SOME CORRELATES OF MUSICAL 9REFERENCE Thesis for i119 Degree of M. A. M£C2v4ifiAN STATE COLLEGE John Spencer Abma i954 WWW 11x may“ x 682 39 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT PSYCHOLOGY EAST L ‘ AICH. 45323 TVisSIMJ RETURNING MATERIALS: PTace in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from w your Y‘ECOY‘d. FINES win be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. SOME CORRELATES OF MUSICAL PREFERENCE By JOHN SPENCER.ABM& A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of.Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER 0F.ARTS Department of Psychology 1954 nCKNOWLEDGEMENT The author is grateful for the assistance he received in oreooring this thesis from Doctor 3. H. Bartley. chairman. and Doctors A. G. Dietze and L. K. Zerby, members of his thesis committee. CONTENTS PA GE INTRODUCTIOH.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUBJmo'rstmmmL................. 7 muonsmnpmcms................. 9 DISCUSSION....................... 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY......................25 MIX I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O 1 INTRODUCTION The psycholog of music offers a great variety of problems and an equally great variety of methods have been used in studying them. This arises naturally from the wide scope of the field and the complexity of the stimulus and response variables involved. To do experimental work in this area. it is necessary to select a particular problem for study. and simplify the variables sufficiently to permit adequate controls and measure- ments. ~ One way of doing this is to break up the stimulus into elements and study them separately. Thus rhythm. pitch. melody. timbre and harmony have all become the subJecte of numerous experiments. The following examples are not necessarily the most typical of work done in this area, nor the most applicable to the questions that will be raised by the present experiment. but are meant to illustrate the variety of interests that are embraced in the psychology of music. They are drawn from a large body of experiments that involve auditory stimuli and are thus fundamentally re- lated to music and our responses to music. Pratt (12). for example. undertook to discover to what extent our description of a pitch as high or low is connected with spatial concepts. Another experimenter. Helmholtz. (7) was an early worker in the area of tone-quality (timbre). showing the effects of wave-form upon tone-quality when pitch and other variables are held constant. Ortmann (11) showed that pitch. intensity and duration are determining factors in tone-quality. since these affect the wave-form. This approach. which we might characterize as molecular. has contributed much to our knowledge of the elements of music. but there are other questions that arise in the psychology of music for which it does not provide answers. It hardly needs pointing out that the character of a piece of music may be quite different from that of its parts taken separately. so that if'we wish to study responses to music. we are obliged. finally. to use as stimulus material actual selections. unaltered insofar as possible. This has also been done in numerous studies. For example. an experi- ment was carried out by Myers (10) from which he develOped a typology of listeners on the basis of their reactions to complete selections of music. He used such‘worksras Beethoven's “Overture to figment“ and Tschaikovski's 'Yalse des Fleure'.‘among others. He had 15 subjects give introspective reports while listening to the pieces. on the basis of mhich he identified the |'intrIIF-subJective. associative. objective and character“ types of listeners. Another study that made use of complete musical selections is reported in Schoen "ThelPsychology of'lusic' (1). It was carried out under the direction of I. Y. Bingham and involved 20.000 persons who reported the effects produced upon their moods by’a variety of 290 phonograph records of vocal and instrumental musical compositions. The results indicated that the selections either induced similar moods in most listeners or in- tensified that mood when it existed prior to hearing the selection. Thus far we have seen examples in which the stimulus material was given both molecular and molar treatment. fhe nature of the response. too. can be simplified by breaking it up into elements. Thus the effects of music upon electrocardiograms and blood pressure have been investigated by Hyde (9) who showed the implications of these effects for musical therapy. {Much more frequently used methods of’recording responses are verbal and introspective reports. These examples give some idea of the scope of the problems arising in the psychology of music. and many more illustrations could be drawn from the areas of musical therapy. aptitude. appreciation. and training. THE PRESENT STUDY The present study is not related to a specific problem. such as musical training or theraPY. but is designed to give information about the correlation existing between several response variables. The stimu- lus is of the molar type. i.e.. is music. essentially unaltered in every respect except length. Brief excerpts of music (20-50 seconds) were drawn from recordings. and placed on a tape recorder. Responses were obtained chiefly through the use of rating scales. They may be regarded as less specific or quantitative than physiological measurements. and still not as "free" or lengthy as the introspective reports that have been gathered by some e1perimenters. The nature of the stimulus and response variables will be discussed more fully in the section "Subjects and Material” page 7. -1»- THE PROBLEM In the present experiment. we have undertaken to discover what degree of correlation exists between the variable of musical preference and three other variables. namely. differences in degree of familiarity. differences in estimates of the length of the selections. and apparent differences in loudness of the selections. we have also undertaken to show what effect musical training has upon the degree of these correlations by employing two groups of subjects. one with musical training and the other without musical training. The study was not undertaken to throw light upon a preconceived theor- etical framework. Nevertheless. out choice of variables indicates the expectation that they. among many other possible variables. would be sys- tematically related to each other. GENERAL HYPOTHESIS we take as our general hypothesis that musical preference is correlated with variables of familiarity. apparent differences in length and apparent differences in loudness. SPECIFIC HYPOTHESES Wiml’anilinrm It is generally accepted that the recognition of familiar objects or stimuli constitutes in itself a pleasant experience. Fbthhis reason we hypothesize a positive correlation between familiarity and preference. mam Lf Meal Mining Erna the Correlation 9.12 firearm is. W lashburn. et al (16). performed a study bearing upon the relationship of familiarity and enjoyment of musical compositions. This studyIaas chiefly concerned with the effects of immediate repetition upon enjoyment. However. since familiarity increases with the number of hearings of a piece. the findings of lashburn do have implications for‘the present study. She found: (1) ”That repetition may operate either to raise or to lower the pleasantness of a selection." (2) “That in the case of popular music. repetition tends more strong- 1y to lower than to raise pleasantness.” (3) "That the tendency to lose pleasantness on repetition sets in on the whole sooner for the musical than for the unmusical observers. This is not noticeable in the seriously classical compositions at all: it is shown in the very popular selections only by a steeper dropping off of . . (enjoyment) . . from the first to the fifth performance." If we can assume that musically trained listeners are more familiar with classical selections than those who are untrained. then the results of‘lashburn have implications for the present study. They would lead to the hypothesis that the correlation between preference and.familiarity would be higher for the musically trained than for the group with no musical training. Eminence Is. énnsnni W in Length The relationship between apparent length.and "Pleasantness of mental content“ has been investigated by Sturt (1“). She concluded that "The commonly accepted conception that unpleasantness of mental content increases the apparent duration of time" had been disproven by her results. and that, instead. "If a space is filled. it appears larger than one which is empty". Uhile these conclusions may be correct. they cannot be re- garded as having been demonstrated by her experiment. The number of subjects involved was small - three in all. and in some phases of the study. only one. herself. Therefore. we do not hesitate to re-examine the question. adopting the commonly accepted conception that the more pleasant of two experiences will seem to 'go by faster." will take up less time. we hypothesize a positive correlation between preference and apparent length scores. We can see no reason to expect that this correlation will be different for the musically trained and the musically untrained group. Wn-WWMW The variables of apparent loudness and preference are least likely to yield significant correlation coefficients. If a listener is able to divert his attention from. or ignore. a selection which he does not enjoy. then the preferred pieces will seem louder. 0n the other hand. if a listener cannot escape entirely from the unpleasant stimulus. and is prohibited from "turning it off” as he might habitually do in similar circumstances. then those selections which he does not enjoy might give the impression of being too loud. louder than the preferred selections. In the face of these nmuually contradictory possibilities. we arbitratily chose the latter, i.e., that preference and loudness scores will be inversely related. As with.the variables preference vs. length. we hypothesize no differ- ence between the group with musical training and that with no musical training respecting the correlation of preference with loudness scores. «U I (In 0'" 5.. v"" 4.... .I SUBJECTS AND MTERIAL Two groups of 50 subjects each were used. 100 in all. One group was made up of these subjects who indicated they had studied a musical in- strument or sung for a number of years. This group is referred to as Group No. I. "Husical Training‘. Group II. “No Musical Training” was made up of 50 subjects who indicated no musical training. All subjects were students in beginning Psychology courses. In choosing the selections to be used as stimulus material. a number of criteria were considered. One of’these was that a wide variety of musical styles and tastes be represented in order to insure that each subject would experience maximum differences in degree of enjoyment and fhmiliarity. In pairing the selections. the greatest possible contrast in styles was attempted. To maximize the effect of preference upon perceived differences in length. the selections in.a pair were equated for length. and the volume level of paired selections was also kept as nearly equal as possible. itimlns man The stimulus selections used may be divided most conveniently into two types. the popular and classical. Within each of'these classes are examples of vocal. orchestral and solo instrumental pieces. exhibiting a wide range of styles. There are ten selections in all. arranged into five pairs. as shown in the following table. mm i NAME Last. ' First ' Middle (Initial) mm M F AGE . Galas (Underline) Fresh. Soph. Jun. Sen. Grad. Other . MAJOR e DO you sing. or play a musical instnment?________._o If so. what one? ' For how many years? . Instructor ¥ PAIR e m ENJOYLEHT Selection 1. Very Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable Selection 2. Very Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable FAILILInRITY Selection 3.. Very familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all familiar Selection 2;. ”a- v 2.11151: ar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7110i; at all fa'tiliar LWIGTII (Not the same ”for bc Eh) Seconds. Se 10 ch on 1 -—_.._..__._______ Selection 2. Seconds. -——__....._.______ “‘1'“le as (Not the :3an far m- rh‘ Which W‘s louder? Selection 1. Sclec-tior. ,, By how mush? Very much 1 2 3 4: 5 6 '7 Nearly Equal PAIR . ENJOYLEEI‘IT Selection 1. Very Enjoyable 1 2 3 4.- 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable Selection 2. Very Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable . ' ”iifixEJ-éim ” _ ____._ .-- Selection 1. Very familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all familiar "2:1! i'anilf ar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hot at al.1‘at‘i11ar a- Selection 5’ LEIIGTH (Not the same for bc Eh) Selectwn 1. Seconds. ——-—_..____.____ Select-ion 2. Seconds. ..........—.—_____. . __ _....___. IOLTNE SS (Not the salt: 0 for rah: Which was louder? Selection 1. Sclcetz‘ on P... By how muzh? Very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 Ileariy Equal Election 2 «_. PAIR . ENJOYLEHT Selection 1. Very Enjoyable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable Selection 2. Very Enjoyable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable —- - «o— . . - "-mm... 1...... ..._.. -1“ v— - ---“~— FMAILIARITY Selection 1. Very familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all familiar Selection 35’ Very familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 71101; at all familiar \ LEJGTH (Not the same for both) Selectmn 1. Seconds. Selection 2. Seconds. .__._._.__..__._._. IAOU’DNESS (Not the same 1%: ch) Which was loader? Selection 1. Sclertior. 2).. By how much? Very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ready 39% ’r ,- , ,l_______.._.___~_., Selection Selection Selection Selection Se lectien Se lee-tien -__._.1. .._- .. Which was PAIR . ENJOYLENT 1. Very Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable 2. Very Enjoyable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at _all enjoyable .. . -.._.~_ FAMILIARITYM .. Very familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all fe.:1;1:‘_ar 25 "a. y 1111:1113 ar 1 2 3 4 5 6 71101; at al- 13"a'._‘*711ar LENGTH (Not the“ same ferm bc-E h) 1. Seconds. -——._........_____.__ . Seconds. -----—-—--————_.. _ _._. ‘_.~. .w. . TCU‘N SS (Not the same for Tam-h) 2 leader? Selection 1. Selection 2%. By how mum Very much 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 Neariy Equal PAIR o ENJOYHENT Sanction 1. Very Enjoyable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable Selection 2. Very Enjoyable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable -. -o. . .- ._. ._ . __-- “V‘ ..-.._... _.-_-..._ FAMILIARITY Selection 3.. Very familiar l 2 3 4 6 6 7 Not at all familiar Selection 2; Very familiar l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all familiar «n.-. H... ~ -. . .. -——.~—.~. ... _._~_.—........g LEJGTH (Not the same ibr both) Selection 1. Seconds. M Selection 2. Seconds. Which was louder? Selection 1. Select? on 7%. $1“ ‘ 8: how much: Very much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nearly Equal 1 TABLE 1. Showing the Selections Used. And Their Exact Length PAIR SELECTION TITLE TYPE LENGTH I 1. Piano Concerto #1. Tschaikovski Classical 1&9 seconds 2. "Star Dust", Stan Kenton record Popular 148.5 " II 1. "Fool. Fool“. sung, Kay Starr Popular 54-75 " 2. "Carmen” excerpt. sung. 3. Stevens Classical 54.50 " III 1. Symphony #1. Brahms, (4th Mov't) Classical 1&3 " 2. Ways Con Dies”. Les Paul 8: Ford Popular “3.50 " IV 1. ”Come on '3 My House”. Gluney Popular 23.25 " 2. Senate in C flsj.. Scarletti Classical 23.50 " V 1. Symphony f2, Bernstein Classical 56.50 " 2. I'Begin the Beguine". Ougat Popular 56.75 " (The exact title and location of these selections on the recordings is given in the Appendix. page 111). In general. a theme was chosen from each composition that was character- istic and complete. being broken off only at convenient cadences or pauses. The selections were presented in pairs. with about five seconds between selections and one or two minutes separating the pairs to permit adequate time for indicating responses. The volume control on the tape recorder used to present the stimulus selections was set at the beginning and left constant throughout the experiment. This resulted in producing a fairly uniform tone-quality and level of volume. We 31mm Responses were obtained in an answer booklet (See insert 1.). Judgments were made about each selection concerning degree of enjoyment. degree of familiarity. estimate of length and estimate of loudness. The subjects were instructed as to the manner of indicating responses (See "Instructions to the SubJects'. Appendix. page i). To indicate degree of enjoyment, seven-point scales were used. the subject encircling whatever number best indicated his enjoyment of each selection. Sevenppoint scales were also used to indicate how familiar each of the selections was to the subject. Separate estimates of the length. in seconds. were given for each selection. To indicate loudness. the subjects were instructed to decide which of the selections in.a pair was thought to be the louder. and then indicate the apparent degree of difference in loudness by encircling the appropriate nmnber on a seven-point scale. The first page of the answer booklet provided space for information concerning the amount of musical training each subject had. on the basis of’which his responses were placed in either of the two experimental groups. i.e., that group comprised of those subjects having musical training or that group of subjects having no musical training. h!!§92§:é§2.2§99§2§§§§ Five pairs of selections were presented to all subjects in the same order and under similar conditions. Counter-balancing of the pairs was not carried out because there was no need to eliminate the possible effects of constant errors upon the results. These would have the same effect as merely adding or subtracting numerical constants from one or all variables. -10- and would not affect the correlations. (If the constant error were one of central tendency. the correlations could only be lowered (by restrict— ing the range of responses). but never raised). Our method of deriving a single score from the responses made separately to each of the selections in a pair needs to be clarified. W and W Esme Scores for the first two variables. Enjoyment and Familiarity. were arrived at by the same method. A seven-point scale was provided for each of the two selections in the pair. with the low point (No. 1.) being identified as ”Very enjoyable" and the high (No. 7.) as ”Not at all enjoyable”. The subjects encircled the number they felt best reflected their degree of enjoyment for each selection. Since our purpose is to correlate the variable of preference with other variables. it is necessary to obtain a single score from the two Judgments given. This is done by subtracting the number encircled for selection 1. of a pair from the number encircled for selection 2. of that pair and adding a constant. 10. to avoid negative numbers. This enables us to ex- press in a single score the degree and direction of difference in enjoyment between the selections. and we call it the "Preference score". We are now in a position to compare differences in preference with differences in familiarity. (The method for arriving at familiarity scores is exactly like that just explained for enjoyment). It can be seen that if familiarity and.enjoyment of musical selections are correlated. our method of scoring will exhibit this relationship. The following example scores would thus demonstrate perfect positive correlation.between.these varia- bles. -11- SUBJECT 1; PAIR I Enjoyment Selection 1. Very enjoyable @2 3 ll 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable Selection 2. Very enjoyable l 2 3 1+ 5 6®Not at all enjoyable Familiarity Selection 1. Very familiar® 2 3 u 5 6 7 Not at all familiar Selection 2. vary familiar'l 2 3 u 5 6@ Not at all familiar m: I. PAIR I Enjoyment Selection 1. Very enjoyable l 2 3 ”(5)6 7 Hot at all enjoyable Selection 2. Very enjoyable l 2@ h» 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable Familiarity Selection 1. Vary familiar l 2 3 u 5 6®Net at all familiar Selection 2. Vary familiar l 2 3 u@6 7 Hot at all familiar m2 .2. PAIR I Enjoyment Selection 1. Very enjoyable l@3 b: 5 6 ‘7 not at all enjoyable Selection 2. Very enjoyable l® 3 it 5 6 7 Not at all enjoyable Familiarity Selection 1. Very familiar l 2 3 1+ 5©7 Not at all familiar Selection 2. Very familiar l 2 3 ll 5@ 7 Not at all familiar Subtracting selection 1. from selection 2. in each case. and adding 10. we get the following derived scores. indicating the correlation. SUBJECT ENJ . RAM. 1 16 16 Y 8 8 2 10 10 -12- length 5.99191 Essentially the same method was used to obtain length and loudness scores. but there are some differences in detail. Judgments of length were given in seconds for each selection. Here. as in the case of enjoyment and familiarity. the judgment for selection 1. of a pair was subtracted from that for selection 2. and a constant was added to avoid negative numbers. loudness Esme Obtaining estimates of loudness. or. more precisely. of perceived differences in loudness. was done by requiring a choice between the selections in a pair. and then indicating. again on a 7-point scale. the degree of difference. The low point on the scale (No. l.) was identified as “Very much louder” andtle high point (no. 7.) as “Nearly equal". If the first selection of the pair was felt to be the louder. then the number encircled on the 7—point degree-of-difference scale as entered as the score. If. however. selection 2. was encircled. indicating that it was thought to be the louder. than the number encircled on‘the degree-of- difference scale was subtracted from 15. and file resultant figure recorded. This procedure gives us a scale for loudness-difference from 1 to 15. with 7-8 being scores that would indicate near-equality. All of these scores indicate differences between selections within pairs respecting the variables involved. rather than the raw scores ob- tained for each selection. This enables us to discover to what extent differences in enjoyment between two selections are accompanied by corres- ponding differences in judgments of familiarity. length. and loudness. (1.0.. to what extent these vary concomitantly). -13- RESULTS Inspection of the Table of Results. page 1a, will indicate that significant correlation coefficients were obtained from Group 1. Musical Training. in all five pairs of selections forthe variables preference vs. familiarity. Group II. No Musical Training. yielded significant coeffi— cients for these variables in three out of“the five pairs. For all five pairs. the correlation was higher for Group I than for Group II. and the difference between these coefficients is significant beyond the one percent level of confidence for one of the pairs. The coefficients obtained for the variables Enjoyment vs. Length. and Enjoyment vs. Loudness do not in.any instance reach statistical significance. even at the 10 percent level of confidence. Scattergrams. developed from the data. indicated no consistent curva— ture for any of the variables. Hence no eta coefficients were computed. These*would undoubtedly be higher than the Pearson product moment coeffi- cients. but they would not aid us in interpreting the scattergram'v 9'93 if more statistical significance were reached. -1u- .ooaooawcoo we amped &H on» as consummaaman nopoamn as .mouooamcou mo amend mm one am oodmoawmawam mopoama e can. mai. new. .m oar. wmm. was. .a mom. mmw. NH.H .m mm.a was. arme.m .N mam. men. men. .H mmomddoa summed haaamaaaemh .m> .m> .m> warm easemenma easemensfi pumahonam a: .HH use H masonw mooreop nooaoaouvno we ooamowuuuwdm mo new» new museum owes a son. anao.- mam. .a ammo. mama. .anm. .m aaa.- aaHo.- ..aaa. .a aaaoo.- mmm.- ..amm. .a $8. e9... .mam. .m a3 .. +38 .- lama. .m 30H. 0030.! sumo. .N QNH.0 nwmo. cumin. .N mane. nmeo.n cam. .H mma.u NNH.- ream. .H mmocoeea summon anaemuaaesm commence summon haunmaaaamm .mb .m> .mb. munm .m> .m> .m> munfi anoahownm somehenmm pmthonnm aneshonsm psmshonnn vsoahonsw wZHZHrme AdonDx 02 I ma Abom¢ aszHde AfionDS I H macaw .HH one H museum new menoaedmmeoo soapcammuou unmaoaieoaooam sommmom WBHDWHN .HO WAMewB e w I en- a. OI -15- DISCUSSION Our general hypothesis thathreference is correlated with variables of familiarity. apparent length and apparent loudness is partially sub- stantiated by the coefficients obtained for preference vs. familiarity. It is in part unsubstantiated by the lack of correlation shown for the variables preference vs. length and preference vs. loudness. Brennan n. Loudness ‘ It is still possible. of course that these variables are related. but that the relationship did not appear under the conditions ef’the present experiment. It is easy to find examples in everyday life to support the notion that preference and loudness are related. If a piece on the radio is one that a listener enjoys. he is more likely to increase the'volume level than decrease it. so that he an hear it better. 0n the other hand. if a selection comes on the radio that he dislikes. he will probably turn it down or off entirely. rather than increase the plume level. One impor- tant difference between everyday life situations and the conditions imposed by the experiment is that in.the experiment. the subjects were not permitted to raise or lower the volume level of the stimulus selections. In.this situation. where raising the level of preferred pieces and lowering that of nonwpreferred pieces was prohibited. the subject might receive and report the impression that the selections he liked were too soft (i.e.. not turned up). and those he disliked were too loud (1.0.. not turned down). That neither this effect. nor any other consistent relationship appeargd in our results may be explained in a number of ways. It could be diet the attitude of objectivity toward the listening experience that was developed by the experiment was sufficiently strong to mask entirely more habitual ...-- ~.... I l u,- I a... -16- ways of responding. It is also possible that. since listeners undoubtedly differ in their ability both to ignore the disliked selections and to attend to the preferred selections. these personality factors and others combined in such a way as to cancel any trend that would be produced by a particular factor or mode of responding taken separately. The effects of individual differences upon judgments made relative to music could be ascertained only by carefully diagnosing the types of people to serve as subjects and then comparing the experimental results of each subject. or group of subjects. with personality profiles. Eminence 11. Length Our hypothesis that the preferred selections would seem to occupy less time than the non-preferred selections is not confirmed by the results. Yet this notion is widely held. Henrikson (8) discovered that of 75 college students serving as subjects. 95 percent believed that the more afraid a student is. the longer will his speaking tine appear to his. In another phase of his experiment. he showed. however. that degree of stage fright does not correlate positively with estimated length of speaking time. Vood- row states in his "Handbook of Experimental Psychology“ that "In general. a time filled by pleasant. interesting. well-motivated activities seems shorter than one spent simply in waiting". Since "waiting” is usually an unpleasant experience. this remark may be taken as being in support of our hypothesis. But an alternative interpretation is possible which places it in agreement with the conclusions of Sturt. cited earlier. that ”If a Space is filled. it appears larger han one which is empty“. In discussing the “parishes of waiting. she points out that while it may appear to be an "empty“ interval of time to a casual observer. it is in fact filled by .4. .‘e sl' 'l -17- experiences of anticipation. disappointment. irritation. insecurit)’. muscular tension and countless other sensations. This. in her view. accounts for the seeming inordinate length of intervals spent in waiting; they are. in fact. more filled than most intervals. Similar interpretations can bring a number of eXperimental results into agreement. Gulliksen (6) had 326 subjects estimate upon a period of 200 seconds while engaged in various activities. These were: Average estimate (in seconds) 1. Relaxation 2%.? 2. Holding arms extended 228.“ Overestinated 3. Listening to a slow metronome 223.? . Listening to a rapid metronome 21m 5. Holding the palm on a tlnlmb-tack 210.2 6. Reading from reflection in a mirror 181.8 Ufidflefitimte 7. Taking dictation l7“.6 . Doing long division 168-9 Of these eight conditions. the first five were overestimated and the last three underestimated. Task number one. called “Relaxation”. was given the longest average estimate. The instructions to the subjects for this part of the experiment were as follows: I'P'ut your arms on the table and lay your head on them. but keep your eyes open and remain attentive. When I say "go“ shut your eyes and relax completely. Do not count or mark time. remain perfectly passive. as if trying to sleep. When I say "stop". sit up. estimate the time and record it"." There is no guarantee here that the subjects in this part of the ex- periment were. in fact. in a state of rest. Such an imposed restriction of activity as would be produced by these instructions might well be accompanied by a variety of experiences like those described earlier for periods spent in waiting. GTE. Psycho]... 19:27:30. page 53- -18.. Similarly, we have no idea what may have gone on in the subJBCtB' consciousness during the performance of tasks 2 through 5 in this experi- ment. It is possible that these tasks were accompanied by numerous and varied inner experiences. thus accounting for their being overestimated. For those tasks that were underestimated. numbers 6 through 8. we can hypothesize that since the attention of the subjects was monopolized by the activity engaged in. these periods were less filled than periods 1-5. and were hence underestimated. Vhitely and Anderson (17) did an experiment involving music from which they concluded that ”Intervals filled with music are Judged shorter than intervals filled with the non-rhythmical buzzer—tone or intervals in which neither the music nor the buzzer-tone is present". To make this statement consistent with other results. it is necessary to assume that the experiences of the subjects were not regulated by the complexity of the experimental stimuli and that the periods where neither the music nor the buzzer were sounded really contained more experiences (like those associated with waiting) for the subjects. Ifhese studies cannot be taken to show that pleasantness or unpleasant- ness of experience is not an important factor in determining time-perception because. in every case. it is possible to believe that those tasks or periods whose lengths were underestimated were more pleasant than the overestimated tasks. For a study that deals more directly with this question we must refer once more to the experiment by Sturt (1“). Some of the conditions under which she obtained estimates of time are the following: Neutral 1. Starting a stop watch and stepping it when a given number of seconds had elapsed. -19- Unpleasant 2. Holding a lighted cigarette against the hand. Pleasant 3. Being in bed at night. just before going to sleep. Unpleasant Q. Uniting for a meal while very hungry. Unpleasant. 5. The prick of a pin. The estimates of time elapsed under these conditions did not show any consistent tendency toward overestimation of either the pleasant or unpleasant conditions. But it would be risky to accept her results as final since only 3 subjects were involved in the experiment. Her results are supported. however. by those of'the present experi- ment which failed likewise to discover significant correlation between the variables preference and length. Instead. the experiences of enjoying a piece of music and not enjoying it. while so different qualitatively. may be equal from a quantitative point of view. and thus have the effect of filling an interval of time to an equal degree. The present experiment has not demonstrated that estimates of time dOPODd upon how filled or unfilled an interval is. but in yielding negli- gible correlation coefficients for preference and apparent length scores. our results remain consistent with.a large body of experimental work done in this area. 2:efnzanna.za. Esnilianizz Our hypotheses concerning correlation between variables of preference and familiarity. i.e. . that these would be positively correlated and that the group with musical training would yield higher coefficients than the group with no musical training. have been substantiated in this experiment. The correlation between preference and familiarity that was obtained for both groups probably results from the operation of a factor that is effective in many situations besides those that involve listening to music. The experience of recognition or of being familiar with an object or stimulus provides pleasure in and of itself. In social gatherings. the presence of old acquaintances gives a feeling of security and belonging. Similar ex- periences are felt when one returns to his home town or other familiar surroundings. Likewise in an experiment. the appearance of familiar stimuli reduces anxiety resulting from being in a strange situation and makes the subject feel more 'at home”. at least for the moment. The operation of factors more peculiar to situations involving music may be responsible for the difference in degree of correlation of these variables between groups I and II. The source of our hypothesis that the coefficient would be higher for group 1. (Musical training). than group II. (No musical training). was an experiment of Vashburn (16) on the effects of immediate repetition of musical selections. She used. as we did in the Present experiment. a wide variety of selections in both the classical and Popular vein. and also employed some subjects with musical training and others without. One of her conclusions was that the tendency for selections to lose enjoyability upon repetition set in sooner for the musically trained than musically untrained subjects. It took fewer repetitions of a selection -21... to effect a decrease in its enjoyability for the musically trained than the musically untrained subjects. This finding. taken alone. would lead to a hypothesis just the opposite of the one we have chosen. for it would mean tint the more familiar selections would tend to be less enjoyed by the musically trained. However there is nothing in her results to indicate that this effect would not set in for the group with no musical training as well: the decrement in enjoyment resulting from repetition sets in sooner for the musically trained subjects. but eventually may occur for all subjects. Taking these facts into consideration leads us to still another hypothesis that we did not adopt. that groups I and 11 would show equal correlation coefficients for the variables preference and familiarity. Yet another finding of Uashburn forms the last step in reaching the hypothesis we did adopt. She found that the tendency for a selection to lose enjoyability upon repetition for the musically trained did not exist for the serious. classical selections. There is. in other words. an exception to the tendency for pieces to lose enjoyability upon repetition. and this is to be found in the enjoyment. not reduced by repetition. of serious classical selections, by the musically trained subjects. The results of the present experiment also suggest the existence of such a phenomenon. and it could account for the higher correlations ob- tained for preference vs. familiarity scores for the musically trained group than the group with no musical training. Th0 Present eXperiment and that of Uashburn are not very similar in design, Yet the results are essentially in agreement. and point '50 “9 int"'Pretation that classical selections retain their enjoyability. even ati’ter many repetitions. or when thay are very familiar to the listener. Th1! seems to hold true especially for listeners who have had musical training- -22- That this problem needs further examination. however. is suggested by the results of another experiment which seem not in agreement with those of the present study. or those of Washburn. This study. cited earlier. (page 2) was carried out by W. V. Bingham (l) for the purpose of ascertain- ing the mood effects of music. The study also yielded information concern- ing the relationship of enjoyment and familiarity and led Bingham to conclude the following: I"Familiarity played a more important role in the degree of enjoyment derived from the music for the somewhat musical than for the very musical. In other words. the less musical the person. the more was his enjoyment conditioned upon the degree of familiarity with the selection“ 1 Bingham based this conclusion upon a comparison of two groups of subjects; those who were somewhat musical and those who were very musical. To substantiate his statement more fully would require employing a third group of subjects who were not musical at all. It might then appear that the two groups of subjects who were either "very” or "somewhat” musical would show a closer relationship between enjoyment and familiarity than the musical group. Such an outcome could be consistent with our own re- sults, and with the findmgs of Bingham. But this is a subject for future experimentation. l "The Psychology of Music“ Schoen. page 90- -23- SUW-In HY Brief selections of music were presented in pairs to two groups of 50 subjects each, one group consisting of subjects who had some musical training. the other group having no musical training. A popular and a classical selection made up each of the five pairs. Measures were obtained. chiefly through the use of rating scales, of the difference in familiarity, enjoyment, estimated length and loudness between the selections comprising each pair. The scores thus derived for preference were examined for degree of correlation with scores of familiarity, apparent difference in length and apparent difference in loudness. Significant correlations were found to exist between the variables preference vs. familiarity. These variables were correlated significantly higher for the group with musical training than for the group with no musical training. Correlations between the variables preference vs. length and preference vs. loudness were not significant. BIBLIOGRAPHY 9. 10. JJ. 12. 13. 1h. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bingham. U. V. "Mood Effects of Music" (in) Schoen. "The Psy- chology of Music". New York. Ronald Press. 19%. Brown. J. 1". "On Time Perception in Visual Movement Fields“ Psychol. Forsch. 1931. 1.5;. 233-2’48. Downey. June E. and Knapp. George E. “The Effects on a Musical Programme of Familiarity and Sequence of Selections". (in) Schoen (ed) ”Effects of Music” New York. Harcourt. Brace. 1927. Filer. Robert J. and Meals. Donald W. “The Effect of Motivating Conditions on the Estimation of Time” Mo, 19%. 32. 327.331. Guilford. J. P. I'F'undamental Statistics in Psychology and Education". New York. McGraw-Hill. l9b2. Gulliksen. H. - "The Influence of Occupation Upon Perception of Time" J. Exp. Psychol.. 1927. 1Q. 52-59- Helmholtz. H. L. F. "Sensations of Tone” Longmans. Green. 1912. henrikson. Ernest H. "A Study of Stage Fright and the Judgment of Speaking Time” JI Am. P319331“ 1948. 32. 532-536. Hyde. Ida H. “Effects of Music Upon ElectroCardiograms and.Blood Pressure". (in) Schoen. M. (ed) "The Effects of Music New York. Harcourt. Brace. 1927- "5'91'8. 0. 5. "Individual Differences in Listening to Music”. (in) Schoen. M. (ed) ”The Effects of Music" New York..Harcourt. Brace. 1927. Ch. 2. Ortmann. 0. "What is Tome-Quality?" W. 3935. 2.1. “42-450. Pratt. C. C.. "The Spatial Character of High and Low Tones” w. Dunno]... 1930. 43. 278-285. Schoen. flax. and Gatewood. Esther... Schoen (ed) "Effects of Music II J P ' 0 u sturt. Mary. “Experiments on the Estimate of Duration 3W 1923! 13.! 382-3880 ”The Mead Effects of Music” (in) New York. Harcourt. Brace. 1927. 15. 16. 17. 18. "N e '1 Symonds. Percival M. "Diagnosing Personality and Conduct". New York. Century. 1931. Vashburn. Child and Abel. ”The Effects of Immediate Repetition on the Pleasantness or Unpleasantness of Music". (in) Schoen. (ed) "The Effects of Music". New York. Harcourt. Brace. 1927. Vhitely. P. L. and Anderson. J. C. "The Influence of Two Different Interpolations Upon Time Estimation" J. Gen. Pngxghgle. 1930. E. 39]."?010 Woodrow. Herbert. “Time Perception" (in) S. 5. Stevens. (ed) "Handbook of Experimental Psychology”. New York. Wiley. 1951. APPENDIX see u- new e (la .C. . ;v- I. .v ...-... 1‘.' ’..,. A“ ‘ p ! A. :A. "‘~ .s I‘M - i". ' U l' ." " up c .3.» w a“ 1’ 9 INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SUBJECTS The purpose of this experiment is to obtain information about some of the effects of music. Selections will be presented in pairs. and after each pair you will answer a number of questions. These questions appear on the pages of your answer booklet. Turning to page 1. you will notice that the first question concerns the degree of enjoyment you received from each of the selections. If you enjoyed selection 1 of that pair very much. you would put a circle a'ound number 1. If you did not enjoy it at all. circle number 7. If your enjoyment was somewhere be- tween 1 and 7. you would encircle the appropriate number. The same method will be used for indicating your enjoyment of selection 2 of that pair. The next question concerns the degree to which you are familiar with a selection. If it is very familiar to you. encircle number 1; if it sounds entirely unfamiliar. encircle number 7. If your familiarity with the selection lies somewhere between numbers 1 and 7. encircle the appropriate number. The next question concerns your estimate of the length of each selection. Write down how many seconds in duration you estimate each selection to be. In no case will the selections be of equal length. so do not write down the same number of seconds for both selections. Do not use your watches to time the selections. but give the best estimate you can without any reference to a watch or clock. The last question requires a comparison of the loudness of the two selections in the pair. If the first selection was louder. indicate by encircling the 1. if the second. encircle 2. Then indicate the amount of 7., AAA. -., In ,. 0- . . on, 1': ,3- “wa, ‘ . J’s.“ ~.I:‘ “ e "a. x. W: .1 I. -. 1' v . . ‘ ,r‘v-l ‘ I . (B lee . v..vy‘ 0.4 ii difference in loudness between the two selections. using the scale provided immediately below. If the selection you chose as louder was much louder than the other. encircle number 1. If the difference was hardly discerni- ble. encircle number 7. In case the degree of difference falls between numbers 1 and 7. encircle the apprOpriate number. In no case will the selections be of equal loudness. so you must make a choice between them. Is there any question? There will be five pairs of selections. and a separate page in the answer booklet will be used for each pair. You.should have an answer page for each of the five pairs. and at the top of each of these pages will be the pair number for which it is to be used. Check to see if your booklet is complete. Remember. you are to answer the questions about each pair aftez_each pair has been presented. Therefore do not record any answers until both selections of the pair have been played. Is there a question? Glance over the answer page for pair number 1 and look over the questions Fbu will have to answer about the music. You will be asked about four things: Your enjoyment of the selections. your familiarity with them. the length of the selections and the loudness of the selections. Enjoyment. Familiarity. LenEthand Loudness. we are now ready for pair number 1. PBIR.SELECTICN II III IV 1. iii SELECTIONS USED TITLE Concerto No. 1. 0p. 23 by Tschaikowski Victor. ICT. 1012 "Stardust” rec. by Kenton & Orch. Capitol F 221s Instrumental (h5-9886) ”Fool. Fool. Fool“ rec. by Kay Starr w/orch. Capital E 2151 Vocal (La-9907) “Carmen“. Act II. Gypsy Song by Biset Sung by Rise Stevens Victor. LRM 7011. Side 2 Symphony No. 1. ton Mv‘t 0p. 68 by Brahms Columbia. ML #016 “Vhya Con Dios” rec. by Les Paul & Mary Ford Capitol. F 2486 Vocal (h5-ll5b“) “Come 0n-a My House” rec. by Rosemary Cluney Columbia 45 RPM b.3946? (zsr vale) Sonata in C Major. Longs 10h by Domenico Scarlatti rec. by Fernando Valenti Westminster UL 5116 Side 1. XIV 16290 TIME FROM BEGINNING 0 sec. 0 sec. 10 sec. 65 sec. 8 min. 0 sec. “5 sec. 0 sec. LENGTH h9.00 sec. “8.50 sec. 5h.75 sec. SueSO 89°. “3000 800. “3.50 sec. 23.25 sec. 23.50 sec PAIR SELECTION V 1. i v SELECTIONS USED . CONT' D TIE FROM TITLE BEGINNING Symphony No. 2 5 min. "The.hge of Anxiety" 16 sec. by Leonard Bernstein Columbia ML 4325 Side 2. XL? 2805 "Begin the Beguine" 1 min. by Cole Porter 41 sec. rec. by Xavier Cugat & Orch. Columbia CL 6021 LP 554 56.75 sec. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY EAST LANSING, MICH. 48823 ICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES III"IIIIIIII”I"IIIHIIIIII"WWIIIII 31293006823979