THE RELATIONSHIP 0E MUSIC PREFERENCE TD CERTAIN CULTURAL DETERMINERS ~ Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EDDIE SPENCER MEADOWS 1970 IIIIIIIIIIIII|I|IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIfi gu- 3 1293 104957 _‘ Michigan State fl, University I .- .m— This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE RELATIONSHIP OF MUSIC PREFERENCE TO CERTAIN CULTURAL DETERMINERS presented by Eddie Spencer Meadows has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Eh . D . degree in _M.u§.1§_' Date August 14, 19. 0-169 emnmc av I" ; "0‘5 8 SUNS ’ I GUI-III BINDIRY INC. .. : MER VIII / . '7, a , , «[4531, "L190 WI ‘66:? mo mag» . I “Kyla?” ”IIIZQII @ '3 ’51 W 1”!“ 6:: ”“75 £19323! vvv r 3 © 1971 Eddie Spencer Isador- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF MUSIC PREFERENCE TO CERTAIN CULTURAL DETERMINERS --T?WI By 3 m Eddie Spencer Meadows This study investigated the difference between -tij5c3preference and socioeconomic status, race, musical A~ibnce, school level, geographical location and pre- '1; music category. The primary purpose of this study .,§2ffifi provide the music teacher with a knowledge of musical E1 - . ”-Vlfinées as they relate to social, racial, and musical Klee . '{Ul 1 was main hypothesis was that musical preferences t1“.‘ ngaéJ-Jpendent of socioeconomic status, race, musical rifTE' ' %-’w,’school level, geographical location and the ,snusic category. vugnpggomsl9 different schools throughout the United 51“}. ' - I ”:ajects were equated on the basis of a written ‘9, a taped music inventory and the Otis Dudley r, I I- I. l' .‘ rJ Ix 'l‘l‘fi. ’" r Ipétfhe Pearson Productduoment Coefficient of Correla- IEddie Spencer Meadows 6a: used to establish reliability and content validity f+fiied to determine the truthfulness of the music prefer- VII<»Itest; ‘.The experimental treatment consisted of single test- I'r<~g"»=-.al'ld questionnaire periods. Thereafter, the obtained “; a were coded and key punched on IBM cards and analyzed on :;;5.6500-Computer in the Michigan State University's Computer ‘”E7'ter. .Chi-square, Cramer's Contingency Coefficient, ushalfWallis onedway analysis of variance and reference to EIélvidual cells were the statistical procedures used in Iiifilyzing the data. The .01 and .05 levels of significance ‘1}; adopted as the criterion for accepting or rejecting the 'heses. Socioeconomic status, race, musical experience, alsle'vel and geographical location were all found to be . . V .‘ r V: “I A...J‘ -'. I THE RELATIONSHIP OF MUSIC PREFERENCE TO CERTAIN CULTURAL DETERMINERS BY Eddie Spencer Meadows A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University :31: partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Music 1970 Li‘. To My .l'amily ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to the “.‘furs def. his guidance committee: Dr. Robert G. Sidnell, I. In,.Dr..Dale Bartlett, Dr. Theodore Johnson and Mr. puvautrey. Their contribution to this dissertation and I" e author's education is greatly appreciated and will The remembered. ***** TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem . . . Significance of the Problem . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . Scope of the Study . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . Further Organization of the Report . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . Socioeconomic Class Determinants Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . Method of Gathering Data . . . Descriptions of Data-Gathering Instruments Item Analysis . . . . . . . . . Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . Design . . . . . . . . . . Analysis Procedures . . . . . . IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Socioeconomic Status . . . . . . Response for Jazz Music . Response for Blues Music . Response for Soul Music . iv Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Rock and Roll Music Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Chi-Square Analysis of Preference (Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Spiritual Music . . Page l-‘xlflO‘UlU'lubub H H Chapter Page Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Classical Music . . . . . 58 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Light Classical Music . . 58 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Country and Western Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Folk Music . . . . . . 63 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Show Music . . . . . . . 63 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Rock and Roll Music . . . 68 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Jazz Music . . . . . . . 68 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Blues Music . . . . . . 71 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Soul Music . . . . . 7l Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Spiritual Music . . . . . 74 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Classical Music . . . . . 76 Chi—Square Analysis of Preference Response for Light Classical Music . . 76 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Country and Western Music . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Folk Music . . . . . . 79 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Show Music . . . . . . . 82 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Musical Experience . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Rock and Roll Music . . . 85 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Jazz Music . . . . . . 87 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference I Response for Blues Music . . . . . . . 87 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Soul Music . . . . . . 90 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Spiritual Music . . . . . 92 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Classical Music . . . . . 92 Chapter Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Music . Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Summary . School Level . Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi—Square Response Music . Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Summary . Analysis of Preference for Light Classical Music Analysis of Preference for Country and Western Analysis of Preference for Folk Music . . . Analysis of Preference for Show Music . . . . . Analysis of Preference for Rock and Roll Music Analysis of Preference for Jazz Music . . . Analysis of Preference for Blues Music . . . . Analysis of Preference for Soul Music . . . . Analysis of Preference for Spiritual Music . . . Analysis of Preference for Classical Music . . . Analysis of Preference for Light Classical Music Analysis of Preference for Country and Western Analysis of Preference for Folk Music . . . . Analysis of Preference for Show Music . . . . . Geographical Location . . . . . . . Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Analysis of Preference for Rock and Roll Music . Analysis of Preference for Jazz Music . . . Analysis of Preference for Blues Music . . . . Analysis of Preference for Soul Music . . . . Analysis of Preference for Spiritual Music . . . .Analysis of Preference for Classical Music . . . Analysis of Preference for Light Classical Music Page 95 97 99 99 102 103 103 105 107 109 109 112 114 116 116 119 121 122 122 124 124 127 129 129 132 ,Chapter Chi-Square Response Music . Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Summary . Preferred Music Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi—Square Response Chi-Square Response Chi—Square Response Chi-Square Response Music . Chi-Square Response Chi-Square Response Summary . Analysis of Preference for Country and Western Analysis of Preference for Folk Music . . . . . Analysis of Preference for Show Music . . . . . . Category . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Preference for Rock and Roll Music . . Analysis of Preference for Jazz Music . . . . . Analysis of Preference for Blues Music . . . . . . Analysis of Preference for Soul Music . . . . Analysis of Preference for Spiritual Music . . . . Analysis of Preference for Classical Music . . . . Analysis of Preference for Light Classical Music . Analysis of Preference for Country and Western Analysis of Preference for Folk Music . . . . . Analysis of Preference for Show Music . . . . . . o c u o o I a o u o o o o 0 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . a o o o c c o o o a o c 0 Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . Implications for Music Education . . . . . Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . Appendix .EXCERPT AND VAR A. .MASTER TABLE OF CHI-SQUARES FOR EACH MUSICAL IABLE TESTED . . . . . . . Page 134 134 137 137 140 140 140 143 145 147 147 150 152 154 154 157 159 159 160 164 165 167 172 Appendix Page B. TABLE OF TESTED SCHOOLS, SCHOOL LEVELS, AND LOCATION OF SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 C. FACTOR ANALYSIS OF MUSIC CATEGORIES . . . . . 174 D. WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 E. OTIS DUDLEY DUNCAN SOCIOECONOMIC INDEX FOR ALL OCCUPATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 viii Table 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. ,Chi-square analysis LIST OF TABLES The breakdown of subjects by school level and race . . . . . . Combined music excerpts listed by categories Chi-square analysis of preference response for rock and roll music by socioeconomic status . . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for jazz music by socioeconomic status Chi-square analysis of preference response _Music preference inventory 0 for blues music by socioeconomic status . Chi-square analysis of preference response for soul music by socioeconomic status Chi-square analysis of for spiritual music by Chi-square analysis of for classical music by Chi-square analysis of status . . . . . . economic status . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for show music by socioeconomic status preference response socioeconomic status preference response socioeconomic status preference response for light classical music by socioeconomic ix of preference response for country and western music by socio- .Chi-square analysis of preference response for folk music by socioeconomic status Page 37 42 43 50 52 54 55 57 59 60 62 64 65 ‘Table Page 14. Chi-square analysis of preference reSponse for rock and roll music by race . . . . . . . . 69 15. Chi-square analysis of preference response I for jazz music by race . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 16. Chi-square analysis of preference response I for blues music by race . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 17. Chi-square analysis of preference response for soul music by race . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 18. Chi—square analysis of preference response for spiritual music by race . . . . . . . . . . 75 19. Chi—square analysis of preference response I for classical music by race . . . . . . . . . . 77 20. Chi-square analysis of preference response for light classical music by race . . . . . . . 78 21. Chi-square analysis of preference response for country and western music by race . . . . . 80 22. Chi-square analysis of preference response for folk music by race . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 23. Chi-square analysis of preference response for show music by race . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 24. Chi-square analysis of preference response for rock and roll music by musical experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 25. Chi-square analysis of preference response for jazz music by musical experience . . . . . 88 26. Chi-square analysis of preference response for blues music by musical experience . . . . . 89 27. Chi-square analysis of preference response for soul music by musical experience . . . . . 91 28. .Chi-square analysis of preference response for spiritual music by musical experience . . . 93 Chi-square analysis of preference response for classical music by musical experience . . . 94 Table 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Chi-square analysis of preference response for light classical music by musical experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for country and western music by musical experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for folk music by music experience . . . . Chi—square analysis of preference response for show music by music experience . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for rock and roll music by school level . . Chi—square analysis of preference response for jazz music by school level . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for blues music by school level . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for soul music by school level . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for spiritual music by school level . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for classical music by school level . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for light classical music by school level Chi-square analysis of preference response for country and western music by school level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi—square analysis of preference response for folk music by school level . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for show music by school level . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for rock and roll music by geographical location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 96 98 100 101 104 106 108 110 111 113 115 117 118 120 123 Table 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Chi-square analysis of preference response for jazz music by geographical location . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for blues music by geographical location . . Chi-square analysis of preference re5ponse for soul music by geographical location . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for spiritual music by geographical location Chi-square analysis of preference response for classical music by geographical location Chi-square analysis of preference response for light classical music by geographical location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi—square analysis of preference response for country and western music by geograph- ical location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Chi-square analysis of preference response for folk music for geographical location . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for show music for geographical location . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for rock and roll music by preferred music category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chi-square analysis of preference response for jazz music by preferred music category . Chi-square analysis of preference response for blues music by preferred music category . .Chi-square analysis of preference response for soul music by preferred music category . .Chi-square analysis of preference response for spiritual music by preferred music category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 125 126 128 130 131 133 135 136 138— 141 142 144 146 148 Page éhi-square analysis of preference response Info: classical music by preferred music ‘ category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 .Chi-square analysis of preference response for light classical music by preferred music category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 .Chiesquare analysis of preference response for country and western music by preferred music category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 153 . ' v. . .Chi-square analysis of preference response f-‘bd‘ ~‘I’r'for folk music by preferred music category . . 155 : (IIISQJ.Chi~square analysis of preference response for show music by preferred music category . . .156 JT'I . 7ifi .Mnsic preference inventory chi-squares . . . . 172 ,?6. .The name, level and location of all the ‘ *‘ .‘cheels tested . C . O C O O O D I C O I U U U 173 “‘ ;"._ .. xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The idea that musical taste is a function of socio- economic background is consistent with sociological theory and the factual evidence on which that theory rests. Socio- logical theory postulates that human behavior is learned in culture; it follows, therefore, that musical preferences are learned in culture. This notion that individual taste is not fortuitous, but rather is controlled by cultural stan— dards is supported by anthropological, historical and music data. Among the authors who have addressed this point are Roberts,1 Allen2 and Etzkorn.3 In disposing of some popular traditions about Indian music, Roberts asserts that to many people, American Indian music seems uninteresting, and lacks melodic beauty and harmony; thus the point is confirmed that lHelen H. Roberts, Musical Areas in Aboriginal North America, No. 12 (New Haven: Yale University Publications in “Anthropology, 1936). 2William D. Allen, Philosophies of Music History (new Ybrk: Dover Publications, 1962). . 3K. Peter Etzkorn, “Relationships between Musical and Special Patterns in American Popular Music," Journal of Research in Music Education, VII, No. 4 (Winter, 1964), 279-280. opinions about music depend on cultural background.4 Allen, in a study which considers the ideology and bias of music historians, uses historical data to support the point that cultural conditions control what kind of music is approved and preferred, what kind of music is written, and in what way the music is regarded.5 In a study that relates musical and social patterns in American popular music, Etzkorn advo- cates that music, wherever found is a product of social cir- cumstances. Furthermore, Etzkorn states that music should I be evaluated in terms of these circumstances and their implications for the total social structure, rather than in terms of the accepted canons of some aesthetic system. ’ Musicians have also placed great emphasis on the I role that immediate environment performs in determining human behavior. Among the musicians who have addressed this point are Schuessler,6 Baumann7 and Coyners.8 In recent years, research has indicated that differences exist in musical preferences of different socioeconomic groups. 4Roberts, op. cit., p. 41. 5Allen, op. cit., p. 32. 6Karl F. Schuessler, "Social, Background and Musical Taste,“ American Sociological Review, XIII (June, 1968), 330-333. 7Victor Baumann, "Teen—Age Music Preferences,“ Journal of Research in Musicpgducation, IX, No. 2 (Fall, 1960). ' 8James E. Conyers, “An Exploratory Study of Music Tastes and Interests of College Students," Sociology Inquiry, XXXIII, No. 1 (Winter, 1963), 58-60. I Schuessler's study indicated that musical taste is somewhat dependent upon socioeconomic background. other studies have substantiated Schuessler's work, and in addition, have stated a need for additional research in this area. Baumann presumed it would be helpful for music teachers to know the musical preferences of their students. Furthermore, he found that a direct correlation exists between socioeconomic class and music preferences. In addition to socioeconomic status, research has also indicated the importance of expo- sure in shaping musical preferences. Conyers, in a study of musical tastes of 202 college seniors, found that the type of music liked and the extent of musical exposure would con- tradict the contention of a unitary variable which consti- tutes so-called ethnic group tastes. Conyers' study is important, because it implies that the degree of musical exposure is often dependent on an individual's socioeconomic class. Music educators should be concerned with the teach- ing of all students. Under this premise it is necessary to proceed from known music preferences to unknown music pref- erences. The hierarchical sequency of the concrete to the abstract provides the teacher with a logical schemata for developing desired musical behaviors, which are important if active music participants after formal education is a goal. There is one apparent weakness in music preference research. In many studies on music preference researchers made comparisons concerning the preferred type of music i 5 l f l i h between art music and popular music. No such comparisons were attempted in the present study. Furthermore, the researcher agrees with Reimer9 that such comparisons are naive in character. Reimer states: . . . A factor which casts grave doubt upon the validity of some studies of music preferred is the seemingly blind acceptance that serious music and popular music can be reasonably com- pared on the basis of which is “liked better." The assumption that serious music can and should be “liked" in precisely the same way that popular music is "liked" is one which seems to permeate the thought of the entire music education profession. The Problem The primary problem of this study was to determine if relationships exist between music preference and socio- economic status, race, musical experience, school level and geographical location. Another problem of the study was to determine if relationships exist between music preference and the preferred music category. Significance of the Problem It was a premise of this study that knowledge of musical preferences would be a valuable aid for teachers. Furthermore it was believed that knowledge of variables 9Bennett Reimer, “Effects of Music Education: Implications from a Seminar of Research," Journal of Research in Music Education, XIII, No. 3 (Fall, 1965), 165. which shape preferences could aid the development of in- structional strategies. Purpose of the Study In today's society artistic skills and knowledge are not the sole prerequisites to becoming a successful music teacher. Beyond skills and knowledge the modern music edu- cator should also become aware of social problems and how they effect music teaching. The previous assumption is supported by Wersen.lo In an area of protest, irritation, and rapid change, when students tell us that the music ' we teach and the methods we use are irrelevant ‘ and ineffectual, music educators cannot simply sit back with eyes closed and ears turned backwards. The primary purpose of this study was to provide the music teacher with a knowledge of musical preferences as they relate to social, racial and musical variables. SCOpe of thp Study This study dealt with the measurement of music preference in relation to socioeconomic status, race, musical experiencg, school level, geographical location and the preferred music category of 982 subjects throughout the United States. A written questionnaire, taped music loJudith Murphy and George Sullivan, Music in American Society (Washington, D.C.: M.E.N.C., 1968). (The statement was made by Louis Wersen.) inventory, and the Duncan Socioeconomic Index were used to gather the data. The data were gathered from subjects in (l) Baton Rouge, Louisiana; (2) Chicago, Illinois; (3) Jackson, Mississippi; (4) Las Vegas, Nevada; (5) Nashville, Tennessee; (6) Norfolk, Virginia; (7) Washington, D.C.: and (8) Lansing, East Lansing, and Williamston, Michigan. The data were obtained in a single test administration. Hypotheses The main hypothesis of this study was that musical preference was independent of socioeconomic status, race, musical experience, school level, geographical location and preferred music category. ' Investigation of the main hypothesis necessitated examination of the following null hypotheses: 1. There will be no significant difference in music preference attributable to socioeconomic status. 2. There will be no significant difference in music preference attributable to race. 3. There will be no significant difference in music preference attributable to musical experience. 4. There will be no significant difference in music preference attributable to school level. 5. There will be no significant difference in music preference attributable to geographical location. 6. There will be no significant difference in music preference attributable to preferred music category. Limitations This study did not attempt to relate all sociolog- ical and environmental factors to music preference. Only the specific variable in each hypothesis was studied with relation to stated music preferences. ‘ Definition of Termp For the purpose of this study, the following terms need clarification. The terms are limited as indicated: 1. Classical. A term which denotes musical works which have held their places as art music in the general estimation for a considerable time, and new works which are generally considered to be of the same type, quality and style. For the purpose of this study the excerpts are taken from the works of Haydn, Brahms and Stravinsky. 2. Light classical. A classification of classical music that is characterized by music that has been ‘ used as themes for television programs or similar media, also by works that are recorded by an indi— vidual or group associated with popular music. For the purpose of this study the excerpts are taken from.Mascagni, Tschaikovsky and Khachaturian. ,Rock and roll. A style of music derived from hill— billy and blues, and characterized by strong beat and repetition.11 filggg. A form of folk develOped by the Black slaves in the United States during the nineteenth century. The typical blues text has a stanza of three lines, the second of which is a repetition of the first. It usually tells of moods of depression, natural disasters, or the loss of a loved one. As the blues became urbanized, the subject matter became broader, including eventually the evocation of happier moods. In a corollary development, the blues form crystal— lized into a specific chord and measure pattern. The most common form is the twelve-bar blues set in the following chord progression: I-IV—I-V-I. Eight— bar and sixteen-bar blues are also relatively common. Today blues can refer to a vocal blues song, or simply to the twelve-bar blues structure. figgl. A type of music closely aligned with the blues, often, but not exclusively, associated with Black performers. It has no definite pattern, rhythm, or tonality, and in most cases includes a variety of elements from the blues and rock and roll. .Some of the most prominent exponents are James Brown, 11Lewis M. Adams, ed. Webster's New American Dictionary (New York: Books, Inc., 1968), p. 24. 10. 11. Wilson Pickett, Arethe Franklin, the Temptations, and the Righteous Brothers. Show tunes. Tunes that are often associated with or taken from Broadway shows and/or film scores. Eglh. Music that is often associated with anonymous origin. Anonymous collective folk authorship and oral transmission are the identifying characteris- tics of many folk songs. In recent years folk has been written by known composers and is characterized by text dealing with American folklore and current political and social events. Countrypppd western. Type of music that originated in the South and is characterized by a conglomera— tion of spiritual and all forms of popular music. The music is best identified by associating it with known performers. gagg. A type of American music of Negro origin, developed from ragtime and characterized by subtle syncopations and eccentric contrasts in orchestra- tion, used especially for dance music. Spirituals. A type of religious song usually of Black origin and associated with the southern UnitedHStates. Music preference. A combination and interaction of musical taste, musical attitudes, and musical dis- crimination. 12. 13. 10 .Socioeconomic status--the amount of prestige asso- ciated with the income, wealth, or type of occupa- tion possessed by a member of society. Geographical locations: Eastern. Schools included are: (1) Norfolk State College, Norfolk, Virginia; (2) Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia; (3) Indian River Junior High, Chesapeake, Virginia; (4) Benjamin Stoddert Junior High, Washington, D.C.; and (5) Eastern Senior High, Washington, D.C. Western. School included is: (1) Rancho High ,School, Las Vegas, Nevada. Northern. Schools included are: (l) Pattengil Junior High, Lansing, Michigan; (2) Williamston Junior High, Williamston, Michigan; (3) William— ston Senior High, Williamston, Michigan; (4) Fermi Junior High, Chicago, Illinois; (5) Dranke Junior High, Chicago, Illinois; and (6) Morgan Park Senior High, Chicago, Illinois. Southern. Schools included are: (1) Howard Junior High, Nashville, Tennessee; (2) Tennessee State University, Nashville, Tennessee; (3) Stratford Senior High, Nashville, Tennessee; (4) Rosenwald Junior High, New Roads, Louisiana; (5) Rosenwald Senior High, New Roads, Louisiana; and (6) Jackson State College, Jackson, Mississippi. 11 .r arurther Organization of the Report /“ tube preceding pages of this chapter have presented nmsnt, definition and discussion of the problem. The - continues in the following order: Chapter II, a e' A CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE One of the newer fields of inquiry, in music edu- cation, is the sociology of music and studies related to social concepts of music.1 Although sociological factors have affected musical behavior throughout the ages, only in recent years have writers begun to identify relationships between sociology and music.2 One of the earliest studies on musical taste (preference) and socioeconomic background was by Schuessler.3 According to Schuessler, the research Was primarily concerned 1Max Kaplan, Foundations gpd Frontiers of Music .Education (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966). 2Alphonse Silberman, The Sociology of Music (New York: Humanities Press, 1963); John Mueller, Music and Education: A Sociological Approach, Basic Concppts in Music Education, NSSE (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), pp. 88-123; Max Weber, Tpp Rational and Social Foun- dation of Music (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1958); Johannes Riedel, "The Sociology of Music," Music Educators' Journal, XLIX, No. 2 (November-December); and Johannes Riedel, "The Function of Sociability in the Sociology of Music and Music Education,“ Journal of Research in Music Education, XII, No. 2 (Summer, 1964). 3Karl F. Schuessler, "Musical Taste and Socio- -Economic Background" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1941). 12 13 with the relationship between musical taste and socioeco- nomic background. Musical taste was gauged by having the respondents hear the first minute of each of eight musical selections. All selections were orchestral renditions. Respondents were asked to select from a given list of cate— gories the one category best describing the type of musical example. The categories were: classical, old song, hymn, jazz, march, hillbilly, pOpular, and old waltz. They also were asked to state their attitude toward the example by selecting a statement from the following: (1) like it, (2) like it a great deal, (3) dislike it, (4) dislike it a great deal, and (5) undecided. Data were collected from over 1,200 individuals of different races in Evansville, Indiana. The socioeconomic classification was based on six occupational groupings developed by Edwards4 (Warner's and .Duncan's more complex work on social status was not avail- able when this study was undertaken). The data were ana- lyzed in four ways: (1) determination of the degree of independence among the classifications using the probability indicated by the chi-square, (2) computation of the ratio of affirmative to negative responses to the musical selections by socioeconomic groups, (3) relation of the variation in 4Alba M. Edwards, Comparative Occupation Statistics for the United.States, 1870 to 1940 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1943), 180 pp. 14 musical taste to differences in the music background and degree of familiarity with the music, and (4) estimation of the relative importance of the factors that indicate an association with musical taste. There was evidence that age, familiarity with the musical work, and musical training were as influential as socioeconomic status in determining musi- cal taste, depending on the particular work. Noticeable differences existed in the reactions to the various musical works. Age seemed to be the most significant factor in determining taste for popular music. There are several points in the above study that the present writer finds questionable. One point is the use of all orchestral renditions. At no time in the study did Schuessler indicate that he had valid research to confirm that his subjects listened to only orchestral renditions. It seems that the researcher produced a bias variable that could have been controlled by giving equal status to vocal and instrumental renditions. Another point of disagreement is the serious limitation of the musical taste-attitudinal scale. As stated earlier, Schuessler used the following scale: (1) like it, (2) like it a great deal, (3) dislike it, (4) dislike it a great deal, and (5) undecided. The primary criticism is that the scale does not form an ade- quate continuum from liking to disliking. Perhaps the writer should have added a category, dislike it moderately, between “dislike it" and "dislike it a great deal," thereby eliminating a forced negative choice. In view of the nature 15 of the statements, the subjects were forced to choose between definite positive or negative responses, or to admit no choice. The fact that the music preference rating scale lacks an adequate hierarchical sequence is unfortunate especially since Likert formulated his continuum from liking to disliking as early as 1932.5 Another related study was reported by Rubin.6 Rubin indicated several difficulties of measuring musical prefer- ence. Rubin believed that factors of honesty, cultural conditioning and introspective accuracy must be taken into account when responses to music are verbalized. Rubin cautioned that the data collected are subject to many reser- vations as to usefulness and accuracy, and that it would be improper to make broad generalizations on the basis of his study. In his study a questionnaire was used to identify seventh, ninth, and twelfth grade students with extensive musical experience and students with little musical expe- rience. He chose fifty students well—experienced in music and fifty students with minimum music experience from each grade. Each group was given a "Test of Musical Preferences“ and a "Test of Discriminatory Ability," both devised by 5Rensis Likert, “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology, No. 140, 1932. 6Louis Rubin, "The Effects of Musical Experience on Musical Discrimination and Musical Preferences" (unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of California, 1952). l6 -Rubin. The preference test consisted of rating on a four point scale fifteen selections representing three types of music: "art music,“ "folk music," and "music of transient current vogue.“ The discrimination test was modeled on the "Musical Discrimination Test" of Kate Hevner. Forty—two pairs of phrases were played with the subjects determining which of the pairs was different and which the same. For those pairs in which the second phrase was different a judgment was made as to whether the harmony, rhythm, or melody was changed. Results of the study were determined by comparing scores on each of the tests with the music—experience level of the subjects. Both the "high" and "low" experience groups liked music of transient current vogue best. Rubin concluded that formal music experiences in the public schools had little effect on musical preferences. Interest in art music increased slightly from seventh to twelfth grade for the experienced group, and fell slightly for the nonexperienced group.' In comparing the scores of the abil- ity test between "high" and "low" experience groups, the scores between musical experience and musical ability was found to be low. Rubin concluded that adequate musical skills are not resulting from school experience. Ii“ 17 In 1961, Nicholas Erneston undertook one of the most comprehensive dissertations of its kind.7 Erneston made an exploratory study of acquired musical taste in relation to musical experience and mental ability. The following ques- tions were posed by Erneston:8 1. Is there a correlation between musical experience and acquired musical taste? 2. If a correlation is found to exist, does l any particular kind of experience seem to 4 be more effective in developing taste than any other kind? 3. What is the effect of performance activities (band, orchestra, chorus) as compared with classroom musical experiences and with pri- vate instruction? 4. Are the factors of parental interest, sex, length of time involved in musical activ‘ ities, and listening habits significant in developing taste? 5. Does a combination of musical activities produce more effect than one activity at a time? 6. Is there a relationship between mental ability and musical taste? The freshman class of Appalachian State Teachers College was tested. To measure attitudes Erneston used the Hevner-Seashore “Oregon Test of Attitude Toward Music." To measure preferences he devised his own "Musical Preference 7NicholasErneston, "A Study to Determine the Effect of Musical Experience and Mental Ability on the Formulation of Musical Taste" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1961). 8 . . Reimer, op. Cit. 18 Record" which asked the subject to rank order a series of four, thirty—second excerpts from classical, light classical, popular, jazz or folk music. For musical discrimination the Wing "Standardized Tests of Musical Intelligence (revised edition)" were employed.9 Mental ability was measured by the "School and College Ability Tests,"10 and musical expe- rience was determined by an inventory which included both activities and listening habits. Erneston found significant differences (beyond the .01 level of confidence) in test scores between those with no participation in music activities and those who had been musically active regardless of which activity they partic- ipated in. In addition, he found the longer a person par— ticipated in music, and the more variety of experiences he had, the higher his taste score tended to be. Among sub- jects who had a high level of participation in music, the intellectually advanced subjects correlated significantly with high taste scores, a fact which contradicts the find- ings of Rubin. No sex differences were found, a direct contradiction to the Schuessler conclusions that music taste depends on sex, age, social class and how much of each kind of music has been heard. Possibly the contradiction is 9William E. Whybrew, Measurement and Evaluation in Music (Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1962), pp. 126-128. loOscar Euros, The Third Mental Measurements YEarbook (New Ybrk: Associated Press, 1964), p. 978. 19 because different measures were used. However, significant differences were found between the experienced grOup and the group with no formal music experience in the factors of attitude and discrimination (the experienced group scored higher), but no differences were discovered in musical preferences. Erneston concludes, as did Rubin, that public school music education has little, if any effect, on musical preferences. This conclusion was made probably because neither of the authors used band music in their preference test. A study by Birchll illustrates several weaknesses in research dealing with musical taste or preference. Birch assumed that records freely purchased would accurately reflect the musical tastes of the buyer. As a result of this seemingly invalid assumption, Birch encountered some difficulty in collecting data from his sample of students in a small Missouri college. Many students could not remem- ber all the records they owned and many collections were family affairs to which parents and siblings had contributed. No attempt was made to calculate the proportion of records in each of several musical types (folk, broadway and TV, light classical, etc.). Judgments were made on the basis of owning any number of records in a group. A check list was employed to determine the backgrounds of the students. 11Thomas Erskine Birch, "Musical Taste as Indicated by Records Owned by College Students with Varying High .School Experiences" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1962). 20 In addition to the previously mentioned research weaknesses, no attempt was made to subject the data to statistical pro— cedures. Birch listed the following findings:12 (a) Students who have participated in high school music activities for three years or more have better musical taste and discrimination than those with less than three years of experience. w . Birch's finding is stated despite his failure to recognize experiences ranging from zero to almost three years. Also, no attempt was made to measure musical discrimination, even according to the definition adopted. The assumption that one group has "better" musical taste than another is qual- itative and does not reflect the degree of improvement. (b) High school vocal students have better taste and discriminations than high school instru- mental students. This finding contradicts that of Erneston's by concluding that no particular type of experience was of more value than another in affecting taste. (c) Women have broader musical tastes than men. Again this contradicts Erneston's finding that no signifi— cant sex differences exist with respect to musical taste. However, Schuessler postulates that musical taste depends ‘ on sex, age, social class and how much music of each kind has been heard. 12Bennett Reimer, "Effects of Music Education: Implication from a Review of Research," Journal of Research in Music Education, XIII, No. 3 (Fall, 1965), 159. '5. i fi -\ 21 (d) A greater percentage of those with high school musical experiences owns records than those with no such experiences. (e) No differences exist between those with high school experience and those who had private lessons only, however, those with both high school and private lesson expe— rience had better taste and discrimination than those with only one of these types of activities. A less sociologically oriented study of the corre- lations between age, intelligence, musical training, and reactions to music were made by Rubin-Rabson, whose subjects were adults, aged 20 to 70.13 The subjects reacted to 24 pieces of music marking their reactions on a five—point scale. The most significant relationship obtained was that between the age of the subjects and indifference to clas— sical or modern music. Training seemed to influence taste only in regard to modern music, also, intelligence was found to be higher among those indifferent to classical or modern music. The Rubin-Rabson study did not control the possibil- ity that other variables in the musical examples might have affected reactions to the music more than those components which justified the music's classification by periods. Another study was reported by Baumann.l4 The problem of the Baumann investigation concerned the following l3G. Rubin-Rabson, "The Influence of Age, Intelli- gence, and Training on Reaction to Classical and Modern Music," Journal of General Psychology, XXII, 413-429. 14Victor H. Baumann, "Teenage Music Preferences" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton University, 1959). 22 four points: (1) to develop a device for sampling music preferences, (2) to discover what teenage preferences are and how they vary at different ages, (3) to determine if teenagers of different socioeconomic status develop differ- ent music preferences, and (4) to verify or contradict results of music preference surveys using other methods of measurement. The study was conducted with 1,600 teenagers of the Phoenix, Arizona and the Cumberland, Maryland schools. The Music Preference Inventory consisted of fifty selections, including such music as pop, folk and classical. Subjects were asked to rate the examples by marking them "like most," or "like least" after listening to the music without the benefit of title or type identification. A short Social Status Inventory, modified from the Gaugh Home Index15 of socioeconomic status was administered to determine what effect this factor played in the musical preferences of the teenage subjects. Sex and age of the respondents were also noted and tabulated within the age brackets of 12-14, 15-17, and 18-20, respectively. Baumann indicates in his findings that all groups preferred popular selections with the current fad of rock and roll then exemplified (1955-56) by "Rock Around the Clock" leading the list among the younger teenagers. There were both sex and regional differences found between choices 15Harrison G. Gaugh, "A Short Social Status Inven- tory," Journal of Educational Psychology, XL (1949), 52-56. 23 of boys and girls and the respondents from Arizona as con- trasted with Maryland, respectively. The idea that sex differences exist between choices reinforces the findings of Birch; however, it contradicts Erneston's. An interest- ing difference was noted between the low socioeconomic status teenagers whose tastes ran generally to traditional music to a greater degree than their high-status group contemporaries. All teenagers heard their favorite music principally in their own homes. Of importance to education was the fact that formal music classes constituted a relatively unimpor- tant place where their favorites were heard. Perhaps the most significant conclusion made by Baumann was the neces— sity for teachers in secondary schools to capitalize upon the amount of musical information and experience which teen— agers bring to the formal music class. Baumann elaborates further by saying teachers should use survey devices to examine current student interest, avoiding extreme preju— dices and capitalizing on strong points as an area of departure.16 Rogers attempted to determine whether any signifi- cant changes occur in musical taste during the period from fourth to twelfth grade.l7 Children in fourth, seventh, 16Baumann, op. cit. 17Vincent R. Rogers, "Children's Expressed Musical Preferences at Selected Grade Levels" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1956). 24 ninth, and twelfth grades were tested as to preferences for four types of music: "seriously classical," "popular clas- sical," "dinner music," and "popular music." The subjects were asked to indicate which of two selections they "liked best," the pairing being arranged to include all possible permutations of the four types of music. Rogers found that at all grade levels dinner and popular music were "liked least." From the seventh grade up the preference for dinner 3 and popular music became progressively stronger. Rogers concludes that increasing physical and mental maturity apparently does not in and of itself bring about an increased maturity in musical preference. Since Rogers' study was confined to the teenage years, the acceptance of this conclusion becomes questionable. When factor analysis was employed by Hornyak18 he showed that it was an effective tool in revealing signifi— cant relationships between components of music and value judgments about the music by individuals and groups. Horn- yak demonstrated that the relationship between certain components are bi-polar since the presence of a particular component can lead to both negative and positive responses. He also demonstrated that melody, tonal and triadic harmo- nies, orchestral color, solo voice color, and choral color 18Robert R. Hornyak, "A Factor Analysis of the Relationship Between the Components of Music Present in Selected Music.Examples and the Preference Rating Responses of College Students to the Selected Musical Examples" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1964). r- , ‘2' A 25 provide bases for value judgments by college students. Hornyak's study suggested that music appreciation need not start with 19th century examples, and it showed that accented rhythms and prOpulsive rhythms provide bases for value judgments, whereas meter and temp do not. In addi- tion, Hornyak concluded that factor analysis can provide the basis for general understanding of what students are able to perceive in music. A study by Fulbright19 revealed several interesting facts. Fulbright found that college women had a more favor- able attitude toward classical music than did college men. This conclusion with Birch's findings that women have broader musical tastes than men, however, contradicts Erneston's findings that no significant sex differences exist with resPect to musical taste. Fulbright, also, found that both pre-college and college training in music correlated posi- tively with favorable attitudes toward classical music. Erneston's findings are somewhat in agreement because he found a high level of discriminatory ability in his expe- rience group. Again, Fulbright's conclusion contradicts ’Rubin's findings that the relationship between musical experience and musical ability was found to be very low. Fulbright found a positive correlation between favorable 19Ercy Glenn Fulbright, "An Investigation of Rela- tionships Between Cultural Background and.Attitude Toward Classical Music Among College Undergraduates" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1964). 26 attitudes and college class, academic achievements and familiarity with the examples; however, he found no signif— icant relationship between attitudes toward classical music and occupation of father, family income or academic achieve- ment. Socioeconomic Class Determinants Many different variables have been used to delineate a class-status structure. The two most common types of mea- sures employed to stratify a population have been prestige ratings of persons and of socioeconomic status scales. The three most commonly used measures of socioeconomic status are income, education and occupation. Each of these measures consists of a rank or scale order such that a pOpulation can be stratified from high to low status. The literature on social stratification is replete with attempts to construct socioeconomic class determiners. Many of these include occupation as one of the indicators of status. A number of status scales are based entirely on some measure of occupational position. The most common of 20 these scales are the Edwards socioeconomic groupings, and the North-Hatt prestige ratings of occupations.21 These and 20Alba M. Edwards, A Social Economic Grouping of the Gainfu17Workers of the United States, 1930 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1938). 21National Opinion Research Center, "Jobs and Occupa- tions," Opinion News, IX (September, 1967), 4-5. 27 other similar types of scales based on rank-ordering of occupational titles generally are classified as nominal or partially ordered scales since they do not satisfy the postulates of order appropriate for constructing an ordinal scale. The NorthrHatt Occupational Prestige Scale was con- structed as a result of a nationwide evaluation of the pres- tige rating of occupations; over 2,900 peOple were asked to rate a list of ninety occupations as follows: (1) Excellent Standing (2) Good Standing (3) Average Standing (4) Somewhat Below Average Standing (5) Poor Standing (6) I Don't Know Where to Place That One Consistency of ratings for the ninety occupations, as a whole, was not high because raters did not always rate occupations in the same order, thus destroying the prestige continuum.22 Using Guttman's Scaling Technique,23 Hatt dis- covered that the continuum, as it stood, did not yield even a quasi-scale.24 Hatt then classified the occupation titles 22Robert Sidnell, "The Influence of the Tyler Junior College on the Fine-Arts Culture of Tyler, Texas" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1960). p. 42. 23Louis Guttman, "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data," American Sociological Review, IX, No. 139 (1966). 24Sidnell, op. cit., p. 42. 28 into eight families or situses and established greater internal consistency along the scale of prestige.25 Sidnell offers further evidence of the importance that North and Hatt give to occupation.26 A man's job--occupying one-third of his daily life--is more than just a means of livelihood or an outlet for his creative energy; it is a vital influence on his existence even beyond working hours. His social position, his eco- nomic welfare and even his daily habits are all determined by the kind of job he holds. Occupation is also used as one of four determiners of social class status in W. Lloyd Warner's Index of Status Character- istics.27 The characteristics or determiners are weighted as follows: Occupation Weight Source of Income Weight House Type Weight ADwelling Area Weight muons .Status is determined by rating each of the above on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being high. The sum of the weighted scores is then compared to a conversion table. The method had high validity-for rating 209 old American families in Warner's Jonesville study.28 However, criticism has been leveled at 25Paul K. Hatt, "Occupation and Social Stratifica- tion," American Jougnal of Sociology, LV (May, 1950), 539. 26Sidnell, op. cit., p. 43. 27W. Lloyd Warner, Social Class in America (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949), p. 41. 28W; Lloyd Warner, Democracy in Jonesville (New YOrk: Harper and Brothers, 1949). p. 127. 29 the Index for a variety of reasons.29 The applicability of the Index in larger communities is questioned as is the ability in predicting individuals in marginal classes. A study byMills3O also utilizes occupations as an index to class position. The focus of the study is on the middle class; however, some information is given regarding other strata. Mills declares: ‘When the occupations of a cross section of married men in Central City are coded in 24 groups and ranked according to average family income, five strata are crystallized [sic]; between each [sic] there is a "natural" break in average income, whereas the average income of the occupations making up each income stratum are homogeneous. 1 Anderson's study, We Americans,32 also uses occupa- tion as a means of stratification. The author distinguishes three main groups in the community: working class, business class, and professional class. The socioeconomic determiner used in the study under consideration is the Otis-Dudley-Duncan Socioeconomic Index for all occupations.33 The Duncan Scale is the construction 29Paul K. Hatt, "Occupation and Social Stratifica- tion," American Journal of Sociology, LV (May, 1950), 539. 3OC. wright Mills, "The Middle Classes in Middle Sized Cities," American Sociological Review, XI (October, 1946), 520. 31Ibid., p. 521. 32Elin L. Anderson, We Americans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939). 33Albert J. Reiss, Jr. Occupations and Social Status (New Ybrk: N.Y. Free Press, 1961), pp. 263-275. 30 of a socioeconomic index from Census information on detailed occupation characteristics. Duncan considers his socioeco- nomic index prestige by pointing out that previous wide use of the NORC scale justifies a systematic examination of the problem of grading occupations according to socioeconomic status. According to Reiss,34 the NORC scores are available only for occupations encompassing, in the aggregate, less than half of the labor force. Consequently, investigators using the NORC scale to stratify a sample of the general population have been forced to infer the prestige standing of occupations not on the NORC list. In this situation, various expedients have been adOpted as indicated in the following studies.35 Duncan decided to approach the problem of construct- ing the occupational socioeconomic index in terms of the relationship between the NORC prestige ratings and socio- economic characteristics of the occupations. Duncan's e o o e e a 6 soc10economic index 13 Similar to the work of Bogue,3 34Ibid., p. 110. 35Lamar T. Empey, "Social Class and Occupational Aspiration: A Comparison of Absolute and Relative Measure- ment," AmegicanpSQEiological Review, XXI (December, 1956), 705-706; Stuart Adams, "Trends in Occupational Origins of Physicians," American Sociolggical Review, XVIII (August, 1953), 404-405; and Alfred C. Clarke, "The Use of Leisure and Its Relation to Levels of Occupational Prestige," American SociologicalpReview,.XXI (1956), 301-302. 36Donald J. Bogue, "The Construction of Socioeco- nomic Indexes of Detailed Occupations" (on the bases of census statistics on income and education), found in Reiss, opg cit., p. 114. 31 however, Duncan's approach differs from Bogue's in several details: (1) in using the NORC ratings as a criterion in derivation of weights for the census characteristics, (2) in using different means of summarizing the census information, (3) in employing an age adjustment for the occupation data and (4) in treating the industry subheadings under detailed occupations as though they represent distinct occupations. Duncan described his problem as that of obtaining a socioeconomic index for each of the occupations in the detailed classification of the 1950 Census of Population. Furthermore, he states: The index is to have both face validity, in terms of its constituent variables, and suffi- cient predictive efficiency with respect to the NORC occupational prestige ratings that it can serve as an acceptable substitute for them in any research where it is necessary to grade or rank occupations in the way that the NORC score does, but where some of the occupations are not on the NORC list.3 Another study that bears considerable resemblance to the Duncan study is the work of Blishen38 on Canadian Occupational data. Both Duncan and Blishen basically share an identical philOSOphy that is summarized as follows:39 37Reiss, op. cit., p. 115. 38Bernard R. Blishen, "The Construction and Use of Occupational Class Scale," Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science,.XXIV (November, 1958), 519-531. 39Reiss, 0p. cit., p. 115. 32 .A man qualifies himself for occupational life by obtaining an education; as a conse- quence of pursuing his occupation, he obtains income. Occupation, therefore, is the intervening activity linking income to education. Because the Duncan socioeco- nomic index combines the available information on educa- tional and income levels of persons engaged in the various occupations, the writer feels this socioeconomic scale best serves the need of the problem under consideration. One of the best known systems for classifying occupations is Edward's socioeconomic groupings. Edwards proposed that the validity, as a convenient yardstick for measuring and comparing groups of workers, be ascertained from data on the income and education of the persons falling in the social economic groups.40 In addition, Edwards pre— sented income and education data indicating that the socio- economic groups are arranged in the descending order of the social economic status of the workers comprising them and that they do constitute a scale.41 Edward's socioeconomic scale consists of six major categories, two of which are so subdivided as to yield ten more or less hierarchically-arranged groupings.42 While Edward's technique is essentially oriented toward duties 4OAlbaM. Edwards, Comparative Occupation Statis- tics for the United States, 1870 to 1940 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1943), p. 180. 411bid., p. 180. 42Ibid., p. 182. 33 it is also validated in terms of yearly income and total .educational qualifications of the job occupants. In Edward's view, "Education is a very large factor in the social status of workers and wage or salary is a large factor in their economic status."43 The Edward's classification has done yeoman service in such research, as that of Anderson and Davidson,44 Centers,45 and Lind. 46 The chief weakness of Edward's socioeconomic scale lies in the breadth of the categories, some of which clearly overlap. A scale closely related to the NORC and to that of Edward's is Guttman Scales of Occupation.47 The Guttman scale is a joint ordering of subjects and items on an under- lying continuum. The original NORC list comprised ninety occupational titles, which theoretically might form a scale. In Guttman Scales the more items in the scale, the greater confidence one may have in the universality of the scale. The present writer detects a variety of practical problems 43Ibid., p. 180. 44Dewey Anderson and Percy S. Davidson, Ballots and the Qemocrptic Class Structure (Palo Alto: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1963). 45Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969). 46Andrew W. Lind, Ag Island Community (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1938). 47Albert J. Reiss, “Guttman Scales of Occupations," Occupation and Social Status (New York: Free Press, 1961), pp. 90—99. 34 associated with scaling the ninety occupations according to Guttman's techniques. Occupations are selected from a finite set of titles, and in the case of the NORC list they cannot be considered a random sample from a universe of occupational titles. .Even if all the items did scale it would not necessarily demonstrate there is an underlying prestige continuum for a universality of all occupations. Occupation, by definition, cannot possibly be taken as describing esteem; moreover, when an occupation is used as an index position in one structure it is substituted for a sum of positions in many structures. Thus, in order to appraise occupation values as an index, it should be com- pared with other current techniques for locating societal position. The problem posed by the number and variety of posi- tion, held by one person, was confronted by Chapin with the construction of the "Living Room Scale." Considerable evidence as to the validity of this scale exists; one such study indicates its superiority over occupation.48 The Chapin scale best represents a cluster of items including income, occupation, education, a measure of social partic- ipation and the Living Room Scale. However, the Living Room -Scale presents one grave drawback. The scale is question- able because the study was conducted with only a sample of 48Louis Guttman, "A Review of Chapin's Social Status Scale," AmericapfSociologicalgReview, VIII, No. 3 (June, 1963), 362-369. 35 67 Minneapolis Black Homes, thereby making research usage somewhat risky. A socioeconomic determiner that combines several variables is the American Home Scale.49 This scale consists of five scores: cultural, aesthetic, economic and miscel- laneous. The scale raises and fails to alleviate the same doubts as other group administered scales of "home environ- ment" intended to be answered by school age subjects with a "yes" or "no." The authors assume the subjects will answer directly questions about material possessions, parents' education and membership in status-giving and labor orga- nizations, etc. Another apparent flaw is that the authors assume validity on the "home environment" question. The obvious criticism is, can "home environment" be ascertained without trained field work observations of the social rela- tionships within the family? Furthermore, can the social relationships within the family be measured with sufficient validity through group administration to warrant the use of results in "individual guidance," which the authors suggest as their primary purpose. For survey purposes and for some research dealing with a large number of subjects, the American Home Scale has some value. The tests of reliability and norms of standardization upon eighth grade pupils in 12 American cities should enhance its use for group studies. 49Oscar Euros, 0p. cit., p. 417. 36 Summary A review of literature related to music preference studies disclosed several points. Several studies indicated that age, familiarity with the musical work and musical training were influential in determining musical preference. In addition, Baumann concluded that geographical location was influential in determining musical preference. A review of literature related to socioeconomic class determinants revealed two common measures for deter- mining socioeconomic status. The two most common types of measures were prestige ratings of persons and socioeconomic status scales. The three most commonly used measures of socioeconomic status were income, education and occupation. Each of these measures consisted of a rank or scale order that would stratify a population from high to low status. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Sample The data were gathered from 19 different schools in 11 different cities covering four geographical locations throughout the United States. Table 1 reveals the breakdown of subjects by school level and race. The sample included black and white subjects from all socioeconomic and musical backgrounds. Table l. Racial and educational level of the testing sample School Level Black White Total Junior High 176 103 279 Senior High 125 286 411 College 170 122 292 Total 471 511 982 Method of Gatherinngata For the purpose of this study the writer develOped a written questionnaire and a taped music inventory consisting of 30 musical excerpts, approximately 30 to 40 seconds each in length. The questionnaire may be found in Appendix D. 37 38 The questionnaire and two c0pies of the taped inventory were sent to testers in (l) Baton Rouge, Louisiana; (2) Chicago, Illinois; (3) Jackson, Mississippi; (4) Las Vegas, Nevada; (5) Nashville, Tennessee; (6) Norfolk, Virginia; (7) Washing- ton, D.C.; and (8) Lansing, East Lansing, and Williamston, Michigan. The Duncan Socioeconomic Index was used to gauge socioeconomic status. Descriptions of Data-Gathering Instruments The written questionnaire was designed to indicate age, grade, school, location, occupation and music experi- ence of all subjects. These data provided necessary infor- mation for relating music preference to various cultural situations. The questionnaire also included instructions on the use of the seven point music preference scale. The Otis Dudley Duncan Socioeconomic Index (see Appendix E) was used to determine the socioeconomic status of the subjects. Briefly described, the Duncan scale deter- mines socioeconomic status by the father's occupation. Each occupation is assigned a numerical rating. As a result each subject was placed in a specific socioeconomic class. In case the father was absent the subject was asked to indicate the occupation of his mother or guardian. The writer devised 10 socioeconomic classes and one "no response" classification to classify each subject. The primary categories were Upper, Middle and Lower. Within ’ 39 each primary category there are three smaller (upper, middle and lower). The socioeconomic classes and their numerical ratings were as follows: upper-Upper 90-99 middle-Upper 80-89 lower-Upper 70-79 upperdfliddle 60-69 middledfliddle 50-59 lowerfiniddle 40-49 upper-Lower 30-39 middleeLower 20-29 lower-Lower 10-19 below lower-Lower 0-9 no Response The "No Response" socioeconomic classification included all subjects that fail to indicate an occupation on the questionnaire. Of the 982 tested subjects, 96 failed to indicate an occupation on the questionnaire, thereby making it necessary to create a separate socioeconomic classifica- tion. The seven point scale was preferred over the five point scale in gauging musical preferences. The five state- ment scale was preferred in some research studies. Among the peeple who have used this scale are Sayrel and Schuessler.2 lJeanette Sayre, "A Comparison of Three Indices of Attitude Toward Radio Advertising," Journal of Applied Psychology, XXIII (1939), 28. 2Karl F. Schuessler, "Musical Taste and Socioeco- nomic Background" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1948). 4O Sayre used the Likert3 procedure. Briefly described the Likert procedure consists of five statements: "strongly agree," "agree," "uncertain," "disagree," or "strongly dis- agree." The advantage of the Likert procedure is that it forms a continuum from liking to disliking. Although the writer preferred the organization of the Likert continuum from liking to disliking, it was neces- sary to expand the five point scale to a seven point scale. The seven point scale augmented the respondent's leverage between definite positive or definite negative responses. 4 Among researchers using the seven point scale was Bartlett. Bartlett used the following scale: Dislike Like Very Much?- "‘ Moderately“N Mildly" w Neither‘t'e Mildly“ U1 Moderately" m Very Muchd- ‘1 The Bartlett Scale compared favorably with the Likert pro- cedure of forming a continuum from liking to disliking; 3Rensis Likert, "Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology, No. 140, 1932, p. 81. 4Da1e L. Bartlett, "The Effect of Repeated Listen- ings on Discrimination of Musical Structure and Some Relationships Between this Discrimination and Affective Shift," Project No. 8-F-032, Final Report, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, University of Kansas, 1969. p. 34. 41 therefore, the writer adOpted the Bartlett Scale for this study. The taped music inventory consisted of thirty musi- cal excerpts of approximately 30-40 seconds each represent- ing the following ten music categories: classical, light classical, jazz, Spirituals, country and western, soul, blues, rock and roll, show and folk tunes. Table 2 reveals the title, order, composer and/or artist of the musical excerpts. The musical excerpts were divided into ten specific categories for analysis purposes. Table 3 reveals the cate- gory, title, composer and/or artist of the combined musical excerpts. From data on the questionnaire the writer develOped seven different ranges of musical experience to rank each subject tested. The musical experience levels are as follows: (a) 0-5 months (b) 6-12 months (c) 1 year (d) (e) (f) (g) and 3 years and 5 years and 7 years (DO-PM or more years 42 Hmofimmmao xxmcfi>muum HomH modamum msfluwmuw .0m Hoom cflameum mnumu< 0500 mesou mH mmcmcu d .mm mosam HHOOCOU mums mmsam um>oq mEOmmsoq .mm xaom bumccmm sown pumsofim >umsT0£ .em Hmsufluflam mummcsm mcflx3mm stUm doom >2 mo um>oq women .oN Hmoammmau mELmum mosschH AucmEm>oz umav e .02 xconmeam .mm Hmsufluamm mHnEmmcm ruse» xuwcsEEou mung mo pmmum moo .vm 305m mBmes< measo mmsflce muuuo>mm >2. .mm seem a xoom pummmoc seem smxcoz use .mm Haom w xoom sopumHUOmm< beam as: me .HN xaom mumcDOEm xu«a new EOE w>0Humpsm3 .om sumo mHBwq as: pew mmc0h page osmum>mm .sacuoz .ma mmsam mwasmco amm 50% now m3wz pow m>.H .ma Hmsuauemm mumocbm mmaansh xmflm xmum moonoz Hmmm D.CUHDOU H .ha Hmoummmao unwed smsusumnumnx Emma modem munmm .oa Hsom msoflumuQEmB oz m>mmq o» m>mm mam pan >53 .ma cumummz o xuussoo pummmmm maumz meow Xumm m2 masm .va Hmoummmau unwed xxm>oxflm£o>ms uwumm AEOHM wEwnev msonmewm nuxflm .ma 305m osmmumuum mumnumm umum ammummuo was E.H .Na sump mamuuaoo stop memes .Ha xaom >um2 cam Home .umumm Bonsflmm ecu meow .oa wmsam Cowmaac mmoz com nucm>mm one .m assumes a muussou ummmno web mm HHHZ memes .m Hmoflmmmao Demaq Acmmummz ouumam ONNmEumusH .h 3onm samumssmm pumsomq meow umb .o Amoflwmmao spxmm Launch ADCQEm>OE pumv mm .02 xsozmexm .m snow assxcmsm mnuwu< snmnasnmnusnmm .v sumummz o xuucsoo umuuam xma c002 on» psoxwm umso .m Haom w xuom xHupsmm Heep mush .N such COmHAZ pamumo Emum .H xuommumo amused so ummomsoo mauwe >s0ucm>cH oasesOLoum cams: .N OAQmB 443 Dboccom so>o cuczobm >chIOZ A: mAUSDOEm xoso tzc EOE o>0~umtccz ANV >um2 com Home .uOume 302:scm ecu mcoo Adv xaom .x m30u©c< Guano mchLE Oupuo>mh >2 Amy CecmLOHDm cumflssm usum ammummuo any E.H ANV :kumCMwm csmcowd meow uwb Adv 302m .XH uuwmmoa Adam >wxsoz use Any coHumHoOmm< beam :02 xflm Amy xHupcmm demo wuem AHV aaom w xoom .HHH> Laocsoo mums mesam sm>oq mEOmmsoq Amv mmeumco smm 30> so“ m3mz uoo m>.H Ame COmAHH< wmoz com Lusw>mm we? AHV mmsAm .HH> CHHmeum mnumu< mEOU mccoo ma mmCmLU < Amy mcoflumumEmB oz w>mmq Ou m>mm wzm can >23 Amy cusxcmsm wrumu< snmmnsnmmusnmm Ass ssom .H> smausumnomnx Emu< meson munmm Amy >xmsoxamzo>me House >c0£dE>m £uXam ecu Eoum users Amy acmmommz Gunman ONNmEumucH Adv Hmoflmmmao armed .> Dumccwm sm>n pumnoam >um2uoz Amv mHnEmmcm nusow >umcsEEOU owed mo pmmum uso Amy mummcflm swamped xmflm >msm >ponoz ummm u.cpasou H AHV mHmSUHqum .>H pummmmm mane: mEom xumm m2 msam Amy ummmno mes mm use: mumwe Am. umuuam x09 :00: ecu pco>wm undo Adv cumummz a >uussoo .HHH sxmcu>muum some museums mauumwuo Ame magnum meccmnoo ADCQEm>oz umav v .02 >sonmE>m Amy co>mm common AucwEm>oz pumv mm .02 >soch>m Aav Hmoflmmmao .HH mfi3oq as: new mmcoo owns psmum>mm Cacao: Amy mcosuaoo egos memes Amy COmeZ pamumo Emud Adv sumo .H umauu< Ho ummomeoo mumumuxm >uomwumu mmfluommumo >n beamed muaumuxm upmse poanEou .m wanes 44 Item Analysis Two major problems encountered when developing the music preference test were validity and reliability. Evi- dence must be given to indicate that the test is measuring what it purports to measure and that it will measure with consistency when given repeatedly. Content validity was used to determine the authen- ticity of the music categories. Kerlinger defines content validity as the "representativeness" or "sampling adequacy" Of the content, the substance, the matter, or the topics of a measuring instrument.5 Five music graduate assistants were used to judge the content validity of the music prefer- ence test. Each judge was asked to indicate the music cate- gory of each of the musical excerpts. Wherever Opinions differed, the musical excerpts were changed until all judges agreed on the music category of each musical excerpt. Reliability for each music category was established by the test-retest method using the Pearson Productdnoment Coefficient Of Correlation. The tests were given to 38 black and white high school students over a three day period with and without musical experience. The results of the analysis revealed reliability coefficients as follows: (1) jazz, r = .85; (2) classical, r = .74; (3) country and sFred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Reseprch (New YOrk: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), p. 446. 45 western, r = .88; (4) spirituals, r = .84; (5) light classical, r = .83; (6) soul, r = .84; (7) blues, r = .76; (8) rock and roll, r = .84; (9) show, r = .89; (10) folk, r .88. The music category reliabilities are consistent with those recommended by Guilford, who maintains that for tests to be considered reliable they should yield coeffi- cient values Of .70 to .98.6 Factor Analysis A factor analysis Of the music categories was con- ducted to determine how the subjects perceived music. The results of the analysis revealed that classical and light classical music was perceived as one category, also blues and jazz was perceived as one category (see tables in .Appendix C). In addition, the factor analysis indicated that the spiritual musical excerpts were the only excerpts perceived as a specific music category. Design The present study consisted of single testing and questionnaire periods administered to 982 subjects in 11 different cities throughout the country. The Obtained data were coded and key punched on IBM cards for each subject and 6J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statisgics in Psychology pnd.Education (4th ed.; New YOrk: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964) I p0 1040 46 later analyzed on the 6500 Computer in the Michigan State University's Computer Center. Analysis Procedures The chi-square statistical procedure was used to determine the significant differences in response between the variables in each hypothesis. Concerning chi-square Siegel states, "chi-square usually tests the hypothesis that two groups differ with respect to some characteristics and therefore with respect to the relative frequency with which group members fall in several categories."7 Beyond the significant difference it was also neces- sary to ascertain the degree of association between the two variables. The Cramer Contingency Coefficient mean square was preferred to the Coefficient of Contingency. The major disadvantage of the latter index is that it cannot attain an upper limit of 1.00 unless the number of categories for both variables is infinite.8 Obviously, this limits the useful- ness of the Coefficient of Contingency as a descriptive statistic, therefore, the Cramer statistic was used to deter- mine the degree of association between the two variables in each hypothesis. 7Sidney Siegel, Non-Parametric Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956), p. 104. 8Williamfiays, Statistics for Psychologists (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964), p. 66ff. 47 Since the strength of association in a sample must lie between 0, reflecting complete independence, and 1, showing complete dependence, specific terms were used to interpret the statistics. The terms and their meanings are as follows: (a) very weak .0 to .20 (b) weak .21 to .40 (c) mildly strong .41 to .60 (d) strong .61 to .80 (e) very strong .81 to 1.00 The analysis of the data also included extensive descriptive references to Specific cells. The cells were discussed in terms of observed and expected frequencies and their significance to the hypothesis under consideration. Individual cells were discussed whenever the writer believed the cells contributed significant frequencies to the overall chi-square: The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis Of variance was used to determine the significant difference in preference response between the down and the across variables in each hypothesis. Significant differences in the down and across variables were determined by comparing the degrees of free- dom (K-l) with the statistical print out of the down and across variables. A summary of the analytical procedures is as follows: 48 Chi-square was used to determine if a significant difference existed in music preference attributable to the specific variable in each hypothesis. Cramer's Contingency Coefficient was used to deter- mine the strength of association between the vari- ables in each hypothesis. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis Of variance was used to determine if a significant difference in preference response existed between the down and across variable. Descriptive reference to specific cells was used to determine what cells and variables contributed sig- nificant frequencies to the overall chi-square. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The presentation and analysis of the data will be presented in the following order: 1. Chi-square preference Chi-square preference Chi-square preference Chi-square preference Chi-square preference Chi-square preference analysis of preference response by socioeconomic status. analysis of preference response by race. analysis of preference response by musical experience. analysis of preference response by school level. analysis of preference response by geographical location. analysis of preference response by preferred music category. Socioeconomic Status Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Rock and_Roll Music for for for for for for music music music music music music Table 4 reveals a significant difference between socioeconomic status and preference for rock and roll music; therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. 49 The degree of Table 4. socioeconomic status 50 Chi-square analysis of preference response for rock and roll music by Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Resppnse 1. Frequency 20 20 24 12 52 81 52 2. Theoretical frequency 16 16 22 27 49 60 71 3. Chi-square 0.83 0.97 0.21 8.15 0.13 7.39 4.89 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 27 17 24 30 39 58 72 2. Theoretical frequency 17 16 22 27 51 61 72 3. Chi-square 6.36 0.02 0.12 0.24 2.63 0.18 0.00 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 51 63 77 88 172 198 224 2. Theoretical frequency 55 54 77 90 165 201 236 3. Chi-square 0.23 1.61 0.22 0.02 0.27 0.03 0.62 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 13 18 29 48 77 72 82 2. Theoretical frequency 21 21 28 35 64 78 92 3. Chi-square 3.16 0.38 0.01 5.01 2.56 0.44 1.02 Upper Lower 1. Frequency 14 ll 12 26 33 37 58 2. Theoretical frequency 12 12 16 20 36 44 52 3. Chi-square 0.33 0.05 1.02 2.01 0.30 1.14 0.70 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 15 16 25 32 52 55 72 2. Theoretical frequency 17 16 22 27 51 61 72 3. Chi-square 0.17 0.00 0.32 0.77 0.04 0.65 0.00 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 14 3 10 15 19 38 42 2. Theoretical frequency 9 9 12 14 27 32 38 3. Chi-square 3.04 3.70 0.27 0.01 2.21 0.97 0.39 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 11 13 14 20 40 51 85 2. Theoretical frequency 15 14 20 24 44 54 63 3. Chi-square 0.90 0.13 1.58 0.67 0.41 0.14 7.44 Lower Uppgr 1. Frequency 18 12 20 13 42 59 70 2. Theoretical frequency 15 14 20 24 44 54 63 3. Chi-square 0.77 0.39 0.00 5.05 50.11 0.51 ’6.71 Middle Qpper 1. Frequency 1 6 8 14 23 21 29 2. Theoretical frequency 6 6 9 10 19 23 28 3. Chi-square 4.53 0.00 0.03 1.19 0.70 0.25 0.07 Upper Upgr 1. Frequency 0 2 3 4 8 6 10 2. Theoretical frequency 2 2 3 3 6 8 9 3. Chi-square 2.06 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.49 0.32 0.12 X H DF = 109.159** (*Represents .05 level of significance; significance in all tables.) 60 a = 0.0781 Kruskal-Wallis down = 16.601: across **represents .01 level of 16.042 51 association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and preference for rock and roll music. Neither the down or across variables were signifi- cant according tO Kruskal-Wallis analysis. Cell 6 indicated that the “no response" and cell 7 indicated that the "upper Middle" and "lower Upper" classes all differed in the way they rated rock and roll music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Jazz Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 5 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of asso- ciation was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and jazz music. Two cells, 1 and 7, revealed significant chi-squares in the difference between socioeconomic status and music preference. The "upper Lower" class revealed a more ob- served than expected frequency in cell 1 and the "below lower Lower" class revealed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The Kruskal-Wallis down variable indicated that the socioeconomic classes differed in the way they rated jazz. The "below lower Lower" class demonstrated slightly stronger preference values for jazz. Table 5. nomic status 52 Chi-square analysis of preference response for jazz music by socioeco- Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Response 1. Frequency 32 23 3O 31 56 47 42 2. Theoretical frequency 35 24 33 35 53 45 36 3. Chi-square 0.32 0.01 0.25 0.48 0.18 0.09 0.90 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 43 23 34 26 41 45 55 2. Theoretical frequency 36 24 34 36 54 46 37 3. Chi-square 1.27 0.04 0.00 2.74 3.15 0.02 8.62 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 126 80 112 110 181 148 116 2. Theoretical frequency 118 79 110 117 177 150 121 3. Chi-square 0.49 0.02 0.03 0.47 0.10 0.03 0.23 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 48 36 47 52 61 49 46 2. Theoretical frequency 46 31 43 46 69 58 47 3. Chi-square 0.09 0.98 0.42 0.89 0.85 1.51 0.02 Upgr Lower 1. Frequency 42 20 25 32 35 21 17 2. Theoretical frequency 26 17 24 26 39 33 27 3. Chi-square 9.79 0.42 0.02 1.47 0.38 4.40 3.51 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 25 27 37 41 56 47 34 2. Theoretical frequency 36 24 34 36 54 46 37 3. Chi-square 3.46 0.36 0.33 0.71 0.06 0.02 0.25 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 14 ll 15 19 23 38 21 2. Theoretical frequency 19 13 18 19 29 24 20 3. Chi-square 1.36 0.22 0.43 0.00 1.08 7.73 0.10 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 32 15 27 31 54 46 29 2. Theoretical frequency 32 21 29 31 47 40 33 3. Chi-square 0.00 1.74 0.21 0.00 0.92 0.80 0.38 Lower Upper 1. Frequency 27 20 24 35 53 40 35 2. Theoretical frequency 32 21 29 31 47 40 33 3. Chi-square 0.70 0.05 1.02 0.39 0.66 0.00 0.18 Middle Upper 1. Frequency 7 3 16 14 30 20 12 2. Theoretical frequency 14 9 13 14 21 18 14 3. Chi-square 3.37 4.16 0.76 0.00 4.22 0.33 0.33 Upper Upper 1. Frequency 3 7 4 5 6 6 2 2. Theoretical frequency 4 3 4 4 7 6 5 3. Chi-square 0.48 5.46 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.00 1.45 X2 = 88.409** Kruskal-Wallis down = 32.440**; across = 2.238 DF = 60 c: = 0.0707 53 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Blues Music As in previous tables the null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 6 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of association was "very weak" between socioeco- nomic status and preference for blues music. The "below lower Lower" class disclosed a more Observed than expected frequency in cell 7 and the "upper Lower" class disclosed a less observed than expected fre- quency in cell 7. The Kruskal-Wallis down variable indicated that socioeconomic classes differed in the way they rated the blues music. The "below lower Lower" class demonstrated the strongest preference values for the blues music. In addi- tion the "upper Middle" and "middle Upper" classes revealed noticeable indifferent attitudes in cell 4 toward the blues music. Chi-Square Apalysis of Preference Response for Soul Music Table 7 disclosed a significant difference between socioeconomic status and preference for soul music thereby rejecting the null-hypothesis. Beyond the significant dif- ference the degree of association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and preference for soul music. Three cells, 5, 6, and 7, demonstrated significant chi-squares on the difference between socioeconomic status and preference for soul music. 54 Table 6. economic status Chi-square analysis of preference response for blues music by socio- Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NO Response 1. Frequency 25 30 22 28 47 59 50 2. Theoretical frequency 29 25 30 37 55 48 37 3. Chi-square 0.59 1.11 2.20 2.06 1.20 2.76 4.22 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 36 20 24 26 45 59 57 2. Theoretical frequency 30 25 31 38 56 39 38 3. Chi-square 1.26 1.11 1.51 3.55 2.31 2.21 9.14 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 105 92 98 119 186 156 117 2. Theoretical frequency 98 83 101 123 185 159 125 3. Chi-square 0.56 1.03 0.08 0.11 0.01 0.05 0.53 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 41 34 47 43 72 65 37 2. Theoretical frequency 38 32 39 48 72 62 49 3. Chi-square 0.25 0.10 1.56 0.46 0.00 0.17 2.77 Upgr Lower 1. Frequency 33 21 26 34 41 25 11 2. Theoretical frequency 21 18 22 27 41 35 28 3. Chi-square 6.20 0.43 0.65 1.80 0.00 2.84 9.92 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 22 21 33 40 62 51 38 2. Theoretical frequency 30 25 31 38 56 49 38 3. Chi-square 2.06 0.73 0.15 0.15 0.54 0.11 0.00 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 14 10 16 16 37 23 25 2. Theoretical frequency l6 13 16 20 30 26 20 3. Chi-square 0.19 0.84 0.00 0.74 1.73 0.27 1.13 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 17 23 30 48 49 34 33 2. Theoretical frequency 26 22 27 33 49 43 33 3. Chi-square 3.20 0.03 0.32 6.91 0.00 1.74 0.00 Lower Upppr 1. Frequency 26 17 22 31 53 46 39 2. Theoretical frequency 26 22 27 33 49 43 34 3. Chi-square 0.00 1.21 0.93 0.11 0.25 0.26 0.88 Middleggpper 1. Frequency 8 5 14 24 26 12 13 2. Theoretical frequency 11 10 12 14 22 19 15 3. Chi-square 1.01 2.25 0.41 6.49 0.91 2.32 0.18 Upper Upppr 1. Frequency 2 6 8 5 4 6 2 2. Theoretical frequency 4 3 4 5 7 6 5 3. Chi-square 0.77 2.63 4.59 0.02 1.26 0.00 1.57 X2 = 128.351** Kruskal-Wallis down = 43.683**; across = 8.107 DF = 60 m = 0.0848 Table 7. nomic status 55 Chi-square analysis of preference response for soul music by socioeco- Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Response 1. Frequency 10 5 5 8 4 22 207 2. Theoretical frequency 12 10 14 19 28 42 136 3. Chi-square 0.47 2.58 5.10 6.42 20.33 9.35 37.71 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 15 5 5 8 12 22 200 2. Theoretical frequency 13 10 15 20 28 43 139 3. Chi-square 0.41 2.75 6.39 6.78 9.46 10.05 27.17 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 35 34 40 60 78 112 514 2. Theoretical frequency 42 34 48 64 93 140 453 3. Chi-square 1.02 0.00 1.35 0.22 2.37 5.49 8.13 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 12 16 26 21 31 70 163 2. Theoretical frequency l6 13 19 25 36 54 176 3. Chi-square 1.05 0.62 2.88 0.57 0.70 4.57 0.96 Upp_er Lower 1. Frequency 19 10 20 23 28 38 54 2. Theoretical frequency 9 7 ll 14 20 31 100 3. Chi-square 10.65 0.88 8.41 5.74 2.81 1.72 20.93 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 15 12 18 26 40 51 105 2. Theoretical frequency 13 10 15 20 28 43 139 3. Chi-square 0.41 0.26 0.74 2.16 4.74 1.60 8.15 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 3 2 3 ll 19 28 75 2. Theoretical 7 5 8 10 15 23 73 3. Chi-square 2.04 2.19 2.92 0.04 1.06 1.30 0.04 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 11 7 21 22 40 64 69 2. Theoretical frequency 11 9 13 17 25 37 121 3. Chi-square 0.00 0.47 5.11 1.40 9.17 18.82 22.68 Lower Upppr 1. Frequency 9 11 14 21 35 40 104 2. Theoretical frequency 11 9 l3 17 25 37 121 3. Chi-square 0.40 0.41 0.09 0.89 4.10 0.17 2.51 Middle Upper 1. Frequency 10 6 7 9 20 21 29 2. Theoretical frequency 5 4 6 7 ll 16 53 3. Chi-square 5.46 1.06 0.34 0.32 7.72 1.33 10.83 Upper Upgr 1. Frequency 1 6 3 6 6 3 8 2. Theoretical frequency 2 l 2 2 4 5 l7 3. Chi-square 0.20 17.44 0.77 5.34 1.76 0.98 4.86 x2 = 379.694** Kruskal-Wallis down = 262.351**; across = 57.397** DF = 60 w = 0.1466 56 The "no response" and "below lower Lower" classes disclosed more observed than expected frequencies in cell 7, and the "upper Middle" classes revealed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. In addition, the "upper.Mid- dle" and "upper Upper" classes demonstrated a more observed than expected frequency in cell 6 and the "below lower Lower" and "no response" classes revealed a less observed than ex- pected frequency in cells 5 and 6. The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the "no response" socioeconomic classification displayed the strongest preference values for soul music. Chi-§gpare Applysis of Preference Response for Spiritual Music The data in Table 8 revealed a significant differ- ence between socioeconomic status and preference for spiri- tuals; therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. Beyond the significant difference the degree of association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and preference for spiritual music. Three cells, 1, 6 and 7 disclosed signifi- cant chi-squares on the difference between socioeconomic status and preference for spirituals. The "no reSponse" and "below lower Lower" classes displayed more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. In addition, the "upper Lower" class displayed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1, and the "upper Middle" class displayed a less observed than eXpected frequency in cell 7. Table 8. economic status 57 Chi-square analysis of preference response for spiritual music by socio- Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Response 1. Frequency 28 15 14 26 38 59 81 2. Theoretical frequency 62 26 22 33 35 41 42 3. Chi-square 18.84 4.82 2.74 1.41 0.26 7.74 36.59 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 48 12 14 23 37 59 74 2. Theoretical frequency 64 27 22 34 36 42 43 3. Chi-square 3.86 8.21 3.04 3.32 0.04 6.78 22.70 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 205 83 79 111 111 142 142 2. Theoretical frequency 208 88 73 110 117 138 140 3. Chi-square 0.05 0.26 0.55 0.01 0.29 0.13 0.02 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 86 30 23 46 44 56 54 2. Theoretical frequency 81 34 28 43 45 53 54 3. Chi-square 0.32 0.49 0.96 0.26 0.04 0.12 0.00 Upgr Lower 1. Frequency 73 25 15 31 15 l9 l4 2. Theoretical frequency 46 19 16 24 26 30 31 3. Chi-square 16.15 1.67 0.06 1.95 4.45 4.19 9.15 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 80 38 23 31 30 34 31 2. Theoretical frequency 64 27 22 34 36 42 43 3. Chi-square 4.17 4.62 0.02 0.19 0.92 1.55 3.26 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 28 8 9 17 28 26 25 2. Theoretical frequency 34 14 12 18 19 22 23 3. Chi-square 0.94 2.69 0.63 0.02 4.40 0.63 0.25 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 64 34 28 37 39 19 13 2. Theoretical frequency 56 24 19 29 31 37 38 3. Chi-square 1.19 4.65 3.72 1.95 1.87 8.67 16.03 Lower Upppr 1. Frequency 59 24 22 31 29 39 30 2. Theoretical frequency 56 24 19 29 31 37 38 3. Chi-square 0.18 0.00 0.32 0.08 0.17 0.12 1.51 Middlepgpper 1. Frequency 21 18 14 14 20 7 8 2. Theoretical frequency 24 10 8 13 14 16 16 3. Chi-square 0.45 5.84 3.57 0.10 2.94 5.12 4.27 Upper UpEr 1. Frequency 10 9 4 3 3 4 0 2. Theoretical frequency 8 3 3 4 4 5 5 3. Chi-square 0.57 9.72 0.57 0.31 0.45 0.27 5.29 X2 = 266.091** Kruskal-Wallis down = l90.285**; across = 19.599* DF = 60 m = 0.1224 58 The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the "no response" socioeconomic classification revealed the strongest preference values for spiritual music. Chi-Sguarepépplysis of Preference Response for Classical Music Table 9 divulged a significant difference between socioeconomic status and preference for classical music thereby rejecting the null-hypothesis. Beyond the signif- icant difference the degree of association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and preference for classical music. The "lower Lower" class revealed a less Observed than expected frequency in cell 7 and the "upper Middle," "lower Upper" and "middle Upper" classes revealed more observed than expected frequencies in cell 7. The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the "middle Upper" class demonstrated the strong- est preference value for classical music. Chi-Sgpareggnalysis of Preference Response fogpLight Classicgl Music The null hypothesis was rejected in Table 10 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. In addition, the degree of association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and preference for light classical music. Three cells, 3, 6 and 7, demonstrated significant chi-squares on the differences between socioeconomic status and preference for light classical music. Table 9. socioeconomic status 59 Chi-square analysis of preference response for classical music by Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NO Response 1. Frequency 60 32 37 51 35 24 22 2. Theoretical frequency 66 27 29 49 43 32 24 3. Chi-square 0.57 1.09 1.93 3.02 1.58 1.81 0.15 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 83 22 34 46 35 28 19 2. Theoretical frequency 68 27 30 41 44 32 24 3. Chi-square 3.46 1.00 0.49 0.63 1.94 0.57 1.23 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 250 208 115 122 144 82 52 2. Theoretical frequency 221 89 98 134 144 106 80 3. Chi-square 3.72 4.06 2.77 1.03 0.00 5.27 9.85 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 87 39 39 50 47 50 27 2. Theoretical frequency 86 35 38 52 56 41 31 3. Chi-square 0.01 0.57 0.01 0.07 1.50 1.97 0.54 Uppgr Lower 1. Frequency 61 14 26 21 26 33 11 2. Theoretical frequency 49 20 22 29 32 23 18 3. Chi-square 3.12 1.58 0.86 2.41 1.07 4.11 2.48 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 62 23 22 48 46 30 36 2. Theoretical frequency 68 27 30 41 44 32 24 3. Chi-square 0.47 0.65 2.18 1.22 0.06 0.16 5.40 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 33 14 12 16 37 16 13 2. Theoretical frequency 36 l4 16 22 23 17 13 3. Chi-square 0.21 0.00 0.95 1.45 7.93 0.06 0.00 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 44 24 21 38 42 31 34 2. Theoretical frequency 59 24 26 36 39 28 21 3. Chi-square 3.95 0.00 1.10 0.12 0.26 0.25 7.31 Lower Uppgr 1. Frequency 45 17 19 34 47 37 35 2. Theoretical frequency 59 24 26 36 39 28 21 3. Chi-square 3.45 1.96 2.07 0.09 1.73 2.67 8.52 Middle Upper 1. Frequency 18 4 6 15 21 18 20 2. Theoretical frequency 26 10 12 l6 17 12 9 3. Chi-square 2.38 3.93 2.63 0.02 0.98 2.59 12.10 UpEr Uppgr 1. Frequency 3 3 l 10 8 7 l 2. Theoretical frequency 8 3 4 5 5 4 3 3. Chi-square 3.44 0.00 1.99 4.83 1.16 2.26 1.35 X2 = 160.747** Kruskal-Wallis down = 81.608**; across 43.408** DF = 60 o = 0.0953 i. . l u Table 10. socioeconomic status 60 Chi-square analysis of preference response for light classical music by Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Response 1. Frequency 41 31 29 33 59 37 31 2. Theoretical frequency 44 24 26 30 53 46 35 3. Chi-square 0.23 1.79 0.41 0.00 0.69 1.80 0.38 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 63 29 32 34 43 40 26 2. Theoretical frequency 45 25 26 34 54 47 35 3. Chi-square 6.94 0.65 1.23 0.00 2.30 1.09 2.52 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 162 89 109 104 174 149 86 2. Theoretical frequency 148 82 86 110 177 154 116 3. Chi-square 1.32 0.67 6.13 0.33 0.05 0.17 7.75 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 48 37 32 46 79 60 37 2. Theoretical frequency 57 32 33 43 69 60 45 3. Chi-square 1.56 0.89 0.05 0.24 1.52 0.00 1.43 Upppr Lower 1. Frequency 48 22 11 20 35 31 25 2. Theoretical frequency 33 l8 19 24 39 34 26 3. Chi-square 7.32 0.91 3.31 0.73 0.40 0.25 0.01 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 38 19 24 38 47 51 50 2. Theoretical frequency 45 25 26 34 54 47 35 3. Chi-square 1.16 1.41 0.20 0.55 0.94 0.30 5.94 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 19 6 9 21 34 25 27 2. Theoretical frequency 24 l3 l4 18 29 25 19 3. Chi-square 1.00 3.90 1.72 0.58 1.01 0.00 3.64 Uppgr Middlp 1. Frequency 29 18 20 32 51 44 40 2. Theoretical frequency 40 22 23 29 47 41 31 3. Chi-square 2.87 0.68 0.40 0.21 0.26 0.17 2.55 Lower Upgr 1. Frequency 31 16 17 28 43 57 42 2. Theoretical frequency 40 22 23 29 47 41 31 3. Chi-square 1.89 1.57 1.59 0.07 0.42 5.92 3.82 Middle Uppe; 1. Frequency 12 5 6 13 23 20 23 2. Theoretical frequency 17 10 10 13 21 18 14 3. Chi-square 1.62 2.15 1.63 0.00 0.25 0.21 6.58 Upgr Upper 1. Frequency 8 3 l 2 9 6 4 2. Theoretical frequency 6 3 3 4 7 6 4 3. Chi-square 1.03 0.00 1.55 1.12 0.79 0.00 0.03 X2 = 117.163** Kruskal-Wallis down = 68.379**; across 23.117* DF = 60 0 = 0.0812 61 The "lower Lower" class demonstrated a more observed than expected frequency in cell 3 and a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The "lower Upper" class demonstrated a more Observed than expected frequency in cells 6 and 7. The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables revealed that the "lower Upper" class demonstrated the strongest preference values for light classical music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Country and Western Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 11 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. As in the previous tables the degree of association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and preference for country and western music. Two cells, 1 and 7, revealed significant chi-squares on the difference between socioeconomic status and preference for country and western music. The "lower Middle" class revealed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7 and the "middle Lower" class revealed a less Observed than expected frequency in cell 1. The Kruskal-Wallis down variable indicated that the socioeconomic classes differed in their attitude toward country and western music. The "lower Middle" class demon- strated the strongest preference values for country and western music. Table 11. 62 music by socioeconomic status Chi-square analysis of preference response for country and western Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Response 1. Frequency 81 41 27 42 37 17 16 2. Theoretical frequency 93 38 33 35 29 19 15 3. Chi-square 1.51 0.25 1.11 1.42 2.37 0.14 0.08 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 97 32 30 45 26 21 16 2. Theoretical 95 39 34 36 29 19 15 3. Chi-square 0.04 1.17 0.43 2.39 0.39 0.19 0.03 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 324 139 109 97 93 61 50 2. Theoretical frequency 311 127 111 117 96 62 50 3. Chi-square 0.58 1.20 0.02 3.37 0.10 0.02 0.00 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 86 50 67 53 33 25 25 2. Theoretical frequency 121 49 43 45 37 24 19 3. Chi-square 9.92 0.01 13.44 1.27 0.50 0.02 1.64 Upgr Lower 1. Frequency 89 27 21 24 11 15 5 2. Theoretical frequency 68 28 24 26 21 14 11 3. Chi-square 6.26 0.02 0.45 0.11 4.86 0.12 3.24 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 90 30 27 43 26 20 31 2. Theoretical frequency 95 39 34 36 29 19 15 3. Chi-square 0.26 1.97 1.38 1.47 0.39 0.04 16.29 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 53 26 27 9 20 3 3 2. Theoretical frequency 50 20 18 l9 16 10 8 3. Chi-square 0.16 1.50 4.66 5.16 1.29 4.95 3.16 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 86 24 29 28 34 23 10 2. Theoretical frequency 83 34 30 31 26 l7 l3 3. Chi-square 0.09 2.91 0.01 0.35 2.63 2.37 0.84 Lower Upgr 1. Frequency 98 36 18 30 28 15 9 2. Theoretical frequency 83 34 30 31 26 17 3 3. Chi-square 2.61 0.12 4.58 0.05 0.19 0.17 1.42 Middle Upper 1. Frequency 27 17 l3 l9 l4 9 3 2. Theoretical frequency 36 15 13 14 ll 7 6 3. Chi-square 2.37 0.32 0.00 2.09 0.68 0.40 1.36 Upgr Upgr 1. Frequency 16 5 5 4 2 1 0 2. Theoretical frequency 12 5 4 4 4 2 2 3. Chi-square 1.54 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.73 0.77 1.88 x2 = 132.372** Kruskal-Wallis down = 42.779** across 5.673 DF = 60 ¢ = 0.0860 63 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Folk Music Table 12 disclosed a significant difference between socioeconomic status and preference for folk music; there- fore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. The degree of association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and preference for folk music. The "no response" and "below lower Lower" classes revealed a less Observed than expected frequency in cell 7; in addition, the "lower Middle" and "upper Middle" classes revealed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the "upper Middle" class disclosed the strongest preference values for folk music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response forp§how.Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 13 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Beyond the significant difference the degree of association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and preference for show music. The "no response" class displayed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The "lower Middle," "upper Middle" and "middle Upper" classes revealed more observed than expected frequencies in cell 7. Table 12. nomic status 64 Chi-square analysis of preference response for folk music by socioeco- Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NO Response 1. Frequency 71 36 38 40 47 18 11 2. Theoretical frequency 55 32 31 40 42 31 29 3. Chi-square 4.37 0.49 1.74 0.00 0.58 5.59 11.32 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 78 48 37 36 31 28 9 2. Theoretical frequency 57 33 31 41 43 32 30 3. Chi-square 7.99 7.09 1.00 0.69 3.35 0.48 14.56 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 215 93 117 137 135 107 69 2. Theoretical frequency 185 107 103 135 141 104 98 3. Chi-square 4.72 1.85 2.01 0.02 0.22 0.06 8.37 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 50 55 33 51 70 43 37 2. Theoretical frequency 72 42 40 53 55 41 38 3. Chi-square 6.71 4.32 1.17 0.04 4.34 0.14 0.02 Uppgr Lower 1. Frequency 48 22 21 34 21 23 23 2. Theoretical frequency 41 24 23 30 31 23 21 3. Chi-square 1.28 0.10 0.10 0.60 3.18 0.00 0.10 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 39 36 28 40 37 37 50 2. Theoretical frequency 57 33 31 41 43 32 30 3. Chi-square 5.52 0.32 0.36 0.04 0.83 0.80 13.60 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 32 17 13 27 l9 13 20 2. Theoretical frequency 30 17 17 22 23 17 16 3. Chi-square 0.14 0.00 0.77 1.21 0.60 0.88 1.13 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 36 20 19 26 46 34 53 2. Theoretical frequency 50 29 28 36 38 28 26 3. Chi-square 3.77 2.63 2.63 2.90 1.83 1.29 27.54 Lower Upppr 1. Frequency 42 23 21 44 44 26 34 2. Theoretical frequency 50 29 28 36 38 28 26 3. Chi-square 1.19 1.13 1.54 1.65 1.05 0.14 2.35 Middle Upper 1. Frequency 10 9 10 15 20 18 20 2. Theoretical frequency 22 13 12 l6 16 12 ll 3. Chi-square 6.27 0.98 0.33 0.04 0.77 2.75 6.48 Upppr Upgr 1. Frequency 4 2 9 6 4 5 3 2. Theoretical frequency 7 4 4 5 5 4 4 3. Chi-square 1.29 1.03 6.75 0.15 0.32 0.28 0.12 X2 = 204.354** Kruskal-Wallis down = 121.424**; across = 27.594** DF = 60 o = 0.1072 Table 13. nomic status 65 Chi-square analysis of preference response for show music by socioeco- Preference Scale Socioeconomic Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No Response 1. Frequency 128 34 19 36 22 18 4 2. Theoretical frequency 82 3O 24 33 32 27 32 3. Chi-square 25.37 0.64 1.22 0.19 3.13 2.92 24.78 Below Lower Lower 1. Frequency 103 32 28 41 28 20 15 2. Theoretical frequency 84 3O 25 34 33 27 33 3. Chi-square 4.20 0.09 0.34 1.35 0.68 2.04 9.83 Lower Lower 1. Frequency 299 102 94 117 97 83 80 2. Theoretical frequency 275 99 82 112 107 90 108 3. Chi-square 2.04 0.15 1.79 0.23 0.94 0.52 7.24 Middle Lower 1. Frequency 94 39 38 44 57 32 35 2. Theoretical frequency 107 39 32 44 42 35 42 3. Chi-square 1.55 0.00 1.21 0.00 5.71 0.24 1.14 Upper Lower 1. Frequency 69 16 10 26 24 23 24 2. Theoretical frequency 61 22 18 25 24 20 24 3. Chi-square 1.81 1.53 3.55 0.08 0.00 0.52 0.00 Lower Middle 1. Frequency 53 24 25 36 40 34 55 2. Theoretical frequency 84 3O 25 34 33 27 33 3. Chi-square 11.55 1.31 0.00 0.09 1.60 1.54 14.62 Middle Middle 1. Frequency 37 19 15 17 15 16 22 2. Theoretical frequency 44 16 13 18 17 15 17 3. Chi-square 1.25 0.56 0.23 0.06 0.30 0.15 1.19 Upper Middle 1. Frequency 54 23 20 17 38 33 49 2. Theoretical frequency 74 27 22 30 29 24 29 3. Chi-square 5.30 0.47 0.17 5.61 3.01 3.29 13.90 Lower Upgr 1. Frequency 65 27 16 27 27 29 43 2. Theoretical frequency 74 27 22 30 29 24 29 3. Chi-square 1.04 0.00 1.61 0.29 0.10 0.99 6.82 Middle Upper 1. Frequency 15 13 7 13 10 13 31 2. Theoretical frequency 32 12 10 l3 13 11 13 3. Chi-square 9.15 0.17 0.68 0.00 0.50 0.59 26.79 Uppgr Upper 1. Frequency 11 4 4 3 3 2 6 2. Theoretical frequency 10 4 3 4 4 3 4 3. Chi-square 0.03 0.00 0.26 0.35 0.27 0.57 0.90 x2 = 224.088** Kruskal-Wallis down = 158.168**7 across = 58.962** DF = 60 ® = 0.1122 66 The Kruskal4Wa11is down and across variables indi- cated that the "middle Upper," "upper Middle" and "lower Middle" classes revealed the strongest preference values for show music. Summary The null-hypothesis was rejected in the data on socioeconomic status and music preference. In addition, the degree of association was "very weak" between socioeconomic status and music preference. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) A summary of the disclosures is as follows: The "no response," "upper Middle" and "lower Upper" socioeconomic classes demonstrated similar prefer- ence values for rock and roll music. The "below lower Lower" class demonstrated slightly stronger preference values for jazz music. The "below lower Lower" class demonstrated the strongest preference values for the blues music. The "no response" socioeconomic classification demonstrated the strongest preference values for soul music. The "no response" class demonstrated the strongest preference values for spiritual music. The "middle Upper" class demonstrated the strongest preference values for classical music. There was complete independence between socioeconomic status and light classical music. 67 (8) The "lower Middle" class demonstrated the strongest preference values for country and western music. (9) The "upper Middle" class demonstrated the strongest preference values for folk music. (10) The "middle Upper," "upper Middle" and "lower Middle" classes demonstrated the strongest preference values for show music. The "below lower Lower" and "no response" socio- economic classifications revealed the strongest preference values for jazz, blues, soul and Spirituals. However, the "Middle" and "Upper" classes preferred classical, country and western, folk, and show music. The rock and roll and light classical preference values were independent of socio- economic status. The present findings are consistent with Schuessler's conclusion that socioeconomic status was influential in determining musical preference. However, the writer's find- ings contradict Baumann's conclusion that low socioeconomic subject's preferences ran generally to traditional music. 41’ 9%.. xi.) a . , .. .‘II. Mg ai— 68 822 Chi-Squarepépalysis of Preference Response for Rock and Roll Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 14 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Beyond the significant difference the degree of association was "very weak" between race and preference for rock and roll music. Cell 7 revealed a significant chi-square on the difference between race and preference for rock and roll music. White subjects revealed a more observed than ex- pected frequency, and black subjects revealed a less ob- served than expected frequency. The Kruska14Wa11is down and across variables indi- cated that the white subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for rock and roll music. Chi-SguarepApglysigpof Preference Response for Jazz Music Table 15 revealed a significant difference between race and preference for jazz thereby rejecting the null- hypothesis. The degree of association was "very weak" between jazz and race. Cell 7 disclosed a significant chi-square on the difference between race and preference for jazz. Black sabjeacts demonstrated a more than expected frequency, and “hitfia subjects demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency. 69 NBOH.O u e o n ma 445mm.mm u mmouum “4mma.ma u c306 mnaamzwamxmsux «464m.mm u «x ev.m 6m.o 60.H «v.0 mH.H m~.o mo.~ mumswmnhnu .m mew mmm mam and mma mos was scamsvoum Hmonumnomne .m 5mm ~04 mmm mod Hma hog mas aucmsvmum .H somam mo.HH 6~.H mm.H sm.o Hm.a Hm.o m6.~ mumsvmuflnu .m Nvm «mm ovm ems 60H we om socmsvmum Hmonumuomra .m vow mum «mm mma mm mm mm socmsemum .H .mwhnm n 6 m e m . m A momm mamom wocmummmum - momu an owmse Haou cam xoou new mmcommmu mocmummmum mo mammamcm mumsvmuano .va manna 7O hN®H.o H e *«mvo.~m u mmouom “omm.m u 2306 madamgwamxmsux @ ma II N *«fimb.hb vm.va mo.© mo.o mm.m mm.N fim.¢ Hm.o mmm 0mm 5mm NNN mom oma mNN omm mum vmm hma hma mNH Ham vo.mH mm.> fio.o mm.h mo.m om.m no.H. mumsvmlwso .m mosmsvmum Hmoaumnomsa .N mocmsvmum .H xonfim mHMSUmlwno .m 55H mam mmm and 06H mas and scamsemum Hmonumuomna .m mas sea new mom «ma owa mma mocmsumum .H muss; n o _m e m m A comm mdmflm 00COHGM GHQ mumu an owmsa numn How mmcommmu mocmummmum mo mammamcm mumsvmlwsu. .ma manna 71 The KruskalAWallis across variable indicated that the black subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for jazz music. Chi-Sguare-Analysisiof Preference Response for Blues Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 16 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of asso- ciation was "very weak" between race and preference for the blues. Four cells, 1, 2, 6,8nd 7, disclosed significant chi-squares on the differences between race and preference for blues music. In cells 1 and 2 the white subject's observed frequencies were more than their expected frequen- cies, and the black subjects observed frequencies were less than their eXpected frequencies. Cells 6 and 7 revealed a more observed than expected frequency for black and a less observed than expected frequency for whites. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that black subject's demonstrated the strongest pref- erence values for blues music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Egépgnsegor Soul Music Several interesting disclosures were demonstrated in Table 17. The null-hypothesis was rejected as revealed by the chi-square analysis. A previously undetected dis- closure was the "mildly strong" degree of association that exists between race and preference for soul music. 72 m6na.o n e 6 n ma wwmem.am mmouum urwnmm.~6 u c366 mnaamzwamxmsux wwvom.am u mx 6N.~H ~m.6 mm.o 6~.m va.m 6H.6 hm.v mumsumuhnu .m emu mom 66m 6m~ mma 66H 56H scamswmuu Hondumuomna .N Ham mmm H6m mod mud “NH 66H scamswmum .H roman mo.6a 66.6H Hm.o «6.6 om.~ 66.6 65.6 mumswmunnu .m Hma Hmm >6~ aha 66H ANA med scamsvmum Hmonumuomns .m was Hma mmm 6am 66H «ma aha scamswmum .H muses n 6 m 6 m N a 666m GHMUM OUCQHONMHN mums an dense mmsan How mmcommmu mucmummmum mo mamaamcm mumsUmlwno .oa magma 73 ”HMUM QUGGH®HOHW 6666.6 u e 6 u 66 *«6mo.os6 n mmouom “64666.666 u 6366 madamzwamxmsus 66666.666 u «x 66.666 66.6H 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 666566-666 .6 666 666 66H HNH am 66 66 606656666 Hmonumuomna .m 6666 mam am 66 66 66 66 606666666 .H x6666 66.666 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6N 666566-666 .6 666 mom 66H mm on 66 66 66:656666 amasumuomna .m 666 66m 666 66H has 66 66 606666666 .H ounrm 6 6 6 6 m N a 6666 momu an uwmsa Anew How mmcommmu mocmummmwm mm mwmxamcm mumswmlano .ha manna 74 Five cells, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, revealed significant chi-squares on the difference between race and preference for soul music. Cells 1, 2, and 3 disclosed a more observed than expected frequency by white subjects whereas black subjects revealed a less observed than expected frequency. .Cell 7 disclosed the most significant data in Table 17. The black subjects observed frequency was markedly more than the expected frequency, whereas the white subjects revealed a frequency that was less than the expected. Cell 5 disclosed a more observed frequency by the white subjects and a less observed frequency by black subjects. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the black subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for soul music. In addition, cell 4 revealed a strong indifferent attitude by white subjects and a more favorable indifferent attitude toward soul music by black subjects. Chi-Square Apalysis of Preference Response for Spiritual Music Table 18 compares favorably with Table 17. The null-hypothesis was rejected as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of association was "mildly strong" between race and preference for spirituals. Four cells, 1, 2, 6, and 7, displayed significant chi-squares on the difference between race and preference for spirituals. Cells 1 and 2 demonstrated a more observed than expected frequency by white subjects and a less observed 75 th¢.o H e o n ma 66666.666 n 666666 N3666.666 u 6366 66666316666666 66666.666 u 66 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 666666-666 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 66666660666 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 x6666 66.666 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 666666u666 .6 666 666 H66 666 666 666 666 6666:6666 66666666666 .6 H6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 66663. 6 6 6 6 6 6 H 6666 QHMUM mucwwa GHQ 6066 an 06658 Hmsuanwmm 60w mmcommmu mucmHmmmHm mo mam»amcm mHMSUmlwno .ma manna 76 than expected frequency by black subjects. The 6th and 7th cells demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency by white subjects and a more observed than expected fre- quency by black subjects. The Kruskal4Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that black subjects revealed the strongest preference values for spiritual music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Classical Music The data on classical music and race was inconsis- tent with the data in Table 18. The null-hypothesis was rejected as revealed by the chi-square analysis (Table 19) although the level of significance was .05 rather than .01 reported in the previous data. A consistency with previous tables was the "very weak" degree of association between race and preference for classical music. The Kruskal-Wallis across variable indicated that white subjects demonstrated slightly stronger preference values for classical music. In addition, cell 4 disclosed a level of indifference by each race that varied somewhat from expected frequencies. Chifgguare Analysis of Preference Response for Light Classical Music No statistical significance existed in Table 20 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of asso- ciation was "very weak" between race and preference for i. .- ar- 77 m000.0 u e 0 n ma 6mnm.ma N 660606 «NmH.H u c300 mHHH631H6xmsHX *omm.ma u «N 6N.0 mm.a 00.0 mm.a >0.H 00.0 ma.0 mumsvmlflnu .m mma NON 06m 6mm 00H 00H 0N6 xocmsvmum HmUAumuomna .N 66H «ma Hum ohm 00m 00H mav hoswsvmum .H xumam Hm.0 0m.~ NH.0 mv.m wa.m 00.0 06.0 mumsvmlano .m had VmH HAN 606 66H mma 0mm aocmskum Hmowumnomna .N mma 66H mam «ma mma oma 0mm mocmsvmuh .H muanz b 0 m 6 m N a 006% mHMUm @UCGH 0H mHm 6066 an 06658 Hmowmmmau How mmcommmu oosmHmmmHm mo mammamcm mumsvmlwnu .ma magma 78 6666.6 u 6 6 u 66 666.66 u 666666 6666.6 n 6366 66666316666666 666.66 u 66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666-666 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 66666666666 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 66666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666u660 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 66666666666 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 66663 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 666m QHMUW QUfimHmmem an 06658 660666660 03066 How mmcommmu GUNH mucoummmum mo 666>66c¢ mumSUmlflnu .om 06969 79 light classical music. There was a complete independence between race and preference values for light classical music. Chi-Square Apalysis of Preference Response for Coupgry and western M The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 21 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of asso- ciation was "very weak" between race and preference for country and western music. Two cells, 6 and 7, demonstrated significant chi- squares on the difference between race and preference for country and western music. The white subjects displayed a more observed than expected frequency in cells 6 and 7 and the black subjects displayed a less observed than expected frequency in cells 6 and 7. The Kruska14Wallis across variable indicated that between the two races the white subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for country and western music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Eggponses for Folk Music The data on folk musicand race varied somewhat from previous disclosures. The degree of association was "weak" between race and preference for folk music. The null- hypothesis was rejected in Table 22 as revealed by the chi- square analysis. 80 GHMUW mUCGHGM 0“.“ 6666.6 u 6 6 u 66 {kmvo.mm N 660606 600m.m H c300 mMHHmZWmemSHM 6*mm0.mm n NN, 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666-666 .6 66 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 66666666666 .6 66 66 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 66666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666-666 .6 66 66 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 66666666666 .6 66 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 66663 6 0 m 6 m N 6 006m 0066 an 066:8 CH00603 0am muucsoo Mom mmcommmn mucmumwmum mo mammamcm mumsvmlano .6N manna .1365: 63.4.. .mlafl 81 6666.0 n e 0 n ma «6N06.666 u mmouum u«66mm.om6 n c300 maaamzwamxmsux «6m06.666 u «x mo.6m 66.66 06.0 N6.m 60.0 6~.w 66.0 mumsvmlano .m 066 com 606 mmm m66 vow 6mm 60:056666 66066660036 .6 666 666 666 666 6mm 666 666 666666666 .6 xomam 66.66 om.mm 66.0 66.6 60.6 «6.0 60.6 mumsvmlano .m ~66 ~66 vow m66 666 066 666 60cmsvmum 66066660636 .N 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 066:3 6 0 m 6 m m 6 606% mamom wocmuwmmum momu an U6msa xHOM How mmcommmu mucmummmum mo mammamcm mumsvmlano .NN manna 82 Five cells, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7, contributed sig- nificant chi-squares on the differences between race and preference for folk music. Cells 1, 2, and 3 demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency by the white sub- jects and a more observed than expected frequency by the black subjects. Cells 6 and 7 disclosed a more observed than expected frequency by the white subjects and the black subjects disclosed a less observed than expected frequency. The Kruskal4Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the white subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for folk music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Eggponse for Show Music The data in Table 23 was consistent with the disclo- sures on race and preference for folk music. One consis- tency was the "weak" degree of association between race and preference for folk music. Another consistency was the sig- nificant differences between race and preference for show music, thereby rejecting the null-hypothesis. Two cells, 1 and 7, disclosed significant chi- squares on the difference between race and preference by show music. Cell 1 revealed a-less observed than expected frequency by the white subjects and a more observed than expected frequency by the black subjects. Cell 7 disclosed a more observed than expected frequency by the white sub- jects and a less observed than expected frequency by the black subjects. 83 mMNN.o H e 0 H mm 66666.666 u 666666 666666.666 u 6366 66666316666666 66666.666 u 66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 666666-666 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 66666660666 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 66666 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 666666-660 .6 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 66666660666 .6. 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666666666 .6 66663 6 0 m 6 m N 6 momm ®HMUW MUCGHmm 0Hm $066 an owmse 3036 60m mmcommmn mucoummmum mo mammamcm mumsvmlwnv .mm manna 84 The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the white subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for show music. Summary Nine of the ten music categories revealed statistical significant differences between race and music preference; only light classical music deviated. The degree of associa- tion between race and music preference was as follows: the blues, classical, light classical, country and western, and jazz categories revealed "very weak" degrees of association with race. The folk and show categories revealed "weak" degrees of association and the soul and Spirituals revealed "mildly strong" degrees of association with race. The re- sults of the difference between race and music preference were as follows: (1) The white subjects revealed the strongest preference values for rock and roll music. (2) The black subjects revealed the strongest preference values for jazz music. (3) The black subjects revealed the strongest preference . values for the blues. (4) The black subjects revealed the strongest preference values for soul music. (5) The black subjects revealed the strongest preference values for spirituals. (6) The white subjects revealed the strongest preference values for classical music. 85 (7) There was complete independence between race and preference values of light classical music. (8) The white subjects revealed the strongest preference values for country and western music. (9) The white subjects revealed the strongest preference values for folk music. (10) The white subjects revealed the strongest preference values for show music. Musical Experience Chi-Square Analysisgof Preference Response for Rock and Roll Music The null—hypothesis was rejected in Table 24 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. In addition, the extent of association was "very weak" betweenmusical experience and preference for rock and roll music. Three cells, 2, 5, and 7, revealed significant chi- squares on the difference between musical experience and preference for rock and roll music. The 6-12 months eXpe- rience group disclosed a more observed than expected fre- quency in cell 2 and a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The 8 or more year group demonstrated more ob- served than expected frequencies in cells 5 and 7. The Kruska14Wallis down variable indicated that the 8 or more years experience group demonstrated slightly stronger preference values for rock and roll music. 865 mmmo.o n 9 0m H mm 666.6 n 666666 66666.66 6366 66666316666666 666.66 u 66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666-666 .6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 666666666 66666666666 .6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 666666666 .6 mummy 0602 Ho unvam 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666u666 .6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 666666666 66666666666 .6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 666666666 .6 mHmflNp Gm>0m 65m XHm 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666-666 .6 666 666 66 66 66 66 66 666666666 6666666o666 .6 666 666 666 66 66 66 66 666666666 .6 mummw m>6m 0cm 6506 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666-666 .6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 666666666 66666660666 .6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 666666666166 mummfl 066:9 cam 039 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666-666 .6 66 66 66 66 66 6 6 666666666 66666660666 .6 66 66 66 66 6 66 66 666666666 .6 66m» 0:0 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 666666-660 .6 666 666 666 666 66 66 66 666666666 66666660666 .6 666 666 666 666 66 66 66 666666666 .6 66666: 6>6636ux66 06.6 60.0 00.0 60.0 66.0 60.6 60.0 mumsvml6no .m 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 666666666 66666666666 .6 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 666666666 .6 mflucoz 0>MhIOH®N 6 0 m 6 m N 6 moam6ummxm 6606652 06606 mucmumwmum muco66mmxm 6606655 6n 06656 6606 can #006 606 mmcommmu 60:0606066 60 m6m>6mcw m6msqml6no .6N 66666 87 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Respgnge for Jazz Music Table 25 revealed a significant difference between musical experience and preference for jazz. Therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. In addition to the significant difference, the degree of association was "very weak" between musical experience and preference for jazz. Three cells, 1, 2, and 6, demonstrated significant chi-squares on the difference between musical experience and preference for jazz music. The 0-5 months experience level disclosed a less observed than expected frequency in cells 1 and 2 and a more observed than expected frequency in cell 6. The Kruskal‘Wallis down and across variables indi— cated that the 0-5 months experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for jazz music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Blues Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 26 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Also the strength of association was "very weak" between musical experience and preference for the blues. Two cells, 1 and 5, disclosed significant chi-squares on the difference between musical eXperience and preference for the blues. No statistical significance was found in the down and across Kruskal4Wallis variables. The 0-5 months expe- rience group demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency in cell on and a more observed than expected 853 nmmno.o n 9 cm n ma «*nno.ma u mmouom “«*maa.om czoc madamzuamxmsux *«Hmn.maa u «x ¢H.o mm.~ mm.m mH.o no.o mm.~ mm.o mumsvmuflcu .m o¢ om mm mm nm mm mm xocmsvmum amoflumuowne .~ mm Ho vs Nw mm ma mm xocmsvmum .H mummfi muoz Ho unmflm Ho.~ mH.o mm.o mo.o m>.m mn.¢ vo.H mumsvmufino .m ov om mm mm on mm mm aucmswmum Hmoflumuomns .N am 5v Vm ow m¢ hm Hm xucmsvmum .H mummfi cm>mm 02m xfim vs.~ oo.o m~.m Ho.o NV.H no.0 nn.m mumsvmuflnu .m mp mm moa oh mo “V on xucmsumum amoflumuomne .m mm om mad mo ms m¢ vm aocmsvmum .a mummfi w>am cam Mach oo.~ ¢m.m mm.o oo.o mm.o m¢.o on.a mumsvmuflnu .m mv mm mo Av mm mm av xocmswmum amoflumuomca .m mm mm om mv vm Hm om mocmsvmum .H mummw mmune flaw O39 H~.m «m.m on.a m¢.a mH.o hm.m no.0 mum=Umuflno .m ma mm hm ma 5H NH ma mucmswmuw Hmoflumuowna .N om va cm mm vH m mm mocmsumum .H ummw mco Ho.o oa.a mo.m Ho.o ma.o mo.a mm.o mumsvmnfino .m Vma Hod qwm oma mma ooa oma aocmsvmuu Hmoflumuomna .m mma mud mma Hma mma oaa mma mucmsvmum .H mfiucoz 0>H 03Bl NM w mm.o hm.¢a o~.a ~m.~ ma.~ «o.v mm.~ mumawmnflno .m Nv mm do Av mm mm H¢ mocmsvmuw Hmufluouomce .m mw om oh am am ma om mocmsvmum .H mSUGOZ 0>H .mIOHmN h o m v m m H wocmaummxm amowmsz mamom mocmumwwum mocmauwmxm HmmesE an UHmSE numfl new mmcommwu museummwum mo mwmxamcm mumsvmlflno .mN oHQmB £39 mmoo.o M 0m H ma th.o H mmouom “vmm.m CBOU mHHHmZImemsux «¥¢Oa.an u Nx Ho.o o¢.o mm.o No.0 ma.o mo.~ ma.o mumsvmnflnu .m Nv mm Ho av wm mm mm xocmsumum Hmoflumuomna .m Av mm we ow om om om aocmsvmum .H mummw wuoz Ho unuflm hm.a Ha.o oo.m om.m mo.o Hm.o ¢H.o mumswmufiso .m Av mm Ho H¢ mm mm mm aocmsvmum Hmoflumuomce .m ¢m mm o¢ mm mm mm on aocmsvmu@1.H mumww Cm>mm USN me m~.o mn.o o~.o Ho.o mm.o mo.o n~.o mumswmnflsu .m @n ma oHH m» cm o¢ mm mocmsvmuu 4m0flumuomne .~ mp om mad «5 ¢o sq vm xocmsvmumlwa mummy 0>ALW USN HDOh N~.o mm.o mo.o 5H.H mm.o mm.o m~.o mumswmufino .m v¢ mm mm mq mm mm vm mocwswmum Hmuaumuomna .~ nv mo no om Hm vN um mucmsvmum .H mummN wwufifi USN 03H. m~.o na.o m~.H vo.a mH.H ma.o nm.m mumsvmnflno .m ma vm mm ma ma ma ma mucmswmum Hmoflumuomns .m AN mm mm mm HA HA - aucmsvmum .H Hmmw wco mH.o ma.o oo.a mo.o Hm.o om.m m~.H mumsvmudnu .m mma mom va oma mma moa vma aocmsvmum Hmofiumuomna .m mma sow ¢H~ mma QNH «NH and aucmsvmum .H mnucoz m>aw39uxam m~.o wm.a n~.ma ma.~ n~.~ oo.~ mo.m mumskufino .m mv mm «o m¢ mm mN vM xocmswmum Hmuduouomna .N “v av mm mm vc am om mucmswmum .H r mnucoz m>dmloumN s o m w m m H mocmflummxm Hmofimsz mamom mocmummmum wocmwummxm HmuflmsE an oamse mwsan new omcommmu mocmumumum mo mflmxamcm mumswmlfino .om manms 9O frequency in cell 5. The 0—5 months experience group dis— played slightly stronger preference values for the blues music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Soul Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 27 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. In addition to the significant difference, the strength of association was "very weak" between musical experience and preference for soul music. Three cells, 1, 5, and 7, disclosed significant chi- squares on the difference between musical experience and preference for soul music. The 6-12 months experience group demonstrated a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7 and the 6 and 7 years experience group demonstrated a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a less ob- served than expected frequency in cell 7. The 8 or more years experience group disclosed a more observed than ex- pected frequency in cell t and a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the 8 or more years experience group disclosed slightly stronger preference values for soul music. A significant more observed than expected chi-square was demonstrated by the 6 and 7 years experience group in cell 4. 91. mohmo.o u 6 mm H ma xioom.oo u mmouom u«*mmm.oos u czoo mossmz.amxmsux «*ooo.0na u Nx 00.5H vH.m ev.m~ no.0 mo.m mo.s v~.0 mumoomunoo .m ama so am so on as on socmsomum Hmooumuomna .N 00 mo mm 00 am on NH mocmoomum .H mummy muoz no ungflm N~.ms no.0 no.0 00.0H mo.H mm.m mm.o oumoomunco .m ova 0v am am on as on socmoomum Hmosomuomne .0 nos am on so am 0H mm sucmoomum .H mumm? G®>®m mucm Xflm no.0 0H.H ~0.H no.0 no.0 v~.m mv.0 mumsomunno .m 000 mm mm mm mm 0N mm socmsomum Hmooumuomns .m 00m me me mm an em om mocmsomum .H mummw m>Hm 0cm “dom mo.o no.0 mo.o no.0 om.0 no.0 HH.~ mumoomnnno .m 00H 00 mm NN 5H NH ma zoomsomuw Hmooumuomna .m 00H mo om AN 00 as o aucmsomum .H mummw mouse cam O39 Ho.s m0.0 00.0 mo.~ 00.H 00.0 No.0 mumoomnono .0 00 Am 0H 0H s m o scamsomuw smooumuomca .N om om NH ms 0H m NH scamsomum .H Ham» moo mm.os m~.m 00.0 w¢.m ma.» no.¢ No.0 mumsomnnno .m mom ens was Ho so no mm mocmsomum Hmouumuomns .~ moo mma 00H oo oo 0m 00 socmsooum .a mouse: o>Hmzsuxnm no.0 oo.v 00.0 no.0 No.0 m~.H vo.~ mumoomuono .m ems mo mm mm es NH on suamoomum Hmuoumuomna .~ omH we mm 0H 0H m o scamsomum .H mfiufloz 0>HhIOHmN h m m g m m A mucmaummxm Hmowmsz mamom mocmumwmum mocmfluomxm Hmoamoe an canoe Anew new oncommmu mocmumwmum mo mammamcM mumsvmuflnu .hm manna 92 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference gggponse for Spiritugl Music Table 28 revealed a significant difference between musical experience and preference for spirituals; therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. The degree of association was "very weak" between musical experience and preference for spirituals. Three cells, 1, 2, and 6, revealed significant chi- squares on the difference between musical experience and preference for spirituals. The 6-12 month experience groups disclosed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 2 and the 6 and 7 year experience group disclosed a more ob— served than expected frequency in cell 2. Cell 1 revealed a more observed than expected frequency by the one year experience group and cell 5 revealed a less observed than expected frequency by the one year experience group. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the 6-12 month experience group disclosed the strongest preference values for spiritual music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Classical Music Table 29 revealed a significant difference between musical experience and preference for classical music, thereby rejecting the null-hypothesis. In addition, the strength of association was "very weak" between musical eXperience and preference for classical music. €93 0000.0 u a 0m u on *«mno.- u mmouom “*«omo.nm n 0300 mnnnmzunmxmsuz *«nnn.v~n u ox o~.n 00.0 «0.0 no.0 mm.0 00.0 ~0.n mumsomunno .m no we om em em mm mm mocmoomum nmonumuomns .~ 0m nm No mm hm om no nocmsvmum .n mummw muoz no unqnm 00.0 om.~ 00.0 00.0 om.0 n~.nn mo.¢ mumsomnnno .m ov me mm on em mm mm mucmsomum nmonumuomna .~ mm mm mm mm no he no socmsomum .n mummmp Cw>mm 02m XHm on.n sn.o on.0 00.0 ~o.n No.0 nn.o wumsomunno .0 mm mm 0» mo me mm own nucmsooum nmonumuowna .N no on 0o 00 no we own nocmsommm .n whom» m>nm cam usom no.0 ~0.~ 00.0 oo.n m~.o 00.0 «0.0 mumsomunno .m as we no 00 mm no me socmsomum nmunumuomna .N 0m mm mm on ow om o0 sucmsomum .n mung? mouse com 039 m~.n 00.nn 55.0 mn.0 00.0 om.o no.0n mumsemunso .0 no no on en nn on no nucmsomnw nmonuouomna .m on m on on on on em nucmzemum .n Ham? GEO o~.m ~n.0 00.0 no.0 oe.~ 0m.on v~.n mumsomunno .m sen wen own omn mo nnn vow aocmoomnm nmunumuomns .m mom mnm own omn he he mom nocmoemum .n mnucoz m>nm38Ixnm om.o 0~.o vo.~ mm.~ em.o no.0 00.0 mumsemunno .0 me we no mm mm 00 on nocosomum noonumuoone .N nm we no 00 mm no no socmoomum .n u mnucoz m>nmlouwN h o n v m N n mononuwmxm nounmsz onmom oucmuowoum coconuomxo amonmsé an cause amoununmm How uncommon oocwumumum mo mnmhnmcm mumsvmlnnu .mN manna 94: nnmn.0 u a on n no niomo.mn mmouom usioom.ovm c300 mnnanunmxmonx *«ooo.vom n «x on.no mo.n mm.n nm.n mm.m nm.o mm.o~ mumsomnnno .m nm mm me me mm 00 on nocmsomnw nmonumnomne .m mo mm no nm nm on on nocmoomnm .n mnmww mnoz no unmnm 0v.m m~.m No.~ no.0 no.0 om.~ mm.~n .mnmsomunno .m on mm we we mm on on nucmoomnn nmonumnomns .m om mm mm ow nm nm mo nocmseonm .n mumww cm>mm pom xnm em.~ 00.0 on.o nn.o nn.¢ oo.n nn.v mumsomunso .m we mo 00 on mm mm nmn nocmsownn noonumuomce .N no we no no on no won nocmsomum .n mummw m>nh pom unom mm.0 no.0 mn.~ mn.0 mo.n vo.0 0n.m oumoomunco .m on no no no am no nn nocmsomum nmonumnomga .m mm mm on no mo 00 m0 nocmoomuwnun mummw mouse was 039 om.n oo.m oo.n oo.n 00.0 no.0 on.nm mnmoomunno .0 mn on mm on on on mm nucmsemnm nmonumnoone .~ 0 n 0 on on mn 00 nocmsemum .n woo» woo no.0n no.nn nm.m oo.n 00.0 -.m om.on wumoomunno .0 non mmn eon oon mmn mnn oom noamsomuu nmonumuomne .n nm mo Non mmn .mmn nmn mom nocmoomum .n mcucoz m>nm39|xnm on.m nm.~ mm.o no.0 ov.n no.0 v0.0 mumoomnnno .m on no om we on no nn nocmoomnn nmonumuomne .m 00 no nn ow nm on 00 nocmsowum .n mcucoz w>nmlonmN n w m g m N n coconuwmxm Hmonmsz mnmom mocmnmmwnm mocmnuomxm Hmonmse an Unmsfi nmonmmmno now wmcommwu mocmnwmmnm No mnmhnmCm mumsgmlnno .mm magma 95 Four cells, 1, 5, 6, and 7, significant chi-squares on the difference between musical experience and preference for classical music. The 6-12 month and one year experience groups revealed more observed than expected frequencies in cell 1 and the 6 and 7 year and 8 or more years experience groups revealed less observed than expected frequencies in cell 1. Further, the 6-12 month experience group revealed less observed than expected frequencies in cell 6 and 7. The 8 or more years eXperience group demonstrated more ob- served than expected frequencies in cells 5, 6, and 7. The Kruskal4Wallis down and across variables indi- 'cated that the 8 or more years experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for classical music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Light Classical Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 30 as revealed by the chi-square anlysis. Further, the strength of association was "veryweak" between musical experience and preference for light classical music. Five cells, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 revealed significant chi-squares on the difference between musical experience and preference for light classical music. The 6-12 months and one year experience groups demonstrated a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1. In addition the 6-12 months experience group revealed a less observed than expected fre- quency in cell 7. The 8 or more years experience group 965 oonn.0 n e on u on «*mmm.no mmoHom “osmon.0on czoo mnnnmzunmxmonx nooon.voo u ox nn.om oo.on oo.o om.n 00.nn oo.0w oo.oo mumsomunoo .o oo om om no oo oo ow noomoooun nmonumnomns .o on on on oo 6 on on mocmoomom .n mnmow one: no unmnm oo.o oo.0 no.0 on.n om.e oo.0 so.o mumsomunno .m om no om oo oo no mo nocmovmno nmonumuomns .o nm on oo oo nn 0o no nanosemum .n mummy. C0>0m Cam XHm oo.0 oo.0 v0.v 00.0 no.0 00.0 no.m mumsomnnoo .o oo oo mon mo nm oo oo nocmoomnn nmonumnomns .o mo om oon mo om 0o mo nucmoomnm .n mummw m>nm com noon oo.0 oo.0 on.n on.0 o0.o oo.0 0v.o wumsomunno .m no nm oo oo oo oo om nocmoomno nmonumnomcs .o no mm mm mm mm mo mo nocmsomum .n mummw mouse com 039 on.n om.o on.n nn.0 oo.n oo.0 oo.on mumsomunco .m on mo no nn on on oo nocmsomno nmUnumuomns .o on on on on on on on nocmsomum .n “mow 0:0 mo.mn m0.v on.n no.0 oo.o oo.m o0.on mumsomunno .m non oon moo oon oon oon won nocmoomoo noonumoomne .o mo won moo non oon oon moo nocmsomum .n mnucoz w>H03BIXHm on.n oo.0 00.0 no.m oo.0 o0.m v0.n mumoemunno .o oo om o0 on on mo nm nocmsomuo nmonumnomns .o no om oo 0m 0o on we noomsomum .n mcucoz 0>nmI0umN n o m v m N n mocmnuomxm nmunmsz mnmom mocmuwwmnm coconummxm noUanE >9 UanE Hmonmmmnu ucmnn no“ uncommon moconmmmum mo mnmxnmcm mumsvmlnco .om manna 97 disclosed a less observed than expected frequency in cells 1, 2, and 3 and a more observed than expected frequency in cells 6 and 7. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the 8 or more years experience group disclosed the strongest preference values for light classical music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Country and Western m The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 31 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Beyond the significant difference the degree of association was "very weak" between musical experience and preference for country and western music. Two cells, 6 and l, disclosed significant chi-squares on the difference between musical experience and preference for country and western music. The 6-12 month experience group demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency in cell 6. Further, the 4 and 5 year and 6 and 7 year experience groups disclosed a more observed than expected frequency in the 6th and 7th cells. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the 4 and 5 plus the 6 and 7 years experience groups disclosed the strongest preference values for country and western music. 98 onmo.o u a mo n ma «*ooo.oo omenom hInomoo czoo mnnnmznnmnmsnx «*noo.on u ox no.n nm.0 om.n no.0 oo.0 mm.0 nm.0 mumsomunno .o nn no oo oo no oo oon nocmsomno nmonuonomna .o on oo oo oo no no oo nuamsomum .n mummw who: no unmnm nn.0 0o.o oo.0 on.o 00.0 on.0 no.0 mumsomunnu .o on no oo oo oo oo oon nocmooooo noonumuomco .o oo oo oo oo oo oo no nucmsomum .n mHwa Sw>wm USN Nam mo.0 oo.o oo.o oo.0 oo.0 oo.n on.m onmsomunso .o oo oo nm om oo mn mon nucmoomuo nmonumuomne .o oo om nn nn on oo omn nuamsomnm .n mHNON 0>..n..m USN Hflom on.0 mo.o oo.0 oo.0 no.0 00.0 oo.0 momsomunso .o nn oo oo no oo oo oon nocmsomno noonumuomno .o on oo oo mo no oo oon nocmoomnm .n mHNwW QTHQB USN O39 oo.0 nn.0 no.0 oo.v oo.0 oo.n oo.0 mumoomnnso .o o o mn on nn on no nocmoomno nmonuwnomca .o o on on oo on on oo oucmsomuo .n HNNM mSO v0.n 0o.on no.0 on.o oo.0 on.o 0m.o oumoomunno .o oo on oon oon oon oon moo nocmnomnn noonuouomns .o mm no mnn omn oon oon moo nocmsomno .n mango: m>nm3euxnm oo.n ov.o oo.0 nm.o oo.n on.o oo.o mumsomunno .o nn oo oo no oo oo oon nucmsomoo noonumuomna .o oo on oo oo oo mm non nocmsomno .n mSUSOZ wordlmlOHmN n o m v m N n mocmouomxm amonmsz onmom ooconmwoum mononuomxm HmUMmDE kn Uamse Cumumm3 cam xuuczou new wmcommwn mocmuwwwnm mo mnmhamcm mumsvmlnnu .Hm wanna 99 Chi-Square Analysigfof Preference Response f9; Folk Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 32 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Beyond the significant difference the strength of association was "very weak" be- tween musical experience and preference for folk music. Four cells, 1, 2, 6, and 7, demonstrated significant chi-squares on the difference between musical experience and preference for folk music. The 6-12 month experience group revealed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. In addition, the 8 or more years experience group revealed less observed than eXpected frequencies in cells 1 and 2 and more observed than eXpected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the 8 or more years experience group revealed the strongest preference values for folk music. th;§guare Analysis of Preference Response for:§how Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 33 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. As in previous tables, the degree of association was "very weak" between musical experience and preference for show music. Three cells, 1, 6, and 7, demonstrated significant chi-squares on the difference between musical eXperience and preference for show music. The 0-5 months experience group disclosed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. 1130 monn.0 u 0o u on *xv0m.mh mmOHUm “escho.mmn S3OU wnaaCZImemsux #«QON.va u NX mm.nn no.0 on.n vv.o nm.o mn.mn nm.mn mumsvmlnco .m oo mo no mo oo oo oo nocosomuo noonumnomca .o oo 0o om oo oo on oo nocmsoooo .n mumww muoz no ucmnm no.o o0.n m0.0 on.0 oo.o on.0 oo.m womsomunno .o oo oo oo mv oo mo no nocmooono nmonumnomce .o 0m 0m oo oo mo oo oo nocmoomum .n mummy cm>om 0cm xnm on.n o0.n no.n oo.o oo.n oo.0 om.n mumsom|nno .o om oo oo 0o no em 0nn nocmoomum nmonumnomne .o om om oo oo on 0o no nucmoomnm .n whom? w>nm pom noom m0.0 om.0 on.o on.n oo.0 oo.0 oo.n mumoomnnco .o Vo no oo no mo no mo nooooomoo noonumnomns .o oo no oo 0v no ov on nocmsomum .n mHNmN GNHSB USN 03h. mo.m 0o.o oo.0 nn.o mn.0 no.n no.o mumsomunco .o mn on no 0o on on oo nocmoomoo noonumnoons .o o o mo no on on oo nocooomnm .n woo» woo mm.nm vn.m vw.n nm.n no.n no.n ov.m mumovmlnco .m oon oon mnn nnn oon oon moo nucmsomno nmonumuomne .o om 0nn oon oon oon oon ooo nocmoomum .n mLuSOZ N>Hw39lem mm.0n oo.0 om.0 om.o 0o.o oo.0 no.0 mumsomnnno .o oo oo oo no mo no om nocmsomuo nmonuwuomne .o om mo om oo oo vo om nucmsownm .n mnucoz m>nmnonoN n o m v m N a mononummxm nounmsz wnmom wocmuwwoum oucmnnwmxo Hmonwos an UnmSE xnow now mmcoomon moconouono mo wnmxnmcm oncsvmtnzo .Nm Gnocfi l()l ooon.o u oo u on ooo.on moonom “ooooo.non c3oo mnnnmznnmxmoux oonon.oon u ox on.oo no.o oo.o o0.n on.o nn.o 0o.oo mumsomunoo .o oo 0o oo no no oo oo nocmoomuo nmonomnomos .o on 0o om no mo oo ow nucosomum .n mono» ouoz no ungnm om.n om.o oo.0 00.0 no.0 oo.0 oo.n mnmoomunoo .o oo 0o oo no no oo no nocosomno noonuwnowoe .o oo oo no no oo 0o 0o nucooomuo .n mnmow cm>mm com xnm mo.o mo.o on.0 nn.o oo.o mo.o oo.0 mumsomunoo .o oo om oo oo oo om oon nocwoomuo noonumnomne .o no oo no 0o 0o no non noamsomnm .n mHNQN Torah USN HDOh oo.0 oo.0 0o.o oo.0 oo.0 on.n no.o mumoomunoo .o oo oo no oo oo oo oo nucoooouo noonomuoooe .o oo no oo oo oo no onn oucmsomnm .n mHNNN ONHSH. USN 03.5 oo.o oo.0 on.o oo.0 mo.o oo.0 oo.0n momsomunoo .o on on on nn on on oo nocmsomuo noonumuooce .o o on m on on on oo nocmsomoo .n now? moo mo.on om.o mm.n 00.0 no.0 oo.o oo.n mumsomunno .o non onn oon non oon oon ovo nucmsoouo noonomuomce .o oo no non non mon omn noo nocmsooum .n mcucoz o>no3elxnm nn.on on.on oo.0 mm.n oo.0 oo.n on.nn oumovmunno .o no no no oo oo oo 0o noooaoono noonomuomno .o oo oo oo no oo oo oo nocosomum .n NSUSOE 0>HWIOH0N n o m ¢ m N a mononuomxm Hmonmsz onmom moconououm moconnmmxo nonnwoe an UnmoE 302m MOM omcommon mocmummmnm mo mnmhnmcm mumsgwlnzo .mm mnnma 102 A less observed than expected frequency was also disclosed in cell 7 by the 6-12 month experience group. The 8 or more years experience group revealed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and more observed than eXpected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The Kruskal4Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the 8 or more years experience group revealed the strongest preference values for show music. S ummar y The null—hypothesis was rejected in the data on music preference and musical experience. In addition, the degree of association was "very weak" between music prefer- ence and musical experience. The following disclosures were made: (1) The 8 or more years experience group demonstrated slightly stronger preference values for rock and roll music. (2) The 0-5 months experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for jazz. (3) The 0-5 months experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for blues music. (4) The 8 or more years eXperience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for soul music. (5) The 6-12 months experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for spiritual music. 103 (6) The 8 or more years experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for classical music. (7) The 8 or more years experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for light classical music. (8) The 4 and 5 years and the 6 and 7 years eXperience groups demonstrated the strongest preference values for country and western music. (9) The 8 or more years experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for folk music. (10) The 8 or more years experience group demonstrated the strongest preference values for show music. School Level ghi:§guare Analysis of Preference Response for Rock and Roll Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 34 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of associa- tion was "very weak" between school level and preference for rock and roll music. Cells 1, 2, and 5 revealed significant chi-squares on the difference between school level and preference for rock and roll music. Cells 1 and 2 disclosed a more ob- served than expected frequency by the junior high subjects and a less observed than expected frequency by the college subjects. Cell 5 revealed a less observed than expected 104 ooon.0 u on u on ooono.no u mmouom “onn.nn u csoo mnnnmzwnmxmsum oomon.oo u ox oo.o on.o oo.o no.0 0o.o mo.o oo.n mumsomunoo .o noo noo oon 0o on om om nocooomno nmonomnomne .o ono ooo ooo oo nn oo oo noamsomum .n wmeHOU om.o oo.o on.0 mn.o no.0 no.o 00.0 mumsomunno .o ooo ooo ooo oon oon on nn oucmooouo noonomuomna .o ooo ono ooo mon oo oo nn nocmsomuo .n HOOSUW SOME HOHSwm oo.0 oo.n mo.o oo.o oo.o nn.n no.o mumoomunno .o ooo oon oon om on no om oucmoomuo nounumuomna .o ono onn oon oon on oo on nucmoomnm .n noonum,nonm Honcoo n o o v o o n nm>mn noonoo @HNUM wUSmHmwme Hm>oa noonom mp canoe anon pom Moon new oncommmu mocmnmwoum mo mommamcm mumsvmlwno .vm manna 105 frequency by the junior and senior high subjects and a more observed than expected frequency by the college subjects. The KruskaIAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the school levels differed in their preference for rock and roll music. College subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for rock and roll music. Chi-gouare Analysis of Preference Response for Jazz Music Several similarities in Table 34 are found in Table 35. Among the similarities was the significant differ- ence between school level and preference for jazz music as revealed by chi-square analysis, thereby rejecting the null- hypothesis. In addition, the strength of association was "very weak" between school level and preference for jazz music. Four cells, 1, 2, 5, and 6, displayed significant chi-squares on the difference between school level and preference for jazz. Cells 1 and 2 revealed a less observed than expected frequency by the college subjects and a more observed than expected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects. Cells 5 and 6 demonstrated a more observed than expected frequency by the college subjects and also observed a more than expected frequency by the junior and senior high school subjects. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that college subjects demonstrated the strongest 106 mmmn.0 u e on u on ooooo.0on n mmouum NInoonnn u coco mnnnmzwnmxmonx ooonn.oon u ox on.o no.oo oo.on on.n nn.o oo.on oo.oo mumsomunno .o oon non mnn onn 0nn on onn nocmsomuo noonomuomna .o oon ono moo oo oo 0m om nocmoomum .n MNTHHOU no.o oo.o ov.n oo.o om.n om.n on.n mumoomunno .o nnn ono ooo non mon nnn non nucmsomuo nmonomnomoa .o nmn oon noo oon nnn oon oon nocmsomnm Mn: nooooo sons noncmo oo.0 oo.o oo.o o0.n oo.o no.o oo.on mumsomunno .o onn «on 0nn onn oon on onn nocmoomuo nmonomuomne .o oon oon non oon non no oon nocmsomum .n nooooo nonm Hencoo n o o o o o n nm>mn noonoo mnmom oucouowoum noocom an comes unmm Mom omcommou mocmummmnm no>on mo mnmwnmcm oumovmlnno .mm onnms 107 preference values for jazz music. In addition, college subjects also demonstrated a significant indifferent attitude toward jazz in cell 4. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Blues Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 36 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Beyond the significant difference the degree of association was "very weak" between school level and preference for blues music. Five cells, 1, 2, S, 6, and 7, revealed significant chi-squares on the difference between school level and the blues music. Cells 1 and 2 revealed a more observed than expected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects and a less observed than expected frequency by the college subjects. The 5, 6, and 7 cells demonstrated a less ob- served than expected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects and a more observed than expected frequency by the college subjects. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the college subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for blues music. College subjects re- vealed a significant indifferent attitude toward blues music in cell 4. 108 *xamm.maa u mmOHUm “*«mmm.aoa n mooa.o H e c300 monamzwnmxmsux NH mm H N **Nm®.HmH mnmom mocmuomoum no.n mo.o oo.oo oo.o nn.n nn.on om.no mumsomunno .o mon oon oon oon non oo oo nucmsoono noonomuomoe .o nmn oon noo oo oo oo no nocmoomnm .n momnnqw. on.n oo.n no.n oo.n 0o.o oo.o oo.o mumsomnnso .o nnn moo ooo onn oon nnn oon nuamsomuo nmonuouoosa .o omn ooo nno oon omn oon oon nocmoomno .n noonoo nonm noncmm no.n on.n oo.o oo.n nn.0 oo.0 no.on mumsomunnu .o oon oon nnn onn no on oo nocmsomuo nmonumuomna .o oon oon oon oon non om oon noamsomnm .n HOOSUm SEAN HOHSSh n o o o o o n nm>mn noonuo nm>oa noonom an Unmoe mwsnn How oncommmn on mocouwuoum mo mommnmCm mumsvmlonu .om magma 109 Chi-Square Apalysis of Preference Response for Soul Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 37 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of asso- ciation was "very weak" between school level and preference for soul music. Four cells, 1, 2, 6, and 7, revealed significant chi-squares on'the difference between school level and soul music. The college subjects demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency in cells 1 and 2 and a more observed than expected frequency in cells 6 and 7. The junior and senior high subjects demonstrated a more observed than ex- pected frequency in cell 1 and a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the college subjects demonstrated slightly stronger preference values for soul music. In addition, the senior high and college subjects demonstrated noticeably indifferent attitudes toward soul music in cell 4. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Spiritual:Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 38 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. The degree of asso- ciation was "very weak" between school level and preference for spirituals. 110 0HNUW mUCmemem nonn.o u e on u on ooono.oo n moonom “««ooo.oo u csoo mnnnmswnmxmoux «ooon.on u ox mo.o oo.o oo.n mo.o 0o.o oo.o no.vn mumoomnnno .o ooo oon oo oo oo oo oo nonwoowuo nmonomuomna .o ooo non non oo oo on nn mucusomum .n momnnmm oo.0 on.o on.o oo.o on.0 oo.o om.n mumsomnnno .o ooo non non 0o oo oo om nucmoomuo nmunumnomsa .o ooo 0nn non nnn nn oo oo nocwsomum .nxw HOOSUm SUMN HOwSmm oo.n nn.0 oo.0 on.0 on.o oo.o oo.o mumsomunno .o ooo oon om no oo oo oo nocmoomno nounumuomna .o ooo oon 0o oo om oo oo nonwoomum .MII noonuo nonm Henson n o o o o o n nm>mn noonom noonom an noose n50m How monommmu mocmuomonm mo mnmNHMCm mumdvmlnnu Ho>mn .hm magma lll noon.0 u e on u on ooooo.n0o u moonom “ooon.0oo u czoo mnnnmzwnmxmsnx ooooo.ooo u ox nn.oo nn.on no.o «0.0 00.0 om.o oo.on mumsomunoo .o oon oon nnn 0nn on mo ooo oucmsomno noonomuomoa .o ono oon oon oon on oo oo oucmsomum .n mmmHHOU on.n on.o no.n nn.0 om.o oo.o on.o mumsomunno .o oon oon oon oon oon oon ooo nocosoouo noonumuomna .o oon oon omn non oo oon ooo nocmsomnm .n nooooo non: nonaoo oo.on no.on oo.o no.0 no.n on.o oo.oo mumsomunoo .o oon oon onn oon 0n vo 00o noamoomuo nmunumnomne .o oo oo oo onn on oo nno nucmoomum .n nooouo oonm noncso n o o v o o n nm>mn noonoo mnmom moconmmoum noonom an onmsE amoununmm How monommmn moooumwoum mo mommnmom mumovmlonu no>on .mm magma 112 Three cells, 1, 6, and 7, demonstrated significant chi-squares on the difference between school level and spirituals. Cell 1 disclosed a less observed than expected frequency by the college subjects and a more observed than expected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects. Cells 6 and 7 disclosed a more observed than expected fre- quency by the college subjects and a less observed than expected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the college subjects revealed the strongest preference values for spirituals. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Classigal Music Table 39 varies somewhat from previous findings. The degree of association was "weak" between school level and preference for classical music which was a higher degree of association than previously reported in the section under consideration. Two disclosures were consistent with previous data; i.e., the significant difference between school level and preference for classical music as revealed by the chi- square analysis and the rejection of the null-hypothesis. Four cells, 1, 5, 6, and 7, demonstrated significant chi-squares on difference between school level and preference for classical music. Cell 1 disclosed a markedly less ob- served than expected frequency by the college subjects and a more observed than expected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects. Cells 5, 6, and 7 disclosed more 113 OHNUM mUSmHmmmHm nooo.o u e on u on «*noo.ono u mmooom "oonoo.noo u agoo mnnnmzwnmxmsum oooon.vov u ox oo.oo oo.oo oo.no on.o on.o oo.on oo.nvn mumoomunoo .o oo oon oon oon oo oo ooo oocmoomuo nmonoouomoa .o oon non noo nmn no «o no noamoomuo .n mmmHHOU oo.nn oo.n oo.o oo.0 oo.n oo.o oo.oo mumoomunoo .o onn oon moo oon oon oon ono nocwsowuo noonumuomoa .o oo oon oon onn oon oon ooo nucmsoouo .n HOOSUm Smdm HOHSmm oo.nn oo.on oo.nn on.o oo.0 no.o nn.oo mumsomunoo .o nn oon oon oon vo oo ono nonwoomno nmonumuomoe .o no oo oo oon oo non ono oocmoomuo .n nooooo nonm Honoso n o m o o o n nm>mn noonuo noosom an Unmoe nmonmmmno How omcommou oooouommnm mo mnmanmcm mumsvmlnno no>on .mm MHQNB 114 observed than expected frequencies by the college subjects and less observed than expected frequencies by the junior and senior high subjects. The Kruskal4Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the college subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for classical music. Chigfiquare Apalysis of Preference Response for Light Classical Music The data on school level and light classical music was consistent with the data in Table 39. The degree of association was "weak" between school level and preference for light classical music. The null-hypothesis was rejected as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Four cells, 1, 2, 6, and 7, revealed significant chi-squares on the difference between school level and light classical music. Cells 1 and 2 disclosed a less observed than expected frequency by the college subjects and a more observed than expected frequencies by the junior and senior high subjects. The college subjects disclosed a more ob- served than expected frequency in the 6th and 7th cells and the junior and senior high subjects disclosed a less observed than expected frequencies in the 6th and 7th cells. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that college subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for light classical music. 115 omoo.o u e on u on «*m¢a.mo~ u mmOHUm “*oovm.aom S306 meHMEWmemSHM *¥N¢¢.bmm u Nx no.no oo.oo nn.n oo.o oo.o oo.on oo.oo mumoomunoo .o onn omn onn 0nn oo oo. oon nocmsowno nounoouomna .o oon ooo ono onn no oo no noaosomum .n momnnmm oo.on oo.o on.0 on.o oo.0 oo.n. on.nn mumsomunoo .o oon ono ooo oon non mnn ooo moaooomuo nounoouomna .o onn ono ooo non non oon noo nuomsomuo .n HOOSUm SUHE HOwam on.n nn.oo no.o 0o.o on.o oo.n oo.oo mumsomunno .o nnn oon 0nn oon oo on own moamoomno nmonomuomoa .o oo oo oon non oon mo nno nucmoomnm .n HOOSUfl Swan HOdeh. n o o v o o n nm>mn noonoo mnmom mocmummoum an noose Hmonmmmno unmnn HOM monommou moooummmum mo mommnmcm mumswmlnco Hm>ma noonom .ov NHQNB 116 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Country and Western new; Table 41 revealed a significant difference between school level and preference for country and western music, thereby rejecting the null-hypothesis. The variance of association was "very weak" between school level and pref— erence for country and western music. Three cells, 2, 6, 7, revealed significant chi- squares on the difference between school level and country and western music. The junior and senior high subjects revealed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 2 and the college subjects disclosed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 2. Cells 6 and 7 disclosed a more observed than eXpected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects and a less observed than expected fre- quency by the college subjects. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the senior high subjects demonstrated the strong- est preference values for country and western music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Folk Musig Table 42 revealed a significant difference between school level and preference for folk music, thereby reject- ing the null-hypothesis. The variance of association was "very weak" between school level and preference for folk music. 117 ooon.0 u e on u on *«ooo.no u moonom uionooo u axon mnnnmzwnmxmoux *«noo.oo u ox oo.on oo.o oo.0 oo.o mo.o om.o 0o.o mnmoomunoo .o 0o oo oo nnn nnn non ono nocmoomno nmonumuomoa .o mo oo non oo oon oon ooo nucmsomnm .n mmmHHOU oo.n no.on oo.o oo.o oo.o 0o.o oo.n mnmoomnnno .o 0n oo oon oon oon onn ooo noomoomuo nmonomnomna .o oo onn oon nnn oon oon nno nocmoomuo .n nooooo oonm Hencmo oo.o oo.n oo.0 oo.o oo.n oo.n oo.0 mnmoomunoo .o oo 0o oo onn oon non ooo nocmoomuo nmonomnomoa .o no oo om non oo oon ono nunmoomuo .n HOOSUm SEAN HOHSSH n o m o o o n nm>mn noonoo QHNUW GUSOHQNOHQ nw>on noosom an canoe cumumo3 pom anacooo How mmcommon mocoummoum mo mnmhnmcm mumsvmlnno .nv manna 118 ooon.0 u e on u on ooonn.oon . moonom u««onn.oon u czoo mnnnm31nmxmonm oonno.oon u ox oo.oo no.0 on.o 00.0 00.0 oo.o oo.oo mumsomunno .o oo oon non oon oon non oon nonwoomno nmonnmuomne .o oon oon onn oon oon . no oon oozmoomno .n NMNHHOO nn.n oo.n oo.n no.o oo.o om.o no.o mumsomunzo .o oon oon oon non oon nmn ooo nucmsomuo noonnmuomoe .o non oon non oon oon oon ooo nocmsomno .n nooooo oonm noncmo no.on oo.o no.o oo.0 00.0 no.n no.on mumoomnnno .o oo oon oon oon oo oon onn nocmoomno nmunumuomne .o om om onn oon mo onn noo noomsomnm .n noonuo nonm Hencoo n o o v o o n nm>mn noonoo mnmom mocmnomoum noonom an UnmoE xnom How monommmu woomummmum mo Ho>mn mwmhamcm mnmovmlwno .Nv magma 119 The junior and senior high subjects disclosed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1; in addition, the college subjects disclosed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1. Cell 7 disclosed a less observed than expected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects and a more observed than expected frequency by the college subjects. The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the college subjects disclosed strongest prefer- ence values for folk music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Show Music Table 43 revealed a significant difference between school level and preference for show music, thereby reject- ing the null-hypothesis. Closely associated to these find- ings was the "very weak" strength of association between school level and preference for show music. Three cells, 1, 6, and 7, revealed significant chi- squares on the difference between school level and show music. Cell 1 revealed a more observed than expected fre- quency by the junior and senior high subjects and a less observed than expected frequency by the college subjects. Cells 6 and 7 revealed a more observed than expected fre- quency by the college subjects and a less observed than expected frequency by the junior and senior high subjects. 120 noon.o u e on u on ooooo.no u moonom “oonoo.onn n azoo mnnanwnmxmsnx ooooo.mon u ox no.no oo.nn oo.0 oo.o no.o oo.0 on.oo mnmoomunso .o oon 0o non onn oo oon ono nucmoomno noonomnomne .o non oon onn no oo oo oon nocmsomno .n NENAAOU no.on no.n oo.o on.0 nn.o on.0 oo.on mnmoomunoo .o oon oon nmn oon onn non ooo nocmsomno nmonumnomze .o oo vnn non oon nnn oon ooo nocmsomno .nxd HOOSUm SEAN HOASmm oo.o 0o.o oo.n oo.o 0o.o oo.0 oo.o mumsomunoo .o oon oo oon non on oo ooo nucmsomno nmonumnomoe .o on mo no non no non ono nocmsomum .n AOOSUm SEAN HOASSH. n o o o o o n nm>mn noonoo noonom an UnmsE 303w How monommou mocmnmmmnm mo mnmom mocmnmmmnm ‘llll ill Ho>mn mnmanmcm mumsvmlnno .mv manna 121 The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the college subjects demonstrated the strongest preference values for show music. Summary The null hypothesis was rejected in the data on music preference and school level. The degree of associa- tion was "very weak" in all categories except classical and light classical music, whereas the degree of association was "weak." A summary of the results is as follows: (1) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for rock and roll music. (2) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for jazz music. (3) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for blues music. (4) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for soul music. (5) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for spirituals. (6) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for classical music. (7) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for light classical music. (8) The senior high subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for country and western music. 122 (9) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for folk music. (10) The college subjects disclosed the strongest preference values for show music. Geographical Location Chi-Squareggpalysis of Preference Response forgRock and Roll Music The chi-square analysis in Table 44 revealed a significant difference between geographical location and preference for rock and roll music; therefore, the null- hypothesis was rejected. Along with the significant dif- ference Table 44 divulged a "very weak" strength of asso- ciation between geographical location and preference for rock and roll music. Three cells disclosed significant chi-squares on geographical location and preference for rock and roll music. Cell 7 revealed a less observed than expected frequency by the southern region and cell 3 revealed a less observed than expected frequency by the eastern region. Furthermore, the eastern region demonstrated more observed than expected fre- quency by the eastern region. Furthermore, the eastern region demonstrated more observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the eastern region demonstrated the strongest preference values for rock and roll music. 123 ooo0.0 u on u on oomoo.no moonom “oomon.oo u azoo mnnnozwnmxmonx ««ovo.no u ox oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o on.o no.0 mumsomunoo_.o 0n oo oo oo oo on on nocmsomno noonomnomoa .o oo oo oo oo on oo on nucmoomnm .n cuoummz on.on oo.0 no.o oo.o oo.nn on.n no.n mnmoomunno .o oon non onn oo no oo oo oucmsomno noonomuomoa .o vno oon no no no no oo nocmoomno .n cumummm no.on nn.o no.o oo.o oo.o oo.o no.n mumoomunno .o ooo ooo non oon oo no oo nucmsomno noonomuomoe .o ooo ooo ooo oo oo no on mocmsomnm .n cumnuoom 00.0 no.o oo.n nn.o no.n no.0 no.0 mnmoomunso .o ooo ooo moo onn no no mo nucmoomno nmonumuomoa .o ooo 0no ooo non oon oo no nocmsomno .n cumsuuoz n o o o o o n conomoon noonnomuoomo mnmom mocmummoum coAumuoH nmoonmmumomm an downs nnou pom xoon new mmcommmu mucmuomoum mo mammnmcm mumdvmlAnu .vv mASm& 124 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Jazz Music The data in Table 45 vary somewhat from disclosures on rock and roll music and geographical location. Beyond the significant difference the variance of association was "very weak" between geographical location and preference for jazz music. The null-hypothesis was rejected as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Two cells, 2 and 7, disclosed significant chi-squares on geographical location and preference for jazz music. The northern region demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7 and the eastern region demonstrated a more observed than eXpected frequency in cell 7. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the eastern region demonstrated the strongest preference values for jazz music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Blues Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 46 as orevealed by the chi-square analysis. The strength of asso- <:iation was "very weak" between geographical location and .Preference for the blues. Four cells, 1, 2, 6, and 7, disclosed significant Ck111-squares in the difference between geographical location a1710::‘1 preference for the blues. The western region disclosed more observed than expected frequencies in cells 1 and 2 and a 3less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The 125 0onn.o u e on u on, ooooo.oo u moonum hionoom u agoo mnnnmznnmxmonx *«ooo.mnn u ox . oo.o no.o oo.0 oo.o oo.0 on.on oo.o mumsomunno .o oo oo oo oo oo oo mo oocmsomno noonnmnomse .o oo 0o 0o no oo oo oo nucmoomno .n cumummz no.oo oo.o no.o oo.o no.o oo.o on.0 mnmoomnnno .o oo oon oon oo nn oo oo nocmsomno noonomnomoa .o oon oo onn oo nn oo oo oucmsomnm .n cumummm 00.0 no.o no.o no.o mo.o no.o no.0 mnmoomunoo .o non 0nn noo oon oon oo oon oucmsomno nmonomnomna .o non 0no ooo vnn mnn on oon nocmoomuo .n SHNSUSOM nn.on oo.n on.o no.o o0.n oo.n oo.0 mumsomunno .o nmn, non ooo nvn non oo non nocmsoouo nmonnmnoona .o oon 0nn ooo onn oon oon non oucmsomno .n cuonuuoz n o o o o o n conomuon nmonoomuoomo OHNUW mUcmthQHm COHumUOH nmownmmumoom an onmse NNmA How monommou mocmummoum mo mommnmcm oumowmlnno .mv manna 126 ooon.0 u e on u on ooooo.no moonom Niooooo u czoo mnnnmswnmnmsnm ooonn.oon u ox oo.on oo.o oo.o oo.0 on.0 oo.on oo.on mnmoomunoo .o no no oo oo oo oo oo ooomoomno nounumnomna .o on oo oo no oo oo 0o nocmsomum .n Guwumoz oo.on no.n oo.n oo.0 oo.n oo.o oo.n mumsomunoo_.o mo onn oon om nn om mo nocosomuo nmonumnomna .o oon oo onn oo no ov 0o nucmsomnm .n cumummm oo.o oo.nn no.0 oo.o oo.0 on.o oo.o mumsomunno .o oon oon ooo oon onn oo nnn mucosomno nmonomuomoa .o onn ooo ono oon oon on no nocmoomuo .n SHmSUSOm on.on oo.n oo.o oo.o no.o oo.n oo.n mnmoomunoo .o oon oon ooo oon oon oon non moamsowuo nmonomnomoe .o nnn oon ooo onn oon onn oon nocmsomno .n cumnuuoz n o o o o o n acnomuon noonoomuoooo MANUW GUSUHGMGHN an comes mosnn How monommou oocmuomoum mo mnmhnmcm mumovmlwno coAumUOH Hmonnmmumoom .mv manna 127 southern region demonstrated more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7 and the eastern region demon- strated a more than expected frequency in cell 7. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables re- vealed that the southern and eastern region demonstrated the strongest preference values for the blues music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Soul Music The extent of association was "weak" between geo- graphical location and preference for soul music. Table 47 revealed a significant difference between geographical loca- tion and preference for soul music; therefore, the null- hypothesis was rejected. Five cells, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, demonstrated signif- icant chi-squares on the difference between soul music and geographical location. The northern region revealed more observed than expected frequencies in cells 3, 5, and 6, and a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The southern region demonstrated less observed than expected frequencies in the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th cells and a more ob- served than expected frequency in cell 7. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables indi- cated that the southern region revealed the strongest preference values for soul music. One additional disclosure was the strong indifferent attitude expressed by the north- ern and southern regions in cell 4. 128 oooo.o u e on u on oonoo.mon u mmonum «oonoo.nno u czoo mnnnmzwnmxmsnx oooon.oov n ox oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.0 oo.o on.o on.n mnmoomunoo .o oon no oo on on on on nocmooono noonumnomos .o onn oo oo on nn oo oo nocmsomnm .n cumummz oo.0 oo.o nn.0 no.n no.o 00.0 oo.0 mumsomunoo .o ono oo oo oo oo oo oo nocmoomno noonnmuomse .o ooo oo oo no oo vo oo nocmsomuo .n cumummm oo.non on.on oo.no oo.on oo.oo no.nn oo.o mnmoomunno .o «no oon oon on oo oo no nocmoomno noonomuomno .o oon nnn oo oo no on oo nuamsomum .n cumnusom oo.oo oo.no oo.no mo.mo oo.on on.o oo.0 mumoomunoo .o ooo onn onn on oo oo oo nucmsomno nmonnmnomoe .o ooo ooo onn oon no oo oo nocmoomum .n cumnuuoz n o m o o o n conumoon nmonoomuoomo mHNOM GUCmHOM GHQ GOAuMUOH Hmonnmmumoom an Unmoa noon How wmcommmu mocmnmmmnm mo mnmhamcm mumsvmlonu .hv mASNB 129 Chi-Sgpare Analysis of Preference Response for Spiritual Music Table 48 disclosed a "weak" variance of association between geographical location and preference for spirituals. The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 48 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Six cells, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, revealed signifi- cant chi-squares on the difference between spiritual music and geographical location. The northern region revealed more observed than expected frequencies in cells 1, 2, and 3, in addition, the northern region revealed less observed than expected frequencies in the 5th, 6th, and 7th cells. The southern region demonstrated less observed than expected frequencies in cells 1 and 2 and more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. i The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the southern region demonstrated the strongest preference values for spiritual music. .th:§gnarey§palysis of Preference Eggponse fog Classical Music Table 49 disclosed a significant difference between gecgraphical location and preference for classical music thereby negating the null-hypothesis. In addition the Stlrength of association was "very weak" between geographical 1°<2ation and preference for classical music. 130 ovno.0 u e on u on *«ooo.o0n u moonom Ninoonoo u czoo mnnnmzwnmnmonx oonoo.o0v u ox oo.on oo.o oo.0 on.0 mo.o oo.0 oo.nn mnmoomunno .o no no mo oo no oo oo nocmsomno nmunumnomne .o on no 0o oo on no mo nucmsomuo .n cumumoz no.o oo.0 oo.o oo.o oo.n 0o.o oo.o mumsomunno .o oo oo oo nn no no oon oocmsomno noonomnomoe .o non oo oo on ov oo nnn nucmoomum .n Gnoummm oo.oo oo.no oo.n on.o mo.o oo.oo no.oo mnmoomunno .o oon oon oon oon oo oo ooo nucooomno noonnmnomne .o ooo ooo oon oon 0o oo non nocmoomno .n cuonusom oo.oo oo.oo oo.o oo.o no.on oo.oo on.on mnmoomunso .o onn nnn oon non 0o oon ooo nucmoomno nmonomnomns .o oo oon oon non oon nnn ooo nucmoomnm .n :umnunoz n o m w m N n ooAumooq HmoAnmmumoow GHNUW mUSmHmmmHm ma UAmDE amoununmm How mmcommou mocmnmmoum coAuMUOH Hmonnmmumoom mo mom»nm£m mumsvmlAso .mv oASme 131 ooon.0 u e on u on ooonn.on n moonum uinoooo u czoo mnnnmzwnmnmsux ooono.oo u ox on.o oo.o no.o no.o oo.0 oo.n oo.oo mnmoomunno .o oo no oo oo oo oo oo nocmoomno noonomnomon .o nn oo oo oo oo oo onn moamoomno .n cuoummz nn.n on.0 oo.o no.n oo.o nn.n oo.o onmsomunoo .o oo on oon vo oo oo oon nocmsomno noonnmnomne .o oo oo mon oon no oo oon nocmsomno .n cnoummm oo.o oo.0 no.0 no.n on.o on.0 nn.n mumsomunoo .o no oon oon oon onn non noo noomsomno noonomnoone .o no oon oon oon non no ooo nocmoomno .n Cumsusom on.o on.0 on.0 o0.n oo.0 no.o oo.0 mumsomunoo .o oon oon oon oon oon nnn mno nocmsomno nmunomnomoa .o oon non onn oon onn nnn 0no noomsomnm .n anonuuoz n o o v o o n connmoon nmonnomnoomo 0HNUm QUSmHmmmhm an noose nmonmmmno HOu omcommon moconomonm Mo mammnmcm ohmsvmlnnv coAumUOH Hmonnmmumomm .mv manna —~—"" 132 Two cells, 1 and 7, revealed significant chi-squares difference between geographical location and preference for classical music. The western region demonstrated a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and the northern region demonstrated a more observed than eXpected frequency in cell 7. The Kruskal#Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the northern and eastern regions disclosed slightly stronger preference values for classical music. Chi-Square Apalysis of Preference ReSponse for Light Classical Music Table 50 presented data that was consistent with classical music and geographical location. The degree of association was "very weak" between geographical location and preference for light classical music. The null- hypothesis was rejected as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Two cells, 6 and 7, demonstrated less observed than expected frequencies by the southern (6) and northern (7) regions, respectively. The eastern region disclosed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 2 and more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The Kruskal4Wallis down and across variables demon- strated that the eastern region revealed the strongest Preference values for light classical music. 133 mnmom mocmnomoum ooon.0 n e on u on oooon.oo n mmouom NIoonno u azoo mnnnmzwnmxosnx ooonn.oo u ox oo.o oo.0 nn.o no.o oo.0 oo.o om.o mumoomunno .o oo ov oo oo oo oo ow oucmsomno noonumuomoa .o vo oo oo oo oo oo oo noomsomno .n cumumoz oo.o om.o on.o oo.n oo.o on.on nn.o mumoomunno .o no oon oon nn 0o no oon nocmoomno nmonumuomne .o oon oon non oo oo oo oo nocmoomnm .n cumummm oo.o no.o oo.0 oo.0 oo.o on.0 oo.o mumsomunoo .o non onn noo oon no oo oon nucmsomno nmonnonomoa .o no oon ooo oon nnn om non nocmoomnm .n cumnusom no.o no.o oo.o oo.n no.0 0o.o on.o mnmoomunno .o oon oon ooo non non non oon nocmsomuo nmonnmnomoe .o oon non non oon oon nnn oon nocmoomnm .n cumnuuoz n o o o o o n conomoon noonnomnoomo >3 onmse Hmonmmmno unmnn How omoommou mocmuowmnm mo mAmhamcm mumsvmlnnu Godumoon noonnmmumomm .om oaNmB 134 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Country and Western Music Table 51 revealed a significant difference between geographical location and preference for country and western music, thereby rejecting the null-hypothesis. Beyond the significant difference the variance of association was "very weak" between geographical location and preference for coun- try and western music. The Kruska14Wallis across variable indicated that the western region demonstrated the strongest preference values for country and western music. In addition, the northern and eastern regions demonstrated noticeably in- different attitudes toward country and western music in cell 4. Chi-SguaregApalysis of Preference Response for Folk Music The extent of association was "very weak" between geographical location and preference for folk music. The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 52 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Two cells, 6 and 7, revealed significant chi-squares on the difference between geographical location and prefer- ence for folk music. The nOrthern region displayed more Observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7 and the Southern region revealed less observed than expected fre- quencies in cells 6 and 7. 135 o0oo.0 u e on u on ooooo.oo n moonom “no: u czoo mnnnmzwnmxmsnx ooooo.no u ox no.oo on.n no.o oo.n oo.o on.o v0.0 mnmoomunno .o on on oo oo oo no oo nocmsomno nmonumuomoa .o oo oo oo oo no mo 0o nonmoomno .n :Hoummz oo.0 oo.n oo.0 no.o oo.0 oo.0 oo.o mnmoomunoo .o oo oo no om nn oo ono nucmsomno nmonomuomon .o oo no oo no on no ooo nocmsomno .n cumummm oo.n oo.0 nn.o oo.o oo.o oo.n oo.0 mnmoomunno .o oo no oon oon oon oon ooo nocmoomno nmonowuomon .o no oo oon oon oon non ooo nocmoomnm .n oumnusom oo.o oo.0 no.0 oo.o 0o.o on.n no.o mumsomunoo .o oo nn onn oon oon non noo nucmoomno nmunnmnomon .o 0o om oon non oon onn ono nucmsomnm .n anonunoz n o o o o o n conomoon nmonsomuoomo mnmom mocmummmnm onmze cnoummB pom anucooo HOM omcommon mocmuomonm mo mnmanmcm mumsvmlnsu coAumUOH HMUAnmmumowm an .Hm magma 136 ooon.0 u e onuu on ono.oo ooonom «oooo.on u czoo mnnnmzwnmxoonx oonoo.onn u ox no.o oo.nn on.o oo.o oo.n 00.0 oo.o mumsomunno .o oo no oo 0o 0o oo om ooomoomno nmonomnomon .o no 0o 0o oo oo oo oo noamoomno .n :Hmummz 00.0 oo.o on.o nn.n oo.o oo.0 no.o mumsomunno .o oo on oo oo on on oon nocmsomno nounoouomne .o oo no 0o oon oo no oon nocmsomno .n cumummm oo.oo no.o on.n oo.o oo.n no.o no.o monsoounno .o nnn onn omn oon nnn non 0no nocmsomno noonomnomnn .o oo no onn onn oon oon ooo oucmoomno .n ononuoom oo.oo on.o oo.o on.o no.0 oo.0 nn.o monsoounoo .o oon oon onn oon oon oon ooo noomsomno nounnmnomon .o oon oon onn oon oon oon non nocmsomno .n cuonuuoz n o o v o o n acnumoon noonnomnoomo mHNUm 00SOHOM mHm coAumooH Hmonnmmumomm on Unmos anM now monommmn oooouommum mo mommnmCm mumsvmlnno .Nm magma 137 The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables demon- strated that the northern region revealed the strongest preference values for folk music. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Respongg for Show.Music Table 53 revealed a significant difference between geographical location and preference for show music, thereby rejecting the null-hypothesis. The variance of association was "very weak" between geographical location and preference for show music. Four cells, 1, 2, 6, and 7, demonstrated significant chi-squares on the difference between show music and geo- graphical location. The southern region displayed a more observed than expected frequency in cell-l and less observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The northern region displayed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The KruskalAWallis down and across variables re- vealed that the northern region demonstrated the strongest preference values for show music. Summary The null-hypothesis was rejected in data on music preference and geographical location. In addition, the degree of association was "weak" between soul music, fispirituals and geographical location and "very weak" between 1:he remaining categories and geographical location. 138 ooon.0 u e on u on *«ooo.oo u ooonum uionoonn u czoo mnnnmzwnmxmsnx ooonn.ooo u ox on.on no.0 on.n nn.o oo.o oo.0 oo.o mumoomunoo .o oo no oo oo oo oo no nucmsoono noonoouomnn .o no oo oo on o oo oo nocmsomno .n Gumummz. on.o no.o oo.n oo.o oo.o on.n oo.0 monsoonnno .o on oo on on no on oon oocmoomno nounomnomne .o oo on oo mo oo no oon nocmoomno .n :Hoummm oo.on on.on oo.n oo.n 0o.o oo.o oo.oN mnmooounoo .o oon oon non non oo onn ono noomoomuo noonomuomns .o oo oo oo non oon oon ooo nocmsomuo .n cumfiuoom on.oo oo.o oo.n oo.0 oo.n om.n oo.oo mumsomsnno .o oon onn oon oon oon oon ooo nocmsomno noonomuomoo .o oon oon oon oon onn 0nn noo nocmsomuo .n ononuuoz n o o o o o n canumoon noonnoonoomo mamom mocmummmnm COAumooH Hmonommumoom an onmoe 302m How omcommou mocmuommnm mo mAmhamom oumoEmIAsu .mm OASNE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 139 A summary of the disclosures is as follows: The eastern region revealed the strongest preference values for rock and roll music. The southern region revealed the strongest preference values for jazz music. The southern and eastern regions revealed the strongest preference values for blues music. The southern region revealed the strongest preference values for soul music. The southern region revealed the strongest preference values for spiritual music. The northern region revealed slightly stronger preference values for classical music. The eastern region revealed the strongest preference values for light classical music. The western region revealed the strongest preference values for country and western music. The northern region revealed the strongest preference values for folk music. The northern region revealed the strongest preference values for show music The present disclosures that attitudes vary toward music by geographical region are consistent with Baumenn's c: . . . ‘:>1i4:lus10n. Baumann concluded that regional differences E3 - . 3": lsted in mus1c preference between respondents from 3i~==ona and Maryland, respectively. 140 Preferred Music Category ChioSguare Analysis of Preference Response for Rock and Roll Music Table 54 revealed a significant difference between preferred music category and preference for rock and roll music; therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. The degree of association was "very weak" between preferred music category and preference for rock and roll. Two cells, 1 and 7, demonstrated significant chi- squares on the difference between preferred music category and preference for rock and roll music. The rock and roll category revealed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the rock and roll category revealed the strongest preference values for rock and roll as a preferred music category. Chi—Square Analysisgof Preference IResponse for Jazz Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 55 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. In addition the degree {of association was "very weak" between preferred music cate— ‘gory and preference fo jazz music. 141 Table 54. Chi-square analysis of preference response for rock and roll music by preferred music category Preference Scale Preferred Music Category l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 17 15 27 42 65 77 72 2. Theoretical frequency 20 20 27 32 59 73 85 3. Chi-square 0.35 1.04 0.00 3.05 0.54 0.25 1.93 Classical Music 1. Frequency 4 9 14 15 29 35 35 2. Theoretical frequency 9 9 12 14 27 33 38 3. Chi-square 2.60 0.00 0.33 0.02 0.22 0.18 0.23 Countryfiand Western Music 1. Frequency 7 5 6 6 8 18 10 2. Theoretical frequency 4 4 5 6 ll l4 l6 3. Chi-square 2 84 0.44 0.15 0.00 0.96 1.24 2.34 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 18 12 16 19 31 29 34 2. Theoretical frequency 10 10 14 16 30 37 43 3. Chi-square 6.60 0.46 0.45 0.48 0.03 1.61 1.81 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 5 6 10 13 22 27 16 2. Theoretical frequency 6 6 8 10 19 23 27 3. Chi-square O 22 0.00 0.29 0.84 0.60 0.75 4.26 Soul Music 1. Frequency 80 66 103 80 208 262 274 2. Theoretical frequency 67 67 91 109 202 248 289 3. Chi-square 2.54 0.00 1.47 7.91 0.15 0.81 0.79 Blues Music 1. Frequency 7 ll 4 7 17 18 26 2. Theoretical frequency 6 6 8 9 17 21 24 3. Chi-square 0 34 5.27 1.74 0.51 0.00 0.36 0.12 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 29 45 49 89 128 156 260 2. Theoretical frequency 47 47 64 77 142 174 204 3. Chi-square 6.96 0.07 3.65 1.86 1.45 1.94 15.64 Show Mus ic 1. Frequency 2 2 4 9 ll 8 15 2. Theoretical frequency 3 3 4 5 10 12 14 3. Chi-square 0.43 0.42 0.02 2.78 0.20 1.20 0.11 Folk Music 1. Frequency 9 6 10 11 19 29 27 2. Theoretical frequency 7 7 9 ll 21 26 3O 3. Chi—square 0.62 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.44 0.27 {Xia = 99.500** Kruskal-Wallis down = 31.644**; across = 26.233** D5" = 54 o = 0.0761 Table 55. music category 142 Chi-square analysis of preference response for jazz music by preferred Preference Scale Preferred Music Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 12 10 27 21 45 81 119 2. Theoretical frequency 42 28 40 42 64 54 44 3. Chi-square 21.75 11.77 4.42 10.35 4.68 13.03 129.19 Classical Music 1. Frequency 5 14 20 17 37 28 20 2. Theoretical frequency 19 13 18 19 29 24 20 3. Chi-square 10.27 0.14 0.20 0.15 2.41 0.55 0.00 Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 11 7 7 9 15 7 4 2. Theoretical frequency 8 5 8 8 12 10 8 3. Chi-square 1.06 0.48 0.06 0.13 0.63 1.08 2.25 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 25 16 18 15 27 36 22 2. Theoretical frequency 21 14 20 21 32 27 22 3. Chi-square 0.61 0.21 0.27 1.76 0.88 2.66 0.00 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 5 12 10 17 3O 17 8 2. Theoretical frequency 13 9 l3 13 20 17 14 3. Chi-square 5.18 1.10 0.56 1.13 4.82 0.00 2.41 Soul Music 1. Frequency 162 87 126 143 226 197 133 2. Theoretical frequency 144 96 138 143 218 185 149 3. Chi-square 2.14 0.89 0.98 0.00 0.25 0.72 1.77 Blues Music 1. Frequency 10 7 7 5 18 28 15 2. Theoretical frequency 12 8 12 12 18 16 13 3. Chi-square 0.36 0.14 1.78 4.03 0.00 10.00 0.49 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 138 92 122 126 141 78 59 2. Theoretical frequency 102 68 97 100 154 131 105 3. Chi-square 13.00 8.66 6.51 6.57 1.06 21.12 20.21 Show Music 1. Frequency 2 3 6 12 17 9 2 2. Theoretical frequency 7 5 7 7 10 9 7 3. Chi-square 3.44 0.54 0.04 4.04 4.23 0.00 3.65 Folk Music 1. Frequency 14 8 23 14 25 12 15 2. Theoretical frequency 15 10 14 15 23 19 15 3. Chi-square 0.05 0.38 5.41 0.03 0.25 2.67 0.01 1X2 = 362.923** Kruskal-Wallis down = 236.180**: across = 153.635** D1“ = 54 o = 0.1452 in. F. Ida-J: In; ‘I 143 Three cells, 1, 6, and 7, revealed significant chi- squares on the difference between the preferred music cate- gory and preference for jazz music. The rock and roll category revealed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and less observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The jazz music category revealed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the jazz music category demonstrated the strong- est preference value for jazz as a preferred music category. In addition, the jazz category revealed a noticeably indif- ferent attitude toward jazz in cell 4. Chij§guare Analysis of Preference Response for Blues Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 56 as revealed by the chi—square analysis. The degree of asso- ciation was "very weak" between preferred music category and preference for blues music. Four cells, 1, 2, 6, and 7, disclosed significant chi-squares on the difference between preferred music cate- gory and preference for the blues. The rock and roll cate— gory displayed more observed than expected frequencies in cells 1 and 2 and less observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The jazz category displayed less ob- served than expected frequencies in cells 1 and 2 and more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. Table 56. music category 144 Chi-square analysis of preference response for blues music by preferred Preference Scale Preferred Music Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 15 14 22 26 54 78 105 2. Theoretical frequency 35 3O 37 44 66 57 45 3. Chi-square 11.75 8.87 5.97 7.44 2.02 7.52 78.54 Classical Music 1. Frequency 10 9 20 16 42 24 20 2. Theoretical frequency l6 14 16 20 29 26 20 3. Chi-square 2.15 1.57 0.74 0.71 5.47 0.10 0.00 Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 7 9 8 14 10 9 3 2. Theoretical frequency 7 6 7 8 12 11 9 3. Chi-square 0.00 1.76 0.13 3.72 0.49 0.33 3.67 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 20 14 24 21 24 27 29 2. Theoretical frequency 18 15 19 22 33 29 23 3. Chi-square 0.25 0.12 1.57 0.07 2.48 0.12 1.63 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 15 13 13 15 21 14 8 2. Theoretical frequency 11 10 12 14 21 18 14 3. Chi-square 1.34 1.23 0.17 0.09 0.00 0.88 2.73 Soul Music 1. Frequency 105 90 116 129 240 241 153 2. Theoretical frequency 121 104 126 150 223 195 155 3. Chi-square 2.04 1.83 0.73 3.05 1.23 10.76 0.01 Blues Music 1. Frequency 9 4 5 13 20 15 24 2. Theoretical frequency 10 9 11 13 19 16 13 3. Chi-square 0.12 2.53 2.90 0.01 0.08 0.11 9.42 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 125 110 100 138 141 83 59 2. Theoretical frequency 85 73 88 106 157 137 109 3. Chi-square 18.85 18.67 1.51 9.74 1.67 21.52 22.79 Show Music 1. Frequency 210 6 6 9 17 9 2 2. Theoretical frequency 60 5 6 7 11 9 7 3. Chi-square 2.42 0.23 0.00 0.48 3.85 0.00 3.88 Folk Mus ic 1. Frequency 13 7 20 19 25 19 8 2. Theoretical frequency 12 ll 13 16 23 20 16 3. Chi-square 0.02 1.29 3.79 0.76 0.15 0.06 3.98 X2 = 314.521** Kruskal-Wallis down = 216.588**: across = 132.776** DF = 54 o = 0.1352 145 The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the jazz category disclosed the strongest pref- erence values for blues music as a preferred music category. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Soul Music Table 57 revealed a significant difference between preferred music category and preference for soul music; therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. The degree of association was "very weak" between preferred music category and preference for soul music. Seven cells disclosed significant chi-squares on the difference between the preferred music category and soul music. The rock and roll category diSplayed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a less observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The soul music category revealed less observed than expected frequencies in cells 1, 2, 3, and 5, and more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the soul music category disclosed the strongest preference values for soul music as a preferred category. In addition, the soul, rock and roll, and folk music cate- gories revealed noticeably indifferent attitudes toward soul music in cell 4. Table 57. Chi-square analysis of preference response for soul music by preferred music category Preferred Music Category Preference Scale 5 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square Classical Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square Liqht Classical Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square Soul Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square Blues Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi—square Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square ShOW'Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square Folk Music 1. Frequency 2. Theoretical frequency 3. Chi-square 10.81 29 12 25.58 X = 696.758** DF = 54 Kruskal-Wallis down across 6 7 81 203 50 166 0.04 8.19 27 43 22 74 1.05 13.21 12 15 9 32 0.69 8.75 24 103 25 84 0.03 4.37 20 39 16 52 1.26 3.33 123 818 169 566 12.44 111.83 17 44 14 47 0.57 0.25 146 213 119 399 6.20 86.45 9 7 8 27 0.12 14.71 20 21 17 59 0.37 24.06 = 204.154** 147 Chi1§quare Analysis of Preference Response for Spiritual Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 58 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Beyond the significant difference the degree of association was "very weak" between the preferred music category and preference for spiritual music. Three cells, 1, 6, and 7, revealed significant chi- squares on the difference between the preferred music cate- gory and preference for spiritual music. The soul music category disclosed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and more observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. The rock and roll music category revealed a more than expected frequency in cell 1 and less observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. Also the spiritual category displayed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a more observed than expected fre- quency in cell 7. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the spiritual music category demonstrated the strongest preference values for spiritual music as a pre- ferred music category. Chieggpare Analysis of Preference Respgnse for Classical Music Table 59 disclosed a significant difference between the preferred music category and preference for classical music; therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected. The Table 58. 148 Chi-square analysis of preference response for spiritual music by preferred music category Preference Scale Preferred Music Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 48 11 18 53 65 6O 63 2. Theoretical frequency 73 32 25 39 43 51 52 3. Chi-square 11.02 13.47 2.19 4.80 11.66 1.69 2.45 Classical Music 1. Frequency 26 24 16 18 15 20 22 2. Theoretical frequency 33 14 11 18 19 23 23 3. Chi—square 1.43 6.82 1.85 0.01 0.88 0.32 0.05 Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 16 9 3 7 8 13 4 2. Theoretical frequency 14 6 5 7 8 10 10 3. Chi-square 0.28 1.46 0.70 0.03 0.00 1.15 3.47 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 11 8 9 8 12 35 76 2. Theoretical frequency 37 16 13 20 22 26 26 3. Chi-square 18.34 3.98 1.15 7.04 4.22 3.44 95.32 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 16 14 16 14 16 13 10 2. Theoretical frequency 23 10 8 12 13 16 16 3. Chi-square 2.17 1.64 7.97 0.22 0.49 0.54 2.40 Soul Music 1. Frequency 185 78 73 109 160 234 235 2. Theoretical frequency 250 108 87 134 146 173 176 3. Chi-square 17.10 8.29 2.21 4.62 1.43 21.52 19.49 Blues Music 1. Frequency 23 9 7 6 14 16 15 2. Theoretical frequency 21 9 7 ll 12 14 15 3. Chi-square 0.19 0.00 0.01 2.42 0.26 0.15 0.00 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 300 100 72 119 75 52 38 2. Theoretical frequency 176 76 61 94 102 122 124 3. Chi-square 86.80 7.60 1.92 6.50 7.35 39.97 59.77 Show Music 1. Frequency 12 13 5 4 8 5 4 2. Theoretical frequency 12 5 4 6 7 8 8 3. Chi-square 0.00 12.10 0.18 0.87 0.17 1.25 2.28 Folk Music 1. Frequency 32 21 12 18 14 12 2 2. Theoretical frequency 26 11 9 14 15 18 18 3. Chi-square 1.44 8.69 1.01 1.25 0.07 1.93 14.44 x2 = 548.251** Kruskal—Wallis down = 413.268**; across = 241.841** DP = 54 w 0.1786 Table 59. 149 Chi-square analysis of preference response for classical preferred music category music by Preference Scale Preferred Music Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 55 25 31 47 69 46 42 2. Theoretical frequency 78 32 35 48 53 39 29 3. Chi-square 6.88 1.48 0.49 0.04 4.56 1.28 5.81 Classical Music 1. Frequency 5 6 12 17 19 25 56 2. Theoretical frequency 35 14 16 22 24 17 13 3. Chi-square 25.71 3.70 0.89 1.00 1.00 3.29 142.50 Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 12 5 3 13 9 14 4 2. Theoretical frequency 15 6 7 9 10 7 6 3. Chi-square 0.56 0.18 2.04 1.54 0.13 5.84 0.42 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 26 16 21 27 32 26 13 2. Theoretical frequency 39 16 18 24 27 20 15 3. Chi-square 4.59 0.27 0.59 0.26 0.94 2.05 0.18 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 11 4 9 18 14 25 18 2. Theoretical frequency 25 10 11 15 17 12 9 3. Chi-square 7.50 3.61 0.38 0.50 0.45 13.31 8.65 Soul Music 1. Frequency 337 119 130 165 176 90 57 2. Theoretical frequency 267 109 120 165 182 133 99 3. Chi-square 18.57 0.98 0.84 0.00 0.19 13.76 17.75 Blues Music 1. Frequency 21 9 7 12 15 19 7 2. Theoretical frequency 22 9 10 14 16 11 8 3. Chi-square 0.08 0.00 0.92 0.24 0.00 5.57 0.20 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 226 93 90 114 117 79 37 2. Theoretical frequency 188 77 84 116 128 93 7O 3. Chi-square 7.82 3.55 0.36 0.04 0.96 2.23 15.28 Show Music 1. Frequency 3 2 5 8 13 ll 9 2. Theoretical frequency 13 5 6 8 9 6 5 3. Chi-square 7.37 1.93 0.08 0.00 2.19 3.49 3.94 Folk Music 1. Frequency 13 ll 11 18 20 18 20 2. Theoretical frequency 28 11 12 17 19 14 10 3. Chi-square 7.68 0.00 0.15 0.05 0.09 1.33 9.35 x2 = 379.908** Kruskal-Wallis down = 263.466**: across = 54.569** DF = 54 w = 0.1486 150 degree of association was "very weak" between preferred music category and preference for classical music. Three cells, 1, 6, and 7, disclosed significant chi-squares on the difference between the preferred music category and preference for classical music. The soul music category revealed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and less observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. In addition, the classical category demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The Kruska14Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the classical category revealed the strongest preference values for classical music as a preferred music category. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Light Classical Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 60 as revealed by the chi-square analysis. Further, the degree of association was "very weak" between the preferred music category and preference for light classical music. Two cells, 1 and 7, disclosed significant chi- squares on the differences between the preferred music category and preference for light classical music. The soul music category revealed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a less observed than expected fre- quency in cell 7. The classical music category revealed a Table 60. 151 Chi-square analysis of preference response for light classical music by preferred music category Preference Scale Preferred Music Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 39 30 27 41 63 67 48 2. Theoretical frequency 52 20 30 40 65 57 42 3. Chi-square 3.13 0.04 0.38 0.04 0.05 1.74 0.78 Classical Music 1. Frequency 2 4 10 15 22 32 56 2. Theoretical frequency 23 13 14 18 29 26 19 3. Chi-square 19.32 6.17 0.96 0.43 1.72 1.64 72.75 Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 7 4 S 5 15 12 12 2. Theoretical frequency 10 6 6 8 12 11 8 3. Chi-square 0.82 0.41 0.10 0.86 0.55 0.11 1.94 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 15 8 15 16 38 45 22 2. Theoretical frequency 26 15 15 20 33 29 21 3. Chi-square 4.72 2.97 0.00 0.81 0.82 9.13 0.02 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 7 3 4 8 28 23 25 2. Theoretical frequency 16 9 10 12 20 18 13 3. Chi-square 5.27 4.07 3.23 1.60 2.81 2.06 10.35 Soul Music 1. Frequency 224 105 132 159 200 161 93 2. Theoretical frequency 176 99 104 135 221 194 144 3. Chi-square 12.86 0.42 7.66 4.12 2.08 5.74 18.07 Blues Music 1. Frequency 14 6 6 8 23 17 16 2. Theoretical frequency 15 8 9 11 l9 16 12 3. Chi-square 0.04 0.61 0.83 0.98 1.06 0.03 1.28 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 153 95 67 92 163 112 74 2. Theoretical frequency 124 69 73 95 156 137 101 3. Chi-square 6.70 9.48 0.50 0.11 0.32 4.51 7.39 Show Music 1. Frequency 0 2 3 4 11 18 13 2. Theoretical frequency 8 5 5 6 11 9 7 3. Chi-square 8.37 1.53 0.75 0.91 0.02 8.32 5.54 Folk Music 1. Frequency 8 5 7 12 26 29 24 2. Theoretical frequency 18 10 11 14 23 20 15 3. Chi-square 5.73 2.63 1.29 0.28 0.42 3.94 5.58 X2 = 292.250** Kruskal4Wallis down = 234.010**; across = 30.484** DF = 54 ¢ = 0.1303 152 less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a more observed than eXpected frequency in cell 7. The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the classical category revealed the strongest preference values for light classical music as a preferred music category. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Resppnse for Country and Western Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 61 as revealed by the chi—square analysis. As in previous tables the degree of association was "very weak" between the pre- ferred music category and preference for country and western music. Two cells, 1 and 7, demonstrated significant chi- squares on the difference between the preferred music category and preference for country and western music. The country and western category demonstrated a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The Kruska14Wallis across variable indicated a dif- ference in the attitude of music categories toward country and western music. The country and western music category revealed the strongest preference values for country and western as a preferred music category. Table 61. 153 music by preferred music category Chi-square analysis of preference response for country and western Preference Scale Preferred Music Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 109 46 40 45 44 16 15 2. Theoretical frequency 112 46 41 42 35 23 18 3. Chi-square 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.28 2.27 1.93 0.36 Classical Music 1. Frequency 54 20 17 15 23 7 5 2. Theoretical frequency 50 20 18 l9 16 10 8 3. Chi-square 0.30 0.00 0.08 0.70 3.39 0.96 1.03 Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 2 5 3 5 10 10 25 2. Theoretical frequency 21 9 8 8 7 4 3 3. Chi-square 17 49 1.57 2.91 1.06 1.64 7.52 14.44 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 51 21 19 15 25 18 10 2. Theoretical frequency 56 23 21 21 18 ll 9 3. Chi-square 0.52 0.18 0.11 1.70 3.00 3.80 0.14 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 30 10 15 14 12 16 2 2. Theoretical frequency 35 14 13 13 ll 7 6 3. Chi-square 0.75 1.31 0.38 0.06 0.08 11.13 2.23 Soul Music 1. Frequency 445 156 126 144 102 65 36 2. Theoretical frequency 381 156 139 142 120 77 60 3. Chi-square 10.63 0.00 1.17 0.03 2.58 1.89 9.46 Blues Music 1. Frequency 30 11 13 19 7 6 4 2. Theoretical frequency 32 13 12 12 10 6 5 3. Chi-square 0.11 0.32 0.16 4.26 0.91 0.03 0.20 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 250 112 116 106 72 52 48 2. Theoretical frequency 268 110 98 100 84 54 42 3. Chi-square 1.26 0.05 3.43 0.38 1.76 0.09 0.83 Show Music 1. Frequency 13 11 6 7 9 4 l 2. Theoretical frequency 18 7 7 7 6 4 3 3. Chi-square 1.44 1.76 6.05 0.01 1.94 6.03 1.19 Folk Music 1. Frequency 30 22 16 7 14 11 13 2. Theoretical frequency 39 16 14 15 12 8 6 3. Chi-square 2.24 2.17 0.00 3.99 0.21 1.15 7.52 x2 = 272.962** Kruskal-Wallis down = 111.487**; across = 10.217 DF 2 54 m = 0.1260 154 Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Folk Music Table 62 revealed a significant difference between the preferred music category and preference for folk music. The degree of association was "very weak" between the pre- ferred music category and preference for folk music. Three cells, 1, 6, and 7, demonstrated significant chi-squares on the difference between the preferred music category and preference for folk music. The soul category displayed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and less observed than expected frequencies in cells 6 and 7. Two categories, classical music and folk music, revealed a less observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a more observed than expected frequency in cell 7. The Kruskal-Wallis down and across variables indi- cated that the folk and classical music categories disclosed the strongest preference values for folk music as a pre- ferred music category. Chi-Square Analysis of Preference Response for Show Music The null-hypothesis was rejected in Table 63 as revealed by the chi—square analysis. As in previous tables the degree of association was "very weak" between the pre- ferred music category and preference for show tunes. Two cells, 1 and 7, demonstrated significant chi- squares on the difference between the preferred music category and preference for show music. The classical music, Table 62. music category 155 Chi-square analysis of preference response for folk music by preferred Preference Scale Preferred Music Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 60 44 39 51 61 28 32 2. Theoretical frequency 67 39 37 48 51 38 35 3. Chi-square 0.67 0.72 0.07 0.20 2.02 2.75 0.30 Classical Music 1. Frequency 10 6 22 12 27 25 39 2. Theoretical frequency 30 17 17 21 23 17 16 3. Chi-square 13.21 7.40 1.69 4.14 0.79 3.61 34.07 Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 6 9 6 14 8 7 10 2. Theoretical frequency 13 7 7 9 10 7 7 3. Chi-square 3.54 0.35 0.17 2.61 0.29 0.01 1.59 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 40 15 19 32 30 17 6 2. Theoretical frequency 34 20 19 24 26 19 18 3. Chi-square 1.18 1.05 0.00 2.54 0.73 0.27 7.83 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 8 9 9 19 24 22 8 2. Theoretical frequency 21 12 12 15 16 12 11 3. Chi—square 8.02 0.82 0.62 1.04 4.02 8.26 0.86 Soul Music 1. Frequency 293 158 153 172 147 87 64 2. Theoretical frequency 228 132 127 163 173 130 120 3. Chi-square 18.85 5.12 5.27 0.47 4.00 14.49 26.37 Blues Music 1. Frequency 28 10 7 12 11 13 9 2. Theoretical frequency 19 11 11 14 15 11 10 3. Chi-square 4.18 0.10 1.25 0.20 0.85 0.39 0.11 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 147 91 73 104 128 111 102 2. Theoretical frequency 160 93 89 115 122 92 85 3. Chi-Square 1.07 0.03 3.03 1.03 0.29 3.99 3.53 Show Music 1. Frequency 3 3 2 8 10 12 13 2. Theoretical frequency 11 6 6 8 8 6 6 3. Chi-square 5.63 1.70 2.69 0.00 0.37 5.43 9.28 Folk Music 1. Frequency 10 6 8 10 15 25 37 2. Theoretical frequency 24 14 13 17 18 13 12 3. Chi-square 7.76 4.28 2.00 2.79 0.47 9.82 48.51 x2 = 313.134** Kruskal-Wallis down = 218.243**; across = 35.213** DF = 54 o = 0.1349 Table 63. music category 156 Chi-square analysis of preference response for show music by preferred Preference Scale Preferred Music Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jazz Music 1. Frequency 95 30 29 42 46 38 35 2. Theoretical frequency 98 36 29 40 39 33 39 3. Chi-square 0.10 1.05 0.00 0.14 1.11 0.80 0.46 Classical Music 1. Frequency 28 10 12 15 18 22 36 2. Theoretical frequency 44 16 13 18 18 15 18 3. Chi-square 5.81 2.36 0.10 0.41 0.00 3.61 19.31 Country and Western Music 1. Frequency 16 7 9 9 5 5 9 2. Theoretical frequency 19 7 6 8 8 6 7 3. Chi-square 0.39 0.00 2.04 0.28 0.83 0.25 0.30 Spiritual Music 1. Frequency 67 20 13 14 l9 l7 9 2. Theoretical frequency 50 18 15 20 20 17 20 3. Chi-square 6.10 0.16 0.23 1.79 0.03 0.01 5.90 Light Classical Music 1. Frequency 14 15 18 16 15 14 7 2. Theoretical frequency 31 ll 9 12 12 10 12 3. Chi-square 9.23 1.15 8.26 1.01 0.55 1.30 2.31 Soul Music 1. Frequency 415 142 103 142 113 78 81 2. Theoretical frequency 335 123 100 135 134 112 134 3. Chi-square 19.07 2.82 0.06 0.36 3.36 10.35 20.88 Blues Music 1. Frequency 24 10 3 14 14 12 13 2. Theoretical frequency 28 10 8 11 11 9 11 3. Chi-square 0.59 0.01 3.48 0.63 0.67 0.72 0.28 Rock and Roll Music 1. Frequency 208 83 65 94 107 86 113 2. Theoretical frequency 236 87 71 95 95 79 94 3. Chi-square 3.28 0.16 0.45 0.01 1.65 0.64 3.73 Show Music 1. Frequency 7 0 4 1 6 9 24 2. Theoretical frequency 16 6 5 6 6 5 6 3. Chi-square 4.99 5.85 0.12 4.56 6.02 2.54 48.96 Folk Music 1. Frequency 17 11 11 12 l4 17 29 2. Theoretical frequency 35 13 10 14 14 12 14 3. Chi—square 8.97 0.23 0.03 0.27 0.00 2.53 16.61 x2 = 246.578** Kruskal-Wallis down = 163.547** across = 25.584** DF = 54 ¢ - 0.1195 157 show music and folk music categories revealed a more ob- served than expected frequency in cell 7. However, the soul music category revealed a more observed than expected frequency in cell 1 and a less observed than expected fre- quency in cell 7. The Kruska14Wa11is down and across variables indi- cated that the show music category demonstrated the strong- est preference values for show music as a preferred music category. Summary The null-hypothesis was rejected in the data on preferred music category and music preference. Also, the degree of association was "very weak” between preferred music category and music preference. A list of the dis- closures is as follows: (1) The rock and roll category disclosed the strongest preference values for rock and roll as a preferred music category. (2) The jazz category disclosed the strongest preference values for jazz as a preferred music category. (3) The jazz category disclosed the strongest preference values for blues as a preferred music category. (4) The soul category disclosed the strongest preference values for soul music as a preferred music category. (5) The spiritual category disclosed the strongest pref- erence values for Spiritual music as a preferred music category. (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 158 The classical category disclosed the strongest preference values for classical music as a preferred music category. The classical category disclosed the strongest preference values for light classical music as a preferred music category. The country and western category disclosed the strongest preference values for country and western music as a preferred music category. The folk and classical categories disclosed the strongest preference values for folk music as a preferred music category. The show music category disclosed the strongest preference values for show music as a preferred music category. The data imply that the subjects perceived blues music and jazz music also classical and light classical music as one category, respectively. There was also evi- dence that the classical category displayed strong prefer- ence values for folk music and show music as preferred music categories. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDAT IONS Summary The main hypothesis of this study was that musical preferences were independent of socioeconomic status, race, musical experience, school level, geographical location and preferred music category. A review of literature related to music preference studies disclosed several points° Some studies indicated that age, familiarity with the musical work, and musical training were influential in determining musical preferences. In addition, one study concluded that geographical location was influential in determining musical preference. A review of literature related to socioeconomic class determinants revealed two common measures for deter- mining socioeconomic status. The two most common types of measures were prestige ratings of persons and socioeconomic status scales. The three most commonly-used measures of socioeconomic status were income, education and occupation. Each measure consisted of a rank or scale order that would stratify a pOpulation from high to low status. 159 160 The sample consisted of 982 black and white subjects including junior high, senior high and college subjects throughout the United States. The data were gathered in single testing and questionnaire periods administered by previously identified testers throughout the United States. A music preference inventory was developed to gauge preferences. The test consisted of 30 musical excerpts approximately 30 to 40 seconds each in length. The written questionnaire gauged age, grade, school, location, occupa- tion, musical experience and the preferred music category. In addition the questionnaire included instructions on the use of the seven point preference scale and 30 preference scales to rate each musical excerpt. Chi-square, Cramer's Contingency Coefficient, Kruska14Wallis onedway analysis of variance and reference to specific cells were the procedures used in testing the null hypotheses set forth in Chapter I. Findings and Conclusions The writer believes extreme caution should be exer- cised when adapting his conclusions to fit other situations. What has been found true in this study cannot be assumed to be true for other situations,because two important variables, musical exposure and environment, were not controlled, although admittedly musical eXposure and environment are influential in determining musical preferences. Based on 161 the results of this investigation the following conclusions can be admitted: 1. There are no significant differences in music preference attributable to socioeconomic status. Findings Socioeconomic status was influential in determining musical preferences. The "below lower Lower” and "no re- sponse" socioeconomic classes preferred jazz, blues, soul, and spirituals. The "Middle" and ”Upper" classes preferred classical, light classical, country and western, folk, and show music. The "no response,” “upper Middle," and "lower Lower" socioeconomic classes revealed similar preferences for rock and roll music. Conclusion Lower socioeconomic classifications, i.e., ”below lower Lower" and "no response" prefer music that is pri- marily accessible through mass media, whereas the "Middle" or "Upper" classes preferences are mainly those types of music accessible primarily through economic security. 2. There are no significant differences in music preferences attributable to race. Findings Race was influential in determining musical prefer- ences. The black subjects preferred jazz, blues, soul and spirituals. The white subjects preferred rock and roll, 162 country and western, classical, folk, and show music. There was a complete independence between race and preference for light classical music. Conclusion Both races seem to prefer music, probably due to exposure and environment, that is performed primarily by members of their race. Culture, peer association, and racial pride are important variables in determining musical preferences by race. 3. There are no significant differences in music preference attributable to musical experience. Findings Musical experience was influential in determining musical preference. The high experience groups, i.e., 4 and 5 years, 6 and 7 years, also the 8 or more years, preferred rock and roll, soul, classical, light classical, country and western, folk, and show music. The low experience groups, i.e., 0-5 months and 6-12 months preferred jazz, blues, and spirituals. Conclusion High (quantity) musical experience groups possess a greater variety and wider range of musical preferences than low (quantity) musical experience groups. 163 4. There are no significant differences in musical preference attributable to school level. Findings School level was influential in determining musical preferences. The college subjects preferred rock and roll, jazz, blues, soul, spirituals, classical, light classical, folk, and show music. The high school subjects preferred country and western music. Conclusion 0f the three school levels, junior high, senior high, and college, college subjects possess stronger and greater variety in their musical preferences. 5. There are no significant differences in musical preference attributable to geographical location. Findings Geographical location was influential in determining musical preferences. The Eastern region preferred rock and roll, blues, and light classical music. The southern region preferred jazz, blues, soul, and spirituals. The northern region preferred classical, folk, and show music. Conclusion Musical preferences vary according to geographical location. As a result, music educators should devise their own methods for gauging musical preferences. 164 6. There are no significant differences in musical preference attributable to the preferred music category. Findings The preference music category was somewhat influen- tial in determining musical preferences. The data implied that the subjects perceived blues and jazz, also classical and light classical music as one category, respectively. Conclusion Precise definitions and examples should be used whenever music categories are discussed or used in teaching strategies. Implications for Music Education The adOption of the present findings could have the following implications for music education: 1. Knowledge of what types of music, black and white students of different socioeconomic and musical backgrounds listen to might enhance the music edu- cation teaching success by proceeding from known to unknown musical preferences. 2. Possibility of expanding the music teacher's reper- toire and materials for instructional purposes by including the musical preferences of culturally different races in teaching strategies. 165 3. Possibilities of relating musically to some of today's social problems by including ethnic music as a teaching resource and a foundation of cultural and racial pride. The writer's implications for music education are somewhat consistent with two of the seven declarations adopted at the Tanglewood Symposium. The two statements are as follows:1 1. Music of all periods, styles forms and cul- tures belong in the curriculum. The musical repertory should be expanded to include music of our time in its rich variety, including currently popular teenage music, avante-garde music, American folk music, and the music of other cultures. 2. The music education profession must contrib- ute its skills, proficiencies and insights toward assisting in the solution of urgent problems in the "inner city.” Recommendations 1. In View of this study, an extensive investiga- tion into the perception of music categories is recommended. Such an investigation may determine what categories peOple perceive as synonymous. 2. A study of the musical preferences of other American ethnic groups excluding black and white subjects might constitute an acceptable research problem. Huurphy and Sullivan, op. cit., p. 56. 166 3. A study should be made investigating the effect of musical exposure on musical preference. B IBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adams, Lewis M. Webster's New American Dictionary. New YOrk: Books Inc., 1968. Allen, warren D. PhilOSOphies of Music History. New York: ,Dover Publications, 1962. Anderson, Dewey, and Davidson, Percy S. Ballots and the Democratic Class Structure. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1963. Anderson, Elin L. we Americans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938. Blom, Eric. Groves Dictionary of Music and.Musicians. 5th ed. New York: -St. Martins Press, Inc., 1954. Boque, Donald J. The Construction of Socioeconomic Indexes of Detailed Occupations. Reiss, unpublished work, p. 111. Euros, Oscar, ed. Third Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1960. Centers, Richard. The Psychology of Social Classes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949. DeCecco, John P. The Psychology of Learning and Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeéHall, Inc., 1968. Edwards, Alba M. Comparative Occupation Statistics for the United States, 1870 to 1940. Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1943. . A Social Economic Grouping of the Gainful Workers of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1941. 167 168 Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. 4th ed. New York: .McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964. Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Kaplan, Max. Foundations and Frontiers of Music Education. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,.l966. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New YOrk: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1967. Lind, Andrew W. An Island Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935. Merriam, Alan. The AnthrOpology of Music. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1964. Murphy, Judith, and George Sullivan. Music in American Society (Washington, D.CZ: M.E.N.C., 1968. Nettl, Bruno. Folk and Traditional Music of the Western Continents. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1965. Reiss, Albert J. Occupations and Social Status. New Ybrk: Free Press, 1961. Roberts, Helen H. Musical Areas in Aboriginal North America. No. 12. New Haven: Yale University Publications in AnthrOpology, 1936. Silbermann, Alphonse. The Sociology of Music. New York: Humanities Press, 1968. Underwood, Benton J., Duncan, Carl P., Spence, Janet, and Cotton, John. Elementary Statistics. New Ybrk: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1954. Warner, W. Lloyd. Democracy in Jonesville. New YOrk: Harper and Brothers, 1949. . Social Class in America. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949. Weber, Max. The Rational and Social Foundations of Music. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1958. Whybrew, William E. Measurement and Evaluation in Music. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company, 1962. 169 Zadrozny, John. Dictionary of Social Science. Washington, D.C.: Washington Public Affairs Press, 1959. Dissertations Bartlett, Dale L. "The Effect of Repeated Listenings on Discrimination of Musical Structure and Some Relation- ships Between This Discrimination and Affective Shift." Project No. 8-F-032, Final Report, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1969. Birch, Thomas Erskine. "Musical Taste as Indicated by Records Owned by College Students with.Varying High School Experiences." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, 1962. Erneston, Nicholass. “A Study to Determine the Effect of Musical Experience and Mental Ability on the Formulation of Musical Taste." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1961. Fulbright, Ercy Glenn. "An Investigation of Relationships Between Cultural Background and Attitude Toward Classi- cal Music Among College Undergraduates." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indian University, 1964. Hornyak, Robert R. "A Factor Analysis of the Relationship Between the Components of Music Present in Selected Music Examples and the Preference Rating Responses of College Students to the Selected Musical Examples." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indian University, 1964. Rogers, Vincent R. "Children's Expressed Musical Prefer- ences at Selected Grade Levels." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1956. .Rubin, Louis. "The Effects of Musical Experience on Musical Discrimination and Musical Preferences." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1952. Schuessler, Karl F. "Musical Taste and Socio-Economic Background." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1947. Sidnell, Robert. "The Influence of the Tyler Junior College on the Fine-Arts Culture of Tyler, Texas." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1960. 170 Research Articles Adams, Stuart. "Trends in Occupational Origins of Physi- cians." American Sociological Review, XVIII (August, 1953). Baumann, Victor H. "Teen-Age Music Preferences." Journal of Research in Music Education, IX, No. 2 (Fall, 1960). Blishen, L. Bernard. "The Construction and Use of Occupa- tional Class Scale." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXIV (November, 1958). Clarke, Alfred C. "The Use of Leisure and Its Prestige." Americanpgocioloqical Review, XVI (1956). Conyers, James E. "An Exploratory Study of Music Tastes and Interests of College Students." Sociology Inquiry, XXXIII, No. 1 (Winter, 1963). Empey, Lamar T. "Social Class and Occupational Aspiration: A Comparison of Absolute and Relative Measuring." American Sociological Review, XXI (December, 1956). Etzkorn, K. Peter. "Relationships Between Musical and Social Patterns in American POpular Music." Journal of Research in Music Education, XII, No. 4 (Winter, 1964). Gaugh, Harrison G. "A Short Social Status Inventory." Journal of Educational Psychology, XL (1969). Guttman, Louis. "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data." American Sociological Review, IX, No. 139 (1966). Hatt, Paul K. "Occupation and Social Stratification." American Journal of Sociology, LV, No. 539 (May, 1950). Hoffer, Charles F. "Musical Taste and Socio-Economic Background, A Critique." Council of Research in Music Education Bulletin, No. 13, Spring, 1968. Likert, Renis. "Techniques for the Measurement of Atti- tudes." Archives of Psychology, No. 140, 1932. Maslow, Abraham. "Music Education and Peak Experiences, Tanglewood Symposium," Music Education National Conference, Washington, D.C., 1968. Mills, C. Wright. "The Middle Classes in Middle Sized Cities." American Sociological Review, XI, No. 520 (October, 1946). 171 Mueller, John. "Music and Education: A Sociological Approach." Basic Concepts in Music Education, NSSE, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1958. National Opinion Research Center. "Jobs and Occupations.” Opipion-News, IX (September, 1967). Rabson, G. Rubin. "The Influence of Age, Intelligence and Training on Reaction to Classical and Modern Music." Journal of General-Psyghology, XXII (1953). Reimer, Bennett. "Effects on Music Education: Implication From a Review of Research." Journal of Research in Music Education, XIII, No. 3 (Fall, 1965). Riedel, Johannes. "The Function of Sociability in the Sociology of Music and Music Education." Journal of Research in Music Education, XII, No. 12 (Summer, 1964). . "The Sociology of Music." Music Education Journa1,.XLIX, No. 2 (November-December, 1965). Sayre, Jeanette. "A Comparison of Three Indices of Attitude Toward Radio Advertising." Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, XXIII (1939). Schuessler, Karl F. "Social Background and Musical Taste." American Sociological Review, XIII (June, 1948). APPENDIX A MASTER TABLE OF CHI-SQUARES FOR EACH MUSICAL EXCERPT AND VARIABLE TESTED .hnomoumo noose connowonm no“ Vm n ma pom “nanomUOH amonnmmnmoom now ma n ma “no>on noonoo now NH n ma «accennomxo HMOAooE now Ne n he “moon now 0 n ma “moumuo oneocooooAUOo now 00 n mm 1372 N mmv.omn mvo.nnN omm.mmn nnn.mon nmN.o oNo.mon opononm monuoono .om 0nn.mmN mvm.an mov.onn ooN.mn nNo.oom omm.nmn ueoo macaw on omcmnu N .mN mmn.mNn nNm.mnN nov.nnn Non.mo ONo.mn nmv.on omsnm no>oq «Ecoocoq .mN ono.onn enm.Nmn mnn.¢Nn men.om emN.o nmv.No anmzuoz .nN mnN.onN ono.onm ncN.mm ono.oo mov.NON oon.¢¢n doom a: «0 no>on momma .oN nvo.m¢n mom.n0N www.mON ONn.oo mmm.m mom.¢n Aucoeo>oz uonv v .02 Sconmemm .mN mnn.mmN mnm.mmN mom.mm Nmm.mm nev.¢mn ovv.nm mung «0 ooonm noo .VN Nm¢.omn non.¢mN vmm.mon www.mnn nmo.no ono.oon omcnne ounno>om >2 .MN mmo.nn www.mmN nmN.nn nnm.vo Nmn.vo mom.Nm mmxcoz one .NN noo.onn mvm.mvN Nnn.nm noo.onn Non.oon va.¢m noon on: xnm .nN noo.m0N mnm.nmm «on.on on.n¢ omn.0Nn mNo.mmn o>0nnoocm3 .ON mnn.¢mn omn.NNm noo.nm www.mo nmm.mm ono.oo pcono>om .nnonoz..mn mnN.mon moo.noN non.oon nmo.non Nvm.mn emo.mo 50% now m3oz you m>.H .mn ono.ooo voo.ovm ooo.noo ono.oo ono.ono noo.ovn nmno noonoz noon u.conooo n .nn eon.mm enn.nnn Noo.nmn mNm.om mnm.mn Non.mm cocoa onnmm .on wov.NMN vmo.nvN noo.m0N noo.nn noo.onn m~m.nmn 0: o>mmn Cu o>om 02m ooo a£3 .mn nom.vmn non.onN ono.oo vmm.mmn noo.nv vmn.oon meow xomm 0: oonm .wn mom.omn 0Nm.mmN non.oNN men.mn voo.m 0mm.mn AEOnu esonev Sconmeam nuxnm .nn Von.non www.mem ono.omn mno.nn «oo.nn ono.onn nmum uooumono onu e.H .Nn moo.mNN ooo.vNN mom.mon ¢0N.NNn mNo.m¢ mon.mo mount .nn mom.mnn vmn.Nmm ono.omn oon.mon Nnm.mnn emm.m¢n zonnnmm on» meow .on ono.mmn www.mmn www.mnn noo.om mmm.vN ooo.om com nuco>om one .m noo.oen omn.an mNm.mm nev.¢Nn onm.mn Von.vn noomno man on nnn: onmoe .m Nm¢.nNn wom.MNN mom.mnn Nnm.vm nnm.m noo.oo onuoanoucH .n omo.mon omn.noN noo.onn www.mN m¢V.mm omm.0nn meow nob .o noo.nmn mmN.moN vvm.o¢N mvv.vo nvn.m oom.Nm Aucmeo>oz pnmv mm .02 aconoeam .m non.ooo oov.o0¢ oov.no ooo.nn 0oo.ooo noo.onn unmounnoounnoo .v Noo.mm nvn.nNn ono.oo mmm.nmn vnN.m 0mm.Nn :00: on» ocoamm posh .m Non.mm Nmm.mNn mov.mm oom.Non on.vN on.von onnm .N www.mmn mNm.NvN mmm.Nmn nmm.mm moo.m www.mo Emn< .n anomoumo :oAumooq no>oq coconnomxu oomm moumum umnooxu Unmoz mo manna anus: anonnmonmomo noonom noonosz unsocoooOnoom connowonm moonmovolnno anOuGo>cA coconouonm onus: .vo mnnme APPENDIX B TABLE OF TESTED SCHOOLS, SCHOOL LEVELS, AND LOCATION OF SCHOOLS 173 Table 65. The name, level, and location of all the schools tested Schools Level Location Pattengil Junior High Lansing, Michigan Williamston Junior High Williamston, Michigan Howard Junior High Nashville, Tennessee Benjamin Stoddert Junior High Washington, D.C. Fermi Junior High Chicago, Illinois Drake Junior High Chicago, Illinois Indian River Junior High Chesapeake, Virginia Rosenwald Junior High New Roads, Louisiana Williamston Senior High Williamston, Michigan Eastern Senior High Washington, D.C. Morgan Park Senior High Chicago, Illinois Stratford Senior High Nashville, Tennessee Rosenwald Senior High New Roads, Louisiana Rancho Senior High Las Vegas, Nevada Tennessee State U. College Nashville, Tennessee Norfolk State College Norfolk, Virginia Old Dominion College Norfolk, Virginia Jackson State College Jackson, Mississippi Michigan State College East Lansing, Michigan APPENDIX C FACTOR ANALYSIS OF MUSIC CATEGORIES 174 o>ono mmcnooon nouoow on» mnmo>on onnou once owwAHommUNU UAmDE SGH wSH HO SONG HO CU. .mnouoom oonnomouoo nmno>oo nos» ooumommom monnomoumo onooe onu mo mnmwnoom nOuoom «m oEom oon noon: pooooH ono3 .. .. .. .. .. .. oooo. .. nnoo .oo .. .. .. .. .. oooo. .. .. sumo .on .. .. .. .. .. nooo. .. .. moono .on co oo oo o. @505. oo oo oo HMSUHHHQW 05H o o o o o o Hmflh o o o o o o o o o HMUflmmmHU, ”#:qu 00H .. .. .. .. .. .. .. oono. nooo .on o . . . . . . . . .. . . . . Vmww Shmummz, ow NHUSSOU IVA o. o. oo o. o. oo meho oo HMUHmmMHU Hflmflq oMH .. .. .. .. .. .. .. oovo zoom .on onnm. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. oomo .nn .. .. .. .. .. .. .. oono nnoo .on .. .. 0ooo. .. .. .. .. .. moono .o oo o. oo oo oo o. .0 H505 CHmUmmz «W WHUCNOU om o. o. no on o. .- mflmmo .- HMOHNWNHU. “gm-m1." o5. .. onoo. .. .. .. .. .. .. zoom .o .. .. .. .. .. .. oonn. .. noonmmmno .o .. .. nnon. .. .. .. .. .. nooo .o oo o. moomo oo oo oo oo oo CHmummz aw “Hugoo om onoo. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. nnoo o room .o .. oooo. .. .. .. .. .. .. oooo .n o n o o v o o n nnooonmo anon: mchoooq nouuoh omoAnomouoU UAmoE mo mAmMHoco nouoom, .00 oHSoB APPENDIX D WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE Grade School Sex Age City State Date Father's occupation (Please be specific) (If no father, indicate the occupation of mother or guardian and circle whether mother or guardian) Married couples, indicate husband's occupation What musical instrument(s) to you play? How long have you played the instrument(s)? If you were exiled to an island, what ONE type of music would you like to hear: 1. Jazz 6. Soul 2. Classical 7. Blues 3. .Country and Western 8. ,Rock and Roll 4. Spirituals 9. Show Tunes 5. Light Classical 10. .Folk DIRECTIONS: Under numbers I, II, and III, circle the appropriate letter of the alphabet that applies to you. I. Which ONE statement best applies to your listening habits? a) I listen to music in order to relax. b) I listen to music only while dancing. c) It is mostly background for work, study, or play. d) I listen to music with attention to details (harmony, text, rhythm, etc.) in the music. e) I listen to music only when I am exposed or compelled to listen and not usually on my own initiative. II. Which ONE place best applies to where you listen to your favorite music? a)j.Home f) School dance b) Friend's home 9) Recital or concert hall c) Church h) Parties d) .Music class i) Juke box e) Assembly j) Dance hall 175 176 III. Which ONE of the following best typifies your listening to your favorite music? a) Radio b) Auto radio c) Television d) Phonograph records e) Live performances MUSIC PREFERENCE TEST INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of this test is to determine what kinds or types of music you like and the degree to which you like them. You will hear a series of short, musical excerpts. After the completion of each excerpt, you are asked to rate how much you like that particular excerpt--to the best of your ability-~by circling the appropriate number on the rating scale provided. Each scale consists of a number which cor— responds with a degree of dislike or like. .For example, if, after listening to a musical excerpt, you decide you "like mildly" that selection, then you would mark the apprOpriate rating scale in the following manner: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dislike i i a 1* ‘r 4: # Like S >1 >1 H >1 >1 S o A .4 o .4 a 0 § 3 3 '5 3 3 5 a o «4 .n .n o E‘ H (D H H 0) 2 Z 2'. o H (D U U (D > 0 0 > 2 z 177 or if you dislike a composition very much, circle 1, if you are undecided about liking or disliking a composition, circle 4; finally, if you like it moderately, circle 6. 2 s o s o 7 Dislike . % 4 i o : *t* Like S >: >c H >1 >1 S 0 r4 H o H n o a 3 2 a 2 3 5 >‘ (U or-I -r-l -o-l (O i n o n n o E: Z 2 o n (D U U (D > O 0 > E 2 There will be a brief pause after each excerpt to mark your rating. QQ_NOT attempt to change a previously marked rating. First, one musical example will be given to help your under- standing of the procedure. Example No. 1 . 1 4 6 . Dislike . # . s u * % Like S >I >1 H >1 >1 S 0 r4 r4 o .4 H U =* :3 2 a 2 . = E‘ o -n A .n g S H (D H >1 n o 2 z z o n o U U (D > 0 O > z 2 Now we will begin the test. Are there any questions? 178 onnn oxnn oxnn oxnn oxnn onnn oxnn onnn onnn onnn omnonozoo on on Soon nnszo zoos 902 on moomnm soc: nno> nnooonooozn nnonnz nosonoz nnonnz .nnoomnoooz_ oooz_nno> n o o o o o n ross_nno> nnoomnoooz. nnonnz nmsonoz nnonnz. nnoomnooos sosz.nno> n o o v o o n 2052 mno> onouonoooz Anoanz nonun oz Samoan: anouonoooz £052 >no> n o o o o o n sosz.nno> nnoomnoooz_ nnonnz nosnnoz nnonnz_ nnonmnoooz. sosz.ono> n o o v o o n noo: >no> Anouonoooz 58.32 nonun. oz anonnz mnouonoooz noo: mno> n o o o o o n ooo: nno> nnoomnoooz nnonnz nosonoz nnonnz nnoomnoooz nus: nno> n o o v o o n soos_nno> onoomnoooz. ononnz nosonoz nnonnz nnoomnoooz_ sossrnno> n o o s o o n sooz_nno> nnooosooos nnonnz nosonoz nnonnz_ nnooonoooz ooozynno> n o o o o o n sooz.nno> nnoomnooozw nnonns nosonoz nnonnz onoomnooos sooz_nno> n o o v o o n cos: no.5 nnooonoooz nnonnz nmsonoz nnonnz nnoomnoooz nos: 3.5 n o o s o m n oxAHmAS . OH onnnmno .o onnnono .o onnnmno .n mxnnono .o onnnono .m oxnnonn .o oxnnono .o onnnono .o onnnmno .n 179 oxnn onnn mxnn onnn oxnn mxnn onnn onnn oxnn oxnn omamnozoo on 0o swan nnazo none 902 on oooono sosznnno> nnoomnoooa nnonnz. nosonoz ononnz. nnonmnoooz_ sooz_nno> n o o o o o n sosz.nno>. onoomnoooz nnonnz nosonoz nnonnz nnoomnoooz. soos.nno> n o o s o m n ooo: noon, nnoomnoooz nnonnz nooonoz nnonnz nnonmnoooz ooo: nno> n o o o o o n ooo: nno> nnooonooos nnonnz nosonoz nnonnz nnooonoooz cuss nno> n o o o o no. n noo: >no> Anouonoooz Samoan: noon: oz ono.oo: mnouonoooz £052 >no> n o o s o o n cos: >no> onouonoooz anonnz nonun. oz Anonnz anoumwnoooz £052 >no> n o o o o o n cos: .Nno> mnouonoooz mnojz nonunoz c3032 mnouonoooz noo: >no> n o o o o m n ooo: nnm> nnoomnoooz nnonnz swoon. oz nnonns onoumnoooz zoos 3.5 n o o s o o n ooo: nnon.. onouonoooz nnonnz nofin oz nnonnz nnononmoos cuss nno> n o o v o o n ooo: ono> nnonmnoooz ononnz swoon. oz nnonns nnoomnoooz noo: 58> n o o v o m. Hm» onnnmno mxnnmno onnnmno oxnnmno oxnnmno onnnmno oxnnono oxnnono oxnnmno oxnnono .ON .ma .NH .SH .NA .ma .4; .ma .NH 2: 180 oxnn oxnn mxnn onnn oxnn onnn onnn onnn mxnn oxnn oooz_nno> nnoomnoooz_ nnonnz nosnnmz nnonnz. onoomnmooz_ sous nno> n o o v o «m n £052 mno> mnouonooo2 2.3.32 no£u..n oz mnpnn2 Nnoumnooo2 £052 ano> n o o o o w n oocz.nno> nnoomnoooz_ nnonnz_ nosonoz nnonnz. nnoomnoooz_ sooz.nno> n o m no m N n sooz.nno> nnoomnoooz. ononnz_ nosonoz nnonnz onooonoooz_ sosznnno> n o m o o M. n soc: nno> nnoomnoooz ononnz nooonoz nnonnz .onononoooz. soc: nno> n o m no m N n £052 >no> maouonooo2 moonn2 no£u..n oz 53.3.2 mnoumnooo2 £052 mno> n o m v m N n sooz_nno> onoomnoooz. ononns nmsonoz ononnz nnoomnoooz_ noo: nnm> n o m no m N n £052 >no> .mnouonooo2 55.32 no£un oz ononn2 mnouonooo2 £052 Nno> n. o m v m N n £052 >no> wnoumnooo2 mnpnn2 no£un. oz ononn2 mnouonooo2 £052 mno> n o m v m N n soozrnno> nnoomnoooz nnonnz. nosonoz nnonnz_ nnoomnoooz_ nooz_nno> n o m no m N n oxnnmno onnnono onnnmno onnnmno oxnnono, onnnmne onnnonn onnnono oxnnono oxnnmnn .om .mm .mm .hN .oN .mN .vN .MN .NN .HN APPENDIX E OTIS DUDLEY DUNCAN SOCIOECONOMIC INDEX FOR ALL OCCUPATIONS DUNCAN SOCIOECONOMIC INDEX FOR OCCUPATIONS Occupations Professional, technical, and kindred workers Accountants and auditors Actors and actresses Airplane pilots and navigators Architects Artists and art teachers Athletes Authors Chemists Chiropractors Clergymen College presidents, professors and instructors (n.e.c.) Dancers and dancing teachers Dentists Designers Dieticians and nutritionists Draftsmen Editors and reporters Engineers, technical Aeronautical Chemical Civil Electrical Industrial Mechanical Metallurgical, and metallurgists Mining Not elsewhere classified Entertainers (n.e.c.) Farm- and home-management advisors Foresters and conservationists Funeral directors and embalmers Lawyers and judges Librarians Musicians and music teachers Natural scientists (n.e.c.) Nurses, professional Nurses, student professional Optometrists Osteopaths 181 Socioeconomic .In_dsz<_ 78 60 79 90 67 52 76 79 75 52 84 45 96 73 39 67 82 85 87 90 84 84 86 82 82 85 87 31 83 48 59 93 60 52 80 46 51 79 96 182 Occupations Personnel and labor—relations workers Pharmacists Photographers Physicians and surgeons Radio operators Recreation and group workers Religious workers Social and welfare workers, except group Social scientists Sports instructors and officials Surveyors Teachers (n.e.c.) Technicians, medical and dental Technicians, testing Technicians (n.e.c.) Therapists and healers (n.e.c.) Veterinarians Professional, technical, and kindred workers (n.e.c.) Farmers and farm managers Farmers (owners and tenants) Farm.managers Managers, officials, andgproprietors, except farm Buyers and department heads, store Buyers and shippers, farm products Conductors, railroad Credit men Floormen and floor managers, store Inspectors, public administration Federal public admin. and postal service State public administration Local public administration Managers and superintendents, building Officers, pilots, pursers, and engineers, ship Officials and administrators (n.e.c.), public administration Federal public administration and postal service State public administration Local public administration Officials, lodge, society, union, etc. Postmasters Purchasing agents and buyers (n.e.c.) Socioeconomic Index 84 82 50 92 69 67 56 64 81 64 48 72 48 53 62 58 78 65 14 36 72 33 58 74 50 63 72 54 56 32 54 66 84 66 54 58 60 77 183 Socioeconomic Occupations Index Managers, officials, and proprietors (n.e.c.)--sa1aried 68 .Construction 60 Manufacturing 79 Transportation 71 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services 76 Wholesale trade 70 Retail trade 56 Food- and dairy-products stores, and milk retailing 50 General merchandise and five- and ten- cent stores 68 Apparel and accessories stores 69 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores 68 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 65 Gasoline service stations 31 Eating and drinking places 39 Hardware, farm implement, and building material, retail 64 Other retail trade 59 Banking and other finance 85 Insurance and real estate 84 Business services 80 Automobile repair services and garages 47 Miscellaneous repair services 53 Personal services 50 All other industries (incl. not reported) 62 Managers, officials, and proprietors (n.e.c.)-- self-employed 48 Construction ' 51 Manufacturing 61 Transportation 43 Telecommunications and utilities and sanitary services 44 Wholesale trade 59 Retail trade 43 ~Food- and dairy-products stores, and milk retailing 33 General merchandise and five- and ten- cent stores 47 Apparel and accessories stores 65 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores 59 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 70 Gasoline service stations 33 Eating and drinking places 37 Hardware, farm implement, and building material, retail 61 Other retail trade 49 184 Occupations Banking and other finance Insurance and real estate Business services Automobile repair services and garages Miscellaneous repair services Personal services All other industries (incl. not reported) Clerical and kindred workers Agents (n.e.c.) Attendants and assistants, library Attendants, physician's and dentist's office Baggagement, transportation Bank tellers Bookkeepers Cashiers Collectors, bill and account Dispatchers and starters, vehicle Express messengers and railway mail clerks Mail-carriers Messengers and office boys Office-machine Operators Shipping and receiving clerks Stenographers, typists, and secretaries Telegraph messengers Telegraph operators Telephone operators Ticket, station, and express agents Clerical and kindred workers (n.e.c.) Sales workers Advertising agents and salesmen Auctioneers Demonstrators Hucksters and peddlers Insurance agents and brokers Newsboys Real-estate agents and brokers Stock and bond salesmen Salesmen and sales clerks (n.e.c.) Manufacturing Wholesale trade Retail trade Other industries (incl. not reported) Socioeconomic Index. 85 76 67 36 34 41 49 68 44 38 25 52 44 39 40 67 53 28 45 22 61 22 47 45 60 44 66 40 35 66 27 62 73 47 65 61 39 50 185 c ations Craftsmen, foremeny and kindred workers Bakers Blacksmiths Boilermakers Bookbinders Brickmasons, stonemasons, and tile-setters Cabinetmakers Carpenters Cement and concrete finishers Compositors and typesetters Cranemen, derrickmen, and hoistmen Decorators and window-dressers Electricians Electrotypers and stereotypers Engravers, except photoengravers rExcavating, grading, and road-machinery operators Foremen (n.e.c.) Construction Manufacturing Metal industries Machinery, including electrical Transportation equipment Other durable goods Textiles, textile products, and apparel Other nondurable goods (incl. not specified mfg.) Railroads and railway express service Transportation, except railroad Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services Other industries (incl. not reported) Forgemen and hammermen Furriers Glaziers Heat treaters, annealers, and temperers Inspectors, scalers, and graders, log and lumber Inspectors (n.e.c.) .Construction Railroads and railway express service Transport, exc. r.r., communication, and other public utilities Other industries (incl. not reported) Jewelers, watchmakers, goldsmiths, and silversmiths Job-setters, metal Socioeconomic Index 22 16 33 39 27 23 l9 19 52 21 40 44 55 47 24 49 40 53 54 60 66 41 39 53 36 45 56 44 23 39 26 22 23 41 46 41 45 38 36 28 186 Occupations Linemen and servicemen, telegraph, telephone, and power Locomotive engineers Locomotive firemen Loom fixers Machinists Mechanics and repairmen Airplane Automobile Office machine Radio and television Railroad and car shop Not elsewhere classified Millers, grain, flour, feed, etc. Millwrights Molders, metal Motion-picture projectionists Opticians, and lens grinders and polishers Painters, construction and maintenance Paperhangers Pattern- and model-makers, except paper Photoengravers and lithographers Piano and organ tuners and repairmen Plasterers Plumbers and steam—fitters Pressmen and plate printers, printing Rollers and roll hands, metal Roofers and slaters Shoemakers and repairers, except factory Stationary engineers Stone—cutters and stone-carvers Structural—-metal workers Tailors and tailoresses Tinsmiths, coppersmiths, and sheet-metal workers Toolmakers, and die-makers and setters Upholsterers Craftsmen and kindred workers (n.e.c.) Members of the armed forces Apprentices Auto mechanics Bricklayers and masons Carpenters Electricians Machinists and toolmakers Mechanics, except auto Plumbers and pipe-fitters Building trades (n.e.c.) Metalworking trades (n.e.c.) Printing trades Socioeconomic Index 49 58 45 10 33 25 48 19 36 36 23 27 19 31 12 43 39 16 10 44 64 38 25 34 49 22 15 12 47 25 34 23 33 50 22 32 18 35 25 32 31 37 41 34 33 29 33 40 187 Occupations Other specified trades Trade not specified Asbestos and insulation workers .Attendants, auto service and parking Blasters and powderman Boatmen, canalmen, and lock-keepers Brakemen, railroad Bus-drivers Chainmen, rodmen, and axmen, surveying Conductors, bus and street railway Deliverymen and routemen Dressmakers and seamstresses, except factory Dyers Filers, grinders, and polishers, metal Fruit, nut, and vegetable graders and packers, except factory Furnacemen, smeltermen, and pourers Heaters, metal Laundry and dry-cleaning operatives Meat-cutters, except slaughter and packing house Milliners Mine Operatives and laborers (n.e.c.) -Coal mining .Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction Mining and quarrying, except fuel Motormen, mine, factory, logging camp, etc. Motormen, street, subway, and elevated railway Oilers and greasers, except auto Painters, except construction and maintenance Photographic-process workers Power-station operators Sailors and deck hands Sawyers Spinners, textile Stationary firemen Switchmen, railroad Taxicab-drivers and chauffeurs Truck— and tractor-drivers Weavers, textile Welders and flame-cutters Operatives and kindred workers (n.e.cp) Manufacturing Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills, and misc. wood products Socioeconomic $1146.22; 31 39 32 19 ll 24 42 24 25 30 32 23 12 22 34 15 '18 42 50 16 17 44 10 15 24 18 17 .‘L': A 188 Socioeconomic Occupations Index Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work 7 Miscellaneous wood products 9 Furniture and fixtures 9 Stone, clay, and glass products 17 Glass and glass products 23 Cement; and concrete, gypsum; and plaster products 10 Structural clay products 10 Pottery and related products 21 Miscellaneous nonmetallic mineral and stone products 15 Metal industries 16 -Primary metal industries 15 Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills 17 Other primary iron and steel industries 12 Primary nonferrous industries 15 Fabricated metal industries (incl. not spec. metal) 16 Fabricated nonferrous metal products 15 Not specified metal industries 14 Machinery, except electrical 22 Agricultural machinery and tractors. 21 Office and store machines and devices 31 Miscellaneous machinery 22 Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies 26 Transportation equipment 23 Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment 21 Aircraft and parts 34 Ship and boat building and repairing 16 Railroad and miscellaneous transporta- tion equipment 23 Professional and photographic equipment and watches 29 Professional equipment and supplies 23 Photographic equipment and supplies 40 Watches, clocks, and clockwork-operated devices 28 Miscellaneous manufacturing industries 16 Nondurable goods Food and kindred products 16 Meat products 16 Dairy products 22 .Canning and preserving fruits, vegetables, and sea foods 9 Grain-mill products 14 Bakery products 15 189 Occupations Private-household workers Housekeepers, private household Living in Living out Laundresses, private household L iv ing in Living out Private—household workers (n.e.C.) L iv ing in Living out Service workers, except private household Attendants, hospital and other institution Attendants, professional and personal service (n.e.c.) Attendants, recreation and amusement Barbers, beauticians, and manicurists Bartenders Boarding- and lodging—house keepers Bootblacks Charwomen and cleaners Cooks, except private household Counter and fountain workers Elevator operators Firemen, fire protection Guards, watchmen, and doorkeepers Housekeepers and stewards, except private household - Janitors and sextons Marshals and constables Midwives Policemen and detectives Government Private Porters Practical nurses Sheriffs and bailiffs Ushers, recreation and amusement Waiters and waitresses Watchmen (crossing) and bridge-tenders Service workers, exc. private household (n.e.c.) Farm laborers and foremen Farm foremen Farm laborers, wage workers Farm laborers, unpaid family workers Farm-service laborers, self-employed Socioeconomic Index 19 10 21 21 12 12 31 21 37 39 4O 36 22 34 25 16 17 11 20 17 22 ‘W—‘Tn—‘THU? .‘q t 190 Socioeconomic Occupations Index Confectionery and related products 12 Beverage industries 19 Miscellaneous food preparations and kindred products 11 Not specified food industries 19 Tobacco manufactures 2 Textile mill products 6 Knitting mills 21 Dyeing and finishing textiles, exc. knit goods 8 Carpets, rugs, and other floor coverings l4 Yarn, thread, and fabric mills 2 Miscellaneous textile mill products 10 Apparel and other fabricated textile products 21 Apparel and accessories 22 Misc. fabricated textile products 17 Paper and allied products 19 Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills l9 Paperboard containers and boxes 17 Misc. paper and pulp products 19 Printing, publishing, and allied industries 31 Chemicals and allied products 20 Synthetic fibers 9 Drugs and medicines 26 Paints, varnishes, and related products 15 Misc. chemicals and allied products 23 Petroleum and coal products 51 Petroleum refining 56 Misc. petroleum and coal products 14 Rubber products 22 Leather and leather products 16 Leather: tanned, curried, and finished 10 Footwear, except rubber 9 Leather products, except footwear 14 Not specified manufacturing industries 16 Nonmanufacturing industries (incl. not reported 18 Construction 18 Railroads and railway express service 15 Transportation, except railroad 23 Telecommunications, and utilities and ' sanitary services 21 Wholesale and retail trade 17 Business and repair services 19 Personal services 11 Public administration 17 All other industries (incl. not reported) 20 '5; 3w: Tia—vi: a -' AI»- 8?”. barf-JR.” ': .v' ‘. 2‘ \ 191 Occupations Laborers, except farm and mine Fishermen and oystermen Garage laborers, and car-washers and greasers Gardeners, exc. farm, and groundskeepers Longshoremen and stevedores Lumbermen, raftsmen, and wood-choppers Teamsters Laborers (n.e.c.) Manufacturing Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills, and misc. wood products Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work Miscellaneous wood products Furniture and fixtures Stone, clay, and glass products Glass and glass products Cement; and concrete, gypsum, and plaster products Structural clay products Pottery and related products Misc. nonmetallic mineral and stone products Metal industries Primary metal industries Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills Other primary iron and steel industries Primary nonferrous industries Fabricated metal industries (incl. not spec. metal) Fabricated steel products Fabricated nonferrous metal products Not specified metal industries Machinery, except electrical Agricultural machinery and tractors Office and store machines and devices Miscellaneous machinery Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies Transportation equipment Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment Aircraft and parts Ship and boat building and repairing Railroad and misc. transportation equipment Socioeconomic Index 10 11 11 \l\lU‘ \IU'lU'I quwww 03430 10 ll 14 17 10 14 11 13 15 ' "is 192 Occupations Professional and photographic equip- ment, and watches Professional equipment and supplies Photographic equipment and supplies Watches, clocks, and clockwork- operated devices Miscellaneous manufacturing industries Nondurable goods Food and kindred products Meat products Dairy products Canning and preserving fruits, vegetables, and sea foods Grain~mill products Bakery products Confectionery and related products Beverage industries Misc. food preparation and kindred products Not specified food industries Tobacco manufactures Textile mill products Knitting mills Dyeing and finishing textiles, except knit goods Carpets, rugs and other floor coverings Yarns, thread, and fabric mills Miscellaneous textile-mill products Apparel and other fabricated textile products Apparel and accessories Misc. fabricated textile products Paper and allied products Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills Paperboard containers and boxes Misc. paper and pulp products Printing, publishing, and allied industries Chemicals and allied products Synthetic fibers Drugs and medicines Paints, varnishes, and related products Misc. chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal products Petroleum refining Misc. petroleum and coal products Socioeconomic LIL-keg; ll 10 16 12 9 8 l3 6 6 10 10 16 .nwoom H N n: H mcoowqcnnam oua¢>© N N n2 wCthmCDh3bCDUJ IE: 193 Socioeconomic Occupations Index Rubber products 12 Leather and leather products 6 Leather: tanned, curried, and finished 2 Footwear, except rubber 10 Leather products, except footwear 12 Not specified manufacturing industries 8 Nonmanufacturing industries (incl. not reported) 7 Construction 7 Railroads and railway express service 3 Transportation, except railroad 9 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services ' 6 Wholesale and retail trade 12 Business and repair services 9 Personal services 5 Public administration 7 All other industries (incl. not reported) 6 Occupation not reported 19 l '1