What Makes Music Emotionally Significant

Psychology of Music
http://pom.sagepub.com/
What makes music emotionally significant? Exploring the underlying mechanisms

Patrik N. Juslin, Lszl Harmat and Tuomas Eerola
Psychology of Music 2014 42: 599 originally published online 22 August 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0305735613484548
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/42/4/599
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research
Additional services and information for Psychology of Music can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Jun 19, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 22, 2013
What is This?
Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014
484548
2013
POM42410.1177/0305735613484548Psychology of MusicJuslin et al.
Article
What makes music emotionally

significant? Exploring the
underlying mechanisms
Psychology of Music
2014, Vol. 42(4) 599623
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305735613484548
pom.sagepub.com
Patrik N. Juslin
Uppsala University, Sweden
Lszl Harmat
Semmelweis University, Hungary
Tuomas Eerola
University of Jyvskyl, Finland
Abstract
A common approach to study emotional reactions to music is to attempt to obtain direct links
between musical surface features such as tempo and a listeners response. However, such an analysis
ultimately fails to explain why emotions are aroused in the listener. In this article, we propose an
alternative approach, which seeks to explain musical emotions in terms of a set of underlying
mechanisms that are activated by different types of information in musical events. We illustrate this
approach by reporting a listening experiment, which manipulated a piece of music to activate four
mechanisms: brain stem reflex; emotional contagion; episodic memory; and musical expectancy. The
musical excerpts were played to 20 listeners, who were asked to rate their felt emotions on 12 scales.
Pulse rate, skin conductance, and facial expressions were also measured. Results indicated that
target mechanisms were activated and aroused emotions largely as predicted by a multi-mechanism
framework.
Keywords
affect, expectancy, listening, psychophysiology, theory
Music moves us. Indeed, it may evoke anything from mere arousal and basic emotions such as
happiness and sadness to complex emotions such as nostalgia. Such emotional responses add
personal significance to the processes of music perception and cognition, and constitute one of
the main reasons for engaging with music (Juslin, 2011).
Corresponding author:
Patrik N. Juslin, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Box 1225, SE 751 42 Uppsala, Sweden.
Email: patrik.juslin@psyk.uu.se
600
Psychology of Music 42(4)
Evidence of musical emotions comes from many strands of research1 (for a review, see Juslin
& Sloboda, 2013). In accordance with the multi-component view of emotions (Oatley, Keltner,
& Jenkins, 2006), music may influence feelings (Pike, 1972), expressions (Witvliet & Vrana,
2007), psychophysiological reactions (Krumhansl, 1997), brain activation (Brown, Martinez,
& Parsons, 2004), action tendencies (Fried & Berkowitz, 1979), as well as various indirect measures (Vstfjll, 2010). Moreover, there is some evidence of a synchronization of the various
components (Lundqvist, Carlsson, Hilmersson, & Juslin, 2009). However, the question of why
music arouses emotions has largely remained a mystery.
Explaining musical emotions

In the past, the most common approach to understand what causes an emotion to music has
been to map factors (in the music, the listener, and the situation) that somehow influence
emotions. Such research may provide valuable information about the conditions under
which musical emotions occur. Yet producing lists of factors that affect emotions does not
actually constitute an explanation of why they occur; this lesson was learned long time ago
in general research on emotions, where investigators soon discovered that it is difficult to
find objective situation predictors that will invariably influence different people in the same
way: different people tend to react in different ways to the same stimulus. This realization
forms the basis of theories of emotion causation (for a review, see Moors, 2009). To explain
why an emotion occurs, we have to understand how the emotion induction process works
that is, the kind of information-processing that leads to the arousal of a specific emotion.
A theory of emotions must be able to explain both why a given stimulus arouses an emotion
(elicitation) and why the aroused emotion is of a particular kind (differentiation). The
fundamental psychological process by which this is achieved is referred to as the underlying
mechanism.
The most commonly discussed mechanism previously is cognitive appraisal (Scherer,
1999). This notion refers to a process whereby an emotion is aroused in a person because an
event is interpreted as having implications for the persons goals in life (e.g., in terms of goal
congruence, coping potential, or compatibility with social norms). The problem is that
music does not usually have implications for life goals.2 In fact, results so far suggest that
cognitive appraisal is rarely the cause of musical emotions (e.g., Juslin, Liljestrm, Vstfjll,
Barradas, & Silva, 2008). Thus it seems necessary to consider alternative mechanisms
which are more relevant in the case of music. Much research has proceeded as if there were
only one causal route to emotions, but emotions can be aroused in a number of ways
(Izard, 1993).
Thus a better approach to explain musical emotions than to produce lists of influencing
factors might be to develop theories of the underlying mechanisms. Meyer (1956), one of the
pioneers in the music and emotion field, recognized early on the importance of psychological
theory: Given no theory as to the relation of musical stimuli to affective responses, observed
behavior can provide little information as to either the nature of the stimulus, the significance of the response, or the relation between them (p. 10). Meyer himself chose to concentrate on the role of musical expectancy, eloquently elaborating his theory in what is probably
the most cited book in the field. Still, as pointed out by Huron (2006), music can also evoke
emotions through many other means apart from whether the sounds are expected or not
(p. 365). And ironically, though Meyer was clear about the importance of psychological theory in explaining emotions, his ideas would eventually lead to a neglect of such theorizing:
601
Juslin et al.
given a competent listener, the study of emotions could be comfortably reduced to the study
of musical structure.
Unfortunately, emotional responses to music can never be explained merely in terms of the
musical structure what matters is how psychological mechanisms of specific listeners in specific contexts engage with selected aspects of the musical structure. Yet a recent search of the
literature indicated that few articles have proposed or tested any theory about mechanisms
(Juslin & Vstfjll, 2008). In general, emotions to music have been studied without respect to
how they were aroused. Researchers have tried to obtain direct links between surface features
and aroused emotions. This approach has prevented us from explaining individual differences
(e.g., that the same piece of music can evoke different emotions in different listeners), and has
led to overly simple conclusions (e.g., that fast tempo evokes positive emotions; Gomez &
Danuser, 2007, p. 380). The solution to this dilemma, we argue, is a theory-based approach to
musical emotions that goes beyond mere surface features.
A unified theoretical framework: BRECVEMA

Although mechanisms have been mostly neglected in previous studies, several scholars
have discussed possible mechanisms, typically focusing on a few possibilities (e.g., Berlyne,
1971; Dowling & Harwood, 1986; Meyer, 1956; Sloboda, 1998). Scherer and Zentner
(2001) offered a more extensive overview of mechanisms and moderators of emotion induction that might be involved, but the most comprehensive attempt to outline a set of mechanisms is the BRECVEMA framework (Juslin & Vstfjll, 2008; Juslin, Liljestrm, Vstfjll, &
Lundqvist, 2010), which currently (Juslin, in press) features eight mechanisms (besides
appraisal):3
(1) Brain stem reflex: a hard-wired attention response to simple acoustic features such as
extreme or increasing loudness or speed (Simons, 1996);
(2) Rhythmic entrainment: a gradual adjustment of an internal body rhythm (e.g., heart
rate) towards an external rhythm in the music (Harrer & Harrer, 1977);
(3) Evaluative conditioning: a regular pairing of a piece of music and other positive or negative stimuli leading to a conditioned association (Blair & Shimp, 1992);
(4) Contagion: an internal mimicry of the perceived voice-like emotional expression of the
music (Juslin, 2001);
(5) Visual imagery: inner images of an emotional character conjured up by the listener
through a metaphorical mapping of the musical structure (Osborne, 1980);
(6) Episodic memory: a conscious recollection of a particular event from the listeners past
triggered by the music (Baumgartner, 1992);
(7) Musical expectancy: a reaction to the gradual unfolding of the musical structure and its
expected or unexpected continuation (Meyer, 1956); and
(8) Aesthetic judgment: a subjective evaluation of the aesthetic value of the music based on
an individual set of weighted criteria (Juslin, in press).
By synthesizing theory and data from many domains mostly outside music, Juslin and
Vstfjll (2008) were able to develop the first set of hypotheses that may help researchers to
distinguish among the mechanisms. The hypotheses concern such aspects as the information
focus, key brain regions, representations, and extent of cultural impact. (For an update of the
hypotheses, see Juslin, in press.) One important implication is that it may not be sufficient to
602
study musical emotions in general. In order for data to contribute in a cumulative fashion to our
knowledge, we need to specify, as far as possible, the mechanism involved in each case.
Empirical studies of mechanisms

As noted earlier, few studies so far have investigated specific mechanisms empirically. Steinbeis,
Koelsch, and Sloboda (2006) tested Meyers (1956) theory of musical expectancy, and
Baumgartner (1992) and Janata, Tomic, and Rakowski (2007) surveyed memories linked to
music. A broader range of psychological mechanisms were surveyed by Juslin et al. (2008) and
Dingle, Savill, Fraser, and Vieth (2011). However, self-reports of mechanisms from field studies
must be interpreted with caution. The listeners may sometimes be unaware of the true cause of
their emotions (Fox, 2008, p. 36). Thus mechanisms that are more implicit in nature (e.g., conditioning, expectancy) might be underreported relative to mechanisms that are more salient in
conscious experience (e.g., episodic memory). Most importantly, field data do not enable researchers to draw strong conclusions with regard to causal relationships because of insufficient experimental control. Thus it is necessary to conduct experiments in a laboratory setting where
specific mechanisms can be manipulated so as to produce immediate effects on behavioral
measures.
There are at least two complementary experimental strategies in exploring mechanisms.
First, one can attempt to find existing pieces of music that feature characteristics relevant to a
particular mechanism. The use of real music makes it easier to arouse an intense emotion in
listeners. However, the internal validity may be limited, due to a lack of experimental control.
Thus a second approach is to directly manipulate features of the music (as well as the listener
and the situation) to activate a specific mechanism, using highly controlled synthesized (or resynthesized) pieces. Although such manipulations could suffer from low ecological validity,
they allow stronger conclusions regarding causal relationships. In the present experiment, we
explored a manipulative approach.4
To separate the effects of different mechanisms, one must be able to activate, as well as suppress, specific mechanisms in each case. This may be done in three ways (Juslin, in press). First,
one can select or manipulate pieces of music in such a manner as to provide or withhold information required for a certain mechanism to be activated, while leaving or removing other information (the principle of information selection). Second, one can design the test procedure in such
a way that it will prevent the type of information-processing required for a mechanism to be
activated (the principle of interference). Third, one can manipulate listeners, by creating specific
memories during the experimental procedure prior to presenting the target stimulus (the principle of procedural history), in order to investigate mechanisms such as conditioning. In the present experiment, we focused on the first of these principles.
Rationale for the present study

The main aim of this experiment was to make a first attempt to manipulate some of the mechanisms underlying musical emotions. Specifically, we intended to test whether it would be possible to selectively activate the four mechanisms brain stem reflex, contagion, episodic memory,
and musical expectancy, respectively, such that we could predict to some extent the emotions
(e.g., happiness) that would be aroused. The selection of mechanisms was based on practical
considerations: given the complexity of the manipulations, it would not be possible to test all
mechanisms at the same time, and some mechanisms (e.g., visual imagery) seemed more difficult to manipulate than others (e.g., expectancy). All music excerpts were based on an original
603
Juslin et al.
piece which was manipulated in different ways to activate each target mechanism. Before
describing the experiment, we summarize the four mechanisms:
1. Brain stem reflex refers to a process whereby an emotion is evoked by music because some
fundamental acoustic characteristic of the music is taken by the brain stem to indicate a
potentially important and urgent event that needs attention. In music, this may involve
sounds that are sudden, loud, dissonant, or feature a fast or rapidly increasing temporal
pattern. Brain stem reflexes are quick, automatic, and unlearned. A response to an auditory event suggesting danger can be emitted as early as at the level of the inferior colliculus of the brain stem (e.g., Brandao, Melo, & Cardoso, 1993). As a consequence, the
brain stem reflex can quickly evoke arousal so that attention can be selectively directed at
sensory stimuli of potential importance. In the present study, a brain stem reflex was
aroused by inserting an extreme sound event into the original piece (for details, see
Method section). We expected this version to arouse mainly surprise in listeners (Simons,
1996).
2. Emotional contagion refers to a process whereby the emotion is evoked because the listener
perceives the emotional expression of the music, and then mimics or mirrors this
expression internally (Juslin, 2001). Contagion has primarily been studied in regard to
facial expression (e.g., Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994), although Neumann and
Strack (2000) found evidence of contagion from emotion in speech. Because music often
includes acoustic patterns that are similar to those that occur in emotional speech (e.g.,
Juslin & Laukka, 2003), it has been theorized that we get aroused by voice-like aspects of
musical expression through a process in which a neural module responds quickly and
automatically to specific stimulus features that lead us to mimic the perceived emotion
internally (Juslin, 2001, p. 329). In the present study, a contagion reaction was produced
by featuring an expressive, voice-like cello timbre within a sad emotional expression
(Juslin & Laukka, 2003, pp. 792995). We expected this version to arouse mainly sadness
in listeners.
3. Episodic memory refers to a process whereby an emotion is aroused in a listener when the
music evokes a memory of a specific event in life (Baumgartner, 1992; Janata et al.,
2007). When the memory is evoked so is the emotion linked to this memory. Such emotions can be intense, maybe because the psychophysiological pattern to the original event
is stored along with the memory trace (e.g., Lang, 1979). Listeners use music to remind
them of valued past events, indicating that music often serves an important nostalgic
function in everyday-life contexts (e.g., Sloboda, ONeill, & Ivaldi, 2001). One might
expect episodic memories evoked by music to be particularly emotionally vivid for music
from adolescence and young adulthood. (For empirical support, see Schulkind, Hennis, &
Rubin, 1999.) In this study, episodic memories were evoked by inserting a short musical
quote from the soundtrack of a well-known and appreciated movie series (which came
out when the participants were in their adolescence/young adulthood) into the original
piece. We expected this version to arouse mainly nostalgia and happiness in listeners.
4. Musical expectancy refers to a process whereby an emotion is evoked when a specific feature of the music violates, delays, or confirms a listeners schematic expectations about
the continuation of the music, as famously theorized by Leonard Meyer (1956). The
expectations are based on the listeners previous experiences of the same style. Although
Meyers theory is highly regarded, it has not stimulated much research with regard to
emotions. A seminal study by Steinbeis et al. (2006) demonstrated, however, that violations of musical expectancies may also evoke emotions in listeners. In the present study,
604

the musical expectancy mechanism was activated by inserting violations of melodic and
harmonic expectations into the original piece. Due to the repeated transgressions of
musical expectations, we expected this version to arouse mainly anxiety (Meyer, 1956, p.
27) and irritation (Huron, 2006, p. 348) in listeners.
In summary, we manipulated a piece of music to selectively activate four mechanisms (brain

stem reflex, contagion, episodic memory and musical expectancy). The resulting four musical
excerpts were played to 20 listeners, who reported aroused emotions. In accordance with a
multi-component view of emotions (e.g., Scherer & Zentner, 2001), we used multiple measures
(verbal self-reports, facial expressions, and autonomic activity) to enhance the validity of our
conclusions about aroused emotions.
Method
Participants
Twenty listeners (10 males and 10 females, aged 20 61 years, M = 28) took part in the experiment. They were either paid or given course credits for their anonymous and voluntary participation. Most of the participants were students who were recruited by means of posters
throughout Uppsala University. Sixty percent of them played at least one musical instrument.
Forty percent of these had received music education; the rest were self-taught.
Design
The experiment used a within-subjects design, with target mechanism as the independent
variable (four levels: contagion, brain stem reflex, episodic memory, and musical expectancy)
and self-reported feeling (15 scales), facial expression (zygomaticus and corrugator muscles),
and autonomic activity (skin conductance and heart rate) as dependent variables.
Musical material
The experiment featured four music excerpts which were synthesized using the Vienna
Symphonic Library samples to obtain highly realistic performances of music. These excerpts
were all based on a short piece by Ernest Bloch (18801959) titled Prayer, from Jewish Life No.
1, composed for cello and piano, with expression marked as andante moderato (circa 80 bpm).
This is a slow, lyrical, and expressive piece which has been recorded a few times but is not generally well known. In the present study, we used an excerpt of Prayer consisting of the A1A2B1
D1D2 sections of the piece (the original structure is: A1A2B1CD1D2A3A4Coda). The
excerpt is roughly 120 seconds in duration.5
Contagion. The starting point was the contagion version, which served as the template for all
the other versions. The contagion mechanism is believed to be activated by a particularly moving emotional expression in the music, and it is assumed that the effect is strengthened by a
voice-like lead part, either a real voice or a musical instrument reminiscent of a human voice.
It has often been argued that the cello is the closest-sounding instrument to the human voice,6
and previous data suggest that sad performances are perceived as particularly expressive (Juslin, 1997, p. 245). Thus a high-quality cello performance with a sad expression was considered
605
Juslin et al.
ideal for this condition. To meet this demand, we used a digital rendition of Prayer created by Jay
Bacal (available online at http://www.vsl.co.at/en/67/245/255.vsl). This particular version of
the work has been made to resemble a real human performance and includes a number of
expressive performance variations in terms of dynamics, micro-timing and articulation styles.
(The performance variations were crafted using Vienna Symphonic Library, Solo Strings I).
Based on their review of 145 studies of music and speech, Juslin and Laukka (2003, pp. 792
795) described patterns of acoustic cues associated with basic emotions, and the present version of Prayer is consistent with an expression of sadness because it features slow tempo, low
sound level, legato articulation, and slow tone attacks. Moreover, vibrato contributes to a contagion reaction through its relationship to vocal expression of emotion (e.g., Juslin & Scherer,
2005). Consistent with a mimicry response to the voice-like emotional expression of the
music, we expected the contagion version to arouse mainly sadness in listeners.
Brain stem reflex.The brain stem reflex mechanism is believed to be activated by extreme
acoustic features such as high sound level, quick attack, and sharp timbre (Juslin et al., 2010).
This mechanism was therefore targeted by inserting a novel sound event into the existing piece.
The contagion version was taken as the starting point. However, in this and all other non-contagion versions, the voice-like cello playing the melody was replaced by piano samples (PMI
Bosendorfer 290 by Vienna Symphonic Library). More importantly, a sudden, loud chord with
broad spectrum and quite sharp attack was inserted at the beginning of the 10th bar of the
piece. The goal was to mimic naturally occurring brain stem reflex events such as the wellknown drum strokes in Joseph Haydns Symphony No. 94 (Surprise) or Gustav Mahlers Symphony No. 10, Finale. Special care was taken to calibrate the sound level of the event, although
pre-testing indicated that the peak sound level did not quite have to reach the level used in
research on the acoustic startle response (Levenson, 2007, p. 163) to produce a reliable effect
on the listener. Thus a peak sound level of 72 dB(a) was considered sufficient. Because brain
stem reflexes involve local events, we used a shorter excerpt for this mechanism (1 min 30 s)
to reduce the time lag from the critical event to the self-report of feelings. We expected the brain
stem reflex version to arouse mainly surprise in listeners, consistent with an early response that
occurs before any elaborate classification of the sound event has taken place (Simons, 1996).
Episodic memory. The episodic memory mechanism is thought to be activated by salient melodic
themes, which are associated with emotionally charged events that the listener remembers. To
evoke music-associated episodic memories, without having to encode them during this experiment, we inserted a musical quote from the soundtrack of an extremely well-known movie
series, Star Wars. The melodic theme, featured in John Williams original movie soundtrack
(1977), was expected to be familiar to many people who grew up with the Star Wars movies over
the last three decades. The theme, referred to as Binary sunset, was inserted at the position of the
second repetition of the initial theme in Prayer, beginning at bar 5. It should be noted that the
tempo and harmony of the theme are very similar to those of Prayer and that the melody has a
similarly wistful and sad character to it. However, due to memories associated with the Star Wars
movies, we expected this version to arouse mainly nostalgia and happiness in listeners.
Musical expectancy. The musical expectancy mechanism is believed to be activated by unexpected melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic sequences (Meyer, 1956). Hence, in order to activate
this mechanism, we altered the piece to violate melodic and harmonic expectations (while keeping the overall structure and performance nuances intact). Each musical phrase was subjected
606
to 13 random transpositions of 6 semitones. The transpositions were carried out by hand,

using a logic by which the shape of a melodic phrase was preserved, but its harmonies were
rendered more or less unconventional. (The manipulations were evaluated by the authors, in
terms of musical plausibility, and slightly resembled the harmonic choices characteristic of
Stravinskys serial period.) The result of these manipulations was a decrease in tonal stability.
Thus in the normal version, for instance, 65% of the 5-second segments were above the typical key correlation in classical music (r = .66, based on a sample of classical music and using
an audio-based key finding algorithm created by Gomez, 2006), whereas in the expectancy
version, only 27% of the segments were above the typical correlation. Though Meyer (1956) is
often interpreted as saying that expectancy violations mainly induce undifferentiated arousal,
Meyer did consider more specific emotions as well. For example, he argued that that uncertainty (in music and in real life) might arouse anxiety and apprehension (pp. 2729). Similarly,
Huron (2006) argued that the contrarian aesthetic of modernist composers such as Stravinsky will evoke irritation or unease in most listeners (p. 350). Therefore we expected the musical
expectancy version to arouse mainly anxiety and irritation in listeners.
Acoustic measures
General acoustic characteristics of all four conditions, extracted using the music information
retrieval (MIR) toolbox (Lartillot, Toiviainen, & Eerola, 2008), are presented in Figure 1, along
with reference levels based on a large-scale analysis of 482 examples of classical music.
Experiential measures
We measured the subjective feeling component of the aroused emotions in listeners by means
of a 12-item adjective scale, which was developed at Uppsala University specifically for the measurement of emotions to music (see Appendix 1). The scale represents a kind of compromise
among the response formats currently used in the music-emotion field (Zentner & Eerola,
2010) since the selected terms include basic emotions characteristic of discrete emotion theories (Izard, 1977), cover all four quadrants of a circumplex model in terms of valence and
arousal (Russell, 1980), and feature possibly more music-related terms such as nostalgia, expectancy, and awe (Juslin & Laukka, 2004). (The selected terms roughly cover the nine factors of
the Geneva Emotional Music Scale [GEMS]-9, proposed by Zentner, Grandjean, & Scherer
[2008], but since there exists no validated version of GEMS-9 in Swedish, and the scale lacks
terms that were needed in this study [e.g., surprise], we decided to use a customized scale.) The
list features the emotions reported most commonly in prevalence studies. In addition to the 12
emotions, listeners also rated their liking and familiarity for each version and whether they
experienced any chills (defined as piloerection; gshud in Swedish everyday terminology). All
ratings were made on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (a lot), except for chills, which were reported
in a dichotomous fashion (see Appendix 1).
In addition to reporting their feelings, the participants also filled out a second response sheet
(MecScale) for each musical excerpt (see Appendix 2). This sheet purported to capture the mechanisms that had occurred and consisted of eight simple questions, each targeting one of the
mechanisms in the BRECVEM framework (Juslin et al., 2010) plus appraisal. The idea was that,
although some of the mechanisms are implicit in nature, they might co-occur with subjective
impressions that can be reported by listeners. For example, a listener who becomes aroused
through the expectancy mechanism might find the music difficult to predict, whereas a listener
who becomes aroused through the episodic memory mechanism could report having a
607
Juslin et al.
Figure 1. Acoustic characteristics of the experimental conditions.

Note: RMS SD = variability in the sound amplitude, in terms of the standard deviation of the root mean
square energy of the signal; Attack time = the time from the initial note onset to its peak amplitude;
Tempo = the speed of the music, expressed in beats per minute; Pulse clarity = an index of how prominent
or stable the beat is; Roughness = relates to timbre and describes the sensory dissonance based on a
psychoacoustic model that computes the interference within the critical bandwidths; High-frequency
energy = a description of timbre that is often interpreted as the brightness or darkness of the sound,
calculated as the ratio between high and low frequencies in the spectrum. The reference values were based
on an analysis of 482 examples of classical music obtained from the last.fm online database.
conscious recollection of a previous event. Though self-reports of this type cannot be taken as
veridical, we submit that they can at least complement other indices. After pilot testing and
refinement, eight items were included here for exploratory purposes, indexing: (1) brain stem
reflex; (2) rhythmic entrainment; (3) episodic memory; (4) conditioning; (5) visual imagery; (6)
contagion; (7) musical expectancy; and (8) cognitive appraisal.
Psychophysiology: Facial expression and autonomic activity

To enhance the validity of the measurement of emotion, we also measured physiological indices. The goal was to obtain evidence of an emotional response in order to distinguish felt
608
emotions from mere perception of emotions. In the former case, we would expect to discover
some changes in physiological indices (as part of an emotional reaction), whereas in the latter
case there would be no reason to expect such changes. Furthermore, the goal was to be able to
distinguish emotions by locating them in one of the four quadrants of the circumplex model
of affect (Russell, 1980). For instance, if listeners report happiness, their psychophysiological
responses should suggest high arousal and positive valence. These emotion dimensions should
be evident from measures of autonomic activity and facial expressions respectively, as argued
in the previous literature (Andreassi, 2007, pp. 248251).
Psychophysiological indices were obtained using the BIOPAC MP 150 System (Biopac
Systems, Santa Barbara, CA) and the AcqKnowledge version 4.1 software. Skin conductance level
(SCL) was measured using the GSR100C Electrodermal Activity Amplifier module and EL507
disposable snap electrodes that were placed on the palmar surface of the non-dominant hand,
at the thenar and the hypothenar eminences (Fowles et al., 1981). Skin conductance was
recorded in microSiemens (mho).
Pulse rate (PR) was measured based on the arterial pulse pressure, using the PPG 100C Pulse
Plethysmogram Amplifier and the TSD200 (Biopac Systems, Santa Barbara, CA) photoplethysmogram transducer attached to the index finger on the non-dominant hand. The TSD200 uses
a matched infrared emitter and photodiode detector that transmits changes in infrared reflectance which results from varying blood flow. Band-pass filter was used to remove frequencies
below 0.05 Hz and above 10 Hz. Pulse rate was recorded in beats per minute (bpm).
Bipolar facial electromyography (EMG) recordings were made from the left corrugator and
zygomatic muscle regions in accordance with Fridlund and Cacioppos (1986) guidelines.
Before attaching the 4 mm miniature surface Ag/AgCl electrodes, filled with EMG gel (GEL 100,
Biopac Systems), we cleansed the participants skin to reduce interelectrode impedance. All
impedance was reduced to less than 10 k (Fridlund & Cacioppo, 1986). The electrodes were
connected to the EMG100C amplifier module with low- and high-pass filters set at 500 Hz and
10 Hz, respectively, and notch filters set at 50 Hz were used to diminish interference with the
electric mains. The sampling rate was set at 1.000 Hz. Facial EMG was measured in microvolts
(V) and analyzed using the root mean square (RMS).
Mean values for PR, SCL, and facial EMG (zygomaticus, corrugator) were calculated for baseline and the experimental conditions. Baseline recordings were obtained prior to the listening
test during relaxation under silent conditions. During the listening test there was a break
between musical excerpts to allow levels to return to baseline before the next stimulus.
Procedure
When participants arrived at the laboratory, they were seated in a comfortable armchair and
received the following instructions (translated from Swedish):
Welcome to the music laboratory. You will soon listen to a selection of short pieces of music. After each
piece we want you to describe your experience of the music. This should be done in two ways: first, we
want you to describe your feelings during the music on a response sheet. This sheet consists of 12 emotions. Your task is to rate how much of each emotion you felt on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). You
also report whether you experienced chills, as well as how much you liked the music and how familiar
you were with it. Then we want you to fill out a second response sheet featuring eight questions concerning other aspects of your music experience. You will also be fitted with some electrodes so that we
can conduct physiological measurements. These electrodes are completely harmless and do not emit
strong radiation or electricity. However, in order to obtain as accurate measurements as possible, it is
609
Juslin et al.
important that you dont touch any of the electrodes during the experiment. Watches and rings have
to be removed and your cell phone must be switched off. First, you will be asked to relax for a while
during silence. Then the actual listening test begins. When the playback of a piece of music ends, there
will be a brief intermission before the next piece begins, to give you time to fill out the two response
sheets. Then you will relax again for a while before the next piece begins. Note that any emotion you
may experience during listening need not correspond to the musics emotional expression. That is, you
should rate your own emotions, not what the music expresses. After the experiment you will be asked
to respond to some background questions.
Participants were tested individually in a soundproofed room, and listened to the music
through a pair of high-quality loudspeakers (Dali Ikon 6 MK2). Sound level was pre-set to a
comfortable level and was held constant across participants. Stimulus order was randomized
for each participant, whereas the order of rating scales was kept constant across participants.
After the listening test, the participants filled out a short questionnaire with regard to various
background variables (e.g., age, gender, music education). They were also interviewed about
the experiment. However, the participants were not fully de-briefed about the purpose of the
experiment until all had been tested, to prevent confounding effects (Neale & Liebert, 1986). An
experimental session lasted about 50 minutes.
Results
Self-reports: Ratings
To evaluate the effects of target mechanism on listeners self-reports, we conducted an analysis
of variance (ANOVA) with mechanism as the within-subjects factor (four levels) on each rating
scale. Table 1 shows the results. As can be seen, mechanism yielded significant effects on all rating
scales, except interest-expectancy, disgust-contempt, and pride-confidence. The right-most column
presents effect sizes in terms of eta-squared. Beginning with the emotions, the largest effects
occurred for the scales sadness-melancholy, anxiety-nervousness, surprise-astonishment, admiration-awe, happiness-elation, and nostalgia-longing (p2 .306). Table 1 (lower part) also shows the
results from the ANOVAs on the two additional scales liking and familiarity. As seen, mechanism
produced significant effects on both scales, though the effect was larger on the liking scale.
Figure 2 shows means and standard errors for listeners ratings on all scales that showed
significant effects of the experimental manipulation in the ANOVAs (see preceding paragraph).
We begin by looking at the six emotions related to our predictions, and then look at the additional emotions featured in the response sheet. For the six emotions involved in our predictions,
we conducted planned comparisons (t-tests) between the target mechanism and the other
three mechanisms to examine whether the target mechanism received the highest ratings. For
the remaining six emotions and the ratings of familiarity and liking, we conducted post-hoc tests
in the form of Tukeys HSD to explore further contrasts.
Predicted emotions. Inspection of Figure 2 suggests that the episodic memory version produced
the highest mean rating on the happiness-elation scale. Planned comparisons confirmed that the
episodic memory version received significantly higher ratings than the brain stem reflex (t =
3.37, p < .01), contagion (t = 5.15, p < .001), and musical expectancy (t = 3.94, p < .001)
versions.
Similarly, on the sadness-melancholy scale (see Figure 2), planned comparisons showed that
the contagion version received significantly higher ratings than the brain stem reflex (t = 5.20,
610
Table 1. Analysis of variance for listeners ratings.

MS
Scale
Happiness-elation
Mechanism
Sadness-melancholy
Mechanism
Surprise-astonishment
Mechanism
Calm-contentment
Mechanism
Anger-irritation
Mechanism
Nostalgia-longing
Mechanism
Interest-expectancy
Mechanism
Anxiety-nervousness
Mechanism
Love-tenderness
Mechanism
Disgust-contempt
Mechanism
Admiration-awe
Mechanism
Pride-confidence
Mechanism
Liking
Mechanism
Familiarity
Mechanism
pa
eta-squared
7.213
8.820
< .0036
12.879
15.419
< .0036
11.783
9.182
< .0036
6.750
7.657
< .0036
5.513
5.175
< .0036
10.100
8.380
< .0036
0.179
0.174
ns.
9.883
9.573
< .0036
8.213
7.598
< .0036
3.013
4.614
ns.
4.983
9.003
< .0036
3.746
4.851
ns.
12.479
17.429
< .0036
8.233
6.536
< .0036
.317
.448
.326
.287
.214
.306
.009
.335
.286
.195
.322
.203
.478
.256
Note: df = mechanism (3), error (57). aBonferroni corrected from = .05 to = .0036.
p < .001), episodic memory (t = 16.66, p < .001), and musical expectancy (t = 13.85, p < .001)
versions.
On the surprise-astonishment scale (see Figure 2), planned comparisons indicated that the
brain stem reflex version received higher ratings than the contagion (t = 4.88, p < .001), episodic memory (t = 3.74, p < .01), and musical expectancy (t = 3.38, p < .01) versions.
Concerning the anger-irritation scale, inspection of Figure 2 suggests that the musical expectancy version received the highest mean rating, and planned comparisons revealed that the
musical expectancy version received significantly higher ratings of anger-irritation than the episodic memory version (t = 3.86, p < .01). However, the remaining two contrasts were not significant. Note that the anger-irritation ratings were fairly low overall.
For nostalgia-longing, planned comparisons revealed that the episodic memory version
received significantly higher ratings than the brain stem reflex (t = 3.52, p < .01) and musical
expectancy (t = 4.93, p < .001) versions. In contrast, though the episodic memory version did
611
Juslin et al.
Sadness-melancholy
3
Mean rating
Mean rating
Happiness-elation
Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Mechanism

Mechanism
Calm-contentment

Mechanism
Love-tenderness
4
3
Mean rating

Mechanism
Anxiety-nervousness
Mean rating
Mean rating
Nostalgia-longing

Mechanism
Anger-irritation
Mean rating
Mean rating

Mechanism
Mean rating

Mechanism

Mechanism
(Figure 2. Continued)
612

Familiarity
3
Mean rating
Mean rating
Admiration-awe
Brain stem Contagion Memory

Mechanism
Expectancy

Mechanism
Liking
4
Mean rating

Mechanism
Figure 2. Means and standard errors for the listeners ratings on each scale as a function of target
mechanism.
obtain higher mean ratings than the contagion version (see Figure 2), this difference fell short
of statistical significance (t = 1.98, p = .06).
Finally, as regards anxiety-nervousness, planned comparisons revealed that the musical
expectancy version produced significantly higher ratings than the episodic memory version (t
= 4.24, p < .001). However, the remaining two contrasts were not significant.
Additional emotions. Post-hoc tests (Tukeys HSD) on the additional emotion scales featured (see
Figure 2) revealed significant contrasts for the episodic memory and musical expectancy versions. The episodic memory version produced higher ratings of calm-contentment than the contagion (p < .01) and musical expectancy (p < .001) versions. The musical expectancy version,
however, received lower ratings of love-tenderness than the brain stem reflex (p < .05), contagion (p < .01), and episodic memory (p < .001) versions; and lower ratings of admiration-awe
than the brain stem reflex (p < .05), contagion (p < .01), and episodic memory (p < .001) versions (the remaining differences were not statistically significant).
Familiarity and liking. Figure 2 also presents listeners mean ratings of familiarity and liking as a
function of target mechanism. Starting with familiarity, it can be seen that the episodic memory version was rated as familiar by many listeners, whereas the other versions were not.
613
Juslin et al.
Post-hoc tests (Tukeys HSD) confirmed that the episodic memory version was rated as more
familiar than the contagion (p < .01) and musical expectancy (p < .001) versions, but the contrast with the brain stem reflex version fell just short of statistical significance (p < .06).
Regarding liking, inspection of Figure 2 indicates that the musical expectancy version was
less liked than the other versions particularly the contagion and the episodic memory versions. Post-hoc tests confirmed that the musical expectancy version yielded lower ratings of
liking than the contagion (p < .001) and episodic memory (p < .001) versions; and, further, that
the brain stem reflex version yielded lower ratings of liking than the contagion (p < .01) and
episodic memory (p < .01) versions. (Remaining differences were not significant.) Note that a
low mean value for familiarity (M = 0.80) and a fairly high mean value for liking (M = 2.44)
suggests that the musical excerpts were mostly unfamiliar to the listeners, but that they were
reasonably well liked on the whole.7
Self-reports: Chills
The occurrence of chills (i.e., a tingling sensation of piloerection) was reported in a dichotomous manner (did/did not occur) by listeners for each musical stimulus. The results indicated
that the music evoked chills in 12 of the 80 trials (15%). The contagion version yielded the
largest number (7), followed by the brain stem reflex (3), episodic memory (2), and musical
expectancy (0) versions. A non-parametric test, in terms of a Friedman ANOVA, confirmed a
significant effect of mechanism on the number of self-reported chills (2 = 9.75, df = 3, p < .05,
Kendalls W = .163). However, there were large individual differences, such that 50% of the
listeners did not experience any chills at all.
Self-reports: MecScale
The listeners also responded to eight items which targeted specific mechanisms (see Appendix 2).
A primary question is whether the listeners responses may predict the target mechanisms. To
address this question, we computed the non-parametric Spearmans rho () correlations between
the four target mechanism conditions and the eight mechanism items featured in the MecScale
(all variables coded dichotomously). To the extent that MecScale has predictive value, we would
expect only four of the 32 (possible) correlations to be statistically significant as well as positive in
direction; more specifically, those correlations that involve items corresponding to the four target
mechanisms of the experiment. All other correlations should be negative and/or non-significant.
The results indicated that only two out of the 32 correlations (circa 6%) deviated from this pattern. There were thus significant and positive correlations between target mechanism condition
and corresponding MecScale item for the brain stem ( = .51), contagion (.33), episodic memory
(.28) and musical expectancy (.25) versions. In addition, however, the imagery item correlated
significantly with the contagion version (.28) and the expectancy item correlated positively with
the brain stem version (.30; all ps < .05).
In order to investigate whether the MecScale self-reports would also be predictive of the feelings experienced by listeners, we carried out one simultaneous as opposed to stepwise multiple regression on the listeners ratings for each of the six emotion scales included in our
predictions. The dependent variable was the rating on each scale (continuously coded) and the
independent variables were the scale items corresponding to each mechanism (dichotomously
coded). Table 2 presents the results. Note that target mechanism items (set in bold) received
significant beta weights () on their expected scales (e.g., contagion sadness-melancholy),
.36
.52*
.62*
.49*
.44*
.28
.10
.33*
.01
.01
.26*
.08
Brain stem
.01
.12
.01
.07
.12
.06
Entrainment
.02
.18
.03
.24
.15
.25
Conditioning
Imagery
.03
.07
.14
.19
.14
.14
Contagion
.35*
.02
.17
.06
.18
.01
Mechanism item ()
.04
.01
.41*
.24*
.06
.01
Memory
Notes: R = multiple correlations; = beta weights; df = 8, 71; * p < .05; expected correlations with target mechanism items are set in bold.
Sadness-melancholy
Nostalgia-longing
Happiness-elation
Anxiety-nervousness
Anger-irritation
Scale
.04
.25*
.14
.14
.43*
.10
Expectancy
Table 2. Summary of multiple regression analyses: Prediction of emotion ratings from responses to MecScale questionnaire (see Appendix 2).
.03
.11
.07
.16
.11
.09
Appraisal
614
615
Juslin et al.
Skin conductance level
Facial EMG (zygomaticus)
z scores
z scores
Baseline
Contagion
Expectancy
Brain stem
Memory
Baseline
Contagion
Expectancy
Brain stem
Memory
Mechanism
Mechanism
Figure 3. Means and standard errors for the listeners skin conductance level and zygomaticus muscle
activity (z-scores) as a function of target mechanism.
whereas non-target items generally did not. (The singular exception was anger-irritation for
which no item was significantly related to listeners ratings). In addition to the expected links,
the expectancy item also predicted ratings of surprise-astonishment to some degree. However, the
multiple correlations in the left-most column of Table 2 suggest that the prediction was far from
perfect (mean R = .45).
Psychophysiology: Facial expression and autonomic activity

To evaluate the manipulation of target mechanism on psychophysiology, we conducted an
ANOVA with mechanism as the within-subjects factor (four levels) on each physiological index.
All data were z-transformed prior to analyses in order to reduce the impact of differences in
baseline. Mechanism yielded a highly significant overall effect on both skin conductance level
(F4,76 = 27.256, MS = 11.783, p < .001) and EMG zygomaticus (F4,76 = 5.187, MS = 4.311, p
< .001), with the former showing a larger effect (2 = .589) than the latter (.214). No significant effect of mechanism was observed for either pulse rate or EMG corrugator.
Figure 3 presents means and standard errors for listeners skin conductance level and EMG
zygomaticus muscle activity as a function of target mechanism. Beginning with skin conductance, it may be seen that all four experimental conditions yielded higher levels than baseline,
which suggests that all versions were somewhat arousing. It is also clear, however, that the
brain stem version yielded the highest skin conductance level. Planned comparisons between
baseline and each of the experimental conditions indicated that the brain stem reflex (p <
.0001), the episodic memory (p < .05), and the musical expectancy versions (p < .05) all produced significantly higher skin conductance level than baseline, whereas the contrast with the
contagion version was not significant (p = .11).
Moving on to the facial EMG zygomaticus data, inspection of Figure 3 suggests that the two
versions that involved predictions for negative emotions (contagion sadness, musical expectancy anxiety, irritation) produced little zygomaticus muscle activity, consistent with a negatively valenced response, whereas the two versions that involved predictions for neutral (brain
stem reflex surprise) or primarily positive emotions (episodic memory nostalgia, happiness)
produced more zygomaticus muscle activity, consistent with a positively valenced response.
616
However, planned comparisons among baseline and each of the conditions revealed that only
the contrast involving the brain stem reflex version was significant (p < .05).
Discussion
Summary of findings
This study explored four of the mechanisms believed to underlie emotional reactions to music,
using theoretically based manipulations of a short original piece of music. The results enable us
to draw the following tentative conclusions. First, the four experimental conditions aroused
emotions in listeners primarily in accordance with our predictions: the listeners self reports
indicated that the brain stem reflex version aroused the most surprise; the contagion version
aroused the most sadness;8 the episodic memory version aroused the most happiness and nostalgia; and the musical expectancy version aroused the most irritation. The singular exception was
that, contrary to our prediction, the musical expectancy version did not arouse the most anxiety,
though it did arouse more anxiety than two of the other versions (Figure 2). Therefore, though
the effects were not as clear-cut as one would hope, they were in line with our predictions.
Second, additional measures, in terms of facial expressions and autonomic responses, confirmed that listeners actually experienced felt emotions as opposed to simply perceiving the
emotions expressed in the music.9 The results involved significant differences, at least for some
of the indices, both between baseline and experimental conditions (which confirms that the
stimuli aroused emotions) and between the conditions (indicating that the stimuli aroused different emotions). In addition, based on the assumption that skin conductance level indexes
autonomic arousal and that facial expressions index emotional valence (e.g., Andreassi, 2007;
Fox, 2008), it may be concluded that the results were consistent with listeners self-reports of
feelings: for instance, self-reported surprise involved higher skin conductance level and more
zygomatic muscle activity than did self-reported sadness, consistent with how these emotions
are typically located on the dimensions of arousal and pleasure (Russell, 1980).
Third, the obtained results do not simply reflect commonly studied surface features of the
music such as tempo, sound level, or timbre. Indeed, inspection of acoustic measures (see
Figure 1) shows that these contradict the relationships expected from a traditional approach
which presumes that perceived and aroused emotions will involve the same acoustic features:
for instance, contrary to such music-emotion links, tempo was faster for the sadness-arousing
music than for the surprise- and happiness-arousing music; amount of high-frequency energy
in the spectrum of the music was higher in the sadness-arousing music than in the anger- and
happiness-arousing music; and mean attack time was longer in the anger-arousing music
than in the sadness-arousing music. We submit that this is because listeners responses are
driven by underlying mechanisms (e.g., whether a particular memory was evoked, whether
the music deviated from stylistic expectations), rather than by surface features as such. We do
not claim that listeners reactions are typically contrary to surface-feature relationships.
They may often be consistent with them in particular in laboratory studies, where participants are exposed to unfamiliar, experimenter-selected music (for a discussion, see Liljestrm,
Juslin, & Vstfjll, 2012), which means that some mechanisms (e.g., contagion) are more
likely than others (e.g., episodic memory). However, we do believe that mere demonstration
that surface features can deviate from traditional patterns is sufficient to show that a surface-feature approach (alone) will not provide a satisfactory account of musical emotions. It
is not the case that correlations among surface features and emotions constitute a rival
617
Juslin et al.
explanation to mechanisms they do not constitute an explanation at all. They only move
the burden of explanation from one level (why does the slow movement of Beethovens Eroica
symphony arouse sadness?) to another level (why does slow tempo arouse sadness?). It is a
description of the process that mediates between surface features and emotions that constitutes an explanation.
Problems and future directions

How can we be sure that the listeners emotional reactions were caused mainly by the target
mechanism? Although it is rarely possible to completely rule out all rival hypotheses, we find it
difficult to conceive of plausible rival hypotheses that can account for the present data. A
strength of the experimental design in terms of statistical conclusion validity is that the musical excerpts were fairly simple, and that several aspects of the stimulus (e.g., mode, performance
variation, approximate length, instrument arrangement) were kept more or less constant
across conditions or controlled (e.g., acoustic characteristics). In many cases, rival hypotheses
(i.e., alternative mechanisms) can be ruled out based on the stimuli themselves: because we
used music unfamiliar to the listeners, evaluative conditioning appears unlikely. Were conditioned responses to occur in the absence of any common conditioning procedure featured in
the experiment, these responses would be idiosyncratic and could hardly explain the consistent
effects seen here. Similarly, because the music did not feature a marked pulse, as indicated for
instance by pulse clarity estimates in Figure 1, arousal of emotions through rhythmic entrainment appears implausible. In addition, entrainment could hardly explain the specific types of
emotions aroused (e.g., nostalgia). The post-hoc reports (MecScale) offer some further tentative
support for our conclusions by being predictive of both experimental conditions (i.e., mechanisms) and self-reported subjective feelings. Though we concede that the scale items are only
preliminary and require further testing, some of them would seem to have high face validity;
for instance, the item on whether the music evoked memories or not is straightforward. Hence
we can be reasonably confident that the episodic memory version tended to evoke memories,
whereas the other versions did not. Similarly, a brain stem reflex is a distinct event that listeners
will hardly fail to detect or report reliably in a questionnaire.
Although our manipulation of mechanisms aroused primarily the predicted emotions, it
is apparent that some other emotions were also aroused to some extent, albeit in weaker
form. In most cases these effects were consistent with the predicted emotions, for instance in
terms of valence. However, the contagion version aroused some nostalgia, which is more typically associated with episodic memories linked to music (cf. Janata et al., 2007; Juslin et al.,
2008). This finding appears quite puzzling considering that the music was unfamiliar to the
listeners and that they thus presumably did not have specific memories associated with the
music. One possible explanation could be that the nostalgia was a by-effect of the musicevoked sadness, rather than an effect of the music. It has been reported previously that one
common trigger of nostalgia is negative affect such as sadness (Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, &
Routledge, 2006). Thus, in the present experiment we may speculate that, once the listener
became sad, through contagion, this emotion triggered episodic memories, which aroused
nostalgia-longing also.
The least successful of our manipulations at least in terms of confirming predictions was
the musical expectancy version. Although it did arouse some irritation, it did not arouse anxiety
as much as we had expected. Modern listeners might be too familiar with modernist music for
them to find it anxiety-provoking. It is also possible that expectancy reactions may be stronger
618
if the deviations occur in familiar music. Specifically, with unfamiliar music, the amount of
learned music schemata relevant to the case may not be sufficient to evoke strong expectancies.
It could seem strange that the expectancy version did not arouse more surprise reactions in listeners, since this is often viewed as a prototypical expectancy reaction (Huron, 2006), but this
is consistent with Meyers (1956) views. He argued that conditions of active expectation are
not the most favorable to surprise. For the listener is on guard, anticipating a new and possibly
unexpected consequence. Therefore, Meyer proposed, Surprise is most intense where no special expectation is active (p. 29), which is precisely the case with brain stem reflexes there is
nothing in the foregoing structure that leads the listener to expect this sudden event. In contrast, when schematic expectations are activated by musical structure, as in the expectancy
stimuli, the emotion evoked by deviations is more likely to be anxiety than surprise. In any case,
developing (better) expectancy-based music excerpts that arouse strong emotions in listeners is
an important goal for future research.
There are several other limitations of this experiment that should be acknowledged. To start
with, we only used a single (original) piece of music. Though it might be argued that the original piece mainly serves as a carrier of different types of information, the results clearly need to
be replicated with other pieces. It should also be noted that lyrics were not included in the present stimuli, and that this may also be an influencing factor in some circumstances (see Dingle
et al., 2011; Juslin et al., 2008). Another problem is that the psychophysiological data were not
consistent: for instance, we obtained significant overall effects for skin conductance, but not for
pulse rate. It may be noted, however, that skin conductance has been more reliably related to
arousal-inducing music than pulse rate in previous research (cf. Hodges, 2010). It is unclear
why the zygomaticus muscle activity was largest in the brain stem condition, but part of the
observed activity might reflect cross-talk from other muscles of the middle and lower facial
regions during a startle response.
One final issue concerns the context (or lack thereof) in this experiment. The increased control of laboratory studies comes with a price in terms of a lower ecological validity. For
instance, it can perhaps be argued that it is problematic that the participants listened to music
that they were not familiar with, and that belonged to a music genre they did not prefer. Still,
their ratings suggested that they liked some of the pieces, and that the pieces aroused intense
emotions, even chills. Research has revealed that listeners commonly encounter unfamiliar
music they have not selected themselves, and that this does not preclude experiencing strong or
positive emotions (Juslin et al., 2008). In this regard at least, the emotion episodes elicited here
are not particularly unrepresentative of everyday music listening. On the other hand, it must
be acknowledged that the social context of musical events is missing in this experiment and that
leaving out this important factor could give the impression that the task of predicting emotional reactions to music is more straightforward than it really is.10 What difference does the
context make? Presumably, different aspects of the context determine which mechanisms are
actually activated by influencing factors such as the music choice, the listeners attention, and
the functions of the music during specific activities (North & Hargreaves, 2008).
Implications for research and applications

This is the first study to selectively manipulate and contrast distinct target mechanisms in the
induction of emotions through music listening. The results suggest that the relationship
between music and emotion is too complex to be captured in terms of simple one-to-one links
among musical features and emotions (e.g., fast tempo happiness, slow tempo sadness). To
619
Juslin et al.
predict what emotion a piece of music will evoke requires consideration of the underlying
mechanism (what is the salient information? How is it processed by the listener?) rather than
only looking at surface features. It must be noted that a mechanism approach is more flexible
than a surface-feature approach because psychological analyses can be cross-culturally valid at
the level of mechanisms even if there is cross-cultural diversity in musical surface features and
aroused emotions (Juslin, 2012).
The present results also have some implications for applications of music and emotion
research. For instance, most empirical studies of music and health thus far (for an up-todate review, see MacDonald, Kreutz, & Mitchell, 2012) have tended to focus on quite superficial one-to-one relations between music and response, by-passing any intervening
psychological processes in what is really a behaviorist approach.11 We submit that only an
understanding of underlying mechanisms will permit practitioners to apply the music in a
way that actively manipulates specific mechanisms, so as to achieve predictable effects on
emotion and health.
Whatever its limitations, this study has provided some support for the idea that musical emotions are aroused through the ways in which musical events are processed by underlying mechanisms. What matters, ultimately, is not acoustic parameters as such, but what meaning they
are given by our psychological processes, a distinction between sound and significance. By highlighting this distinction, and allowing stronger causal conclusions than can be drawn from field
data (see Dingle et al., 2011; Juslin et al., 2008; Juslin, Liljestrm, Laukka, Vstfjll, & Lundqvist,
2011), the present experiment has illustrated one promising avenue towards explaining the
emotional significance of music.
Funding
The present study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, through a grant to Patrik N. Juslin
(Dnr 421-2010-2129). We are grateful to the reviewers for useful comments on a preliminary version of
the manuscript.
Notes
1. Musical emotions is used here as a short term for emotions that were evoked by music (see Juslin &
Sloboda, 2013, p. 585).
2. Of course, music is often used to achieve various goals (e.g., relaxation). To avoid confusion, we
emphasize that there is a distinction between using music to achieve a goal (e.g., to get distracted)
and a goal being involved in the actual emotion induction (i.e., the process that arouses an emotional
reaction). The focus here is on the latter process.
3. The acronym BRECVEMA derives from the first letter of each of the eight mechanisms.
4. We are currently pursuing a parallel path of studies featuring real music examples.
5. The scores for all four music examples may be obtained by contacting the authors.
6. See, for example, the Wikipedia entry on cello and interviews with musicians like Steven Isserlis.
7. Listeners ratings of liking did not explain more than 38% of the variance in any of the emotion
scales, suggesting some degree of independence between emotion and preference (i.e., liking; for
further discussion, see Juslin et al., 2010, pp. 634637).
8. Notably, the aroused emotion was sadness because we featured a sad expression in the contagion
condition, but contagion may, of course, involve other emotions, depending on the expression of the
music in question.
9. Note that the listeners were carefully instructed to focus on their own feelings rather than on the
emotions expressed in the music (procedure). Previous research has shown that such instructions
can be effective in helping participants to focus on one aspect or the other (e.g., Zentner et al.,
2008).
620
10. For an attempt to predict emotions based primarily on contextual factors in real-life music episodes,
see Juslin et al. (2011, pp. 193195).
11. Behaviorism involved the idea that human behavior should be described scientifically without
recourse to internal constructs, such as the mind (Goodwin, 2008).
References
Andreassi, J. L. (2007). Psychophysiology: Human behaviour & physiological response (5th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Baumgartner, H. (1992). Remembrance of things past: Music, autobiographical memory, and emotion.
Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 613620.
Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.
Blair, M. E., & Shimp, T. A. (1992). Consequences of an unpleasant experience with music: A second-order
negative conditioning perspective. Journal of Advertising, 21, 3543.
Brandao, M. L., Melo, L. L., & Cardoso, S. H. (1993). Mechanisms of defense in the inferior colliculus.
Behavioral Brain Research, 58, 4955.
Brown, S., Martinez, M. J., & Parsons, L. M. (2004). Passive music listening spontaneously engages limbic
and paralimbic systems. Neuroreport, 15, 20332037.
Dingle, G. A., Savill, S., Fraser, C., & Vieth, H. (2011, July). Music that moves us: In search of the mechanisms
linking music listening with emotional response. Poster presented at the Meeting of the International
Society for Research on Emotions, Kyoto.
Dowling, W. J., & Harwood, D. L. (1986). Music cognition. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Fowles, D. C., Christie, M. J., Edelberg, R., Grings, W. W., Lykken, D. T., & Venables, P. H. (1981). Publication
recommendations for electrodermal measurements. Psychophysiology, 18, 232239.
Fox, E. (2008). Emotion science. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fridlund, A. J., & Caccioppo, J. T. (1986). Guidelines for human electromyographic research.
Psychophysiology, 25, 567589.
Fried, R., & Berkowitz, L. (1979). Music that charms and can influence helpfulness. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 9, 199208.
Gomez, E. (2006). Tonal description of polyphonic audio for music content processing. INFORMS Journal
on Computing, 18, 294304.
Gomez, P., & Danuser, B. (2007). Relationships between musical structure and psychophysiological measures of emotion. Emotion, 7, 377387.
Goodwin, C. J. (2008). A history of modern psychology (3rd ed.). New York. NY: John Wiley.
Harrer, G., & Harrer, H. (1977). Music, emotion, and autonomic function. In M. Critchley, & R. A. Henson
(Eds.), Music and the brain: Studies in the neurology of music (pp. 202216). London, UK: William
Heinemann.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Hodges, D. (2010). Psychophysiological measures. In P. N. Juslin, & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Handbook of music
and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 279311). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Huron, D. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and noncognitive processes.
Psychological Review, 100, 6890.
Janata, P., Tomic, S. T., & Rakowski, S. K. (2007). Characterization of music-evoked autobiographical
memories. Memory, 15, 845860.
Juslin, P. N. (1997). Perceived emotional expression in synthesized performances of a short melody:
Capturing the listeners judgment policy. Musicae Scientiae, 1, 225256.
Juslin, P. N. (2001). Communicating emotion in music performance: A review and a theoretical framework. In P. N. Juslin, & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 309337).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
621
Juslin et al.
Juslin, P. N. (2011). Music and emotion: Seven questions, seven answers. In I. Delige, & J. Davidson (Eds.),
Music and the mind: Essays in honour of John Sloboda (pp. 113135). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Juslin, P. N. (2012). Are musical emotions invariant across cultures? Emotion Review, 4, 283284.
Juslin, P. N. (in press). From everyday emotions to aesthetic emotions: Toward a unified theory of musical
emotions. Physics of Life Reviews.
Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2003). Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music performance: Different channels, same code? Psychological Bulletin, 129, 770814.
Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2004). Expression, perception, and induction of musical emotions: A review
and a questionnaire study of everyday listening. Journal of New Music Research, 33, 217238.
Juslin, P. N., Liljestrm, S., Laukka, P., Vstfjll, D., & Lundqvist, L.-O. (2011). Emotional reactions to music
in a nationally representative sample of Swedish adults: Prevalence and causal influences. Musicae
Scientiae, 15, 174207.
Juslin, P. N., Liljestrm, S., Vstfjll, D., Barradas, G., & Silva, A. (2008). An experience sampling study of
emotional reactions to music: Listener, music, and situation. Emotion, 8, 668683.
Juslin, P. N., Liljestrm, S., Vstfjll, D., & Lundqvist, L.-O. (2010). How does music evoke emotions?
Exploring the underlying mechanisms. In P. N. Juslin, & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Handbook of music and
emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 605642). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Juslin, P. N., & Scherer, K. R. (2005). Vocal expression of affect. In J. A. Harrigan, R. Rosenthal, & K. R.
Scherer (Eds.), The new handbook of methods in nonverbal behavior research (pp. 65135). Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Juslin, P. N., & Sloboda, J. A. (2013). Music and emotion. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The psychology of music (3rd
ed., pp. 583645). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Juslin, P. N., & Vstfjll, D. (2008). Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31, 559575.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1997). An exploratory study of musical emotions and psychophysiology. Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 336352.
Lang, P. J. (1979). A bio-informational theory of emotional imagery. Psychophysiology, 16, 495512.
Lartillot, O., Toiviainen, P., & Eerola, T. (2008). A Matlab toolbox for music information retrieval. In C.
Preisach, H. Burkhardt, L. Schmidt-Thieme, & R. Decker (Eds.), Data analysis, machine learning, and
applications: Studies in classification, data analysis, and knowledge organization (pp. 261268). Berlin,
Germany: Springer.
Levenson, R. W. (2007). Emotion elicitation with neurological patients. In J. A. Coan, & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.),
Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 158168). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Liljestrm, S., Juslin, P. N., & Vstfjll, D. (2012). Experimental evidence of the roles of music choice,
social context, and listener personality in emotional reactions to music. Psychology of Music.
doi:10.1177/0305735612440615
Lundqvist, L.-O., Carlsson, F., Hilmersson, P., & Juslin, P. N. (2009). Emotional responses to music:
Experience, expression, and physiology. Psychology of Music, 37, 6190.
MacDonald, R., Kreutz, G., & Mitchell, L. (Eds.). (2012). Music, health, and well-being. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Moors, A. (2009). Theories of emotion causation: A review. Cognition & Emotion, 23, 625662.
Neale, J. M., & Liebert, R. M. (1986). Science and behavior (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). Mood contagion: The automatic transfer of mood between persons.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 211223.
North, A., & Hargreaves, D. (2008). The social and applied psychology of music. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Oatley, K., Keltner, D., & Jenkins, J. (2006). Understanding emotions (2nd ed.) Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Osborne, J. W. (1980). The mapping of thoughts, emotions, sensations, and images as responses to music.
Journal of Mental Imagery, 5, 133136.
622
Pike, A. (1972). A phenomenological analysis of emotional experience in music. Journal of Research in

Music Education, 20, 262267.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
11611178.
Scherer, K. R. (1999). Appraisal theories. In T. Dalgleish, & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 637663). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Scherer, K. R., & Zentner, M. R. (2001). Emotional effects of music: Production rules. In P. N. Juslin, & J.
A. Sloboda (Eds.), Music and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 361392). Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Schulkind, M. D., Hennis, L. K., & Rubin, D. C. (1999). Music, emotion, and autobiographical memory:
They are playing our song. Memory and Cognition, 27, 948955.
Simons, R. C. (1996). Boo! Culture, experience, and the startle reflex. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Music: Where cognition and emotion meet. The Psychologist, 12, 450455.
Sloboda, J. A., ONeill, S. A., & Ivaldi, A. (2001). Functions of music in everyday life: An exploratory study
using the Experience Sampling Method. Musicae Scientiae, 5, 932.
Steinbeis, N., Koelsch, S., & Sloboda, J. A. (2006). The role of harmonic expectancy violations in musical emotions: Evidence from subjective, physiological, and neural responses. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18, 13801393.
Vstfjll, D. (2010). Indirect perceptual, cognitive, and behavioural measures. In P. N. Juslin, & J. A.
Sloboda (Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 255277). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia: Content, triggers, functions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 975993.
Witvliet, C. V., & Vrana, S. R. (2007). Play it again Sam: Repeated exposure to emotionally evocative music
polarises liking and smiling responses, and influences other affective reports, facial EMG, and heart
rate. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 325.
Zentner, M. R., & Eerola, T. (2010). Self-report measures and models. In P. N. Juslin, & J. A. Sloboda
(Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 187221). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Zentner, M. R., Grandjean, D., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Emotions evoked by the sound of music:
Characterization, classification, and measurement. Emotion, 8, 494521.
623
Juslin et al.
Appendix 1
Response sheet for self-reported feelings
1. Rate the intensity with which you felt each of the following feelings by circling a number
from 0 to 4.
0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Not at all
happiness-elation
sadness-melancholy
surprise-astonishment
calm-contentment
anger-irritation
nostalgia-longing
interest-expectancy
anxiety-nervousness
love-tenderness
disgust-contempt
admiration-awe
pride-confidence
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
A lot
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2. Did you experience chills to the music?

Yes No
3. How much did you like the music? (Circle a number)
Not at all01234A lot
4. How familiar were you with the music? (Circle a number)
Not at all01234A lot
Appendix 2
Response sheet for mechanism indices (MecScale)
1. Did the music feature an event that startled you?
YesNo
2. Did the music have a strong and captivating pulse/rhythm?
YesNo
3. Did the music evoke a memory of an event from your life?
YesNo
4. Did the music evoke more general associations?
YesNo
5. Did the music evoke images while you were listening?
YesNo
6. Were you touched by the emotional expression of the music?
YesNo
7. Was it difficult to guess how the music (e.g., melody) would continue over time?
YesNo
8. Did the music have any practical consequences for your goals or plans in life?
YesNo
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

What Makes Music Emotionally Significant

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

What Makes Music Emotionally Significant

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Psychology of Music

What makes music emotionally significant? Exploring the underlying mechanisms

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

>> Version of Record - Jun 19, 2014

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

POM42410.1177/0305735613484548Psychology of MusicJuslin et al.

What makes music emotionally

Uppsala University, Sweden

Semmelweis University, Hungary

University of Jyvskyl, Finland

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Psychology of Music 42(4)

Explaining musical emotions

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

A unified theoretical framework: BRECVEMA

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Psychology of Music 42(4)

Empirical studies of mechanisms

Rationale for the present study

Psychology of Music 42(4)

In summary, we manipulated a piece of music to selectively activate four mechanisms (brain

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Psychology of Music 42(4)

to 13 random transpositions of 6 semitones. The transpositions were carried out by hand,

Figure 1. Acoustic characteristics of the experimental conditions.

Psychophysiology: Facial expression and autonomic activity

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Psychology of Music 42(4)

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Psychology of Music 42(4)

Table 1. Analysis of variance for listeners ratings.

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Psychology of Music 42(4)

Brain stem Contagion Memory

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Brain stem Contagion Memory Expectancy

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Facial EMG (zygomaticus)

Psychophysiology: Facial expression and autonomic activity

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Psychology of Music 42(4)

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Problems and future directions

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Psychology of Music 42(4)

Implications for research and applications

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Psychology of Music 42(4)

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014

Downloaded from pom.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DO PARANA on September 30, 2014