‘Rock music for myself and justice to the world!’: Musical identity,values,and music preferences

Abstract

The present study examined the relationship between music preferences, values, and musical identities in a sample of 606 Greek college students. Students indicated the importance of music in defining and evaluating themselves and their values on an abbreviated version of the Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992). A typology of music preferences was revealed, with five factors: sophisticated and complex (e.g., jazz); native-Greek traditional (e.g., ‘rebetika’); sentimental and sensational (e.g., pop); established rebellious (e.g., rock); and non-mainstream dissonant (e.g., punk). Hierarchical regression analyses showed that values and perceived importance of music to self-definition (i.e., musical identities) contribute differentially in predicting the music preference structures, for example self-transcendence predicted established rebellious and conservation predicted sentimental and sensational; also musical identity was positively related to established rebellious and negatively to sentimental and sensational. These findings are discussed and interpreted within a psychological, as well as an interdisciplinary, theoretical framework.

Keywords

music genres music preferences musical identity personal values self-identity

Why do people listen to the music they do and which are the variables that predict people’s music likes and dislikes? Recent psychological literature that investigates why people listen to music mainly provides insights into the relationships between music preferences and mainly two sets of predicting variables: personality traits (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007; McCown, Keiser, Mulhearn, & Williamson, 1997; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003); and social identities (e.g., North & Hargreaves, 1999; North, Hargreaves, & O’Neill, 2000). Focusing on the individual level of analysis (see Hargreaves & North, 1997) the present study investigates the role of two variables that can significantly contribute to predicting music preferences.

Individuals may think that music plays a (primary or secondary) role in expressing themselves and constructing their self-image (Hargreaves, Miell, & MacDonald, 2002). This perception of a general function of music in self-definition (i.e., musical identity) may direct preferences to specific music genres. For example, individuals may listen to a specific music genre in order to be accepted (i.e., assimilated) by a social group (e.g., Hargreaves & North, 1997) or accordingly in order to feel different from other people. Can the importance that music has to the individual predict his or her music likes and dislikes?

Another important variable, which has not been investigated in music psychology literature, is personal values: can these guiding principles of individuals’ thought and behaviour (Schwartz, 1992) predict their music preferences? People holding specific values, for example openness to change (i.e., the motivation to search for new and exciting experiences), may choose to listen to specific music genres that provide such stimulation. Likewise, people holding the value of conformity (i.e., the motivation to be obedient and dutiful) may choose to listen to music that is congruent to what is consensually acceptable or traditional.

The present study aims to examine the relation between musical identities, personal values and music preferences (having defined first the territory of musical preferences in the specific population investigated).

Musical identities

There is ample evidence, the majority of which has been mainly developed in sociological and communication research, of the importance of music to the construction of self-identities, especially of young people (e.g., Arnett, 1991; Bleich, Zillmann, & Weaver, 1991; Frith, 1981; Hansen & Hansen, 1991; Krims, 2001; Laughey, 2006; Negus, 1996). During the last decade, though, a renewed interest in the relationship between music and identity has emerged in social psychological research. North and Hargreaves (1999) provided evidence that adolescents’ music preferences (of chart pop music) seemed to reflect an attempt to match their self-concept with perceptions of the people who typically listen to that style. They suggested that music functions as a ‘badge’ people use to make judgements of others but, at the same time, to express their own self-concepts (see also Frith, 1981). According to Hargreaves et al. (2002), people develop musical identities from early adolescence that are defined as components, among others (e.g., personality style or social roles), of self-images contributing to the construction of a more general self-identity. This synthesis of components forms the overall view that people have of themselves. People may possess different images of themselves, such as ‘I am tall’, ‘I am a member of this family’, or ‘I am a rock fan’. Moreover, there is evidence that adolescents join musical subcultures as a means of defining themselves (North & Hargreaves, 1999).

Social identity approach (i.e., social identity theory; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, and self-categorization theory; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) suggests that people could understand the self in terms of personal identity, characterized by the idiosyncratic attributes of the individuals (e.g., ‘I am tall’, ‘I want to succeed’), and social identity, characterized by the normative attributes of the social groups to which people belong (e.g., ‘I am European’, ‘I am a follower of the X political party’).

In the present study we examine both aspects of self-definition processes in musical identities; that is, personal and social. We measure the cognitive and emotional aspects of personal identity – whether people think that music constitutes a part of the way they define themselves – and whether people perceive music contributing to the way they evaluate themselves. We also focus on the social aspect of self-identity; that is, whether people understand that their music preferences place them at the core of a group of people with the same musical tastes. For these purposes relevant measures used in social psychological research are employed (for a review of measures of social and organizational identification, see Haslam, 2004).

We assume that music preferences are interrelated to both personal and social aspects of self-identity. People may prefer listening to a specific music genre or a song because the specific ‘mix’ between the lyrics, the rhythm, the orchestration, the harmony and the melody, and even the style of performance, expresses some inner thoughts about the way the individual views oneself. On the other hand, people may prefer listening to a specific music genre because belonging to that group of people with the same music preferences helps differentiate themselves from other groups, providing in this way a distinctive social identity.

Individuals strive for both belongingness and distinctiveness. According to optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 2003), individuals have two universal human motives, the need on the one hand to feel similar to others and on the other hand to feel unique. Both these basic needs (inclusion/assimilation and differentiation/distinctiveness), functioning independently and in opposition to each other, determine social identification; in different situations one need may prevail over the other. When individuals strive for belongingness, they may prefer a music genre in order to feel they belong to a group of people listening to this music (North & Hargreaves, 1999); when they strive for distinctiveness, they may adopt various strategies, individual or social (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). For example, they may prefer a music genre in order to differentiate themselves from their peers, or they may identify with a group that identifies itself against the mainstream. Hence by conforming to non-conformist group norms (in terms of music or other art preferences, even of diet or of clothing preferences), people serve their desire for belonging and for distinctiveness.

Values and music

Values are important determinants of people’s attitudes and behaviour (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992; see Schwartz & Bardi, 2001, for a review). Values describe and prescribe what we think is important to us in our lives. They are motivations, broad goals that apply across contexts and time. In other words, they are defined as desirable goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives (Schwartz & Sagiv, 1995). Schwartz (1992) has presented a structural model of values describing their content and internal structure. The content of 10 value types is as follows: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition and security (see Appendix for descriptions and sample items). According to the model, the 10 value types can be organized into four higher-level value types: (1) self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence) emphasizing acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare; (2) self-enhancement (power and achievement) emphasizing pursuit of own success and dominance over others; (3) openness to change (self-direction and stimulation) emphasizing independent thought and action, and favouring change; and (4) conservation (security, conformity, and tradition) emphasizing submissive self-restriction to preserve the status quo. The theory has been tested in more than 200 samples from more than 65 countries (Schwartz, & Bardi, 2001). In the majority of samples, the distinctiveness of the values and their structural relations has been verified.

There is extensive sociological research indicating that there is a relation between music preferences, lifestyle and social status (e.g., DeNora, 2000; Frith, 1996; Laughey, 2006; North & Hargreaves, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). As symbols of status and identity of groups (e.g., Bourdieu, 1984; Frith, 1996) music preferences – expressed also through consumption (e.g., concert attendance, purchase of CDs and music magazines, radio listening etc.) – are related to ideologies and values (cf. Negus, 1996; Wicke, 1995). Furthermore, the study of subcultures also indicates that music preferences, as a constitutive element of the subcultural lifestyles and identities, are associated with certain values (e.g., rock with social awareness and rebelliousness, pop with certain values about gender roles and conformity, etc. – see for example Christenson & Peterson, 1988; Hebdige, 1972; Krims, 2001; Lewis, 1995).

Although there is not any psychological study examining how values predict music preferences, there are some studies examining the relationship between music and attitudes. For example, research attention has been drawn to the relationship between rap or heavy metal music and a number of attitudinal tendencies: some studies show a correlation between listening to rap or heavy metal music and negative attitudes toward women, distrust and aggression (e.g., Rubin, West, & Mitchell, 2001). Others (Carpentier, Knobloch, & Zillmann, 2003) have found a relationship between various traits such as rebelliousness, disinhibition, and hostility, and listening to songs featuring defiant messages. In one of their studies where they examined the relationship between music preferences and various personality traits, Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) found that reflective and complex music (i.e., blues, jazz, classical, folk) was positively related to openness to new experience and to tolerance of others and negatively to conservatism; intense and rebellious music (i.e., rock, alternative, heavy metal) was positively related to openness to new experiences; upbeat and conventional music (i.e., country, soundtracks, religious, pop) was preferred by socially-outgoing individuals. Values are interrelated with personality traits but at the same time they are different (Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002). Although values may be conceived as a type of personality disposition (i.e., they are relatively stable across time and situation, and also used to characterize and compare individuals) they are simultaneously different. Values are conscious goals evaluated in terms of importance, experienced as demands one places upon oneself. Hence they entail intentional commitment by the person more than personality dispositions do (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994). Although Rentfrow and Gosling’s (2003) findings are not based on value measures, they can still inform this study’s hypotheses.

We assume that values will be related to music preferences. Values help people orientate themselves in life and so does music: music is continuously present in most of our daily life activities and, more importantly, it can provide and express meanings connected to right and wrong, as well as world and life views. People may emphasize dominance over other people, or be concerned with other people’s welfare, or they may want to pursue stimulant experiences, or to preserve the status quo. These motivations will lead people to search for music of certain content and form, compatible to their desired goals.

Structure of music preferences

From the listener’s standpoint some types of music seem to ‘go together’ and other seem to ‘go apart’: Christenson and Peterson (1988) propose that listeners organize genres into coherent groups and this is the way they ‘map the universe of music types’ (p. 283). These coherent groups of preferences – likes and dislikes – that map the music world are what Christenson and Peterson call ‘preference structures’ or ‘metagenres’. Wells and Tokinoya (1998), in their study on genre preferences of Western popular music by Japanese adolescents, identified three types of preference structures: listening (classical, jazz, country and easy listening); pop/dance (rap, top 40, soul, and techno); and heavy rock (heavy metal, rock, and punk). Deihl, Schneider and Petress (1983) located three preference structures: a high brow/traditional (classical music and opera); a contemporary/progressive (rock, soul, punk and jazz); and a middle brow/traditional (big band, country, and folk).

In their psychological studies Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) confirmed a structure of four dimensions across multiple samples in United States: a factor called reflective and complex (blues, jazz, classical, folk); an intense and rebellious factor (rock, alternative, heavy metal); an upbeat and conventional factor (country, soundtracks, religious, pop); and an energetic and rhythmic factor (rap/hip-hop, soul/funk, electronica/dance). In a Dutch sample, Bogt, Raaijmakers, Vollebergh, Van Wel, and Sikkema (2003) revealed a five-factor structure underlying their sample’s musical preferences: pop/Dutch pop, Afro-American pop, elite, rock, and dance.

There seems to be substantial agreement among the studies exploring the structure of music preferences in North America and Europe (focusing, among others things, on music complexity, instrumentation, singing style or lyric themes; see Christenson & Roberts, 1998): most of these studies, at the very least, describe a four-factor structure, including a popular, chart-based factor, a rock factor, an elitist factor, and a rhythmic, dance factor. As a reminder, it should be noted that the preference structures, as in most factor-analytic research, are named after labels that inevitably capture some factors (i.e., genres) better than others and therefore should be used only as guides to the genres of each structure.

Hypotheses

Music preferences can be related, among other things, to the significance music has to ourselves (i.e., our musical identities). We hypothesize that perceived importance of music to one’s definition and evaluation as an individual will be related to music genres that can provide individual distinctiveness, for example the elitist genre (e.g., jazz or classical music) that conveys the meaning of a ‘high brow’ cultural consumption, or the rock genre that conveys the meaning of rebelliousness and anti-conformism (e.g., Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). On the other hand, a genre that is very popular and common will not provide such distinctiveness and therefore will be negatively related to an individual’s identity definition and evaluation. However, people may value music genres, such as popular music, exactly because they provide a sense of belonging (which will be reflected in the social aspect of identity measure; see Brewer, 2003), as North and Hargreaves (1999) have shown that it is the case of chart popular music.

Because values are desirable goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives, we hypothesize that values will also be related to music genres that can satisfy these goals in some way. For example, people holding the value of openness to change will be more likely to value music characterized by complex structure (such as jazz and classical music). People holding the value of conformity will be more likely to choose music that conforms to the consensual music standards of a society (such as pop). Moreover, conformity will be negatively related to music preferences such as the elitist or the rock genres because these preferences stand out in terms of frequency and anti-normative ideology, accordingly. People holding the value of self-enhancement will not be likely to value music that defies dominance and supports (to a degree) solidarity (such as rock music).

Finally we expect that, in examining participants’ music preferences, we will find at least four factors in the structure that will include a popular, chart-based factor, a rock factor, an elitist factor, and a rhythmic, dance factor as most relevant studies have shown (Christenson & Roberts, 1998).

Method

Participants

A total of 606 students from three higher education institutions located in Thessaloniki, Greece, participated voluntarily in the study. From this initial sample, 10 participants were excluded because they had a large amount of missing data. Age ranged from 17 to 31 years (M = 20.91, SD = 2.53) with 303 female and 293 male participants. Participants studied technology (n = 74), social sciences (n = 71), humanities (n = 156), business (n = 184), education (n = 26) and animal science (n = 95).

Procedure

Participants voluntarily completed the questionnaires in large classes just before the end of the courses they attended. They were informed that the survey was related to students’ music preferences and then answered in turn the music preferences items, the identity items, and the values scales.

Questionnaire – measures

Music preferences

An initial pool of items that was created by data drawn from the charts of Greek and non-Greek music, and by taking into account different genres broadcasted by major radio stations, was tested in a pretest with an independent sample of students (n = 30, approached in the library by a research assistant) in order to produce the final questionnaire (no previous relevant research exists on the Greek case). The pretest was also meant to trace non-mainstream genres known to this population, but which are not visible in the media. In addition, the pretest was used to determine at least one typical representative singer or group for each genre or subgenre, in order to avoid ambiguity concerning the meaning of the genres. The 24 items that came up from the pretest were: alternative, funk, blues, pop (contemporary, Western-style), Greek pop, rap/hip-hop, Greek rap/hip-hop, rock, Greek rock, hard rock/heavy metal, house, jazz, punk, reggae, rock ’n’ roll, soul/R&B, trance, world (ethnic) music, classical music, Greek folk (traditional), rebetika, laika, laika-pop, and Greek art-popular music.¹ Participants were asked to indicate their liking or disliking of the 24 music genres (on a 5-point scale, 1 = I don’t like it at all to 5 = I like it very much).

Musical identities

Participants were asked to indicate how important the music they listen to is for themselves (on a 5-point response scales, 1 = I disagree completely to 5 = I agree completely). The five items measure different aspects of identification with the first four items focusing on aspects of identification relating to self (i.e., how important is music to myself, as an individual) and the last item focusing on the social aspect of identification (i.e., how important is music to myself as a member of a group) (see Haslam, 2004). These items measure three aspects of musical identities: (1) the first two items reflecting the cognitive aspect of self-identification (adapted from Elemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999) were the following: ‘The music I listen to is an important reflection of who I am’, and ‘Listening to the music is an important part of my self-image’ (α = 0.61). (2) The next two items reflect the affective aspect of self-identification (adapted from Mael & Ashforth, 1992): ‘If someone praises the music I listen to, it would feel like a personal compliment’ and ‘If someone criticizes the music I listen to, it would feel like a personal insult’ (α = 0.65). (3) The last item reflects the social aspect of identification: ‘I think that I am a typical member of the group of people listening to the same music as I do’ (adapted from Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995).

Values survey

Participants completed an abbreviated version of the Schwartz Value Survey that included 23 single values (Schwartz, 1992; see Appendix).² Participants rated the importance of each value as a guiding principle in their life on a 7-point scale from ‘opposed to my values’ (−1), through ‘not important’ (0), to ‘of supreme importance’ (5). To ensure that values operate the same way as in previous studies (and since there are no relevant studies concerning the specific population), a principal axis analysis (with promax rotation) was performed revealing six factors (see Table 1). Three of these factors essentially reproduced three higher-level value types of Schwartz’s model: self-enhancement (power and achievement, α = 0.83), openness to change (self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism, α = 0.76), and conservation (security and conformity, α = 0.75). The other three factors comprised of value types that usually load on the social-transcendence type: one factor with mostly universalism items (i.e., equality, world at peace, respecting the earth, protecting the environment plus the social justice item); a second factor with mostly benevolent items (i.e., mature love, helpfulness, forgivingness); and a third factor with some benevolent items (i.e., honesty, true friendship, loyal). In order to employ a more parsimonious value structure on the data and following the rationale of the four higher-level value types of Schwartz’s model, we summated the three last factors in order to construct a self-transcendence scale (α = 0.88).

Table 1.

Principal axis factoring on values scale

	Components
	1	2	3	4	5	6
Protecting the environment, preserving nature	.833
A world of peace, free of war and conflict	.756
Social justice, correcting injustices, care for the weak	.469
Equality, equal opportunity for all	.444
Honouring parents and elders, showing respect		.799
Family security, safety for loved ones		.616
Obedient, dutiful, meeting obligations		.529
Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptations		.481
Sense of belonging, feeling that others care about me		.465
Authority, the right to lead or command			.896
Social power; control over others, dominance			.866
Influential, having an impact on people and events			.671
Wealth, material possessions, money			.497
An exciting life, stimulating experiences				.937
A varied life, filled with challenges, novelty and change				.807
Curious, interested in everything, exploring				.502
Enjoying life, enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.				.433
Helpful, working for the welfare of others					.692
Forgiving, willing to pardon others					.568
Mature love, deep emotional and spiritual intimacy					.511
True friendship, close supportive friends						.808
Loyal, faithful to my friends						.586
Honest, genuine, sincere						.430
eigenvalues	6, 609	3, 041	2, 133	1, 479	1, 314	1, 064
% explained	27, 54	12, 67	8, 88	6, 17	5, 47	4, 43
Cumulative % explained	27, 54	40, 21	49, 10	55, 26	60, 74	65, 17

Note: Only factor loadings with values of .40 or higher (after Promax rotation) are shown.

Results

Means and standard deviations of all variables and intercorrelations of all variables are shown in Table 2. There were no differences according to sample characteristics so these variables are not considered in subsequent analyses.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of all variables

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Identification
1. ID1	3.24	.83
2. ID2	2.48	.93	.32**
3. ID3	2.74	1.05	.83**	.28**
Value type
4. self-enhancement	1.66	1.28	.12**	.24**	.07
5. self-transcendence	3.59	1.02	.02	−.04	−.05	−.20**
6. openness to change	3.97	.82	.15**	.09*	.03	.14**	.28**
7. conservation	3.53	.96	.08	.03	.04	.03	.55**	.14**
Music genres
8. Sentimental and sensational	3.30	.93	.03	−.06	.09*	.09*	.05	.08	.23**
9. Sophisticated and complex	3.10	.95	.01	.03	−.04	−.07	.13**	.15**	−.09*	−.16**
10. Non-mainstream dissonant	2.69	.91	−.02	.03	−.05	.01	.16**	−.01	−.16**	−.02	.31**
11. Established rebellious	3.55	.84	−.01	.03	−.11**	−.17**	.17**	.19**	−.09*	−.19**	.41**	.34**
12. Traditional	3.32	.87	−.01	−.06	−.04	−.23**	−.01	.22**	.11**	−.01	.21**	−.05	.28**

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Note: ID1 = Identity (cognitive aspect), ID2 = Identity (affective aspect), ID3 = identity (social aspect). Sentimental and sensational: pop, soul/R&B, rap and hip-hop, gr. pop, gr. hybrid./sophisticated and complex: blues, jazz, classical, world. / Non-mainstream dissonant: punk, trance, funk, house, alternative, hard rock/metal./ established rebellious: rock, gr. rock, rock’n’roll, gr. art / native-folk traditional: rembetiko, laika, traditional.

Music preferences

In order to reveal the underlying structure of the music preferences an exploratory factor analysis was employed since there are no previous relevant studies on the specific population. A principal axis factoring as an extraction method was employed because music preferences were not normally distributed (see Costello & Osborne, 2005).³ Promax method of rotation was used to allow for some correlation between the extracted factors. Based on the scree plot, subsequent analyses applying principal axis factoring with promax rotation were carried out with 5, 6, and 7 factors. The solution with five factors was the most meaningful (see Table 3): item loadings were above .40 (the lowest of them being .406), there were no cross loadings and there were no factors with fewer than three items (cf. Costello & Osborne, 2005). The total variance explained was 51.91% for the 5-factors solution.⁴ Following the approach by Rentfrow and Gosling (2003), the preference structures were named not only by the genres included in them, but also by the meaning they acquire within the context of the population under investigation.

Table 3.

Principal axis factoring on music preferences

Genres	Preference structure
	1Sentimental and sensational	2Sophisticated and complex	3Non-mainstream dissonant	4Established rebellious	5Native-Greek traditional
Pop	.800
Soul/R&B	.762
Rap/hip-hop	.724
Greek pop	.709
Greek rap/hip-hop	.654
Laika-pop	.570
Blues		.925
Jazz		.839
Classical music		.697
World (ethnic) music		.656
Reggae
Punk			.779
Trance			.696
Funk			.632
House			.628
Alternative			.572
Hard rock / heavy metal			.497
Greek rock				.776
Art-popular				.627
Rock				.584
Rock ’n’ roll				.406
Rebetika					.776
Greek folk (traditional)					.601
Laika					.519
Eigenvalues	5.313	3.013	2.116	1.228	.789
% explained	22.14	12.55	8.82	5.12	3.29
Cumulative % explained	22.14	34.69	43.51	48.63	51.91
Cronbach’s alpha	.828	.819	.765	.708	.679

Note: Only factor loadings with values of .40 or higher (after Promax rotation) are shown.

The first factor (or preference structure), including pop, soul/R&B, rap/hip-hop, Greek pop, Greek rap/hip-hop, and laika-pop, was named ‘sentimental and sensational’. It includes genres related with the typical functions of pop music: its structure and content of lyrics facilitate its understanding and can be easily memorized; the typical themes of the lyrics refer to gender relationships and courtship and gratifying certain emotional needs. Interestingly (and somehow unexpectedly) the rap genres were included in this type of preference structure, indicating that this genre has a meaning rather specific to the population studied. It should be noticed, however, that a good part of rap music has been well institutionalized through corporate annexation (cf. Neal, 1997) within the context of the recording and entertainment industry and integrated in the leisure economy. In a ‘sanitized’ version, rap has been used by the mainstream pop music industry to create some sensation, mixing typical sentimental lyrics with unusual non-verbal elements, hence the name of this preference structure.

The second preference structure, including blues, jazz, classical, and world (ethnic) music, was named ‘sophisticated and complex’ because its appreciation signifies cultivated skills and knowledge that is not commonly accessible, for example through the education system or by heavy exposition to it through the mass media. From this point of view, this preference construct presupposes certain qualities.

The third preference structure, including punk, trance, funk, house, alternative and hard rock/heavy metal, was named ‘non-mainstream dissonant’, because, on the one hand, it scored low on the preference scale (M = 2.69), and on the other hand the genres included in this construct have low visibility in the media. This type of preferences also indicates some distancing from mainstream preferences: people with high scores in this construct are well aware of the fact that their choice is dissonant with the majority of preferences.

The fourth preference structure, including rock, rock ’n’ roll, Greek rock, and art-popular, was named ‘established rebellious’, because it is related to stereotypes of a divergent musical culture (Lewis, 1995). In the Greek context, rock music is considered to be a socially-critical genre and is related to certain lifestyles and subcultures. However, given its integration in the mainstream recording industry, its visibility in the mass media, and the fact that today only older (than students) people may be intrigued (if at all) by these types of music, this preference structure articulates a culture that is rather ‘bending societal norms than smashing them’ (cf. Lewis, 1995).

Finally, the fifth preference structure, including rebetika, laika, and Greek folk, was named ‘native-Greek traditional’. This preference structure signifies an affiliation to what is considered to be ‘genuine Greek music’ (although from a technical – historical and musicological as well – point of view there are several influences from other cultures) and it incorporates certain culture-specific social and historical processes embedded in the culture of the country as collective experiences.

Hierarchical regressions of music preference structures

Hierarchical regression analyses were performed on all five types of preference structure. Musical identities are assumed to be more important variables than personal values in predicting music preferences and, hence, identity variables were entered in the first step and value types in the second (see Table 4).The analyses on the sophisticated and complex preference structure (i.e., blues, jazz, classical, and world) showed that the best predictors of this preference construct were the self-transcendence and the conservation values. The more people hold values that emphasize serving the interests of others (i.e., understanding and tolerating other people, seeking social justice and equality for other people, and being helpful, loyal, and honest) the more they tend to give high scores to this type of preference structure. On the other hand, the less people hold values of conservation (i.e., conforming and valuing social harmony) the more they tend towards the sophisticated and complex preference structure.

Table 4.

Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for variables predicting music preferences (N = 596)

Variable	Sophisticated and complex		Established rebellious		Non-mainstream dissonant		Sentimental and sensational		Native Greek Traditional
	β	t	β	t	β	t	β	t	β	t
Step 1
ID1	.16	2.05*	.26	3.43***	.06	.76	−.10	1.31	.13	1.72#
ID2	−.02	.48	.07	1.51	.07	1.54	−.10	2.15*	−.06	1.40
ID3	−.15	1.98*	−.31	4.21***	−.10	1.13	.21	2.72**	−.13	1.77#
Step 2
ID1	.11	1.45	.21	2.93**	.01	.12	−.16	2.10*	.13	1.73#
ID2	−.01	.12	.11	2.59**	.07	1.63	−.12	2.66**	−.01	.18
ID3	−.10	1.31	−.26	3.67***	−.06	.76	.24	3.27***	−.13	1.71
Self-enhancement	−.04	.86	−.16	3.75***	−.05	.97	.10	2.09*	−.19	4.28***
Self-transcendence	.25	4.57***	.26	5.04***	.01	.27	−.05	.97	.18	3.29***
Openness to change	.07	1.61	.10	2.38*	.19	4.17***	.05	1.13	−.05	1.20
Conservation	−.21	4.12***	−.23	4.65***	−.17	3.41***	.25	4.89***	.03	.63

ID1 = Identity (cognitive aspect), ID2 = Identity (affective aspect), ID3 = identity (social aspect).

Note: Interactions between identity items and values structures did not significantly predict music preferences and are not shown in the table. For sophisticated and complex: R² = .01 (ns) for step 1; ΔR² = .12 (p < .001) for step 2. For established rebellious: R² = .04 (p < .001) for step 1; ΔR² = .10 for step 2 (p < .001). For non-mainstream dissonant: R² = .01 (ns) for step 1; ΔR² = .06 (p < .001) for step 2. For sentimental and sensational: R² = .02 (p < .01.) for step 1; ΔR² = .07 (p < .001) for step 2. For native Greek traditional: R² = .01 (ns) for step 1; ΔR² = .09 (p < .001) for step 2.

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; #p < .08.

Interestingly, analyses on the established rebellious preference structure (i.e., rock, Greek rock, art-popular, and rock ’n’ roll) showed that all variables had significant relationships with this structure. Perceived importance to self predicted this type of preference structure, with the cognitive and the affective scales having a positive relationship and the social scale having a negative relationship. People value the established rebellious preference, partly because they think and feel that it is an integral part of their self-image; they also value it as long as it does not position them within a social group with the same music preferences. Analyses also showed that all value types had significant relationships with this preference structure (self-transcendence and openness to change with a positive sign and self-enhancement and conservation with a negative sign). The less individuals emphasize the values of conformity and security as well as the values of own success and dominance, the more they tend toward this preference structure. In a mirror image, the more they value tolerance and interest in others’ welfare and the more they value change, independent thought and stimulation, the more they tend to value this preference structure.

Analyses on the non-mainstream dissonant preference structure (i.e., punk, trance, funk, house, alternative, hard rock/heavy metal) showed that the values of openness to change (positively) and conservation (negatively) significantly predicted scores of this structure: the more people are open to change and to stimulation, and the less they value conservation of social harmony and status quo, the more they tend towards non-mainstream dissonant preferences. This is consistent with similar findings from research on the relationship between patterns of behaviour or attitudes and/or personality traits and the preference for types of music with these qualities (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003).

Sentimental and sensational preference structure (i.e., pop, soul/R&B, rap/hip-hop, Greek pop, Greek rap/hip-hop, laika-pop) was predicted by both perceived importance to self-identity and values. The less participants think that music constitutes an integral part of their self-definition, and the less they think that an insult or a praise of these preferences can affect their personal feelings, the more they value this preference structure. However, the more they think that they belong to the group of people with the same music preferences, the more they like this structure. Also, the more they value conformity and security, and dominance and own success, the more they tend toward the sentimental and sensational type.

Finally, the analyses on the native-Greek traditional preference structure (i.e., rebetika, laika, and Greek folk) showed that values (i.e., self-enhancement and self-transcendence) and, in part, self-identity predicted this structure. The less individuals pursue their own relative success and dominance over others, the more they are inclined towards this preference structure. Moreover, the more they emphasize acceptance of, and concern for, others, the more they tend to value this structure. Finally, albeit in a marginally significant way, the cognitive aspect of identification predicted positively and the social aspect of identification predicted negatively this preference structure.

Discussion

It was evident in the present study that musical identities and personal values are related to music preferences. These findings add to our understanding of the reasons why people listen to music and provide new insights to the psychological research of music. The study also aimed to map the music preference structures characteristic of the population under investigation: the factor analytic results revealed the four-preference structure, commonly found in most studies of the relevant literature, plus a native-Greek traditional structure.

Structure of music preferences

The music preference structures revealed in the present study have many similarities to previous studies. Generally the four-factor core structure was replicated; most studies have produced a popular, chart-based factor, a rock factor, an elitist factor, and a rhythmic, dance factor (see Christenson & Roberts, 1998). For example, Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) confirmed this structure: their analysis revealed a factor they called reflective and complex (blues, jazz, classical, folk), an intense and rebellious factor (rock, alternative, heavy metal), an upbeat and conventional factor (country, soundtracks, religious, pop), and an energetic and rhythmic factor (rap/hip-hop, soul/funk, electronica/dance). In the present study an elitist factor was evident, the sophisticated and complex (including blues, jazz, classical, and world (ethnic) music); a second rock factor the established rebellious (rock, rock ’n’ roll, Greek rock, and art-popular); a third popular factor, the sentimental and sensational (pop, soul/R&B, rap/hip-hop, Greek pop, Greek rap/hip-hop, laika-pop); a fourth rhythmic factor, the non-mainstream dissonant (punk, trance, funk, house, alternative, hard rock/heavy metal); plus a last factor, the native-Greek traditional (rebetika, laika, and Greek folk). A difference, then, is the additional factor containing genres that pertain to the local musical culture (the native-Greek traditional factor). Another difference lies in the fact that some music genres that, in other studies, loaded on a different factor (e.g., in Rentfrow & Gosling’s (2003) study rap music loaded on a factor together with soul and dance music) in the present study loaded on a different factor (e.g., rap music loaded together with pop music).

Because listeners of one music genre tend to listen to other genres as well, it is also important to investigate the relationships among the preference structures rather than preferences for single genres. Looking at the intercorrelations among preference structures one can see significant positive correlations between sophisticated and complex, established rebellious, non-mainstream dissonant, and native-folk traditional structures of preferences (i.e., among all structures minus the sentimental and sensational). This signifies that there is a great deal of common music preferences. However, sentimental and sensational was the only preference structure that had negative correlations with sophisticated and complex and established rebellious suggesting that these types of preferences are incompatible.

In order to explain the correlations among most of the preference structures we can draw on the concept of cultural omnivorousness. Peterson (1992) indicated that the elite-to-mass perspective is not an adequate explanatory framework of media consumption (including music). According to the elite-to-mass perspective, the stratification hierarchy includes the educated elite – the ‘high brow’ – at the top, with well-refined preferences and an ignorant and stimulus-seeking mass at the bottom – the ‘low brow’ (Peterson, 1992). Analyzing distinct groups of occupations and ranking them in terms of their music preferences, Peterson found that the higher status occupational groups showed high rates of participation in non-elite activities, and it was difficult for them to indicate only one favourite genre of music. Peterson (1992) concluded that, instead of the elite-to-mass, the omnivore-to-univore perspective (in terms of cultural consumption and taste) fits best with the data and can explain the contemporary status hierarchy. Similarly, according to Bourdieu (1984), the range of preferences increases as one is moving to the upper steps of the status hierarchy ladder, since the access to a wider range of cultural and artistic forms increases too: the higher the status, the greater the availability of cultural capital. Recent empirical research in various countries like Australia, France, Great Britain, Spain, and several others has confirmed this approach (Lizardo & Skiles, 2008; but see North & Hargreaves, 2007b). From this point of view, if ‘status is gained by knowing about, and participating in (that is to say, by consuming) many if not all forms’, as Peterson indicates, omnivorous preference is ‘a way to assert an identity’ (Peterson, 1992, p. 252). The students in our research have access to a wide range of cultural forms and it is not surprising that they showed an inclination towards cultural omnivorousness (evident in the intercorrelations among most of preference structures).

Musical identity and music preferences

Generally, the results suggest that perceived musical identities are related to music preferences. Interestingly, different aspects of musical identities are differentially related to different preference structures. Individual aspects of musical identity predicted established rebellious, sentimental and sensational, and, partially, folk-native traditional preference structures. It is interesting to note that, while both cognitive and affective identity items had a positive relationship with the established rebellious structure, they had a negative relationship with the sentimental and sensational one. Hence, while the more listeners think that the music they listen to is a part (with consequences to self-evaluation) of self the more they value the established rebellious types of music and the less they value sentimental and sensational. However, the reverse pattern was evident for the social aspect of self-identity: the more listeners think that music positions them at the core of a social group with the same music preferences, the more they tend toward the sentimental and sensational structure and the less toward the established rebellious one. People that like to listen to sentimental and sensational type of music believe that this type of music does not have any positive evaluative consequences for themselves as individuals. At the same time, however, it describes them as typical members of the group of people that like the same type of music, satisfying an assimilation need (Brewer, 2003; see also North & Hargreaves, 1999). Future research could examine whether this type of music has a core dimension of enjoyment (more in terms of relaxation and discharge which of course can be experienced with other people) more than established rebellious type of music has. The latter type of music can provide a sense of distinctiveness to individual identity (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004) by conveying positive meanings, connotations, feelings, and representations (such as rebelliousness) that are eagerly assimilated by young people (something that was not confirmed for sophisticated and complex type of music as it was hypothesized). Hence an analysis of the contents that these types of music convey and the perception of these contents by the listeners are needed. Additionally, established rebellious has become a more private hypothesis than it was few decades ago when rock music, for example, was an integral part of youth’s collective identity. It has also become less crystallized – that is, more diffused – compared to the ’60s and mid ’70s in Greece, when – given the political and social circumstances in the country – this music culture was more commonly identified with the image of a rebellious youth in the major urban areas (cf. Lewis, 1995). There was a similar tendency for folk-native traditional listeners to perceive the music they listen to as important to their self-definition (the cognitive aspect) but less important for their definition as a group member.

Interestingly, the social aspect of musical identity did not come up as such an important determinant of music preferences. This is perhaps because the context of data collection did not create an intergroup situation, for example by asking the respondents to make comparisons with people listening to different kinds of music (see North & Hargreaves, 1999). In a comparative, intergroup context, respondents’ reactions would normally serve ingroup differentiation; that is, increasing ingroup’s and lessening outgroup’s evaluation. Perhaps participants wanted to defy a conformist image of themselves (‘I listen to what other people do’) in order to achieve individual distinctiveness (for example, a common theme in rock music is non-conformism). Also, it can be noted that people’s music preferences vary according to their moods, social situation and other constantly-changing circumstances (Hargreaves et al., 2002). Hence respondents’ reactions to the identity measures of the present study could also be related to a number of other relative variables.

Values and music preferences

Personal values that people hold also proved to be strongly related with their musical preferences. Self-transcendence positively predicted the sophisticated and complex, established rebellious, and folk-native traditional preference structures. The more listeners hold values of understanding and tolerating other people (i.e., to be motivated to seek social justice, peace around earth, and preservation of the environment, to provide help and forgiveness to the people), the more they tend towards these types of preferences.

Self-enhancement values were found, as expected, to be negatively related to established rebellious and folk-native traditional preference structures. The less people pursue relative own success and dominance over other people (i.e., to have social power and authority, wealth and material goods, and influence over other people), the more they incline towards these preferences. It is noteworthy that self-enhancement had the only significant (positive) correlation with sentimental and sensational preference structure.

Openness to change was found to predict established rebellious and non-mainstream dissonant types of preferences. The more people are motivated to live a life with stimulation and new experiences, and to be curious and ready for explorations, the higher the scores they give to these preference structures.

Conservation was found, as expected, to be negatively related to sophisticated and complex, established rebellious, and non-mainstream dissonant types of preference. The less people are motivated to be obedient, dutiful, and self-disciplined, to honour the elderly and value family security, the more they hold these preferences. However, the sentimental and sensational preference structure was positively related to conservation value type. Hence the more listeners value conformity to social harmony and status quo, the more they tend toward the sentimental and sensational preference structure (for similar results see Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). It is reasonable to assume that the content of these preference structures is compatible with listeners’ values.

Conclusively, it is evident that values and musical identities differentially predict students’ music preferences. Following a different analytical approach, we can comment on these findings by looking at each preference structure separately: the sophisticated and complex preference structure was related to self-transcendence (positively, similarly to Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003) and to conservation (negatively). The established rebellious type of preference was related to both musical identity and personal values. The former suggests that listeners of these types of music think that these specific genres characterize them as individuals (and not as group members, satisfying individual distinctiveness). Moreover, all values were related to this preference structure: self-transcendence and openness to change in a positive way and conservation and self-enhancement in a negative way (see Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). The non-mainstream dissonant type of preference had the lowest preference scores and it depended on students’ openness to change (positively) and conservation (negatively). The sentimental and sensational preference structure was also related to both musical identity and values. Those who listen to this music think that this specific type of preference characterizes them more as group members and less as individuals. Also, self-enhancement and conservation values positively predicted this music structure. Finally, the native-folk traditional preference structure was marginally related to self-identity (cognitive aspect). Also, it was related negatively with self-enhancement values and positively with self-transcendence values.

Music preferences can be placed on the two dimensional (i.e., openness to change vs. conservation and self-transcendence vs. self-enhancement) map of Schwartz’s (1992) value model (see Figure 1 for a graphic representation): the four music preference types can be placed in the quadrant between openness to change and self-transcendence (the non-mainstream dissonant type on the openness to change axis, the native-folk traditional and the sophisticated and complex types on the self-transcendence axis, and the established rebellious type in between) while the sentimental and sensational stands alone in the quadrant between self-enhancement and conservation.

Figure 1.

Location of music preferences on Schwartz’s (1992) value model.

Music preferences and everyday life

There is a recent growing strand of research focusing on the way music preferences correlate with certain choices people make in their everyday life (see, e.g., DeNora, 2002; North & Hargreaves, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Sloboda, O’Neill, & Ivaldi, 2001). We focus here particularly on North and Hargreaves’ (2007a) research which we find to be more relevant to our study. They examined the relationship between musical preferences and a number of different lifestyle choices, for example interpersonal relationships, living arrangements, beliefs, criminal behaviour (in their following research they focused on music fans’ media preferences, leisure interests, travel, finances, employment, health, drinking, etc). Some of their findings can be meaningfully viewed under the light of the present data. For example, North and Hargreaves (2007a) found that the fans of disco and DJ-based music (similar to the present sentimental and sensational structure) were least likely to be vegetarian. The weak relationship between the sentimental and sensational structure and openness to change found in the present study may be meaningfully relevant to this finding. In their study North and Hargreaves found that fans of disco and DJ-based music were less likely to recycle compared to classical music and blues fans. In the present study the sophisticated and complex structure (including classical music and blues genres) was positively related to self-transcendence (protecting the environment being one of the core values). Moreover, in North and Hargreaves’ study, a distinction was evident among the music fans in terms of their conservative or liberal beliefs. Fans of classical music, opera and blues (similar to the present sophisticated and complex structure) hold more liberal beliefs (e.g., exploitation of alternative energy sources, state-funded health care) compared to fans of hiphop/rap and DJ-based music (similar to the present sentimental and sensational structure). Accordingly, in the present study, the sophisticated and complex structure was related to self-transcendence (e.g., to preserve the environment, care for the weak).

In trying to provide an interpretive framework for some of their findings, North and Hargreaves (2007a) suggest that music fans can be divided on a liberal–conservative dichotomy. Interestingly values have been found to be correlated with political and ideological preferences. Barnea and Schwartz (1998) found, for example, that Israeli voters supporting parties assumed to promote liberal ideologies attributed high importance to openness to change values and low importance to conservation values. Future research investigating the relationships among values, political ideologies and music preferences could provide some relevant insights.

The present study explored music preference structures; however, there is such a large variety within distinct music genres that future research could examine the relationships among values (since there are not any relevant studies), musical identities, and alternative band or style preferences. Of course in order to fully explore the variables that contribute to predicting music preferences one must synthesize other possible determinants. One can focus on the way music is perceived by listeners and on how this perception matches their desires and needs. Future research should also measure and test the role of mediating psychological processes (hypothesized to be present in the current study), such as the distinctiveness and assimilation needs. Similarly, listeners may provide the reasons why they listen to music (see the approach of uses and gratifications; Rubin, 2002). There is some evidence, for example, that people listen to music in order to change their mood (MacNamara & Ballard, 1999). Future research could deal with a related question: the relationship between music preferences, emotional well-being, and values.

It is reasonable to assume that people motivated by different values may use music in different ways in order to regulate their mood. For example, people that consider preservation of environment as a guiding principle in their lives may reach a positive affective experience with different music compared to people who consider wealth and material possessions as their guiding principle. Another research question could be whether the relationship between values and music preferences affects consumers’ behaviour. Grunert and Juhl (1995), for example, using Schwartz’s value model, found that people with pro-environmental values are more likely to purchase organic foods compared to other people. Based on the present study’s data one may expect that a music genre from the sophisticated and complex structure (e.g., jazz music, see also Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003) will sound favourably to a pro-environmentalist in an organic food store and will affect their buying intentions. One can also focus at the macro level (or the ideological level of analysis, according to Doise, 1986) or look at the situation of the music industry and the market.

A large part of recent psychological research has focused on the influence of personality dispositions on music preferences (e.g., Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007). The present study focused on another individual level variable that affects music preferences. Values, like personality traits, help people orientate in life. However, values entail intentional commitment by the person more than personality traits do (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994), and hence the present study deals with the importance of conscious and deliberate processes linked with music preferences. It does not provide a comprehensive explanatory account of a theory of music preferences – the non-representative character of the sample undermines generalization to a non-student population – but it does shed some light to the relationships between music preferences, musical identity and values. Overall, it is evident that the importance that young people ascribe to music as a way of self-definition and the values they hold are related to their music preferences.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix.

Value items and value types

Value type	Description	Items
Power	Social power	Social power; control over others, dominance
	Authority	Authority, the right to lead or command
Achievement	Wealth	Wealth, material possessions, money
	Influence	Influential, having an impact on people and events
Hedonism	Enjoying life	Enjoying life, enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc.
Stimulation	Varied life	A varied life, filled with challenges, novelty and change
	Exciting life	An exciting life, stimulating experiences
Self-direction	Curious	Curious, interested in everything, exploring
Universalism	Equality	Equality, equal opportunity for all
	World at peace	A world of peace, free of war and conflict
	Protecting the environment	Protecting the environment, preserving nature
Benevolence	True friendship	True friendship, close supportive friends
	Social justice	Social justice, correcting injustices, care for the weak
	Mature love	Mature love, deep emotional and spiritual intimacy
	Helpfulness	Helpful, working for the welfare of others
	Forgivingness	Forgiving, willing to pardon others
	Honesty	Honest, genuine, sincere
	Loyal	Loyal, faithful to my friends
Conformity	Obedience	Obedient, dutiful, meeting obligations
	Self-discipline	Self-discipline, self-restraint, resistance to temptations
	Honouring parents and elders	Honouring parents and elders, showing respect
Security	Family security	Family security, safety for loved ones
	Sense of belonging	Sense of belonging, feeling that others care about me

Notes

References

Arnett

(1991). Heavy metal music and reckless behavior among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 573–592.

Barnea

M. F.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1998). Values and voting. Political Psychology, 19, 17–40.

Bilsky

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Values and personality. European Journal of Personality, 8, 163–181.

Bleich

Zillmann

Weaver

(1991). Enjoyment and consumption of defiant rock music as a function of adolescent rebelliousness. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35, 351–366.

Bogt

Y. T.

Raaijmakers

Vollebergh

Van Wel

Sikkema

(2003). Youngsters and their musical taste: Musical styles and taste groups. The Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences, 39, 35–52.

Bourdieu

(1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brewer

M. B.

(2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In Leary

Tangney

(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480–491). New York: Guilford.

Carpentier

F. D.

Knobloch

Zillmann

(2003). Rock, rap, and rebellion: Comparisons of traits predicting selective exposure to defiant music. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1643–1655.

Chamorro-Premuzic

Furnham

(2007). Personality and music: Can traits explain how people use music in everyday life? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 175–185.

10.

Christenson

P. G.

Peterson

J. B.

(1988). Genre and Gender in the structure of music preferences. Communication Research, 15, 282–301.

11.

Christenson

P. G.

Roberts

D. F.

(1998). It’s not only rock’ n’ roll: Popular music in the lives of adolescents. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

12.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

J. W.

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10, 1–9.

13.

Deihl

E. R.

Schneider

M. J.

Petress

(1983). Dimensions of music preference: A factor analytic study. Popular Music & Society, 9, 41–49.

14.

DeNora

(2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

DeNora

(2002). The role of music in the daily lives of women: The case of intimate culture. Feminism and Psychology, 12, 176–81.

16.

Doise

(1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Doosje

Ellemers

Spears

(1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410–36.

18.

Ellemers

Kortekaas

Ouwerkerk

(1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371–389.

19.

Frith

(1981). Sound effects: Youth, leisure, and the politics of rock’n’roll. New York: Pantheon.

20.

Frith

(1996). Performing rites. On the value of popular music. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21.

Grunert

S. C.

Juhl

H. J.

(1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 39–62.

22.

Hansen

C. H.

Hansen

R. D.

(1991). Constructing personality and social reality through music: Individual differences among fans of punk and heavy metal music. Journal of Electronic and Broadcasting Media, 35, 335–350.

23.

Hargreaves

D. J.

North

A. C.

(Eds.) (1997). The social psychology of music. New York: Oxford University Press.

24.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Miell

MacDonald

R. A.

(2002). what are musical identities, and why are they important? In MacDonald

R. A.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Miell

(Eds.), Musical identities (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

Haslam

S. A.

(2004). Psychology in Organizations (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

26.

Hebdige

(1972). Subculture, the meaning of style. London: Methuen.

27.

Hornsey

M. J.

Jetten

(2004). Individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 248–264.

28.

Krims

(2001). Rap music and the poetics of identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Laughey

(2006). Music and youth culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

30.

Lewis

(1995). Who do you love? The dimensions of musical taste. In Lull

James

(Ed.), Popular music and communication (pp. 134–151). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

31.

Lizardo

Skiles

(2008). Cultural Consumption in the fine and popular arts realms. Sociology Compass, 2, 485–502.

32.

Mael

F. A.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123.

33.

McCown

Keiser

Mulhearn

Williamson

(1997). The role of personality and gender in preferences for exaggerated bass in music. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 543–547.

34.

MacNamara

Ballard

M. E.

(1999). Resting arousal, sensation seeking, and music preference. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 125, 229–250.

35.

Neal

M. A.

(1997). Sold out on soul: The corporate annexation of Black popular music. Popular Music and Society, 21, 117–135.

36.

Negus

(1996). Popular music in theory. An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

37.

North

A. C.

Hargreaves

D. J.

(1999). Music and adolescent identity. Music Education Research, 1, 75–92.

38.

North

A. C.

Hargreaves

D. J.

(2007a). Lifestyle correlates of musical preference: 1. Relationships, living arrangements, beliefs, and crime. Psychology of Music, 35, 58–87.

39.

North

A. C.

Hargreaves

D. J.

(2007b). Lifestyle correlates of musical preference: 2. Media, leisure time, and music. Psychology of Music, 35, 179–200.

40.

North

A. C.

Hargreaves

D. J.

(2007c). Lifestyle correlates of musical preference: 3. Travel, money, education, employment, and health. Psychology of Music, 35, 473–497.

41.

North

A. C.

Hargreaves

D. J.

O’Neill

S. A.

(2000). The importance of music to adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 255–272.

42.

Papageorgiou

F. T.

(1997). Popular music and the music industry in Greece. In Ewbank

A. J.

Papageorgiou

F. T.

(Eds.), Whose master’s voice? The development of popular music in thirteen cultures (pp. 67–98). London: Greenwood Press.

43.

Peterson

R. A.

(1992). Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and mass to omnivore and univore. Poetics, 21, 243–258.

44.

Rentfrow

R. J.

Gosling

S. D.

(2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1236–1256.

45.

Roccas

Sagiv

Schwartz

Knafo

(2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801.

46.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

47.

Rubin

A. M.

(2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In Zillmann

Bryant

(Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 525–548). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

48.

Rubin

A. M.

West

D. V.

Mitchell

W. S.

(2001). Differences in aggression, attitudes toward women, and distrust as reflected in popular music preferences. Media Psychology, 3, 25–42.

49.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.

50.

Schwartz

S. H.

Bardi

(2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, 268–290.

51.

Schwartz

S. H.

Sagiv

(1995). Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 26, 92–116.

52.

Sloboda

J. A.

O’Neill

S. A.

Ivaldi

(2001). Functions of music in everyday life: An exploratory study using the Experience Sampling Methodology. Musicae Scientiae, 5, 9–32.

53.

Tajfel

Turner

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

54.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

Oakes

P. J.

Reicher

S. D.

Wetherell

M. S.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

55.

Wells

Tokinoya

(1998). The genre preferences of western popular music by Japanese adolescents. Popular Music and Society, 22, 41–53.

56.

Wicke

(1995). Rock music. Culture, aesthetics and sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press.