boer etal ijpinpress

8/2/2019 Boer Etal IJPinpress

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/boer-etal-ijpinpress 1/31

Functions of music

Running head: Functions of music

Young people’s 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 Gürkan Tekman (Uludağ University, Turkey)

Amina Abubakar (Tilburg University, Netherlands)

Jane Njenga (University of Nairobi, Kenya)

Markus Zenger (University of Leipzig, Germany)

To appear in



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



Young people’s 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, & Kagitçibasi, 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



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



Gender Differences in Music Functions

A number of studies demonstrated differences between male and female listeners’ music

preferences (Colley, 2008; O’Neill, 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



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).



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



item selection in multiple languages and cultural groups reduces the likelihood of culture-

sensitivity 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



CLOP examines the contribution of country scores (cultural values) in explaining between-

country 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

Hofstede’s 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 Hofstede’s 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



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



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 here-

Next, 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 n-

dimensional 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



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 here-

Gender 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 ( M F = 5.46 vs. M M = 5.08), dancing ( M F = 5.62 vs. M M = 4.96), and

cultural identity ( M F = 4.64 vs. M M = 4.30). Additionally, there were significant differences in

the background ( M F =4.54 vs. M M = 4.35) and family bonding ( M F = 3.64 vs. M M = 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 (Cohen’s d > 0.20, see Table 2), but consistent, supporting

hypothesis 1.



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 cross-

cultural 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.



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



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



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).



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.



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



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 socio-

cultural 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 socio-

cultural function of music, because the meaning of family in people’s 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.



from traditional societies recognize and acknowledge the contribution of local music to one’s

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.



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).

2Regional estimated score for East Africa is based on the combined data from Ethiopia,

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

3Kenya 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 2005-

2007) and Zambia (wave 2005-2007) (similar to the procedure by Hofstede, 2001).



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, 43 – 64.

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. Deliège & J. Sloboda (Eds.), Perception and

Cognition of Music (pp. 143-159). Hove, England: Psychology Press.

Berry, J. W., Segall M.H., & Kagitçibasi Ç. (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/



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 people’s 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.



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 one’s

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 Ça Change. Psychology of Music, 27 , 147-158.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,



New York Academy of Sciences, 907 ,196 – 207.

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.

Schäfer, 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.



Figure 1

Two-dimensional MDS solution of musical functions measured with RESPECT-Music (item

numbers and corresponding functions)



Figure 2

RESPECT-Music mean scores across six cultural samples

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Venting

Emotions

Dancing

Friends

Cultural Id

Family

Politic

Values

Focus

Background

New Zealand

Mexico

Germany

Turkey

Kenya

Philippines



Figure 3

RESPECT-Music mean scores across genders

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

Venting

Emotions

Dancing

Friends

Cultural Id

Family

Politic

Values

Focus

Background

Female listeners

Male listeners

F ti f m i



Functions of music

Table 1

Factor structure of RESPECT-Music (PCA with Varimax rotation on pooled within-groups correlation matrix)

Factor 1

Friends

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

Valuesh2

1 Through music my friends and I can commemorate

happy past moments together.

0.75 0.69

2 Listening to music with fri ends is a way of sharing

good old memories of our lives.

0.72 0.72

3 I meet with friends and listen t o good music. 0.69 0.61

4 Going to concerts and listening to records is a way

for me and my friends to get t ogether and relate to

each other.

0.67 0.62

5 We live these moments of true connection when I

listen to music or go to concerts with my friends.

0.66 0.64

6 I like talking to my family about music. 0.81 0.75

7 Our shared music taste is something that brings my

family together.

0.77 0.74

8 Music allows me to have a common interest with

my family.

0.77 0.73

9 I enjoy listening to music with my family/relatives. 0.77 0.71

10 Through listening to music I can let off steam. 0.75 0.69

11 Music seems to reduce stress. 0.73 0.66

12 Music is what alleviates my frustration. 0.68 0.32 0.67

13 Music is a means of venting my frust ration. 0.68 0.65

14 Some songs are so powerful that they are able to

bring tears into my eyes.

0.80 0.72

15 Feelings conveyed in a song can make my heart

melt.

0.76 0.69

16 It's important to me that music transports feelings. 0.64 0.31 0.67

17 Music is emotion flowing in sound. 0.59 0.57

18 I like dancing to certain music. 0.89 0.85

19 Some music makes me want to dance. 0.86 0.82

20 I like to go dancing, and the type of music is

essential for this.

0.85 0.81

21 I need music in the background whil e doing

something else.

0.82 0.77

22 In many situations I need music in t he background. 0.81 0.78



30

23 Whatever I do, I listen to music in the background. 0.78 0.77

24 Music helps me to focus. 0.81 0.79

25 I can keep my focus on a task whil e listening to the

right music.

0.78 0.73

26 Listening to music allows me to concentrate. 0.78 0.81

27 I usually listen to music that goes somewhat with

my political beliefs.

0.84 0.76

28 My favourite music is often polit ical. 0.81 0.71

29 Music plays an important role in my life as a

means of political engagement.

0.76 0.69

30 The music of my country represents an image of

my country to the outside world.

0.82 0.73

31 Music is a reflection of a countr y's culture and

history.

0.79 0.68

32 The music in my country is part of building our

identity.

0.76 0.69

33 My personal development was positively

influenced by music.

0.69 0.72

34 Somehow music steers my approach to life and my

values.

0.68 0.68

35 Music is very important in t he process of

developing my values.

0.31 0.60 0.71

Eigenvalue 10.50 2.72 2.36 2.10 1.56 1.50 1.31 1.13 0.97 0.89

Variance explained (71.46%) 29.99 7.77 6.74 5.99 4.44 4.29 3.75 3.22 2.76 2.54

Factor congruence Tucker’s Phi

New Zealand 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.96 0.97 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.95

Mexico 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.92 Germany 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.95 0.93

Turkey 0.98 0.98 0.95 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.94 0.72 Kenya 0.87 0.89 0.80 0.87 0.93 0.87 0.83 0.88 0.86 0.73

Philippines 0.96 0.96 0.89 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.97 0.63 Internal consistency Cronbach’s alpha

New Zealand 0.77 0.88 0.87 0.81 0.89 0.88 0.92 0.87 0.84 0.87

Mexico 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.76 0.83 0.89Germany 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.84 0.86 0.89 0.93 0.82 0.75 0.85

Turkey 0.86 0.88 0.78 0.79 0.93 0.85 0.83 0.81 0.71 0.78

Kenya 0.74 0.85 0.61 0.62 0.75 0.70 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.57

Philippines 0.85 0.90 0.82 0.85 0.92 0.84 0.85 0.73 0.83 0.78

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

Functions of music



Functions of music

Table 2

Gender and cultural differences in musical functions (RESPECT-Music)

Gender differences Cultural differences

Cultural predictorsc

ANOVAb ANOVAb Individualism -collectivism

Secular – traditionalvalues

d a

F (1, 1075) η2F (5, 1075) η2 β ∆ R2

β ∆ R2

Intra-individual functions of music

A Emotions -0.29 21.87 * 0.020 12.22 * 0.058 -0.15 * 0.022 -0.14 * 0.019

AC Venting -0.01 0.14 0.000 4.06 * 0.019 -0.06 0.003 -0.08 * 0.007

AC Background -0.13 4.37 * 0.004 3.04 * 0.014 0.05 0.002 0.01 0.000

C Focus 0.07 0.89 0.000 8.76 * 0.039 0.03 0.001 -0.05 0.003

Social functions of music

A Dancing -0.42 56.85 * 0.050 7.28 * 0.033 0.12 * 0.014 0.12 * 0.014

AC Friends -0.06 2.30 0.002 6.54 * 0.030 0.00 0.000 -0.05 0.003

C Values -0.02 0.11 0.000 12.04 * 0.053 -0.16 * 0.026 -0.15 * 0.022Socio-cultural functions of music

A Cultural Id -0.22 9.59 * 0.009 48.65 * 0.185 -0.35 * 0.122 -0.41 * 0.167

AC Family -0.08 4.29 * 0.004 18.91 * 0.081 -0.03 0.001 -0.10 * 0.011

C Politic 0.10 0.54 0.000 8.26 * 0.039 0.02 0.000 -0.03 0.001

Note. A – affective functions, AC – functions in-between affective and contemplative, C – contemplative functions;a Cohen’s 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

boer etal ijpinpress

Documents