Meredith L. Brown: Senior Thesis
-
Upload
meredith-l-brown -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Meredith L. Brown: Senior Thesis
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 1
Music Preferences and Friendship:
A Survey of Genre, Homophily, and Attraction
Meredith L. Brown
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 2
Abstract
In a world of iPods, MTV, and ear buds, music is everywhere. It would be ignorant to assume
such a widespread art form will not have an effect on American lives. This study sought to
understand how potential friends perceive others based on shared music preferences. Subjects
rated their perceptions in both real and hypothetical situations. A survey of 150 individuals was
the researcher’s tool in this predominantly quantitative study. The study was a mixed-method
project using a series of open ended questions to further understand and describe the objective,
statistical data. Results found people are more likely to perceive others as more socially
attractive and attitudinally similar once they actually meet as compared with hypothetical
examples. This makes sense as the social attraction and homophily variables were positively
correlated. Also, subjects with more specific music tastes and those who consider their music to
be unique had higher social attraction and homophily (attitude similarity) scores. The study
results found students are more likely to consider their taste in music to be unique. Non-students
and males had higher attraction and homophily scores as compared to students and females,
respectively. However, those results were not significant. These results are valuable when
considering the effects of music preference on how people perceive potential friends.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 3
Music Preferences and Friendship: A Survey of Genre, Homophily, and Attraction
The disclosure of music preference is important in social contexts and plays a prominent
role in getting acquainted with others. Rentfrow and Gosling (2006) found music was the most
commonly discussed topic between strangers. They also found music is the topic that reveals the
most about a person’s personality. Zillmann and Bhatia (1989) discovered compatibility in music
taste is an important factor in romantic relationship maintenance. Researchers have conducted
numerous studies to show how music can be used to meet others. In fact, a study by Rentfrow
and Gosling (2006) found music was the most commonly discussed topic between strangers and
is the topic which reveals the most about a person’s personality. Another study by Zillmann and
Bhatia (1989) discovered that compatibility in music taste is one of the most important factors in
the continuance of a romantic relationship.
Similarity and attraction are two interpersonal perceptions found to influence friendship
initiation (see Berscheid, 1985; McCroskey, Richmond, & Stewart, 1986; Wright, 2000). Social
attraction is a force that psychologically connects or separates individuals. The concept relates to
how others like, love, or hate each other. The effects of similarity on social attraction can spark
the interest needed to start a relationship. Past research found higher similarity levels result in
significantly higher initial attraction toward specific people (Gutkin, Gridley & Wendt, 1976).
Kubitschek and Hallinan (1998) suggest attraction is the result of exposure and similarity.
Homophily, or attitude and background similarity, is a concept that suggests people are
more likely to interact with those they perceive as similar to themselves (McPherson, Smith-
Lovin, & Cook, 2001; Monge & Contractor, 2003). Researchers use homophily theory to
examine how homophily levels in values, age, education, and gender influence interpersonal
connections (see McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001 for more). Researchers found
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 4
homophily perception is a key predictor of interpersonal attraction and potential relationship
development (Cappella, 1984; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
Music preferences clearly play an important part in meeting others and developing
friendships. It is wise to further investigate these influences in an academic study. Earlier studies
on relationship initiation sought to understand dating relationships, friendships, and mentor
relationships in university faculty, but these studies do not investigate the influence of music
preference in friendship (Levine, Aune, & Park, 2006; Baxter, & Philpott, 1982; Waldeck,
Orrego, Plax, & Kearney, 1997).
The current study will contribute much to the Communication discipline. Currently, there
is a plethora of studies on romantic relationships and parent-child relationships, but it is harder to
find any research on friendship. Considering the strong influence of music in modern lives, it is
important to investigate how one’s music preferences relate to the social perception of others.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand the influence of shared music preferences on
social attraction and homophily levels in potential friendships.
Review of Literature
A review of previous research is included in the following literature review section. The
first topic is the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, the foundational concept for this study. Research
related to friendship is discussed next, focusing on two categories: social attraction and
homophily. Finally, the influence of music preferences in relationships is examined.
Uncertainty Reduction Theory
This study is inspired by the axioms of Uncertainty Reduction Theory and uses its axioms
as a theoretical base. It is a theory widely used in relational development research. This theory,
introduced by Berger and Calabrese (1975), is the first attempt to conceptualize the processes in
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 5
the initial stages of relationships (Miller, 2005). In essence, this theory seeks to explain the
thought processes that occur when one initially meets another. It describes how initial encounters
with others are usually laden with a high level of uncertainty, not knowing the other’s interests or
how they will respond. If a relationship should progress, reducing uncertainty is important.
Uncertainty levels usually lower through conversations, nonverbal cues, and similarities, which,
in turn, will increase intimacy.
To reduce uncertainty, people communicate to learn about how others behave and
interact. “A key indicator of the success of the uncertainty reduction process lies in the prediction
of the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of others” (Craig, Igiel, Wright, Cunningham, & Ploeger,
2007, p. 9). As noted by Berger and Calabrese (1975), an individual is usually motivated to
reduce uncertainty when future interaction is expected. With that in mind, the motivation to self-
disclose depends on many factors: initial perceptions of social attraction, physical attractiveness,
and the expectation of future interaction.
The motivation to self-disclose reflects how an individual perceives social attractiveness
of others. This is seen through the desire to reduce uncertainty. As deduced from Craig et al.
(2007), perceptions of social attraction motivate future interaction and self disclosure. Therefore,
the use of social attraction and attitude and background similarity (homophily) are logical
variables when using Uncertainty Reduction Theory to understand perceptions of potential
friendship.
Social Attractiveness and Homophily
If the Facebook users in the Craig et al. (2007) study perceived others as being
attitudinally similar and socially attractive, it reduced their uncertainty in relationships and
enhanced predictability. With music preference in mind, it can be deduced that when shared
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 6
music preferences are disclosed, it will enhance predictability, reduce uncertainty, and raise
social attractiveness and homophily levels. This assumption is similar to a study by Sunnafank
and Miller (1981), which proposed attitude and background dissimilarity lowers interpersonal
attraction. This occurs because any form of dissimilarity is viewed as a barrier to a positive
communication environment.
Sunnafrank and Miller (1981) also found homophily and social attraction are some of the
only factors considered in the initial perception of others. Yun (1999) confirms this “because
without interaction, perceived attitude and background similarity is used to determine whether a
person would be able to achieve the desired communication goal of having a controllable,
predictable, and stable communication environment” (p. 3). Therefore, attitudinally similar
people perceive future interaction will be more stable, controllable, and predictable than with
attitudinally dissimilar people. These findings are consistent with Uncertainty Reduction Theory
discussed earlier.
Byrne (1969) argues homophily enhances social attraction because it reinforces a
person’s world view. As described earlier, homophily is an individual’s tendency to form
relationships with those who are similar to them (Hembrooke, Gay, & Yuan, 2006). The
homophily concept could have been the inspiration for the popular saying “birds of a feather
flock together.” It suggests people are encouraged and reassured when others have similar
attitudes. This helps others be more socially attractive. Perceived homophily also has a strong
influence on social attraction before interaction (Byrne, 1992). On a similar note, Sunnafrank
(1992) found the effect of perceived homophily on social attraction disappears in initial
interactions.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 7
These studies discuss how the influence of perceived homophily on social attraction
changes before and after interaction. The current study goes further to understand how
homophily and social attraction are perceived among people with similar music tastes.
Researchers such as Yun (1999) and Sunnafrank, and Miller (1981) all agree attitudinal
similarity is important in reducing uncertainty in initial reactions, but these researchers did not
consider the degree to which music preference reduces uncertainty.
Music Preference
The remaining section focuses on the influence of music in personal perceptions. The
first subsection highlights the influence of music on social reality. Music and personality are then
explored, focusing on how music preference can reveal aspects of an individual’s personality.
The last topic to be explored is music and similarity. This topic investigates how music can be a
tool for others to meet.
Music and social reality. It is important to address the importance of music preference
and its influence in social contexts. First, one must understand how preferences in music play an
increasingly important role in socialization, social beliefs, attitudes, and the understanding of
social reality (Lull, 1985). In a world of iPods, MTV, and ear buds, music is everywhere. It
would be ignorant to assume such a widespread art form will not have an effect on American
lives. Indeed, the increased importance of music is due in part to the increased rate of exposure
to popular music of various forms (Avery, 1979). Considering how music plays an influential
part in the social lives of many people, it is important to initiate research that studies its influence
on friendships.
Previous studies found popular music plays a major role in the socialization of
adolescents (Gantz, Gartenberg, Pearson, & Schiller, 1978). Considering the wide variety of
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 8
music available today, this is no surprise. Many young adults are seeking exposure to popular
music to learn more about their social world (Sun & Lull, 1986). This is definitely true when one
takes a look at the different kinds of popular music enjoyed by young people. For instance, music
such as heavy metal and punk rock have ideologies and lifestyles that surround them. Often,
these people will turn to the kind of music they listen to for answers concerning the world in
which they live (Sun & Lull, 1986).
Considering how music plays an influential part in the social lives of many people, it is
important to initiate research which studies its direct influence on adult friendships. The
aforementioned research often studied adolescents to reach conclusions concerning music and
social reality. A study on the musical reality of adults is needed after observing the power music
has on youth.
Music and personality. On a similar note, individuals use cues to piece together a
picture of what a person is like (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006). Many studies support that cues such
as physical appearance (Kenny, Horner, Kashy, & Chu, 1992), nonverbals (Borkeneau, Mauer,
Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2004), clothes (Burroughs, Drews, & Hallman, 1991), and
personal spaces (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002) all convey various messages to
others. But of all cues, music preferences are rated as the most revealing (Rentfrow & Gosling,
2003). The previous study found individuals consider their music preferences more revealing
than their tastes in books, clothing, movies, etc.
The risks involved in disclosing music preference has a significant impact in the lives of
young people (Firth, 1981). This is true since music is a highly revealing topic of one’s
personality. Often, as researched by Sun and Lull (1986), fans of specific types of music will
shape their social world around their favorite music. Especially in the case of adolescents, this is
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 9
an immensely important aspect of their lives since their perception of social reality is built
around their music taste (Sun & Lull, 1986). Therefore, the disclosure of one’s music preferences
is highly revealing and shows not only their music taste but also their views on life.
Other research goes further to illustrate the relationship between music preferences and
personality (Little & Zuckerman, 1986). For instance, a study by Rentfrow and Gosling (2003)
found individuals believe their musical preferences reveal information about their personalities.
Because of this, people purposely use their music preferences to communicate information about
themselves and their personalities (North & Hargreaves, 1999). Since music preferences reveal
much about an individual’s personality, a person may perceive he or she knows a lot about
another’s character through personal music taste. Homophily and social attraction levels may be
higher because of the known correlation.
Music and similarity. When meeting one another, the most common topic for strangers
to discuss is music (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006). Therefore, music preferences can play a
prominent role in getting acquainted with others. Since music is the choice topic in
acquaintanceship, it is important to understand the influence of music preferences in early
friendship stages.
Other research studying the influence of music in social contexts shows how music taste
similarity is likely to produce favorable evaluations. For instance, a study by Zillmann and
Bhatia (1989) suggests shared liking and disliking of specific musical genres foster a degree of
perceived compatibility in initial interactions. This proves the powerful influence of similarity
and attraction. On a similar note, devotion or aversion to certain music genres brings its fans
together (Lull, 1988). The Lull study suggests others’ music preferences can connect or separate
people of different musical tastes. Although Zillmann and Bhatia (1989) studied the influence of
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 10
music preferences in heterosexual attraction, an understanding of evaluations concerning
friendship is needed. Further, Zillmann and Bhatia (1989) found compatibility in musical
preferences may be an important factor in the continuance of a romantic relationship. However
powerful the influences of music in relationships are, the current study focuses on its influence in
initial attraction. Future research needs to be done to see if that finding holds true in the context
of friendships.
Research Questions
There is a lack of information dealing with the influences of music on friendship
perception (specifically homophily and social attraction). Many researchers completed studies to
investigate the importance of music preferences on social perception, and the influences of
homophily and social attraction in initial interactions, but not how they influence each other.
Past studies have not examined the difference between potential friends in hypothetical
circumstances compared to what is perceived in real situations. The current study addresses the
level of attraction and homophily perceived under the influence of shared music taste. Past
studies did not address music as a potential influence in these situations.
In terms of genre, it is interesting to reveal if there is a correlation between music taste
(preferred genre) and attraction and homophily levels. This information does not exist as
previous research has not addressed music taste with homophily and attraction. Considering the
lack of research on music in friendship perception, the following research questions and
hypotheses are projected for this study:
RQ1: Is there a difference in perceived social attraction with real and hypothetical
friends?
RQ2: Is there a difference in perceived homophily with real and hypothetical friends?
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 11
RQ3: Is there a relationship between homophily and social attraction in real friendships?
RQ4: Is there a relationship between homophily and social attraction in hypothetical
friendships?
RQ5: Does music taste (preferred genre) influence perceived social attraction?
RQ6: Does music taste (preferred genre) influence perceived homophily?
RQ7: Are students more likely to consider their music tastes to be unique?
H1: Women will score higher on perceived homophily and social attraction.
H2: Non-students will score lower on perceived homophily and social attraction.
Methods
This study was predominately quantitative in nature. In addition to objective, statistical
data, the method included a series of open-ended questions to further understand and describe
any quantitative data. A mixed-method approach was selected for validity reasons as well.
Several social scientists use triangulation to cross-examine and verify reliability and validity of
results. This typically means a researcher will use two or more methods to verify results. In this
case, a quantitative survey was used with qualitative, open-ended questions (McIntyre, 2006).
This study used surveys to answer selected research questions and hypotheses. Surveys
were the most useful because they use statistics to illustrate relationships between two or more
phenomena. “A survey design provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes,
or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population” (Creswell, 2003, p. 153).
Surveys were chosen over interviews or case studies for a variety of reasons. First, the
researcher can use surveys to gain an accurate description of opinions, behaviors, and patterns of
a large, target audience (Watt & Van den Berg, 1995). This allows the researcher to attain a more
representative sample. Surveys are also an obvious choice due to the fact existing measures on
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 12
social attraction and homophily are readily available. Next, selecting surveys over interviews is a
wise decision considering how subjects are more willing to share personal information on paper
than in discussion. Face-to-face interviews are perceived as more invasive due to the greater
perceived potential of embarrassment and judgment (Campbell, Angus, & Katona, 1953).
Although the topic is generally not sensitive to participants, a person with more atypical music
preferences may be uncomfortable sharing his or her interests with the researcher face-to-face.
Subjects
The sample consisted of 150 subjects with 99 University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
students, and 49 non-students. Forty males and 108 females took the survey. Subjects were at
least 18 years of age and the oldest being 72 years. Any sex, race, or ethnicity could participate.
The researcher recruited volunteers through her participation in community music ensembles,
Communication Studies classes, and her network of friends.
A convenience sample was used over a random sample due to time constraints and logic.
“Nonprobability samples, like convenience samples… [can] be used when the communication
process being studied is considered to be so universal that selection biases are not important”
(Watt & Van den Berg, 1995, p. 107). Because social behaviors are the norm in human
interaction, and people living in this society are exposed to music on a daily basis, it is plausible
to assume these conditions are universal. Due to that fact, using a typically more “accurate”
random sample was unneeded.
Measurements
Subjects completed a survey including demographic information, open ended questions
on music preferences, and existing homophily and social attraction measures. The homophily
measure was an original measure developed by McCroskey, Richmond, & Daly (1975).
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 13
Communication and Psychology researchers widely use the interpersonal attraction measure
(McCroskey & McCain, 1974). The survey included two sets per measure. Each set included the
social attraction and homophily measures (see appendices). The first set asked subjects to rate a
previously known person who shares their music taste. The second set asked subjects to rate the
statements considering a hypothetical example. The survey also asked a series of open-ended
questions and demographics which will also be addressed.
Social Attraction. The researcher used the original interpersonal attraction measure
reported by McCroskey & McCain (1974). Past research found the alpha reliability estimates
range from the upper .70s to the upper .80s. McCroskey and McCain’s interpersonal attraction
measures include social attraction, physical attraction, and task attraction. This study used only
the social attraction scale. That portion of the measure contained six statements for subjects to
rate on a Likert-type scale of one (disagree) to five (strongly agree). Subjects rated the statements
while thinking of a specified individual. Statement examples included: “He would be pleasant to
be with” or “I think he/she could be a friend of mine.” This measure was used in a similar way in
a recent study investigating friendship initiation through Facebook (Craig, Igiel, Wright,
Cunningham, & Ploeger, 2007).
Homophily. The researcher tested perceptions of attitude and background similarity
using McCroskey, Richmond and Daly’s (1975) Measure of Perceived Homophily attitude and
background similarity subscales. The instrument included four items measuring his or her
perceptions on attitude and background homophily. This applied toward someone who shares the
similar music taste. The measure used a seven-point semantic differential scale with statements
such as, “This person is like me,” and “This person thinks like me.” The reliability coefficient for
this measure was .71 in previous literature. The attitude and background similarity subscale was
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 14
also used in the Facebook friendship initiation study (Craig, Igiel, Wright, Cunningham, &
Ploeger, 2007).
Open-Ended Questions and Demographics. The first survey questions requested
demographic information including sex, age, and class standing (freshman, sophomore, junior,
senior, fifth year senior, or non-student). This demographic information was needed for H1 and
2. The survey also included three open-ended questions (see sample survey in appendix). The
questions asked about the subject’s personal music taste, if he or she classifies their music taste
as unique, and to describe a time he or she met someone through shared music taste. The
researcher designed these questions to invite thought from the subjects and lead into the rest of
the survey. The answers from these questions were also used for RQ 5, 6, and 7 and H1 and 2.
Subject answers from open-ended questions also helped with overall discussion and
interpretation of statistical results.
Procedures
The researcher recruited volunteers through her participation in community music
ensembles and her network of family and friends. Subjects from music groups completed surveys
during rehearsal free time. The surveys were collected at the end of rehearsals in large piles to
ensure anonymity. Subjects from other sources completed surveys at their convenience and
returned completed surveys in provided folders to protect their identities. The researcher also
asked professors at the University of Wisconsin- La Crosse for permission to survey students
during class time. The survey took no longer than 15 minutes to complete, and subjects were
informed of the consent statement at the beginning of the survey. The informed consent
statement emphasized the importance of confidentiality in this study. Subjects were completely
anonymous and surveys were destroyed when the study was completed.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 15
Data Analysis
Once the surveys were completed, the data was coded and entered into SPSS (Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences). During the coding process, the study used four variables: real
attraction, real homophily, hypothetical attraction, and hypothetical homophily. Afterward, RQ1
and 2 were analyzed with a paired samples t-test. A correlation analysis was used for RQ3 and 4
to determine the relationship between variables. RQ5 and 6 used a mixed-method approach;
these research questions required a descriptive analysis of open ended attraction and homophily
average. The last research question, RQ7 was descriptive, analyzing open-ended questions. H1
and 2 used the independent samples t-test.
Results
Cronbach’s Alpha reliability showed the measures for each variable where reliable in this
study. The real attraction variable had a reliability of .80 while its hypothetical counterpart had
.78 reliability. The real homophily variable had .80 and hypothetical homophily had .86. The
highest possible scores for all attraction variables were 30 and 56 for homophily.
RQ1 dealt with differences in perceived social attraction toward real and hypothetical
friends with shared music preferences. The paired samples t-test proved significant (t=6.24,
p<.05). The mean score for attraction in real friendships was 25.91 and 23.89 for hypothetical
friendships. The paired samples were also correlated at (r=.37 r<.05).
RQ2 considered the differences between perceived homophily in real and hypothetical
friends with shared music preferences. The results from the paired samples t-test were significant
as well: (t=.5.18, r<.05). The mean score for homophily in real friendships was 38.98 and 35.60
in hypothetical friendships. The homophily paired samples were correlated at (r=.35, r<.05).
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 16
RQ3 questioned the relationship between homophily and social attraction in real
friendships with shared music preferences. The Pearson correlation test showed a moderate
positive correlation (r=.35,p<.01). RQ4 raised a similar question for hypothetical friendships.
The hypothetical results had a slightly higher positive correlation (r=.38,p<.01). There is a
moderate positive correlation for both RQ3 and 4.
Both RQ5 and 6 used a qualitative analysis of various open ended questions and selected
individual attraction and homophily averages. RQ5 asked if preferred music genre influences
perceived attraction. Through analysis, this was found to be true. In general, subjects who had
high social attraction scores usually had narrower music preferences. High scorers with wider
music preferences typically considered their music tastes to be unique. This makes sense as a
subject with unique tastes may have a harder time finding others with the same preferences as he
or she does. RQ6 inquired about shared music influences on perceived homophily. Results for
RQ6 were similar to RQ5 except answers were not quite as consistent, especially in lower score
results.
RQ7 asked if students would be more likely to consider their music tastes to be unique.
Through qualitative analysis, this was found to be true. Although students were more apt to
consider their tastes unique, it was interesting to see how definitions varied between individuals.
More on these findings will be considered in the discussion section.
H1 proposed women would score higher on both homophily and social attraction in real
and hypothetical friendships. The independent t-tests were not significant for the four variables:
real attraction and homophily, and hypothetical attraction and homophily. Real attraction results
were (t=.22, p>.05). The mean for men was 26.03 and the mean for women was 25.88. The real
homophily results were also not significant: (t=-1.35, p>.05). The average for men was 37.67 and
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 17
39.55 for women. Hypothetical attraction was very insignificant with (t=1.19, p>.05). The
hypothetical attraction average for men was 24.44 and women averaged with 35.51. Hypothetical
homophily resulted in (t=.59, p>.05). Men averaged with 36.23 and women with 35.51 for this
variable.
H2 hypothesized non-student subjects would score lower on perceived homophily and
social attraction in real and hypothetical friendships. The independent t-test did not prove the
four variables to be significant. The real attraction significance rated as (t=14, p>.05). The mean
for this variable was 25.92 for non-students and 25.83 for students. Real homophily resulted in
(t=27, p>.05) and its mean was 25.92 for non-students and 38.78 for students. Hypothetical
attraction came up with the following: (t=.23, p>.05). The non-student mean was 23.94 and
23.79 for students. The last variable to consider, hypothetical homophily, was (t=.53, p>.05). The
non-student mean was 35.96 and 35.45 for students in this variable.
In addition to data supplied by the research questions and hypotheses, the researcher also
notated the most popular music genres, as shown in table 1 at the end of the paper.
Numbers were tallied from subject responses to open-ended questions. Most subjects
listed anywhere from 2-5 preferred music genres. Thirty subjects reported having open and/or no
strong music preferences (20% of subjects). Forty-five reported having a wide variety of music
interests (30% of subjects).
Discussion
RQ1and 2 asked how people perceived others once shared music taste was disclosed.
RQ1 dealt with social attraction, and RQ 2 tackled perceived homophily. The question asked if
subjects’ expectations are higher than what is actually perceived after friends initially meet.
These results, as introduced earlier, were surprising, especially looking at specific open-ended
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 18
responses. The results found subjects tend to perceive people already met through shared music
preferences to be more socially attractive and more similar to them than those met in
hypothetical situations. The differences were more distinct in RQ2.
The researcher expected subjects to rate hypothetical friends higher than real ones. This
was especially surprising after reading some of the open-ended questions. Some of the questions
discussed how subjects had an immediate attraction toward people with shared music
preferences. The subjects went further, however, to discuss the friendships did not last long, and
the bonds were not strong enough to develop a friendship. For example, one subject wrote: “I
was talking to an acquaintance when I learned he also had a strange obsession with Tom Petty. I
knew we had to be friends, but also, it didn’t last.” This example alone suggests hypothetical
attraction would potentially be stronger than what is perceived in an actual relationship.
The mere exposure effect can be applied to this result. This concept explains that the
more someone is exposed to another person, the more likely he or she is going to like it (Fang,
Singh, & Ahluwalia, 2007). Since the subjects were already exposed to the real friends, they
rated the real friend higher than the hypothetical friend they never met.
RQ3 and 4 analyzed the relationship between perceived attraction and homophily in
actual and hypothetical friendships, respectively. The results found all variables to be related to
each other. This generally means if a subject perceived his or her friend to be high in social
attraction, he or she will likely rank them to be high in homophily as well.
This result is consistent with previous research. Sunnafrank and Miller (1981) and Yun
(1999) found homophily and social attraction affect initial interaction. This research would
suggest a positive correlation between social attraction and homophily. Byrne (1969 & 1992)
argued homophily enhances social attraction.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 19
RQ5 and 6 were qualitative and quantitative in nature. The research questions asked if
preferred music genre influences perceived attraction and homophily. This was true through
comparing qualitative and quantitative results. In general, subjects with high social attraction and
homophily scores had narrower music preferences or considered their music tastes to be unique.
These results are logical in many ways. Individuals with broader or weaker music
preferences are less likely to feel a strong attraction to others with similar taste. By extension,
lower attraction and homophily scores affect one’s motivation to initiate friendship. In looking at
those with stronger and more selective music tastes, higher scores do make sense. The
Uncertainty Reduction Theory states that lower attraction and homophily scores aversely affect
any desire to reduce uncertainty. This potentially prevents the opportunity for a friendship to
occur (Berger and Calabrese, 1975). Axiom 6 of the theory states personal similarity will
decrease uncertainty about the other. Since subjects with narrower and more unique preferences
are less likely to come across someone with their similar tastes over time, it makes sense subjects
would rate them higher. This statement compares with subjects having a wider variety of music
preferences. These subjects are typically accustomed to meeting others with their more generic
tastes, making their homophily and attraction levels lower.
RQ7 results were as expected. In addition to claiming their music tastes to be more
unique, student subjects also reported having more varied and/or open preferences. Although
many students declared having open and unique music preferences, the researcher found their
perceptions to be doubtful. This was found by comparing student preferences to the more
atypical and diverse tastes of non-students. Non-students did not typically consider their music to
be unique, even though it was in comparison to all subjects. Most non-students reported favoring
music genres such as: folk, classical, and jazz. When looking at genre rankings, these music
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 20
types are from the middle of the frequency list. On the other hand, popular student subject
preferences included: rock, country, and rap. These results are consistently placed toward the top
of the list. Non students also had a wider variety of preferences as well.
For this research question, it is important to consider the influence of personal
definitions. It was quite interesting to see subjects give a yes or a no answer for the same reason.
For example, it was common for people with varied tastes to consider their tastes to be unique,
while others who also had varied tastes, did not consider their music taste to be unique. When
asked if their music taste was unique, one subject did not think so “because I’m sure there are a
lot of people who have a taste for all types of music like me.” Oxymoronically, another said yes
for the same reason: “I really do listen to all different kinds of music. Including classical,
soundtrack scores, hip hop, rock, pop, and everything in between.”
It was also fascinating to see how some subjects considered their music taste to be unique
by the fact certain genres are “polar opposites.” One subject wrote: “Yes, [my music taste is
unique]…rock and classical are complete opposites.” Ironically, Rock and Classical are the two
most frequent genres in this study.
In general, students gauged their music uniqueness based on what is played on the radio.
A student said: “No, [my taste is not unique,] I listen to a lot of music that is played on the radio
that everyone hears.” On the other hand, non-students were more likely to characterize
uniqueness by what music they were raised with: “No, [my taste is not unique,] I grew up with
this music.”
These different definitions can be explained through the Symbolic Interaction Theory.
This theory tries to understand why people act the way they do from socially developed
meanings (Blumer, 1969). This theory explains why students and non-students have their own
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 21
interpretations to unique music tastes. These socially separate audiences depend on others in
their social network to help them define what unique music tastes are. Subjects probably defined
music taste uniqueness based on the music tastes of those within their social network. In this
case, non-students most likely associated with others who listened to the music they were raised
with. On the other hand, students defined unique music tastes based on what was played on the
radio. This makes sense as most students prefer listening to radio music. In the big picture,
although non-students actually did have more unique music tastes, no one defines unique music
taste by one standard. There are many cultural sub-groups and social networks that all listen to
different types of music which leads to differing definitions.
Through statistical analysis, H1 was not significant. Men generally had higher attraction
and homophily scores. This result is especially surprising considering research consistently show
women as more relational (Comer & Lindsey, 2007). The statistical findings remained consistent
in the qualitative analysis. In the study, men usually bonded over musical activities. Many
bonded after attending concerts of favorite artists: “After going to Jamaica, a group I was with
realized our love of Reggae. We have since gone to Reggae concerts together…” Others built
friendships while creating music together: “I’ve become friends with a few people through
playing music together… we’re still good friends today.” Some also became closer through
singing and listening to their favorite music with others: “A song was playing and we both
started singing along… the rest is history.”
These findings are consistent with past research. Men communicate affection through
shared activities, rather than talking as women do. Activities are at the center of male friendships
(Paul & White, 1990; Reisman, 1990; Wood & Inman, 1993). Men are socialized to build
affection through shared activities like sports. Scott Swain (1989) used the phrase “closeness in
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 22
the doing” to describe male intimacy. His study found more than two-thirds of men used
activities like participating in sports, watching T.V., or any other activity to build a sense of
camaraderie. Women, on the other hand, tend to express affection and build intimacy through
talking. Feminine intimacy is built though discussion on personal feelings and disclosing private
information (Johnson, 1996).
Although many female subjects bonded in similar ways, males still had high attraction
and homophily levels. This could be because men are not as easily affected by outside
influences. Potential factors include: physical appearance, age, or style of dress. Typically,
Women are more concerned about these factors when looking for friends.
Related to the topics discussed earlier, Paul Wright (1982) found women tend to interact
“face to face” and men interact “side to side.” In other words, communication is central to
female friendships and activities are central to male relationships. Women tend to talk about
revealing and personal topics. Men choose to discuss less personal topics like sports, events,
money, and so on (Wright, 1982). Since women tend to disclose more in their friendships, it may
be possible women are less concerned about music taste to determine whether or not they will be
a good friend. Women may want other characteristics like good listening or a caring personality
in order discuss personal topics. Because men do not show affection through talk, shared music
taste may be enough of a trigger to become a close friend.
The H2 results were surprising as well. Although the results were not significant, the non-
students had slightly higher attraction and homophily scores. In analyzing the open-ended
questions, this makes sense. In general, non-students exuded greater emotion and discussed life
long influences from friendships created through shared music tastes: “College choir experiences
developed lifetime friendships… hearing songs from past reminds me of time with old friends.”
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 23
Another spoke on how her shared music preferences transcended cultures: “I developed a
lifelong very close friendship with my friend Lucie in Spain…” Even more subjects recall
meeting their spouses through shared music taste: “I met my husband following a blues group. It
still has great sentimentality relating to our growing relationship (19 years later).”
Despite the emotion and sentimentality, results from this hypothesis are somewhat in
contrast of RQ 5 and 6. Those research questions found subjects who consider themselves to
have more unique music tastes will have higher attraction and homophily scores. Since RQ7
found students are more likely to consider themselves having unique music taste, they would
consequently have higher attraction and homophily scores. It is essentially a toss up. One must
remember the correlation results for this hypothesis were not significant and perception levels
were very minimal.
Past research remains neutral in this topic. Contrary to the researcher’s former belief,
there is little difference in friendship between those in young adulthood and middle /older
adulthood. Young adults typically build their relationships over time, and consider their
friendships to be me the primary source of psychological and emotional well-being (Furman &
Buhrmester, 1992). Traits such as similarity and authenticity are valuable for young adult
friendships (LaGaipa, 1977). Middle and older adults “are similar both to one another and to
young adults in terms of their beliefs about friendship. In fact, continuities in friendship
conceptions across this period appear to be the rule rather than the exception,” (Samter, 2003, p.
661). Any stated differences are minimal, these include: greater appreciation for uniqueness and
less emphasis on similarity.
Tesch and Martin (1983) found college alumni were more likely to appreciate a friends’
uniqueness than students still enrolled in college. In a similar study, middle-aged and retired
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 24
adults put less emphasis on friendship similarity than most young adults (Weiss & Lowenthal,
1975). These findings, although related, are somewhat contrary to the results in the current study.
Since middle and older adults put less emphasis on similarity and are more likely to value
differences, it would suggest lower social attraction and homophily scores. This hypothesis is
inconsistent with previous research and RQ5-6 and is not statistically significant. Therefore, the
H1 result is not valid.
Limitations
While the findings are interesting, there were also some limitations to this study. These
limitations include: non-random sampling, possible subject survey confusion, and time
constraints. The researcher completed this study within a few months. This created challenges in
prior research, productive sampling, and analysis. This study was also rather narrow in focus; it
did not consider other attraction influences such as: physical appearance or age in attraction and
homophily perception. Other attraction influences may have been considered with more allotted
time.
Another limitation was the inability to use a random sample. A convenience sample was
selected due to time constraints. Instead of sampling college students only, the researcher chose
to survey non-students as well. Selecting subjects from a community choir, although convenient,
skewed the non-student results. The researcher was surprised to see classical and choral music
ranked so high in the genre frequency chart. But these results made sense after reflecting on the
convenience sample. The non-student sample from this group is probably another reason why H2
came out the way it did. The researcher recruited other subjects from her network of friends.
Most of these individuals have Christian values, which may have boosted the Christian music
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 25
frequency as well. The sample is also limited by the male to female ratio. Future studies should
try to include equal representation of males and females.
Another potential limitation is subject confusion while completing the survey. When
administering the survey, many subjects, particularly non-students, expressed confusion at
certain parts. The homophily scale was the most confusing for participants. A number of surveys
had to be tossed due to subject confusion. A handful of subjects circled two numbers instead of
one for each homophily question, others did not even attempt to answer the questions as a result
of their confusion. Clearer directions and a more precise introduction would be wise if
attempting this project again.
Future Research
The results of this study were expected yet some were surprising. Many of the statistical
results were anticipated, but the qualitative answers were the most thought-provoking and
surprising. The researcher enjoyed reading how music influences many of the subject’s
friendships.
Potential topics to further investigate include: comparing attraction and homophily levels
in males and females, students and non-students as well as personal definitions of uniqueness. It
would be fascinating to explore gender and life stage bonding and relationship initiation
differences as it relates to music. The results could also consider other outside influences.
Administering qualitative interviews would be a favorable way to find the needed insights.
Delving further into gender and music preference would also be an interesting future
research project as well. H1 left a number of unanswered questions. Although the questions can
be explained through preexisting research, a study to specifically address these inquiries would
be beneficial. The research would answer questions like, “Why do males have higher social
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 26
attraction and homophily levels with others with similar music taste?” or “Do males have higher
attraction and homophily levels than females because they are not as influenced by multiple
attraction factors?” The future research should address these questions when studying the
influence of music preference with initial same-sex friendships.
The researcher did not expect to find subjects’ personal definitions of uniqueness to differ
so widely. A qualitative study on music taste uniqueness classification would be constructive.
The study would investigate how people perceive their personal music tastes in relation to others.
Conclusion
The results of this study can be used to better understand the thought processes that occur
when one individual meets another with similar music preferences. The study found people are
more likely to perceive others as more socially attractive or attitudinally similar when they
actually meet as compared with hypothetical examples. In other words, when people hear about
someone with shared music preferences, they are generally going to be perceived as less socially
attractive and less attitudinally similar. This makes sense as the variables of social attraction and
homophily were positively correlated.
Subjects with more specific music tastes and those who consider their music to be unique
had higher social attraction and homophily scores. Logically, people with these music taste
qualifications are more likely to initiate friendships with others who share their preferences. This
relationship aversely has an effect on potential friendship initiation directly influenced by shared
music preference.
Non-students and males had higher attraction and homophily scores as compared to
students and females, respectively. However, those results were not significant. The last
hypothesis confirmed that students are more likely to consider their taste in music to be unique.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 27
These results are valuable when considering the effects of music preference on how
people perceive potential friends. The study also mentioned the kinds of people and genre
qualifications in which higher likelihood of friendship initiation occurs. The described
perceptions could ultimately lead to friendship initiation in future interactions.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 28
References
Avery, R. (1979). Adolescents’ use of the mass media. American Behavioral Scientist, 23, 53-70.
Baxter, L., & Philpott, J. (1982). Attribution-based strategies for initiating and terminating
friendships. Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 217-224.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:
Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication
Research, 1(2), 99-112.
Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of
behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 599-614.
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.
Byrne, D. (1992). The transition from controlled laboratory experimentation to less controlled
settings: Surprise! Additional variables are operative. Communication Monographs, 59,
190-198.
Byrne, D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction in L. Berkowitz. Advances in Experimental
Psychology, (pp. 178-224). New York: Academic Press.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 29
Campbell, G, Angus, A., & Katona, G. (1953). The sample survey: A technique for social
science research. In Theodore M. Newcomb (Ed.). Research methods in the behavioral
sciences (pp. 14-55). New York: The Dryden Press.
Cappella, J. N. (1984). The relevance of the microstructure of interaction to relationship change.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 239-264.
Comer, D., & Lindsey, A. (2007). Proceedings from NCA ’07: Cross-Sex Friendship Challenges
and Maintenance Strategies: Women's Views of Friendships with Straight Men vs. Gay
Men. Washington D.C.: National Communication Association.
Craig, E., Igiel, M., Wright, K., Cunningham, C., & Ploeger, N. (2007, May). Will you be my
friend?: Comupter-mediated relatonal development on Facebook.com. In A. Jan & G. M.
Van Dijk (Chairs), High-Density Session: Computers and People, and Social Networking
Sites. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Communication
Association Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt,
Brace, Jovanovich.
Fang, X., Singh, S., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An examination of different explanations for the
mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 97-103.
Firth, S. (1981). Sound effects: Youth, leisure, and the politics of rock and roll. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Furman, W., & Burhmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of
personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-115.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 30
Gantz, W., Gartenberg, H. M., Pearson, M. L., & Schiller, S. O. (1978). Gratifications and
expectations associated with pop music among adolescents. Popular Music in Society, 6,
81-89.
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Judgments
of personality based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 379-398.
Gutkin, T. B., Gridley G. C., & Wendt, J. M. (1976). The effect of initial attraction and attitude
similarity-dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Cornell Journal of Social Relations,
11(2), 153-160.
Hembrooke, H., Gay, G., & Yuan, Y. (2006). Proceedings from NAICS ’06: Homophily of
network ties, and bonding and bridging social capital in distributed teams. Washington
D.C.: International Communication Association.
Johnson, F. (1996). Friendships among women: Closeness in dialogue. In J. T. Wood (Ed.),
Gendered relationships: A reader (pp. 79-94). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus a zero acquaintance:
Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62, 88-87.
Kubitschek, W. N., & Hallinan, M. T. (1998). Tracking and students' friendships. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 62.
LaGaipa, J. J. (1977). Testing a multidimensional approach to friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.)
Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction (pp. 249-270). London: Academic Press.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 31
Levine, T., Aune, K., & Park, H. (2006). Love styles and communication in relationships:
Partner preferences, initiation, and intensification. Communication Quarterly, 54(4), 465-
486.
Little, P., & Zuckerman, M. (1986). Sensation seeking and music preferences. Personality and
Individual Differences, 7, 575-577.
Lull, J. (1985). On the communicative properties of music. Communication Research, 12, 363-
372.
Lull, J. (1988). Popular music and communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech
Monographs, 41, 261-266.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of
perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research,
1, 323-332.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Stewart, R. A. (1986). One on one: The foundations of
interpersonal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McIntyre, L. J. (2006). The practical skeptic: Readings in sociology. (3rd
ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social
networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd
ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theories of communication networks: Oxford University
Press.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 32
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and adolescent identity. Music Education
Research, 1, 75-92.
Paul, E. & White, K. (1990). The development of intimate relationships in late adolescence.
Adolescence, 25, 375-400.
Reisman, J. M. (1990). Intimacy in same-sex friendships. Sex Roles, 23, 65-82.
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.
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2006). Message in a ballad: The role of music preferences in
interpersonal perception. Psychological Science, 17(3), 236-242.
Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. O. Greene & B. R.
Burleson (Eds.) Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 637-684).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sun, S., & Lull, J. (1986). The adolescent audience for music videos and why they watch.
Journal of Communication, 36(1), 115-125.
Sunnafrank, M. (1992). On debunking the attitude similarity myth. Communication Monographs,
59,164-179.
Sunnafrank, M., & Miller, G. R. (1981). The role of initial conversations in determining
attraction to similar and dissimilar strangers. Human Communication Research, 8, 16-25.
Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in men’s friendships. In B. J. Risman & P.
Schwartz (Eds.), Gender and intimate relationships (pp. 71-86). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 33
Tesch, S. A., & Martin, R. R. (1983). Friendship conceptions of young adults in two age groups.
The Journal of Psychology, 115, 7-12.
Watt, J. H., & Van den Berg, S. A. (1995). Research methods for communication science.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Weiss, L. & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life course perspectives on friendship. In M. F.
Lowenthal, M. Turner, D. Chiriboga, & Associates (Eds.) Four stages of life (pp. 48-61).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wood, J. T., & Inman, C. (1993). In a different mode: Recognizing male modes of closeness.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 279-295.
Wright, K. B. (2000). Perceptions of on-line support providers: An examination of perceived
homophily, source credibility, communication and social support within on-line support
groups. Communication Quarterly, 48, 44-59.
Wright, P. H. (1982). Men’s friendships, women’s friendships, and the alleged inferiority of the
latter. Sex Roles, 8, 1-20.
Yun, A. K. (1999). The effect of attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction: A test of the
conversational expectation explanation. Communication Research Reports, 16(3), 249-
255.
Zillmann, D., & Bhatia, A. (1989). Effects of associating with musical genres on heterosexual
attraction. Communication Research, 16(2), 263-288.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 34
Appendix
Music Preferences and Friendship
I am conducting a survey to examine the effect shared music preferences has on who one
chooses to be friends with. Protecting your confidentiality is important to me. To ensure
your confidentiality, do not include your name anywhere on the survey. By completing this
survey, you are giving me your consent to include your answers in my results and to
include those results in future publications or presentations. Results of this study will be
available in January, 2010. For a copy of the results, you may contact me or my faculty
advisor Linda Dickmeyer at 344 Center for the Arts or 785-6715. If you have any questions,
feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time and participation.
Sincerely,
Meredith Brown
1615 Main Street
414-303-0308
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Demographic Information
Sex (circle one): Male Female
Age: ____________
Class Standing (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5+ Non-student
Other Information
Describe your taste in music. What are your favorite kinds of music and/or performers?
Would you characterize your taste in music as unique? Explain your answer.
Please describe a time you became friends with someone after discovering shared music
preferences OR felt closer to an existing friend after disclosing shared music preferences.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 35
Set 1
Part 1
Directions: Please indicate your perceptions of the attractiveness to:
A person from the previous question. If no person was indicated, imagine such a
situation occurred.
Make sure to keep one person in mind for ALL questions. Please indicate the degree to
which each statement applies to you by marking whether you:
Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5
_____1. I think he (she) could be a friend of mine.
_____2. I would like to have a friendly chat with her/him.
_____3. It would be difficult to meet and talk with him (her).
_____4. He (she) just wouldn't fit into my circle of friends.
_____5. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other.
_____6. He/she would be pleasant to be with.
Part 2
Directions: On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the person used in the
previous section. Please think of this person for the following attitude and background
scales. There are no right or wrong answers.
Numbers 1 and 7 indicate a very strong feeling.
Numbers 2 and 6 indicate a strong feeling.
Numbers 3 and 5 indicate a fairly weak feeling.
Number 4 indicates that you are unsure or undecided.
1. Is like me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Is unlike me
2. Is different from me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is similar to me
3. Thinks like me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Does not think like me
4. Doesn't behave like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Behaves like me
5. Has status like mine 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Has status different from mine
6. Is from a different social class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is from the same social class
7. Is culturally different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is culturally similar
8. Has an economic situation 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Does not have an economic
like mine situation like mine
Set 2
Part 1
Directions: This time, indicate your perceptions of the attractiveness of the person
mentioned in the following scenario:
You meet someone who is a big fan of your favorite musician; you have never met
anyone who has heard of this artist before.
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 36
Make sure to keep the one person in mind for ALL questions. Please indicate the degree to
which each statement applies to you by marking whether you:
Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5
_____1. I think he (she) could be a friend of mine.
_____2. I would like to have a friendly chat with her/him.
_____3. It would be difficult to meet and talk with him (her).
_____4. He (she) just wouldn't fit into my circle of friends.
_____5. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other.
_____6. He/she would be pleasant to be with.
Part 2
Directions: On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the person in the previous
scenario. There are no right or wrong answers.
Numbers 1 and 7 indicate a very strong feeling.
Numbers 2 and 6 indicate a strong feeling.
Numbers 3 and 5 indicate a fairly weak feeling.
Number 4 indicates that you are unsure or undecided.
1. Is like me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Is unlike me
2. Is different from me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is similar to me
3. Thinks like me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Does not think like me
4. Doesn't behave like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Behaves like me
5. Has status like mine 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Has status different from mine
6. Is from a different social class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is from the same social class
7. Is culturally different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is culturally similar
8. Has an economic situation 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Does not have an economic
like mine situation like mine
Other
Please write any other comments concerning potential friendship and shared music
preference. (Feel free to write on the back of this page if necessary.)
MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 37
Table 1
Music Genre Frequencies
Genre
Occurrences
Percent
Rock
-classic, hard, soft, modern
49
32.67%
Classical
-all eras
46 30.67%
Country
-modern, classic
44 29.33%
Rap/r&b/hip hop
32 21.33%
Jazz
-blues, big band, traditional
Pop
-top 40, popular music
23
23
15.33%
15.33%
Alternative
22 14.67%
Choral
20 13.33%
Christian
-Gospel, contemporary, worship, church music, hymns
19 12.67%
Oldies
-70s and 80s, Rock and Roll
Folk/Blue grass
-global music, old time music
15
15
10%
10%
Acoustic
-artists like Jack Johnson, Dave Matthews Band
11 7.33%
Musical Theatre
-Broadway, Show Tunes
Ska/Punk/Reggae
10
10
6.67%
6.67%
Techno
-also dance music
9 6%
Other
-new age, easy listening, soundtrack, etc.
8 5.33%
Opera
7 4.67%
Indie Rock
-Subset of Rock/Alternative
6 4%
Metal
-Subset of Hard Rock
4 2.67%