Hargreaves a al. (2006) developed a fur sim-pler reciprocal
feedback model of musicalresponse, consisting of the interactions
betweenthe three broad variables of music, listener, and,situations
and conttxts to evoke a gjvea responx.Drawing on experimental
aesthetics, musicalfeatures include a reference system
(genres,styles, etc.), collative variables (complexity,familiarity)
and prototypicality. The listener ischaracterized in terms of
individual differences(gender, age, personality) as well as
musicalknowledge, preference and taste, and identity.The listener's
respoDse to the music is alsoaffected by phpiological (engagement,
arousal,active listening)' cognitive (attention, e cta-tion,
discrimination) and affective (emotional,mood, liking) factors.
Finalln situations andcontefis include social and cultural
contexts,everydaysituations, and the presence or
absenceofothers.Both models e)ress a triPartite divisionbetween
music, listene and contefi as well as alarge number ofinteractions
both between andwithin levels of analpis. Howeveg culture shouldnot
be treated as a variable but rather as themedium through which all
real-life experiences
-
5/28/2018 Greasley, Lamont - Musical Preferences
4/4
1o6 . cHAPTERITu *uri.ulor"r"r"n"u.[are mediated (Cole 199 ;
Lamont 200 ). Themodels also saylittle about the outcome ofmusi-cal
preferences. LeBlanc's preference decisionleading to rejection or
acceptance (in the lattercase resulting in freely chosen repetition
andheightened attention) is simply linked back tothe fistener's
cultural environment and musicalstimulus input. Simila, the concept
of recip-rocal feedback simply argues that listener andmusic,
listener and situation, and situation andmusic
'interact'.DiscussionMusical preferences serve a range of
importantfunctions for individuals and groups, and pre-ferred music
can play an imponant role in phys-ical and psychological
well-being. These clearlygo beyond the simple behavioural outcome
ofrepeated exposure, and have far-reaching effectsranging from the
personal to the cultural.While experimental research has
addressedsome important questions in relation to ourunderstanding
of musical preferences, there stillremain many unanswered issues.
The complexi-ties lie large in the interactive nature of musi-cal
preference. Even a single preference erqrressedat a given moment in
time between one of twoexperimenter-selected pieces of music is
likelyto be affected by a host of factors, which willvary from
individual to individual and may leadto a range of different
outcomes. Attempting toisolate and examine these within a
positivistapproach can be a daunting and potentiallyfruitless
challenge, which may explain why someof the more successfiil
approaches to under-standing musical preferences, both
experimen-tal and qualitative, appear rather content-free interms
of the music that is being preferred.Furthermore, the complexity
and flexibility inthe ways that people categorize and label musicis
a critical issue for the field. As listeners argueabout how
particular pieces ofmusic, particu-lar those they like, shou]d be
labelled intostyles (Greasley and Lamont 2006), researchasking
participants to tick boxes of music pref-erence categories is not
likely to inform us sig-nificantly about the undering meanings
ofthose preferences, except, perhaps, in situationswhere the'tick
box'approach has validity, suchas internet dating, cf. Rentfrow and
Gosling
(200 ). The particular Gtegories employed arealso like to change
rapidly along with changesin musical stylc (Hargreaves aDd North
1999),limiting comparabil between different stud-ies. An approach
that prioritizes listeners' ownconstructions and interpretations of
music cir-cumvents some of these problems, and mayprove more
tuitfrrl in explaining these less stableelements of musical
preferences.The temporal dimension of preference isanother central
issue, and while we have high-lighted the temporal dimensions of
decision-making throughout, it is harder to tease outpractical
implications for a theory of musicalpreferences. The two models of
music prefer-ences reviewed here adopt ver)' different
per-spectives on temporality: LeBlanc systematicallyspecifies the
precise moment of choice but saysless about the longer-terrn
concomitants ofthatchoice, whereas Hargreaves and colleaguesattempt
to capture longer-term dimensionswhile rernaining vague about the
choices whichare being represented. A more considered expla-nation
of the temporal dimension (where pref-erences originate, are
shaped, grow, and diedown-in essence, how reciprocal
feedbackactually works) is still required (cf. Lamont2006).Finalln
adopting a cultural psychologicalapproach oftreating culture and
context morethorougNy as a medium for musical preferencesrather
than a variable within a model may havethe potential to address
some ofthe unresolvedissues in this eld. Naturalistic and
longitudinalmethods of enquiry may be more valuable here.For
example, interviewing people at home withtheir music collections
(Greasley and Lamont200 ) enables them to interact with music in
afar more contextualized m rnner' encouragingparticipants to
ieflect on the wide range ofinter-acting factors influencing
preference (see alsoBatt-Rawden and DeNora 2005).To conclude, the
privileged position ofpre-ferred music in individuals'lives is
somethingthat future research needs to be sensitive to. Acolleague
undergoing chemotherapy told ushow she activcly decided aot to
bring her favour-ite music into hospital, despite her
specialist'sexhortations that it would help alleviate herpain. She
was concerned that over time listeningto her favourite music in
this contextwouldlead
to a negative association between the music andthe treatment,
thus 'spoiling' its potential as asource ofpleasure (Chris Balks,
personal com-munication). This kind of realife engagementwith music
is not easily explained by invertedU-shapes or artificial
distinctions between lis-tener, music and context, yet it is such
real-lifechallenges that future research must find betterways of
explaining.ReferencesAbelg HF and Chun8 Jw (1996). R Pong o music.
InDA Hoes' ed' Handbook of musicpsychobg,2ndedn,28t-342. IMR Pr6s,
San Antonio, TX.Bakagiannis S and Tanmr M (2006). Cm music
bringpeople togetho? Effrcs of shed muical prefermce onintagroup
bid in adol sence. Sundircvien Jouma olPsychologt' 7,
129_136.Batt-Rawdd K and DeNor. T (2OOS). Music md infomalleaming
in cveryday lifc. Musb Hwion Rewrch,7,289-3U.Berlyne DE (l97l)'
/ehetia andpsychoDior. Appleton_ceDtury-clofts, New YoIBlmd A) od
Zatone RJ (2@l). fntenrely plereureablermporc to music onclate with
activity in brainregions implioted in r*ard and cmoti on.
koeeedingsof the NatbaalAcadmT of Sciena, , t 18l8-l1823.Carlton L
(2fi)6). A qualitative analysis of weryday use
of prefmed music acros tbe life spo. In M Baroni,AR Addsi, R
Caterina od M Costa, e ds, proccedings ofthe 9th ltcrmtional
Confqene on Mwic prception andCognitiof, , 582-583 Vnivssity of
Bologna, Bologna,Italy.Csidy G (2006). The effcts of preferred mwic
on drivinggmc pofommce. In M Baroni, AR Addsi, R Catsinamd M Ccta,
eds, Pr@edings of the 9th IntemaiorulConf rc on Mwic PacEtian and
Cognition,58,1-595 Univtrsity of Bologna, Bologna, Italy-Cole M
(1996). Crlrural psychologr a one atd fururedircipkrc. Hnar d
lJnivssit', I,rss, Cambridge, MA.Craig DG (2005). An apbratory
study ofphysiologicalchangc during'chills induced by mwic.
MusiwScintia lX(2)' 27 1287.DeNora T (2000) Mrcic in cryday life.
CmbridgeUnivmity Prss, Cambridge.Finns L (1989). A comparircn betwm
young peopldsprivate}y md publicly apr*d mu calprefama.Ps7chologt
of Mwic17, t32-l45.Folk6tad c (2002). National idmtity md muic.
InMR MacDonald, D| Hargreava md DE Miell, eMrcial illentitia,
15l-162. Oxford Univqsity prsgOxford.Grmley AE md Iamont AM (20O ).
Music prefermcein adulthoo& why do wc like the music wc do? InM
Baoni, AR Addsi; R Cataina md M Costa, eds,Procedingsof thc 9th
lntmiond Colfmcc on MwicPacqtin and Cognitbn,960-966. University
ofBolo8na' Bolo8n ltaly.
l^o,e,onces L .,-Greer RD, Dorow LG md Randall A (1974).
Musiclistening prefaoc of ctemmtar}' shml childr.Jourul of Rewrch
il Mwic Hugtion, L 81'29l.Hargrav6 D, (l98 )' The effats of
repetition on likingfot mtsic. Journal of Resarch in Mwb Huatbn,
32,3547-Hegreav6 D, (1988). Vabal md behavioural rspons tofamilia
md unfmiliil music. crnnf PsychoiulRtgr ch and R in s 6'
323-330.Hargrcaves D] md North AC ( 1999). D elopin8conc Ptsof
muiol style. Mroire kientie,ttt(2), t93-216.Hargreavs DJ, North AC
and Tanmt M (2(x)6). Mmicalprefermce and tote in childhod ud
adolenc . lnGE McPhemn, ed.,The child u mrcici/, l35-l54.Ot'ord
Univmity Pras, O:dord.llari B (2006). Music md idmtity of Btuilian
Dekcgichildrm md adults living in fapan. tn M Baroni,AR Addsi, R
Catdna and M Cosra, eds Proecclings ofthc %h Intmatiofral Confane
on Mwk Peption aadCogniion, 123-130. University of Bologna,
Bologna,Italy.Juslin PN and bukka P (2004). Exprsion, p reption,and
induction of musil motions: a r*iew and aqustionnaire study of
oayday listmin g. Ioumat ofNn Musi c Rcsearch, 33, 2 17-238.Koneni
V] (1982). Scial interaction md mmicprefoene' In D Deutxed",The
psycholop of mwi497-516- Aadcmic Pras, Nry York.Lai H-L (20(x).
Muic preferoc od relantion in Taiwmeeldaly people. Gai.e Nuoing'
E(5), 2w-2g|.Lmont A (2005). What do monle7s' music choio mn?Ttmds
in Cognitilc sEiae, 9(8), 359-361.Lmont A (2006). R ain of Mrcial
Communiuion (edsMicl|' MacDonald andHugravs). Mrcit*
Scntbc'to(2),278-282.Lmont A mdWebb R (in prs). Shon- and
long-temnusiol preferoco; what ms a fayourite Pice ofmusic?
Pycholog of Muk.LeBloc A ( l982). An intractive tb ry of
musicptefsae. Jouml of Mwic Thnapr,IXl(t),ZB-45.LeBlanc A, Jin
YC,-hen_Haftak L, oliviga ADl'Oothulen S md Tafuri J (2000). Tempo
preferenceof youg listenos in Brzil, China, lt, South Africand the
United Statc. Builetit ofthc Council forRwrch in Mwic Hwrbn, l47,
97-W.Litle P md Zuckmm M ( I 986). Semrion-see king mdmwic
prefermc. Pmnalit| f,il IndividuaDifanul7,575-578.
MacDona.ld RAR, Mitchell LA, Dillon T, Serpell MG,Davies fB md
Ashley EA (2003). An mpiricalinvetigation of the roiolpic md
pain-reducing effctsof mlsic. Psychol of Mt'i3l' 87_2o3.Marshall N
md Hargrava DJ (2007). Musial sryledixrimination in the e ets. ]oml
of rlyChidhood Raearch, 5(l), 35-49.McNmara L and Ballud ME (1999).
Rsting arousal,wtion_rckin6 md muic preference. Genetb Sociland
Gennal Psychobgt Monrapb, l25' 22g_25o'Mitchell I' md MeDonald RAR
(2006). An experimentalinvstigation ofthe efiects ofprefened and
relaxing