This study investigated the performance preferences of listeners without formal training in music. Specifically, it asked whether the quality of the performance (as represented by the status of the performer), the order of presentation of the performances, and extrinsic information about the quality of the performance impacted preferences. In Experiment 1, participants heard pairs of performances of solo piano music and were informed that one was played by a conservatory student, and one by a world-renowned professional. After each pair, they selected the one they thought had been performed by the professional. Their responses seem to have been driven by a combination of a preference for the performance actually played by the professional and a preference for the second performance in the pair. In Experiment 2, they heard the same performance pairs, but this time were informed, correctly or incorrectly, before each performance whether it was played by a student or by a professional. After each pair, they selected the performance they preferred. This time, their responses were influenced not just by the actual performer identity and the order of presentation, but also by the priming condition. Listener preferences seem to be driven by a combination of factors intrinsic and extrinsic to the performance itself.
BergeeM. J. (1997). Relationship among faculty, peer, and self-evaluations of applied perfromances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 601–612.
2.
BerlyneD. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
3.
BornsteinR. F.D’AgostinoP. R. (1994). The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Social Cognition, 12, 103–128.
4.
BiswasD.GrewalD.RoggeveenA. (2010). How the order of sampled experiential products affects choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 508–519.
5.
BiswasD.LabrecqueL.LehmannD.MarkosE. (2014). Making choices while smelling, tasting, and listening: The role of sensory (dis)similarity when sequentially sampling products. Journal of Marketing, 78, 112–126.
6.
Bruine de BruinW. (2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118, 245–260.
7.
CrossI. (2005). Music and meaning, ambiguity and evolution. In HargreavesD. J. (Ed.), Musical communication (pp. 27–44). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
8.
DeBellisM. (1995). Music and conceptualization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DuerksenG. L. (1972). Some effects of expectation on evaluation of recorded musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, 268–272.
10.
FiskeH. E. (1978). The effect of a training procedure in musical performance evaluation on judge reliability. Ontario Educational Research Council Report. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Educational Research Council.
11.
FloresR. G.GinsburghV. A. (1996). The Queen Elisabeth musical competition: How fair is the final ranking?The Statistician, 45, 97–104.
12.
GabrielssonA. (1999). The performance of music. In DeutschD. (Ed.), The psychology of music (2nd ed., pp. 501–602). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13.
HargreavesD. J. (1984). The effects of repetition on liking for music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 35–47.
14.
HargreavesD. J.MesserschmidtP.RubertC. (1980). Musical preference and evaluation. Psychology of Music, 8, 13–18. doi:10.1177/030573568081002
15.
HerrP. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 67–75.
16.
HeydukR. G. (1975). Rated preference for musical compositions as it relates to complexity and exposure frequency. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 84–90.
17.
JohnS.JamesL.Knight Foundation. (2002). Classical music consumer segmentation study: How Americans relate to classical music and their local orchestras. Southport, CT: Audience Insight & the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
18.
JuslinP. N. (2003). Five facets of musical expression: A psychologist’s perspective on musical performance. Psychology of Music, 31, 273–302. doi:10.1177/03057356030313003
19.
LeeL.FrederickS.ArielyD. (2006). Try it, you’ll like it: The influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological Science, 17, 1054–1058.
MargulisE. H. (2010). When program notes don’t help: Music descriptions and enjoyment. Psychology of Music, 38, 285–302.
22.
MargulisE. H. (2013). On repeat: How music plays the mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
MargulisE. H.KisidaB.GreeneJ. P. (2015). A knowing ear: The effect of explicit information on children’s experience of a musical performance. Psychology of Music, 43, 596–605.
24.
NorthA.HargreavesD. (2001). Complexity, prototypicality, familiarity, and the perception of musical quality. Psychomusicology, 17, 77–80.
25.
NorthA.HargreavesD. (2008). The social and applied psychology of music. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
26.
PatelA. D. (2008). Music, language, and the brain. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
PlassmannH.O’DohertyJ.ShivB.RangelA. (2007). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 1050–1054.
28.
RaffmanD. (1993). Language, music, and mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
29.
RentfrowP.GoslingS. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1236–1256.
30.
ReppB. (1997). The aesthetic quality of a quantitatively average music performance: Two preliminary experiments. Music Perception, 14, 419–444.
31.
ReppB. (1999). A microcosm of musical expression. III. Contributions of timing and dynamics to the aesthetic impression of pianists’ performances of the initial measures of Chopin’s Etude in E major. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 469–478.
32.
SaundersT. C.HolahanJ. M. (1997). Criteria-specific rating scales in the evaluation of high-school instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 259–272.
33.
SzpunarK. K.SchellenbergE. G.PlinerP. (2004). Liking and memory for musical stimuli as a function of exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 370–381.
34.
ThompsonS. (2007). Determinants of listeners’ enjoyment of a performance. Psychology of Music, 35, 20–36.
35.
ThompsonW. F.DiamondC. T. P.BalkwillL. L. (1998). The adjudication of six performances of a Chopin Etude: A study of expert knowledge. Psychology of Music, 26, 154–174. doi:10.1177/0305735698262004
36.
ZajoncR. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
