This study employs an experiment to test assessments of music composed by artificial intelligence. We examined the influence of (a) met or unmet expectations about artificial intelligence (AI)-composed music, (b) whether the music is better or worse than expected, and (c) the genre of the evaluation of music using a 2 (expectancy violation vs confirmation) × 2 (positive vs negative evaluation) × 2 (electronic dance music vs classical) design. The relationship between the belief about creative AI and the music evaluation was also analyzed. Participants (n = 299) in an online survey listened to a randomly assigned music piece. The acceptance of creative AI was found to have a positive relationship with the assessment of AI-composed music. A two-way interaction between the expectancy violation and its valence, and a three-way interaction between the expectancy violation, its valence, and the genre of music were found. Implications for Expectancy Violation Theory and AI applications are discussed.
AfifiWAMettsS (1998) Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships15(3): 365–392.
3.
AltyJLRigasDVickersP (1997) Using music as a communication medium. In: CHI’97 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 22–27 March, pp. 30–31. New York: ACM. DOI: 10.1145/1120212.1120234.
4.
BairdBBlevinsDZahlerN (1993) Artificial intelligence and music: implementing an interactive computer performer. Computer Music Journal17(2): 73–79.
BartneckCSuzukiTKandaT, et al. (2007) The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI & Society21(1–2): 217–230.
7.
BharuchaJJOlneyKL (1989) Tonal cognition, artificial intelligence and neural nets. Contemporary Music Review4(1): 341–356.
8.
BodenMA (1998) Creativity and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence103(1–2): 347–356.
9.
BonitoJBurgoonJKBengtssonB (1999) The role of expectations in human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work, Phoenix, AZ, 14–17 November, pp. 229–238. New York: ACM.
10.
BrewerWTreyensJ (1981) Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology13(2): 207–230.
BurgoonJKHaleJ (1988) Nonverbal expectancy violations: model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs55(1): 58–79.
13.
BurgoonJKJonesSB (1976) Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research2(2): 131–146.
14.
BurgoonJKBonitoJLowryP, et al. (2016) Application of Expectancy Violations Theory to communication with and judgments about embodied agents during a decision-making task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies91: 24–36.
15.
CamurriA (1990) On the role of artificial intelligence in music research. Journal of New Music Research19(2–3): 219–248.
16.
ChamberlainRMullinCScheerlinckB, et al. (2018) Putting the art in artificial: aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts12(2): 177.
17.
ChristensonPGPetersonJB (1988) Genre and gender in the structure of music preferences. Communication Research15(3): 282–301.
18.
ChungJEParkNWangH, et al. (2010) Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers in Human Behavior26(6): 1674–1684.
19.
CoeckelberghM (2017) Can machines create art?Philosophy & Technology30(3): 285–303.
20.
CohenEL (2010) Expectancy violations in relationships with friends and media figures. Communication Research Reports27(2): 97–111.
21.
CookneyDJ (2012) Post-human pop: from simulation to assimilation. In: Extremity and excess: proceedings of the 2011 University of Salford College of Arts and Social Sciences postgraduate research conference (ed. TaylorEDarlingtonJCookneyD, et al.), Salford, 8–9 September, pp. 19–41. Salford: University of Salford Press.
22.
CrossI (2014) Music and communication in music psychology. Psychology of Music42(6): 809–819.
23.
CurranNMSunJHongJW (2019) Anthropomorphizing AlphaGo: a content analysis of the framing of Google DeepMind’s AlphaGo in the Chinese and American press. AI & Society. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-019-00908-9.
24.
DeihlERSchneiderMJPetressK (1983) Dimensions of music preference: a factor analytic study. Popular Music & Society9(3): 41–49.
25.
DelsingMJTer BogtTFEngelsRC, et al. (2008) Adolescents’ music preferences and personality characteristics. European Journal of Personality22(2): 109–130.
26.
DixonTL (2006) Schemas as average conceptions: skin tone, television news exposure, and culpability judgement. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly83(1): 131–149.
EdwardsCEdwardsASpenceP, et al. (2016) Initial interaction expectations with robots: testing the human-to-human interaction script. Communication Studies67(2): 227–238.
29.
ElgammalALiuBElhoseinyM, et al. (2017) Can: creative adversarial networks, generating “art” by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. arXiv:170607068.
30.
FeldmanS (2017) Co-creation: human and AI collaboration in creative expression. In: Electronic visualisation and the arts, London, 11–13 July, pp. 422–429. Swindon: BCS Learning and Development Ltd..
31.
FerrerREerolaTVuoskoskiJK (2013) Enhancing genre-based measures of music preference by user-defined liking and social tags. Psychology of Music41(4): 499–518.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society22(1): 70–86.
37.
HallET (1966) The Hidden Dimension(vol. 609). Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
38.
HargreavesDJMacDonaldRMiellD (2005) How do people communicate using music. In: MiellDMacDonaldRHargreavesDJ (eds) Musical Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–26.
39.
HarrisRJSanbornFW (2014) A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication. 6th ed. New York: Routledge.
40.
HewahiNAlSaigalSAlJanahiS (2019) Generation of music pieces using machine learning: long short-term memory neural networks approach. Arab Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences26(1): 397–413.
41.
HickeyM (1999) Assessment Rubrics for Music Composition: Rubrics make evaluations concrete and objective, while providing students with detailed feedback and the skills to become sensitive music critics. Music Educators Journal85(4): 26–52.
42.
HongJCurranNM (2019) Artificial intelligence, artists, and art: attitudes toward artwork produced by humans vs. artificial intelligence. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing Communications, and Applications (TOMM)15(2S): 1–16.
43.
HongJWilliamsD (2019) Racism, responsibility and autonomy in HCI: testing perceptions of an AI agent. Computers in Human Behaviors100: 79–84.
44.
IstókEBratticoEJacobsenT, et al. (2013) “I love Rock ‘n’ Roll”—music genre preference modulates brain responses to music. Biological Psychology92(2): 142–151.
45.
JacksonT (2017) Imitative identity, imitative art, and AI: artificial intelligence. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal50(2): 47–63.
46.
JanataP (1995) ERP measures assay the degree of expectancy violation of harmonic contexts in music. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience7(2): 153–164.
47.
JenningsKE (2010) Developing creativity: artificial barriers in artificial intelligence. Minds and Machines20(4): 489–501.
48.
KleiderHPezdekKGoldingerS, et al. (2008) Schema-driven source misattribution errors: remembering the expected from a witnessed event. Applied Cognitive Psychology22(1): 1–20.
49.
KrugerMViljoenASaaymanM (2018) A behavioral intentions typology of attendees to an EDM festival in South Africa. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism19(4–5): 374–398.
50.
LastingerD (2011) The effect of background music on the perception of personality and demographics. Journal of Music Therapy48(2): 208–225.
51.
LiuBWeiL (2019) Machine authorship in situ: effect of news organization and news genre on news credibility. Digital Journalism7(5): 635–657.
52.
Longuet-HigginsHC (1994) Artificial intelligence and musical cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Physical and Engineering Sciences349(1689): 103–113.
53.
McCarthyJ (2007) From here to human-level AI. Artificial Intelligence171(18): 1174–1182.
54.
MarzanoGNovembreA (2017) Machines that dream: a new challenge in behavioral-basic robotics. Procedia Computer Science104: 146–151.
55.
MeehanJR (1979) An artificial intelligence approach to tonal music theory. In: Proceedings of the 19 annual conference 79 (eds MartinALElshoffJL), Miami, FL, January, pp. 116–120. New York: ACM.
56.
MikulincerMShaverPR (2001) Attachment theory and intergroup bias: evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81(1): 97–115.
57.
NiehavesBPlattfautR (2014) Internet adoption by the elderly: employing IS technology acceptance theories for understanding the age-related digital divide. European Journal of Information Systems23(6): 708–726.
58.
PetersenMB (2012) Social welfare as small-scale help: evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science56(1): 1–16.
59.
PetersonRAKernRM (1996) Changing highbrow taste: from snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review61(5): 900–907.
60.
RoadsC (1980) Artificial intelligence and music. Computer Music Journal4(2): 13–25.
61.
RoadsC (1985) Research in music and artificial intelligence. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)17(2): 163–190.
62.
RuiJRStefanoneMA (2018) That tagging was annoying: an extension of expectancy violation theory to impression management on social network sites. Computers in Human Behavior80: 49–58.
63.
SchäferTSedlmeierP (2009) From the functions of music to music preference. Psychology of Music37(3): 279–300.
64.
ShankDBGravesCGottA, et al. (2019) Feeling our way to machine minds: people’s emotions when perceiving mind in artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior98: 256–266.
65.
ShermerM (2017) Why artificial intelligence is not an existential threat. Skeptic22(2): 29.
66.
SteinbeisNKoelschSSlobodaJA (2006) The role of harmonic expectancy violations in musical emotions: evidence from subjective, physiological, and neural responses. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience18(8): 1380–1393.
67.
StereCTrăuşan-MatuŞ (2017) Generation of musical accompaniment for a poem, using artificial intelligence techniques. Romanian Journal of Human—Computer Interaction10(3): 250–270. Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1989174700/(accessed 18 July 2019).
68.
SturmBLTIglesiasMBen-TalO, et al. (2019) Artificial Intelligence and music: open questions of copyright law and engineering praxis. Arts8(3): 115.
69.
SuenHYChenMYCLuSH (2019) Does the use of synchrony and artificial intelligence in video interviews affect interview ratings and applicant attitudes?Computers in Human Behavior98: 93–101.
70.
SundarSSKimJ (2019) Machine heuristic: when we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (eds FitzpatrickGBrewsterS), Glasgow, 4–9 May, p. 538. New York: ACM.
71.
TurkleS (2005) The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72.
WaddellT (2018) A robot wrote this?: how perceived machine authorship affects news credibility. Digital Journalism6(2): 236–255.
YangQLiC (2013) Mozart or metallica, who makes you more attractive? A mediated moderation test of music, gender, personality, and attractiveness in cyberspace. Computers in Human Behavior29(6): 2796–2804.
75.
ZulićH (2019) How AI can change/improve/influence music composition, performance and education: three case studies. INSAM Journal of Contemporary Music, Art and Technology1(2): 100–114.
