Masculine harps and feminine horns: Timbre and pitch level influence gender ratings of musical instruments

Abstract

We examined whether timbre (instrument), pitch level, or both influence gender ratings of musical instruments. According to previous research, a variety of musical instruments are categorized or rated as masculine, neutral, or feminine in a relatively consistent way. Gender associations to musical instruments have been rather reliable across time and across participant populations. We investigated the gender ratings of nine musical instruments (three masculine, three neutral, and three feminine) each heard at low, medium, and high pitch levels within the playable range of each instrument. Both timbre and pitch level influenced participants’ gender ratings. The effect of timbre is consistent with results of previous studies, further demonstrating that participants rate instruments fairly consistently. One novel finding is that pitch level also played a role in participants’ gender ratings. The ratings of all instruments heard in low pitch levels were shifted in the masculine direction, and the ratings of all instruments heard in high pitch levels were shifted in the feminine direction. These results provide evidence for the notion that participants are influenced by associations to both timbre and pitch level when rating musical instruments on gender.

Keywords

auditory perception gender associations musical instruments pitch timbre

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abeles

(2009). Are musical instrument gender associations changing? Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 127–139.

Abeles

Porter

(1978). The sex-stereotyping of musical instruments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 26(2), 65–75.

Acoustical Society of America. (n.d.). Terms & definitions. exploresound.org. Retrieved from http://exploresound.org/explore-sound-home/what-is-acoustics/terms-definitions/

Allen

E. J.

Oxenham

A. J.

(2014). Symmetric interactions and interference between pitch and timbre. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135(3), 1371–1379.

American National Standards Institute. (1973). American national standard psychoacoustical terminology. S3.20. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.

Anderson

J. R.

(1991). The adaptive nature of human categorization. Psychological Review, 98, 409–429.

Boersma

Weenink

(2017). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.27. Retrieved from http://www.praat.org/

Cakewalk SONAR Platinum. (2016, July). [Software]. Version 22.7.0.41. Retrieved from https://www.cakewalk.com/

Caruso

V. C.

Balaban

(2014). Pitch and timbre interfere when both are parametrically varied. PloS One, 9(1), e87065.

10.

Cohen

M. S.

(2008). Handedness inventory. Retrieved from http://www.brainmapping.org/shared/Edinburgh.php

11.

Delzell

J. K.

Leppla

D. A.

(1992). Gender association of musical instruments and preferences of fourth-grade students for selected instruments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40(2), 93. doi:10.2307/3345559

12.

Eros

(2008). Instrument selection and gender stereotypes: A review of recent literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 27(1), 57–64.

13.

Fortney

P. M.

Boyle

J. D.

DeCarbo

N. J.

(1993). A study of middle school band students’ instrument choices. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(1), 28–39.

14.

Freeman

J. B.

Ambady

(2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 226–241.

15.

Freeman

Dale

Farmer

(2011). Hand in motion reveals mind in motion. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 59.

16.

Garritan Personal Orchestra 5. (2016). [Software]. Version 5.01.

17.

Giordano

B. L.

McAdams

(2010). Sound source mechanics and musical timbre perception: Evidence from previous studies. Music Perception, 28(2), 155–168. doi:10.1525/mp.2010.28.2.155

18.

Griswold

Chroback

(1981). Sex-role associations of music instruments and occupation by gender and major. Journal of Research in Music Education, 29(1), 57–62.

19.

Harrison

A. C.

O’Neill

S. A.

(2000). Children’s gender-typed preferences for musical instruments: An intervention study. Psychology of Music, 28(1), 81–97.

20.

Hartmann

(2017). Non-musicians also have a piano in the head: Evidence for spatial-musical associations from line bisection tracking. Cognitive Processing, 1, 75. doi:10.1007/s10339–016–0779–0

21.

Incera

McLennan

C. T

. (2016). Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(03), 610–620.

22.

Kelly

S. N.

(1997). An investigation of the influence of timbre on gender and instrument association. Contributions to Music Education, 24(1), 43–56.

23.

Lidji

Kolinsky

Lochy

Morais

(2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: A piano in the head? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1189–1207. doi:10.1037/0096–1523.33.5.1189

24.

Marshall

N. A.

Shibazaki

(2012). Instrument, gender and musical style associations in young children. Psychology of Music, 40(4), 494–507.

25.

Melara

R. D.

Marks

L. E.

(1990). Interaction among auditory dimensions: Timbre, pitch, and loudness. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 48(2), 169–178.

26.

Nishimura

Yokosawa

(2009). Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: The Simon effect and the SMARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 666–670.

27.

O’Neill

S. A.

Boultona

M. J.

(1996). Boys’ and girls’ preferences for musical instruments: A function of gender? Psychology of Music, 24(2), 171–183.

28.

Oldfield

R. C.

(1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.

29.

Peak Pro 5. (2006). [Computer software]. Version 5.2.0. BIAS, Inc. Available in Version 7.0.3 from http://www.bias-inc.com

30.

Pernet

C. R.

Belin

(2012). The role of pitch and timbre in voice gender categorization. Frontiers In Psychology, 3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00023

31.

Rusconi

Kwan

Giordano

Umiltà

Butterworth

(2005). The mental space of pitch height. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060(1), 195–197.

32.

Rusconi

Kwan

Giordano

B. L.

Umiltà

Butterworth

(2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99(2), 113–129.

33.

Sinsel

T. J.

Dixon

W. E.

Jr. Blades-Zeller

(1997). Psychological sex type and preferences for musical instruments in fourth and fifth graders. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 390–401.

34.

Spivey

M. J.

Grosjean

Knoblich

(2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 10393–10398.

35.

Steele

K. M.

Williams

A. K.

(2006). Is the bandwidth for timbre invariance only one octave? Music Perception, 23(3), 215–220. doi:10.1525/mp.2006.23.3.215

36.

Wrape

E. R.

Dittloff

A. L.

Callahan

J. L.

(2016). Gender and musical instrument stereotypes in middle school children. Update: Applications Of Research In Music Education, 34(3), 40–47. doi:10.1177/8755123314564255

37.

Wych

G. M.

(2012). Gender and instrument associations, stereotypes, and stratification: A literature review. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 30(2), 22–31.

38.

Ziv

Ayash

Ornstein

(2013). Instrument timbre and trait attribution. Psychomusicology, 23(3), 168.