distinguishing between the meanings of

8/18/2019 Distinguishing Between the Meanings of.

1/27

Journal of Marketing Research

Vol. XLII (August 2005), 1–1

*Rui Zhu is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Sauder School of Busi-ness, University of British Columbia (e-mail: [email protected]).Joan Meyers-Levy is Professor of Marketing, Carlson School of Manage-ment, University of Minnesota (e-mail: [email protected]).Some of the work for this article was conducted when the first author wasat the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, and sub-sequently at the Jones School of Management, Rice University. Thisresearch was supported in part by a grant to the second author from theCarlson School of Management McKnight Foundation. The authors thank the two anonymous JMR reviewers for their helpful comments.

RUI ZHU and JOAN MEYERS-LEVY*

Music theory distinguishes between two types of meanings that musiccan impart: (1) embodied meaning, which is purely hedonic, contextindependent, and based on the degree of stimulation the musical sound

affords, and (2) referential meaning, which is context dependent andreflects networks of semantic-laden, external world concepts. Two stud-ies investigate which (if either) of these background music meaningsinfluence perceptions of an advertised product and when. Findings sug-gest that people who engage in nonintensive processing are insensitiveto either type of meaning. However, more intensive processors base theirperceptions on the music’s referential meaning when ad message pro-cessing requires few resources, but they use the music’s embodied

meaning when such processing is relatively resource demanding.

Distinguishing Between the Meanings ofMusic:When Background Music AffectsProduct Perceptions

Leading irregularities due toequations, stacks, etc., will be

dealt with in page layout.


2/27

2 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2005

Imagine listening to a radio advertisement for a travelagency. Would your perception of the agency’s ability toprovide dependable, hassle-free service differ if the mutedmusic in the background of the advertisement were sedaterather than energetic? Relevant to this issue, extant researchsuggests that background music can communicate particu-lar meanings or associations. One body of work indicatesthat music can affect the favorableness of people’s feelingsand moods (e.g., Alpert and Alpert 1990). We refer to thesheer favorableness of the feelings evoked by music’ssounds as its “embodied meaning.” Other research points tothe semantic meanings that music can bring to mind (Boltz2001; Hung 2001). We call this music’s “referential mean-ing.” In this article, we (1) elucidate the make-up of thesetwo types of music-imparted meaning and (2) distinguishbetween them. More important, we develop theory andinvestigate when each of these potentially coexisting formsof musical meaning is likely to shape people’s perceptionsof focal product content discussed in a music-accompaniedad message.

In accordance with Meyer (1994), a top scholar of thepsychology of music, we adopt a holistic versus an elemen-tal approach to studying music. Specifically, we examinetwo relativistic collative aspects of music that vary its stim-ulation potential (i.e., its embodied meaning): the degree of energy (Experiment 1) and the degree of novelty (Experi-ment 2) afforded by the musical sound. We begin by eluci-dating the two types of meaning that music is believed toconfer.

THE MEANINGS OF MUSIC

One theory contends that music’s embodied meaning canarise from the patterns or relationships between patternsembodied within a given work of music (Farnsworth 1969;Meyer 1994). Embodied meaning refers to the hedonicvalue or positive feelings that may emerge simply from the

sounds within the music (Radocy and Boyle 1997). As such,it is independent of the context in which the music occursand any semantic content that the music may evoke.

What produces this embodied meaning? In general,greater positive hedonic value emerges when a moderateversus a high or a low level of stimulation is prompted by astimulus such as musical sound (see North and Hargreaves1997).1 Such stimulation can emerge as a result of any of several collative or structural properties of music (e.g.,Dowling and Harwood 1986; Hargreaves 1984). One prop-erty is the energy afforded by the musical sounds (Radocyand Boyle 1997). More energetic music has a faster tempo,more abbreviated percussive sounds, and a more repetitiverhythm, whereas the opposite of each of these qualities

defines sedate music (Gaston 1968). Indeed, research veri-fies that moderately energetic music heightens stimulationand thus positive hedonic value (Stout and Leckenby 1988).A second such collative property of music is the degree of novelty the musical sound manifests (Gaston 1968). A songperformed in a style that deviates moderately from the normheightens stimulation and thus positive hedonic value (Har-greaves and Casetell 1987; Simonton 2001).

A second theory focuses on music’s referential meaning(Meyer 1994; Radocy and Boyle 1997). Referential mean-ing is independent of music’s embodied meaning but islikely to coexist with it (Farnsworth 1969). Unlike embod-


3/27

Background Music and Product Perceptions 3

ied meaning, it is context dependent, obtaining meaningfrom the network of descriptive associations that a stimulus(e.g., music) may bring to mind (McMullen 1982; Meyer1960). Indeed, a particular musical execution’s similarity orproximal relationship to external concepts, events, or char-acters can reference related semantic associations (Davies2001; Meyer 1960). For example, in general, energeticmusic evokes thoughts related to excited frivolity, whereassedate music brings to mind thoughts about calm, contem-plative activity (Gabrielsson and Lundstrom 2001). Figure 1summarizes these definitions of music meaning and othercritical ad components.

To reflect on the preceding notions, if music serves as amuted backdrop for verbal product claims in, for example, atravel agency advertisement, the music’s referential associa-tions might be ascribed to the product. Thus, if ad recipientswere asked to assess the travel agency’s provision of thoughtful, dependable service, they might perceive it asgreater if the background music is sedate, which referencescalm contemplation, than if it is energetic, which referencesthoughts about excited frivolity. Unlike the referentialmeaning of energetic music, sedate music overlaps semanti-cally with the notion of thoughtful, dependable service(MacInnis and Park 1991). Note that this holds even thoughboth referential meanings are quite favorable, both in anabsolute sense and as they could be related to the product.

The proposition that music can possess coexisting refer-ential and embodied meanings invites a critical question:Which, if either, meaning are ad recipients likely to usewhen forming their perceptions of a product in a music-accompanied advertisement? Insight into this question canbe derived by considering the level of resources required byvarious ad elements.

First, consider the two background music meanings.Much research suggests that discerning and applyingmusic’s embodied versus referential meaning demands

fewer resources (Pham et al. 2001; Stapel, Koomen, andRuys 2002). Whereas using embodied meaning to form per-ceptions requires simply identifying the meaning’s diffusehedonic value and then transferring it to an evaluative con-tinuum (i.e., scale), using referential meaning requires acti-vating more extensive and distal associative networks inmemory, charting and assessing the semantic overlapbetween the referential meaning and the queried perceptiondimension, and then mapping this perceived overlap onto anevaluative continuum.

A second consideration is the level of resources requiredto process the advertisement’s focal verbal message. Thisshould be especially critical for intensive ad processors,who assign more credence to seemingly diagnostic central

message content (Aaker and Maheswaran 1997; see alsoFigure 1). Indeed, reflecting on this notion and on our pre-vious discussion leads to a prediction about which meaninginforms product perceptions. If a verbal ad messagerequires few resources to process it (because it is presentedin a direct lecture format), intensive ad processors are likelyto possess ample resources to process not only the verbalmessage but also the background music’s more taxing refer-ential meaning. However, if the ad message itself is highlyresource demanding because of its recitation in an episodicdrama format (Wells 1989), intensive processors may expe-


4/27

rience resource constraints, causing them to use the music’smore readily accessible embodied meaning.

To anticipate the outcomes of nonintensive ad processors,a third factor may be important: the threshold level of resources required to discern and use even the less-resource-demanding embodied meaning of the backgroundad music. This threshold level may not be negligible, partic-ularly if the background music is muted and thus of lowsalience; if it is presented concurrently with seeminglymore germane and salient verbal material; and if exposureoccurs only one time, thus limiting processing opportunity.

These observations suggest that rather than basing prod-uct perceptions on the muted background music’s embodiedmeaning, which only modestly reduces resource demands,nonintensive ad processors may be insensitive to eithermeaning imparted by the low-salience music. Instead, theymay base their product perceptions on peripheral cues asso-ciated with the verbal ad data because such data are moresalient, accessible, and seemingly more diagnostic than themusic. More specifically, nonintensive ad processors maybase their perceptions on inferences from superficial, exe-cutional aspects of the salient message, such as the expres-siveness or clarity of the speaker’s voice, the perceived pro-fessionalism of the ad execution, and so on. We conductedtwo studies that examine whether and when people’s prod-uct perceptions are influenced by either the referential orthe embodied meaning of background ad music. Experi-ment 1 explores this issue using music that varies in energylevel.

EXPERIMENT 1: OVERVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Experiment 1 used a target radio advertisement for atravel agency and measured the intensity of recipients’ pro-cessing using a need-for-cognition (NFC) scale. The verbalad message varied in format, thus altering the level of resources required to process it. It was delivered in either a

lecture or a drama format; the former demanded fewerresources (Wells 1989).One of two executions of the same unfamiliar melody

was embedded in the ad background at a low volume. Oneexecution was performed in a moderately stimulating, ener-getic manner, whereas the other was performed in a moresedate fashion. We used these two executions because eachshould relay embodied and referential meanings with oppo-site valenced implications in relation to a critical dependentmeasure. This measure assessed product perceptions andwas selected strategically so that it possessed greatersemantic overlap with the referential meaning of the sedatemusic execution (i.e., calm and contemplative versusexcited frivolity), but the greater overlap of the sedate exe-

cution possessed a less favorable embodied meaning thandid the other more energetic execution. This opposition wasessential because it enabled us to discern which of the alter-native music execution’s two meanings recipients used andwhen.

On the basis of our theorizing, we anticipated a three-way interaction among NFC, ad message format, and adbackground music on the critical perception measure thatassessed the dependable, hassle-free offer from the travelagency. When the ad message was delivered in a low-resource-demanding lecture format, we expected intensiveprocessors to base their perceptions of dependable, hassle-



5/27


free service on the background music’s fairly taxing refer-ential meaning. Because the sedate music’s referentialmeaning (i.e., calm, contemplative activity) possessedgreater semantic overlap with the notion of dependable,hassle-free service than did the energetic music’s referentialmeaning (i.e., excited frivolity), we expected that high-NFCpeople would perceive the agency’s service on this dimen-sion as greater when the ad background featured the sedaterather than the energetic music. Conversely, high-NFCpeople who received the high-resource-demanding dramaformat should base their service perceptions on the music’ssimpler, embodied meaning. Thus, the more favorableembodied meaning of the energetic versus sedate musicshould transfer to perceptions of the travel agency’sdependable, hassle-free service.

H1: When the ad message is delivered in a lecture format, high-NFC people perceive that the travel agency provides moredependable, hassle-free service when the background musicis sedate than when it is energetic. When the ad message isdelivered in a drama format, high-NFC people perceivesuch service to be greater when the background music isenergetic than when it is sedate.

We reasoned that low-NFC people would be insensitiveto the low-salience background music because its intensitymay fall below such people’s processing threshold. How-ever, if low-NFC people discern and base their perceptionson the music’s embodied meaning, their perceptions of thetravel agency’s dependable, hassle-free service should begreater when the ad background features the moderatelystimulating and hedonically more favorable energetic musicthan when it features the sedate music. Nonetheless, wepropose that low-NFC people base their perceptions onperipheral, executional features associated with the moresalient ad message; this is a view that fits with data showingthat, in general, low-NFC people base their assessments onrelatively salient peripheral cues (e.g., Haugtvedt and Petty

1992). Evidence in support of our thesis will occur if low-rather than high-NFC people produce more thoughts aboutthe executional characteristics of the verbal message. Wereview and summarize the theoretical logic underlying allof our perception predictions in Figure 2.

H2: Low-NFC people base their perceptions of the travelagency’s service on peripheral, executional aspects of thead message; thus, there are no treatment effects on theirperceptions of the travel agency’s dependable, hassle-freeservice. Rather, low-NFC people report more thoughtsabout peripheral, executional aspects of the ad messagethan do high-NFC people.

We examined ad recipients’ thoughts and recall for evi-

dence of the role played by the music’s referential andembodied meanings. We anticipated a three-way interactionamong NFC, ad message format, and background music onrecipients’ thoughts and statements reported in their recall(hereinafter called “recall remarks”) that reflected each of the referential concepts implied by the alternative back-ground music executions (e.g., calm contemplation forsedate music and excited frivolity for energetic music). Asmall and uniform number of such responses should be pro-duced both when people’s NFC is low and when it is high,but the drama ad message places heavy demands onresources. However, treatment effects should be evident


6/27

among high-NFC people who receive the low-resource-demanding lecture format. In this condition alone, ad recip-ients should discern the background music’s referentialmeaning and produce more thought and recall remarks thatare related to it. Thus:

H3: When the ad message is delivered in a lecture format, high-NFC people produce more thoughts and recall remarks thatpertain to (a) calm, contemplative activity when the adver-tisement features sedate music than when it features ener-getic music and (b) excited, frivolous activity when theadvertisement features energetic music than when it fea-tures sedate music. However, no treatment effects emerge(a) when people’s NFC is low and (b) when it is high andthe ad message is in a drama format.

To capture people’s sensitivity to the music’s simpler,purely hedonic embodied meaning, we assessed net positivethoughts about the ad music. If, as we anticipated, intensivead processors base their product perceptions on the music’sembodied meaning only when the advertisement appears ina more-resource-demanding drama format, when theyreceive the drama format, such people should generate morenet positive thoughts about the ad music when the back-

ground music is energetic than when it is sedate. Thus, weanticipate the following three-way interaction:

H4: When the advertisement is delivered in a drama format,high-NFC people produce more net positive thoughts aboutthe background music when the advertisement is accompa-nied by energetic music than when it is accompanied bysedate music because the former should impart a morefavorable embodied meaning. However, treatment effectsare absent (a) when people’s NFC is low and (b) when it ishigh and the ad message is delivered in a lecture format.

Experiment 1

Stimuli. We developed two filler radio advertisements anda target advertisement for a travel agency. We recorded all

the advertisements professionally in a recording studio, andwe used professional talent.

We created two versions of the target advertisement’sverbal message. Although each version relayed the sameinformation using nearly identically worded statements,they differed in the resources needed to process the infor-mation. Extant research indicates that processing messagesdelivered in an episodic, storylike drama format rather thana straightforward lecture format is more resource demand-ing (Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 1997; Wells 1989). Thus,one version of the travel agency advertisement relayed themessage in a lecture format in which a single announcerdelivered a monologue about the product. The second ver-sion relayed the same information in a drama format inwhich people conversed about the product.

To verify whether the drama message format was moredemanding to process than the lecture message format, 21people listened to either the lecture or the drama version of the travel agency advertisement without any music. Respon-dents rated three items (from 1 = “not at all” to 7 =“extremely”) on both their ad involvement (i.e., involved,processed carefully, and motivated; ∝ = .82) and howresource demanding the ad processing was (i.e., difficult tounderstand, expended a lot of effort to comprehend, andhard to grasp; ∝ = .86). Ad involvement was comparable



7/27


across format conditions (mean = 5.12 and 5.57; p > .30),but the drama format was perceived to be more resourcedemanding (mean = 1.70) than was the lecture format(mean = 1.20; F(1, 19) = 5.11, p < .05).

We used two versions of an instrumental title song from alittle-known 1977 movie in the target ad background; weplayed songs at a constant low volume. In accordance withthe definitions we provided previously, one execution wasperformed in a moderately energetic way and the other in asedate way. To assess the two music executions’ embodiedand referential meanings, 48 pretest participants listened toand assessed either the energetic or the sedate version of thesong. As we expected, their familiarity with the two songversions was relatively low (mean = 2.08 and 1.64 on aseven-point scale anchored by “not at all familiar/veryfamiliar”) and equivalent ( p > .25). Furthermore, the purelyhedonic embodied meaning of the more stimulating, ener-getic version elicited more positive feelings (i.e., moreupbeat, cheerful, happy, and likable; ∝ = .83; mean = 5.07)than did the sedate version (mean = 3.07; F(1, 46) = 46.52, p < .001). The two song versions also conveyed the antici-pated referential meanings. Respondents perceived theenergetic rendition to be more excited, energized, and frivo-lous (∝ = .77; mean = 3.54 and 2.42; F(1, 46) = 13.60, p <.001), but they perceived the sedate rendition to be morecalm, thoughtful, and reflective (∝ = .82; mean = 5.09 and3.73; F(1, 46) = 18.39, p < .001).

A final pretest ensured that the two ad music executionswere equally compatible with the message. After listeningto one of the two versions of the advertisement accompa-nied by either the energetic or the sedate background music,47 participants assessed the compatibility, general fit, andappropriateness of the background music and message (on ascale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 7 = “extremely”). Inall four conditions, the average of these items was equal andmoderate (overall mean = 4.12; F < 1).

Procedure. For extra course credit, 77 students partici-pated in the study in small groups. They were told that theywould hear several radio advertisements and that theirthoughts and perceptions would be measured. Respondentslistened to the target travel agency advertisement and twofiller advertisements. Then, they completed both the percep-tion and the thought-listing measures for the target adver-tisement; half the respondents completed the perceptionmeasure before the thought measure, and the other half completed the thought measure before the perception meas-ure. After completing some filler questions, we assessed tar-get ad recall and measured NFC.

Dependent measures. We assessed perceptions of thetravel agency’s dependable, hassle-free service with ratings

of the travel agency’s provision of seamless travel plans andstress-free customer service (1 = “extremely unlikely” and7 = “extremely likely”). We averaged these items to form anindex that corresponded to the referential meaning of thesedate music (∝ = .77). We also obtained respondents’thoughts about the target product, advertisement, ad claims,and music. Then, after some filler questions, we examinedtarget ad recall. Finally, we assessed respondents’ chronicintensive-processing proclivities with an 18-item NFC scale(Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao 1984).


8/27

Results

We summed responses to the NFC scale items and classi-fied participants as high or low in NFC using a median split.There were no main or interaction effects for the order inwhich participants completed the perception and thought-listing tasks. Thus, we collapsed all data across that factorand analyzed them by means of an analysis of variance as a2 (NFC: high or low) × 2 (ad message format: lecture or

drama)×

2 (background music: energetic or sedate)between-subjects factorial design. All effects appear inTable 1, and treatment means appear in Table 2; degrees of freedom for particular treatment effects were 1 and 69.

Product perceptions. Respondents’ perceptions of thetravel agency’s dependable, hassle-free service revealed theanticipated three-way interaction among NFC, ad messageformat, and background music (F = 7.42, p < .01). As Fig-ure 3 illustrates, low-NFC participants were insensitive toeither meaning implied by the ad background music,regardless of message format (F < 1). However, high-NFCparticipants who received the advertisement in the less-resource-demanding lecture format perceived the travelagency’s dependable, hassle-free service as greater when

the background music was sedate, thus conveying a moreperception-compatible referential meaning, than when itwas energetic (F = 7.01, p < .01). However, when the adver-tisement was delivered in the more-resource-demandingdrama format, participants perceived such service as greaterwhen the background music was energetic, thus implying ahedonically more favorable embodied meaning, than whenit was sedate (F = 4.16, p < .05).

Classification of open-ended responses. We classifiedrespondents’ thoughts and recall into several categories(∝ ranged from .76 to .82). The first two categories cap-tured the number of thought and recall remarks that refer-enced the concept of calm, contemplative activity impartedby the referential meaning of the sedate background music

(e.g., “They seemed very controlled, sensible, and peace-ful”) and the number that referenced the excited, frivolousactivity imparted by the referential meaning of the energeticmusic (e.g., “so fast they would provide little service”). Inaddition, we classified thoughts into background musicvalence and peripheral cue categories (∝ = .93 and .79,respectively). The thought valence measure enabled theassessment of net positive thoughts about the backgroundmusic (i.e., number of positive minus negative thoughts;e.g., “I really liked the background music”) and was used totap respondents’ sensitivity to the music’s purely hedonicembodied meaning. Respondents’ quantity of thoughtsabout peripheral, execution-related aspects of the verbal admessage (e.g., “The voices were clear and easy to under-

stand”) should shed light on the degree to which low- andhigh-NFC people think about and use these message-relatedaspects to form their product perceptions.

Referential meaning indicators. Were intensive adprocessors sensitive to the referential meaning of the back-ground music when the message required relatively fewresources to process it? A three-way interaction amongNFC, ad message format, and background music emergedon both respondents’ thoughts (F = 4.19, p < .05) and recallremarks (F = 4.63, p < .05) about the sedate backgroundmusic’s referential meaning. Neither low- nor high-NFCparticipants (F < 1) who received the ad message in the



9/27


more-resource-demanding drama format ( p > .39) displayedeffects on either measure. However, when high-NFC partic-ipants received the travel agency ad message in a lectureformat that minimized resource demands, they generatedmore thoughts (F = 8.54, p < .01) and recall remarks (F =8.68, p < .01) that reflected a referential meaning of calm,contemplative activity when the background music wassedate rather than energetic.

A three-way interaction among NFC, ad message format,and background music also emerged on respondents’ recallremarks (F = 5.12, p < .05) (but not on their thoughts: p >.24) that tapped the energetic music’s referential meaning.Nonetheless, planned contrasts supported our hypotheses onboth measures. No treatment effects emerged on eithermeasure when respondents’ NFC was low (F < 1) or when itwas high and the ad message was presented in the more-resource-demanding drama format ( p > .79). However,high-NFC respondents who heard the ad message in theless-resource-demanding lecture format generated morethoughts (F = 12.73, p < .001) and recall remarks (F =16.05, p < .001) that reflected a referential meaning of excited frivolity when the advertisement featured the ener-getic rather than the sedate background music.

Embodied meaning and peripheral cue indicators.Respondents’ net positive thoughts about the backgroundmusic, which we expected to capture sensitivity to themusic’s embodied meaning, revealed no treatment effects( p > .14). Such null effects may have occurred simplybecause respondents generated a paucity of thoughts aboutthe ad music as a result of its unfamiliar tune and low vol-ume. Nevertheless, respondents’ thoughts about the periph-eral, executional characteristics of the verbal message,which we expected to reflect their sensitivity to and use of peripheral cues associated with the verbal message,revealed the anticipated NFC main effect (F = 11.02, p <.001). That more of such thoughts were generated by low-

(M = 2.17) than high- (M = 1.22) NFC respondents sup-ports the view that low-NFC people may base product per-ceptions on these peripheral, executional features of the ver-bal message.

Discussion

The results of Experiment 1 support the notion that adbackground music communicates two types of meaning:embodied and referential. Which, if either, meaning peopleuse when forming their perceptions seems to depend on twofactors: the intensity of ad recipients’ processing and theresource demands of the ad message. If such demands arehigh, this can usurp resources otherwise used to discern themusic’s more taxing referential (versus embodied) meaning.

Our data indicate that when respondents used non-intensive processing, they were insensitive to either mean-ing implied by the advertisement’s muted backgroundmusic, presumably because available resources were belowthe threshold level required to discern even the music’s less-resource-demanding embodied meaning. In such cases,respondents appeared to use peripheral, executional aspectsof the more salient verbal message to form theirperceptions.

However, ad recipients exhibited sensitivity to alternativemeanings of the background music when they engaged inmore-resource-intensive ad processing. Intensive processors


10/27

discerned and used the ad background music’s referentialmeaning to form their product perceptions when the focalmessage was presented in a lecture format that required rel-atively few resources to process. Conversely, they used themusic’s simpler, purely hedonic embodied meaning whenthe message was presented in a drama format that imposedgreater resource demands.

Still, certain limitations exist. One is the null effect on netpositive music thoughts, which failed to support the notionthat people use the music’s embodied meaning. This findingmay stem from ad recipients’ limited thoughts about themuted and unfamiliar background music. Another limitationis the absence of a no-music control condition, which mightenhance the rigor of our theory test.

In a second study, we addressed these issues and alteredseveral factors. Specifically, we used a known song in thead background, we added no-music control conditions, andwe manipulated (rather than measured) processing intensity.Moreover, to manipulate the embodied meaning of music,we used a different collative property of music that has beenshown to affect stimulation potential. The backgroundmusic in the target advertisement was performed in either afamiliar (i.e., nonnovel) or a moderately novel style(Radocy and Boyle 1997), and we assessed perceptions of the advertised product, a bookstore, on two measures thattapped both background music versions’ referential mean-ings. The use of a second, ancillary perception measure wasvaluable because, as we explain subsequently, it shouldreveal different treatment effects.

EXPERIMENT 2: OVERVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

We developed a target advertisement for a bookstore. Itfeatured a song of strong classical heritage in the back-ground. This song was performed either in a relatively non-novel, classical style or in the moderately novel genre of soul music. Because a moderate level of novelty produces a

higher level of stimulation than does a low level of novelty,the soulful version of the music should possess a morefavorable embodied meaning than the nonnovel, classicalversion (Simonton 1987).

In addition, Cook (1998), a musicologist, offers insightinto the referential meanings that are likely to be conferredby the two ad music renditions. In line with his analysis of ayouth-targeted advertisement that parallels ours, Cook sug-gests that classical music should reference associations witha concerned and benevolent paternalistic figure (e.g., awell-meaning father), whereas the more contemporary andnovel soulful music should reference youths’ quintessentialyearning to differentiate by adopting a unique but genuineidentity. Because alternative styles of music served as a

backdrop for our advertisement, these referential meaningsmight be ascribed to the bookstore. Specifically, whenintensive processors receive verbal ad copy delivered in aless taxing lecture format, their perceptions of the bookstoreshould reflect the semantic overlap between the music’s ref-erential meaning and the queried bookstore dimension.Thus, if people must assess whether the bookstore has acaring atmosphere, the atmosphere should be perceived asmore caring if the ad music style is classical and relays areferential meaning of high overlap with the notion of a car-ing atmosphere (i.e., benevolent paternalism) than if it issoulful and relays a low-overlap meaning (i.e., genuine



11/27


uniqueness) or, alternatively, if no background music ispresent. However, if such people are asked to assess theoriginality of the bookstore’s decor, they should perceive itas more original if the background music is soulful in styleand relays a referential meaning of high semantic overlapwith this dimension (i.e., genuine uniqueness) than if themusic is classical and relays a low-overlap meaning (i.e.,benevolent paternalism) or if no background music ispresent.

After participants listened to the target and filler adver-tisements, we assessed their perceptions of the target book-store on the two preceding dimensions that reflected themusic versions’ referential meanings. Again, views of thebookstore’s caring atmosphere should tap associations withthe classical music’s referential meaning of benevolentpaternalism, whereas the secondary measure, the originalityof the bookstore decor, should tap the relatively novel soul-ful music’s referential meaning of genuine uniqueness.

On the basis of our theorizing, we anticipated a three-way interaction among processing intensity, ad messageformat, and background music on respondents’ perceptionsof the bookstore’s caring atmosphere. Similar to Experi-ment 1, we expected nonintensive processors to be insensi-tive to either meaning of the muted background music andto display null effects. Conversely, intensive ad processors’perceptions should be sensitive to one of the two meaningsof the ad music. They should base their perceptions of thebookstore’s caring atmosphere on the music’s referentialmeaning when the less-resource-demanding lecture formatwas presented, but they should base their perceptions on thebackground music’s purely hedonic embodied meaningwhen the ad message is delivered in a more-resource-demanding drama format. Thus:

H5: When the ad message is presented in a lecture format,intensive ad processors perceive the bookstore atmosphereas more caring when the background music is played in a

classical style than when it is played in a soulful style orwhen no background music is present. However, when thead message appears in a drama format, such processors per-ceive the atmosphere as more caring when the backgroundmusic features more stimulating and thus more hedonicallyfavorable (i.e., moderately novel) soulful music than whenit features either classical music or no music. There are notreatment effects on nonintensive processors’ perceptions.

The secondary measure, respondents’ perceptions of theoriginality of the bookstore’s decor, should reveal quite dif-ferent outcomes. Here, we expect only a two-way interac-tion between processing intensity and ad backgroundmusic. As we explain subsequently, this follows because acommon pattern of outcomes should emerge regardless of

whether intensive processors base their perceptions on thebackground music’s referential or embodied meaning.

Specifically, unlike the classical music’s referentialmeaning of benevolent paternalism, the relatively novelsoulful music’s referential meaning of genuine uniquenessshould exhibit high semantic overlap with the notion of decor originality. Similarly, compared with the nonnovelclassical music, the relatively novel soulful music’s stimula-tion level and thus hedonic embodied meaning should alsobe more favorable and prompt more favorable perceptionsof the originality of the decor. Thus, regardless of whetherintensive processors base their product perceptions on the


12/27

music’s referential meaning (i.e., the lecture format condi-tion) or on its embodied meaning (i.e., the drama formatcondition), they should perceive the bookstore’s decor asmore original when the ad background features the novelsoulful music than when it features either the classicalmusic or no background music. In contrast, nonintensiveprocessors’ product perceptions should be insensitive tovariations in the muted background music. Thus:

H6: Regardless of the ad message format, intensive processors’perceptions of the originality of the bookstore’s decor arew-greater when the ad background features the soulful musicthan when it features either the classical music or no back-ground music. However, nonintensive processors’ percep-tions should be insensitive to the background music.

As evidence of the process that underlies the precedingeffects, we expected three-way interactions among process-ing intensity, ad format, and background music on respon-dents’ thought and recall remarks that reflect each of thereferential meanings imparted by the classical (i.e., benevo-lent paternalism) and the soulful (i.e., genuine uniqueness)background music versions. Nonintensive processorsshould be insensitive to the referential meanings of the

background music, displaying an equal and relatively smallnumber of such responses across treatments. However,intensive processors should be sensitive to the referentialmeanings of each background music execution and thusproduce more responses for these meanings, provided thattwo conditions are met: (1) the ad message is delivered in aless-resource-demanding lecture format rather than thedrama format and (2) the background music imparts a refer-ential meaning that overlaps semantically with the particu-lar concept that the type of response assesses. Thus:

H7: When the ad message is delivered in a lecture format, inten-sive processors produce (a) more thoughts and recallremarks that reflect the referential concept of benevolentpaternalism when the advertisement features classical

music than when it features either soulful or no music and(b) more thoughts and recall remarks that reflect the con-cept of genuine uniqueness when the advertisement con-tains soulful music than when it features either classical orno music. However, these differences are absent (a) whenthe ad message is presented in a drama format and (b) whenrespondents’ processing is nonintensive.

We anticipated the same three-way interaction on netpositive thoughts about the background music; we used thisto tap respondents’ sensitivity to the background music’ssimpler embodied meaning. Because people should usemusic’s embodied meaning only when their processing isintensive and when the ad message is fairly demanding toprocess, treatment differences on net positive thoughtsabout the music should emerge only under such conditions.Thus:

H8: When the advertisement is delivered in a drama format,intensive processors produce more net positive thoughtsabout the music when the background music is performedin a novel soulful way (producing the most favorableembodied meaning) than when it is performed in a non-novel classical way or no music is present. However, suchdifferences are absent (a) when the advertisement is deliv-ered in a lecture format and (b) when processing isnonintensive.



13/27


Finally, given our logic that nonintensive processors basetheir product perceptions on peripheral, execution-relatedaspects of the ad message, we anticipate a main effect of processing intensity on respondents’ thoughts about suchperipheral characteristics of the advertisement. Thus:

H9: Nonintensive processors produce more thoughts aboutperipheral, executional aspects of the ad message than dointensive processors.

Experiment 2

For Experiment 2, we recruited 109 undergraduates. Itwas similar to the previous study with the exception of fourmodifications: (1) We manipulated rather than measured theintensity of processing, (2) the target ad background fea-tured a known song of classical heritage played in either amoderately novel (i.e., soulful) or a nonnovel (i.e., classical)style, (3) we used two product perception measures to tapeach of the music versions’ referential meanings, and (4) weadded no-music control conditions.

Stimuli and manipulations. We manipulated respondents’intensity of processing. In the intensive-processing condi-tion, we told respondents that they were part of a select

group of people whose input about several radio advertise-ments would be used to help determine how the advertisedproducts should be marketed. In the nonintensive-processing condition, we told respondents that they werepart of a large group of people whose views might be con-sidered for this purpose.

We used the same filler advertisements from Experiment1, but we created a new target radio advertisement for abookstore. The ad message discussed many of the book-store’s features, such as its books on topics ranging fromcareers to spirituality, book-reading events, classes, a cap-puccino bar, and a Web site. The message was presented ina lecture and a drama format, both using nearly identicallyworded statements.

As in Experiment 1, a pretest verified that the bookstoread message was more resource demanding to process whenit was relayed in the drama format than when it was relayedin the lecture format, even though the two ad formats wereequally involving. Specifically, 18 respondents reportedcomparable levels of involvement with the drama and lec-ture formats (mean = 5.37 and 5.07; F < 1), but they foundthe drama format to be more effortful to process (mean =3.11 and 1.81; F(1, 16) = 4.35, p < .05).

The background of the target ad versions featured Bach’shymn Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring at a constant low vol-ume, but the executions of this song varied. In one case, thesong was performed in a relatively conventional classicalstyle (i.e., Walter Carlos, Switched-On Bach, Columbia, MS7194, Side 1, No. 6). In the second case, it was performedin a relatively novel soulful style on a single acoustic guitar(i.e., Leo Kottke, 12 String Guitar , Takoma Records, C-1024, Side 2, No. 2). In addition, we created a no-musiccontrol version of the advertisement in each format.

In a pretest, 35 respondents verified that, overall, famili-arity with the background song was greater than it was forthe song we used in Experiment 1 (mean = 3.83 and 1.88;F(1, 81) = 23.86, p < .001), and the classical execution of the song was more familiar than the soulful version (mean =4.96 and 2.48, respectively, on the same seven-point scale


14/27

we used in Experiment 1; F(1, 30) = 12.11, p < .01). Thetwo song renditions also appeared to impart the expectedreferential meanings; respondents perceived the classicalversion as conveying benevolent paternalism (i.e., benign,at ease, and comforting; ∝ = .71; mean = 5.13 and 4.46;F(1, 30) = 4.36, p < .05) and the more novel soulful rendi-tion as conveying genuine uniqueness (i.e., interesting,provocative, and “cool”; ∝ = .73; mean = 3.51 and 2.39;F(1, 30) = 7.60, p < .01). The two music executions alsoimparted the anticipated embodied meanings; the moder-ately novel soulful execution evoked more positive feelingsthan did the conventional classical execution (using Experi-ment 1 measures; mean = 4.14 and 3.48; F(1, 30) = 5.40, p < .05). Finally, a pretest that featured the ad message inone of the two formats and was accompanied by one of thebackground musical executions revealed that the executionswere equally compatible with the message (overall mean =4.27, p > .22).

Dependent measures. We used two product perceptionmeasures. To tap the classical background music’s referen-tial meaning of benevolent paternalism, we examined thebookstore’s caring atmosphere by asking how likely it wasthat the sales staff behaved in a civilized versus pushy man-ner and was friendly. To tap the soulful background music’sreferential meaning of genuine uniqueness, we used anancillary measure to inquire as to what extent the book-store’s decor was original and how likely it was that thedecor was both fresh and offbeat. We assessed perceptionsof these items on a scale ranging from 1 (“extremelyunlikely”) to 7 (“extremely likely”). We averaged the twoitems that examined each type of perception to form sepa-rate indexes for caring atmosphere (∝ = .79) and originaldecor (∝ = .74). We also administered thought-listing andrecall measures.

Results

Because the order in which we administered the percep-tion and thought-listing tasks revealed no significant inter-action or main effects, we collapsed the data across thisvariable and analyzed it by means of an analysis of varianceas a 2 (processing intensity: intensive or nonintensive) × 2(ad message format: lecture or drama) × 3 (backgroundmusic: classical, soulful, or no music) between-subjects fac-torial design. Treatment means appear in Table 3, and alleffects appear in Table 4.

Product perceptions. Perceptions of the bookstore’s car-ing atmosphere revealed the expected interaction amongprocessing intensity, ad message format, and ad backgroundmusic (F(2, 96) = 3.07, p < .05). As Figure 4 shows, non-intensive processors’ perceptions were insensitive to the

background music, regardless of ad message format (F < 1).This was not the case for intensive processors. When inten-sive processors heard the ad message in the less demandinglecture format, they perceived the bookstore’s caring atmos-phere as greater when the ad background featured the clas-sical music (i.e., with a high overlap referential meaning of benevolent paternalism) than when it featured the morenovel soulful music (i.e., with a low-overlap referentialmeaning of genuine uniqueness; F(1, 96) = 4.08, p < .05) orno music (F(1, 96) = 3.82, p < .05). However, when theyreceived the advertisement in a drama format, they per-ceived the atmosphere as more caring when the ad back-



15/27


ground featured the more stimulating and thus more favor-ably regarded soulful music than when it featured the clas-sical music (F(1, 96) = 4.20, p < .05). Perceptions wereequal in the soulful and no-music conditions ( p > .41).

Next, we examined perceptions of the originality of thebookstore’s decor on the ancillary measure. As weexpected, only a two-way interaction between processingintensity and ad background music emerged (F(2, 96) =3.63, p < .05). Intensive processors perceived the book-store’s decor as more original when the ad background fea-tured the soulful music, which possessed both a moresemantically consistent referential meaning (i.e., genuineuniqueness) and a more favorable embodied meaning(mean = 4.16), than when it featured the relatively inconsis-tent and less favorably regarded classical music (mean =3.27; F(1, 96) = 5.71, p < .05) or no music (mean = 3.43;F(1, 96) = 3.69, p < .05). However, nonintensive processorsperceived the bookstore’s decor equally across all condi-tions ( p > .13).

Classification of open-ended responses. We classifiedthoughts and recall remarks according to the number thatreflected the classical background music’s referential mean-ing of benevolent paternalism (e.g., “a relaxing, comfortingatmosphere”) and the number that reflected the moderatelynovel soulful music’s referential meaning of genuineuniqueness (e.g., “like Barnes & Noble but way more cool”;∝ = .70 to .82). In addition, we categorized thoughts intovalence categories that enabled the assessment of partici-pants’ net positive thoughts about the background music(i.e., to capture the music’s embodied meaning) and a cate-gory that captured thoughts about peripheral, executionalaspects of the verbal ad message (∝ = .92 and .93).

Referential meaning indicators. Three-way interactionsamong processing intensity, ad message format, and back-ground music emerged on the number of respondents’thoughts (F(2, 96) = 7.51, p < .001) and recall remarks

(F(2, 96) = 4.59, p < .01) that reflected the classical back-ground music’s referential meaning of benevolent paternal-ism. As we anticipated, both nonintensive processors (F <1) and intensive processors who received the ad message inthe relatively resource-demanding drama format ( p > .25)generated equal quantities of such responses regardless of their treatment condition. However, when intensive proces-sors received the ad message in a lecture format thatimposed few demands, they produced more thoughts andrecall remarks that pertained to the referential meaning of the classical background music when the music was exe-cuted in a classical style than when it was executed in asoulful style (thoughts: F(1, 96) = 30.55, p < .001; recall:F(1, 96) = 24.02, p < .001) or when no music was present

(thoughts: F(1, 96) = 20.04, p < .001; recall: F(1, 96) =20.72, p < .001).Although the anticipated three-way interaction failed to

emerge on both respondents’ thoughts and their recallremarks for the relatively novel soulful music’s referentialmeaning of genuine uniqueness ( p > .17), planned contrastssupported our predictions. Treatment effects neitheremerged nor were expected on either measure for non-intensive processors (F < 1) or for intensive processors whoreceived the ad message in a more-resource-demandingdrama format ( p > .21). However, when intensive proces-sors received the bookstore ad message in a lecture format,


16/27

which imposed few demands on resources, they generatedmore thoughts and recall remarks that reflected a referentialmeaning of genuine uniqueness when the backgroundmusic was performed in a relatively novel soulful style thanwhen it was performed in a classical style (thoughts:F(1, 96) = 22.36, p < .001; recall: F(1, 96) = 16.49, p <.001) or when no music was present (thoughts: F(1, 96) =16.73, p < .001; recall: F(1, 96) = 14.54, p < .001).

Embodied meaning and peripheral cue indicators.Although net positive thoughts about the backgroundmusic, which we used to tap respondents’ sensitivity to themusic’s embodied meaning, failed to reveal any effects ( p >.25), planned contrasts largely supported our predictions.They suggested that when the ad message was presented inthe more-resource-demanding drama format, intensiveprocessors were indeed sensitive to the background music’sembodied meaning. Specifically, intensive processors inthis condition produced more net positive thoughts aboutthe music when the ad background music was performed ina novel soulful style than when it was performed in a non-novel classical style (F(1, 96) = 5.29, p < .05) or when nomusic was present (F(1, 96) = 3.48, p < .10). Treatmenteffects neither emerged nor were expected among non-intensive processors ( ps > .22) or for intensive processorswho received the message in the less demanding lecture for-mat ( ps > .22).

Finally, respondents’ thoughts about peripheral, execu-tional aspects of the ad message revealed only the antici-pated main effect of processing intensity (F(1, 96) = 4.16, p < .05). Nonintensive ad processors produced more suchthoughts (mean = 1.98) than did intensive ad processors(mean = 1.44), suggesting that the former used inferencesassociated with such aspects of the ad message to form theirproduct perceptions.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The findings from both studies support the view that adbackground music can confer either referential or embodiedmeanings Which, if either, meaning people discern and usewhen forming their product perceptions appears to dependon how intensively they process the advertisement and theresource demands imposed by the verbal ad material. Whenthe advertisement is processed nonintensively, recipientsappeared to be insensitive to either meaning imparted by thebackground music. Instead, they seemed to base their per-ceptions on peripheral, executional aspects of the ad mes-sage that presumably were more salient and accessible thanwas the ad music.

Conversely, when recipients processed the advertisementintensively, they appeared to discern and use one of the two

meanings imparted by the music: When the ad message wasdelivered in a lecture format that imposed minimal demandson their resources, these respondents’ product perceptions,cognitions, and recall reflected the background music’s ref-erential meaning, which was rather taxing to discern. How-ever, when the message was delivered in a more-resource-demanding drama format, their responses reflected the useof the background music’s less onerous embodied meaning.Not only did these outcomes occur even though both admessage formats relayed virtually identical information, butthe findings also were reliable across two studies that used



17/27


different products, alternative types of background music,and several different measures.

This research makes several important theoretical contri-butions. First, it appears to explain why people often experi-ence a positive, hedonic feeling about certain forms of music, even if such music is entirely devoid of any associ-ated referential meaning. These hedonic feelings arise fromthe music’s embodied meaning, which reflects the degree of stimulation elicited by patterns inherent to the musicalsound (e.g., its energetic versus sedate properties, moder-ately novel versus conventional style). As previous researchin music and other domains suggests, a nonmonotonic rela-tionship ensues between the amount of stimulation a stimu-lus (e.g., music) engenders and people’s hedonic responseto that stimulus.

Second, this research confirms music theorists’ claim thatmusic can impart both purely hedonic embodied meaningand semantic-laden referential meaning (e.g., Meyer 1960).More important, however, our work suggests a way to dis-entangle which of these meanings people actually use in agiven circumstance. We show that this can be accomplishedby assessing carefully selected perceptions for which thereferential and embodied meanings of alternative musicalselections imply opposing inferences.

Third, this work addresses when and why people’s per-ceptions of products that are promoted in music-infusedadvertisements can be sensitive to either (or neither) of themeanings imparted by the background music. Which, if either, meaning influences people’s perceptions appears todepend on how intensively they process various ad compo-nents (e.g., the advertisement’s central message content, itsbackground music) and the resource demands imposed bythese components. If people expend scant resources pro-cessing an advertisement nonintensively, they are likely tobe insensitive to either meaning imparted by the music.However, when they process the advertisement intensively,

the music’s referential meaning is likely to be discerned andused if the central components of the advertisement requirefew resources to process, thus enabling people to devoteample resources to the music’s fairly onerous referentialmeaning. Conversely, the music’s simpler embodied mean-ing is apt to be discerned and used if the advertisement’scentral components are demanding to process, because thislimits the available resources that might otherwise bedirected to the background music’s referential meaning (forfurther clarification of the process, see Figure 2). Thus, itappears that, similar to verbal information, the types of meaning extracted from music can vary depending on howintensively the data are processed.

Our findings offer valuable and practical insights. They

suggest that before selecting background music for anadvertisement, practitioners should consider both whetherthe targeted consumers are likely to process the advertise-ment intensively and whether the goal is for such music toconvey to consumers a simple, hedonically positive embod-ied meaning or a descriptive referential meaning. If the tar-get audience is expected to process the advertisement non-intensively, the choice of which background music to use isfar less critical than are decisions related to the advertise-ment’s more salient executional characteristics (e.g., thevocal expressiveness of ad announcers). However, if the tar-geted audience is expected to process the advertisement


18/27

intensively, marketers must skillfully orchestrate theresource demands that are imposed by the ad message andthe properties of the background music that engender themusic’s desired embodied meaning (e.g., the music’s stimu-lating or sedate execution, novel or nonnovel style) or refer-ential meaning (e.g., the semantic associations elicited bythe melody). If the goal for the background music is to relaya favorable embodied meaning, the verbal ad messageshould be presented in a fairly resource-demanding way(e.g., a drama format) and performed in a moderately ener-getic or novel style (versus a sedate or nonnovel style).However, if the goal for the music is to relay a particularreferential meaning, perhaps one that complements theproduct positioning, the verbal message should be pre-sented in a less-resource-demanding way (e.g., a lectureformat), and alternative renditions of music should beassessed to ascertain empirically which rendition best relaysthe desired conceptual meaning.

Nonetheless, the current research possesses certain limi-tations that preclude answers to important questions. Someof these issues are related to our proposed underlying mech-anisms. For example, during resource-demanding condi-tions, were intensive processors insensitive to the back-ground music’s referential meaning because discerning thismeaning was too onerous or because applying it to percep-tions was too burdensome? Would nonintensive processorshave used the music’s embodied meaning had the back-ground music simply been louder and thus more accessible?Would the hedonic favorableness of our background musichave been altered if ad recipients had been exposed to theadvertisements repeatedly? Under what conditions doesmusic serve as a central versus a peripheral cue? Were themeanings of the background music we used discerned dur-ing ad encoding or when retrieval processes were promptedby queries about respondents’ product perceptions?

Other limitations of our work reflect practical issues that

were not examined. For example, will our findings general-ize to advertisements presented in pictorially rich (e.g., tele-vision, Web) contexts? Two possibilities seem plausiblehere: (1) Null effects will emerge because visually rich con-texts might overwhelm the influence of music, or (2) out-comes will differ because the resources devoted to inferringthe types of meaning of the background music will be unaf-fected by those required to process the visual data, becausethese two types of stimuli draw on different resource poolsdedicated to visual rather than auditory modalities (Tavas-soli 1998). Finally, it is uncertain whether differences inpeoples’ preferences for particular modalities of informa-tion (e.g., visual, verbal, auditory) moderate the outcomesreported in this research. These and many other critical

questions must await future inquiry.REFERENCES

Aaker, Jennifer L. and Durairaj Maheswaran (1997), “The Effectof Cultural Orientation on Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 24 (December), 315–28.Alpert, Judy I. and Mark I. Alpert (1990), “Music Influences on

Mood and Purchase Intention,” Psychology and Marketing, 7(Summer), 109–133.

Boltz, Marilyn C. (2001), “Musical Soundtracks as a SchematicInfluence on the Cognitive Processing of Filmed Events,” MusicPerception, 18 (Summer), 427–54.

Cacioppo, John T., Richard E. Petty, and C. Kao (1984), “The Effi-



19/27


cient Assessment of Need for Cognition,” Journal of Personality Assessment , 48 (June), 306–307.

Cook, Nicholas (1998), Analysing Musical Multimedia. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Davies, Stephen (2001), “Philosophical Perspectives on Music’sExpressiveness,” in Music and Emotion: Theory and Research,Patrik N. Juslin and John A. Sloboda, eds. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 23–44.

Dowling, Jay W. and Dane L. Harwood (1986), Music Cognition.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Farnsworth, Paul R. (1969), The Social Psychology of Music.Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Gabrielsson, Alf and Erik Lindstrom (2001), “The Influence of Musical Structure on Emotional Expression,” in Music and

Emotion: Theory and Research, Patrik N. Juslin and John A.Sloboda, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 223–48.

Gaston, E. Thayer (1968), “Man and Music,” in Music in Therapy,E. Thayer Gaston, ed. New York: Macmillan, 7–21.

Hargreaves, David J. (1984), “The Effects of Repetition on Likingfor Music,” Journal of Research in Music Education, 32(Spring), 35–47.

——— and Kate C. Casetell (1987), “Development of Liking forFamiliar and Unfamiliar Melodies,” Council for Research in

Music Education, 91 (Spring), 65–69.Haugtvedt, Curtis P. and Richard E. Petty (1992), “Personality and

Persuasion: Need for Cognition Moderates the Persistence andResistance of Attitude Changes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (August), 308–319.

Hung, Kineta (2001), “Framing Meaning Perceptions with Music:The Case of Teaser Ads,” Journal of Advertising, 30 (Fall),39–49.

MacInnis, Deborah J. and C. Whan Park (1991), “The DifferentialRole of Characteristics of Music on High- and Low-Involvement Consumers’ Processing of Ads,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 18 (September), 161–74.

McMullen, Patrick T. (1982), “Connotative Responses to MusicalStimuli: A Theoretical Explanation,” Council for Research in

Music Education, 71 (Summer), 45–57.Meyer, Leonard B. (1960), “Universalism and Relativism in the

Study of Ethnic Music,” Ethnomusicology, 4 (May), 49–54.

——— (1994), “Emotion and Meaning in Music,” in Musical Per-ceptions, Rita Aiello and John A. Sloboda, eds. New York:Oxford University Press, 3–39.

North, Adrian C. and David J. Hargreaves (1997), “ExperimentalAesthetics and Everyday Music Listening,” in The Social Psy-chology of Music, David J. Hargreaves and Adrian C. North,eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 84–103.

Peracchio, Laura A. and Joan Meyers-Levy (1997), “EvaluatingPersuasion-Enhancing Techniques from a Resource-MatchingPerspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (September),178–91.

Pham, Michel Tuan, Joel B. Cohen, John W. Pracejus, and G.David Hughes (2001), “Affect Monitoring and the Primacy of Feelings in Judgment,” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (Sep-tember), 167–88.

Radocy, Rudolf E. and J. David Boyle (1997), “Functional Appli-cations of Music in Contemporary Life,” in Psychological Foun-dations of Musical Behavior . Springfield, IL: Charles C.Thomas Publishers, 31–64.

Simonton, Dean Keith (1987), “Musical Aesthetics and Creativityin Beethoven: A Computer Analysis of 105 Compositions,”

Empirical Studies of the Arts, 5 (2), 87–104.——— (2001), “Emotion and Composition in Classical Music:

Historiometric Perspectives,” in Music and Emotion: Theoryand Research, Patrik N. Juslin and John A. Sloboda, eds.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–222.

Stapel, Diederik A., Willem Koomen, and Kirsten I. Ruys (2002),“The Effects of Diffuse and Distinct Affect,” Journal of Person-


20/27

ality and Social Psychology, 83 (July), 60–74.Stout, Patricia and John D. Leckenby (1988), “Let the Music Play:

Music as a Nonverbal Element in Television Commercials,” in Nonverbal Communication in Advertising, Sidney Hecker andDavid W. Stewart, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,207–233.

Tavassoli, Nadar (1998), “Language in Multimedia: Interaction of Spoken and Written Information,” Journal of Consumer

Research, 25 (June), 26–37.Wells, William D. (1989), “Lectures and Dramas,” in Cognitive

and Affective Responses to Advertising, Patricia Cafferata andAlice M. Tybout, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,13–20.



21/27


1Positive feelings also can emerge from semantic associations promptedby the music (e.g., nostalgic associations with a song, associations with asong’s composer or performer). However, these do not constitute embodiedmeaning, because they result from context-dependent conceptual associa-tions with rather than stimulation embodied within the musical sounds.


22/27


T a b l e 1

F V A L U E

S F O R

A L L E F F E C T S I N

E X P E R I M E N T 1

T h o u g h t s A b o u t

R e c a l l A b o u t




N e t P o s i t i v e

D e p e n d a b l e ,

R e f e r e n t i a l M e a n i n g




E x e c u t i o n a l

A s p e c t s


H a

s s l e - F r e e S e r v i c e

o f E n e r g e t i c M u s i c

o f E n e r g e t i c M u s i c

o f S e d a t e M u s i c

o f S e d a t e M u s i c

o f V e r b a l M

e s s a g e

M u s i c

N F C

3 . 3

6

6 . 5

4 * *

7 . 2

9 * *

. 0 9

. 5 9

1 1 . 0 2

* *

. 4 8

M e s s a g e f o r m a t

. 4 3

2 . 9

5

. 3 5

1 . 8

2

. 0 1

6 . 3 3

* *

. 2 7

M u s i c

. 9 5

4 . 1

2 *

8 . 5

8 * *

3 . 4

5

. 0 7

. 0 7

1 . 2

4

N F C ×

m e s s a g e f o r m a t

. 0 7

3 . 7

0

. 3 0

1 . 1

5

1 . 2

1

. 0 8

. 2 4

N F C ×

m u s i c

1 . 7

6

2 . 4

2

. 3 9

. 5 3

2 . 6

2

. 4 7

. 1 2

M e s s a g e f o r m a t ×

m u s i c

3 . 9

5 *

4 . 2

1 *

3 . 4

3

. 9 2

2 . 5

4

1 . 8 5

2 . 2

5

N F C ×

m e s s a g e f o r m a t ×

m u s i c

7 . 4

2 * *

1 . 4

1

5 . 1

2 *

4 . 1

9 *

4 . 6

3 *

. 2 6

. 0 2

O v e r a l l m o d e l

2 . 6

2 *

3 . 5

0 * *

3 . 6

3 * *

2 . 1

6 *

2 . 3

0 *

2 . 9 8

* *

. 8 2

* p < . 0

5 .

* * p < . 0

1 .


23/27


T a b l e 2

T R E A

T M E N T M E A N S F O R


L o w N F C

H i g h N

F C

L e c t u r e

D r a m a

L e c t u r e

D r a m a

E n e r g e t i c

S e d a t e

E n e r g e t i c

S e d a t e

E n e r g e t i c

S e d a t e

E n e r g e t i c

S e d a t e

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

P e r c e p t i o n s o f d e p e n d a b l e ,

h a s s l e - f r e e s

e r v i c e

5 . 0

5 a

4 . 3

3 a

5 . 0

9 a

4 . 7 2

a

3 . 7

2 a

4 . 9

2 b

4 . 9

3 b

3 . 9

0 a

T h o u g h t s a b o u t r e f e r e n t i a l m e a n i n g o f e

n e r g e t i c m u s i c

. 5 0 a

. 2 2 a

. 3 6 a

. 4 4

a

2 . 0

0 a

. 5 8 b

. 5 7 b

. 5 0 b

R e c a l l r e m a r k s a b o u t r e f e r e n t i a l m e a n i n

g o f e n e r g e t i c m u s i c

. 4 0 a

. 1 1 a

. 6 4 a

. 2 2

a

1 . 3

3 a

. 1 7 b

. 7 1 a b

. 8 0 a

T h o u g h t s a b o u t r e f e r e n t i a l m e a n i n g o f s

e d a t e m u s i c

1 . 1

0 a

1 . 1

1 a

. 7 3 a

1 . 3 3

a

. 5 6 a

2 . 0

8 b

. 7 1 a

. 6 0 a


g o f s e d a t e m u s i c

. 7 0 a

. 3 3 a

. 8 2 a

. 6 7

a

. 3 3 a

1 . 4

2 b

. 8 6 a b

. 5 0 a

T h o u g h t s a b o u t e x e c u t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f v

e r b a l m e s s a g e

2 . 1

0 a b

1 . 4

4 a

2 . 3

6 a b

2 . 7 8

b

. 8 9 a

. 9 2 a

1 . 2

9 a

1 . 8

0 a

C e l l s i z e

1 0

9

1 1

9

9

1 2

7

1 0

N o t e s : F o r t h e N F C c o n d i t i o n , m e a n s

w i t h i n t h e s a m e r o w t h a t d o n o t s h a r e a c o m m o n s u p e r s c r i p t d i f f e r a t p < . 0

5 .


24/27


T a b l e 3

T R E A

T M E N T M E A N S F O R


N o n i n t e n s i v e P r o c e s s i n g

I n t e n s i v e P r o c e s s i n g

L e c t u r e

D r a m a

L e c t u r e

D r a m a

S o u l f u l

C l a s s i c a l

N o

S o u l f u l

C l a s s i c a l

N o

S o u l f u l

C l a s s i c a l

N o

S o u l f u l

C l a s s i c a l

N o

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

M u s i c

P e r c e p t i o n s o f a c a r i n g a t m o s p h e r e

5 . 3

5 a

4 . 9

7 a

5 . 2

0 a

0 4 . 9

1 a

4 . 8

0 a

5 . 1 8

a

0 4 . 5

1 a c

5 . 5

9 b

4 . 6

3 a c

0 4 . 6

2 b c

3 . 5

3 a

5 . 0

6 b c

P e r c e p t i o n s o f o r i g i n a l d e c o r

3 . 0

3 a

3 . 3

5 a

4 . 1

0 a

3 . 6

7 a

3 . 8

1 a

3 . 7 7

a

3 . 6

6 a b

3 . 1

6 a

3 . 3

9 a

4 . 6

7 b

3 . 3

8 a

3 . 4

7 a

T h o u g h t s a b o u t r e f e r e n t i a l m e a n i n g o f s

o u l f u l m u s i c

1 . 2

2 a

1 . 0

0 a

. 5 0 a

. 7 0 a

1 . 2

2 a

. 5 0

a

2 . 2

0 a

. 0 0 c

. 2 5 b c

1 . 0

9 b

. 6 3 b c

. 5 0 b c


g o f s o u l f u l m u s i c

. 7 7 a b

. 8 4 a b

. 2 0 a

. 7 0 a b

1 . 1

8 b

. 8 8

a b

2 . 0

7 a

. 3 1 b

. 3 7 b

. 5 2 b

. 8 0 b

. 5 0 b

T h o u g h t s a b o u t r e f e r e n t i a l m e a n i n g o f c

l a s s i c a l m u s i c

1 . 5

7 a

1 . 3

4 a b

1 . 0

8 a b

. 3 1 b

. 6 7 a b

. 3 3

a b

. 1 0 a

3 . 4

8 b

. 6 3 a c

1 . 4

0 c

. 7 3 a c

1 . 0

0 a c


g o f c l a s s i c a l m u s i c

1 . 5

4 a

. 8 8 a b

1 . 0

4 a b

1 . 1

9 a b

. 4 3 b

. 8 7

a b

. 8 0 a

3 . 1

8 b

. 8 7 a

1 . 4

2 a

1 . 1

4 a

1 . 7

5 a

T h o u g h t s a b o u t e x e c u t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f v

e r b a l m e s s a g e

1 . 2

4 a

2 . 1

2 a b

2 . 3

4 a b

1 . 9

1 a b

2 . 6

7 b

0 1 . 6 3

a b

1 . 1

0 a

. 9 3 a

1 . 3

8 a b

1 . 8

6 a b

1 . 1

1 a b

2 . 5

2 b

N e t p o s i t i v e t h o u g h t s a b o u t b a c k g r o u n d

m u s i c

. 3 6 a

– . 4

0 a

– . 0

2 a

. 2 2 a

– . 1

7 a

. 0 6

a

– . 0

5 b

– . 4

4 b

. 3 0 a b

. 7 7 a

– . 1

6 b

. 0 1 a b

C e l l s i z e

9

9

8

1 0

9

1 0

1 0

9

8

1 1

8

8

N o t e s : F o r t h e p r o c e s s i n g - i n t e n s i t y c o

n d i t i o n , m e a n s w i t h i n t h e s a m e r o w t h a t d o n o t s h a r e a c o m m o n s u p e r s c r i p t d i f f e r a t p < . 0

5 .


25/27


T a b l e 4

F V A L U E

S F O R

A L L E F F E C T S I N





R e c a l l a b o u t


R e f e r e n t i a l


R

e f e r e n t i a l


E x e c u

t i o n a l

N e t P o s i t i v e

C a r i n g

M e a n i n g o f

M e a n i n g o f

M

e a n i n g o f

M e a n i n g o f

A s p e

c t s o f


A t m o s p h e r e

O r i g i n a l D e c o r

S o u l f u l M u s i c

S o u l f u l M u s i c

C l a

s s i c a l M u s i c

C l a s s i c a l M u s i c

V e r b a l M e s s a g e

M u s i c

P r o c e s s i n g i n t e n s i t y

3 . 4

0

. 0 0

. 1 7

. 0 0

1 . 8

0

7 . 0

1 * *

4 . 1

6 *

. 1 4

M e s s a g e f o r m a t

2 . 6

1

2 . 3

2

. 2�

distinguishing between the meanings of

Documents