Psychology of Music

By Colin Sundwick

This study was to determine if the type of music influenced radio listeners opinion of the product and the endorser. There were three different versions of the commercial, two with different types of music and one with no music at all. The listeners were then asked to rate it in terms of potency, activity, and evaluation.

What is the explanatory variable?

What is the explanatory variable?◦ Type of music

What is the explanatory variable?◦ Type of music

Categorical

What are the response variables?

What are the response variables?◦ The ratings given by the participants regarding

the product.◦ The ratings given by the participants regarding

the endorser.

What are the response variables?◦ The ratings given by the participants regarding

the product. Quantitative

◦ The ratings given by the participants regarding the endorser Quantitative

What are some potential sources of bias?

What are some potential sources of bias?◦ Self Selected sample (volunteer bias).

H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser.

H2: Different music leads to different impressions of the product.

H3: Different music does not lead to different buying intentions and different general evaluation of the product.

H4: There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the product.

H5: Music in different tempi leads to different estimates of a commercial’s length.

H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser.

H2: Different music leads to different impressions of the product.

H3: Different music does not lead to different buying intentions and different general evaluation of the product.

H4: There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the product.

H5: Music in different tempi leads to different estimates of a commercial’s length.

H3: Different music does not lead to different buying intentions and different general evaluation of the product.

Participants used this scale as a basis for their judgement of the endorser.

Left Side of Scale Right Side of Scale

Scale 1:Social Response

Negative Social Response

Positive social response

Scale 2:Dominance

Dominant Submissive

Scale 3:Self-Control

Uncontrolled Compulsive

Scale 4:Underlying Mood

Hypomanic Depressive

Scale 5: Permeability Permeable Retentive

Scale 6:Social Potency

Socially potent Socially impotent

Participants used this scale to describe the product.

◦ Evaluative factor - e.g. ‘good-bad’◦ Potency factor - e.g. ‘weak-strong’◦ Activity factor – e.g. ‘tense-relaxed’

H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser.

Rated Endorser’s self control:◦ Music I: 24.1◦ Music II: 27.3◦ No Music: 23.8

H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser.

Rated Endorser’s self control:◦ Music I: 24.1◦ Music II: 27.3◦ No Music: 23.8

Accept H1?

H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser.

Rated Endorser’s self control:◦ Music I: 24.1◦ Music II: 27.3◦ No Music: 23.8

Accept H1?◦ Yes

H2: Different music leads to different impressions of the product.

SD: Activity◦ Music I: 19.0◦ Music II: 13.1◦ No Music: 16.2

H2: Different music leads to different impressions of the product.

SD: Activity◦ Music I: 19.0◦ Music II: 13.1◦ No Music: 16.2

Accept H2?

H2: Different music leads to different impressions of the product.

SD: Activity◦ Music I: 19.0◦ Music II: 13.1◦ No Music: 16.2

Accept H2?◦ Yes

Rated Permeability of the endorser.◦ Music I: M: 25.4 F:19.8◦ Music II: M: 23.6 F: 24.5◦ No Music: M:24 F: 23.8

H4: There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the brand.

GT: Social Response–SD: Evaluation (r=.2831; p=.001)

GT: Dominance–SD: Activity (r=-.2568; p=.003) GT: Dominance–SD: Potency (r= -.1800; p=.003) GT: Permeability–SD: Evaluation (r= -.3016; p= .001) GT: Social Potency–SD: Evaluation (r= -.2855;

p= .001)

GT: Social Response–SD: Evaluation (r=.2831; p=.001)◦ The more positive the endorser was, the better ratings the

commercial gets. GT: Dominance–SD: Activity (r=-.2568; p=.003)

◦ The more compliant the endorser was, the less tense the commercial seemed to be.

GT: Dominance–SD: Potency (r= -.1800; p=.003)◦ The more compliant the endorser was, the less potent the

product was perceived. GT: Permeability–SD: Evaluation (r= -.3016; p= .001)

◦ The more closed the endorser seemed to be, the worse ratings the commercial got.

GT: Social Potency–SD: Evaluation (r= -.2855; p= .001)◦ The more unsociable the endorser was, the worse ratings the

commercial got

H4: There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the brand.

GT: Social Response–SD: Evaluation (r=.2831; p=.001) GT: Dominance–SD: Activity (r=-.2568; p=.003) GT: Dominance–SD: Potency (r= -.1800; p=.003) GT: Permeability–SD: Evaluation (r= -.3016; p= .001) GT: Social Potency–SD: Evaluation (r= -.2855; p= .001)

Accept H4?

H4: There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the brand.

GT: Social Response–SD: Evaluation (r=.2831; p=.001) GT: Dominance–SD: Activity (r=-.2568; p=.003) GT: Dominance–SD: Potency (r= -.1800; p=.003) GT: Permeability–SD: Evaluation (r= -.3016; p= .001) GT: Social Potency–SD: Evaluation (r= -.2855; p= .001)

Accept H4?◦ Yes

Thank you

How would listeners rate Colin on a scale of (1) impatient to (5) patient?

How would listeners rate Colin’s presentation on a scale of (1) tense to (5) relaxed?

Rate the Endorser/Product

How would listeners rate Colin on a scale of (1) unimaginative to (5) exuberant?

How would listeners rate Colin’s presentation on a scale of (1) weak to (5) strong?

Rate the Endorser/Product