Psychology of Music

1. Psychology of Music By Colin Sundwick

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

3. Variables • What is the explanatory variable?

4. Variables • What is the explanatory variable? • Type of music

5. Variables • What is the explanatory variable? • Type of music • Categorical

6. Variables • What are the response variables?

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

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

9. Bias • What are some potential sources of bias?

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

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

12. Which one of these would be a null hypothesis? • H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser. • H2: Different music leads to different impressions of the product. • H3:Different music does not lead to different buying intentions and different general evaluation of the product. • H4:There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the product. • H5: Music in different tempi leads to different estimates of a commercial’s length.

13. Which one of these would be a null hypothesis? H3:Different music does not lead to different buying intentions and different general evaluation of the product.

14. Giefsen Test (GT) • Participants used this scale as a basis for their judgement of the endorser.

15. Semantic Differential • Participants used this scale to describe the product. • Evaluative factor - e.g. ‘good-bad’ • Potency factor - e.g. ‘weak-strong’ • Activity factor – e.g. ‘tense-relaxed’

16. Results • H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser. • Rated Endorser’s self control: • Music I: 24.1 • Music II: 27.3 • No Music: 23.8

17. Results • H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser. • Rated Endorser’s self control: • Music I: 24.1 • Music II: 27.3 • No Music: 23.8 • Accept H1?

18. Results • H1: Different music leads to different impressions of the endorser. • Rated Endorser’s self control: • Music I: 24.1 • Music II: 27.3 • No Music: 23.8 • Accept H1? • Yes

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

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

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

22. Results • Rated Permeability of the endorser. • Music I: M: 25.4 F:19.8 • Music II: M: 23.6 F: 24.5 • No Music: M:24 F: 23.8

23. Correlations and P-Values • H4: There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the brand. • GT: Social Response–SD: Evaluation (r=.2831; p=.001) • GT: Dominance–SD: Activity (r=-.2568; p=.003) • GT: Dominance–SD: Potency (r= -.1800; p=.003) • GT: Permeability–SD: Evaluation (r= -.3016; p= .001) • GT: Social Potency–SD: Evaluation (r= -.2855; p= .001)

24. Translation • GT: Social Response–SD: Evaluation (r=.2831; p=.001) • The more positive the endorser was, the better ratings the commercial gets. • GT: Dominance–SD: Activity (r=-.2568; p=.003) • The more compliant the endorser was, the less tense the commercial seemed to be. • GT: Dominance–SD: Potency (r= -.1800; p=.003) • The more compliant the endorser was, the less potent the product was perceived. • GT: Permeability–SD: Evaluation (r= -.3016; p= .001) • The more closed the endorser seemed to be, the worse ratings the commercial got. • GT: Social Potency–SD: Evaluation (r= -.2855; p= .001) • The more unsociable the endorser was, the worse ratings the commercial got

25. Correlations and P-Values • H4: There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the brand. • GT: Social Response–SD: Evaluation (r=.2831; p=.001) • GT: Dominance–SD: Activity (r=-.2568; p=.003) • GT: Dominance–SD: Potency (r= -.1800; p=.003) • GT: Permeability–SD: Evaluation (r= -.3016; p= .001) • GT: Social Potency–SD: Evaluation (r= -.2855; p= .001) • Accept H4?

26. Correlations and P-Values • H4: There is coherence between the impression of the endorser and the impression of the brand. • GT: Social Response–SD: Evaluation (r=.2831; p=.001) • GT: Dominance–SD: Activity (r=-.2568; p=.003) • GT: Dominance–SD: Potency (r= -.1800; p=.003) • GT: Permeability–SD: Evaluation (r= -.3016; p= .001) • GT: Social Potency–SD: Evaluation (r= -.2855; p= .001) • Accept H4? • Yes

27. THE END Thank you

28. Rate the Endorser/Product How would listeners rate Colin on a scale of (1) impatient to (5) patient? How would listeners rate Colin’s presentation on a scale of (1) tense to (5) relaxed?

29. Rate the Endorser/Product How would listeners rate Colin on a scale of (1) unimaginative to (5) exuberant? How would listeners rate Colin’s presentation on a scale of (1) weak to (5) strong?