In a framing experiment, 170 participants aged 19–80 years were asked to read a description in the fashion of a program note prior to listening (individually via headphones) to a sinfonia by Josef Mysliveček (1737–1781). Divergent versions of this description were created for treatment manipulation, while the participants were not informed about it. Within a 2 × 2 design the descriptions (a) attributed the musical piece to different composers of highly different prominence and prestige. Half of the participant group was informed that they would be listening to the overture to the pastoral opera Ascanio in Alba by Wolfgang Amadé Mozart (1756–1791), whereas the other half was informed correctly. The composers’ names were (b) combined with descriptions that applied either an analytic or expressive writing mode. Subsequently collected ratings for liking and a number of perceived musical characteristics were significantly higher when participants had read the expressive compared with the analytic writing mode. Interestingly, younger adults showed higher liking ratings when the music was attributed to Mozart, whereas no significant differences were found in older adults. In sum, this study supports the notion that being exposed to text information prior to listening to music affects perception and appreciation of musical characteristics.
Anglada-TortM.MüllensiefenD. (2017). The repeated recording illusion. Music Perception, 35(1), 94–117. doi:10.1525/mp.2017.35.1.94
2.
BashfordC. (2003). Not just ‘G’: Towards a history of the programme notes. In MusgraveM. (Ed.), George Grove, music and Victorian culture (pp. 115–142). London: Palgrave.
3.
BennettD.GinsborgJ. (2018). Audience reactions to the program notes of unfamiliar music. Psychology of Music46(4), 588–605. doi.org/10.1177/0305735617721339
4.
BlohmS.MenninghausW.SchlesewskyM. (2017). Sentence-level effects of literary genre: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1887). doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01887
5.
Bonneville-RoussyA.RentfrowP. J.XuM. K.PotterJ. (2013). Music through the ages: Trends in musical engagement and preferences from adolescence through middle adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(4), 703–717. doi:10.1037/a0033770
6.
Bonneville-RoussyA.StillwellD.KosinskiM.RustJ. (2017). Age trends in musical preferences in adulthood: 1. Conceptualization and empirical investigation. Musicae Scientiae, 21(4), 369–389. doi:10.1177/1029864917691571
ChapmanA. J.WilliamsA. R. (1976). Prestige effects and aesthetic experiences: Adolescents’ reactions to music. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 61–72.
9.
CrozierW. R.ChapmanA. (1981). Aesthetic preferences: Prestige and social class. In O’HareD. P. A. (Ed.), Psychology and the arts (pp. 242–278). New Jersey: Humanities Press.
10.
CupchikG. C.ShereckL.SpiegelS. (1994). The effects of textual information on artistic communication. Visual Arts Research, 20, 62–78.
11.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.
12.
EntmanR. M. (2003). Cascading activation: Contesting the White House’s frame after 9/11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415–432.
13.
EvansJ. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
14.
EvansJ. S. B. T. (2009). How many dual process theories do we need: One, two or many? In EvansJ.FrankishK. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 33–88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
16.
HargreavesD. J. (1986). The developmental psychology of music. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HarrisonJ.RyanJ. (2010). Musical taste and ageing. Ageing and Society, 30(04), 649–669. doi:10.1017/s0144686x09990778
18.
IsenA. M.ShalkerT.ClarkM.KarpL. (1978). Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1–12.
19.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
20.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.
21.
KirkU.SkovM.HulmeO.ChristensenM. S.ZekiS. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1125–1132. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009
22.
KrogerC.MargulisE. H. (2016). “But they told me it was professional”: Extrinsic factors in the evaluation of musical performance. Psychology of Music, 45(1), 49–64. doi:10.1177/0305735616642543
23.
LauringJ. O.PelowskiM.ForsterM.GondanM.PtitoM.KupersR. (2016). Well, if they like it … Effects of social groups’ ratings and price information on the appreciation of art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(3), 344–359. doi:10.1037/aca0000063
24.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.
25.
LinF.YaoM. (2017). The impact of accompanying text on visual processing and hedonic evaluation of art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 36(2), 180–198. doi:10.1177/0276237417719637
26.
MargulisE. H. (2010). When program notes don’t help: Music descriptions and enjoyment. Psychology of Music, 38(3), 285–302. doi:10.1177/0305735609351921
27.
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(4), 596–605. doi:10.1177/0305735613510343
28.
MittlerG. A. (1976). An instructional strategy designed to overcome the adverse effects of established student attitudes toward works of art. Studies in Art Education, 17(3), 13–31.
29.
MullensiefenD.GingrasB.MusilJ.StewartL. (2014). The musicality of non-musicians: An index for assessing musical sophistication in the general population. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e89642. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089642
30.
NorthA. C.HargreavesD. J. (2005). Brief report: Labelling effects on the perceived deleterious consequences of pop music listening. Journal of Adolescence, 28(3), 433–440. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.09.003
31.
NorthA. C.HargreavesD. J. (2008). The social and applied psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
PanZ.KosickiG. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75. doi:10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963
33.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. doi:doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
34.
SchaalN. K.BauerA.-K. R.MüllensiefenD. (2014). Der Gold-MSI: Replikation und Validierung eines Fragebogeninstrumentes zur Messung Musikalischer Erfahrenheit anhand einer deutschen Stichprobe. Musicae Scientiae, 18(4), 423–447. doi:doi:10.1177/1029864914541851
35.
SpitzerJ. (1987). Musical attribution and critical judgment: The rise and fall of the Sinfonia Concertante for Winds, K. 297b. The Journal of Musicology, 5(3), 319–356. doi:10.2307/763696
36.
TewinkelC. (2016). Muss ich das Programmheft lesen? Zur populärwissenschaftlichen Darstellung von Musik seit 1945. Kassel: Bärenreiter.
37.
ThompsonS. (2006). Audience responses to a live orchestral concert. Musicae Scientiae, 10(2), 215–244. doi:10.1177/102986490601000204
38.
ThompsonS. (2007). Determinants of listeners’ enjoyment of a performance. Psychology of Music, 35(1), 20–36. doi:10.1177/0305735607068886
39.
ThorauC. (2013). Werk, Wissen und touristisches Hören. Popularisierende Kanonbildung in Programmheften und Konzertführern. In PietschmannK.Wald-FuhrmannM. (Eds.), Der Kanon in der Musik – Theorie und Geschichte. Ein Handbuch (pp. 535–561). München: edition text+kritik.
40.
ThorauC. (in press). “What ought to be heard”. Touristic listening and the guided ear. In ThorauC.ZiemerH. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music listening in the 19th and 20th centuries (pp. 207–227). New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
TousignantC.BodnerG. E. (2014). Context effects on beauty ratings of photos: Building contrast effects that erode but cannot be knocked down. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 81–86. doi:10.1037/a0034942
42.
UmanathS. (2016). Age differences in suggestibility to contradictions of demonstrated knowledge: The influence of prior knowledge. Neuropsychology, Development, and Cognition. Section B, Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition, 23(6), 744–767. doi:10.1080/13825585.2016.1167161
43.
van PaasschenJ.BacciF.MelcherD. P. (2015). The influence of art expertise and training on emotion and preference ratings for representational and abstract artworks. PLoS ONE, 10(8), e0134241. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134241
44.
VuoskoskiJ. K.EerolaT. (2015). Extramusical information contributes to emotions induced by music. Psychology of Music, 43(2), 262–274. doi:10.1177/0305735613502373
45.
WagnerV.KleinJ.HanichJ.ShahM.MenninghausW.JacobsenT. (2015). Anger framed: A field study on emotion, pleasure, and art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, No-Pagination Specified. doi:10.1037/aca0000029
46.
WaxmanJ. (2012). Prefacing music in the concert hall: Program books, composer commentaries, and the conflict over musical meaning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York.
47.
WellmerA. (2009). Versuch über Musik und Sprache. München: Hanser.
48.
ZajoncR. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking. Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.
49.
ZivN.MoranO. (2006). Human versus computer: The effect of a statement concerning a musical performance’s source on the evaluation of its quality and expressivity. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 24(2), 177–191. doi:10.2190/E4EN-1X32-KUU1-LDHT
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
