Developing the Musician

Contemporary Perspectives on Teaching and Learning

Mary Stakelum

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317151777
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Music

To what extent does research on musical development impact on educational practices in school and the community? Do musicians from classical and popular traditions develop their identities in different ways? What do teachers and learners take into consideration when assessing progress? This book takes a fresh look at 'the musician' and what constitutes 'development' within the fields of music psychology and music education. In doing so, it explores the relationship between formative experiences and the development of the musician in a range of music education settings. It includes the perspectives of classroom teachers, popular musicians, classical musicians and music educators in higher education. Drawn from an international community of experienced educators and researchers, the contributors offer a range of approaches to research. From life history through classroom observation to content analysis, each section offers competing and complementary perspectives on contemporary practice. The book is an essential resource for musicians, educators, researchers and policy makers, offering insight into the reality of practice from those working within established traditions - such as the conservatoire and school settings - and from those who are currently emerging as significant forces in the fields of popular music education and community music.

PART I
Aspiration and Identity

Chapter 1
Identity Dimensions and Age as Predictors
of Adult Music Preferences

Richard Leadbeater and Alan Marsden

The Role of Music in Adolescents’ Lives

Empirical research carried out over the last few decades on music preferences has, with good reason, focused predominantly on adolescents’ preferences. Not only are adolescents the largest group of consumers of music (Delsing et al, 2008; Higdon and Stephens, 2008; The Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010; Schwartz and Fouts, 2003), their music preferences define them and their values during this period of emotional and physical growth and identity self determination (Arnett, 1995; Bleich, Zillman and Weaver, 1991), in effect conferring on them a ‘badge of identity’ (Frith, 1981; North and Hargreaves, 1999). Music is fundamental to adolescent identity because their music provides adolescents with the ideal conduit for identity negotiation, construction, consolidation, management and verification. To expand this point, there are often cognitive reasons closely associated with adolescent music preferences, such as, for example, image management to make them appear tough or aggressive (Bleich, Zillman and Weaver, 1991; Frith, 1981); managing, reflecting and validating mood and emotions (Arnett, 1995; Juslin and Sloboda, 2001; Lundqvist et al, 2009; North, Hargreaves and Hargreaves, 2004; Schwartz and Fouts, 2003; Zillman and Gan, 1997); and coping with the problems of everyday life (Schwartz and Fouts, 2003). Alternatively music may be used as a tool for social group identification, affiliation and delineation (Bakagiannis and Tarrant, 2006; Frith, 1981; Giles et al., 2009; Mark, 1998; North and Hargreaves, 1999; Rentfrow and Gosling, 2006; Tarrant, North and Hargreaves, 2002; Tekman and Hortesçu, 2002). The relationship between music and identity is also based upon a self-reflexive verification system (Giddens, 1991). In other words, music is fundamental to identity, because it is through music that identity is validated; not only do we see ourselves, our beliefs and values confirmed within music, but our identity is also verified and reinforced within the wider social context by reference to those who hold similar values and beliefs and music preferences (see Frith, 1996). This continual interplay between music, identity construction and cognitive behaviour is a fundamental aspect in adolescent daily living and helps to understand and address the emotional, personal and developmental crises that often arise in this emotionally turbulent period of maturation and growth. It is interesting to note that maturation has been identified as an important factor in variation of taste culture (Mulder et al., 2010) and yet it is also abundantly clear that academic exploration of the relationship between music, identity and music preferences beyond adolescence is largely under-represented in the literature.

Zweigenhaft (2008) has suggested that older participants may have different taste cultures. Some researchers have suggested that music becomes less important through maturation (Schäfer and Sedlmeier, 2009) or that preferences remain permanently static in adulthood, crystallizing at around 23 years of age (Holbrook and Schindler, 1989). This assertion is somewhat problematic, as it would appear to suggest that, around 23 years of age, music preferences reach a cast iron terminal endpoint, as if lifespan experiences that played a part in shaping such preferences are no longer able to influence the trajectory of their future development, which in itself raises a number of issues in relation to function, identity and taste evolution. In her study of the role of music in the daily lives of women, DeNora (2000) noted that they engaged with and utilized their music as a way of reconstructing past identities and remembering key events, emotions and relationships. Consequently it would appear premature to reject or dismiss the notion that music continues to be a fundamental part of our identity, an essential element in daily living beyond adolescence and throughout adulthood. Although Holbrook and Schindler’s (1989) claim is challenged, further research is clearly required if we are to explore the trajectory of music preferences beyond adolescence. Therefore one of the primary aims of our study has been to examine and explore music preferences and the relationship between music and identity beyond adolescence. It also explores differences in ratings of music genres between younger and older participants.

In this chapter, we explore current literature on music preferences and identity before presenting the results of an online study which drew on and expanded the work of Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) and Zweigenhaft (2008), to look at the relationship between individual differences and music preferences. The online study moved beyond correlations to examine, through standard multiple regression analysis, the effect and variance these differences have as predictors of music preferences. Results suggest that, at best, individual difference can only explain about 20 per cent of variance in preference ratings. This would indicate that there is much more to learn about the reasons why individuals prefer one style of music over another. Future research may look at the trajectory of preferences in relation to the impact of lifespan experiences and an evolving identity through maturation.

Music and Personality

In their seminal article, Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) firmly established the relationship between personality traits, as measured by the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John and Srivastava, 1999) and music preferences (Dunn et al., 2012; Zweigenhaft, 2008). The Big Five was developed in the 1990s in the wake of trait psychology researchers who believed that personality traits could be organized into five broad dimensions, using the lexical approach of everyday language to describe individual differences that incorporated affective reasoning and cognitive behaviour (Goldberg, 1992; McCrae and Costa, 1987, 1990; Pervin and Cervone, 2010). The five dimensions are as follows: Extraversion; Agreeableness; Conscientiousness; Neuroticism; Openness. Each dimension is based upon a bipolar scale with each dimension label corresponding to an attribute considered in opposition to the label. Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) asked participants to rate 14 music genres (later expanded to 23 (Zweigenhaft, 2008)) and through exploratory and factor analysis, they deduced that these could be segregated into four dimensions, each reflecting similar styles and complexities in music styles. The authors suggested that individuals who shared similar personality traits would share a preference for these dimensions. These dimensions were labelled as follows: Reflective and Complex (preference for classical music, jazz, folk, blues), Intense and Rebellious (heavy metal, rock, and punk), Upbeat and Conventional (pop music, country, soundtracks) and Energetic and Rhythmic (dance, electronic, rap, soul, funk and hip-hop). Subsequent research which has explored music preferences and personality typology has demonstrated mixed results (Dunn et al., 2012), which were tempered by international differences (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2009) and cultural differences in relation to the attributes of the four music dimensions (Delsing et al., 2008). Others used a more nuanced approach to personality measurement (Zweigenhaft, 2008), while inconsistent correlations have been found to exist between personality traits and genres (Dunn et al., 2012; Zweigenhaft, 2008).

Music and Identity

Although it is clear that music preferences are implicit in the development of identity, no study has quantifiably measured identity and its relationship to music preferences per se. The construct of identity used within the study reported here is drawn from the work of Erikson (1950, 1968) who suggested that one of the primary tasks for adolescents is to attain the fundamental goal of a coherent sense of identity and self-definition, making a commitment to that identity after having explored the alternatives (Archer, 1999; Tesch and Cameron, 1987; Schwartz, 2006). Identity construction does not cease at adolescence but remains a lifelong process of evolution whereby it changes in response to psychosocial challenges that occur throughout the lifespan (Archer, 1999; Hart, Maloney and Damon, 1987). Erikson believed that adolescents who achieved an identity after exploring the alternatives and (re)committed themselves to their own values, beliefs and choices, were well positioned to cope with the developmental psychosocial crises that often arise in adolescence and beyond. By contrast, those without a definitive identity, who had neither explored nor committed themselves to any particular values, experienced ‘role confusion’ and were more likely to be involved in drug taking and delinquent behaviour. Although Erikson did not provide any guidance or empirical instruction on the operationalization of his theoretical findings, Marcia’s (1966) elaboration of Erikson’s theories on ego-identity development within the life-cycle remains a constant and popular model of operationalization.

Operationalization of Erikson’s Theories

Marcia’s (1966) identity status model is designed to measure empirically the levels of Commitment and Exploration, two dimensions central to Erikson’s theories. Commitment involves locating oneself within a definitive value or belief framework and adhering rigidly to the accepted norms within that framework. It may or may not involve exploring alternative, alien viewpoints. Exploration involves the individual (re)examining their own sets of choices, values, goals and beliefs and perhaps considering the alternatives. Marcia’s model bifurcates each identity dimension, with high or low scores in each, thereby creating four identity statuses. Individuals are classified in one of these statuses according to their levels of commitment and exploration within vocational, ideological and relationship roles and domains such as religious views, political views, opinions on gender roles, relationship roles, sex roles and identity (Côté and Levine, 2002; Kroger et al., 2009; Kroger and Green, 1996). These statuses are defined as: Achievement (Commitment following a period of Exploration); Moratorium (Commitment is absent or weak but there is an on-going process of Exploration); Foreclosure (Commitment is present but no process of Exploration is either on-going or likely to happen in the future); Diffusion (both Exploration and Commitment are absent). However, this operationalization model of Erikson’s theories is not widely accepted as accurate and has come under some serious scrutiny and criticism. (For extensive reviews see Archer, 1999; Berzonsky and Adams, 1999; Bosma and Kunnen, 2001; Côté and Levine, 1987, 2002; Kroger, 2000; Kroger et al., 2009; Meeus, Iedema and Maassen, 2002; van Hoof, 1999; Waterman, 1982, 1999). There is no space here to provide an extensive exploration of the various arguments concerning migration from one status to another or whether any such movement is progressive or regressive; nor is there room to explore the factors that trigger a shift in identity status, the timing of changes and how social contexts influence transition (for further discussion of these issues, see Klimstra et al., 2010; Meeus, 1996; Waterman, 1999, van Hoof, 1999). However, one of the primary concerns of this study is to explore the effect that the two identity dimensions of Commitment and Exploration underpinning Erikson’s work on identity have on music preference ratings. Marcia’s model (1966) utilizes a simultaneous cross tabulation of both Commitment and Exploration to calculate individual status. It was for this reason that the Ego Identity Process Questionnaire (EIPQ) (Balistreri, Buschnagel and Geisinger, 1995) was used in this study in order to provide separate Commitment and Exploration scores rather than an amalgamation of the two. The EIPQ model allows each individual dimension to be statistically measured, analysed and interpreted (Anthis and LaVoie, 2006; Balistreri, Buschnagel and Geisinger, 1995).

Research Questions

One of the primary aims of this study was to replicate and examine recent empirical research (Rentfrow and Gosling, 2003; Zweigenhaft, 2008) using subjects covering a broader age range. In addition, through standard multiple regression analysis, we tested the hypothesis that the identity dimensions of Commitment and Exploration are stronger than personality traits as predictors of music preferences. It was of interest to see the impact of identity dimensions on preferences and whether preference for one music dimension was significantly associated with a particular dimension. For example, we hypothesized that Exploration would be positively correlated to Openness and that both Exploration and Openness would be positively correlated with the Reflective and Complex dimension but negatively correlated with the Upbeat and Conventional dimension. We also hypothesized that Commitment would be positively correlated but Exploration negatively correlated to both the Upbeat and Conventional and the Intense and Rebellious dimensions. In addition, age would be positively correlated with ratings for Reflective and Complex but negatively correlated with the Intense and Rebellious, Upbeat and Energetic and Rhythmic dimensions.

Methodology

Participants

An e-mail advert was sent to all undergraduate and postgraduate students at Lancaster University, inviting them to take part in an online study exploring the relationship between music preferences and individual differences. The advert was also placed on the social media network site Facebook and in the University’s staff newsletter. Through random and snowball sampling, an initial total of 898 participants was recruited. In view of the size of this cohort, only participants who fully completed their survey were included for data analysis and interpretation (n = 763), an uptake of 85 per cent. The sample included 489 females (64.1 per cent) and 274 (35.9 per cent) males. Age ranged from 17 to 66 years (X = 23.9; SD = 8.97). The number of participants aged 24 years or younger was 578 (75.8 per cent); those aged 25 years and over totalled 185 (24.2 per cent). Racial breakdown was as follows: Black 12 (1.6 per cent), Other 92 (12.1 per cent) and White 659 (86.4 per cent).

Measurements of Personality

Personality traits including Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness were measured using the 44-item BFI (John and Srivastava, 1999). The BFI is a questionnaire consisting of short statements based upon the Big Five. Participants are asked to rate their levels of agreement to statements on a Likert type scale, ranging from (1) Strongly Agree to (5) Strongly Disagree. Reliability for the BFI is measured at .83. Confirmatory Factor Analysis has demonstrated high standardized coefficient validity for the BFI α = .92 (John and Srivastava, 1999). For this study the Cronbach reliability scores for each of the five personality traits were as follows: Extraversion α = .876, Agreeableness α = .792, Conscientiousness α = .834, Neuroticism α = .842 and Openness α = .809.

Identity Dimension Measurement

Identity status measurement was calculated using the EIPQ (Balistreri, Buschnagel and Geisinger, 1995). The EIPQ is a 32-item questionnaire based on Marcia’s (1966) model in which participants are asked to rate their agreement on a Likert type scale against four ideological domains (political views, occupation, religion and values) and four interpersonal domains (friendship, dating, gender and recreation). This tool was selected because it provided separate Exploration and Commitment scores rather than an amalgamation of the two. The EIPQ is divided in half, with 16 it...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Examples
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• PART I ASPIRATION AND IDENTITY
• PART II ATTITUDES TO TEACHING AND LEARNING
• PART III MODES OF ASSESSMENT
• Index