Psychology of Music

1
Psychology of Music

• By Colin Sundwick

2
Summary

• This study was to determine if the type of music
  influenced radio listeners opinion of the product
  and the endorser. There were three different
  versions of the commercial, two with different
  types of music and one with no music at all. The
  listeners were then asked to rate it in terms of
  potency, activity, and evaluation.

3
Variables

• What is the explanatory variable?

4
Variables

• What is the explanatory variable?
• Type of music

5
Variables

• What is the explanatory variable?
• Type of music
• Categorical

6
Variables

• What are the response variables?

7
Variables

• What are the response variables?
• The ratings given by the participants regarding
  the product.
• The ratings given by the participants regarding
  the endorser.

8
Variables

• What are the response variables?
• The ratings given by the participants regarding
  the product.
• Quantitative
• The ratings given by the participants regarding
  the endorser
• Quantitative

9
Bias

• What are some potential sources of bias?

10
Bias

• What are some potential sources of bias?
• Self Selected sample (volunteer bias).

11
Hypotheses

• H1 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the endorser.
• H2 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the product.
• H3 Different music does not lead to different
  buying intentions and different general
  evaluation of the product.
• H4 There is coherence between the impression of
  the endorser and the impression of the product.
• H5 Music in different tempi leads to different
  estimates of a commercials length.

12
Which one of these would be a null hypothesis?

• H1 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the endorser.
• H2 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the product.
• H3 Different music does not lead to different
  buying intentions and different general
  evaluation of the product.
• H4 There is coherence between the impression of
  the endorser and the impression of the product.
• H5 Music in different tempi leads to different
  estimates of a commercials length.

13
Which one of these would be a null hypothesis?

• H3 Different music does not lead to different
  buying intentions and different general
  evaluation of the product.

14
Giefsen Test (GT)

• Participants used this scale as a basis for their
  judgement of the endorser.

Left Side of Scale Right Side of Scale
Scale 1 Social Response Negative Social Response Positive social response
Scale 2 Dominance Dominant Submissive
Scale 3 Self-Control Uncontrolled Compulsive
Scale 4 Underlying Mood Hypomanic Depressive
Scale 5 Permeability Permeable Retentive
Scale 6 Social Potency Socially potent Socially impotent
15
Semantic Differential

• Participants used this scale to describe the
  product.
• Evaluative factor - e.g. good-bad
• Potency factor - e.g. weak-strong
• Activity factor e.g. tense-relaxed

16
Results

• H1 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the endorser.
• Rated Endorsers self control
• Music I 24.1
• Music II 27.3
• No Music 23.8

17
Results

• H1 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the endorser.
• Rated Endorsers self control
• Music I 24.1
• Music II 27.3
• No Music 23.8
• Accept H1?

18
Results

• H1 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the endorser.
• Rated Endorsers self control
• Music I 24.1
• Music II 27.3
• No Music 23.8
• Accept H1?
• Yes

19
Results

• H2 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the product.
• SD Activity
• Music I 19.0
• Music II 13.1
• No Music 16.2

20
Results

• H2 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the product.
• SD Activity
• Music I 19.0
• Music II 13.1
• No Music 16.2
• Accept H2?

21
Results

• H2 Different music leads to different
  impressions of the product.
• SD Activity
• Music I 19.0
• Music II 13.1
• No Music 16.2
• Accept H2?
• Yes

22
Results

• Rated Permeability of the endorser.
• Music I M 25.4 F19.8
• Music II M 23.6 F 24.5
• No Music M24 F 23.8

23
Correlations and P-Values

• H4 There is coherence between the impression of
  the endorser and the impression of the brand.
• GT Social ResponseSD Evaluation (r.2831
  p.001)
• GT DominanceSD Activity (r-.2568 p.003)
• GT DominanceSD Potency (r -.1800 p.003)
• GT PermeabilitySD Evaluation (r -.3016 p
  .001)
• GT Social PotencySD Evaluation (r -.2855 p
  .001)

24
Translation

• GT Social ResponseSD Evaluation (r.2831
  p.001)
• The more positive the endorser was, the better
  ratings the commercial gets.
• GT DominanceSD Activity (r-.2568 p.003)
• The more compliant the endorser was, the less
  tense the commercial seemed to be.
• GT DominanceSD Potency (r -.1800 p.003)
• The more compliant the endorser was, the less
  potent the product was perceived.
• GT PermeabilitySD Evaluation (r -.3016 p
  .001)
• The more closed the endorser seemed to be, the
  worse ratings the commercial got.
• GT Social PotencySD Evaluation (r -.2855 p
  .001)
• The more unsociable the endorser was, the worse
  ratings the commercial got

25
Correlations and P-Values

• H4 There is coherence between the impression of
  the endorser and the impression of the brand.
• GT Social ResponseSD Evaluation (r.2831
  p.001)
• GT DominanceSD Activity (r-.2568 p.003)
• GT DominanceSD Potency (r -.1800 p.003)
• GT PermeabilitySD Evaluation (r -.3016 p
  .001)
• GT Social PotencySD Evaluation (r -.2855 p
  .001)
• Accept H4?

26
Correlations and P-Values

• H4 There is coherence between the impression of
  the endorser and the impression of the brand.
• GT Social ResponseSD Evaluation (r.2831
  p.001)
• GT DominanceSD Activity (r-.2568 p.003)
• GT DominanceSD Potency (r -.1800 p.003)
• GT PermeabilitySD Evaluation (r -.3016 p
  .001)
• GT Social PotencySD Evaluation (r -.2855 p
  .001)
• Accept H4?
• Yes

27
THE END

• Thank you

28
Rate the Endorser/Product

• How would listeners rate Colin on a scale of (1)
  impatient to (5) patient?
• How would listeners rate Colins presentation on
  a scale of (1) tense to (5) relaxed?

29
Rate the Endorser/Product

• How would listeners rate Colin on a scale of (1)
  unimaginative to (5) exuberant?
• How would listeners rate Colins presentation on
  a scale of (1) weak to (5) strong?