Summary:
Interlude G, the seventh and final “extra-musical” discussion, explores the myriad and impactful ways that our psychology—especially emotion and our personality—impacts and helps define our musical taste. The first half of the interlude is dedicated to exploring in detail the world of human emotions, and especially as relates to music, both perceived and felt (induced). This includes the complex and multi-faceted ways that music is able to carry emotional content in the first place, based on studies in psychology, evolution, and neuroscience; it likewise explores recent taxonomical efforts on emotion, the role of surprise in our musical experience, and the impact that exposure has on our preferences. The interlude then shifts gears to unwind the complex and somewhat mysterious relationship between our personality and our musical taste. In summarizing recent research, the discussion explores the potential correlation between one’s personality type and one’s music preference factors—thereby recognizing the insights and limitations of this pairing. As such, the interlude moves beyond them to explore a “bigger basket” of factors that may help explain our individual music preferences: our listening styles and functions, emotions, expertise, etc. In all, the interlude underscores the value of truly understanding one’s self—our personality, behaviors, and musical predilections—if one hopes to understand “why you like it”.
Supplements:
( More on Deryck Cooke’s claim of music as a “language of emotion” ):
After rehearsing arguments from several perspectives—music’s relation to other arts (especially literature), polemics by Stravinsky and Hindemith, summaries of five centuries of musical practice, etc.—Cooke expresses his inherent belief of a direct correspondence between music and emotive effects: “Ultimately, it is for the reader to make up his own mind; in the meantime, the foregoing may perhaps be taken as a reasonable support for the view that music is language of the emotions…”
( More on Aristotle’s views on the risks of “ecstatic” music-making ):
Not only the kithara, but also the aulos (double reed) and harp were deemed inappropriate for the education of citizens; instead, he argues, their use should be limited to appropriate settings like purifications or similarly “ecstatic” rituals only.
( More on James Russell’s definition of “affect” ):
Technically, Russell defined core affect as a “neurophysiological state consciously accessible as a simple primitive non-reflective feeling in mood and emotion but always available to consciousness.”
( More on researcher Patrik Juslin ):
Juslin is the editor of two important publications, including the Handbook of Music and Emotion Theory, Research, Applications (2010), and has authored or co-authored dozens of articles on music and emotion. See his entry in the Social Psychology Network website.
( More on Juslin’s iconic coding and its roots in vocal expression ):
On this point, Juslin derives inspiration for this notion from an 1857 essay by the Victorian philosopher Herbert Spencer (“The Origin and Function of Music”), thereby calling it “Spencer’s law”. See Juslin, Patrik N., and Petri Laukka. "Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music performance: Different channels, same code?" Psychological bulletin 129, no. 5 (2003): 770: “[Spencer] hypothesized that emotions influence physiological processes, which in turn influence the acoustic characteristics of both speech and singing. This notion, which we refer to as Spencer’s law , formed the basis of most subsequent attempts to explain reported similarities between vocal expression and music.”
( More on the visual imagery mechanism of Juslin’s emotional coding ):
Here metaphor acts as a “mediator” between music, language, emotion, and our aesthetic response— with roots back to Aristotle, and are manifest particularly with visual imagery mechanism of emotional induction.
( More on the evolution-based notion of Juslin’s emotional inducing mechanisms ):
Juslin began with a set of six mechanisms in 2008, expanding it to seven in 2010—whereby he adopted the acronym BRECVEM—and finally adding the eighth, aesthetic judgment, in 2013. With regard to their evolutionary progression, Juslin specifically sees the mechanisms proceeding from: “simple sensations and an ability to direct attention” (1. brainstem reflexes) and physical coupling processes” (2. rhythmic entrainment) to the development of sensory perception and a capacity for learning associations among events (3. evaluative conditioning) to an ability to respond empathetically to vocal emotion via the limbic system (4. emotional contagion) to the development of an inner imagination enabling “mental representations detached from direct sensory simulation” (5. visual imagery) and the ability to recall memories of previous events (6. episodic memory) to an ability to plan, narrate, and develop language, along with its requisite need for syntactic processing (7. musical expectancy).
( More on Juslin’s notion of “aesthetic judgment” and induced emotion ):
Juslin is keen to note, however, that aesthetic judgment does not always lead to induced emotion, but only when it crosses a certain “threshold”—in turn based on any number of factors, including the musical expertise of the listener. Aesthetic judgment, moreover, is likely involved in the manifestation of mixed or ambivalent emotions—such as when the music is deemed aesthetically beautiful while likewise triggering a negative memory via the “episodic memory” mechanism.
( More on Juslin’s theories on the link of music and vocal expression ):
For Juslin, this link, again, is forged via the “iconic” coding process—which in turn “places constraints on musical expression”, whereby basic emotions gain a privileged place in our musical interpretations over other less “primary” emotions. He cites, for example, the common use of Italian expression marks by classical composers—allegro (joyful), furioso (angry), etc.—as reinforcing this link.
( More on the reaction of music fans at the Geneva music festival tied to Zentner’s study ):
The attendees’ emotional reactions were mapped to five music genres: classical (Mozart to Mahler), jazz (except free jazz), pop/rock (current hits), Latin, and dance (techno). Beyond dividing each of the 9 emotional factors into sub-factors, they were likewise grouped into 3 “super-factors”: Sublimity (Wonder, Transcendence, Tenderness, Nostalgia, and Peacefulness), Vitality (Power and Joyful Activation), and Unease (Tension and Sadness). It is the full taxonomy that defines the GEMS model.
( More on the follow-up studies by Zentner for his GEMS model ):
The follow-up studies involved musicians and self-proclaimed music lovers and their emotional responses to largely “warhorse” classical works: Vivaldi’s Four Season , Barber’s Adagio for Strings , Dvořák’s Cello Concerto , etc.
( More on the historic link of music and melancholy ):
The relationship between music and melancholy has been a popular topic of contemplation at least since Robert Burton’s The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621)—wherein he identifies music as the best-known cure for melancholy, specifically calling it “a roaring meg against melancholy”; he concedes that “many men are [made] melancholy by music”—though it is a “pleasing” kind.
( More on studies using computer-based analysis to gauge emotional perceptions ):
For example, Markus Schedl and collaborators utilized powerful computer-based analytical tools (Essentia, MIR Toolbox) to correlate Zentner’s music-specific (GEMS) emotional responses to highly nuanced sonic / acoustic shifts in the music; beyond “spectral complexity”, his study also correlated to musical variables such as spectral skewness, kurtosis, and energy in bark bands. While interesting and potentially promising down the line, these observations provide results that are too technical and abstract to help the average music lovers understand where their music-emotion reactions are coming from. See n. 714 for bibliographic reference.
( Details of Anthony Tommasini’s NY Times articles on favorite moments of musical surprise—see also n. 715 ):
A few years back, celebrated New York Times music critic Anthony Tommasini presented his favorite instances of musical surprise—including not only in Haydn’s Surprise Symphony , but also the ominous low trills in the first movement of Schubert’s final Piano Sonata in Bb, D.9650 ; readers then submitted their own favorite examples in works by Debussy (“Golliwog’s Cakewalk”), Wagner ( Tristan und Isolde —via the final resolution of the “Tristan chord” at the end of the “Liebestod”), and others.
( More on the experience of frisson or “chills”—see also n. 715 ):
As Altenmüller notes, the increased frequency of frisson / chills when we are alone may be linked to a sense of shame, preventing us from experiencing such an intimate experience when in a group setting.
( More on Huron’s preference for “predictive effect” to Zajonc’s “exposure effect ):
“If my account is correct, then it is not frequency of occurrence per se that accounts for the experience of pleasure, but sure and accurate prediction. That is, the pleasure of the exposure effect is not a phenomenon of “mere exposure” or “familiarity.” It is accurate prediction that is rewarded—and then misattributed to the stimulus. If the view I have offered here is right, then “exposure effect” is a poor label for this phenomenon. A more appropriate label would be the “prediction effect.” (Huron, Sweet Anticipation, 138-39).
( More on Daniel Berlyne’s notion of the “arousal potential”—see also n. 728 ):
Berlyne defined the arousal potential as the “’’psychological strength’ of a stimulus pattern, the degree to which it can disturb and alert the organism, the ease with which it can take over control of behavior and overcome the claims of competing stimuli”.
( More on Carl Jung’s psychological typology theories—see also n. 735 ):
A key component of Jung’s typology as well is that our non-dominant attitude, type, and functions are not absent from our personality; instead, our “inferior” dimensions form a repressed and/or unconscious aspect of our psyche, to varying degrees. In turn, it is the interaction or “tensions” between our dominant and inferior typology that not only defines our personality but also—and more critically for Jung’s purpose—may well underlie manifestations of neurosis. For more on Jung’s theories of psychological types, including their relationship to his broader output.
( Details on various music preference factors—see also n. 738 ):
To specify a few: George’s 2007 study distilled 30 genres into 8 music preference factors: e.g., Rebellious = grunge, heavy metal, punk, alternative, classic rock; Classical = classical, choral, Broadway; Delsing’s 2008 study distilled 11 genres into 4 different factors: e.g., Rock = heavy metal, punk, gothic, rock; Elite = jazz, classical, gospel, etc.; and Dunn’s 2011 study, after failing to corroborate Rentfrow & Gosling’s model, defined their own using 16 genres to produce 6 music preference factors: e.g., Rhythm ‘n blues = jazz, blues, soul; Bass heavy = rap, dance.
( Details on Greenberg’s 2016 study—see also n. 752 ):
Findings for the other 3 factors are an overall correlation of Extraversion with high arousal, negative valence, and low cognitive depth; Agreeableness with low arousal, negative valence, and high cognitive depth; and Conscientiousness with low arousal and high cognitive depth. More interesting, perhaps, are the correlations between the individual facets of each factor and these dimensional / affect aspects—for example, a correlation of the “artistic interests” facet of Openness with low arousal; and of the “adventurousness”, “intellect” and “liberalism” facets of Openness with positive valence.
( More on the controversial component to Greenberg and Baron-Cohen’s cognitive styles discussion—see also n. 754 ):
There is, in fact, a controversial dimension to this approach, given the widespread application of Baron-Cohen’s theory to the classification of autism and Asperger’s Syndrome—to which it aligns low empathizing and high systemizing. Criticism has arisen especially from Baron-Cohen’s correlation between autism and the “extreme male brain”, in turn giving rise to attacks of “neurosexism”.
( On another study that relates music preference to music sophistication or expertise ):
A somewhat related study was conducted by computer scientist Markus Schedl, as noted above: he queried how a listener’s musical expertise impacted the degree to which he or she perceived emotion in Beethoven’s Eroica Symphony . Most interesting was the finding that those with high musical expertise were less likely to agree on the precise emotions perceived (from the GEMS inventory) while hearing the piece, while those with low expertise were more in sync in their emotional perception. Clearly, the study concludes, greater musical knowledge brings with it an ability to discriminate on a more individual level. See Schedl. "On the Interrelation between Listener Characteristics.”
Principal Bibliography:
Alessia Pannese et al., “Metaphor and Music Emotion: Ancient Views and Future Directions,” Consciousness and Cognition 44 (2016)
John Sloboda, Exploring the Musical Mind: Cognition, Emotion, Ability, Function (Oxford University Press, 2005)
Marcel Zentner, Didier Grandjean, and Klaus R. Scherer, “Emotions Evoked by the Sound of Music: Characterization, Classification, and Measurement,” Emotion 8, no. 4 (2008)
Jerrold Levinson, Suffering Art Gladly: The Paradox of Negative Emotion in Art (London: Springer, 2013)
David Huron, “Why Is Sad Music Pleasurable? A Possible Role for Prolactin,” Musicae Scientiae 15, no. 2 (2011)
Patrik N. Juslin, “What Does Music Express? Basic Emotions and Beyond,” Frontiers in Psychology 4 (2013)
Leonard B. Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956)
David Brian Huron, Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006)
Robert B. Zajonc, “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9, no. 2 (1968)
Peter J. Rentfrow and Samuel D. Gosling, “The Do Re Mi’s of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, no. 6 (2003)
Boele de Raad, The Big Five Personality Factors: The Psycholexical Approach to Personality (Ashland, OR: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, 2000)
Peter J. Rentfrow, Lewis R. Goldberg, and Daniel J. Levitin, “The Structure of Musical Preferences: A Five-Factor Model.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100, no. 6 (2011)
David M. Greenberg, Daniel J. Levitin, and Peter J. Rentfrow et al., “The Song Is You: Preferences for Musical Attribute Dimensions Reflect Personality,” Social Psychological and Personality Science 7, no. 6 (2016)
Durgesh K. Upadhyay et al., “Exploring the Nature of Music Engagement and Its Relation to Personality among Young Adults,” International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 22, no. 4 (2017)
External Links:
"The Psychology of Music" (Reflected.com)
"Music Psychology" (Encylopedia.com)