the music experience questionnaire: development and correlates

19
This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University] On: 06 September 2014, At: 12:12 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20 The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates Paul D. Werner a , Alan J. Swope a & Frederick J. Heide a a California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University, San Francisco Campus Published online: 07 Aug 2010. To cite this article: Paul D. Werner , Alan J. Swope & Frederick J. Heide (2006) The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates, The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 140:4, 329-345, DOI: 10.3200/ JRLP.140.4.329-345 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.140.4.329-345 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

Upload: frederick-j

Post on 04-Feb-2017

342 views

Category:

Documents


14 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]On: 06 September 2014, At: 12:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

The Journal of Psychology:Interdisciplinary and AppliedPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

The Music ExperienceQuestionnaire: Developmentand CorrelatesPaul D. Werner a , Alan J. Swope a & Frederick J.Heide aa California School of Professional Psychology, AlliantInternational University, San Francisco CampusPublished online: 07 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Paul D. Werner , Alan J. Swope & Frederick J. Heide (2006)The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates, The Journalof Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 140:4, 329-345, DOI: 10.3200/JRLP.140.4.329-345

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.140.4.329-345

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

Page 2: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 3: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

The Music Experience Questionnaire:Development and Correlates

PAUL D. WERNERALAN J. SWOPE

FREDERICK J. HEIDECalifornia School of Professional Psychology

Alliant International University, San Francisco Campus

ABSTRACT. The authors introduce the Music Experience Questionnaire (MEQ), a self-report measure of individual differences in reactions to music. In analyses of responses ina derivation sample of 211 undergraduates and a replication sample of 105 undergradu-ates, scores on the 6 scales of this measure showed acceptable alpha coefficients and test-retest correlations. The authors found 2 principal factors: subjective/physical reactions tomusic and active involvement. MEQ scores were, at most, weakly correlated with 2 mea-sures of favorability of self-presentation, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale(D. P. Crowne & D. Marlowe, 1960) and the Responding Desirability on Attitudes andOpinions Scale (K. Schuessler, D. H. Hittle, & J. Cardascia, 1978). Examination of cor-relations between MEQ scores and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depressionscale (L. S. Radloff, 1977), as well as factor scores on the Adjective Check List (H. G.Gough & A. B. Heilbrun, 1983), suggested areas of similarity and difference in the corre-lates of music experience for women and men. The authors discuss directions for futureresearch as well as potential uses of the MEQ.

Key words: assessment, individual differences, music

DESPITE THE PERVASIVENESS AND IMPACT OF MUSIC, few measuresare available to assess, economically and in broad samples, reactions to and expe-riences of music from an individual differences perspective (Boyle & Radocy,1987; Bullock, 1973). Most assessment devices that gauge individual differencesin reactions to music have been designed for use in music education settings. Theprocedures for using them are cumbersome in that the assessment devices typi-

The authors thank Bishop Scott for his assistance with recruitment of participants, col-leagues who provided helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, and the manyCSPP students who contributed to this project as research assistants.

Address correspondence to Paul Werner, California School of Professional Psycholo-gy, Alliant International University, One Beach Street, Suite 100, San Francisco, CA94133-1221; [email protected] (e-mail).

329

The Journal of Psychology, 2006, 140(4), 329–345Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 4: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

cally involve playing musical excerpts to test-takers, who then indicate their reac-tions to these excerpts. Furthermore, such assessments typically focus on attitu-dinal responses rather than on broader psychological issues, such as the place ofmusic in one’s self-definition.

In this context, a number of additional aspects of music experience warrantattention in broadly assessing the place of music in people’s lives. These include(a) physical and motor responses, which have been studied extensively in labo-ratory settings (Dainow, 1977), (b) absorption in musical experience (Tellegen &Atkinson, 1974), (c) perceived beneficial effects of musical experience (e.g.,calming, cheering, energizing effects), and (d) responses that foster or potentiatesocial relationships with others (Crozier, 1997; Hargreaves & North, 1999). Thebroad assessment perspective that we envision may foster articulation of the linksbetween musical experiences and aspects of personality, a topic of theoreticalinterest (LeBlanc, 1980) that has received little research attention (Rawlings &Ciancarelli, 1997; Wapnick, 1976). Because experiences and activities involvingmusic have come to be incorporated into treatment approaches in psychologicalcontexts (Cassity & Theobold, 1990; Cevasco, Kennedy, & Generally, 2005) andmedical contexts (Hilliard, 2003; Standley, 1986), a new measure may havepotential as a tool for informing clinicians’ decisions about likely benefits ofmusic for a particular client.

In light of these considerations, we developed a broad-based questionnairemeasuring the experience of music. We will use this measure to explore the rela-tionship between aspects of self-reported musical experience and measures rep-resenting aspects of personality, as well as clinically relevant behavior.

Method

Participants

Our derivation sample consisted of 211 community college students (155women, 56 men), and our replication sample consisted of 105 community collegestudents (61 women, 44 men). We recruited both samples from psychology class-es. In the combined sample, the mean age was 24.7 years (SD = 7.8). Of the 304participants reporting their ethnicity, 36% (n = 108) described themselves asAsian American, 25% (n = 77) as African American, 13% (n = 39) as White, 6%(n = 18) as Hispanic, and 20% (n = 62) as of other ethnic backgrounds. We askedparticipants in the replication sample about their musical background, and of the91 who responded to these questions, 53% (n = 48) reported ever having played amusical instrument, and 21% (n = 19) reported ever having taken singing lessons.

Materials

Music Experience Questionnaire. Development of the Music Experience Ques-tionnaire (MEQ) began with the drafting, editing, and organizing of a pool of

330 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 5: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

items for use in our initial research: (a) we read extensively in the professional,scholarly, and lay literature about reactions to music, making note of themes inthis literature concerning music experience; (b) we held discussions with profes-sional and amateur musicians of varied backgrounds as well as with many non-musicians; and (c) we led a semester-long work group on the topic of musicexperience in our graduate psychology program, one element of which was dis-cussing constructs and potential items for our questionnaire.

In writing items, we aimed to cover varied aspects of the experience ofmusic in a person’s life and to represent topics relevant to people in general (e.g.,whether one enjoys singing in the shower or bath) as well as to musicians (e.g.,the belief that one has a perfect sense of pitch). We chose not to emphasize pref-erences among types of music, but rather to focus on aspects of the experience ofmusic, whatever variant one encounters. This process led to the inclusion of 141items on the initial version of the Music Experience Questionnaire, which tookapproximately 20 minutes for participants to complete. The questionnaire used a5-point scale from 1 (very untrue) to 5 (very true). In analyses of data from thederivation sample, we refined six scales developed on rational and theoreticalgrounds through item analyses aimed at increasing internal consistency. Werequired an additional criterion in the scale development phase of the analyses:that each item correlated more strongly with the scale to which it was assignedthan with any of the other scales. The final MEQ includes 53 items. The scaleconstructs and their definitions (as well as sample items) are as follows:

1. Commitment to Music, the centrality of pursuit of musical experiences inthe person’s life. (Sample item: It is important for me to see music beingperformed and not just hear it.)

2. Innovative Musical Aptitude, self-reports of musical performance abilityas well as the ability to generate musical themes and works. (Sampleitem: People have applauded my performance of music.)

3. Social Uplift, the experience of being stirred and uplifted in a group-ori-ented manner by music. (Sample item: I wish my family had sung togeth-er more when I was growing up. [Reverse-scored])

4. Affective Reactions, affective and spiritual reactions to music. (Sampleitem: I love some kinds of music.)

5. Positive Psychotropic Effects, calming, energizing, integrating reactions.(Sample item: Music unites my mind and my body.)

6. Reactive Musical Behavior, motile reactions including humming andswaying along with music. (Sample item: Certain music draws mestrongly to dance.)

Measures of response style. We included two measures of response style to gaugethe extent to which MEQ scores are associated with overt or unconsciousattempts at impression management (Paulhus, 1991). The extensively studied

Werner, Swope, & Heide 331

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 6: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) appearsto measure impression management (tailoring one’s self-presentation to theexpectations of an audience) and has been conceptualized as indicating one’slevel of need for social approval (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). The RespondingDesirability on Attitudes and Opinions Scale (RD-16; Schuessler, Hittle, & Car-dascia, 1978) assesses the tendency to describe oneself in an overly favorablemanner, when such self-presentations are made honestly rather than with the goalof inaccurately portraying oneself. In other words, people who score high on theRD-16 think highly of themselves by glossing over their flaws and shortcomings.The RD-16 is noteworthy in that its creators carefully selected the items to beunbiased with regard to the ethnicity and education of respondents. Researchsuggests that the RD-16 and Marlowe-Crowne scales reflect the independentdimensions underlying the social desirability domain (Paulhus).

Measures of clinically relevant behavior and personality. We used the Center forEpidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) to measuredepressive symptomatology. Scores on this widely used, brief questionnaire havebeen found to show acceptable reliability, as well as concurrent validity, vis-à-visa variety of criteria (Shaver & Brennan, 1991). We included the Adjective CheckList (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1983), a brief measure covering a variety ofaspects of personality, in the research packets of a subset of 115 participants. Inthis study, we analyzed summary scores on two sets of ACL factors that havebeen derived in previous research. The first consisted of factors found by Goughand Heilbrun to underlie ACL scale scores: Potency (resourcefulness, goal ori-entation), Assertiveness, Sociability, Individuality, Dissatisfaction, and Constric-tion (respect for rules; self-discipline). The second set of ACL factor variableswas introduced by FormyDuval, Williams, Patterson, and Fogle (1995) andWilliams, Satterwhite, and Saiz (1998) for the purpose of measuring the Big Fivepersonality dimensions of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience.

Procedure

We distributed research questionnaires to interested students at class meet-ings. With instructor permission, a member of the research team visited eachclass and invited students to take part in a project aimed at helping psychologistsform a better understanding of individual differences in the place of music inpeople’s lives. The instructor had agreed to provide extra credit to participants.We provided informed consent information (e.g., concerning the anonymity andconfidentiality of data) verbally as well as in writing and gave students the oppor-tunity to ask questions about the goals and procedures of the research. Studentswho requested research packets were instructed to complete the forms at home,in conditions presenting few interruptions and disturbances, and to return their

332 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 7: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

forms in class the following week. Two weeks after distribution of the initialquestionnaire packets in derivation sample classrooms, we returned to a subset ofclassrooms to recruit participants for the test-retest phase of the study. A sub-sample of 39 participants earned additional extra class credit in this phase; mem-bers completed a second MEQ at home 2–3 weeks after initial testing.

Statistical Analyses

After reporting on basic psychometric properties of the MEQ in the deriva-tion and replication sample, we will present evidence concerning the MEQ’s fac-tor structure. Next we will consider gender differences in MEQ scores and ana-lyze correlates of MEQ scores by gender. We conducted analyses by gender forthree reasons. First, prior evidence suggests gender differences in broad areas ofengagement with music, such as choice of instrument and musical preferences,as well as in likely contributors such as preference for tempo and timbre (Maid-low & Bruce, 1999; O’Neill, 1997). Second, numerous authors in the areas ofresearch methodology and statistics have recommended considering the impactof status variables such as gender on research findings (Heppner, Kivlighan, &Wampold, 1999; Hohmann & Parron, 1996; Howell, 2002). Third, similar rec-ommendations have been made in the assessment literature, in this case focusingon the conceptual and practical value of determining whether scales have similarcorrelates and norms across groups based on status variables such as gender(American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Associa-tion, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999).

Results

Psychometric and Distribution Properties of the MEQ Scales

Reliability. The center and right panels in Table 1 show classical theory alpha reli-ability coefficients for scores on the MEQ’s scales in the derivation sample and inthe replication sample, respectively. Alpha coefficients in the derivation sampleranged from .62 to .89 (M = .77). The mean alpha in the replication sample was .74.The only notable decrement in alpha reliability was found with the Social Upliftscale. Test-retest Pearson correlations ranged from .60 to .74 (M = .68). Thus, scoreson the scales showed acceptable internal consistency and retest stability, given thatthe MEQ was completed on a take-home basis under uncontrolled conditions.

Factor structure of the MEQ scales. Table 1 also shows pattern/structure coefficientsobtained in exploratory factor analyses of MEQ scale scores in the derivation andreplication samples. We used the principal factors method in these analyses becausewe assumed that each scale has unique variance unshared with the other scales onthe questionnaire. In each sample, we extracted two factors with eigenvalues greater

Werner, Swope, & Heide 333

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 8: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

334 The Journal of Psychology

TA

BL

E 1

. Rel

iabi

litie

s an

d F

acto

r St

ruct

ure

of t

he M

usic

Exp

erie

nce

Que

stio

nnai

re

Der

ivat

ion

sam

ple

(n=

211

)R

eplic

atio

n sa

mpl

e (n

= 1

05)

Patte

rn/

Patte

rn/

stru

ctur

est

ruct

ure

Ret

est

coef

fici

ents

coef

fici

ents

Scal

e (n

o. o

f ite

ms)

MSD

12

αM

SD2

1

Com

mitm

ent t

o M

usic

(7)

.74*

**.7

42.

48.8

3.0

4.6

5a.6

92.

54.7

9–.

08.7

8a

Inno

vativ

e M

usic

al A

ptitu

de (

7).6

6***

.74

2.65

.82

.1.6

4a.7

82.

82.9

0.1

2.6

3a

Soci

al U

plif

t (4)

.72*

**.6

23.

00.9

1.1

4.5

4a.5

22.

98.8

3.1

2.4

5a

Aff

ectiv

e R

eact

ions

(10

).6

0***

.78

3.97

.67

.83a

–.10

.74

3.96

.68

.85a

–.18

Posi

tive

Psyc

hotr

opic

Eff

ects

(16

).7

3***

.89

3.35

.76

.62a

.60

.86

3.29

.72

.64a

.61a

Rea

ctiv

e M

usic

al B

ehav

ior

(9)

.63*

**.8

53.

73.8

53.

69a

.25

.82

3.74

.83

.74a

.36

Not

e. B

efor

e ro

tatio

n in

the

der

ivat

ion

sam

ple,

Fact

or 1

had

an

eige

nval

ue o

f 2.

59 a

nd a

ccou

nted

for

43.

19%

of

the

vari

ance

. Fol

low

ing

rota

tion,

this

fact

or a

ccou

nted

for

26.

38%

of

the

vari

ance

. Bef

ore

rota

tion

in th

e de

riva

tion

sam

ple,

Fact

or 2

had

an

eige

nval

ue o

f 1.

44 a

nd a

ccou

nted

for

23.

93%

of

the

vari

ance

. Fol

low

ing

rota

tion,

this

fac

tor

acco

unte

d fo

r 25

.75%

of

the

vari

ance

. Bef

ore

rota

tion

in th

e re

plic

atio

n sa

mpl

e,Fa

ctor

1 h

ad a

n ei

genv

al-

ue o

f 2.

67 a

nd a

ccou

nted

for

44.

46%

of

the

vari

ance

. Fol

low

ing

rota

tion,

this

fac

tor

acco

unte

d fo

r 28

.97%

of

the

vari

ance

. Bef

ore

rota

tion

in th

e re

pli-

catio

n sa

mpl

e,Fa

ctor

2 h

ad a

n ei

genv

alue

of

1.52

and

acc

ount

ed f

or 2

5.30

% o

f th

e va

rian

ce. F

ollo

win

g ro

tatio

n,it

acco

unte

d fo

r 28

.68%

of

the

vari

-an

ce.

a Pat

tern

or

stru

ctur

e co

effi

cien

ts g

reat

er th

an .4

0.

***p

< .0

01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 9: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

than 1 and rotated by the varimax method. The factors we obtained in the replica-tion sample substantially paralleled those found in the derivation sample, althoughthey emerged in reverse order. (To clarify the underlying similarity of these results,Table 1 shows the factors for the replication sample in reverse order of extraction.)

We reran the factor analysis using all respondents in both of our samples toprovide factor score variables for use in the analyses of the combined sample tobe reported below. The results were essentially the same as those in the deriva-tion sample. Prior to rotation, the first factor had an eigenvalue of 2.60 andaccounted for 43.29% of the variance; following rotation, it accounted for27.01% of the variance. This factor was labeled Subjective/Physical Reactionsand was defined by the following scales: Affective Reactions (loading = .84),Positive Psychotropic Effects (loading = .63), and Reactive Musical Behavior(loading = .70). Prior to rotation, the second factor had an eigenvalue of 1.47 andaccounted for 24.44% of the variance; following rotation, it accounted for26.55% of the variance. This factor was labeled Active Involvement and wasdefined by the following scales: Commitment to Music (loading = .70), Innova-tive Musical Aptitude (loading = .62), Positive Psychotropic Effects (loading =.61), and Social Uplift (loading = .50).

Descriptive statistics and gender differences. For the most part, MEQ scale scoredistributions were unimodal and symmetrical. Descriptive statistics on the scalesand factors, broken down by gender, are shown in Table 2. A MANOVA on thescales suggested an overall gender difference (Wilks’s Λ = .934; F(6, 301) = 3.523;p = .002; partial eta squared = .066), and, in the t tests, women scored significantlylower than men on the Commitment to Music scale and higher than men on theAffective Reactions scale. We found gender differences on both factors (Table 2),with women scoring higher on Factor 1 (Subjective/Physical Reactions) and loweron Factor 2 (Active Involvement). The effect size statistics suggest that the genderdifferences were small.

Response Style Correlates

Table 3 shows the correlations between the MEQ scales and factors and theresponse style measures. For women in the combined sample, MEQ scores wereunrelated to Marlowe-Crowne (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964) scores (see Table 3).For men, there was, at most, a weak negative relationship between Marlowe-Crowne scores and one MEQ scale, Positive Psychotropic Effects. In other words,for men, the tendency not to report positive psychotropic effects was associatedwith a higher need for social approval, as measured by the Marlowe-Crowne scale.

We obtained several significant correlations between the MEQ and the RD-16 (Schuessler et al., 1978) scale for women, although their magnitude was low(maximum r2 = .05). We found a similar pattern of relationships for men, althoughnone of these correlations obtained significance, possibly due to the lower statis-

Werner, Swope, & Heide 335

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 10: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

336 The Journal of Psychology

TABLE 2. Descriptive Statistics on Music Experience Questionnaire (MEQ)Variables, by Gender

Womena Menb Cohen’s

MEQ variable M SD M SD t d

ScalesCommitment to Music 2.41 .79 2.71 .83 –3.07** .37Innovative Musical Aptitude 2.65 .84 2.84 .86 –1.77 .22Social Uplift 2.98 .89 3.03 .87 –0.45 .05Affective Reactions 4.05 .63 3.80 .73 3.12** .38Positive Psychotropic Effects 3.33 .75 3.37 .75 –0.03 .00Reactive Musical Behavior 3.80 .86 3.60 .80 1.91 .23

Factors1: Subjective or Physical Reactions .12 .97 –.25 1.04 3.08** .382: Active Involvement –.10 1.00 .25 .97 –2.90** .36

an = 216. bn = 100.**p < .01.

TABLE 3. Correlations Between Music Expression Questionnaire (MEQ)Variables, Two Measures of Self-Presentation, and the Center for Epidemio-logical Study (CES) Depression Scale

Marlowe-Crowne RD-16 CES-Depression

MEQ Variable Womena Menb Womenc Mend Womene Menf

ScalesCommitment to Music –.04 –.08 –.18** –.17 .27*** .05Innovative Musical Aptitude .09 .02 –.04 –.16 .01 .17Social Uplift –.03 –.13 –.08 .05 .15* .13Affective Reactions .03 –.05 .21** .18 –.04 –.24*Positive Psychotropic Effects –.02 –.32** .01 .02 .14 .09Reactive Musical Behavior –.04 .18 .20** .12 .05 .00

Factors1: Subjective or

Physical Reactions .01 –.09 .22** .20 –.01 –.182: Active Involvement –.02 –.14 –.15* –.18 .21** .27*

Note. RD-16 = Responding Desirability on Attitudes and Opinions Scale. an = 184. bn = 82. cn = 189. dn = 86. en = 183. fn = 181. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 11: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

tical power in this sample. In general, scores on MEQ Factor 1 (Subjective/Phys-ical Reactions) and two of its constituent scales, Affective Reactions and ReactiveMusical Behavior, were positively associated with scores on the RD-16. Scores onMEQ Factor 2 (Active Involvement) and the constituent Commitment to Musicscale were negatively associated with RD-16 scores for women.

Clinical and Personality Correlates

Depression and MEQ scores. For respondents of both genders, we found signif-icant positive correlations between CES-Depression (Radloff, 1977) scores andscores on MEQ Factor 2 (see Table 3). For women, CES-D scores were addi-tionally associated with this MEQ factor’s constituent scales of Commitment toMusic and Social Uplift. In view of the significant correlation between CES-Dand RD-16 (Schuessler et al., 1978) scores for women (r = –.38, p < .001), wecomputed partial correlations to explore the possibility that scores on the RD-16could help explain the relationship between these MEQ scores and the CES-D(i.e., that comfort in acknowledging depressive experiences rather than the expe-rience of depression itself is associated with these MEQ dimensions). Partial cor-relations between the CES and scores on Factor 2 (r = .16, p < .05) and Com-mitment to Music (r = .22, p < .01) remained statistically significant, but thepartial correlation with Social Uplift was no longer significant (r = .13, p < .10).It appears that the relationship between depression and MEQ scores for womenwas not explained by this response style measure. For men, the Affective Reac-tions scale was associated negatively, but weakly, with CES-D scores. In consid-ering these depression correlates, we note that the maximum obtained r2 was .07.

Adjective Check List correlates. Table 4 shows correlations between the MEQvariables and the ACL (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) dimensions studied. Becauseof the large number of correlations in this table, we focus our presentation on thecorrelates of MEQ factor scores. In results for both women and men, we foundnegative correlations between scores on the MEQ Active Involvement factor andthe ACL Constriction and Conscientiousness factors. Moreover, for respondentsof both genders, there was a negative correlation between this MEQ factor andthe Big Five Agreeableness scale. For men there were additional negative asso-ciations between the Active Involvement factor and ACL Sociability, Potency,and Emotional Stability scores. For women, but not for men, scores on the Sub-jective/Physical Reactions factor were positively associated with ACL variablesfor Potency, Constriction, and Conscientiousness.

Discussion

We devised the Music Experience Questionnaire (MEQ) to measure variedaspects of the place of music in people’s lives. Rather than study reactions to

Werner, Swope, & Heide 337

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 12: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

338 The Journal of Psychology

TA

BL

E 4

. Rel

iabi

litie

s an

d F

acto

r St

ruct

ure

of t

he M

usic

Exp

erie

nce

Que

stio

nnai

re

ME

Q s

cale

sM

EQ

fac

tors

Inno

vativ

ePo

sitiv

eR

eact

ive

Subj

ectiv

e/C

omm

itmen

tM

usic

alSo

cial

Aff

ectiv

ePs

ycho

trop

icM

usic

alPh

ysic

alA

ctiv

eSc

ale

to M

usic

Apt

itude

Upl

ift

Rea

ctio

nsE

ffec

tsB

ehav

ior

Rea

ctio

nsIn

volv

emen

t

Wom

en (

n=

72)

Gou

gh-H

eilb

run

Fact

ors

Pote

ncy

–.13

–.03

–.14

.31*

*–.

04.2

9*.3

0*

–.17

Ass

ertiv

enes

s.0

9.1

2–.

12.0

5.1

0.4

4***

.16

.09

Soci

abili

ty–.

07.0

1–.

14.2

7*.0

2.1

6.2

3–.

14In

divi

dual

ity.2

2.0

2–.

05.0

9.2

3*.3

0*.1

7.1

7D

issa

tisfa

ctio

n–.

07–.

07.0

4–.

01.1

4.1

2.0

8.0

4C

onst

rict

ion

–.28

*–.

27*

–.11

.32*

.00

.01

.26*

–.32

**B

ig F

ive

Fact

ors

Ext

rave

rsio

n–.

10–.

03–.

22.2

4*–.

05.2

1.2

1–.

19A

gree

able

ness

–.17

–.14

–.19

.16

–.18

–.09

.06

–.28

*C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

–.20

–.11

–.18

.26*

–.03

.18

.24*

–.24

*E

mot

iona

l Sta

bilit

y–.

12–.

07–.

13.1

9–.

08.0

5.1

3–.

19O

penn

ess

to E

xper

ienc

e.0

5.0

5–.

18.2

5*.0

4.2

7*.2

3–.

06

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 13: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

Werner, Swope, & Heide 339

Men

(n

= 4

3)G

ough

-Hei

lbru

n Fa

ctor

sPo

tenc

y–.

45**

–.30

.00

.06

–.30

–.02

.04

–.38

*A

sser

tiven

ess

.06

.14

.05

.03

.04

.20

.07

.08

Soci

abili

ty–.

48**

–.36

*–.

08.0

8–.

26.0

2.0

9–.

41**

Indi

vidu

ality

.28

.37*

.07

.16

.31*

.38*

.24

.29

Dis

satis

fact

ion

.08

.05

–.17

.14

–.12

–.18

–.01

–.08

Con

stri

ctio

n–.

35*

–.39

*–.

20.0

5–.

38*

–.44

*–.

12–.

44**

Big

Fiv

e Fa

ctor

s E

xtra

vers

ion

–.40

**–.

14–.

06.0

0–.

23.0

5.0

1–.

28A

gree

able

ness

–.52

***

–.22

–.07

–.01

–.29

–.02

.00

–.37

*C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

–.51

***

–.28

–.06

.02

–.36

*–.

05–.

01–.

42**

Em

otio

nal S

tabi

lity

–.49

**–.

18–.

08.0

2–.

24.0

8.0

6–.

36*

Ope

nnes

s to

Exp

erie

nce

–.25

.06

–.05

–.02

.14

.08

.01

–.16

*p<

.05.

**p

< .0

1. *

**p

< .0

01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 14: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

music thorough laboratory procedures in which individuals respond to musicalexcerpts (e.g., Brim, 1978), we wanted to assess the domain of musical experi-ence through self-reports about general responses to music. Thus, participantsreported on life experiences across many contexts, rather than responding to anarrow range of selected music samples in a laboratory. In this sense, our methodhas some of the advantages of a field study of music experience.

Results suggested that the six dimensions assessed by the MEQ are mea-sured with acceptable reliability and that they are not strongly influenced byattempts to manipulate one’s self-presentation. Brim (1978, p. 75), after consid-ering the literature on reactions to music, found it useful to gauge aestheticresponse to music in two domains, the “emotional-cognitive” and the “physio-logical.” In two ways, our findings are consistent with this perspective: (a) wefound that two dimensions underlie reported reactions to and experiences ofmusic, and (b) the composition of the two dimensions obtained was, to someextent, consistent with the distinction summarized by Brim. Unlike Brim, weconceive of these dimensions as individual difference variables, which are con-ceptualized as being relevant to broad aspects of reactions to music and to otheraesthetic stimuli. Future researchers studying the MEQ should examine relation-ships of its scores with measures of additional constructs pertaining to reactionsto music. One such measure is the Absorption Scale (Tellegen & Atkinson,1974), which has been found to relate not only to variables concerning musicexperience, but also to variables reflecting involvement in and reactions to thevisual arts and literature (Wild, Kuiken, & Schopflocher, 1995).

The MEQ’s individual differences perspective may contribute to futureresearch on use of music for therapeutic purposes. First, variations in the experi-ence of music may relate to people’s informal use of music for betterment of theirphysical or mental health, separate from music treatment. For example, Metzger(2004) found variations in the extent to which cardiac rehabilitation patients usedmusic to help achieve health goals (e.g., in use of music as a motivator for exer-cise). Study of these variations in relation to dimensions such as those on theMEQ may help elucidate why people choose or do not choose to build music intotheir health regimens, and results might help identify patients to whom to rec-ommend use of music in this way. Second, individual differences such as thosemeasured by the MEQ may enrich study of why people seek music therapy oragree to undergo it when it is offered within a treatment setting (Kruse, 2003). Inother words, research could explore whether potential clients’ choices aboutwhether to engage in music therapy are predicted by MEQ variables.

Third, individual differences such as those measured by the MEQ may per-tain to variations in responsiveness to music therapy and other music-orientedtreatments. Background variables such as age and prior music involvement (e.g.,whether one is a musician) have received study in relation to outcomes of musicinterventions (Pelletier, 2004). However, studies on effectiveness of music ther-apies generally appear to treat individual differences in responsiveness to music

340 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 15: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

as reflections of random variation (Kenny & Faunce, 2004) rather than as poten-tially meaningful contributors to understanding outcomes. Few authors have con-sidered individual differences in reactions to music in planning for its likely roleas a component of such treatment. Just as music therapists often attempt “tomatch the parameters and mood of the music...to the mood, tempo and loudnessetc. of the client” (Bunt, 1997, p. 254), research could explore whether matchingbetween intervention techniques and client reactions to music, as measured bythe MEQ, can improve the efficacy of music interventions.

If continued research substantiates the psychometric properties of the MEQ,including the concurrent validity of each of its scales, the information that it yieldscould prove useful to those who work with music for clinical purposes. Possiblelinkages between MEQ assessment and approaches to treatment warrant note.Standley (1986) suggested that one possible mechanism for the apparent effect ofmusic treatment on health outcomes is its role in reducing feelings of anxiety, inse-curity, and isolation, and experimental evidence suggests that relaxing music pro-duces beneficial physiological effects (Knight & Rickard, 2001). The MEQ’s Pos-itive Psychotropic Effects scale may be relevant to the likelihood of responding tosuch relaxation-oriented music treatment. This scale may additionally be relevantto responses to cognitively oriented interventions, such as that studied by Kerr,Walsh, and Marshall (2001), which use music to stimulate rather than to calm emo-tions. In such applications, music is employed to excite emotions that the therapistand client work with through therapeutic reframing. From a more psychodynamicperspective, Darnley-Smith and Patey (2003) described the assumptions underly-ing analytic music therapy as including the notions that it furthers the relationshipbetween the client and the therapist, that it offers a unique mode of self-expression,and that it fosters emotional awareness and deepens emotional reactions. Theseauthors additionally discussed the role of improvisational activities as central ele-ments in many applications of music therapy. MEQ scales relevant to these com-ponents of music therapy, as outlined by Darnley-Smith and Patey, may includeSocial Uplift, Affective Reactions, and Innovative Music Aptitude. Future researchcould explore whether the MEQ scales we have mentioned, or others, can helpidentify patients who are more or less likely to respond favorably to particularmusical stimuli or musical activities presented for therapeutic purposes.

The MEQ might also be applicable in music education, if research suggeststhat scores can be employed by music educators to tailor their methods so as toinstruct adult students more effectively. Although the MEQ does not aspire togauge technical aspects of musical behavior of relevance to success in musicaltraining, the information it can provide about experiential aspects of music forstudents may benefit educators. For example, research could explore whether theMEQ can help identify sources of dropout among conservatory students.

Our results suggest that aspects of music experience are situated within thecontext of aspects of personality and of at least one aspect of clinical process,depression. These findings suggest that individual differences in reactions to

Werner, Swope, & Heide 341

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 16: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

and experiences of music can, in part, be understood in reference to such char-acteristics, and they suggest directions for future research. In analyses of theMEQ correlates of depression scores, results for women suggested that thosewith higher scores on the Commitment to Music scale were more likely toreport depression than those low on this dimension. On the other hand, thefindings for men suggest that fullness of affective reaction to music (AffectiveReactions scale) may be most readily achieved among those experiencinglower levels of depression, or that depression impedes this aspect of the expe-rience of music. Our results with the ACL (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) suggestthat both women and men who score higher on the MEQ Active Involvementfactor are somewhat norm-challenging in their orientation. Moreover, ourresults may suggest that higher scorers on the MEQ Active Involvement factordo not fit in easily with others, and that for higher-scoring men, active involve-ment in music contrasts with and perhaps compensates for a disaffected, with-drawn, and even somewhat undirected attitude. The results also suggest thatwomen scoring higher on the MEQ’s Subjective/Physical Reactions factor tendto get things done in an organized, goal-oriented, rule-following way. Thesedepression and Adjective Check List findings suggest that further research onpersonality and clinical correlates of MEQ scores can contribute to a greaterunderstanding of the role music plays in people’s lives. Moreover, althoughmean gender differences in MEQ scores were small, the result that MEQ scoreshave somewhat different correlates for women and men suggests that musicalexperience may play a different role in the psychological lives of men and ofwomen. Such an interpretation is consistent with findings of differences inwomen’s and men’s engagement with music (Maidlow & Bruce, 1999; O’Neill,1997). Thus, our results suggest the potential value of taking gender intoaccount in future research on correlates of music experience.

We suggest three further directions for future research. First, Konecni(1982) has argued, based on results of many research studies, that musicalchoices and preferences are influenced by the specific situational contexts inwhich music is experienced. Building upon this line of work, the MEQ could beused to study how trait-like aspects of reaction to music conjoin with music-related situational factors to impact musical experiences in particular settings.Moreover, people’s standing on variables assessed by the MEQ may lead themto choose to spend time in specific situations with particular music-related char-acteristics. Second, in future research with a larger sample, confirmatory factoranalysis of the MEQ at the item level should be undertaken. This would providean additional means of confirming the proposed six-scale structure of the itemsemployed in our research and the finding that two factors underlie these items.Third, future research could study the relationships between MEQ scores andscores on more traditional laboratory-based musical assessment procedures.Results of such research could provide useful information about the constructvalidity of the MEQ’s scales.

342 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 17: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

A strength of our research method was the great ethnic diversity of our sam-ple. As we continue to expand our data collection, we anticipate investigatingwhether the psychometric properties and correlates of MEQ scores are similarfor members of varied ethnic groups. Although a limitation of our sample is thatit consisted of college students, this community college group was older andshowed more dispersion on age than a typical college sample. Another limitationof our method was that we did not ask about participants’ current involvement inplaying musical instruments or in other musical activities such as singing. Futureresearch on the MEQ could compare responses of musicians and nonmusicians,or compare professional and amateur musicians, as well as correlate scores onthe MEQ with variables representing other aspects of musical background. Thus,further research is needed (a) with broader samples, (b) with samples specifical-ly comprised of musicians or music students, and (c) directly correlating MEQscores with scores on other measures of involvement in music or controlling forvariables representing involvement in music. In considering future developmentof the MEQ, we also acknowledge that many items in our item pool were not rep-resented on the six scales scored for this article. Future analyses with larger sam-ples may help us identify a more extensive set of aspects of musical experienceto assess using the MEQ item pool, as well as ways of more fully assessing thesix aspects currently included in the MEQ scales.

REFERENCES

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, &National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational andpsychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Boyle, J. D., & Radocy, R. E. (1987). Measurement and evaluation of musical experi-ences. New York: Schirmer.

Brim, R. (1978). The effect of personality variables, dogmatism and repression-sensitiza-tion upon response to music. Journal of Music Therapy, 15, 74–87.

Bullock, W. J. (1973). A review of measures of musico-aesthetic attitude. Journal ofResearch in Music Education, 21, 331–345.

Bunt, L. (1997). Clinical and therapeutic uses of music. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North(Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 249–267). Oxford, England: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Cassity, M. D., & Theobold, K. A. K. (1990). Domestic violence: Assessments and treat-ments employed by music therapists. Journal of Music Therapy, 27, 179–194.

Cevasco, A. M., Kennedy, R., & Generally, N. R. (2005). Comparison of movement-to-music, rhythm activities, and competitive games on depression, stress, anxiety, andanger of females in substance abuse rehabilitation. Journal of Music Therapy, 42,64–80.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent ofpsychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.Crozier, W. R. (1997). Music and social influence. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North

(Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 67–83). Oxford, England: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Werner, Swope, & Heide 343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 18: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

Dainow, E. (1977). Physical effects and motor responses to music. Journal of Research inMusic Education, 25, 211–221.

Darnley-Smith, R., & Patey, H. M. (2003). Music therapy. London: Sage.FormyDuval, D. L., Williams, J. E., Patterson, D. J., & Fogle, E. E. (1995). A “big five”

scoring system for the item pool of the Adjective Check List. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 65, 59–76.

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B., Jr. (1983). Adjective Checklist manual (1983 ed.). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (1999). The functions of music in everyday life:Redefining the social in music psychology. Psychology of Music, 27, 71–83.

Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Wampold, B. E. (1999). Research design in coun-seling (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Hilliard, R. E. (2003). The effects of music therapy on the quality and length of life of peo-ple diagnosed with terminal cancer. Journal of Music Therapy, 40, 113–137.

Hohmann, A. A., & Parron, D. L. (1996). How the new NIH guidelines on inclusion ofwomen and minorities apply: Efficacy trials, effectiveness trials and validity. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 851–855.

Howell, D. C. (2002). Statistical methods for psychology (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA:Duxbury.

Kenny, D. T., & Faunce, G. (2004). The impact of group singing on mood, coping, andperceived pain in chronic pain patients attending a multidisciplinary pain clinic. Jour-nal of Music Therapy, 41, 241–258.

Kerr, T., Walsh, J., & Marshall, A. (2001). Emotional change processes in music-assistedreframing. Journal of Music Therapy, 38, 193–211.

Knight, W. E. J., & Rickard, N. S. (2001). Relaxing music prevents stress-induced increas-es in subjective anxiety, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate in healthy males andfemales. Journal of Music Therapy, 38, 254–272.

Konecni, V. J. (1982). Social interaction and musical preference. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), Thepsychology of music (pp. 497–516). New York: Academic Press.

Kruse, J. (2003). Music therapy in United States cancer settings: Recent trends in prac-tice. Music Therapy Perspectives, 21, 89–98.

LeBlanc, A. (1980). Outline of a proposed model of sources of variation in musical taste.Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 16, 29–34.

Maidlow, S., & Bruce, R. (1999). The role of psychology research in understanding thesex/gender paradox in music—“plus ça change...” Psychology of Music, 27, 147–158.

Metzger, L. K. (2004). Assessment of use of music by patients participating in cardiacrehabilitation. Journal of Music Therapy, 41, 55–69.

O’Neill, S. A. (1997). Gender and music. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), Thesocial psychology of music (pp. 46–63). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R.Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychologicalattitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pelletier, C. L. (2004). The effect of music on decreasing arousal due to stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Music Therapy, 41, 192–214.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in thegeneral population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.

Rawlings, D., & Ciancarelli, V. (1997). Music preference and the Five-Factor Model ofthe NEO Personality Inventory. Psychology of Music, 25, 120–132.

Schuessler, K., Hittle, D., & Cardascia, J. (1978). Measuring response desirability withattitude-opinion items. Social Psychology, 41, 224–235.

Shaver, P. R., & Brennan, K. A. (1991). Measures of depression and loneliness. In J. P.

344 The Journal of Psychology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Page 19: The Music Experience Questionnaire: Development and Correlates

Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and socialpsychological attitudes (pp. 195–289). San Diego: Academic Press.

Standley, J. M. (1986). Music research in medical/dental treatment: Meta-analysis andclinical applications. Journal of Music Therapy, 23, 56–122.

Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences(“Absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy, 83, 268–277.

Wapnick, J. (1976). A review of research on attitude and preference. Bulletin of the Coun-cil for Research in Music Education, 48, 1–20.

Wild, T. C., Kuiken, D., & Schopflocher, D. (1995). The role of absorption in experientialinvolvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 569–579.

Williams, J. E., Satterwhite, R. C., & Saiz, J. L. (1998). The importance of psychologicaltraits: A cross-cultural study. New York: Plenum.

Original manuscript received August 24, 2004Final version accepted August 15, 2005

Werner, Swope, & Heide 345

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

12 0

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014