IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i7p2499-d341942.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of the Musical Sound Environment on Communicating Emotion

Author

Listed:
  • Qi Meng

    (Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, 66 West Dazhi Street, Nan Gang District, Harbin 150001, China)

  • Jiani Jiang

    (Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, 66 West Dazhi Street, Nan Gang District, Harbin 150001, China)

  • Fangfang Liu

    (Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, 66 West Dazhi Street, Nan Gang District, Harbin 150001, China)

  • Xiaoduo Xu

    (UCL The Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London (UCL), London WC1H 0QB, UK)

Abstract

The acoustic environment is one of the factors influencing emotion, however, existing research has mainly focused on the effects of noise on emotion, and on music therapy, while the acoustic and psychological effects of music on interactive behaviour have been neglected. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of music on communicating emotion including evaluation of music, and d-values of pleasure, arousal, and dominance (PAD), in terms of sound pressure level (SPL), musical emotion, and tempo. Based on acoustic environment measurement and a questionnaire survey with 52 participants in a normal classroom in Harbin city, China, the following results were found. First, SPL was significantly correlated with musical evaluation of communication: average scores of musical evaluation decreased sharply from 1.31 to −2.13 when SPL rose from 50 dBA to 60 dBA, while they floated from 0.88 to 1.31 between 40 dBA and 50 dBA. Arousal increased with increases in musical SPL in the negative evaluation group. Second, musical emotions had significant effects on musical evaluation of communication, among which the effect of joyful-sounding music was the highest; and in general, joyful- and stirring-sounding music could enhance pleasure and arousal efficiently. Third, musical tempo had significant effect on musical evaluation and communicating emotion, faster music could enhance arousal and pleasure efficiently. Finally, in terms of social characteristics, familiarity, gender combination, and number of participants affected communicating emotion. For instance, in the positive evaluation group, dominance was much higher in the single-gender groups. This study shows that some music factors, such as SPL, musical emotion, and tempo, can be used to enhance communicating emotion.

Suggested Citation

  • Qi Meng & Jiani Jiang & Fangfang Liu & Xiaoduo Xu, 2020. "Effects of the Musical Sound Environment on Communicating Emotion," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-19, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2499-:d:341942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2499/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2499/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten I. & Elisabet Rutström, E., 2009. "Risk attitudes, randomization to treatment, and self-selection into experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 498-507, June.
    2. Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2009. "Field experiments in economics: The past, the present, and the future," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 1-18, January.
    3. repec:feb:artefa:0087 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fangfang Liu & Jian Kang & Yue Wu & Da Yang & Qi Meng, 2022. "What do we visually focus on in a World Heritage Site? A case study in the Historic Centre of Prague," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Jianfeng Wu & Lingyan Zhang & Hongchun Yang & Chunfu Lu & Lu Jiang & Yuyun Chen, 2022. "The Effect of Music Tempo on Fatigue Perception at Different Exercise Intensities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John List & Sally Sadoff & Mathis Wagner, 2011. "So you want to run an experiment, now what? Some simple rules of thumb for optimal experimental design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 439-457, November.
    2. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael Findley & Nathan M. Jensen & Stephan Meier & Daniel Nielson, 2016. "Field experiments in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 116-132, January.
    3. Gabriele Camera & Cary Deck & David Porter, 2020. "Do economic inequalities affect long-run cooperation and prosperity?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 53-83, March.
    4. Kyriaki Remoundou & Drichoutis Andreas & Phoebe Koundouri, 2010. "Warm glow in charitable auctions: Are the WEIRDos driving the results?," DEOS Working Papers 1028, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    5. Lackner, Mario & Sonnabend, Hendrik, 2021. "Coping with advantageous inequity—Field evidence from professional penalty kicking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    6. Steffen Huck & Wieland Müller, 2012. "Allais for all: Revisiting the paradox in a large representative sample," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-293, June.
    7. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    8. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    9. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2019. "How natural field experiments have enhanced our understanding of unemployment," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(1), pages 33-39, January.
    10. Bouma, J.A. & Nguyen, Binh & van der Heijden, Eline & Dijk, J.J., 2018. "Analysing Group Contract Design Using a Lab and a Lab-in-the-Field Threshold Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper 2018-049, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    11. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    12. Patrizia Lattarulo & Marco Mariani & Laura Razzolini, 2017. "Nudging museums attendance: a field experiment with high school teens," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 41(3), pages 259-277, August.
    13. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    14. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," IZA Discussion Papers 15478, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Drichoutis, Andreas & Lusk, Jayson, 2012. "Risk preference elicitation without the confounding effect of probability weighting," MPRA Paper 37762, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Claims and confounds in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 186-195.
    18. Henk Folmer & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2011. "Does Environmental Economics Produce Aeroplanes Without Engines? On the Need for an Environmental Social Science," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 337-361, March.
    19. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Astrid Matthey & Tobias Regner, 2013. "On the independence of history: experience spill-overs between experiments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(3), pages 403-419, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2499-:d:341942. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.