5/28/2018 Greasley, Lamont - Musical Preferences

1/4

Alexandra Lamont and Alinka GreasleyMusical preferences

IS chapter explores our current under-standing of why we like and choose to lis-ten to the music that we do. We begin bycarefully defining terms and considering meth-ods, moving on to discuss the biological influ-ences of arousal and other personality traits onmusic preference, questions of style discrimina-tion, and nally the cultural influences of expe-rience upon preference. The chapter evaluatesexisting models of music preference and consid-ers further directions and challenges in the freld.lntroductionLiking for music in general is a strong humantrait which can be as rewarding as food, sex, ordrugs (e.9. Blood and Z,atorre 2OOl; Pankseppand Bernatz 2002). Certain features ofmusicsuch as consonance are also liked from earlyinfancy (Trainor and Heinmiller 1998), andthese uniquely human preferences for music arenot found in primates (Iamont 2005).Research into liking for difierentkinds of musicreveals a multitude of different concepts, some-times used interchangeably. Over the last twodecades, researchers have generally adoptedPrice's (198 ) defnition ofpreference as choos-ing or giving advantage to one thing ov ranother. A relatively constant distinction hasemerged between the concepts of taste (a rela-tiv stable valuing) and preference (a shorter-term commitment), occupying opposite ends ofa continuum (Abeles and Chung 199 ). Morerecently, definitions of preference have alsoincluded specific notions of temporalitp'a per-son's liking for one piece of music as comparedwith another at a given point in time', whiletaste is held to reflect'the overall patterning of

an individual's preferences over longer timeperiods' (Hargreavs a al.2OO6,p. 135). In prac-tice, shorter-terrh experiences of preferenceinform longer-term judge ents of taste andvie versa, in a cycle of reciprocal feedback(Hargreaves et a l. 006).A further implicit distinction exists b tweenresearch focusing on liking for specific pieces ofmusic and that which explores liking for styles ofmusic. Some theoretical explanatiors attempt tobring these two dirnensions together (for exampleexperimental aesthetics: see North and Hargreaves[2000a]). However, most of the research tends toconfound r sponses to the piece and the stylelevel, or to draw broader conclusions about slepreference from research using specific pieces.This chapter will thus adopt a broad definitionof musical preference as referring to the music,whether style or piece, that people like andchoose to listen to at any given moment and overtime, higblighting these important dimensionsthrougbout.Methods of studyin l musicalpreferencesThe moment of choice can be measured at anumber of levels and using a divers of meas_ures (see also Abeles and Chung 1996). Thesemeasures can take place either in artificial labo-ratorysettings' in more ecologicallyvalid contexor somewhere in between (such as imagining areal ifesetting and one's likely responses to it inthe laboratory).First, behavioural choices include listeners'psychophysiological responses to a given pieceof music, short-term decisions about whichpiece to listen to, or realJife patterns of

:,l:ir

t(i{tArousal and biological inlluences on music listening behaviour . 161engagement with music over longer time spansas shown by concert attendance or music pur_chasing. Comparisons between two or moremusical stimuli can be studied in infants, chil_dren and adults using preferential looking/lis-tening paradigms (Trehub 2006) or variaiionson the Operant Music Listening Recorder (Greera al. 1974; North and Hargreaves 2000b), whichmeasures the amount of time a pa(icipantspends listening to different sles ofmusic play-ing simultaneous through different channet.A further behavioural method involves ptaying: l".tr of music to participants and asking fordifferent kinds of behavioural as we[ as vJ.balresponse (e.g. Marshall and Hargreaves 2007).Secondly, choices can be expressed verbally ineither spoken or written form, using rating scalesor semantic differentials (either in response to arange of music provided or more abstractly inresponse to descriptions or names of types orpieces of music), individual preference nomina_tions, or through interviews. The most commonverbal report measure is the rating scale, pi_cally requiring individuals to rate their prefer_ence for a list of predetermined musical styles

on Likert scales. Several music preference sca.leshave been developed, for example Litle andZuckerman's (198 ) Music preference Scale,consisting of 60 established music categoriesfrom the US record industry or Renrfroi andGosling's (2003) Short Test of MusicalPreferences, although these have not been usedsystematically throughout the literature.Another popular technique is in-depth inter-viewing of participants to uncover the richnessand complexi of their everyday musical tastes(e.8. DeNora 2000).The few studies combining different methods(e.9. Hargreaves 1988) showthat different meas_ures have different uses: self-report measures(particrrla rating scates) are more suit d todescribing general long-term preferences, whilebehavioural measures seem more usefril in dis_criminating between examples within a particu-lar style. There thus tends to be a relarively lowcorrelation between results, and verbal meas_ures do not predict behaviour consistently. It isimportant to consider the choice of meihod.alongside research questions, and to considerhow far methods limit the generalizability ofresults.

Arousal and biologicatinfluences on music listeningbehaviourAt a biologicallevel, music that we prefer seems toafiect us differentty. Some physiological responsesto familia and rrnfamiliar rnusic are similar (e.g.Craig 2005; Lai 2004), but Blood and Zatorre(2001) found that when listeners reported moreintense 'chills' or highly pleasurable intenseerperiences, areas of the brain responsible forreward, emotion and arousal were more stronglyactivated. One explanation for music preferencefocuses on the notion ofarousal as the underingmotivator for music listening behaviour.Experi mental aestheticsBerlyne's psychobiological rheory (197t), seealso Chapter 14 this volume) argues that prefer_ence results from the interaction between anindividual's level ofarousal (held to be relativelystable) and the arousing properties of the musicitself (more variable). Researchers have exploredthe musical characteristics which contribute toits arousal potential including protofypicality,complexity, familiarity, tempo, and volume(North and Hargreaves 1995a, l99 b; Russell1986). This research typically presents partici-pants with simpl often artificially contrived andalways experimenter-selected, musical stimuliand then measuring their verbal or behaviouralpreferences (North and Hargreaves 1997a,2000. Short-term preference for certain typesof unfamiliar music can be consistently relaiedto characteristics of that music. For example,North and Hargreaves (1995a) found a posiiivelinear relationship between liking and familiar-ity for new age musi and an inverted U-shapedrelationship between liking and subjective com-

pledty of the musical examples.This complements recent neuropsychologicalevidence about the arousing effects ofmusi onthe brain (see Chapter ll this volume). It alsoassumes that preference expressed in an experi_mental setting for a given piece will be refleitiveof more generalized preference for a given musi-cal stle. Using Beatles songs performed in differ-ent musical sryles, North and Har greaves (lD7b)found style was a more important determinantofliking than song: liking for yesterday in a jazz

5/28/2018 Greasley, Lamont - Musical Preferences

2/4

r[l162' CHAPTER't5 ruusical'prererencesstyle, for example, related more to [steners' lik-ingfor jazz than to their liking for Yuterday'Ttiis suggests there is some merit in using piecesas representative of given styles, but mostresearih has not addressed this explicitly'One strength of this approach in explainingpreference is-that listeners' individuat ratings ofiamiliarity and subjective complex with themusic are assessed within each study, therebyaccounting for the effects ofprior experience on-liking. However, it is limited through the use ofpiecei of music tlat are tyPically and intention-ally unfamiliar to the listeners, together with,theassumption that preferences for a piece reflectmore general durable style preferences'Furthermore, although Berlyne argued thatfamiliarity and exposure should change indi-vidual preference, Iittle research has exPloredchanging preferences ov r time. The effects of,.p.u:t J.t potore have been studied over rela-tively short time sPans, from hours to weeks(e.g. Peretz et al. i998; Hargreaves irs L yetdevelopmental evidence suggests that stylisticpreferJnces cbange in resPonse to a complexset of experiential factors over the lifespan (e'g'Hargreaves and North 1999; see also Chapter 22this volume). It is important not to over-inter-pret preferences expressed at a given moment iniime as bei"g rePresentative of more enduringpatterns of taste (see also Lamont and Webb inpress).lndividual differencesResearch has also explored the notion that dif-ferent individuals have unique, preferred levelsof arousal which explain their global music pref-erences for style. Temperament diff rencespredict differences in preferential listeningLehaviour, even at 8 months ofage. Trehub atal(2002) found that infants who Iistened longer toa soothing version of a nursery song were ratedby their mothets as calm and easy-going, whilethose who preferred a playfirl version of thc,"-. *^g *"." rated as higNy active' Researchwith aduits in this individual differences tradi-tion typically employs established personality*.u,,ri., together with questionnaire-basedmusic preference measures such as Litle andZuckerman's Music Preferences Scale (1986)'looking for correlations between the two'

Factors related to extraversion typically relateto Preference for particular arousing styles of**i". Fo. "o-pie, sensation seekers with higblevels of optimal stimulation prefer more intenseand/or complex styles of music like hard rock'soft rock foU< ana chssical music (Litle andZuckerman 1986). Preference for higNy arousingmusic such as heavy metal, rocls dance and rapcorrelates with high levels ofresting arousal andsensation-seeking (McNamara and Ballard 1999)'Preference for hard rock music islinked to excite-ment-seeking and extraversion (Pearson andDollinger 2004), high levels ofpsychoticism andimpu iveness (Rawlings et aL 1995), and a rela-tive dislike of other forms of music (Rawlings andCiancarelli 1997). Conversely, preferences for'softer' forms of music are associated with lowerlevets of psychoticism and extraversion (Rawlingset al, p6si'Pearson and Dollinger (20M) foundthat higNy intuitive people showed a greaterprefereice-for classical, jazz, soul and folk music'Some research has attempted to explain theconnection between music preference and per-sonality in relation to characteristics ofthe musicrather ihan style labels. For example, Rentfrowand Gosling (2003; p..t"ttttd data indicatingthat music preferettces can be organized intofour independent dimensions:I Reflective and comPlex2 Intense and rebellious3 Upbeat and conventional, and4 Energetic and rhythmic.They then explored correlations between thesedimensions and personality, self-views and-cognitive abil ratings, finding a number ofsig-ni cant relationships. For example' peoplewto preferred reflective and complex music alsohad aaive imaginations, valued aesthetic expe-riences, and viewed themselves as intelligentand tolerant; people who preferred upbeat andconventional music were more extrovert' agfee-able, conservative, and less open to new experi-ences, They Pres nt a number of associations'some of which appear rather sPurious (forexample, why should people who like-energeticrhythmic music be more likely to eschew con-servative ideals?), but which they suggest may mtime set the groundwork for a comprehensivetheory of music Preferences.

Tol"o,'. a mort ..rnr'extuully grouna"o(unaerstanoilg ot musicai preferenc"l ' rosRentfrow and Gosling's (2003) study reflectsa comprehensive attempt to analyse the rela-tionship betr een liking for music and aspects ofpersonality. However, they note care rlly thatcultural and environmental influences alsoshape the music that an individual will lite.Other personality researchers provide evidencethat personali traits and music preferences arelinked by a third factor of musical erqrerience.For example, Rawlings and Ciancarelli (1997)

found that preferences for popular and rockmusic, associated with extraversion and lessopenness to experience, were accompanied by aIess intense interest in music and less musicaltraining (see also Pearson and Dollinger 2004).This suggests that the influence ofexperience onpersonality and on music preference has yet tobe fully explored.The valid ofthe rating scale approach whichhas dominated this research depends on suffi-cient awareness ofthe differences between musi-cal styles and style labels. Litle and Zuckerman's(1986) scale included specific stylistic examplesfor guidance, but both their examples and stylesare culturally and historically specific (seeRawlings and Ciancarelli 1997). Rentfrow andGosling (2003) derived their scale from empiri-cal data about spontaneously nominated cate-gories of liking, rated by judges and comparedwith industry categorization processes, andfinally tested for familiariq 29 out of 30 Partici-pants could provide preference ratings for the14 items, which they suggest confirms theirvalidity. However, no matt r how carefullylabels are construaed, the fundamental problemremains that rating scales reflect a reductionistapproach. Qualitative approaches show thatadults typically report preference for many dif-ferent styles of music, which they often label idi-osyncratically (Greasley and Lamont 2006). Thissophistication and level of complexity presentsan enduring challenge for the field.Summary and evaluation ofarousal-based explanationsIn addition to the issues raised above, bothexperimental aesthetics and individual differ-ences approaches focus exclusively on the intra-individual level. They thus remain unable toidentify the nature ofthe relationship between

temperament and personality dimensions andmusical preferences. For example, personalitytype maybe a dircct cause ofmusical preferences,or, as suggsted above, may influence individu-als'levels of engagement with music and musi-cal activities which, in turn, affects their musicalpreferences. To our knowledge, none of theresearch has yet addressed these interactions.Finalln this emphasis on the intra-individuallevel neglects the social context in which themusic listening is taking place.Towards a more contextuallygrounded understanding ofmusical preferencesKoneni (1982) argued that experimentalresearchers often treat music as ifit existed in asocial vacuum, and that it is vital to considersocial interactions, emotions, moods, and otherenvironmental factors in order to understandmusic choices. This raises the necessity ofexplaining how listening behaviour changes as afunction of its immediate social and non-socialantecedents, concurrent cognitive activity andresultant emotional states.More naturalistic research has drawn on realmusical stimuli and attempted to simulate real-life situations to account for both the music andthe listening context. For example, North andHargreaves (1996a, b, c, 2000b) investigated thereciprocal relationship between listener andcontext. Specific musical variables (mostlyarousal potential) were manipulated, but theexperimental conditions were naturalistic set-tings such as yoga classes, aerobics classes, and aunivers cafeteria. Listen rs preferred highlyarousing music during periods of exercise andarousal-moderating music when relaxing.However, although causal relationships canbe established using experimental methodology,even these more naturalistic investigations appearto be treating the 'social' as an experimental vari-able. Sloboda (1999) argues that the continuinguse ofa traditional positivist paradigm (present-ing listeners with music chosen by the experi-menter, in an environment controlled andconstructed by the experimenter) may beresponsible for slow progress in the scientificunderstanding ofresponses to music. He argues

5/28/2018 Greasley, Lamont - Musical Preferences

3/4

. l"o"r.* ri uu.,..t oJr"r"n"".64

)

lli

.i,til',t'.i.r,irti,i

' ,j:ILrt :i rll

iJri,ilrill.lr.lll l'r'l:ltt,i tlilll'l: ::lIlt rit,rlrlllir,i[]ilI .it l'u|iillil.rr rliil.tililllililitrlllr,lliil

that music listening is 'intensely situational'(p. 355) and thus context becomes central' Thishas led to another recent shift in approachtowards a focus on capturing people's everydaymusical pradices and preference behaviour inthe contexts in which they naturally occur'Preferred music in everyday lifeStudies have begun to investigate people's use ofmusic in everyday contexts (Juslin and laukka2004; North et at.2004; North and Hargreaves2007; Sloboda et aI. 2o}l). Typically usingExperience Sampling Methodology (ESM)' par-tiants are contacted (via pagers or mobile tel-ephones) at random intervals during the dayand asked to complete response sheets abouttheir music listening- Although these studiespredominantly focus on the functions of musicin everyday life, the results emphasize the con'cept ofchoice. People choose different types ofmusic for different reasons (i.e., they have spe-cific goals and purPoses that music engagementfills), and their motivations for music listeningare context-dependent. Personal favourites alsochange over time, and daily favourites reflectsituaiional and emotional'fit' while long-termfavourites are more connected to personal lifehistories (Lamont and Webb in press)' Slobodaet aI. (20O1) also found that greater personalchoice was more likely to be associated withpositive valued outcomes such as increasedirousal, present-mindedness, and positivity'These findings underline the value of research-ing people's self-chosen uses of music (see alsoChapter 40 this volume)'Reflecting on Preferred musicAn alternative approach is articulated byresearch that explores people's own music andthe meaning of this to them as individuals' usingsocial constructionist methods such as inter-viewing and ethnography' From such a perspec-tive, music does not simPly act as a stimulus onan individual, but rattrer its meaning and effectsbecome stabilized through discourse' consump-tion practice, and patterns of use over time(DeNora 2000).For example, Batt-Rawden and DeNora (20O5)explored the theraPeutic uses of music in every-day life using a unique methodology involving

both researctrer-chosen and participant-chosenmusic, repeated music listening over long time.p-r, uo-d repeated in-depth interviews' Thissiudy led to a heightened awareness from par-ticipants of the ways in which they use music in"u.rya"y hfe (see also Carlton 2006; Sloboda"t ai. zoot1. Greasley and Lamont (200 ) alsofound differences between more and less engagedmusic listeners in terms of listening behaviour'preferences, and self-awareness. Less musicallyengaged adults lacked a strong commitment toarry musical style, and were more lik to listento an eclectic mix of music acquired fromfriends. Conversely, more musically engagedadults showed strong commitments to musicalswles and a sense ofnecessity and urgency aboutbuying or obtaining music' They expressed adeiail awareness ofthe styles they did and didnot like list ning to, and a thorough and explicitunderstanding ofthe effects that different srylesof music would have on them.Effects of musicalpreferencesWe next consider the impact that musical pref-erences can have on other areas of life in twoways. The first relates to the use of anY kind ofpreferred music to achieve certain non-musicalioals. The second relates to the preference forgeafc kinds of music.- Pieferred music listening has been shown tobe particula effective in achieving physicaland psychophysiological goals, such as pain-*"gi-"ttt and relief. It leads to enhancedcontrol over, and effective distraction from'parn-inducing stimuli under laboratory condiiions, when ompared with non-preferred orexperimenter-selected music (Mitchell er al'Z0OO; tvtitchell and MacDonald 2006)' Similareffects in reducing pain, anxiery and agitatedbehaviour have been found both in clinical set-tings (MacDonald et l.2003; Siedliecki andCood zooe; Sung and Chang 2005) and inchronic pain in everyday life settings (Mitchellet al.2OO7)' Listening to preferred music ratherthan experimenter-chosen music or silence pro-duces lower heart rate and perceived exertionand fatigue rates (Pothoulaki'and Natsume2006), and improves cognitive performance in

driving simulation tasks (Cassidy 2006). ThusIistening to preferred music has powerfirl effectson asp cts of behaviour outside voluntary con-trol as well as on mood and affect. In these cases,the nature of the musical stimulus has no bear-ing whatsoever on the phpical and psychologicaleffects.Other uses of musical preferences are moreclosely tied to the particular music that an indi-vidual or a group shows preference for. Duringadolescence, musical preferences play an impor-tant role in the formation of identity throughprocesses of in-group behaviour and impressionmanagement (Finnes 1989; Tanant et al.2oo4).The social ident effect ofmusical preferencesin bringing people together operates even whenparticipants are unaware of precisewhat musi-cal preferences the in- and out-groups have(Bagakiannis and Tarrant 200 ). Although spe-cific music often has particular effects on differ-ent groups, thes strong effects are more markedin adolescence; young adults are more willing toshare and tolerate others'music, and this toler-ance increases later in adulthood (Carlton 200 ;Greasley and lamont 200 ). However, even inadulthood, musical preferences can be used ininterpersonal perception to give messages aboutpeople's personalities (Rentfrow and Gosling2006). This catalytic or self-directed effect ofmusic in identity can be contrasted with theemblematic outward-directed effect of music,such as anthems, as symbols of national, ethnic,or cultural identity (Hammarlund 1990, cited inFolkestad 2002). In multicultural situations, thekind of music someone likes can play a signi6-cant role in the proceses ofadjustment to a newculture and retaininglins to the old (Ilari 2006;O'Hagin and Harnish 2006).

Explaining and predictingmusic pteferencesAlthough there has been a great deal ofresearchexploring different facets of musical preferenceand taste, only two explicit models of musicpreference (LeBlanc 1982; Hargreaves et al.2006) have attempted to tie thes together.kBlanc's interactive theory of music prefer-ence (1982) is a complex and comprehensiveattempt to represent the influence of input

i[llExplaining and predicting music preferences . 165information' (the musical stimulus and the lis-tener's cultural environment) and listener char-acteristics and behaviour. The approach is usefrilin formally identiSing the large number oftypesofvariables that fall into the three broad catego-ries. For example, the listener's culrural envi-ronment includes the variables of media, peergroup, family, educators and authority figures,and incidental conditioning. The model traces atrajectory through listener characteristics suchas attention and mental processing through to apreference decision at a given moment, whichthen influences subsequent behaviour (e.g.,acceptance and then repetition ofthe stimulus).While the detail is potentially usefirl, the factthat every variable potentially interacts withevery other means, as LeBlanc concedes, thatthis is unlikely to serve as a usable predictivemodel, However, subsequent research hasattempted to \,veight the relative contributionsof the various fuctors, and kBlanc et aI. (2OOO)found that musical features accounted for morevariation in children's expressed musical prefer-ences, followed by'culture' and finally age (seeChaptet 22 this volume).

Hargreaves a al. (2006) developed a fur sim-pler reciprocal feedback model of musicalresponse, consisting of the interactions betweenthe three broad variables of music, listener, and,situations and conttxts to evoke a gjvea responx.Drawing on experimental aesthetics, musicalfeatures include a reference system (genres,styles, etc.), collative variables (complexity,familiarity) and prototypicality. The listener ischaracterized in terms of individual differences(gender, age, personality) as well as musicalknowledge, preference and taste, and identity.The listener's respoDse to the music is alsoaffected by phpiological (engagement, arousal,active listening)' cognitive (attention, e cta-tion, discrimination) and affective (emotional,mood, liking) factors. Finalln situations andcontefis include social and cultural contexts,everydaysituations, and the presence or absenceofothers.Both models e)ress a triPartite divisionbetween music, listene and contefi as well as alarge number ofinteractions both between andwithin levels of analpis. Howeveg culture shouldnot be treated as a variable but rather as themedium through which all real-life experiences

5/28/2018 Greasley, Lamont - Musical Preferences

4/4

1o6 . cHAPTERITu *uri.ulor"r"r"n"u.[are mediated (Cole 199 ; Lamont 200 ). Themodels also saylittle about the outcome ofmusi-cal preferences. LeBlanc's preference decisionleading to rejection or acceptance (in the lattercase resulting in freely chosen repetition andheightened attention) is simply linked back tothe fistener's cultural environment and musicalstimulus input. Simila, the concept of recip-rocal feedback simply argues that listener andmusic, listener and situation, and situation andmusic 'interact'.DiscussionMusical preferences serve a range of importantfunctions for individuals and groups, and pre-ferred music can play an imponant role in phys-ical and psychological well-being. These clearlygo beyond the simple behavioural outcome ofrepeated exposure, and have far-reaching effectsranging from the personal to the cultural.While experimental research has addressedsome important questions in relation to ourunderstanding of musical preferences, there stillremain many unanswered issues. The complexi-ties lie large in the interactive nature of musi-cal preference. Even a single preference erqrressedat a given moment in time between one of twoexperimenter-selected pieces of music is likelyto be affected by a host of factors, which willvary from individual to individual and may leadto a range of different outcomes. Attempting toisolate and examine these within a positivistapproach can be a daunting and potentiallyfruitless challenge, which may explain why someof the more successfiil approaches to under-standing musical preferences, both experimen-tal and qualitative, appear rather content-free interms of the music that is being preferred.Furthermore, the complexity and flexibility inthe ways that people categorize and label musicis a critical issue for the field. As listeners argueabout how particular pieces ofmusic, particu-lar those they like, shou]d be labelled intostyles (Greasley and Lamont 2006), researchasking participants to tick boxes of music pref-erence categories is not likely to inform us sig-nificantly about the undering meanings ofthose preferences, except, perhaps, in situationswhere the'tick box'approach has validity, suchas internet dating, cf. Rentfrow and Gosling

(200 ). The particular Gtegories employed arealso like to change rapidly along with changesin musical stylc (Hargreaves aDd North 1999),limiting comparabil between different stud-ies. An approach that prioritizes listeners' ownconstructions and interpretations of music cir-cumvents some of these problems, and mayprove more tuitfrrl in explaining these less stableelements of musical preferences.The temporal dimension of preference isanother central issue, and while we have high-lighted the temporal dimensions of decision-making throughout, it is harder to tease outpractical implications for a theory of musicalpreferences. The two models of music prefer-ences reviewed here adopt ver)' different per-spectives on temporality: LeBlanc systematicallyspecifies the precise moment of choice but saysless about the longer-terrn concomitants ofthatchoice, whereas Hargreaves and colleaguesattempt to capture longer-term dimensionswhile rernaining vague about the choices whichare being represented. A more considered expla-nation of the temporal dimension (where pref-erences originate, are shaped, grow, and diedown-in essence, how reciprocal feedbackactually works) is still required (cf. Lamont2006).Finalln adopting a cultural psychologicalapproach oftreating culture and context morethorougNy as a medium for musical preferencesrather than a variable within a model may havethe potential to address some ofthe unresolvedissues in this eld. Naturalistic and longitudinalmethods of enquiry may be more valuable here.For example, interviewing people at home withtheir music collections (Greasley and Lamont200 ) enables them to interact with music in afar more contextualized m rnner' encouragingparticipants to ieflect on the wide range ofinter-acting factors influencing preference (see alsoBatt-Rawden and DeNora 2005).To conclude, the privileged position ofpre-ferred music in individuals'lives is somethingthat future research needs to be sensitive to. Acolleague undergoing chemotherapy told ushow she activcly decided aot to bring her favour-ite music into hospital, despite her specialist'sexhortations that it would help alleviate herpain. She was concerned that over time listeningto her favourite music in this contextwouldlead

to a negative association between the music andthe treatment, thus 'spoiling' its potential as asource ofpleasure (Chris Balks, personal com-munication). This kind of realife engagementwith music is not easily explained by invertedU-shapes or artificial distinctions between lis-tener, music and context, yet it is such real-lifechallenges that future research must find betterways of explaining.ReferencesAbelg HF and Chun8 Jw (1996). R Pong o music. InDA Hoes' ed' Handbook of musicpsychobg,2ndedn,28t-342. IMR Pr6s, San Antonio, TX.Bakagiannis S and Tanmr M (2006). Cm music bringpeople togetho? Effrcs of shed muical prefermce onintagroup bid in adol sence. Sundircvien Jouma olPsychologt' 7, 129_136.Batt-Rawdd K and DeNor. T (2OOS). Music md infomalleaming in cveryday lifc. Musb Hwion Rewrch,7,289-3U.Berlyne DE (l97l)' /ehetia andpsychoDior. Appleton_ceDtury-clofts, New YoIBlmd A) od Zatone RJ (2@l). fntenrely plereureablermporc to music onclate with activity in brainregions implioted in r*ard and cmoti on. koeeedingsof the NatbaalAcadmT of Sciena, , t 18l8-l1823.Carlton L (2fi)6). A qualitative analysis of weryday use

of prefmed music acros tbe life spo. In M Baroni,AR Addsi, R Caterina od M Costa, e ds, proccedings ofthe 9th ltcrmtional Confqene on Mwic prception andCognitiof, , 582-583 Vnivssity of Bologna, Bologna,Italy.Csidy G (2006). The effcts of preferred mwic on drivinggmc pofommce. In M Baroni, AR Addsi, R Catsinamd M Ccta, eds, Pr@edings of the 9th IntemaiorulConf rc on Mwic PacEtian and Cognition,58,1-595 Univtrsity of Bologna, Bologna, Italy-Cole M (1996). Crlrural psychologr a one atd fururedircipkrc. Hnar d lJnivssit', I,rss, Cambridge, MA.Craig DG (2005). An apbratory study ofphysiologicalchangc during'chills induced by mwic. MusiwScintia lX(2)' 27 1287.DeNora T (2000) Mrcic in cryday life. CmbridgeUnivmity Prss, Cambridge.Finns L (1989). A comparircn betwm young peopldsprivate}y md publicly apr*d mu calprefama.Ps7chologt of Mwic17, t32-l45.Folk6tad c (2002). National idmtity md muic. InMR MacDonald, D| Hargreava md DE Miell, eMrcial illentitia, 15l-162. Oxford Univqsity prsgOxford.Grmley AE md Iamont AM (20O ). Music prefermcein adulthoo& why do wc like the music wc do? InM Baoni, AR Addsi; R Cataina md M Costa, eds,Procedingsof thc 9th lntmiond Colfmcc on MwicPacqtin and Cognitbn,960-966. University ofBolo8na' Bolo8n ltaly.

l^o,e,onces L .,-Greer RD, Dorow LG md Randall A (1974). Musiclistening prefaoc of ctemmtar}' shml childr.Jourul of Rewrch il Mwic Hugtion, L 81'29l.Hargrav6 D, (l98 )' The effats of repetition on likingfot mtsic. Journal of Resarch in Mwb Huatbn, 32,3547-Hegreav6 D, (1988). Vabal md behavioural rspons tofamilia md unfmiliil music. crnnf PsychoiulRtgr ch and R in s 6' 323-330.Hargrcaves D] md North AC ( 1999). D elopin8conc Ptsof muiol style. Mroire kientie,ttt(2), t93-216.Hargreavs DJ, North AC and Tanmt M (2(x)6). Mmicalprefermce and tote in childhod ud adolenc . lnGE McPhemn, ed.,The child u mrcici/, l35-l54.Ot'ord Univmity Pras, O:dord.llari B (2006). Music md idmtity of Btuilian Dekcgichildrm md adults living in fapan. tn M Baroni,AR Addsi, R Catdna and M Cosra, eds Proecclings ofthc %h Intmatiofral Confane on Mwk Peption aadCogniion, 123-130. University of Bologna, Bologna,Italy.Juslin PN and bukka P (2004). Exprsion, p reption,and induction of musil motions: a r*iew and aqustionnaire study of oayday listmin g. Ioumat ofNn Musi c Rcsearch, 33, 2 17-238.Koneni V] (1982). Scial interaction md mmicprefoene' In D Deutxed",The psycholop of mwi497-516- Aadcmic Pras, Nry York.Lai H-L (20(x). Muic preferoc od relantion in Taiwmeeldaly people. Gai.e Nuoing' E(5), 2w-2g|.Lmont A (2005). What do monle7s' music choio mn?Ttmds in Cognitilc sEiae, 9(8), 359-361.Lmont A (2006). R ain of Mrcial Communiuion (edsMicl|' MacDonald andHugravs). Mrcit* Scntbc'to(2),278-282.Lmont A mdWebb R (in prs). Shon- and long-temnusiol preferoco; what ms a fayourite Pice ofmusic? Pycholog of Muk.LeBloc A ( l982). An intractive tb ry of musicptefsae. Jouml of Mwic Thnapr,IXl(t),ZB-45.LeBlanc A, Jin YC,-hen_Haftak L, oliviga ADl'Oothulen S md Tafuri J (2000). Tempo preferenceof youg listenos in Brzil, China, lt, South Africand the United Statc. Builetit ofthc Council forRwrch in Mwic Hwrbn, l47, 97-W.Litle P md Zuckmm M ( I 986). Semrion-see king mdmwic prefermc. Pmnalit| f,il IndividuaDifanul7,575-578.

MacDona.ld RAR, Mitchell LA, Dillon T, Serpell MG,Davies fB md Ashley EA (2003). An mpiricalinvetigation of the roiolpic md pain-reducing effctsof mlsic. Psychol of Mt'i3l' 87_2o3.Marshall N md Hargrava DJ (2007). Musial sryledixrimination in the e ets. ]oml of rlyChidhood Raearch, 5(l), 35-49.McNmara L and Ballud ME (1999). Rsting arousal,wtion_rckin6 md muic preference. Genetb Sociland Gennal Psychobgt Monrapb, l25' 22g_25o'Mitchell I' md MeDonald RAR (2006). An experimentalinvstigation ofthe efiects ofprefened and relaxing