Rentfrow 2012

Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/5 (2012): 402–416, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00434.
The Role of Music in Everyday Life: Current Directions in

the Social Psychology of Music
Peter J. Rentfrow*
University of Cambridge
Abstract
Music is a crucial element of everyday life. People spend hours listening to it and billions of dol-
lars buying it. Yet despite the pervasiveness of music, mainstream social-personality psychology
has hardly given any attention to this universal social phenomenon. Why is music important to
people? What role does music play in everyday life? This article reviews research in fields outside
mainstream psychology concerned with the social and psychological factors that influence how
people experience and use music in their daily lives. The research in this area shows that music
can have considerable effects on cognition, emotion, and behavior. It also indicates that people
use music to serve various functions, from emotion regulation to self-expression to social bonding.
Research in this emerging field reveals how social-personality psychology can inform our under-
standing of music, and in doing so it highlights the real-world relevance of mainstream theory and
research.
Music is ubiquitous: We listen to it at home, at work, and at the gym. We hear it at

grocery stores, at shopping malls, at cafés and at restaurants. It accompanies the TV
shows, the commercials, and the films we watch. And we listen to it while traveling
by plane, train, bus, car, or on foot. In fact, the typical American listens to roughly
18 hours of music in an average week (Motion Picture Association of America, Inc,
2007). Assuming the average person sleeps 8 hours a night, people spend more than
15% of their waking hours with music playing. And as new mobile technologies make
it even easier to bring music wherever we go, people are spending more money on
music. In 2010 the global digital music industry was worth approximately US$4.7
billion, an increase of more than 1000% from 2004 (International Federation of the
Phonographic Industry, 2011). Given its prevalence and obvious importance to people,
it is worth giving serious consideration to the role music plays in everyday life.
Curiously, mainstream social psychology has little to say about music. In the rare
cases when music has been used in social psychology research, it was usually as a
mood manipulation rather than the focus of the investigation (e.g., Westermann,
Spies, Stahl, & Hesse, 1996). Nonetheless, significant strides have been made in the
past decade among music educators, music psychologists, and a few social-personality
psychologists (for excellent reviews of the field, see Hargreaves & North, 1997; Juslin
& Sloboda, 2010; North & Hargreaves, 2008). North and Hargreaves were among
the first to recognize the importance of music to everyday social life and have since
laid the foundation for much of the research in the social psychology of music. This
article summarizes and evaluates what we have learned from research in this nascent
field and highlights how the study of music can broaden our understanding of social
behavior.
ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Role of Music in Everyday Life 403
Why Study Music?

A number of criticisms have been raised about the methods and foci of research in social
and personality psychology (e.g., Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007; Funder, 2001;
Rozin, 2001, 2007). Many of these criticisms emphasize a lack of attention to real-world
behavior within the field. Most notably, Rozin (2007) argued that too much research in
psychology is guided by fads and, as a result, important domains that are not part of those
fads become neglected. Instead, he suggested that ‘‘Psychologists should learn … to keep
their eyes on the big social phenomena, and to situate what they study in the flow of
social life’’ (2001, p. 12). In short, there is concern that the focus of research in social-
personality psychology is too narrow and neglects many important facets of everyday life.
Despite the neglect of music in mainstream social psychology, the past decade has wit-
nessed a growth of research along the fringes that is concerned with the various ways in
which people experience and use music in their daily lives. These studies are beginning
to establish robust connections between music and emotion, personality, self-identity, and
relationships. Findings from these studies suggest, for example, that people use music to
regulate their moods and emotions (Juslin, Liljeström, Västfjäll, Barradas, & Silva, 2008;
Juslin & Västfjäll, 2008; Scherer and Zentner, 2001); that situations can influence the
styles of music people choose, which can then affect behavior in those situations (North
& Hargreaves, 1996; North, Hargreaves, & McKendrick, 1999; Yalch & Spangenberg,
2000); that individual differences in music preferences are linked to personality traits and
values (e.g., Delsing, ter Bogt, Engels, & Meeus, 2008; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003;
Zweigenhaft, 2008); that people use music as a vehicle for self-expression (e.g., North &
Hargreaves, 1999; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006; Rentfrow, McDonald, & Oldmeadow,
2009); and that similarity in music preferences is associated with attraction, closeness, and
relationship satisfaction (e.g., Boer, Fischer, Strack, Bond, Lo, & Lam, 2011; Selfhout,
Branje, ter Bogt, & Meeus, 2009; Zillmann & Bhatia, 1989). Taken together, such find-
ings make it abundantly clear that social psychology can inform our understanding of the
role music plays in everyday life.
Frameworks for Studying Music in Everyday Life

Although there is no overarching theory guiding work in the social psychology of music,
the research questions and hypotheses examined can generally be seen as representations
of two schools of thought: the media effects model (Goffman, 1974; Lazarsfeld, Berelson,
& Gaudet, 1948; McCombs & Shaw, 1972) and the uses and gratifications model (Katz,
Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974). Research from these two perspectives has revealed the
impact music can have on individuals and sheds light on some of the reasons why people
listen to music.
Media effects
The media effects model is arguably one of the most influential frameworks for under-
standing mass media. It is based on the belief that media have a direct impact on how
people think, feel, and behave. In many ways, this model is analogous to a situationist
model in that both models focus on the effect that various features of the environment
have on individuals.
Numerous studies have applied the media effects model to examine how exposure to
certain musical styles impacts various psychological and social factors. The primary
ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/5 (2012): 402–416, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00434.x
404 The Role of Music in Everyday Life
assumption underlying research in this area is that exposure to music automatically primes
individuals to think and feel in ways that are congruent with the message of the music.
A considerable proportion of the studies have focused on the negative effects of music
(e.g., Anderson, Carnagey, and Eubanks, 2003; Cobb & Boettcher, 2007; Fischer &
Greitemeyer, 2006; Timmerman, Allen, Jorgensen, Herrett-Skjellum, Kramer, & Ryan,
2008; Ward, Hansbrough, & Walker, 2005). For example, Anderson et al. (2003) exam-
ined the effects of listening to violent music on aggression. Their results revealed that
participants exposed to tense sounding music with violent, as compared to non-violent,
lyrics reported having more hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Their findings indi-
cated that it was the violent content of the lyrics, not the tense or distorted sound of the
music that triggered aggressive thoughts and feelings. In a study concerned with the
effects of listening to misogynistic music on aggressive behavior, Fischer and Greitemeyer
(2006) observed that male participants exposed to misogynistic music behaved more
aggressively toward a female than a male confederate. Ward et al. (2005) exposed partici-
pants to music videos with either gender stereotypical or non-stereotypical content and
found that exposure to stereotypical content was associated with more traditional gender
attitudes compared to exposure to non-stereotypical content. In general, work in this area
strongly suggests that exposure to music with themes of violence, misogyny, and gender
stereotypes can have harmful consequences.
Of course, the effects of listening to music are not all bad. There is ample evidence
that music can also have positive effects, from increasing prosocial behavior to reduc-
ing prejudice. For instance, Greitemeyer (2009a,b) conducted a series of studies show-
ing that participants exposed to music with prosocial themes displayed more
interpersonal empathy and a greater willingness to help someone in need compared to
participants exposed to neutral music. There is also evidence that exposure to music
with positive connotations about a particular group can reduce prejudice toward that
group. Specifically, Rodrı́guez-Bailón, Ruiz, and Moya (2009) exposed Spanish partici-
pants to either Flamenco or classical music followed by an implicit measure of atti-
tudes towards Gypsies. Their results suggested that participants who heard Flamenco
music displayed less prejudice attitudes towards Gypsies compared to participants who
heard classical music.
The media effects model also provides the foundation for much consumer and advertis-
ing research (Stewart & Ward, 1994). Studies of the effects of in-store music show that
the genre, tempo, and social connotations of the music played in shops and restaurants
can influence which products people buy, how quickly they move, and how long they
stay (e.g., North et al., 1999; North & Hargreaves, 1996; Yalch & Spangenberg, 2000).
In a remarkable study on the effects of music on purchasing behavior at a wine store,
North et al. (1999) found that significantly more German than French wines were sold
on days when German music played in the background, whereas more French than
German wines were sold on days when French music was playing. What is more, when
patrons were asked after their purchases about the reasons for their choice of wines, only
2% mentioned music.
Despite the impressive findings generated from research using the media effects
model, the approach has serious limitations (Gauntlett, 2005; Grimes, Anderson, &
Bergen, 2008; Olson, 2004). A key assumption is that individuals are passive recipients
of music, listening idly to whatever music they encounter. Although people frequently
hear music chosen by others (e.g., marketing firm, film producer, store clerk), more
than two-thirds of the music people hear throughout the day is self-selected (Juslin
et al., 2008). Furthermore, very little attention is given to individual differences in
preferences or to interactions between preferences and exposure. Even though exposure

to violent music elicits feelings of aggression, not everyone chooses to listen to violent
music and people who do enjoy it may respond to it differently compared to those
who do not.
Uses and gratifications

Whereas the media effects model views individuals as passive consumers of media con-
tent, the uses and gratifications model regards individuals as active agents who seek out
or avoid particular content. The basic assumptions underlying this paradigm are that there
are individual differences in media preferences and that people consume media to fulfill
basic needs. The uses and gratifications model is essentially an individual differences
approach in that it seeks to identify the motives and traits that underlie people’s reasons
for listening to music.
The bulk of research directly tied to the uses and gratifications model has examined
people’s motivations for listening to music in general and preferred music in particular.
Results from studies of adolescents and college students have revealed a variety of reasons
why young people listen to music. The most common self-reported reasons for listening
to music are to pass the time, regulate emotions, connect with peers, create an atmo-
sphere, concentrate, increase physiological arousal, and to convey an image to others
(Lonsdale & North, 2011; North, Hargreaves, & Hargreaves, 2004; Zillmann & Gan,
1997). Lonsdale and North (2011) extended research in this area by examining uses and
gratifications of music in an age-diversified sample. Their results showed that, by and
large, young people use music more for emotion regulation and self-expression than do
older adults.
Recent research has begun to establish connections between the ways in which people
use music and personality. Are sociable people more likely to use music in the service of
social bonding while introverted people use it for reflection? In a series of studies, Cham-
orro-Premuzic and colleagues have found that certain personality traits predict how peo-
ple use music. Specifically, individuals high, as compared to low, in Openness were more
likely to use music for intellectual stimulation and attend to structural aspects of the
music. And people high, as compared to low, in Neuroticism were more likely to use
music for emotion regulation and to focus on the content of the song (Chamorro-Prem-
uzic & Furnham, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic, Swami, & Cermakova, forthcoming).
Although the uses and gratifications model informs our understanding of why people
choose to listen to certain styles of music, research based on the model assumes that peo-
ple are equally engaged with music and are consciously aware of all the reasons why they
listen to it. There is evidence for individual differences in engagement with music (ter
Bogt, Mulder, Raaijmakers, & Gabhainn, 2010) and individuals are very likely unaware
of all the reasons why they listen to or prefer particular styles of music. Furthermore,
research in this area focuses mainly on the motives people have for listening to their pre-
ferred music without examining whether the music effectively satisfies those motives.
Although people may use music to communicate their identities to others, it is an empiri-
cal question as to whether music does this effectively.
Summary
The media effects and uses and gratifications models both provide useful frameworks for
developing and testing hypotheses about the role of music in everyday life. Research
based on these models has identified key reasons why people listen to music and revealed
the impact music can have on a range of outcomes. Although the models focus on differ-
ent aspects of people’s musical experiences, effectively examining both the motives and
outcomes of listening to music can provide a more ecologically valid depiction of how
people engage with and respond to music in their daily lives.
Current Directions in the Social Psychology of Music

Current research in the social psychology of music continues to build on the foundations
established by the classical theoretical perspectives and has begun to branch out to provide
a more nuanced understanding of how people experience and engage with music. These
new research streams draw heavily on theories and concepts in mainstream social-person-
ality psychology, from emotion regulation to social identity theory and to stereotyping
and prejudice. This expanded focus has not only helped broaden our understanding of
music, it also reveals the relevance of theory and research in social-personality psychology
to everyday life.
Mood and emotion

Of all the topics investigated in the social psychology of music, none have received more
attention than music and emotion (see Juslin & Sloboda, 2010). Numerous studies have
explored the expression, perception, and induction of emotion in music. The evidence is
clear that people are able to perceive emotions in music and that individuals generally
perceive similar emotions in the same pieces of music (Juslin & Laukka, 2003). Further-
more, there is evidence that the emotions perceived in music are often the same emotion
that the composer or performer intended to communicate (Juslin, 2000; Thompson &
Robitaille, 1992). Juslin (2000), for example, instructed professional guitarists to perform
three pieces of music four times, each time to communicate either happiness, sadness,
anger, or fear. The results showed that the musicians manipulated particular features of
the music (e.g., loudness, tempo, timbre, etc.) to communicate different emotions, and
that the configuration of musical features significantly influenced which emotions listeners
perceived in the music. Such research is important because it confirms the notion that
music expresses emotion and sheds light on how emotion is communicated through
music, but it does not address whether music actually evokes feelings in listeners.
Empirical research on music-induced emotions provides convincing evidence that
music does indeed elicit certain emotions and moods in listeners (Juslin & Laukka, 2004;
Scherer and Zentner, 2001). Results from studies that assessed emotion using self-reports
(Barrett, Grimm, Robins, Wildschut, Sedikides, & Janata, 2010; Zentner, Grandjean, &
Scherer, 2008), physiological indicators (Krumhansl, 1997; Salimpoor, Benovoy, Longo,
Cooperstock, & Zatorre, 2009), brain activity (Blood & Zatorre, 2001; Menon & Levitin,
2005), and non-verbal behavior (Sloboda, 1992) all converge to indicate that music can
influence how people feel. Many of these studies have shown that music can effectively
elicit a variety of positive emotions (e.g., pleasure, happiness, relaxation, etc.) as well as
negative emotions (e.g., sadness, fear, irritation, etc.). However, one of the limitations of
this research is that it decontextualizes the music listening experience. In everyday life,
people choose to listen to music for one reason or another depending on the situation
and their surroundings. How does music affect emotion in everyday life?
Studies using experience-sampling methods help contextualize findings from laboratory
investigations by providing base-rate information about the frequency and types of
emotions people experience in their daily lives. On the whole, people appear to experi-
ence music-induced emotions quite frequently and most of the emotions are positive
(Greasley & Lamont, 2011; Heye & Lamont, 2010; Juslin et al., 2008; North, Hargreaves,
& Hargreaves, 2004; Sloboda, O’Neill, & Ivaldi, 2001). For example, Juslin et al. (2008)
monitored people’s music listening habits and emotional experience several times a day
for 2 weeks. Their results indicated that participants experienced music-induced emotions
in 64% of the musical episodes sampled and that the emotions most commonly evoked
by music were calm-contentment, happiness, and interest. These findings suggest that
even though music can evoke a variety of emotions, people typically use music to
achieve or maintain a positive affective state.
With so much evidence showing that music affects emotion in controlled and real-
world settings, researchers have begun to focus on the mechanisms underlying music-
induced emotions. How does music evoke emotional reactions in listeners? Investigations
in this area have identified several mechanisms at work, including autobiographical
memory (Barrett et al., 2010), emotional contagion (Hunter, Schellenberg, & Griffith,
2011), and expectancy (Huron, 2006). In an attempt to provide clarity to the literature,
Juslin and Västfjäll (2008) developed a conceptual framework that identifies seven psycho-
logical mechanisms responsible for evoking emotion from music: cognitive appraisal,
brain stem reflexes, evaluative conditioning, emotional contagion, visual imagery, episodic
memory, and musical expectancy. Although some critics have taken issue with the
relative importance given to some of the mechanisms proposed (e.g., musical expectancy;
Krumhansl & Agres, 2008; Vuust & Frith, 2008) or with the absence of other
factors (e.g., exposure, Schellenberg, 2008), the framework provides a sturdy foundation
for developing and testing hypotheses about how and why music affects the way people
feel.
Personality and individual differences

Cattell and Anderson (1953) were among the first investigators to systematically exam-
ine individual differences in music preferences. Their research was based on the notion
that music preferences reflect unconscious motives and was intended to provide a
method for measuring such unconscious aspects of personality. However, current work
on individual differences in music preferences aims to identify their links with explicit
traits, values, and abilities. Like the uses and gratifications approach, the assumption
underlying much of this work is that individuals seek musical environments that rein-
force and reflect aspects of their personalities, attitudes, and emotions (Colley, 2008;
Delsing, ter Bogt, Engels, & Meeus, 2008; George et al., 2007; Rentfrow & Gosling,
2003; Rentfrow & McDonald, 2010; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009). Much of the research
in this area has examined the structure of music preferences with the aim of developing
a foundation on which to develop and test hypotheses about the role of music in
everyday life.
Nearly a dozen independent investigations have examined the structure of music pref-
erences. Most of these investigations assessed individual differences in preferences using
music-genre labels (e.g., classical, rock, rap, etc.) as proxies for listening to actual musical
pieces. Although the methods and genres assessed are not entirely the same, results across
these studies have shown a surprising degree of convergence and suggest four or five
music-preference dimensions (Colley, 2008; Delsing et al., 2008; Dunn, de Ruyter, and
Bouwhuis, forthcoming; George et al., 2007; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003; Rentfrow &
McDonald, 2010; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009).
In an attempt to add clarity to the area and overcome the methodological shortcomings
of previous work, Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Levitin (2011) recently examined individual
differences in music preferences by playing audio recordings of real music to experimental
participants. Results from three samples converged with findings in previous work to
reveal five robust music-preference dimensions: Mellow, Unpretentious, Sophisticated,
Intense, and Contemporary (MUSIC). The Mellow dimension comprises soft rock, R &
B, and adult contemporary and is characterized as romantic, relaxing, slow, and quiet;
Unpretentious comprises country and folk and characterized as uncomplicated, relaxing,
unaggressive, and acoustic; Sophisticated comprises classical, opera, jazz, and world and is
characterized as inspiring, intelligent, complex, and dynamic; Intense comprises rock,
punk, and heavy metal and is characterized as distorted, loud, aggressive, and not roman-
tic, nor inspiring; and Contemporary comprises rap, electronica, and pop and is character-
ized as percussive, electric, energetic, and not sad.
Research on the structure of music preferences provides a firm foundation for explor-
ing the correlates of music preferences. Analyses of the psychological correlates of music
preferences have revealed distinct associations with personality, political ideology, values,
sexual attitudes and cognitive abilities (e.g., Delsing et al., 2008; Dunn, de Ruyter, &
Bouwhuis, forthcoming; Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Zilca, 2011; Rentfrow & Gosling,
2003, 2006; ter Bogt, Engels, Bogers, & Kloosterman, 2010; Zweigenhaft, 2008). For
example, individuals with preferences for sophisticated musical styles, like classical, opera,
and jazz, are high in Openness, creativity, imagination, possess liberal values, value artistic
expression, and score high on measures of verbal ability. People with preferences for
intense styles of music, like heavy metal and punk, are high in Openness, sensation seek-
ing, impulsivity, and athletic ability. And people with preferences for contemporary
music, like pop, rap, and dance, are high in Extraversion, value social recognition,
endorse more gender stereotypes, have more permissive attitudes about sex, and consider
themselves physically attractive.
Music preferences research also provides a useful approach for exploring connections
between music and problem behavior. Several studies have examined individual differ-
ences in music preferences and their associations with various risky behaviors, including
drug use, sex, and crime (e.g., Arnett, 1991; Mulder, ter Bogt, Raaijmakers, & Volle-
bergh, 2007; Singer, Levine, & Jou, 1993). In a comprehensive study involving over
4000 adolescents, Mulder et al. (2007) found that music preferences were uniquely asso-
ciated with various internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. For example,
internalizing behavior, such as self-harm, was comparatively high among fans of heavy
metal and rock music, whereas depression was higher among fans of classical and other
‘‘elite’’ musical styles. Externalizing behavior problems, including aggression and sub-
stance abuse, was comparatively high among fans of rock, heavy metal, and rap music.
Together, these findings leave room for the hypothesis that the psychological variables
influencing music preferences are also responsible for problem behavior; in other words,
music preferences and problem behavior may both be manifestations of the same under-
lying dispositions.
Most of the research on individual differences in musical preferences has focused on
adolescents and young adults. As a result, we know rather little about how musical pref-
erences develop across the lifespan. Are preferences stable throughout life, or do the
change? Of the handful of studies conducted, there appears to be consensus for the crys-
tallization hypothesis, which states that the music individuals enjoy in adolescence and
early adulthood crystallizes and becomes the music they prefer throughout adulthood
(Holbrook & Schindler, 1989). Specifically, the period during adolescence is filled with a
variety of hormonal, emotional, and social changes that create a critical period of maxi-
mum sensitivity. Because music is used during this critical period for self-discovery, social
bonding, and emotion regulation, the music that people listen to at this stage of life
becomes psychologically and physiologically significant. As individuals reach maturity, this
critical period ends and the music that people listened to in adolescence is remembered
across the lifespan and becomes a strong source of nostalgia (Christenson & Roberts,
1998; Holbrook & Schindler, 1989; Janssen, Chessa, & Murre, 2007).
Taken together, research on the structure and psychological correlates of music prefer-
ences appears robust, as very similar patterns of findings have emerged in different sam-
ples. However, most of the research is based on young adults in North America or
Western Europe, so it is not clear whether the structure or correlates generalize to other
age groups of cultures. Thus, we need more research with samples that are diverse in
terms of age and culture to determine how such variables impact preferences and their
links with psychological factors.
Self and identity

Results from survey studies consistently show that people, particularly young adults,
place considerable importance on their music preferences. Much of this research indi-
cates that music serves as a symbolic representation of self and that individuals derive a
sense of identity from the music they listen to. How does music affect one’s sense of
self?
Music provides a medium for self-exploration, where individuals are able to reflect on
who they are, where they came from, and who they aspire to become. According to
DeNora (2000), individuals engage in a reflexive process of remembering and construct-
ing their identities while listening to music, which can serve as a form of self-affirmation
and discovery. The themes and images evoked by listening to preferred styles of music
resonate with individuals because they either recognize these qualities in themselves or
wish to embody them. Tarrant and colleagues (Tarrant, North, & Hargreaves, 2002) have
proposed that the social connotations associated with a style of music may be one of the
factors that people find most appealing. To the extent that individuals are attracted to a
style of music, they may align their personal self-image with the perceived characteristics
associated with that music. Thus, music would seem to function as a vehicle for identity
development and exploration that goes beyond the tangible image (e.g., clothing) to
include personal characteristics and values.
Several studies have also examined the impact of music preferences on individuals’
sense of self-worth. Drawing from social identity theory, which posits that the social
groups to which individuals belong are represented psychologically as part of the self-
concept (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), a number of researchers have begun to examine how
affiliation with music-based social groups (e.g., punks, rockabilly, emo, etc.) relates to
self-esteem. Results from these investigations have consistently shown that individuals
assimilate the characteristics of their preferred music-based social group – they adopt
similar values and lifestyles. Moreover, identification with the group increases in-group
favoritism and out-group derogation, which, in turn, enhances self-esteem (e.g., North &
Hargreaves, 1999; Tarrant et al., 2002; Tekman & Hortaçsu, 2002).
Optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991, 2003) also explains how music contrib-
utes to self-identity. Brewer (1991) proposed that individuals have countervailing needs
for similarity and uniqueness. Identification with a broad social category is insufficiently
self-defining but conceiving oneself as entirely unique is isolating, so people strive for a
certain amount of validation with some uniqueness for an optimal level of distinctiveness.
Recent research indicates that people use music to achieve optimal distinctiveness (Berger
& Heath, 2008) and that music is a central aspect of identity for individuals who obtain
distinctiveness through music. Specifically, Abrams (2009) showed that individuals with
preferences for styles of music with intermediate levels of popularity (and therefore opti-
mally distinct) invested more resources and commitment to their musical identities com-
pared to people who preferred musical styles with limited or broad popularity. Such
research adds to our understanding of why music is so important to some people – it is a
representation of who they are: their values, dispositions, and beliefs.
Social perception
Given the role music plays in self-identity, it may be no surprise that it is one of the most
common modes of self-expression among young people. Indeed, Frith (1981) argued that
people use their favorite music as an identity badge to broadcast information about
themselves to others. That observation certainly converges with people’s behavior on
Internet-based social networking websites like Facebook, where people can share what-
ever information about themselves they choose, as music preferences are among the most
common forms of information displayed on people’s profiles. In fact, there are numerous
web-based music applications on Facebook and other social networking sites, such as
LastFM and Spotify, which log and display users’ music listening habits on their web
pages so that others can see which bands and songs users enjoy or listen to most often.
By using music in this way, individuals are making public statements about who they are,
who they want to be, and how they want others to perceive them.
Such observations are actually supported by empirical evidence. For example, in a
study of how people get to know each other online, Rentfrow and Gosling (2006) ana-
lyzed the conversations of unacquainted participants who corresponded online for six
weeks. The results revealed that of all the topics discussed, music was by far the most
common. Faced with the task of becoming acquainted, it would seem that people believe
their music preferences reveal information about who they are and can help them learn
more about others. Indeed, studies on people’s motives for listening to music consistently
show that adolescents and young adults say their music preferences represent who they
are – their opinions, values, and lifestyles (North & Hargreaves, 1999; Rentfrow & Gos-
ling, 2003). There is even evidence that young people believe music is a better commu-
nicator of their identity than the clothing they wear, the movies they watch, the books
they read, or the hobbies they pursue (Lonsdale & North, 2011; Rentfrow & Gosling,
2003).
Although people may use music to communicate information about themselves, does
music actually influence how they are perceived? There is converging evidence that
information about individuals’ music preferences influences how they are perceived. For
example, Rentfrow and colleagues examined the content and validity of stereotypes
about fans of different music genres (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2007; Rentfrow et al.,
2009). Results from that work suggest that people have very similar stereotypes about
the psychological and social characteristics of most music fans – particularly fans of
classical, rap, and heavy metal music – and that the content of those stereotypes vary
substantially. For example, fans of classical music are believed to be White, wealthy,
hardworking, introverted, physically unattractive, intelligent and artistic, whereas rap
music fans are believed to be extraverted, relaxed, athletic, and to drink beer and smoke
marijuana. When the content of these stereotypes were compared with the
psychological characteristics of actual music fans, the results revealed that many of the
stereotypes have some validity.
There is also evidence that people can form accurate impressions of individuals on the
basis of their music preferences. Burroughs, Drews, and Hallman (1991) found that
observers were able to form accurate impressions of targets based on their personal posses-
sions (e.g., favorite clothing, favorite records). Rentfrow and Gosling (2006) focused
exclusively on music preferences and observed that judges were able to form accurate
impressions of targets personalities and values after only listening to targets’ top-10 favor-
ite songs. Analyses of the processes underlying observers’ personality judgments suggested
that they relied on specific aspects of the music (e.g., the amount of singing, emotional
valence), as well as music-genre stereotypes to form their impressions.
Taken together, these investigations clearly indicate that people use music in the ser-
vice of self-expression and that music can actually provide valid information about indi-
viduals’ personalities, values, and beliefs. Such findings suggest that people use music to
connect with and to be understood by others. However, research on music and self-
expression has focused almost entirely on young people and there is some evidence that
working aged and older adults do not use music as an identity badge (Lonsdale & North,
2011). There are a variety of reasons why adults may be less likely to use music for self-
expression, from having a weaker need to self-express, to having more effective means
for doing so. Either way, research with more age-diversified samples will shed greater
light on music and self-expression.
Attraction and social bonding

There is a widespread belief that music preferences are relevant for social bonding and
attraction. Consider, for instance, that the majority of online-dating websites ask users to
report their music preferences (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006). It is as though people believe
they will be more satisfied in a relationship with someone who shares their taste in music
than with someone who has different preferences. Given that there are links between
music preferences and personality, that music contributes to social identity, and that music
can serve as a valid indicator of someone’s character, this belief is understandable and may
be justified. Does music have any relevance in social relationships? Is similarity in music
preferences associated attraction or relationship satisfaction?
There is evidence that music does indeed affect attraction. For example, in a study
concerned with the effects of music preferences on heterosexual attraction, Zillmann and
Bhatia (1989) showed participants videos of prospective dating partners and manipulated
the musical preferences of the targets. The results showed that music had a significant
effect on how attractive participants rated the targets. Specifically, male and female targets
with preferences for country music were perceived as less attractive compared to targets
with different musical preferences. Male participants perceived female targets who pre-
ferred classical music as physically attractive and sophisticated, whereas females with pref-
erences for heavy metal music were perceived as rebellious and less attractive. Ziv, Sagi,
and Basserman (2008) showed that targets with preferences for high-status music (i.e.,
classical, jazz) were rated as more physically attractive than were targets with preferences
for low-status music. Such results suggest that music influences attraction, but does music
ultimately matter in relationships? Do partners’ preferences have any bearing on the qual-
ity or success of the relationship?
People are attracted to individuals who share their music preferences. Selfhout et al.
(2009) tested that hypothesis in a longitudinal study of friendship formation among
adolescents. Their analyses indicated that musical preferences of participants who mutually
nominated each other as best friends were highly similar and much more so than were
preferences among random strangers. Furthermore, participants with similar music prefer-
ences but who were not mutual friends during the first year of school were more likely
to become mutual friends by the second year than were participants with diverging pref-
erences. These effects remained even after controlling for participants’ demographic and
background characteristics.
One of the assumptions underlying research on music and social bonding is that shared
preferences reflect similarities in values and dispositions – that people who enjoy the same
music see and experience the world in similar ways and therefore agree about more
things than do people with different preferences. Such reasoning suggests that it is not
music per se that is important in social bonding, but that music acts as an indicator of
one’s values and traits, which mediate the link between shared preferences and attraction.
Boer et al. (2011) recently examined this issue in a series of controlled laboratory studies
and also in a field study involving college roommates. The results converged across the
studies to show that shared music preferences predict social attraction and that the link
between preferences and attraction was mediated by similarity in value orientations but
not personality. Furthermore, these connections remained even after taking into account
demographic characteristics and perceived similarity.
Conclusion
Although music has not yet made its way to mainstream social-personality psychology,
the past decade has seen an increase in research on the social psychology of music. This
growth has been driven predominantly by research in fields outside mainstream psychol-
ogy, including music psychology, music education, media sociology and communications.
The research currently underway is tackling important questions about the ways in which
people experience and engage with music in everyday life. It is beginning to reveal how
music is used for emotion regulation, identity development, and social bonding, and it is
also identifying some of the social and psychological factors that shape preferences. At the
same time, research in this area highlights the real-world relevance of social-personality
psychology by illustrating how basic concepts and theories in the field can inform our
understanding of an important facet of everyday life. Broadening the research foci to
include more facets of daily life, like music, and combining perspectives with research in
other fields will help put mainstream social-personality psychology squarely in the center
of everyday life.
Short Biography
Peter J. Rentfrow bounced around the United States, from Louisiana to Texas to New
York to Massachusetts, and somehow landed in England, where he is currently a
University Senior Lecturer (associate professor) in the Department of Psychology at the
University of Cambridge and a Fellow of Fitzwilliam College. His research concerns
person-environment interactions and focuses on the ways in which personality is
expressed in everything from people’s preferences for music to the places in which they
live. Rentfrow’s research on these topics has appeared in several prestigious psychology
journals – including American Psychologist, Journal of Personality, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Perspectives on Psychological Science,
and Psychological Science. He is committed to educating the public about psychological
research and does so by giving public lectures and designing online interactive psychology
surveys, most recently the BBC’s Big Personality Test.
Endnote
* Correspondence address: Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RQ, UK. Email: [email protected]
References
Abrams, D. (2009). Social identity on a national scale: Optimal distinctiveness and young people’s self-expression
through musical preference. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 303–317. doi: 10.1177/
1368430209102841.
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with
violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960–971.
Arnett, J. J. (1991). Heavy metal music and reckless behavior among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
20, 573–592.
Barrett, F. S., Grimm, K. J., Robins, R. W., Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., & Janata, P. (2010). Music-evoked
nostalgia: Affect, memory, and personality. Emotion, 10, 390–403.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger
movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396–403.
Berger, J., & Heath, C. (2008). Who drives divergence? Identity-signaling, outgroup dissimilarity, and the abandon-
ment of cultural tastes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 593–607.
Blood, A. J., & Zatorre, R. J. (2001). Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with activity in brain
regions implicated in reward and emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 11818–11823.
Boer, D., Fischer, R., Strack, M., Bond, M. H., Lo, E., & Lam, J. (2011). How shared preferences in music create
bonds between people: Values as the missing link. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1159–1171.
ter Bogt, T. F. M., Engels, R., Bogers, S., & Kloosterman, M. (2010a). ‘‘Shake it baby, shake it’’: Media prefer-
ences, sexual attitudes and gender stereotypes among adolescents. Sex Roles, 63, 844–859.
ter Bogt, T. F. M., Mulder, J., Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., & Gabhainn, S. N. (2010b). Moved by music: A typology
of music listeners. Psychology of Music, 39, 147–163. doi: 10.1177/0305735610370223.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17,
475–481.
Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity and the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.),
Handbook of Self and Identity (pp. 480–491). New York: Guilford Press.
Burroughs, J. W., Drews, D. R., & Hallman, W. K. (1991). Predicting personality from personal possessions:
A self-presentational analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 147–163.
Cattell, R. B., & Anderson, J. C. (1953). The measurement of personality and behavior disorders by the I.P.A.T.
music preference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 446–454. doi: 10.1037/10175-008.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Swami, V., & Cermakova, B. (forthcoming). Individual differences in music consumption
are predicted by uses of music and age rather than emotional intelligence, neuroticism, extraversion or openness.
Psychology of Music. doi: 10.1177/0305735610381591.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2007). Personality and music: Can traits explain how people use music
in everyday life? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 175–185. doi: 10.1348/000712606X111177.
Christenson, P. G., & Roberts, D. F. (1998). It’s Not Only Rock & Roll: Popular Music in the Lives of Adolescents.
Cresskill: Hampton Press.
Cobb, M. D., & Boettcher, W. A. (2007). Ambivalent sexism and misogynistic rap music: Does exposure to
Eminem increase sexism? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 3025–3042.
Colley, A. (2008). Young people’s musical taste: Relationship with gender and gender-related traits. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2039–2055. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00379.x.
Delsing, M. J. M. H, ter Bogt, T. F. M., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2008). Adolescents’ music pref-
erences and personality characteristics. European Journal of Personality, 22, 109–130. doi: 10.1002/per.665.
DeNora, T. (2000). Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, P. G., de Ruyter, B., & Bouwhuis, D. G., (forthcoming). Toward a better understanding of the relation
between music preference, listening behavior, and personality. Psychology of Music.
Fischer, P., & Greitemeyer, T. (2006). Music and aggression. The impact of sexual-aggressive song lyrics on aggres-
sion-related thoughts, emotions and behavior toward the same and the opposite sex. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 32, 1165–1176.
Frith, S. (1981). Sound Effects. Youth Leisure and the Politics of Rock ‘n’ Roll. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 197–221.
Gauntlett, D. (2005). Moving Experiences: Media Effects and Beyond. London: John Libbey.
George, D., Stickle, K., Rachid, F., & Wopnford, A. (2007). The association between types of music enjoyed and
cognitive, behavioral, and personality factors of those who listen. Psychomusicology, 19, 32–56.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Greasley, A. E., & Lamont, A. (2011). Exploring engagement with music in everyday life using experience sampling
methodology. Musicæ Scientiæ, 15, 45–71.
Greitemeyer, T. (2009a). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocial behavior: Further evidence and a medi-
ating mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1500–1511. doi: 10.1177/0146167209341648.
Greitemeyer, T. (2009b). Effects of songs with prosocial lyrics on prosocial thoughts, affect, and behavior. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 186–190.
Grimes, T., Anderson, J., & Bergen, L. (2008). Media Violence and Aggression: Science and Ideology. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Hargreaves, D. J., & North, A. C. (Eds.) (1997). The Social Psychology of Music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heye, A., & Lamont, A. (2010). Mobile listening situations in everyday life: The use of mp3 players while travel-
ling. Musicæ Scientiæ, 14, 95–120.
Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1989). Some exploratory findings on the development of musical tastes.
Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 119–124.
Hunter, P. G., Schellenberg, E. G., & Griffith, A. T. (2011). Misery loves company: Mood-congruent emotional
responding to music. Emotion, 11, 1068–1072.
Huron, D. (2006). Sweet Anticipation: Music and the Psychology of Expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (2011). IFP digital music report 2011: Music at the touch of
a button. [Online]. Retrieved on 15 September 2011 from: http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2011.pdf.
Janssen, S. M., Chessa, A. G., & Murre, J. M. J. (2007). Temporal distribution of favorite books, movies, and
records: Differential encoding and re-sampling. Memory, 15, 755–767.
Juslin, P. N. (2000). Cue utilization in communication of emotion in music performance: Relating performance to
perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1797–1813.
Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2003). Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music performance: Differ-
ent channels, same code? Psychological Bulletin, 129, 770–814.
Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2004). Expression, perception, and induction of musical emotions: A review and a
questionnaire study of everyday listening. Journal of New Music Research, 33, 217–238.
Juslin, P. N., Liljeström, S., Västfjäll, D., Barradas, G., & Silva, A. (2008). An experience sampling study of emo-
tional reactions to music: Listener, music, and situation. Emotion, 8, 668–683.
Juslin, P. N., & Sloboda, J. A. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of Music and Emotion: Theory, Research, Applications. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Juslin, P. N., & Västfjäll, D. (2008). Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 559–75.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37,
509–523.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1997). An exploratory study of musical emotions and psychophysiology. Canadian Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 51, 336–352.
Krumhansl, C. L., & Agres, K. R. (2008). Musical expectancy: The influence of musical structure on emotional
response. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 584–585.
Lazarsfeld, P. M., Berelson, B. R., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes up his Mind in a
Presidential Campaign. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.
Lonsdale, A., & North, A. C. (2011). Why do we listen to music? A uses and gratifications analysis. British Journal
of Psychology, 102, 108–134.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36,
176–187.
Menon, V., & Levitin, D. J. (2005). The rewards of music listening: Response and physiological connectivity of
the mesolimbic system. NeuroImage, 28, 175–184.
Mulder, J., ter Bogt, T. F. M., Raaijmakers, Q., & Vollebergh, W. (2007). Music taste groups and problem behav-
ior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 313–324.
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc (2007). Entertainment industry market statistics. [Online]. Retrieved on 15
September 2011 from: http://www.mpaa.org/USEntertainmentIndustryMarketStats.pdf.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and adolescent identity. Music Education Research, 1, 75–92. doi:
10.1080/1461380990010107.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1996). Situational influences on reported musical preferences. Psychomusicology,
15, 30–45.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2008). The Social and Applied Psychology of Music. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & McKendrick, J. (1999). The effect of music on in-store wine selections. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 84, 271–276.
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & Hargreaves, J. J. (2004). Uses of music in everyday life. Music Perception, 22,
41–77.
Olson, C. (2004). Media violence research and youth violence data: Why do they conflict? Academic Psychiatry, 28,
144–150.
Rentfrow, P. J., Goldberg, L. R., & Levitin, D. J. (2011a). The structure of musical preferences: A five-factor
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1139–1157.
Rentfrow, P. J., Goldberg, L. R., & Zilca, R. (2011b). Listening, watching, and reading: The structure and corre-
lates of entertainment preferences. Journal of Personality, 79, 223–257.
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates
of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1236–1256. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.84.6.1236.
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2006). Message in a ballad: The role of music preferences in interpersonal
perception. Psychological Science, 17, 236–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01691.x.
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2007). The content and validity of music-genre stereotypes among college
students. Psychology of Music, 35, 306–326. doi: 10.1177/0305735607070382.
Rentfrow, P. J., & McDonald, J. A. (2010). Music preferences and personality. In P. N. Juslin & J. Sloboda (Eds.),
Handbook of Music and Emotion (pp. 669–695). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rentfrow, P. J., McDonald, J. A., & Oldmeadow, J. A. (2009). You are what you listen to: Young people’s stereo-
types about music fans. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 329–344. doi: 10.1177/1368430209102845.
Rodrı́guez-Bailón, R., Ruiz, J., & Moya, M. (2009). The impact of music on automatically activated attitudes: Fla-
menco and Gypsy people. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 381–396. doi: 10.1177/1368430209102849.
Rozin, P. (2007). Exploring the landscape of modern academic psychology: Finding and filling the holes. American
Psychologist, 62, 754–766.
Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5, 2–14.
Salimpoor, V., Benovoy, M., Longo, G., Cooperstock, J. R., & Zatorre, R. J. (2009). The rewarding aspects of
music listening are related to degree of emotional arousal. PLoS ONE, 4, e7487.
Schäfer, T., & Sedlmeier, P. (2009). From the functions of music to music preference. Psychology of Music, 37, 279–
300. doi: 10.1177/0305735608097247.
Schellenberg, E. G. (2008). The role of exposure in emotional responses to music. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31,
594–595.
Scherer, K. R., & Zentner, M. R. (2001). Emotional effects of music: Production rules. In P. N. Juslin & J. A.
Sloboda (Eds.), Music and Emotion: Theory and Research (pp. 361–392). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Selfhout, M. H. W, Branje, S. J. T., ter Bogt, T. F. M., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2009). The role of music preferences
in early adolescents’ friendship formation and stability. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 95–107.
Singer, S. I., Levine, M., & Jou, S. (1993). Heavy metal music preference, delinquent friends, social control, and
delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 317–329.
Sloboda, J. A. (1992). Empirical studies of emotional response to music. In M. Riess-Jones & S. Holleran (Eds.),
Cognitive bases of musical communication (pp. 33–46). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Sloboda, J. A., O’Neill, S. A., & Ivaldi, A. (2001). Functions of music in everyday life: An exploratory study using
the experience sampling method. Musicæ Scientiæ, 5, 9–32.
Stewart, D. W., & Ward, S. (1994). Media effects on advertising. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects:
Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 315–363). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, A. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel
(Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monteray, CA: Brooks ⁄ Cole.
Tarrant, M., North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2002). Youth identity and music. In R. MacDonald, D. Harg-
reaves & D. Miell (Eds.), Musical Identities (pp. 134–150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tekman, H. G., & Hortaçsu, N. (2002). Aspects of stylistic knowledge: What are different styles like and why do
we listen to them? Psychology of Music, 30, 28–47.
Thompson, W. F., & Robitaille, B. (1992). Can composers express emotions through music? Empirical Studies of the
Arts, 10, 79–89.
Timmerman, L., Allen, M., Jorgensen, J., Herrett-Skjellum, J., Kramer, M., & Ryan, D. (2008). A review and
meta-analysis examining the relationship of music content with sex, race, priming, and attitudes. Communication
Quarterly, 56, 303–324.
Vuust, P., & Frith, C. D. (2008). Anticipation is the key to understanding music and the effects of music on emo-
tion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 599–600.
Ward, L. M., Hansbrough, E., & Walker, E. (2005). Contributions of music video exposure to black adolescents’
gender and sexual schemas. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 143–166.
Westermann, R., Spies, K., Stahl, G., & Hesse, F. W. (1996). Relative effectiveness and validity of mood induction
procedures: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 557–580.
Yalch, R. F., & Spangenberg, E. R. (2000). The effects of music in a retail setting on real and perceived shopping
times. Journal of Business Research, 49, 139–147.
Zentner, M. R., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Emotions evoked by the sound of music: Characteriza-
tion, classification, and measurement. Emotion, 8, 494–521. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.8.4.494.
Zillmann, D., & Bhatia, A. (1989). Effects of associating with musical genres on heterosexual attraction. Communica-
tion Research, 16, 263–288.
Zillmann, D., & Gan, S. L. (1997). Musical taste in adolescence. In D. J. Hargreaves & A. C. North (Eds.), The
Social Psychology of Music (pp. 161–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ziv, N., Sagi, G., & Basserman, K. (2008). The effect of looks and musical preference on trait inference. Psychology
of Music, 36, 463–476. doi: 10.1177/0305735607086050.
Zweigenhaft, R. L. (2008). A do re mi encore: A closer look at the personality correlates of music preferences. Jour-
nal of Individual Differences, 29, 45–55.

Rentfrow 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rentfrow 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rentfrow 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6/5 (2012): 402–416, 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00434.

The Role of Music in Everyday Life: Current Directions in

Music is ubiquitous: We listen to it at home, at work, and at the gym. We hear it at

ª 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Why Study Music?

Frameworks for Studying Music in Everyday Life

preferences or to interactions between preferences and exposure. Even though exposure

Uses and gratifications

Current Directions in the Social Psychology of Music

Mood and emotion

Personality and individual differences

Self and identity

Attraction and social bonding

You might also like