meredith l. brown: senior thesis

MUSIC AND FRIENDSHIP 1

Music Preferences and Friendship:

A Survey of Genre, Homophily, and Attraction

Meredith L. Brown

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse


Abstract

In a world of iPods, MTV, and ear buds, music is everywhere. It would be ignorant to assume

such a widespread art form will not have an effect on American lives. This study sought to

understand how potential friends perceive others based on shared music preferences. Subjects

rated their perceptions in both real and hypothetical situations. A survey of 150 individuals was

the researcher’s tool in this predominantly quantitative study. The study was a mixed-method

project using a series of open ended questions to further understand and describe the objective,

statistical data. Results found people are more likely to perceive others as more socially

attractive and attitudinally similar once they actually meet as compared with hypothetical

examples. This makes sense as the social attraction and homophily variables were positively

correlated. Also, subjects with more specific music tastes and those who consider their music to

be unique had higher social attraction and homophily (attitude similarity) scores. The study

results found students are more likely to consider their taste in music to be unique. Non-students

and males had higher attraction and homophily scores as compared to students and females,

respectively. However, those results were not significant. These results are valuable when

considering the effects of music preference on how people perceive potential friends.


Music Preferences and Friendship: A Survey of Genre, Homophily, and Attraction

The disclosure of music preference is important in social contexts and plays a prominent

role in getting acquainted with others. Rentfrow and Gosling (2006) found music was the most

commonly discussed topic between strangers. They also found music is the topic that reveals the

most about a person’s personality. Zillmann and Bhatia (1989) discovered compatibility in music

taste is an important factor in romantic relationship maintenance. Researchers have conducted

numerous studies to show how music can be used to meet others. In fact, a study by Rentfrow

and Gosling (2006) found music was the most commonly discussed topic between strangers and

is the topic which reveals the most about a person’s personality. Another study by Zillmann and

Bhatia (1989) discovered that compatibility in music taste is one of the most important factors in

the continuance of a romantic relationship.

Similarity and attraction are two interpersonal perceptions found to influence friendship

initiation (see Berscheid, 1985; McCroskey, Richmond, & Stewart, 1986; Wright, 2000). Social

attraction is a force that psychologically connects or separates individuals. The concept relates to

how others like, love, or hate each other. The effects of similarity on social attraction can spark

the interest needed to start a relationship. Past research found higher similarity levels result in

significantly higher initial attraction toward specific people (Gutkin, Gridley & Wendt, 1976).

Kubitschek and Hallinan (1998) suggest attraction is the result of exposure and similarity.

Homophily, or attitude and background similarity, is a concept that suggests people are

more likely to interact with those they perceive as similar to themselves (McPherson, Smith-

Lovin, & Cook, 2001; Monge & Contractor, 2003). Researchers use homophily theory to

examine how homophily levels in values, age, education, and gender influence interpersonal

connections (see McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001 for more). Researchers found


homophily perception is a key predictor of interpersonal attraction and potential relationship

development (Cappella, 1984; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

Music preferences clearly play an important part in meeting others and developing

friendships. It is wise to further investigate these influences in an academic study. Earlier studies

on relationship initiation sought to understand dating relationships, friendships, and mentor

relationships in university faculty, but these studies do not investigate the influence of music

preference in friendship (Levine, Aune, & Park, 2006; Baxter, & Philpott, 1982; Waldeck,

Orrego, Plax, & Kearney, 1997).

The current study will contribute much to the Communication discipline. Currently, there

is a plethora of studies on romantic relationships and parent-child relationships, but it is harder to

find any research on friendship. Considering the strong influence of music in modern lives, it is

important to investigate how one’s music preferences relate to the social perception of others.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand the influence of shared music preferences on

social attraction and homophily levels in potential friendships.

Review of Literature

A review of previous research is included in the following literature review section. The

first topic is the Uncertainty Reduction Theory, the foundational concept for this study. Research

related to friendship is discussed next, focusing on two categories: social attraction and

homophily. Finally, the influence of music preferences in relationships is examined.

Uncertainty Reduction Theory

This study is inspired by the axioms of Uncertainty Reduction Theory and uses its axioms

as a theoretical base. It is a theory widely used in relational development research. This theory,

introduced by Berger and Calabrese (1975), is the first attempt to conceptualize the processes in


the initial stages of relationships (Miller, 2005). In essence, this theory seeks to explain the

thought processes that occur when one initially meets another. It describes how initial encounters

with others are usually laden with a high level of uncertainty, not knowing the other’s interests or

how they will respond. If a relationship should progress, reducing uncertainty is important.

Uncertainty levels usually lower through conversations, nonverbal cues, and similarities, which,

in turn, will increase intimacy.

To reduce uncertainty, people communicate to learn about how others behave and

interact. “A key indicator of the success of the uncertainty reduction process lies in the prediction

of the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of others” (Craig, Igiel, Wright, Cunningham, & Ploeger,

2007, p. 9). As noted by Berger and Calabrese (1975), an individual is usually motivated to

reduce uncertainty when future interaction is expected. With that in mind, the motivation to self-

disclose depends on many factors: initial perceptions of social attraction, physical attractiveness,

and the expectation of future interaction.

The motivation to self-disclose reflects how an individual perceives social attractiveness

of others. This is seen through the desire to reduce uncertainty. As deduced from Craig et al.

(2007), perceptions of social attraction motivate future interaction and self disclosure. Therefore,

the use of social attraction and attitude and background similarity (homophily) are logical

variables when using Uncertainty Reduction Theory to understand perceptions of potential

friendship.

Social Attractiveness and Homophily

If the Facebook users in the Craig et al. (2007) study perceived others as being

attitudinally similar and socially attractive, it reduced their uncertainty in relationships and

enhanced predictability. With music preference in mind, it can be deduced that when shared


music preferences are disclosed, it will enhance predictability, reduce uncertainty, and raise

social attractiveness and homophily levels. This assumption is similar to a study by Sunnafank

and Miller (1981), which proposed attitude and background dissimilarity lowers interpersonal

attraction. This occurs because any form of dissimilarity is viewed as a barrier to a positive

communication environment.

Sunnafrank and Miller (1981) also found homophily and social attraction are some of the

only factors considered in the initial perception of others. Yun (1999) confirms this “because

without interaction, perceived attitude and background similarity is used to determine whether a

person would be able to achieve the desired communication goal of having a controllable,

predictable, and stable communication environment” (p. 3). Therefore, attitudinally similar

people perceive future interaction will be more stable, controllable, and predictable than with

attitudinally dissimilar people. These findings are consistent with Uncertainty Reduction Theory

discussed earlier.

Byrne (1969) argues homophily enhances social attraction because it reinforces a

person’s world view. As described earlier, homophily is an individual’s tendency to form

relationships with those who are similar to them (Hembrooke, Gay, & Yuan, 2006). The

homophily concept could have been the inspiration for the popular saying “birds of a feather

flock together.” It suggests people are encouraged and reassured when others have similar

attitudes. This helps others be more socially attractive. Perceived homophily also has a strong

influence on social attraction before interaction (Byrne, 1992). On a similar note, Sunnafrank

(1992) found the effect of perceived homophily on social attraction disappears in initial

interactions.


These studies discuss how the influence of perceived homophily on social attraction

changes before and after interaction. The current study goes further to understand how

homophily and social attraction are perceived among people with similar music tastes.

Researchers such as Yun (1999) and Sunnafrank, and Miller (1981) all agree attitudinal

similarity is important in reducing uncertainty in initial reactions, but these researchers did not

consider the degree to which music preference reduces uncertainty.

Music Preference

The remaining section focuses on the influence of music in personal perceptions. The

first subsection highlights the influence of music on social reality. Music and personality are then

explored, focusing on how music preference can reveal aspects of an individual’s personality.

The last topic to be explored is music and similarity. This topic investigates how music can be a

tool for others to meet.

Music and social reality. It is important to address the importance of music preference

and its influence in social contexts. First, one must understand how preferences in music play an

increasingly important role in socialization, social beliefs, attitudes, and the understanding of

social reality (Lull, 1985). In a world of iPods, MTV, and ear buds, music is everywhere. It

would be ignorant to assume such a widespread art form will not have an effect on American

lives. Indeed, the increased importance of music is due in part to the increased rate of exposure

to popular music of various forms (Avery, 1979). Considering how music plays an influential

part in the social lives of many people, it is important to initiate research that studies its influence

on friendships.

Previous studies found popular music plays a major role in the socialization of

adolescents (Gantz, Gartenberg, Pearson, & Schiller, 1978). Considering the wide variety of


music available today, this is no surprise. Many young adults are seeking exposure to popular

music to learn more about their social world (Sun & Lull, 1986). This is definitely true when one

takes a look at the different kinds of popular music enjoyed by young people. For instance, music

such as heavy metal and punk rock have ideologies and lifestyles that surround them. Often,

these people will turn to the kind of music they listen to for answers concerning the world in

which they live (Sun & Lull, 1986).

Considering how music plays an influential part in the social lives of many people, it is

important to initiate research which studies its direct influence on adult friendships. The

aforementioned research often studied adolescents to reach conclusions concerning music and

social reality. A study on the musical reality of adults is needed after observing the power music

has on youth.

Music and personality. On a similar note, individuals use cues to piece together a

picture of what a person is like (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006). Many studies support that cues such

as physical appearance (Kenny, Horner, Kashy, & Chu, 1992), nonverbals (Borkeneau, Mauer,

Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2004), clothes (Burroughs, Drews, & Hallman, 1991), and

personal spaces (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002) all convey various messages to

others. But of all cues, music preferences are rated as the most revealing (Rentfrow & Gosling,

2003). The previous study found individuals consider their music preferences more revealing

than their tastes in books, clothing, movies, etc.

The risks involved in disclosing music preference has a significant impact in the lives of

young people (Firth, 1981). This is true since music is a highly revealing topic of one’s

personality. Often, as researched by Sun and Lull (1986), fans of specific types of music will

shape their social world around their favorite music. Especially in the case of adolescents, this is


an immensely important aspect of their lives since their perception of social reality is built

around their music taste (Sun & Lull, 1986). Therefore, the disclosure of one’s music preferences

is highly revealing and shows not only their music taste but also their views on life.

Other research goes further to illustrate the relationship between music preferences and

personality (Little & Zuckerman, 1986). For instance, a study by Rentfrow and Gosling (2003)

found individuals believe their musical preferences reveal information about their personalities.

Because of this, people purposely use their music preferences to communicate information about

themselves and their personalities (North & Hargreaves, 1999). Since music preferences reveal

much about an individual’s personality, a person may perceive he or she knows a lot about

another’s character through personal music taste. Homophily and social attraction levels may be

higher because of the known correlation.

Music and similarity. When meeting one another, the most common topic for strangers

to discuss is music (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006). Therefore, music preferences can play a

prominent role in getting acquainted with others. Since music is the choice topic in

acquaintanceship, it is important to understand the influence of music preferences in early

friendship stages.

Other research studying the influence of music in social contexts shows how music taste

similarity is likely to produce favorable evaluations. For instance, a study by Zillmann and

Bhatia (1989) suggests shared liking and disliking of specific musical genres foster a degree of

perceived compatibility in initial interactions. This proves the powerful influence of similarity

and attraction. On a similar note, devotion or aversion to certain music genres brings its fans

together (Lull, 1988). The Lull study suggests others’ music preferences can connect or separate

people of different musical tastes. Although Zillmann and Bhatia (1989) studied the influence of


music preferences in heterosexual attraction, an understanding of evaluations concerning

friendship is needed. Further, Zillmann and Bhatia (1989) found compatibility in musical

preferences may be an important factor in the continuance of a romantic relationship. However

powerful the influences of music in relationships are, the current study focuses on its influence in

initial attraction. Future research needs to be done to see if that finding holds true in the context

of friendships.

Research Questions

There is a lack of information dealing with the influences of music on friendship

perception (specifically homophily and social attraction). Many researchers completed studies to

investigate the importance of music preferences on social perception, and the influences of

homophily and social attraction in initial interactions, but not how they influence each other.

Past studies have not examined the difference between potential friends in hypothetical

circumstances compared to what is perceived in real situations. The current study addresses the

level of attraction and homophily perceived under the influence of shared music taste. Past

studies did not address music as a potential influence in these situations.

In terms of genre, it is interesting to reveal if there is a correlation between music taste

(preferred genre) and attraction and homophily levels. This information does not exist as

previous research has not addressed music taste with homophily and attraction. Considering the

lack of research on music in friendship perception, the following research questions and

hypotheses are projected for this study:

RQ1: Is there a difference in perceived social attraction with real and hypothetical

friends?

RQ2: Is there a difference in perceived homophily with real and hypothetical friends?


RQ3: Is there a relationship between homophily and social attraction in real friendships?

RQ4: Is there a relationship between homophily and social attraction in hypothetical

friendships?

RQ5: Does music taste (preferred genre) influence perceived social attraction?

RQ6: Does music taste (preferred genre) influence perceived homophily?

RQ7: Are students more likely to consider their music tastes to be unique?

H1: Women will score higher on perceived homophily and social attraction.

H2: Non-students will score lower on perceived homophily and social attraction.

Methods

This study was predominately quantitative in nature. In addition to objective, statistical

data, the method included a series of open-ended questions to further understand and describe

any quantitative data. A mixed-method approach was selected for validity reasons as well.

Several social scientists use triangulation to cross-examine and verify reliability and validity of

results. This typically means a researcher will use two or more methods to verify results. In this

case, a quantitative survey was used with qualitative, open-ended questions (McIntyre, 2006).

This study used surveys to answer selected research questions and hypotheses. Surveys

were the most useful because they use statistics to illustrate relationships between two or more

phenomena. “A survey design provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes,

or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population” (Creswell, 2003, p. 153).

Surveys were chosen over interviews or case studies for a variety of reasons. First, the

researcher can use surveys to gain an accurate description of opinions, behaviors, and patterns of

a large, target audience (Watt & Van den Berg, 1995). This allows the researcher to attain a more

representative sample. Surveys are also an obvious choice due to the fact existing measures on


social attraction and homophily are readily available. Next, selecting surveys over interviews is a

wise decision considering how subjects are more willing to share personal information on paper

than in discussion. Face-to-face interviews are perceived as more invasive due to the greater

perceived potential of embarrassment and judgment (Campbell, Angus, & Katona, 1953).

Although the topic is generally not sensitive to participants, a person with more atypical music

preferences may be uncomfortable sharing his or her interests with the researcher face-to-face.

Subjects

The sample consisted of 150 subjects with 99 University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

students, and 49 non-students. Forty males and 108 females took the survey. Subjects were at

least 18 years of age and the oldest being 72 years. Any sex, race, or ethnicity could participate.

The researcher recruited volunteers through her participation in community music ensembles,

Communication Studies classes, and her network of friends.

A convenience sample was used over a random sample due to time constraints and logic.

“Nonprobability samples, like convenience samples… [can] be used when the communication

process being studied is considered to be so universal that selection biases are not important”

(Watt & Van den Berg, 1995, p. 107). Because social behaviors are the norm in human

interaction, and people living in this society are exposed to music on a daily basis, it is plausible

to assume these conditions are universal. Due to that fact, using a typically more “accurate”

random sample was unneeded.

Measurements

Subjects completed a survey including demographic information, open ended questions

on music preferences, and existing homophily and social attraction measures. The homophily

measure was an original measure developed by McCroskey, Richmond, & Daly (1975).


Communication and Psychology researchers widely use the interpersonal attraction measure

(McCroskey & McCain, 1974). The survey included two sets per measure. Each set included the

social attraction and homophily measures (see appendices). The first set asked subjects to rate a

previously known person who shares their music taste. The second set asked subjects to rate the

statements considering a hypothetical example. The survey also asked a series of open-ended

questions and demographics which will also be addressed.

Social Attraction. The researcher used the original interpersonal attraction measure

reported by McCroskey & McCain (1974). Past research found the alpha reliability estimates

range from the upper .70s to the upper .80s. McCroskey and McCain’s interpersonal attraction

measures include social attraction, physical attraction, and task attraction. This study used only

the social attraction scale. That portion of the measure contained six statements for subjects to

rate on a Likert-type scale of one (disagree) to five (strongly agree). Subjects rated the statements

while thinking of a specified individual. Statement examples included: “He would be pleasant to

be with” or “I think he/she could be a friend of mine.” This measure was used in a similar way in

a recent study investigating friendship initiation through Facebook (Craig, Igiel, Wright,

Cunningham, & Ploeger, 2007).

Homophily. The researcher tested perceptions of attitude and background similarity

using McCroskey, Richmond and Daly’s (1975) Measure of Perceived Homophily attitude and

background similarity subscales. The instrument included four items measuring his or her

perceptions on attitude and background homophily. This applied toward someone who shares the

similar music taste. The measure used a seven-point semantic differential scale with statements

such as, “This person is like me,” and “This person thinks like me.” The reliability coefficient for

this measure was .71 in previous literature. The attitude and background similarity subscale was


also used in the Facebook friendship initiation study (Craig, Igiel, Wright, Cunningham, &

Ploeger, 2007).

Open-Ended Questions and Demographics. The first survey questions requested

demographic information including sex, age, and class standing (freshman, sophomore, junior,

senior, fifth year senior, or non-student). This demographic information was needed for H1 and

2. The survey also included three open-ended questions (see sample survey in appendix). The

questions asked about the subject’s personal music taste, if he or she classifies their music taste

as unique, and to describe a time he or she met someone through shared music taste. The

researcher designed these questions to invite thought from the subjects and lead into the rest of

the survey. The answers from these questions were also used for RQ 5, 6, and 7 and H1 and 2.

Subject answers from open-ended questions also helped with overall discussion and

interpretation of statistical results.

Procedures

The researcher recruited volunteers through her participation in community music

ensembles and her network of family and friends. Subjects from music groups completed surveys

during rehearsal free time. The surveys were collected at the end of rehearsals in large piles to

ensure anonymity. Subjects from other sources completed surveys at their convenience and

returned completed surveys in provided folders to protect their identities. The researcher also

asked professors at the University of Wisconsin- La Crosse for permission to survey students

during class time. The survey took no longer than 15 minutes to complete, and subjects were

informed of the consent statement at the beginning of the survey. The informed consent

statement emphasized the importance of confidentiality in this study. Subjects were completely

anonymous and surveys were destroyed when the study was completed.


Data Analysis

Once the surveys were completed, the data was coded and entered into SPSS (Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences). During the coding process, the study used four variables: real

attraction, real homophily, hypothetical attraction, and hypothetical homophily. Afterward, RQ1

and 2 were analyzed with a paired samples t-test. A correlation analysis was used for RQ3 and 4

to determine the relationship between variables. RQ5 and 6 used a mixed-method approach;

these research questions required a descriptive analysis of open ended attraction and homophily

average. The last research question, RQ7 was descriptive, analyzing open-ended questions. H1

and 2 used the independent samples t-test.

Results

Cronbach’s Alpha reliability showed the measures for each variable where reliable in this

study. The real attraction variable had a reliability of .80 while its hypothetical counterpart had

.78 reliability. The real homophily variable had .80 and hypothetical homophily had .86. The

highest possible scores for all attraction variables were 30 and 56 for homophily.

RQ1 dealt with differences in perceived social attraction toward real and hypothetical

friends with shared music preferences. The paired samples t-test proved significant (t=6.24,

p<.05). The mean score for attraction in real friendships was 25.91 and 23.89 for hypothetical

friendships. The paired samples were also correlated at (r=.37 r<.05).

RQ2 considered the differences between perceived homophily in real and hypothetical

friends with shared music preferences. The results from the paired samples t-test were significant

as well: (t=.5.18, r<.05). The mean score for homophily in real friendships was 38.98 and 35.60

in hypothetical friendships. The homophily paired samples were correlated at (r=.35, r<.05).


RQ3 questioned the relationship between homophily and social attraction in real

friendships with shared music preferences. The Pearson correlation test showed a moderate

positive correlation (r=.35,p<.01). RQ4 raised a similar question for hypothetical friendships.

The hypothetical results had a slightly higher positive correlation (r=.38,p<.01). There is a

moderate positive correlation for both RQ3 and 4.

Both RQ5 and 6 used a qualitative analysis of various open ended questions and selected

individual attraction and homophily averages. RQ5 asked if preferred music genre influences

perceived attraction. Through analysis, this was found to be true. In general, subjects who had

high social attraction scores usually had narrower music preferences. High scorers with wider

music preferences typically considered their music tastes to be unique. This makes sense as a

subject with unique tastes may have a harder time finding others with the same preferences as he

or she does. RQ6 inquired about shared music influences on perceived homophily. Results for

RQ6 were similar to RQ5 except answers were not quite as consistent, especially in lower score

results.

RQ7 asked if students would be more likely to consider their music tastes to be unique.

Through qualitative analysis, this was found to be true. Although students were more apt to

consider their tastes unique, it was interesting to see how definitions varied between individuals.

More on these findings will be considered in the discussion section.

H1 proposed women would score higher on both homophily and social attraction in real

and hypothetical friendships. The independent t-tests were not significant for the four variables:

real attraction and homophily, and hypothetical attraction and homophily. Real attraction results

were (t=.22, p>.05). The mean for men was 26.03 and the mean for women was 25.88. The real

homophily results were also not significant: (t=-1.35, p>.05). The average for men was 37.67 and


39.55 for women. Hypothetical attraction was very insignificant with (t=1.19, p>.05). The

hypothetical attraction average for men was 24.44 and women averaged with 35.51. Hypothetical

homophily resulted in (t=.59, p>.05). Men averaged with 36.23 and women with 35.51 for this

variable.

H2 hypothesized non-student subjects would score lower on perceived homophily and

social attraction in real and hypothetical friendships. The independent t-test did not prove the

four variables to be significant. The real attraction significance rated as (t=14, p>.05). The mean

for this variable was 25.92 for non-students and 25.83 for students. Real homophily resulted in

(t=27, p>.05) and its mean was 25.92 for non-students and 38.78 for students. Hypothetical

attraction came up with the following: (t=.23, p>.05). The non-student mean was 23.94 and

23.79 for students. The last variable to consider, hypothetical homophily, was (t=.53, p>.05). The

non-student mean was 35.96 and 35.45 for students in this variable.

In addition to data supplied by the research questions and hypotheses, the researcher also

notated the most popular music genres, as shown in table 1 at the end of the paper.

Numbers were tallied from subject responses to open-ended questions. Most subjects

listed anywhere from 2-5 preferred music genres. Thirty subjects reported having open and/or no

strong music preferences (20% of subjects). Forty-five reported having a wide variety of music

interests (30% of subjects).

Discussion

RQ1and 2 asked how people perceived others once shared music taste was disclosed.

RQ1 dealt with social attraction, and RQ 2 tackled perceived homophily. The question asked if

subjects’ expectations are higher than what is actually perceived after friends initially meet.

These results, as introduced earlier, were surprising, especially looking at specific open-ended


responses. The results found subjects tend to perceive people already met through shared music

preferences to be more socially attractive and more similar to them than those met in

hypothetical situations. The differences were more distinct in RQ2.

The researcher expected subjects to rate hypothetical friends higher than real ones. This

was especially surprising after reading some of the open-ended questions. Some of the questions

discussed how subjects had an immediate attraction toward people with shared music

preferences. The subjects went further, however, to discuss the friendships did not last long, and

the bonds were not strong enough to develop a friendship. For example, one subject wrote: “I

was talking to an acquaintance when I learned he also had a strange obsession with Tom Petty. I

knew we had to be friends, but also, it didn’t last.” This example alone suggests hypothetical

attraction would potentially be stronger than what is perceived in an actual relationship.

The mere exposure effect can be applied to this result. This concept explains that the

more someone is exposed to another person, the more likely he or she is going to like it (Fang,

Singh, & Ahluwalia, 2007). Since the subjects were already exposed to the real friends, they

rated the real friend higher than the hypothetical friend they never met.

RQ3 and 4 analyzed the relationship between perceived attraction and homophily in

actual and hypothetical friendships, respectively. The results found all variables to be related to

each other. This generally means if a subject perceived his or her friend to be high in social

attraction, he or she will likely rank them to be high in homophily as well.

This result is consistent with previous research. Sunnafrank and Miller (1981) and Yun

(1999) found homophily and social attraction affect initial interaction. This research would

suggest a positive correlation between social attraction and homophily. Byrne (1969 & 1992)

argued homophily enhances social attraction.


RQ5 and 6 were qualitative and quantitative in nature. The research questions asked if

preferred music genre influences perceived attraction and homophily. This was true through

comparing qualitative and quantitative results. In general, subjects with high social attraction and

homophily scores had narrower music preferences or considered their music tastes to be unique.

These results are logical in many ways. Individuals with broader or weaker music

preferences are less likely to feel a strong attraction to others with similar taste. By extension,

lower attraction and homophily scores affect one’s motivation to initiate friendship. In looking at

those with stronger and more selective music tastes, higher scores do make sense. The

Uncertainty Reduction Theory states that lower attraction and homophily scores aversely affect

any desire to reduce uncertainty. This potentially prevents the opportunity for a friendship to

occur (Berger and Calabrese, 1975). Axiom 6 of the theory states personal similarity will

decrease uncertainty about the other. Since subjects with narrower and more unique preferences

are less likely to come across someone with their similar tastes over time, it makes sense subjects

would rate them higher. This statement compares with subjects having a wider variety of music

preferences. These subjects are typically accustomed to meeting others with their more generic

tastes, making their homophily and attraction levels lower.

RQ7 results were as expected. In addition to claiming their music tastes to be more

unique, student subjects also reported having more varied and/or open preferences. Although

many students declared having open and unique music preferences, the researcher found their

perceptions to be doubtful. This was found by comparing student preferences to the more

atypical and diverse tastes of non-students. Non-students did not typically consider their music to

be unique, even though it was in comparison to all subjects. Most non-students reported favoring

music genres such as: folk, classical, and jazz. When looking at genre rankings, these music


types are from the middle of the frequency list. On the other hand, popular student subject

preferences included: rock, country, and rap. These results are consistently placed toward the top

of the list. Non students also had a wider variety of preferences as well.

For this research question, it is important to consider the influence of personal

definitions. It was quite interesting to see subjects give a yes or a no answer for the same reason.

For example, it was common for people with varied tastes to consider their tastes to be unique,

while others who also had varied tastes, did not consider their music taste to be unique. When

asked if their music taste was unique, one subject did not think so “because I’m sure there are a

lot of people who have a taste for all types of music like me.” Oxymoronically, another said yes

for the same reason: “I really do listen to all different kinds of music. Including classical,

soundtrack scores, hip hop, rock, pop, and everything in between.”

It was also fascinating to see how some subjects considered their music taste to be unique

by the fact certain genres are “polar opposites.” One subject wrote: “Yes, [my music taste is

unique]…rock and classical are complete opposites.” Ironically, Rock and Classical are the two

most frequent genres in this study.

In general, students gauged their music uniqueness based on what is played on the radio.

A student said: “No, [my taste is not unique,] I listen to a lot of music that is played on the radio

that everyone hears.” On the other hand, non-students were more likely to characterize

uniqueness by what music they were raised with: “No, [my taste is not unique,] I grew up with

this music.”

These different definitions can be explained through the Symbolic Interaction Theory.

This theory tries to understand why people act the way they do from socially developed

meanings (Blumer, 1969). This theory explains why students and non-students have their own


interpretations to unique music tastes. These socially separate audiences depend on others in

their social network to help them define what unique music tastes are. Subjects probably defined

music taste uniqueness based on the music tastes of those within their social network. In this

case, non-students most likely associated with others who listened to the music they were raised

with. On the other hand, students defined unique music tastes based on what was played on the

radio. This makes sense as most students prefer listening to radio music. In the big picture,

although non-students actually did have more unique music tastes, no one defines unique music

taste by one standard. There are many cultural sub-groups and social networks that all listen to

different types of music which leads to differing definitions.

Through statistical analysis, H1 was not significant. Men generally had higher attraction

and homophily scores. This result is especially surprising considering research consistently show

women as more relational (Comer & Lindsey, 2007). The statistical findings remained consistent

in the qualitative analysis. In the study, men usually bonded over musical activities. Many

bonded after attending concerts of favorite artists: “After going to Jamaica, a group I was with

realized our love of Reggae. We have since gone to Reggae concerts together…” Others built

friendships while creating music together: “I’ve become friends with a few people through

playing music together… we’re still good friends today.” Some also became closer through

singing and listening to their favorite music with others: “A song was playing and we both

started singing along… the rest is history.”

These findings are consistent with past research. Men communicate affection through

shared activities, rather than talking as women do. Activities are at the center of male friendships

(Paul & White, 1990; Reisman, 1990; Wood & Inman, 1993). Men are socialized to build

affection through shared activities like sports. Scott Swain (1989) used the phrase “closeness in


the doing” to describe male intimacy. His study found more than two-thirds of men used

activities like participating in sports, watching T.V., or any other activity to build a sense of

camaraderie. Women, on the other hand, tend to express affection and build intimacy through

talking. Feminine intimacy is built though discussion on personal feelings and disclosing private

information (Johnson, 1996).

Although many female subjects bonded in similar ways, males still had high attraction

and homophily levels. This could be because men are not as easily affected by outside

influences. Potential factors include: physical appearance, age, or style of dress. Typically,

Women are more concerned about these factors when looking for friends.

Related to the topics discussed earlier, Paul Wright (1982) found women tend to interact

“face to face” and men interact “side to side.” In other words, communication is central to

female friendships and activities are central to male relationships. Women tend to talk about

revealing and personal topics. Men choose to discuss less personal topics like sports, events,

money, and so on (Wright, 1982). Since women tend to disclose more in their friendships, it may

be possible women are less concerned about music taste to determine whether or not they will be

a good friend. Women may want other characteristics like good listening or a caring personality

in order discuss personal topics. Because men do not show affection through talk, shared music

taste may be enough of a trigger to become a close friend.

The H2 results were surprising as well. Although the results were not significant, the non-

students had slightly higher attraction and homophily scores. In analyzing the open-ended

questions, this makes sense. In general, non-students exuded greater emotion and discussed life

long influences from friendships created through shared music tastes: “College choir experiences

developed lifetime friendships… hearing songs from past reminds me of time with old friends.”


Another spoke on how her shared music preferences transcended cultures: “I developed a

lifelong very close friendship with my friend Lucie in Spain…” Even more subjects recall

meeting their spouses through shared music taste: “I met my husband following a blues group. It

still has great sentimentality relating to our growing relationship (19 years later).”

Despite the emotion and sentimentality, results from this hypothesis are somewhat in

contrast of RQ 5 and 6. Those research questions found subjects who consider themselves to

have more unique music tastes will have higher attraction and homophily scores. Since RQ7

found students are more likely to consider themselves having unique music taste, they would

consequently have higher attraction and homophily scores. It is essentially a toss up. One must

remember the correlation results for this hypothesis were not significant and perception levels

were very minimal.

Past research remains neutral in this topic. Contrary to the researcher’s former belief,

there is little difference in friendship between those in young adulthood and middle /older

adulthood. Young adults typically build their relationships over time, and consider their

friendships to be me the primary source of psychological and emotional well-being (Furman &

Buhrmester, 1992). Traits such as similarity and authenticity are valuable for young adult

friendships (LaGaipa, 1977). Middle and older adults “are similar both to one another and to

young adults in terms of their beliefs about friendship. In fact, continuities in friendship

conceptions across this period appear to be the rule rather than the exception,” (Samter, 2003, p.

661). Any stated differences are minimal, these include: greater appreciation for uniqueness and

less emphasis on similarity.

Tesch and Martin (1983) found college alumni were more likely to appreciate a friends’

uniqueness than students still enrolled in college. In a similar study, middle-aged and retired


adults put less emphasis on friendship similarity than most young adults (Weiss & Lowenthal,

1975). These findings, although related, are somewhat contrary to the results in the current study.

Since middle and older adults put less emphasis on similarity and are more likely to value

differences, it would suggest lower social attraction and homophily scores. This hypothesis is

inconsistent with previous research and RQ5-6 and is not statistically significant. Therefore, the

H1 result is not valid.

Limitations

While the findings are interesting, there were also some limitations to this study. These

limitations include: non-random sampling, possible subject survey confusion, and time

constraints. The researcher completed this study within a few months. This created challenges in

prior research, productive sampling, and analysis. This study was also rather narrow in focus; it

did not consider other attraction influences such as: physical appearance or age in attraction and

homophily perception. Other attraction influences may have been considered with more allotted

time.

Another limitation was the inability to use a random sample. A convenience sample was

selected due to time constraints. Instead of sampling college students only, the researcher chose

to survey non-students as well. Selecting subjects from a community choir, although convenient,

skewed the non-student results. The researcher was surprised to see classical and choral music

ranked so high in the genre frequency chart. But these results made sense after reflecting on the

convenience sample. The non-student sample from this group is probably another reason why H2

came out the way it did. The researcher recruited other subjects from her network of friends.

Most of these individuals have Christian values, which may have boosted the Christian music


frequency as well. The sample is also limited by the male to female ratio. Future studies should

try to include equal representation of males and females.

Another potential limitation is subject confusion while completing the survey. When

administering the survey, many subjects, particularly non-students, expressed confusion at

certain parts. The homophily scale was the most confusing for participants. A number of surveys

had to be tossed due to subject confusion. A handful of subjects circled two numbers instead of

one for each homophily question, others did not even attempt to answer the questions as a result

of their confusion. Clearer directions and a more precise introduction would be wise if

attempting this project again.

Future Research

The results of this study were expected yet some were surprising. Many of the statistical

results were anticipated, but the qualitative answers were the most thought-provoking and

surprising. The researcher enjoyed reading how music influences many of the subject’s

friendships.

Potential topics to further investigate include: comparing attraction and homophily levels

in males and females, students and non-students as well as personal definitions of uniqueness. It

would be fascinating to explore gender and life stage bonding and relationship initiation

differences as it relates to music. The results could also consider other outside influences.

Administering qualitative interviews would be a favorable way to find the needed insights.

Delving further into gender and music preference would also be an interesting future

research project as well. H1 left a number of unanswered questions. Although the questions can

be explained through preexisting research, a study to specifically address these inquiries would

be beneficial. The research would answer questions like, “Why do males have higher social


attraction and homophily levels with others with similar music taste?” or “Do males have higher

attraction and homophily levels than females because they are not as influenced by multiple

attraction factors?” The future research should address these questions when studying the

influence of music preference with initial same-sex friendships.

The researcher did not expect to find subjects’ personal definitions of uniqueness to differ

so widely. A qualitative study on music taste uniqueness classification would be constructive.

The study would investigate how people perceive their personal music tastes in relation to others.

Conclusion

The results of this study can be used to better understand the thought processes that occur

when one individual meets another with similar music preferences. The study found people are

more likely to perceive others as more socially attractive or attitudinally similar when they

actually meet as compared with hypothetical examples. In other words, when people hear about

someone with shared music preferences, they are generally going to be perceived as less socially

attractive and less attitudinally similar. This makes sense as the variables of social attraction and

homophily were positively correlated.

Subjects with more specific music tastes and those who consider their music to be unique

had higher social attraction and homophily scores. Logically, people with these music taste

qualifications are more likely to initiate friendships with others who share their preferences. This

relationship aversely has an effect on potential friendship initiation directly influenced by shared

music preference.

Non-students and males had higher attraction and homophily scores as compared to

students and females, respectively. However, those results were not significant. The last

hypothesis confirmed that students are more likely to consider their taste in music to be unique.


These results are valuable when considering the effects of music preference on how

people perceive potential friends. The study also mentioned the kinds of people and genre

qualifications in which higher likelihood of friendship initiation occurs. The described

perceptions could ultimately lead to friendship initiation in future interactions.


References

Avery, R. (1979). Adolescents’ use of the mass media. American Behavioral Scientist, 23, 53-70.

Baxter, L., & Philpott, J. (1982). Attribution-based strategies for initiating and terminating

friendships. Communication Quarterly, 30(3), 217-224.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:

Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication

Research, 1(2), 99-112.

Berscheid, E. (1985). Interpersonal attraction. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of

social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of

behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 86, 599-614.

Burroughs, J. W., Drews, D. R., & Hallman, W. K. (1991). Predicting personality from personal

possessions: A self-presentational analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,

6, 147-163.

Byrne, D. (1992). The transition from controlled laboratory experimentation to less controlled

settings: Surprise! Additional variables are operative. Communication Monographs, 59,

190-198.

Byrne, D. (1969). Attitudes and attraction in L. Berkowitz. Advances in Experimental

Psychology, (pp. 178-224). New York: Academic Press.


Campbell, G, Angus, A., & Katona, G. (1953). The sample survey: A technique for social

science research. In Theodore M. Newcomb (Ed.). Research methods in the behavioral

sciences (pp. 14-55). New York: The Dryden Press.

Cappella, J. N. (1984). The relevance of the microstructure of interaction to relationship change.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 239-264.

Comer, D., & Lindsey, A. (2007). Proceedings from NCA ’07: Cross-Sex Friendship Challenges

and Maintenance Strategies: Women's Views of Friendships with Straight Men vs. Gay

Men. Washington D.C.: National Communication Association.

Craig, E., Igiel, M., Wright, K., Cunningham, C., & Ploeger, N. (2007, May). Will you be my

friend?: Comupter-mediated relatonal development on Facebook.com. In A. Jan & G. M.

Van Dijk (Chairs), High-Density Session: Computers and People, and Social Networking

Sites. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Communication

Association Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt,

Brace, Jovanovich.

Fang, X., Singh, S., & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An examination of different explanations for the

mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(1), 97-103.

Firth, S. (1981). Sound effects: Youth, leisure, and the politics of rock and roll. New York:

Pantheon Books.

Furman, W., & Burhmester, D. (1992). Age and sex differences in perceptions of networks of

personal relationships. Child Development, 63, 103-115.


Gantz, W., Gartenberg, H. M., Pearson, M. L., & Schiller, S. O. (1978). Gratifications and

expectations associated with pop music among adolescents. Popular Music in Society, 6,

81-89.

Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Judgments

of personality based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 379-398.

Gutkin, T. B., Gridley G. C., & Wendt, J. M. (1976). The effect of initial attraction and attitude

similarity-dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction. Cornell Journal of Social Relations,

11(2), 153-160.

Hembrooke, H., Gay, G., & Yuan, Y. (2006). Proceedings from NAICS ’06: Homophily of

network ties, and bonding and bridging social capital in distributed teams. Washington

D.C.: International Communication Association.

Johnson, F. (1996). Friendships among women: Closeness in dialogue. In J. T. Wood (Ed.),

Gendered relationships: A reader (pp. 79-94). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Kenny, D. A., Horner, C., Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus a zero acquaintance:

Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

62, 88-87.

Kubitschek, W. N., & Hallinan, M. T. (1998). Tracking and students' friendships. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 62.

LaGaipa, J. J. (1977). Testing a multidimensional approach to friendship. In S. Duck (Ed.)

Theory and practice in interpersonal attraction (pp. 249-270). London: Academic Press.


Levine, T., Aune, K., & Park, H. (2006). Love styles and communication in relationships:

Partner preferences, initiation, and intensification. Communication Quarterly, 54(4), 465-

486.

Little, P., & Zuckerman, M. (1986). Sensation seeking and music preferences. Personality and

Individual Differences, 7, 575-577.

Lull, J. (1985). On the communicative properties of music. Communication Research, 12, 363-

372.

Lull, J. (1988). Popular music and communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech

Monographs, 41, 261-266.

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of

perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research,

1, 323-332.

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Stewart, R. A. (1986). One on one: The foundations of

interpersonal communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McIntyre, L. J. (2006). The practical skeptic: Readings in sociology. (3rd

ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social

networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.

Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd

ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theories of communication networks: Oxford University

Press.


North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and adolescent identity. Music Education

Research, 1, 75-92.

Paul, E. & White, K. (1990). The development of intimate relationships in late adolescence.

Adolescence, 25, 375-400.

Reisman, J. M. (1990). Intimacy in same-sex friendships. Sex Roles, 23, 65-82.

Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do-re-mi’s of everyday life: The structure and

personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 84, 1236-1256.

Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2006). Message in a ballad: The role of music preferences in

interpersonal perception. Psychological Science, 17(3), 236-242.

Samter, W. (2003). Friendship interaction skills across the life span. In J. O. Greene & B. R.

Burleson (Eds.) Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 637-684).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sun, S., & Lull, J. (1986). The adolescent audience for music videos and why they watch.

Journal of Communication, 36(1), 115-125.

Sunnafrank, M. (1992). On debunking the attitude similarity myth. Communication Monographs,

59,164-179.

Sunnafrank, M., & Miller, G. R. (1981). The role of initial conversations in determining

attraction to similar and dissimilar strangers. Human Communication Research, 8, 16-25.

Swain, S. (1989). Covert intimacy: Closeness in men’s friendships. In B. J. Risman & P.

Schwartz (Eds.), Gender and intimate relationships (pp. 71-86). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth.


Tesch, S. A., & Martin, R. R. (1983). Friendship conceptions of young adults in two age groups.

The Journal of Psychology, 115, 7-12.

Watt, J. H., & Van den Berg, S. A. (1995). Research methods for communication science.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Weiss, L. & Lowenthal, M. F. (1975). Life course perspectives on friendship. In M. F.

Lowenthal, M. Turner, D. Chiriboga, & Associates (Eds.) Four stages of life (pp. 48-61).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wood, J. T., & Inman, C. (1993). In a different mode: Recognizing male modes of closeness.

Journal of Applied Communication Research, 21, 279-295.

Wright, K. B. (2000). Perceptions of on-line support providers: An examination of perceived

homophily, source credibility, communication and social support within on-line support

groups. Communication Quarterly, 48, 44-59.

Wright, P. H. (1982). Men’s friendships, women’s friendships, and the alleged inferiority of the

latter. Sex Roles, 8, 1-20.

Yun, A. K. (1999). The effect of attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction: A test of the

conversational expectation explanation. Communication Research Reports, 16(3), 249-

255.

Zillmann, D., & Bhatia, A. (1989). Effects of associating with musical genres on heterosexual

attraction. Communication Research, 16(2), 263-288.


Appendix

Music Preferences and Friendship

I am conducting a survey to examine the effect shared music preferences has on who one

chooses to be friends with. Protecting your confidentiality is important to me. To ensure

your confidentiality, do not include your name anywhere on the survey. By completing this

survey, you are giving me your consent to include your answers in my results and to

include those results in future publications or presentations. Results of this study will be

available in January, 2010. For a copy of the results, you may contact me or my faculty

advisor Linda Dickmeyer at 344 Center for the Arts or 785-6715. If you have any questions,

feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time and participation.

Sincerely,

Meredith Brown

1615 Main Street

414-303-0308

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Demographic Information

Sex (circle one): Male Female

Age: ____________

Class Standing (circle one): 1 2 3 4 5+ Non-student

Other Information

Describe your taste in music. What are your favorite kinds of music and/or performers?

Would you characterize your taste in music as unique? Explain your answer.

Please describe a time you became friends with someone after discovering shared music

preferences OR felt closer to an existing friend after disclosing shared music preferences.


Set 1

Part 1

Directions: Please indicate your perceptions of the attractiveness to:

A person from the previous question. If no person was indicated, imagine such a

situation occurred.

Make sure to keep one person in mind for ALL questions. Please indicate the degree to

which each statement applies to you by marking whether you:

Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5

_____1. I think he (she) could be a friend of mine.

_____2. I would like to have a friendly chat with her/him.

_____3. It would be difficult to meet and talk with him (her).

_____4. He (she) just wouldn't fit into my circle of friends.

_____5. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other.

_____6. He/she would be pleasant to be with.

Part 2

Directions: On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the person used in the

previous section. Please think of this person for the following attitude and background

scales. There are no right or wrong answers.

Numbers 1 and 7 indicate a very strong feeling.

Numbers 2 and 6 indicate a strong feeling.

Numbers 3 and 5 indicate a fairly weak feeling.

Number 4 indicates that you are unsure or undecided.

1. Is like me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Is unlike me

2. Is different from me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is similar to me

3. Thinks like me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Does not think like me

4. Doesn't behave like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Behaves like me

5. Has status like mine 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Has status different from mine

6. Is from a different social class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is from the same social class

7. Is culturally different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is culturally similar

8. Has an economic situation 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Does not have an economic

like mine situation like mine

Set 2

Part 1

Directions: This time, indicate your perceptions of the attractiveness of the person

mentioned in the following scenario:

You meet someone who is a big fan of your favorite musician; you have never met

anyone who has heard of this artist before.


Make sure to keep the one person in mind for ALL questions. Please indicate the degree to

which each statement applies to you by marking whether you:

Strongly Disagree = 1; Disagree = 2; Neutral = 3; Agree = 4; Strongly Agree = 5

_____1. I think he (she) could be a friend of mine.

_____2. I would like to have a friendly chat with her/him.

_____3. It would be difficult to meet and talk with him (her).

_____4. He (she) just wouldn't fit into my circle of friends.

_____5. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other.

_____6. He/she would be pleasant to be with.

Part 2

Directions: On the scales below, indicate your feelings about the person in the previous

scenario. There are no right or wrong answers.

Numbers 1 and 7 indicate a very strong feeling.

Numbers 2 and 6 indicate a strong feeling.

Numbers 3 and 5 indicate a fairly weak feeling.

Number 4 indicates that you are unsure or undecided.

1. Is like me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Is unlike me

2. Is different from me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is similar to me

3. Thinks like me 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Does not think like me

4. Doesn't behave like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Behaves like me

5. Has status like mine 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Has status different from mine

6. Is from a different social class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is from the same social class

7. Is culturally different 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Is culturally similar

8. Has an economic situation 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Does not have an economic

like mine situation like mine

Other

Please write any other comments concerning potential friendship and shared music

preference. (Feel free to write on the back of this page if necessary.)


Table 1

Music Genre Frequencies

Genre

Occurrences

Percent

Rock

-classic, hard, soft, modern

49

32.67%

Classical

-all eras

46 30.67%

Country

-modern, classic

44 29.33%

Rap/r&b/hip hop

32 21.33%

Jazz

-blues, big band, traditional

Pop

-top 40, popular music

23

23

15.33%

15.33%

Alternative

22 14.67%

Choral

20 13.33%

Christian

-Gospel, contemporary, worship, church music, hymns

19 12.67%

Oldies

-70s and 80s, Rock and Roll

Folk/Blue grass

-global music, old time music

15

15

10%

10%

Acoustic

-artists like Jack Johnson, Dave Matthews Band

11 7.33%

Musical Theatre

-Broadway, Show Tunes

Ska/Punk/Reggae

10

10

6.67%

6.67%

Techno

-also dance music

9 6%

Other

-new age, easy listening, soundtrack, etc.

8 5.33%

Opera

7 4.67%

Indie Rock

-Subset of Rock/Alternative

6 4%

Metal

-Subset of Hard Rock

4 2.67%

meredith l. brown: senior thesis

Documents

crosse music

effects of music preference

shared music preferences

higher attraction

disclosure of music

specific music tastes

higher social attraction

attraction meredith