resnicow_2004

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

1/15

2004 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAALL RIGHTS RESERVED .

145

Address correspondence to Bruno H . Repp, Ha skins Lab ora tories, 270 Cro w n St., New Haven, CT 06511-6695. (e-mail: [email protected])

ISSN: 0730-7829. Send requests for permission to reprint to Rights and Permissions,University o f C alifornia Press, 2000 C enter St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, C A 94704-1223.

M usic Perception Fall 2004, Vol. 22, No. 1, 145158

Is Recognition o f Emotion in Music Performance anAspect of Emotional Intelligence?

J O E L E . R E S N I C O W & P E T E R S A L O V E YYale U niversity

B R U N O H . R E P PH aski ns L aborator ies

Expression of emotion in music performance is a form of nonverbalcommunication to which people may be differentially receptive. Therecently developed Ma yer-Salovey-C ar uso Emot iona l Intelligence Testassesses individual d ifferences in the a bility to identify, understand , rea-son with, and manage emotions using hypothetical scenarios that areconveyed pictorially or in writing. The test currently does not includemusical o r spoken items. We asked 24 undergrad uates to complete boththat test and a listening test in which they tried to identify the intendedemotions in performances of classical piano music. Emotional intelli-gence and emotion recognition in the music task w ere significantly cor-related (r = .54), which suggests that identification of emotion in musicperformance draws on some of the same sensibilities that make upeveryda y emotional intelligence.

Received September 17, 2003, a ccepted M arch 3, 2004

IN recent years, the amount of research on the emotions conveyed bymusic has increased considerably (for reviews, see Juslin & Sloboda,2001; Juslin & Laukka, 2003). The most systematic research program isbeing pursued by Patrik Juslin (e.g., Juslin, 1997a, 1997b, 2000), follow-ing groundbreaking w ork by Alf G abrielsson (Ga brielsson & Juslin, 1996;G ab rielsson & Lindstrm, 1995). The focus in that research is on commu-nication of basic emotions from a performer to a listener via music per-formance. Musicians are instructed to play a tune in different ways, so asto convey happiness, sadness, anger, or fear, and listeners are required toidentify these emotions or rate the degree to which they are expressed by

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

2/15

each performance. In addition, the acoustic properties of the performanc-es (the cues conveying the emotions) and their relat ions to both the per-formers intentions and the listeners responses are analyzed in detail,using Brunswiks (1956) lens model as a theoretical and methodological

framework.The studies of Juslin and others (reviewed in Juslin & Laukka, 2003)

have demonstrated that the four basic emotions can be communicatedquite effectively through music performance. Although both performersand listeners have been found to exhibit individual differences with regardto their use of different performance cues, individual differences in sensi-tivity to emotional informat ion ha ve not received special a ttention in thisresearch. It is likely, however, that both performers and listeners do varyin their general emotional sensitivity and in their receptivity to emotionalinformation in music. Interestingly, Juslin (1997a) found little effect ofmusical t ra ining on listeners a bility to recognize emot ions in music. Thus,

this ability may be part of a more general ability to recognize emotions,which may apply also to facial and vocal expressions, and perhaps evento other situations in w hich emotions must be recognized o r dealt w ith insome way.

Mayer and Salovey (1993, 1997; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) use the termemot ional int ell igence for this more general ability, which has receivedmuch discussion in both scientific forums and in the popular press (e.g.,G oleman, 1995; M at thews, Z eidner, & Roberts, 2003). In recent years,Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2002a, 2002b) have developed an ability-based test of emotional intelligence, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EmotionalIntelligence Test (MSCEIT). An earlier version of this test, the M ultifactor

Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) included some musical items (Mayer,Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), but ad ministrat ive diff iculties led to their beingdiscarded for the M SCEIT, w hich conta ins only pictorial and w rittenitems.

The 141 MSCEIT items are intended to measure four aspects of emo-tiona l intelligence: (1) perceiving emot ions, (2) using emot ions to fa cilita tethought, (3) understanding emotions, and (4) managing emotions. Each ofthe four branches of the test contains two tasks with multiple items.Perceiving emotions is measured with Faces and Pictures (identifyingthe extent to which different emotions are expressed in a series of facesand abstract designs). Using emotions to facilitate thought is measured

w ith Sensations (generating emotions and matching sensations to them)and Facilita tion (judging moods that best accompany or assist certaincognitive tasks and behaviors). Understanding emotions is measured with Blends (identifying emotions that could be combined to form otheremotions) and Changes (selecting an emotion tha t results from intensi-fying another emotion). M ana ging emotions is measured with Emotion

Joel E. Resnicow, Peter Salovey, & Bruno H . R epp146

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

3/15

M ana gement (judging efficiency of actions to obt ain a specific emotion-al outcome for a character in a story) and Emotional Relationships(judging efficiency of actions to use in management of another personsfeelings). The MSCEIT demonstrates adequate reliability and does not

overlap especially with standard measures of personality or analytic intel-ligence (Lopes, Salovey, & Straus, 2003; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, &Sitarenios, 2001, 2003).

The purpose of the present study was to explore whether the recogni-tion o f emot ions in music performance is rela ted to emotiona l intelligence,as a ssessed by the M SCEIT, a nd pa rticularly to the first bra nch of t heM SCEIT, w hich assesses emot ion identificat ion from fa ces and pictures.Although we created our own musical materials, we followed the proce-dures used by Juslin (2000) fairly closely.

Method

PARTICIPANTS

Tw enty-four und ergradua te students (15 w omen, 9 men) at Yale University betw een theages of 18 and 24 volunteered to participate and were paid $12 each. They were recruit-ed through advertisements on campus and on student activity e-mail lists. Their musicaltraining ranged from 0 to 15 years of instruction on one or more instruments.

MATERIALS

Emotional Intelligence Test

Emotiona l intelligence w as measured w ith the M SCEIT, Version 2.0, w hich is distrib-uted a nd scored b y M ulti-H ealth Systems, Inc. (http://w w w.eqi.mhs.com). Scoring w asdone a ccording to a g eneral co nsensus criterion, ba sed o n the responses of a large numberof individuals who have taken the test in the past. For example, if 84% of these individu-als said that there is a moderate amount of happiness in a particular abstract design, thenan individual participants score is incremented by .84 if he or she gives that particularresponse (Mayer et al., 2002b; Salovey, Kokkonen, Lopes, & Mayer, 2004). The summeditem scores are subsequently converted to no rmed standa rd scores w ith a po pulation meanof 100 and a standard deviation of 15, as is customary in psychometric tests of intelli-gence-related constructs. Based on a sample of more than 2000 takers of the MSCEITselected randomly from a normative sample of 5000, the split-half reliability of the full-scale MSCEIT using this consensus scoring appro ach is .93, a nd of the four b ranches, .91,.79, 80, a nd .83, respectively (M ay er et al., 2003).

Musical MaterialsThe musical stimuli consisted of three short piano pieces: Prelude No. 6 in D minor

(Andante espressivo) from Johann Sebastian Bachs Twelve Little Preludes (Vienna:Universal-Edition, 1951), C hildrens Song in C ma jor (No . 2, Andante) from BlaBartks For Childr en (London: Boosey & Ha w kes, 1947), and Dia logue (No. 3,Andante) from Vincent Persichettis L ittl e Piano Book (Bryn Mawr, PA: Elkan-Vogel,1954). Their beginnings are shown in Figure 1. The pieces were selected with the follow-

Emotional I ntelligence 147

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

4/15

ing criteria in mind: They should be short (although the Bach piece was longer than theother two pieces), in different compositional styles (baroque, folk song, and 20th centurytona l, respectively), relatively unfa miliar, structura lly homo geneous, a nd sufficiently neu-tral in inherent emotional content to lend themselves to being performed with differentemotional intentions.

The pieces were performed by author B.R. (age 58), a classically trained amateurpianist, on a Yamaha Clavinova CLP-611 digital piano and recorded in MIDI format ona Macintosh Quadra 660AV computer. Each piece was recorded five times, first with anexpression deemed appro priate for the music (referred to as norma l hencefort h), andthen w ith four different emotiona l intentions: happiness, sad ness, anger, a nd fea rfulness (intha t ord er). In carr ying out t hese intentions, B.R . relied prima rily on his musical intuitions(rather tha n on his explicit know ledge of previous research findings o n expressive cues toemotion) and also tried to keep the performances within aesthetically acceptable bounds.The performances were later played back on the same instrument and recorded onto acompact disc.

Later analyses confirmed that the performances had some of the properties thathave been found to be associated with happy, sad, angry, and fearful expressions in


Fig. 1. Beginnings of the three musical pieces: Ba ch, Ba rtk , a nd P ersichetti.

J. S. Bach/Rntgen No. 6 in D minor from Kl eine Prludi en und Fugen. 1951 Universal Edition A.G .,Wien/UE 323. renewed. All rights reserved. Used by permission of Euro pean American D istribut ors LLC , sole

U.S. and Ca nadia n representative for Universal Edition A.G., Wien.

New revised edition 1946 by Boosey & Haw kes, Inc. Sole agents for Benelux States, British Commonw ealth,France, Italy, Portugal, Scandinavian States, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, U.S.A. For all other countries,

Edition Musica Budapest. Reprinted by permission of Boosey & Hawkes, Inc.

1954 Elkan-Vogel, Inc. Used by permission o f the publisher.

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

5/15

previous studies of music perfo rma nce (e.g., Juslin, 2000; fo r a summa ry, see Ta ble11 in Juslin & Laukka , 2003). As can be seen in Tab le 1, happy a nd a ngry perform-ances had a much fa ster tempo (shorter mean bea t dura tion) than sad a nd fearful per-formances; fearful performances had much higher timing variability (coefficient ofvariation of beat dura tion) than other performances; a nd a ngry performances w ere

louder (mean key depression velocity) than happy performances, whereas sad andfearful performa nces were softer. (To listen to the performances, find t he link follow -ing th e R esnicow et al. r eference at .)

PROCEDURE

Participants completed the MSCEIT before the music test, with at least 1 day inbetween. They were e-mailed login information to enter the MSCEIT web page andtook the test on th e Internet a t th eir leisure.

The music test w as conducted in a reasonab ly q uiet roo m. The performa nces w ereplayed through a Windows Media Player 9 Series on a Dell Inspiron 4100 laptopcomputer that was connected to an Aiwa NSH-220 stereo system. The volume wasset to a level that was considered comfortable by all participants.

The performances were blocked by piece. Bach was always first, Persichetti sec-ond, and Bartk last. For each piece, the normal performance was played first, andthen the other four performances were played in a random order that was differentfor each piece and for each participant. Participants were told that the normal per-formance served as a standard relative to which the other performances should bejudged. After each performance, participants rated the degree to which each of thefour emotions (happy, sad, angry, and fearful; always in that order) was conveyed bythe performa nce. A numerical scale ranging from 0 to 10 w as provided for each emo-tion on a response sheet, and participants circled one of the numbers. None of theparticipants, when interviewed after the test, reported familiarity with any of thepieces.


TABLE 1Some Objective Properties of the Musical Performances

Intended EmotionComposer Normal Happy Sad Angry Fearful

(A) Mean interbeat interval (ms)Bach 1232 801 1307 766 1119Bartk 529 374 655 336 480Persichetti 389 288 472 294 401

(B) Timing variability (%)Bach 9.1 9.4 9.8 7.5 14.3Bartk 7.6 5.5 7.7 6.8 15.4Persichetti 8.9 7.2 12.3 8.8 16.9

(C) Relative loudness (MIDI velocity units)Bach 61.8 65.5 54.1 71.0 52.1Bartk 50.1 58.8 44.9 68.3 44.9Persichetti 54.8 61.9 49.9 70.4 49.2

N OTE (A) mean duration of intervals between quarter-note beats (inversely related to tempo),w ith final beat excluded; (B) coefficient o f va riation of interbeat interval (standa rd deviation a s a per-centage of the mean); (C) mean velocity (positively related to loudness) of all key strokes, in MIDIunits (range: 0127).

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

6/15

Results

EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE TEST

Each participant received a total score for the MSCEIT as well as sep-arate scores for two area levels ( experiental and strategic emotion-al intelligence). The experiential area level is defined as the combinationof the perceiving and facilitating branches, and the strategic area level isdefined a s the combinat ion of t he understanding and ma naging bra nches.Participants also received separate scores for each of the four branches ofthe test and for each subtest in each branch, although the test authors donot recommend interpreting these subtest scores because of insufficientreliability (Ma yer et al., 2003). Tota l scores ranged from 78 to 142, w itha mean o f 110.2 and a standa rd deviation of 16.4. Women tended to ha vehigher scores than men ( M = 114.2 vs. 103.7), but the diff erence did notreach significance, t (22) = 1.57, p < .14, because the highest score wasobtained by a man. (The next 11 rank-ordered scores were all obtained bywomen.) Years of musical training were not correlated with the overallscore ( r = .08, ns ).

MUSIC TEST

The music test was of course not a normed psychometric instrumentlike the MSCEIT. H ow ever, w e did not no tice any abnormalities in the dis-tributions of ra tings. The overall distribution w as strongly skew ed tow ardthe left, w ith ratings of 1 being most frequent (although ratings of 0

were infrequent). This is not surprising because only 20% of the ratingsconcerned intended emotions.Figure 2 shows the mean ratings for the musical performances. The

normal performance of t he Bach piece (top pa nel) wa s rated a s rather sad,w hich is consistent w ith its relat ively slow tempo and minor key. The Bachperformance intended a s happy w as ra ted as only slightly more happy, butas much less sad and more angry than the normal performance. The rat-ings of the sad performance were indistinguishable from those of the nor-mal performance. Apparently, there was a limit to how sad this piececould sound, or to how sad the performer could ma ke it sound. The angryperformance was rated as more angry and less sad than the normal per-

forma nce, similar t o t he happy performance. The fearful performance wa srated only as somewhat less sad than the normal performance, but not asmore fearful. Overall, it seems that the Bach performances were not verysuccessful in conveying the intended emotions.

The Bartk piece (center panel) was rated as moderately happy whenperformed the normal way, which is consistent with its major key andmoderate tempo. The happy performance was rated as only slightly


8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

7/15


Fig. 2. Mean emotion ratings for the five performances of each musical piece, with stan-dard-error bars.

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

8/15

more happy, but as less sad. The sad performance was clearly rated asmore sad as well as less happy than the normal performance. The angryperformance was rated as much more angry and less sad, and the fear-ful performance was rated as more fearful as well as less happy. Thus,

the Bartk performances were more successful in conveying the intend-ed emotions.

The Persichetti piece (bot tom panel) w as ra ted a s somew hat sad in thenormal performance. The happy performance was rated as more happyas well as less sad and more angry. The sad performance was rated asmore sad, t he angry performa nce as much more angry as w ell as less sad ,and the fearful performance as more fearful than the normal perform-ance. Overall, the Persichetti performances were most successful in con-veying the intended emotions.

From the ratings given to each performance by each participant, wecalculated emotion recognition scores as follows: For the normal per-

forma nce, w e expressed the degree to w hich it w as judged as happy, sad ,angry, or fearf ul by dividing the rating of t he relevant emotion by the sumof all fo ur emotion ra tings. This resulted in four b aseline scores, o ne foreach judged emotion. For each o f t he other performa nces, w e divided therating of the intended emotion by the sum of all four emotion ratings,and then subtracted the baseline score for the intended emotion. Theresulting difference score expressed the extent to which an emotion wasconveyed when it was intended, relative to when it was not specificallyintended.

The mean d ifference scores for the three pieces are show n in Figure 3.The double standard-error bars, based on between-participant variabili-

ty, are equivalent to 95% confidence intervals. A mean difference scoresignificantly greater than zero indicates successful communication of anemotion. As wa s already suggested by t he dat a in Figure 2, the Bach per-formances successfully conveyed only two of the four emotions (happi-ness and anger), the Bartk performances conveyed three (all but happi-ness), and the Persichetti performances conveyed all four emotions.Although a nonsignificant mean difference score indicates that theintended emotion was difficult to recognize in a particular performance,varia tion in individual scores for t hat performance may still be meaning-ful.

Individual pa rticipants t ota l scores for the music test w ere obta ined b y

averaging their difference scores across the four emotions and the threepieces. Tota l scores ranged fro m .034 to .281, w ith a mean of .116 and astandard deviation of .052. Women had slightly higher scores than men,but the difference was far from significance, F (1,22) = 1.7, p < .21. Thecorrelation w ith years of musical training wa s low ( r = .08) and nonsignif-icant.


8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

9/15


Fig. 3. Mean difference scores (score of the intended emotion minus score of the sameemotion in the norma l performa nce) for the intended emotions in t he three musical pieces,w ith double standard-error ba rs.

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

10/15

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SCORESON THE EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

AND MUSIC TESTS

The correlation between the total scores of the two tests was signifi-

cant, r (22) = .54, p < .01, and this constitutes the main finding of ourstudy. The total music test score correlated significantly with the experi-ential a rea level score of the M SCEIT, r (22) = .58, p < .01, but not withthe strategic score, r (22) = .31, p > .10. The higher correlation with theexperiential score makes sense because tha t score reflects how accura te-ly a person can read and express emotion, and how well a person cancompare that emotional stimulation to other sorts of sensory experiences(e.g., colors or sounds) w hereas the strat egic score indexes how accu-rately a person understands w hat emotions signify (e.g., that sadness typ-ically signals a loss) and how emotions in him/herself and o thers can bemanaged. (Q uoted from t he M SCEIT Interpretive G uide provided byMulti-Health Systems, Inc.) The two area level scores themselves weremoderately correlated, r (22) = .51, p < .01, as well.

O f the tw o bra nches of the MSCEIT tha t contribute to the experientialscore, Branch 2 ( Using Emotions to Facilita te Thought ) correlated mo rehighly with the total music test score, r (22) = .51, p < .01, than d id Branch1 ( Perceiving Emotions ), r (22) = .47, p < .05. This may seem surprising,but it could easily have been due to sampling error in this small sample,and certainly does not represent a significant difference. C orrelat ions w iththe branches contributing to the strategic score, Branch 3( Understanding Emotions ), r (22) = .21, p > .10, and Branch 4( M anaging Emotions ), r (22) = .20, p > .10, were positive but not sig-nificant. The branch scores themselves were all positively intercorrelated,with the highest correlation obtaining between Branches 1 and 2, r (22) =.49, p < .01, and the lowest between Branches 2 and 3, r (22) = .30, p >.10, a s appears to be the case in most research involving the M SCEIT.(The correlation matrix of branch scores has a positive manifold, as itshould; Mayer et al., 2003.)

Both of the tw o subtests of Branch 1, Faces and Pictures, correlat-ed only weakly with the total music score, r (22) = .38, p < .10, in eachcase. Interestingly, the highest correlation with any component test wasw ith the Sensations task of Branch 2, r (22) = .55, p < .01. This task requires the generation o f a certain mood in order to then reason w iththat mood (M SCEIT Interpretive Guide). It should be kept in mind,how ever, tha t the test authors do not recommend interpreting subtest levelscores.

When the music scores for the three pieces were considered separately,it was the Bach score that showed the highest correlation with the totalMSCEIT score, r (22) = .46, p < .05. By contrast, the Bartk and Persi-chetti scores were not significantly correlated w ith the MSCEIT, r (22) =


8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

11/15

.33, p > .10, in bo th cases. The intercorrelat ions of the three music scoreswere quite low, ranging from .16 to .28. This may suggest that the threepieces assessed different aspects of emotion recognition, but it could alsobe due to low reliab ility. Like the subtest scores of the M SCEIT, the scores

for individual pieces are better not interpreted.

Discussion

The significant correlation between the overall scores of the MSCEITand the music test suggests that individual differences in sensitivity toemotion conveyed by music performance are related to individual differ-ences in emotiona l intelligence. In pa rticular, they seem to be related t o t heability to generate a mood in the service of cognitive tasks and, to a less-er extent, to the ability to recognize emotional information in faces andpictures. The former relationship makes sense because, in order to judgethe emotion conveyed by a music performance, a person may have tointernally simulate correlates of that emotion (i.e., empathy) or accessexplicit knowledge about such correlates. The second relationship is alsoreasonable because both tasks involve recognizing emotions in sensoryinput. However, whereas the information is visual and static in theM SCEIT, it is aud itory a nd dynamic in the musical test.

We suspect that an even higher correlation might be obtained betweenthe musical test score and that of a test that assesses the ability to recog-nize emotion in spoken language, which is likewise auditory and dynam-ic. Recognizing emotion in speech is undoubtedly an important aspect ofemotiona l intelligence, although it is not currently part of t he MSC EIT.Although recognizing emotion in music performance is of less importancein everyday life, it probably requires much the same processes and sensi-tivities as recognizing emotion in speech. This w ould be entirely consistentwith evidence suggesting that the emotional cues in music performanceare very similar to those in speech (Juslin & La ukka, 2003). Thus, recog-nition of emotion in both speech and music performance may be a legiti-mate aspect of emotional intelligence and might be considered for inclu-sion in fut ure versions of the M SCEIT.

There was a tendency, albeit nonsignificant, for women to achieve high-er scores on both the MSCEIT and the music test. A small differencebetween sexes in the same direction has been observed among earlier tak-ers of the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002b), as well as in other studies ofnonverbal communication of emotion (Hall, 1978, 1984).

The recognition of emotion in music performance must be distin-guished from the recognition of emotional content in musical structurethat remains constant across different ma nners of performa nce. Such con-


8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

12/15

tent includes mode, pitch register, range, and contour, dissonance, har-monic progression, and rhythm, which in turn exert constraints on theaesthetically permissible range of variation of performance parameterssuch as tempo and loudness. Thus, the Bach Prelude used in our study is

inherently a somewhat sad piece on account of its minor key and slow tempo, whereas the major-key and moderately paced Bartk piece makesa quietly happy impression, and the Persichetti piece is rather neutral,lacking a strong tonality. These inherent characteristics were reflected inparticipant s ratings of the normal performances, which represented theperformers intuitive responses to the respective musical structures. By cal-culating emotion recognition scores as deviations from baseline scores forthe normal performances, we took into account each pieces inherentmood.

It should be noted that the emotions judged in this study (followingJuslin, 2000) differ in the extent to which they are associated with music

and music performance, and with piano performance in particular. It iseasy to name examples of piano pieces (regardless of style) that are inher-ently happy or sad, because of the close relationship of these emotions totempo and mode. However, inherently angry piano music is much lesscommon, and inherently fearful piano music is extremely rare. Likewise,a fearful performance is not a natural occurrence in musical practice, andauthor B.R. felt least confident in producing it. This may explain whyfearfulness was not recognized as well as the other emotions. Althoughfearfulness can be conveyed successfully b y musical means (Juslin, 1997b;Juslin & Laukka, 2003), a fearful performance is a laboratory construct,not an option tha t musicians w ould consider sponta neously.

This leads us to a dd a caveat a bout performances of music with explic-it emotional intent. Essentially, these are experimental stimuli that imposemodes of performance that are rarely required in realistic situations.Musicians seek to understand the inherent characteristics of a composi-tion and to render these as faithfully as possible. Their performance mayconvey happiness or sadness, but only if the music being played is indeedinherently happy or sa d, respectively. To pla y a n inherently sad, or evenan inherently neutral, piece in a happy manner would be aestheticallyinappropriate and self-indulgent. Thus, the methods used so successfullyby Juslin, and copied by us, may be seen as the imposition of extramusi-cal intentions onto music performance, somewhat like changing ones tone

of voice or facial expression in order to disguise ones true feelings.Although emotion is conveyed thereby via music, it is more or less inap-propriate emotion because the performers intentions are different fromw hat t he music seems to ask for. N evertheless, research using these meth-ods has been highly successful in revealing performance cues tha t ma y a lsocommunicate emotiona l content in normal music performance. Because


8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

13/15

these cues are likely to be more subtle in normal performance than in thetypical psychological experiment, they especially may require emotionalintelligence to be detected and appreciated.

In summary, our study suggests a connection between sensitivity to

musical emotion and everyday emotional intelligence that should be ofinterest to researchers working in bo th a reas. To be sure, replication ofour findings is desirable because they are based on a small sample of par-ticipants (hence, confidence intervals surrounding the reported correla-tions are broad), and because the musical materials were produced by asingle individual who was not a professional musician. Nevertheless,researchers concerned with musical emotion can now be even more con-fident that they are dealing with an aspect of human communication thatis related to real-life situations in which correct recognition of emotion isimportant. Conversely, our results may encourage researchers concernedwith everyday emotional intelligence to pay more attention to the infor-

mation conveyed by dynamic auditory events that are the result of emo-tionally charged action, such as speech and music. 1

ReferencesBrunswik, E. (1956). Perceptio n and the representative design o f experiments. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.G ab rielsson, A., & Juslin, P. N . (1996). Emot ional expression in music performa nce:

Between the performers intention and the listeners experience. Psychology of M usic,24 , 6891.

G ab rielsson, A., & Lindstrm, E. (1995). Emot ional expression in synthesizer a nd sento-graph performance. Psychomusicology, 14, 94116.

G oleman, D . (1995).Emot ional i ntelligence.

New York: Bantam.H all, J. A. (1978). G ender effects in decoding nonverba l cues. Psychological Bul letin, 85,

845857.Hall, J. A. (1984). N onverbal sex dif ferences: Comm uni cation accuracy and exp ressive

style. Baltimo re: Johns H opkins University Press.Juslin, P. N. (1997a). Emotional communication in music performance: A functionalist

perspective and some data. M usic Percepti on, 14 , 383418.Juslin, P. N. (1997b). Perceived emotional expression in synthesized performances of a

short melody. M usicae Scient iae, 1 , 225256.Juslin, P. N. (2000). Cue utilization in communication of emotion in music performance:

Relating performance to perception. Jour nal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 17971813.Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2003). Communication o f emotions in voca l expression a nd music

performance: D ifferent cha nnels, same code? Psychological Bull etin , 129, 770814.Juslin, P. N ., & Slobo da , J. A. (2001). M usic and emoti on: T heory and r esearch. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Juslin, P. N., & Zentner, M. (2001). Current trends in the study of music and emotion.

M usicae Scient iae, Special I ssue 200 12002 , 321.


1. This paper is based on an undergraduate senior research project by J.R. conductedunder the supervision of B.R., with advice from P.S. The research was supported by NIHgrant MH51230 to B.R. We are grateful to Susan Holleran for doing the performanceana lyses and to t hree review ers for helpful comments.

8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

14/15

Lopes, P. N ., Sa lovey, P., & Straus, R . (2003). Emot iona l intelligence, personality, and theperceived quality of social relationships. Personality and I ndivi dual D iff erences, 3,641659.

Ma tthews, G ., Z eidner, M ., & R oberts, R. D. (2003). Emoti onal int ell igence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence,17 , 433442.Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D.

Sluyter (Eds.), Emot ional developm ent and emot ional i ntelligence: Educatio nal imp li- cations (pp. 331). N ew York: B asic Books.

M ay er, J. D ., C aruso, D . R ., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets tradition-al standards for an intelligence. I ntelligence, 2 7, 267298.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002a). M ayer-Salovey-Caruso Emot ional I ntelligence Test (M SCEI T), Version 2 .0. Toront o, Ca nad a: M ulti-H ealth Systems.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002b). M ayer-Salovey-Caruso Emot ional I ntell igence Test U sers M anual. Toront o, Ca nad a: M ulti-H ealth Systems.

M ay er, J. D ., Salovey, P., C aruso, D ., & Sitarenios, G . (2001). Emotion al intelligence as astanda rd intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232242.

M ay er, J. D ., Salovey, P., C aruso, D . R., & Sitarenios, G . (2003). M easuring emotiona lintelligence w ith the M SCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97105.

Salovey, P., Kokkonen, M ., Lo pes, P., & M ayer, J. (2004). Emot ional intelligence: What d owe know? In A. S. R. Manstead, N. H. Frijda, & A. H. Fischer (Eds.), Feeli ngs and emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium (pp. 319338). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Im agination, Cognition, and Personali ty, 9, 185211.


8/13/2019 resnicow_2004

15/15

Reproduced withpermission of the copyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.

resnicow_2004

Documents

Transcript of resnicow_2004