Effects of Music on Physiological Arousal: Explorations into Genre and Tempo
Francesca Dillman Carpentier & Robert F. Potter
Music can have a profound effect on our perceptions of ourselves, of others and of our surrounding environment. One way it influences us is by
elevating perceived arousal. However, very few studies test whether music can increase physiological arousal, which would have applications
for excitation transfer, information recall and the like. This investigation provides a systematic test of musical features on physiological arousal.
Experiment 1
Experiment 2
H1: Fast tempos are more arousing than slow tempos.
H2: Rock is more arousing than classical music.
RQ: How does swing music behave?
H1: Music is more physiologically arousing than silence.
H2: Fast tempos are more arousing than slow tempos.
H3: Rock is more arousing than classical music.
Stimuli were 50-sec. instrumental excerpts consisting of fast rock,
slow rock, fast classical, slow classical, and two periods of silence.
Order was rotated.
Stimuli were 50-sec. instrumental excerpts consisting of fast rock,
slow rock, fast classical, slow classical, fast swing, and slow swing.
Order was rotated.
Results
H1 and H2 were supported. H3 was not supported.
Results
H1 was partially supported
with skin conductance response data.
0
Swing, regardless of tempo, was more arousing than the other genres.
M ic r o S ie m e n s
Skin conductance level and response data were collected from 24
undergrads in a within-subjects design.
(See paper for additional results, including Skin Conductance Response data)
Fast
in
0.6
0
.85b
.95b
Note. Cells are means from 3 (silence, slow, fast) x 6 (presentation order)
mixed-measures ANOVA (F(2, 24) = 3.0, p = .07). Means with different
lowercase superscripts differ significantly at p < .05.
First 30s: F(2,18) = 3.68, p. = .046
0.2
Fast
0
Slow
-0.4
0.4
-0.6
-0.6
0.2
Silence
-0.8
-0.8
0
Genre
Fast
Rock
Classical
Rock
Slow
Swing
-1
-0.2
-1 -1.2
-0.4
-1.2
-0.6
Genre
Effect of Music Pacing on Arousal
0.4
-0.4 -0.2
0.6
microseimens
C h a n g e S c o re s
.65a
in
-0.2
0.8
Mean SCL
-0.4
Seg1
Seg3
Seg5
Seg2
Seg4
Seg8
Classical
Silence
Time (5s Segments)
Mean SCL
Classical
Rock
.65A
.69AB
1.12B
-1
-1.6
-1.2
Tempo -1
-0.2
Fast
.49a
1.16b
-1.6
.58
-1.8
Swing
Seg1
-1.8
Seg3
Seg2
Seg 1
Seg5
Seg4
Seg 2
Seg 3
Seg 4
Seg7
Seg6
Seg 5
Time (5s Segments)
Time (5s segments)
Seg 6
Seg8
Seg 7
Seg 8
.86
.75
.55
Note. Cells are means from 2 (slow, fast) x 3 (rock, classical, swing)
x 6 (presentation order) mixed-measures ANOVA (F(2, 36) = 5.6, p < .01).
Means with different lowercase superscripts differ significantly at p < .05.
Comparisons are made within genre only.
Rock
Classical
Swing
-0.4
-1.2
Onset
Onset
Note. Cells are means from 3 (silence, slow, fast) x 6 (presentation order)
mixed-measures ANOVA (F(2, 24) = 3.5, p < .05). Means with different
uppercase superscripts differ marginally at p < .10.
0
-1.4
-0.8
-1.4
Silence
F(78,1092) = 1.4, p < .05
-0.8
Slow
Seg7
Seg6
-0.6
microseimens
Slow
First 30s: F(2,18) = 3.68, p. = .046
0.8
S c o re s
Silence
(See paper for additional results, including Skin Conductance Response data)
Effect of Music Pacing on Arousal
C h a n g e
Tempo
-0.2
microseimens
M ic r o S ie m e n s
Skin conductance level and response data were collected from 18
undergrads in a within-subjects design.
Seg 1
-0.6
Rock
Classi
Swing
-0.8
-1
Seg 2-1.2 Seg 3
Seg 4
Seg 5
Seg 6
Seg 7
Seg 8
Time (5s segments)
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
Onset
Seg 1
Seg 2
Seg 3
Seg 4
Seg 5
Time (5s segments)
Seg 6
Seg 7
Seg 8