Twenty melodic tone sequences varying in harmonic structure were first presented once each to listeners selected from three different levels of previous musical training. Listeners rated each sequence on a 6-point scale of "pleasingness". Next, 5 sequences from the original set of 20 were each repeated 10 times in a row and rated after each repetition. The 5 sequences were assigned to listeners so that across listeners the 20 original sequences were equally represented. Finally, all 20 sequences were again each presented once for rating. At all levels of musical training, listeners showed a monotonic relationship between "pleasingness" and level of harmonic structure, with highest ratings of "pleasingness" associated with the highest level of structure. During repeated exposures, judged "pleasingness" increased at all levels of harmonic structure except the highest level, where a decrease of "pleasingness" with exposure was obtained. The effects of repetition did not, however, extend to the final ratings of the original set of 20 sequences. The data are discussed with reference to the optimal- complexity model of aesthetic judgement; specific attention is directed toward the cognitive processes determining sequence complexity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berlyne, D. E.
(1971). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
2.
Crozier, J. B.
(1974). Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In: D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetic: StepsToward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Approach. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.
3.
Crozier, J. B.
(1977). Measurement of Melody. Invited presentation to the Annual Research Symposium in Music Education. University of Western Ontario, London.
4.
Crozier, W. R.
and Chapman, A. J. (1984). The perception of art: the cognitive approach and its context. In: W. R. Crozier and A. J. Chapman (Eds.), Cognitive Processes in the Perception of Art. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
5.
Cuddy, L. L.
(1982). On hearing pattern in melody. Psychology of Music, 10, 3-10.
6.
Cuddy, L. L.
, Cohen, A. J. and Mewhort, D. J. K. (1981). Perception of structure in short melodic sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 869-883.
7.
Davies, J. B.
(1978). The Psychology of Music. London: Hutchinson.
8.
Day, H.
(1967). Evaluation of subjective complexity, pleasingness, and interestingness for a series of random polygons varying in complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 281-286.
9.
Dember, W. N.
and Earl, R. W. (1957). Analysis of exploratory, manipulatory, and curiosity behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 91-96.
10.
Dewar, K. M.
, Cuddy, L. L. and Mewhort, D. J. K. (1977). Recognition memory for single tones with and without context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 60-67.
11.
Dorfman, D. D.
and McKenna, H. (1966). Pattern preference as a function of pattern uncertainty. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 20, 43-53.
12.
Eisenman, R.
(1967). Complexity-simplicity: Preference for symmetry and rejection of com- plexity. Psychonomic Science, 8, 169-170.
13.
Farnsworth, P. R.
(1969). The Social Psychology of Music. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.
14.
Fechner, G. T.
(1876). Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Haertel.
15.
Greer, R. D.
(1981). Response to Walker. In: The Documentary Report of the Ann Arbor Symposium (pp. 329-332). Reston Virginia: Music Educators National Conference.
16.
Heyduk, R. G.
(1972). Static and dynamic aspects of rated and exploratory preference for musical complexity. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33b, 4542-4542.
17.
Heyduk, R. G.
(1975). Rated preference for musical composition as it relates to complexity and exposure frequency. Perception and Psychophysics, 17, 84-89.
18.
Machotka, P.
(1980). Daniel Berlyne's contributions to experimental aesthetics. Motivation and Emotion, 4, 113-121.
19.
Munsinger, H.
and Kessen, W. (1964). Uncertainty, structure, and preference. Psychological Monographs, 78 (9, Whole No. 586).
20.
Pribram, K. H.
(1982). Brain mechanisms in music. In: M. Clynes (Ed.), Music, Mind, and Brain. New York: Plenum Press.
21.
Radocy, R. E.
(1982). Preference for classical music: a test for the hedgehog. Psychology of Music, Special Issue: Proceedings of the Ninth International Seminar on Research in Music Education, 91-95.
22.
Roederer, J. G.
(1982). Physical and neuro-psychological foundations of music: the basic questions. In: M. Clynes (Ed.), Music, Mind, and Brain. New York: Plenum Press.
23.
Steck, L.
and Machotka, P. (1975). Preference for musical complexity: effects of context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104, 170-174.
24.
Temme, J. E.
(1984). Effects of mere exposure, cognitive set, and task expectations on aesthetic appreciation. In: W. R. Crozier and A. J. Chapman (Eds.). Cognitive Processes in the Perception of Art. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
25.
Verveer, E. M.
, Barry, H., Jr., and Bousfield, W. A. (1933). Changes in affectivity with repetition. American Journal of Psychology, 45, 130-134.
26.
Vitz, P. C.
(1962). Preference for sequences of tones and the rate of information presentation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 23, 4440-4440.
27.
Vitz, P. C.
(1964). Preference for rates of information presented by sequences of tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 176-183.
28.
Vitz, P. C.
(1966a). Affect as a function of stimulus variability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 74-79.
29.
Vitz, P. C.
(1966b). Preference for differing amounts of visual complexity. Behavioral Science.11, 105-114.
30.
Walker, E. L.
(1970). Complexity and preference in animals and men. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 169, 619-653.
31.
Walker, E. L.
(1973). Psychological complexity and preference. In: D. E. Berlyne and K. B. Madsen (Eds.), Pleasure, Reward, and Preference. New York: Academic Press.
32.
Walker, E. L.
(1981). Hedgehog theory and music education. In: The Documentary Report of the Ann Arbor Symposium (pp. 317-328). Reston Virginia: Music Educators National Conference.
33.
Zajonc, R. B.
(1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 9 (2).
34.
Zajonc, R. B.
(1970). Brainwash: familiarity breeds comfort. Psychology Today, 3, 32-62.
35.
Zajonc, R. B.
(1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
