Functions of music Running head: Functions of music

Young peoples topography of musical functions: Personal, social and cultural experiences with music across genders and six societies

Diana Boer (Jacobs University Bremen, Germany) Ronald Fischer (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand) Hasan Grkan Tekman (Uluda University, Turkey) Amina Abubakar (Tilburg University, Netherlands) Jane Njenga (University of Nairobi, Kenya) Markus Zenger (University of Leipzig, Germany)

To appear in International Journal of Psychology

Address of correspondence: Diana Boer, Jacobs University Bremen, Campus Ring 1, Research V, 28759 Bremen, Germany, Phone: +49-421-200-3482, Email: diana.boer@gmx.net Acknowledgement: The authors would like to express their gratitude for data collection and entry to Paulina Aspina, Nur Elibol, Jimena de Garay Hernndez, Ma. Luisa Gonzlez Atilano, and Luz Moreno. Furthermore, we would like to thank the following volunteers for their invaluable comments during the committee session: Katja Hanke, Sammyh Khan, Larissa Kus, Vivian Lun, Arama Rata, Jaimee Stuart, and Mel Vauclair. We are also grateful for Carla Crespos and Sandra Schneiders help with translations.

Abstract How can we understand the uses of music in daily life? Music is a universal phenomenon but with significant inter-individual and cultural variability. Listeners gender and cultural background may influence how and why music is used in daily life. This paper reports the first investigation of a holistic framework and a new measure of music functions (RESPECT-music) across genders and six diverse cultural samples (students from Germany, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, and Turkey). Two dimensions are underlying the mental representation of music functions. First, music can be used for contemplation or affective functions. Second, music can serve intrapersonal, social and socio-cultural functions. Results reveal that gender differences occur for affective functions, indicating that female listeners use music more for affective functions, i.e., emotional expression, dancing, and cultural identity. Country differences are moderate for social functions (values, social bonding, dancing) and strongest for socio-cultural function (cultural identity, family bonding, political attitudes). Cultural values, such as individualism-collectivism and secularism-traditionalism, can help explaining cross-cultural differences in the uses of music. Listeners from more collectivistic cultures use music more frequently for expressing values and cultural identity. Listeners from more secular and individualistic cultures like to dance more. Listeners from more traditional cultures use music more for expressing values and cultural identity, and they bond more frequently with their families over music. The two dimensions of musical functions seem systematically underpinned by listeners gender and cultural background. We discuss the uses of music as behavioral expressions of affective and contemplative as well as personal, social and socio-cultural aspects in terms of affect proneness and cultural values. Key words: music listening, gender differences, cross-cultural differences

Young peoples topography of musical functions: Personal, social and cultural experiences with music across genders and six societies

Music listening is enjoyed around the world. However, we have little understanding of how people use and experience music in their daily lives (cf. Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007), and how the cultural background and gender may influence the uses of music. Cultural background and gender are two highly accessible social categories and their impact on behavior is well documented (e.g., Berry, Segall, & Kagitibasi, 1997; Rabinowitz & Valian, 2000). Intriguing open questions are a) what are the broad dimensions underlying psychological functions of music1, and b) whether music listening serves similar or systematically different psychological functions across cultures and genders. The exploration of gender and cultural differences in functions of music is the central aim of the current study. Previous research has suggested that a holistic topography of musical functions involve personal, social and cultural experiences with music (Boer & Fischer, 2011), some of which may vary by personality (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007) and gender (Maidlow, 1999). Similarly, functions of music may vary dramatically across cultures considering the different status of music in non-Western cultures. A broad functional approach to music is particularly useful since it allows a systematic analysis of music functions as expressions of human psychological processes. Which Functions does Music Serve? Music fulfills a broad range of functions as demonstrated in interdisciplinary research (e.g., Behne, 1997; Clayton, 2009; Hargreaves & North, 1999; Merriam, 1964; Schfer & Sedlmeier, 2009). Music psychologists focus on personal (e.g., memories, cognitive performance, emotional expression; Sloboda, 2005) and social functions (e.g., social bonding, identity and value construction; Hargreaves & North, 1999), whereas ethnomusicologists and

music sociologists examine cultural or societal functions of music (e.g., expression of (sub-) cultural identity, cultural transmission, rituals; Folkestad, 2002). A distinction between personal, social and cultural experiences with music is helpful as it captures a whole range of individual functions into an interdisciplinary category system that simultaneously relates to different psychological processes (as discussed below). Using this distinction also allows us to address existing gaps in psychological research particularly in the social and cultural functions of music. Despite a large body of research into specific music functions, there is little integration regarding psychological social and cultural functions. Recent qualitative work suggested an integrated framework of personal, social and cultural functions of music (Boer, 2009; Boer & Fischer, 2011). Using thematic analysis of self-reported uses of music, two dimensions differentiated a) personal focus (such as, self-regulation or emotional expression) vs. social and cultural activity (social bonding through music with friends or family), and b) pleasure and affect (e.g., enjoyment or relaxation) vs. contemplation functions (construction of self identity, values or inspiration) (Boer, 2009). These two dimensions represent a distinction between psychological processes of listeners self as an individual vs. as a social and collective being, and between affective and cognitive motivational processes (see similar ideas in Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007; North, Hargreaves, & ONeill, 2000). To date, these two dimensions have not been studied together. Our study aims to advance research by explicitly targeting personal, social and cultural domains, as well as affect and contemplation functions of music, offering more comprehensive insights into the psychological processes involved in musical behaviors, in particular related to gender and culture. Gender differences may be more pronounced along the affect-contemplation axis of musical functions, whereas cultural differences may be more prominent along the individual vs. social/cultural functions of music.

Gender Differences in Music Functions A number of studies demonstrated differences between male and female listeners music preferences (Colley, 2008; ONeill, 1997; North & Hargreaves, 2007), suggesting that systematic gender differences in music preferences are based on gender-role socialisation into male toughness and female emotionality. Such differences in musical behaviour may be rooted in gender differences in affect proneness and personality traits, which are driven by physiological differences in emotional experience (e.g., Bradley, Codispoti, Sabatinelli, & Lang, 2001). Female listeners also use music more frequently to fulfill emotional needs (North et al., 2000). Therefore, we predict that emotional functions of music are more important for women than men (Hypothesis 1). We additionally explore differences for contemplation functions due to a lack of previous research on this domain. Cultural Differences in Music Functions Personal functions of music are likely to be universal due to the cognitive and emotional primacy of self-related needs (Gaertner, Sedikides, & Graetz, 1999; Sedikides & Gaertner, 2001). Previous research shows that musical perception (Balkwill & Thompson, 1999) and self-regulation via music (Boer & Fischer, 2011) did not differ across cultural samples. Social functions of music may show larger differences, especially if related to independent and interdependent self-construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Individuals who construe their self as an autonomous entity independent of others are differentiated from those who see themselves closely connected to their social environment. Due to the stronger relevance of social relationships in interdependent self-construals, it could be argued that listeners in contexts where interdependent self-construals are more salient (i.e., collectivistic cultures) have stronger bonding experiences with music that emphasize the in-group compared to individuals in contexts in which independent self-construals are dominant (individualistic cultures) (Hypothesis 2).

Music as a cultural experience may be subject to particularly strong cultural variations. The cultural dimension of traditionalism vs. secularism (Inglehart, 1997) may influence peoples uses of music for enhancing their collective self-esteem. Collective self-esteem (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) can be raised through belonging to social groups and collectives. Music is likely to take a more central function in more traditional societies for raising collective self-esteem (Merriam, 1964). Furthermore, traditional values also emphasize the importance of the family throughout the life span, which may lead to stronger family bonding experiences with music in more traditional societies. Alternatively, the function of music for expressing more secular concerns such as political attitudes may be stronger in societies that emphasize secularism over traditionalism. Hence, we expect that the uses of music for cultural identity and family bonding are positively associated with traditional societal values (Hypothesis 3), while the expression of political attitudes through music are related to secular values (Hypothesis 4). Aim of this Study There is little systematic research that incorporates a) multidimensional musical functions, and b) simultaneous assessment of gender and cultural effects. This paper explores the personal, social and cultural functions of music for people from six different cultures. These six countries were chosen to sample geographically and culturally distant regions: Latin America (Mexico), Western Europe (Germany), Middle East (Turkey), East Africa (Kenya), Oceania (New Zealand), and South-East Asia (Philippines). Method Data collection and participants Data was collected at colleges and universities in Germany, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, and Turkey, and additionally in online surveys in Germany, Mexico and New Zealand (snowball emailing) and in high schools in Kenya (over 18 year olds in final

high school year). The total sample consisted of 1193 participants (N = 198 in Germany, N = 214 in Kenya, N = 170 in Mexico, N = 215 in New Zealand, N = 150 in the Philippines, N = 246 in Turkey). In each sample the majority of participants were female ranging from 54% in Germany to 74% in Turkey (Chi-square (1111) = 22.40, p < 0.05; we used the 0.05 level of significance in all analyses). The mean age of participants varied between 17.43 years (SD = 1.69) in the Philippines, and 21.22 years (SD = 4.17) in Germany (F (5, 1110) = 27.44, p < 0.05). About half of the participants (48.3%) were actively involved in music making by playing instruments or singing. Measuring functions of music listening We developed a scale measuring Ratings of Experienced Social, PErsonal and Cultural Themes of Music functions (RESPECT-Music) based on previous qualitative work (Boer & Fischer, 2011). We extracted items closely related to the qualitative responses. For instance, from the quote And what is more powerful than a song or just a tune which is able to bring tears in your eyes? we generated the item Some songs are so powerful that they are able to bring tears into my eyes. We selected the most appropriate items from an initial set of over 200 items in a multicultural committee approach (Beck, Bernal, & Froman, 2003) with seven participants from Sweden, Hong Kong, and Estonia, and two each from New Zealand and Germany. The committee approach suggested that 74 items adequately covered the functions discussed by Boer and Fischer (2011; see also Boer, 2009). We used the following response scale: Please indicate the degree to which each of the following statements applies to your experience with music from 1 not at all to 7 to a great extent. The initial 74 items were developed in English and translated into German and Spanish. Through a multi-lingual selection of the clearest items in English, German and Spanish, and via factor analysis in a pilot study (N=1,085), the initial pool of 74 items was reduced to a more practical scale size of 36 items (see Boer, 2009). The simultaneous development and

item selection in multiple languages and cultural groups reduces the likelihood of culturesensitivity or language-sensitivity of the instrument. The final RESPECT-Music scale consisting of 36 items was translated into Turkish. English was used in Kenya and the Philippines where English is one of the official languages in educational settings. Analytical Strategy First, we assessed the factor structure and mental representation of musical functions measured by the new instrument. Our instrument development was guided by previous qualitative work identifying seven main functions. However, it is unclear whether the empirical structure of our new instrument recovers the qualitatively derived dimensions. Therefore, we conducted an initial Principal Component Analysis (PCA) on the pooled within-groups correlation matrix (adjusting for unequal samples sizes; Fischer & Fontaine, 2011). We rotated the pooled factor solution with Varimax rotation in order to identify independent functions of music. Structural equivalence was investigated by applying procrustean target rotation (for details see Fischer & Fontaine, 2011; van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). Tuckers Phi is an agreement coefficient that was examined as a statistical indicator of factor similarity (Tuckers Phi above 0.85 indicates satisfactory similarity of factor structures; Fischer & Fontaine, 2011). Then, the mental representation of the underlying dimensions of music functions was investigated with Multidimensional Scaling (MDS). Second, the effect size Cohens d was calculated for the mean difference in music functions between male and female participants (hypothesis 1). Then, we assessed gender and cross-cultural differences in functions of music simultaneously using analysis of variance while controlling for age and musicianship (playing an instrument or singing). Finally, we test cross-cultural differences in functions of music using cross-level operator (CLOP) analysis (James & Williams, 2000), which is similar to a standard regression analysis, except that the participants from a given nation are assigned nation-level scores.

CLOP examines the contribution of country scores (cultural values) in explaining betweencountry variance in music functions. This method can be used as an alternative to HLM if there are not enough countries involved in the analysis. As cultural predictors we use Hofstedes individualism scores as a proxy for the prevalence of independent and interdependent self-concepts (hypothesis 2) and World Value Survey scores of secular vs. traditional values (hypothesis 3 and 4). According to Hofstedes country scores (2001), the six countries include four countries with predominant collectivistic orientation indicated by low individualism scores (Kenya2 [27], Mexico [30], Philippines [32], Turkey [37]) and two countries with predominant individualistic orientation indicated by high individualism scores (New Zealand [79], Germany [67]). The six countries vary considerably in their secular (vs. traditional) value scores (Germany [0.61; wave 2005-2007], Kenya [-0.173], Mexico [0.47; wave 2005-2007], New Zealand [1.24; wave 2005-2007], Philippines [0.06; wave 1999-2004], Turkey [-0.20; wave 2005-2007]). The scores were standardized and the analysis was controlled for gender, age and musicianship in order to account for alternative sources of variation. Results Structure of Musical Functions Factor analysis revealed that RESPECT-MUSIC measures 10 distinct musical functions, which were selected based on interpretability and the scree-plot (explaining 71% of the variance; see Table 1). One item was deleted due to low communalities (0.45 in combined sample) and low fit between countries. We use 35 items for the further analyses. The first two factors captured the social bonding functions of music. Factor 1 contained the social bonding function with friends. Five items captured social experiences with music (items 3 and 4, see Table 1), shared memories triggered by music (items 1 and 2), and music as a means of bonding (items 5). Factor 2 covered the social bonding functions of

music listening within the family. This factor contained four items about music (listening and talking) as a family activity (item 6 and 9), a shared family interest (items 8), and a family bond (item 7). Factor 3 combined the uses of music for venting (items 10, 12, and 13) and reducing stress (item 11). Factor 4 encompassed the emotional function of music listening. This factor contained five items about music conveying emotions (items 16 and 17), music triggering emotions (items 15), and emotional physiological reactions (item 14). Factor 5 represented the desire for dancing that is triggered by music (items 18, 19 and 20). Factor 6 captured the background function of music while being engaged in other activities with three items (items 21, 22 and 23). Factor 7 entailed three items about the focus and concentration enhancing effect of music (items 24, 25 and 26). Factor 8 was about music preferences as an expression of political attitudes, which was captured in three items (items 27, 28 and 29). Factor 9 contained three items about cultural identity reflected in music (items 30, 31 and 32). Finally, factor 10 captured the ability of music to shape and express personal values (items 34 and 35) and to positively influence the personal development (item 33). The ten functions were measured with adequate internal reliabilities in most samples (Cronbachs alpha range = 0.57-0.93), with somewhat lower internal consistency in the Kenyan sample (Cronbachs alpha = 0.57-0.75). Previous research indicated that African samples show similarly lower measurement consistency (e.g., McCrae et al., 2005; Schwartz et al., 2001). However, we regard the internal reliability in the Kenyan sample as still acceptable considering the low number of items for each function of music (3 to 5 items; average inter-item correlation per sub-scale above r = 0.28). Furthermore, the factorial structures were mostly congruent and robust across cultures as indicated by satisfactory levels of Tuckers Phi above 0.85 for most functions (Table 1). The exceptions were that the value function of music showed a low structural similarity in three samples (Turkey, Kenya, and the Philippines) and two further functions of music

10

showing low congruence in the Kenyan sample (venting and focus). The low structural similarity may be caused by the higher correlation of the two factors venting and values in these three samples. -Insert Table 1 and Figure 1 about hereNext, we investigated systematic patterns occurring in the overall structure of musical functions. What broad dimensions underlie these music functions? We created Euclidean distances between the items and analyzed them in a Proxscal MDS with Torgerson scaling (Borg & Groenen, 1997). The factor analysis had suggested the presence of 10 factors, but factor analysis cannot reveal the relative connectedness between the factors in an ndimensional space. Examining this dimensionality of musical functions can reveal underlying motivational processes for the use of music by listeners. RESPECT-Music was best represented by two dimensions (Stress-1 = 0.19; accounting for 96% of the dispersion). The first conceptual dimension (Figure 1, X-Axis) was defined by functions serving contemplation vs. affective functions. The use of music for the development of own values, to enhance focus and to express political opinions require deeper contemplation, while the emotions in music, cultural identity expression and dancing are more affective and pleasure oriented. Venting, and social bonding with friends and family appear in between the two poles and may include contemplative and affective elements. The second dimension distinguished three levels (Figure 1, Y-Axis): music serving intrapersonal, interpersonal/social and socio-cultural functions. While the expression of emotions, venting und enhancing concentration serve intrapersonal purposes, music serves interpersonal and social functions by increasing social bonding with friends, the development of values, and for dancing. Furthermore, politics, family and cultural identity are aspects of cultural and societal importance, which are associated with socio-cultural functions of music. Gender and Cross-cultural Variability in Musical Functions

11

Next, we tested cultural and gender differences in music functions. We additionally reanalyzed the data with the Kenyan sample removed (due to limited structural comparability in this sample). The analyses yielded similar results. -Insert Table 2 about hereGender Differences. Results revealed significant gender differences for the affective functions (Figure 2; Table 2). Female participants used music to a greater extent than male participants for emotions (MF = 5.46 vs. MM = 5.08), dancing (MF = 5.62 vs. MM = 4.96), and cultural identity (MF = 4.64 vs. MM = 4.30). Additionally, there were significant differences in the background (MF =4.54 vs. MM = 4.35) and family bonding (MF = 3.64 vs. MM = 3.54) functions. Again female listeners used these functions containing affective and contemplative elements more extensively than male listeners. The effect sizes for gender effects in the three affective functions were small (Cohens d > 0.20, see Table 2), but consistent, supporting hypothesis 1. Cultural Differences. The results showed that cultural background had significant effects on all functions of music (Table 2; Figure 3). First, the largest cross-cultural differences occurred for socio-cultural functions of music, i.e., cultural identity, family bonding, and political attitudes. Music as an expression of cultural identity was more strongly experienced by the samples from the Philippines (M = 5.38), Kenya (M = 5.06), Mexico (M = 4.86), and Turkey (M = 4.83), while participants from Germany (M = 3.53) and New Zealand (M = 3.63) seemed rather indifferent towards music as a marker of cultural identity. The Kenyan (M = 4.30) and Filipino sample (M = 4.46) experience family bonding though music most strongly, followed by Mexico (M = 3.56) and New Zealand (M = 3.61), while participants from Germany (M = 3.14) and Turkey (M = 2.91) seem to experience family bonding less frequently through music. Political attitudes are not very strongly expressed through music in all samples (M = 2.90), while participants from

12

Turkey (M = 2.21) and New Zealand (M = 2.72) showed least usage of music as political engagement and participants from the Philippines (M = 3.54) use the political function of music most strongly. We predicted that secular vs. traditional cultural values account for the cross-cultural differences in socio-cultural functions of music. CLOP revealed that the crosscultural difference in music as an expression of cultural identity related negatively to secular values as well as individualism (Table 2). Listeners from more collectivistic (less individualistic) and more traditional (less secular) cultures use music more for expressing cultural identity (supporting hypothesis 3). Furthermore, secular values were negatively associated with family bonding through music. Listeners from more traditional cultures used music more frequently for bonding with their families (supporting hypothesis 3). Contrasting with our predictions, traditional/secular cultural values did not relate to political expression through music. Hence, only two of three socio-cultural functions of music followed the hypothesis of stronger occurrence in cultures that value traditionalism over secularism. Cross-cultural differences of small effect size were found for the social functions of music, namely social bonding with friends, values development and dancing. While the Filipino (M = 5.36) and Mexican (M = 4.77) samples experienced most social bonding through music, the Turkish (M = 4.39) and German (M = 4.49) samples experienced least social bonding. Similarly, the Filipino sample (M = 5.24) used music most extensively for value development, whereas the New Zealand sample experienced this function least frequently (M = 3.78). However, the dancing function was most frequently used by listeners from Germany (M = 5.65) and New Zealand (M = 5.60), while Turkish (M = 5.13) and Filipino (M = 5.27) participants danced the least. We hypothesized that the cross-cultural variability in social functions of music is systematically underpinned by variations in selfconstruals (hypothesis 2). CLOP analysis revealed that individualism and secular values were negatively associated with values development through music (Table 2). This means that

13

listeners from more collectivistic and more traditional backgrounds use music more frequently for their value development. In line with our prediction this indicates that the value related social use of music is associated with interdependent self-construals (as suggested by lower individualism scores). Interestingly, cross-cultural differences in the dancing function of music were related to individualism and secular values. Listeners from cultures that emphasize secular values over traditional values and independent self-construal over interdependence, like dancing more than listeners from more traditional and collectivistic societies. In addition to the cross-cultural differences in socio-cultural and social functions of music, results indicate cross-cultural variations of small effect size in the intra-personal functions of music, i.e., emotions, venting, background and focus. However, only two of these differences can be explained by the two cultural value dimensions. The emotional expression through music related negatively to individualism and secular values. Listeners from more collectivistic and more traditional cultures use music more frequently for the emotional function, while venting is used more by listeners from secular societies. -Insert Figure 2 and 3 about hereIn summary, RESPECT-Music measures a broad range of music functions with good structural similarity across five of six cultural samples. The two dimensions of music functions seem replicable and stable across cultures indicating systematic psychological underpinnings. The socio-cultural functions of music were most strongly affected by crosscultural differences (explaining between 3.9% and 18.5% of the variance indicating a medium to large effect, Cohen, 1988). This underscores the interpretation of these functions as sociocultural facets of musical experience. Cultural differences in social functions of music were of small effect size explaining between 3.0 and 5.3% of the variance, while cross-cultural differences in intra-individual functions of music were smallest accounting for 1.4 to 5.8% of

14

the variance. Small gender differences were found for all affective functions of music (explaining between 0.9% and 5.0% of the variance), while the functions of music for contemplation were not affected by participants gender (0% explained variance). Discussion The ten functions of music measured by the newly developed RESPECT-Music scale tap into a broad range of psychological facets of life, including cognitive concentration, political attitudes, values, venting, social bonding, family affiliation, cultural identity, emotional expression, dancing and music in the background. These musical functions are organized by two dimensions distinguishing between affective and contemplative functions, and music for intrapersonal, interpersonal/social and socio-cultural functions. This comprehensive set of musical functions highlights the immense power of music in central aspects of everyday life. The first contribution of this research is a better understanding of the systematic psychological underpinning of musical functions. Importantly, we could show that two major dimensions organize the psychological use of music, which in turn are systematically moderated by gender and cultural influences. A second contribution is the measurement of this comprehensive set of musical functions. RESPECT-Music allows capturing these functions with adequate levels of internal consistency and cross-cultural stability in structure across a range of culturally diverse samples. Affective and contemplative functions of music We have argued that affect proneness may elicit gender differences in affective functions of music. Our results showed small but consistent effects of female listeners using music more than male listeners for affective functions, such as the expression of affect, cultural identity and dancing. The affective use of music may be rooted in the sensitivity to feel emotions that are expressed in music. This interpretation dovetails with previous findings of gender differences in music preferences (Colley, 2008; ONeill, 1997). Females tendencies

15

to like soft music (such as, Chart Pop) may be linked to the uses of music for affective functions, assuming that soft music is more likely to express emotionality compared to heavy metal music, for instance. Alternatively it can be argued that the difference may come from the type of emotions that these two musical styles elicit as opposed to general levels of affect. Hence, gender differences in musical behavior including music functions and music preferences may be rooted in affect proneness, which may also be partly determined biologically. In addition it has been argued that gender socialization affects gender roles and many behaviors that are associated with gender roles including musical behaviors (Colley, 2008). For instance, the selection of music instruments is strongly influenced by the gender-specific stereotypes connected to musical instruments (Eros, 2008). Similar gender-specific stereotypes may apply to the affective functions of music. For instance, dancing seems female-stereotyped in most societies particularly among young people (e.g., Sanderson, 2001). This stereotypic association is well documented and a serious concern in dance education. Respondents to this study may have been influenced by such gender-related associations of musical functions. So far we have primarily focused on the underlying mechanisms on the affective side of the first dimension of musical functions. What we know from our results is that the contemplative functions of music, i.e., focus, value development, and political attitudes, are unaffected by listeners gender. Hence, alternative psychological processes seem to motivate the contemplative functions of music. Although the current data is rather unsuitable for testing age effects due to a small age range, an interesting observation was that the covariate variable age was significantly related to all three contemplative functions, while age was unrelated to the three affective functions. These findings may point towards developmental processes underpinning the contemplation functions of music where younger listeners use music more

16

frequently than older listeners (zero-order correlations between age and music functions: focus, r = -0.17, p < 0.05; value development, r = -0.16, p < 0.05; political attitudes, r = -0.15, p < 0.05). Music may serve to fulfill cognitive developmental needs such as guiding the development of values, political attitudes and for enhancing concentration. However, we need to keep in mind the tentativeness of these results and the limited age range in the current samples. Small but systematic gender effects provide the first empirical evidence for a systematic psychological process underpinning the first dimension of musical functions. Future research is needed to test whether experienced affect and personality traits (or gender stereotypes) account for the observed gender differences in affective functions of music. Further psychological mechanisms should be considered, such as developmental and cognitive processes, in order to explore the motivational underpinnings of both contemplative and affective functions of music. Intrapersonal, social, and socio-cultural functions of music Concerning the second dimension of musical functions, intrapersonal functions encompass the uses of music as a vehicle for emotional expression and stress regulation, to enhance concentration and in the background. These functions are likely to be used in private settings when music is listened to in solitude. Across the six cultural samples in our study, emotional expression and venting through music are among the three most important functions of music. This underlines the argument of the primacy of individual functions above relational and collective ones (Sedikides & Gaertner, 2001). Although we did not predict cross-cultural differences, we found small cross-cultural variations in all intrapersonal functions of music. The intrapersonal functions of music were most strongly experienced by the Filipino participants and least strongly by New Zealand (emotions, venting), Kenyan (background) and Turkish (focus) participants. These results point towards a strong

17

connection of the Filipino self with music (Dioquino, 1982; Santos, 2005). Many aspects of Filipino life are embedded within musical contexts (Santos, 2005), which seems to elevate the importance of music for intrapersonal uses. Music for social functions, i.e., social bonding with friends, dancing and for the development of values, varies across cultures. Considering individualism (vs. collectivism) scores as a proxy for independent (vs. interdependent) self-concepts, our results showed that participants from cultures with predominant interdependent self-concepts develop their values more strongly through involvement in music compared to participants from cultures with predominant independent self-concepts. Music allows an alignment of the value development with the values expressed by music. In this case, music may serve as marker of socially accepted values and as an external guide allowing norm-oriented, traditional value development, which is endorsed by the interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).This argument fits with the finding that cross-cultural differences in the value development function of music can be explained by traditional cultural values. Contrasting with the value function of music, the dancing function seems to follow an unexpected cultural pattern. More precisely, dancing is particularly prominent in samples from individualistic and secular cultures (i.e., Germany and New Zealand) as opposed to culture that value collectivism and traditionalism. Dancing in particular may serve quite different functions in secular vs. traditional cultures: while in secular cultures dancing may be more a self-enhancing activity, which may also be due to the sexual liberalization and secularity developments, while the ritual and collective elements of dancing may still be emphasized more in traditional societies (which are in turn not much appreciated by younger listeners). Our results have shown that musical functions can serve as behavioural expressions of cultural values, i.e., the dancing function of music as an expression of secularism which is accompanied by sexual liberalization (Inglehart & Norris, 2003).

18

The socio-cultural functions of music differed most across cultures indicated by medium to large effect sizes. Politics, family and cultural identity are central features defining cultures and societies (Hofstede, 2001). Functions of music associated with socio-cultural contemplation serve as expressions of political attitudes. This function highlights the use of music for expressing attitudes towards socio-political issues. In contrast, it appears that sociocultural functions of identity in music are operating at an affective level without deeper reflection on the underlying messages. Cultural identity expressed through music is for celebrating and shared enjoyment of collective identities occurring, for instance, at local fairs, traditional ceremonies, or sport events. This differs from more reflective uses of music to express political attitudes. Social bonding within families can also be considered as a sociocultural function of music, because the meaning of family in peoples life is strongly affected by the culture in which the family is embedded. We have argued that the socio-cultural functions of music adhere to the secular vs. traditional values of the societies from where listeners hail. Our findings show support for this argument with regard to the cultural identity function of music (with 90% of the betweencountry variance being explained by country scores in secular vs. traditional values). It appears that music is a stronger marker of collective cultural identity in societies that emphasize traditional values over secular values. This finding reassures previous notes that national pride is an indicator of traditional values. Furthermore, this notion is extended to daily life behaviors such as music listening as a marker of identity and a source of collective self-esteem. Although previous research has shown that particularly young people do not like traditional local music styles very much (e.g., Tekman & Hortasu, 2002), traditional styles nevertheless express cultural identity across cultures (Boer et al., 2010). Furthermore, family functions of music adhere to the cultural value dimension traditionalism. The current research goes beyond the assessment of musical likes and dislikes, and captures that young people

19

from traditional societies recognize and acknowledge the contribution of local music to ones cultural identity and family bonding more than young people from more secular cultures.
The political function of music was not associated with the predicted cultural patterns. Here, inter-individual differences in political attitudes may account for the use of music for this particular function in each specific societal context. There may be no overarching cross-cultural patterns considering the unique political landscapes and dynamics in each of the sampled contexts. Culture-specific investigations should provide close-up pictures of the mechanisms underpinning the political function of music.

Limitations and conclusion Turning to the limitations of this research, the samples in this study have limited age distribution, which inhibits the generalizability of our results. Furthermore, the samples come from urban, young and highly educated populations. We need more research to examine functions across a broader range of participants from both modern and traditional societies. For instance, music may serve additional functions in rural settings (e.g., more differentiated social and socio-cultural functions, see Merriam, 1964). The examination of only six cultural samples provides only a first step into a systematic cross-cultural analysis of musical functions. The limited availability of cultural data did not allow the use of more sophisticated and robust hierarchical linear modeling. Although the results need to be carefully evaluated, our analysis offers some first insights into the influence of cultural values in peoples uses of music. Integrating and extending previous research, a two-dimensional structure provides a holistic topography of musical functions that is systematically influenced by listeners culture and gender. It enables connecting previous interdisciplinary research on musical behavior within a single research paradigm. Using a new scale of music functions (RESPECT-music), our study fills a gap in research showing how various levels of psychological functioning, culture, and music are systematically related. 20

Endnotes
1

The term psychological function of music refers to the uses of music in everyday life that are

underpinned by psychological processes (for a differentiation between uses and functions of music, see Merriam, 1964). We use the term psychological functions as a clear distinction of other musical functions, such as aesthetic functions, economical functions, or societal functions (e.g., collective memory).
2

Regional estimated score for East Africa is based on the combined data from Ethiopia,

Kenya, Tanzania, and Zambia (Hofstede, 2001).

3

Kenya was not included in the WVS. Therefore, we calculated a regional estimate based on

the most recent available country scores of Tanzania (wave 1999-2004), Ethiopia (wave 20052007) and Zambia (wave 2005-2007) (similar to the procedure by Hofstede, 2001).

21

References Balkwill, L.L., & Thompson, W.F. (1999). A cross-cultural investigation of the perception of emotion in music: Psychophysical and cultural cues. Music Perception, 17, 4364. Beck, C. T., Bernal, H., & Froman, R. D. (2003). Methods to document semantic equivalence of a translated scale. Research in Nursing & Health, 26, 64-73. Behne, K.-E. (1997). The development of Musikerleben in adolescence. How and why young people listen to music. In I. Delige & J. Sloboda (Eds.), Perception and Cognition of Music (pp. 143-159). Hove, England: Psychology Press. Berry, J. W., Segall M.H., & Kagitibasi . (1997). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Social behavior and applications, vol. 3. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Boer, D. (2009). Music makes the people come together. Social functions of music preferences for young people across cultures. (Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand). Retrieved from: http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/ 10063/1155 Boer, D., & Fischer, R. (2011). Towards a holistic picture of functions of music: A culturally decentred qualitative approach. Psychology of Music. Doi: 10.1177/0305735610381885 Boer, D., Fischer, R., Gonzlez Atilano, M. L., de Garay Hernndez, J., Moreno, L. Mendoza, S., Gouveia, V. V., Lam, J., & Lo, E. (2010). Music, identity and musical ethnocentrism of young people in six Asian, Latin-American and Western cultures. Manuscript submitted for publication. Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling theory and applications, Springer: New York. Bradley, M. M., Codispoti, M., Sabatinelli, D., & Lang, P. J. (2001). Emotion and motivation II. Sex differences in picture processing. Emotion, 1, 300-319.

22

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2007). Personality and music: can traits explain why people listen to music? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 175-185. Clayton, M. (2009). The social and personal functions of music in cross-cultural perspective. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology (pp. 35-44). New York: Oxford University Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colley, A. (2008). Young peoples musical taste: Relationship with gender and gender-related traits. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2039-2055. Dioquino, C. C. (1982). Musicology in the Philippines. Acta Musicologica, 54, 124-147. Eros, J. (2008). Instrument selection and gender stereotypes. A review of recent literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 27, 57-64. Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J.R. (2011). Methods for investigating structural equivalence. In D. Matsumoto & F. van de Vijver (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Research Methods (pp. 179-215). New York: Oxford University Press. Folkestad, G. (2002). National identity and music. In R.A.R. MacDonald, D.J. Hargreaves & D. Miell (Eds.), Musical Identities (pp. 151-163). New York: Oxford University Press. Gaertner, L., Sedikides, C., & Graetz, K. (1999). In search of self-definition: Motivational primacy of the individual self, motivational primacy of the collective self, or contextual primacy? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 5-18. Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (1999). The functions of music in everyday life: redefining the social in music psychology. Psychology of Music, 27, 71-83. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

23

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Islam and the West: a 'Clash of Civilizations' ? Foreign Policy, March/April, 62-70. James, L. R., & Williams, L. J. (2000). The cross-level operator in regression, ANCOVA, and contextual analysis. In J. K. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of ones social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302-318. Maidlow, S. (1999). The Role of Psychology Research in Understanding the Sex/Gender Paradox in Music: Plus a Change. Psychology of Music, 27, 147-158. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., Libovich, N. B., Schmidt, T., Shakespeare-Finch, J., Neubauer, A., et al. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407-425. Merriam, A. P. (1964). The anthropology of music. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2007). Lifestyle correlates of musical preference: 2. media, leisure time and music. Psychology of Music, 35, 179-200. North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & O'Neill, S. A. (2000). The importance of music to adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 255-272. ONeill, S. A. (1997). Gender and music. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 4660). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rabinowitz, V., & Valian, V. (2000). Sex, sex differences, and social behavior. Annals of the

24

New York Academy of Sciences, 907,196207. Sanderson, P. (2001). Age and gender issues in adolescent attitudes to dance. European Physical Education Review, 7, 117-136. Santos, R. P. (2005). TUNUGAN: Four essays on Filipino Music. Diliman, Quezon City: The University of the Philippines Press. Schfer, T., & Sedlmeier, P. (2009). From the functions of music to music preference. Psychology of Music, 37, 279-300. Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519-542. Sedikides, C., & Gaertner, L. (2001). A homecoming to the individual self: emotional and motivational primacy. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self (pp. 7-23). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Sloboda, J.A. (2005). Exploring the musical mind: cognition, emotion, ability, function. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tekman, H. G., & Hortasu, N. (2002). Aspects of stylistic knowledge: What are different styles like and why do we listen to them? Psychology of Music, 30, 28-47. van de Vijver, F.J.R., & Leung, K. (1997). Method and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. World Value Survey (1981-2008) Official aggregate v.20090901, 2009. World Values Survey Association (www.worldvaluessurvey.org). Aggregate File Producer: ASEP/JDS, Madrid.

25

Figure 1 Two-dimensional MDS solution of musical functions measured with RESPECT-Music (item numbers and corresponding functions)

26

Figure 2 RESPECT-Music mean scores across six cultural samples

Venting
6.0

Background

5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0

Emotions

New Zealand Dancing Mexico Germany Turkey Kenya

Focus

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0

Values

Friends

Philippines

Politic

Cultural Id

Family

27

Figure 3 RESPECT-Music mean scores across genders

Venting 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0

Background

Emotions

Focus

Dancing

Female listeners Male listeners

Values

Friends

Politic Family

Cultural Id

28

Functions of music Table 1 Factor structure of RESPECT-Music (PCA with Varimax rotation on pooled within-groups correlation matrix)
Factor 1 Friends 0.75 0.72 0.69 0.67 Factor 2 Family Factor 3 Venting Factor 4 Emotion Factor 5 Dancing Factor 6 Background Factor 7 Focus Factor 8 Politic Factor 9 Culture Factor 10 Values h2 0.69 0.72 0.61 0.62

1 Through music my friends and I can commemorate happy past moments together. 2 Listening to music with friends is a way of sharing good old memories of our lives. 3 I meet with friends and listen to good music. 4 Going to concerts and listening to records is a way for me and my friends to get together and relate to each other. 5 We live these moments of true connection when I listen to music or go to concerts with my friends. 6 I like talking to my family about music. 7 Our shared music taste is something that brings my family together. 8 Music allows me to have a common interest with my family. 9 I enjoy listening to music with my family/relatives. 10 Through listening to music I can let off steam. 11 Music seems to reduce stress. 12 Music is what alleviates my frustration. 13 Music is a means of venting my frustration. 14 Some songs are so powerful that they are able to bring tears into my eyes. 15 Feelings conveyed in a song can make my heart melt. 16 It's important to me that music transports feelings. 17 Music is emotion flowing in sound. 18 I like dancing to certain music. 19 Some music makes me want to dance. 20 I like to go dancing, and the type of music is essential for this. 21 I need music in the background while doing something else. 22 In many situations I need music in the background.

0.66 0.81 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.75 0.73 0.68 0.68 0.80 0.76 0.64 0.59 0.89 0.86 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.31

0.64 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.66 0.67 0.65 0.72 0.69 0.67 0.57 0.85 0.82 0.81 0.77 0.78

0.32

23 Whatever I do, I listen to music in the background. 24 Music helps me to focus. 25 I can keep my focus on a task while listening to the right music. 26 Listening to music allows me to concentrate. 27 I usually listen to music that goes somewhat with my political beliefs. 28 My favourite music is often political. 29 Music plays an important role in my life as a means of political engagement. 30 The music of my country represents an image of my country to the outside world. 31 Music is a reflection of a country's culture and history. 32 The music in my country is part of building our identity. 33 My personal development was positively influenced by music. 34 Somehow music steers my approach to life and my values. 35 Music is very important in the process of developing my values.
Eigenvalue Variance explained (71.46%) Factor congruence Tuckers Phi New Zealand Mexico Germany Turkey Kenya Philippines Internal consistency Cronbachs alpha New Zealand Mexico Germany Turkey Kenya Philippines 10.50 29.99 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.98 0.87 0.96 0.77 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.74 0.85

0.78 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.84 0.81 0.76 0.82 0.79 0.76 0.69 0.68 0.31 2.72 7.77 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.98 0.89 0.96 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.85 0.90 2.36 6.74 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.80 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.78 0.61 0.82 2.10 5.99 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.87 0.93 0.81 0.85 0.84 0.79 0.62 0.85 1.56 4.44 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.97 0.93 0.96 0.89 0.91 0.86 0.93 0.75 0.92 1.50 4.29 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.87 0.96 0.88 0.91 0.89 0.85 0.70 0.84 1.31 3.75 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.83 0.96 0.92 0.90 0.93 0.83 0.67 0.85 1.13 3.22 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.88 0.94 0.87 0.76 0.82 0.81 0.63 0.73 0.97 2.76 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.86 0.97 0.84 0.83 0.75 0.71 0.63 0.83 0.60 0.89 2.54 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.72 0.73 0.63 0.87 0.89 0.85 0.78 0.57 0.78

0.77 0.79 0.73 0.81 0.76 0.71 0.69 0.73 0.68 0.69 0.72 0.68 0.71

Note. Factor loadings above 0.30 displayed; h2 communality (measures the percent of variance of each item explained by all factors)

30

Functions of music Table 2 Gender and cultural differences in musical functions (RESPECT-Music)
Gender differences ANOVAb da F (1, 1075) 2 ANOVAb F (5, 1075) 2 Cultural differences Cultural predictorsc Individualism Secular traditional collectivism values 2 R R2 0.019 0.007 0.000 0.003 0.014 0.003 0.022 0.167 0.011 0.001

Intra-individual functions of music A Emotions -0.29 21.87 * 0.020 12.22 * 0.058 -0.15 * 0.022 -0.14 * AC Venting -0.01 0.14 0.000 4.06 * 0.019 -0.06 0.003 -0.08 * AC Background -0.13 4.37 * 0.004 3.04 * 0.014 0.05 0.002 0.01 C Focus 0.07 0.89 0.000 8.76 * 0.039 0.03 0.001 -0.05 Social functions of music A Dancing -0.42 56.85 * 0.050 7.28 * 0.033 0.12 * 0.014 0.12 * AC Friends -0.06 2.30 0.002 6.54 * 0.030 0.00 0.000 -0.05 C Values -0.02 0.11 0.000 12.04 * 0.053 -0.16 * 0.026 -0.15 * Socio-cultural functions of music A Cultural Id -0.22 9.59 * 0.009 48.65 * 0.185 -0.35 * 0.122 -0.41 * AC Family -0.08 4.29 * 0.004 18.91 * 0.081 -0.03 0.001 -0.10 * C Politic 0.10 0.54 0.000 8.26 * 0.039 0.02 0.000 -0.03 Note. A affective functions, AC functions in-between affective and contemplative, C contemplative functions; a Cohens d of gender differences in music functions; b Analysis for gender and cultural differences are controlled for age and musicianship, N = 1088 due to missing data in demographic variables; c Cross-Level Operator Analysis (James & Williams, 2000), controlled for gender, age, and musicianship, N = 1088 due to missing data in demographic variables; * p < 0.05