Towards a cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence

Cultural psychology

Psychological science can benefit from a cultural perspective as it can improve the validity and generalizability of its theoretical knowledge and empirical findings across different sociocultural contexts (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006). Of course, human nature is the result of complex interdependent transactions among biological, psychological, social, and cultural factors (John, Robins, & Pervin, 2008; Kitayama & Cohen, 2007; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011). Nevertheless, culture has often been neglected by psychology, or it has been reified as a demographic, categorical, and static variable that is broadly based on one’s nationality, society, or ethnic group. However, nuanced and dynamic definitions can capture the multidimensional nature of culture. Notably, a classic definition by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) guided Adams and Markus (2004) to propose that

culture consists of explicit and implicit patterns of historically derived and selected ideas and their embodiment in institutions, practices, and artifacts; cultural patterns may, on one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action. (p. 341)

At this early stage of psychological research on culture and music, it seems judicious to adopt this well-established and more inclusive definition of culture as it considers culture as encompassing both human behaviors and social structures that are shaped by and transmitted across generations.

Cultural psychology is much inspired by such inclusive definition as it conveys the assumption that culture consists of synergistic patterns that are both “in the mind” and “in the world” (Adams & Markus, 2004). Such multilevel assumption about culture would be well suited for understanding music as both a significant psychological phenomenon (e.g., music perception “in the mind”) and a meaningful cultural product (e.g., songs “in the world”) during adolescence. More precisely, cultural psychology considers that there is a dynamic “mutual constitution” among culture, mind, and brain – in which culture and the person “make each other up” (Kitayama & Uskul, 2011; Shweder, 1991). This transactional paradigm may enable music scholars to explain nuanced similarities and differences in musical behavior within and across sociocultural contexts. Such cross-cultural nuances have already been applied to many major psychological phenomena (e.g., self-concepts, attributions, cognitive dissonance, self-enhancement motivation, affective experiences, interpersonal relationships, focal/background memory, control, time perspective, individualism/collectivism; Heine & Norenzayan, 2006).

Music psychologists should consider theories developed in cultural psychology (e.g., acculturation, biocultural model of emotion, neuro-culture interaction model, theory of basic individual values; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2012; Sam & Berry, 2010; Schwartz et al., 2012). More specifically, they can utilize fundamental notions and constructs that have been widely used to operationalize culture. In cultural psychology and related fields, culture is often operationalized through overarching dimensions, notably cultural syndromes (e.g., individualism and collectivism; Triandis, 1995) and self-construals (independence and interdependence; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). These dimensions are often used interchangeably, but the former usually refer to societies while the latter to persons (Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2011). They represent basic cultural ingredients existing in all societies and in every person, but to varying degrees (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

The main features of individualism are a society’s focus on individuals, their independence, and their uniqueness, whereas features of collectivism are a society’s focus on groups, people’s duty towards their in-group, and the maintenance of group harmony (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Although these dimensions co-exist in all societies to varying degrees, some are more individualistic, as in Western societies; whereas others are more collectivistic, as in Eastern societies (Triandis, 1995). People can also define their self-concept in independent ways that focus on one’s own thoughts, feelings, and actions (e.g., self-centricity, action as influence on context, and analytic cognition) and interdependent ways that situate oneself in relation to the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others (other-centricity, social harmony, action as adjustment to context, and holistic cognition; Kitayama, Duffy, & Uchida, 2007; Kitayama & Uskul, 2011; Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Even though these dimensions co-exist in every person, individuals with a Western sociocultural background tend to be more independent, whereas those with an Eastern sociocultural background tend to be more interdependent (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Hence, music psychologists can use those cultural dimensions to examine both the personal (independent) and social (interdependent) functions of music among adolescents in different sociocultural contexts that are either more individualistic or collectivistic (e.g., Boer et al., 2012).

Cultural diversity, however, exists between people as well as within the same person because culture is a dynamic and malleable process. Cultural psychology is also studying how cultural similarities and differences can be evoked within cultures (Heine & Norenzayan, 2006). For instance, Oyserman, Sorensen, Reber, and Chen (2009) have developed a culture-as-situated cognition perspective, in which different contexts within a culture can provide salient cues that prime people to be either more individualistic or collectivistic. An example would be if song lyrics in reggaeton music extol one’s uniqueness and prime individualism in its Peruvian listeners, whereas song lyrics in Huayno music celebrate one’s community and prime collectivism in those same listeners. The notion of culture as situation-specific fits today’s contexts of globalization, migration, and multiculturalism. As such, music may prime diverse cultural dimensions in multicultural adolescents. Indeed, many adolescents are multi- or bicultural, not only because of their two societies (e.g., heritage and host), but also by virtue of their local and global cultures (Arnett, 2002; Larson et al., 2009). For example, an adolescent of Rwandan and Chinese heritage may identify with both his/her local folk Canadian music and international DJ remix music. Moreover, people that have multi- or bicultural identities can also engage in cultural frame switching, in which they choose the cultural meaning system that they deem most resourceful to address the cultural needs of a given situation (Benet-Martínez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002). Adolescents may use music as a ubiquitous cultural product that may facilitate such cultural frame switching. For instance, a Québécois adolescent of Somali and Colombian heritage may switch across Somali, Latino, or French Canadian vernaculars, and rules of display, according to the sociocultural needs in different music/dance parties.

A cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence needs to be based on rich data collected through a variety of culturally sensitive methodological strategies. Cultural research has often used methodological approaches that are either etic (cultural-comparative) or emic (cultural-specific; Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). From an etic approach (invariance-driven), researchers usually develop psychological models and validate measures in their own culture and then examine the generalizability of those across other cultures (Cheung et al., 2011). This would be the case if a model of self-reported music preferences was developed from music genres in Asia, and then tested for replication among Scandinavian adolescents. From an emic approach (indigenous-based), researchers develop psychological models and validate measures specific to a given culture following an in-depth analysis appropriate to this culture (Cheung et al., 2011). This would be the case if a model of music-induced mood management was developed from emotions in Indonesian adolescents, but posited to be valid only for this population. From a combined emic-etic approach (culturally sensitive universals), researchers try to gradually integrate cultural-comparative and cultural-specific findings (e.g., combining etic and emic measures; delineating universals and culture-specificities in the data; using mixed methods; Cheung et al., 2011). This would be the case if, using qualitative/quantitative mixed methods, a model of music motivation would be developed among Haitian adolescents, and then gradually replicated across the world’s adolescent populations, while being attuned iteratively by integrating the specificities of each culture.

Cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence and music fundamentals

A cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence can also be situated within established cultural research on music, including that of evolutionary psychology, music perception, and ethnomusicology.

The evolutionary perspective posits that musicality is universal in humans as it may represent an evolved psychological mechanism that fostered an adaptive advantage for survival and reproduction. Contemporary evidence for music’s innateness and ubiquity across cultures would partially support this evolutionary view (McDermott, 2009). Musicality seems to be a predisposition in very young infants (Hannon & Trainor, 2007; Trehub, 2003). In particular, emotion regulation and social bonding are among the functions of music that might have arisen from evolution (Huron, 2001). Interestingly, emotion regulation and social bonding are functions that echo in contemporary infant-directed singing (e.g., lullabies), which seems to be a universal parenting behavior (de l’Etoile & Leider, 2011; Trehub, Unyk, & Trainor, 1993). Such findings have led Dissanayake (2006) to suggest that these early mother-infant interactions might have been the evolutionary cradle of human music. Of course, listeners of all ages value and enjoy music. This musical pleasure may be far reaching in our evolution as it stems from ancient brain circuitry that mediates reward and motivation from satisfying universal and biological needs (Salimpoor, Benovoy, Larcher, Dagher, & Zatorre, 2011).

The perception of music develops early in life through everyday exposure to music; people perceive universal musical characteristics (e.g., pitch, rhythm) from which they learn complex musical systems (e.g., scales, harmony) through enculturation (Hannon & Trainor, 2007; Trehub, 2003). The emotional and cognitive processes in music perception involve universals and yet some cultural-specificities (Brown & Jordania, 2013; Carterette & Kendall, 1999; Thompson & Balkwill, 2010). Recently, Brown and Jordania (2013) proposed an extensive list of potential music universals (e.g., pitch, rhythm, melodic structure and texture, form, vocal style, expressive devices, instruments, contexts, contents, behavior). Nonetheless, there is also evidence that sociocultural factors can shape aspects of music perception (e.g., emotion perception, memory/familiarity, distinction of relative pitch, consonance/dissonance, and meter; Gregory & Varney, 1996; Hannon & Trainor, 2007; Hove, Sutherland, & Krumhansl, 2010; Morrison, Demorest, & Stambaugh, 2008; Soley & Hannon, 2010).

Cultural anthropology and ethnomusicology have traditionally focused on unique and deep sociocultural meanings for uses and functions of music in different societies (e.g., Merriam, 1964). The ethnomusicological record indicates that music is a central part of most cultures, in which its traditional uses can include: lullabies, games, work music, dancing, storytelling, ceremonies and festivals, battle, communication, personal symbol, ethnic or group identity, salesmanship, healing, trance, court and religious music, and personal enjoyment (Gregory, 1997). In addition, Dissanayake (2006) also sketches six social functions for ritual music across many traditional societies: display of resources, control and channeling of aggression, facilitation of courtship, establishment and maintenance of social identity through rites of passage, relief from anxiety and psychological pain, and promotion of group cooperation and prosperity. Dissanayake (2008) further suggests that ritualized music – regarded as performative/improvisatory, communal, multimodal (e.g., music and dance), culturally essential, and transformative – can also be found in musical youth cultures (e.g., rock, hip hop, rave).

In sum, a cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence can consider that music is rooted in the evolution of human nature, that music perception and its development are characterized by many universals and some cultural-specificities, and that different cultures have created and ritualized diverse uses and functions for music.

Music preferences

A cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence should consider the developmental and sociocultural conditions that give rise to the meanings of music preferences in adolescence. Adolescents can use music preferences as a sociocultural “badge” for self-identifying as members of peer crowds or “musical subcultures” (Miranda & Claes, 2009; North & Hargreaves, 2008). These music preferences can create a social identity, be conducive of “in-groups” and “out-groups,” and even bear stereotypes within and across different societies (Bakagiannis & Tarrant, 2006; Hargreaves, North, & Tarrant, 2006; Rentfrow, McDonald, & Oldmeadow, 2009). Adolescents’ music preferences are complex and thus have many determinants (e.g., personality, socialization with peers, enculturation/acculturation, cultural background, ethnicity, social structures, and cultural capital as structured among high school students; Delsing, ter Bogt, Engels, & Meeus, 2008; Hargreaves et al., 2006; Miranda & Claes, 2009; Tanner, Asbridge, & Wortley, 2008).

Hitherto, four or five factors of music preferences are regularly observed in adolescents across Western societies, for instance Canada (e.g., soul, metal, pop, electronic, classical; Miranda & Claes, 2009); Germany (e.g., rap, rock, pop, sophisticated, beat/folk/country; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009); and the Netherlands (e.g., urban, rock, pop, dance, elite; Mulder, ter Bogt, Raaijmakers, Gabhainn, & Sikkema, 2010). Five music preferences (urban, rock, pop, dance, and highbrow) were also found among adolescents in 10 European countries: Belgium (Flanders), Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (England and Scotland; ter Bogt et al., 2012). These studies, however, were not methodologically designed to test the cross-cultural replication of factors of music preferences. Comparing their findings for evidence of cross-cultural invariance can be challenging at best and even misleading insofar as researchers used different measures of music preferences. Lastly, broad music preferences seem to be comparable across Western countries, but the mean-levels can differ cross-culturally. Examples can be found in the cross-national study of ter Bogt et al. (2012). Pop music (i.e., “chart type”) and urban music (e.g., hip hop, R&B) seemed to be preferred by most European adolescents, but the former was less liked in Estonia and Switzerland. Belgian adolescents particularly liked dance music (e.g., house, techno) and Dutch adolescents had lesser appreciation for rock (e.g., rock, heavy metal). Highbrow music (e.g., classical, jazz) was the music factor that European adolescents liked the least.

The research spurred by the recent work of Rentfrow and collaborators may offer some psychometric tools to examine cross-cultural invariance in factors of music preferences. In the United States, Rentfrow and Gosling (2003) found evidence for a 4-factor model of music preferences: energetic/rhythmic (e.g., rap/hip hop); intense/rebellious (e.g., rock, heavy metal); upbeat/conventional (e.g., pop, country); and reflective/complex (e.g., classical, jazz). Interestingly, their four factors of American music preferences have a lot in common with other music factors that were found in the previously mentioned Western countries. Moreover, Rentfrow and Gosling’s (2003) 4-factor model of music preferences was directly replicated in different countries, for instance in South America (Brazil; Gouveia, Pimentel, de Santana, Chaves, & da Paraíba, 2008) and Europe (Germany; Langmeyer, Guglhör-Rudan, & Tarnai, 2012). This 4-factor model, however, is not always replicable in non-Western societies. In Japan, only three out of those four factors were found in late adolescents: energetic/rhythmic (e.g., rap/hip hop); intense/rebellious (e.g., rock, heavy metal); and reflective/complex (e.g., classical, jazz, enka; Brown, 2012). In South African adolescents, three factors were interpreted as being somewhat similar to the 4-factor model of music preferences: rock (e.g., rock, alternative), party (e.g., R&B, dance), and academic (e.g., Western jazz and classical; Getz, Chamorro-Premuzic, Roy, & Devroop, 2012). The fourth factor was African music (e.g., Kwaito), which suggests a cultural specificity, although Getz et al. posited that it may qualify as upbeat/conventional music.

Recently, however, Rentfrow and collaborators (2011) also endeavored to find factors of music preferences that they hoped would be relatively free of cultural connotations inasmuch as those factors were mostly based on musical characteristics shared among music genres. To this end, they used an alternative methodological strategy based on musical excerpts and extracted a 5-factor model of music preferences (“MUSIC”) in the United States: mellow (e.g., soft rock, R&B, quiet storm, adult contemporary); unpretentious (e.g., country); sophisticated (e.g., classical, marching band, avant-garde classical, polka, world beat, traditional, jazz, Celtic); intense (e.g., classic rock, punk, heavy metal, power pop); and contemporary (e.g., rap, electronica, Latin, acid jazz, Euro pop; Rentfrow et al., 2011). In some of their more recent research, using musical excerpts with participants recruited on an American campus and a British-based Facebook social network, their 5-factor model of music preferences (“MUSIC”) proved to be robust as it replicated among many (mostly young) adults (Rentfrow et al., 2012). Thus far, the MUSIC model by Rentfrow and collaborators provided testable hypotheses, helpful empirical material, and theoretical progress. However, it would probably be premature to claim universality from this research as it does not meet the necessary cross-cultural criteria (Norenzayan & Heine, 2005). This line of research is probably inspired by and conducive of a strong etic perspective (invariance-driven) in which theorizing in one culture is exported to and replicated across other cultures. Perhaps a combined emic-etic approach would allow better integrating cultural-comparative and cultural-specific findings on music preferences. For instance, future emic-etic cultural studies may test (confirm or revise) the 4- or 5-factor models of music preferences by Rentfrow and collaborators. There is a great need for research that would replicate (and nuance) factors of music preferences across different countries and sociocultural contexts through the use of comparable emic-etic psychometric measures adapted for adolescents. At a broad level, factors of music preferences may be relatively similar across many cultures due to human nature and globalization. That said, the specific music genres within each broad factor can also reveal fascinating and nuanced sociocultural differences and artistic diversity.

Cultural studies seeking to capture universal factors of music preferences also need to consider the subtleties of hybridized music genres. Although a variety of established music preferences seem to be consistently identified worldwide, adolescents also engage in a hybridization of various global and local music genres (Larson et al., 2009). For example, Turkish adolescents living in Istanbul can listen to Turkish pop, Western pop, rock, heavy metal, Turkish folk, Turkish art, rap, dance/hip-hop, classical, and arabesque (Ekinci et al., 2012). Music psychology could make scientific progress by considering such cultural diversity because adolescents’ self-selected music preferences not only depend on songs’ psychophysical characteristics but also on their sociocultural roots, meanings, and contexts. For instance, African American cultures create and inspire some of the most appreciated and respected music genres in youth (e.g., rap, hip hop, R&B, reggae). A vast amount of adolescents – across different cultures and of various ethnocultural identities – are passionate about African American music while also valuing and finding meaning in African American sociocultural roots. We think that studying sociocultural diversity is vital for understanding how adolescents experience music. For instance, Latin music (e.g., salsa, bachata, reggaeton, merengue, cumbia) can be significant for the identity of many adolescent Latinos. However, Latin music is underrepresented (and misrepresented) in most studies on music preferences. This is also the case for a great many music genres from most regions (e.g., Africa, Asia, and the Middle East), in which the majority of adolescents live.

Music motivation and functions

The motives that adolescents have for listening to music are also an important aspect of behavior to study from a cultural-developmental understanding of music in adolescence. There has been an upsurge of research on music motivation within different societies. This corpus of research addresses the fundamental reasons for which adolescents decide to listen to music, and as such it seems relevant to review their findings through a cultural lens. However, it is important to mention that most of these studies were not explicitly designed to make cross-cultural comparisons. Therefore, comparing their findings for evidence of cross-cultural invariance is not only difficult because studies used different measures of music motivation and functions, but also because researchers often had different objectives. Therefore, differences in music motivation among (usually Western) countries mostly reflect differences between objectives, theories, and methods across studies.

In Canada (Québec), adolescents can listen to music to cope with stress in three ways: emotional management; problem-solving; and avoidance (Miranda & Claes, 2009). In England, adolescents’ reasons for listening to music can include: creating a social image; satisfying emotional needs; and enjoyment (North et al., 2000). In Finland, adolescents’ reasons for listening to music include regulatory strategies that may contribute to mood regulation: entertainment; revival; strong sensation; diversion; discharge; mental work; and solace (Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007). In Germany, adolescents can listen to radio music for mood management and so-called parasocial interaction (Boehnke, Münch, & Hoffmann, 2002). In the Netherlands, adolescents’ reasons for listening to music can include: mood enhancement; coping with problems; defining personal identity; and marking social identity (ter Bogt, Mulder, Raaijmakers, & Gabhainn, 2011). A few studies have also been conducted in Eastern societies. In Hong Kong, adolescents also engage in emotional management through music listening, yet especially for energizing and tranquilizing (Hakanen, Ying, & Wells, 1999). In Pakistan, youths’ reasons for listening to music can include: coping strategy; social enjoyment (e.g., dancing, friends); mood management; creating external impression; creativity; and social interaction (e.g., ceremony/ritual; Rana, Ajmal, & North, 2011).

Another line of research can qualify as being more amenable to cross-cultural comparisons, some of which include Western and Eastern societies in the same study. In Great Britain/the United States, Malaysia, South Africa, and Spain (Catalonia), respectively: adolescents and emerging adults listen to music for emotional use; rational/cognitive use; and background use (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic, Gomà-i-Freixanet, Furnham, & Muro, 2009; Chamorro-Premuzic, Swami, Furnham, & Maakip, 2009; Getz et al., 2012). Across both the United Kingdom and United States, adolescents’ reasons for listening to music can include: self-actualization; to fulfill emotional needs; and to fulfill social needs (Tarrant, North, & Hargreaves, 2000). Lastly, contrary to what can be of concern to some parents, adolescents report that they rarely listen to music for the purpose of studying – a finding that holds across Greece, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Kotsopoulou & Hallam, 2010).

Recent cross-cultural research conducted by Diana Boer and collaborators has identified robust functions for music listening across various cultures. Their research conducted in seven countries (Brazil, Germany, Hong Kong, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, and the United States) revealed seven functions of music listening: music in the background; memories through music; music as diversion; emotion experience from music; self-regulation through music; music as a reflection of the self; and social bond through music (Boer & Fischer, 2012). Their more recent cross-cultural study among six countries (Germany, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, and Turkey) found 10 functions of music listening in late adolescents: background; venting; emotions; dancing; friendship; family; politics; focus; values; and cultural identity (Boer et al., 2012). Among those six countries, Boer and collaborators demonstrated that music functions can be organized along two overarching dimensions − contemplation or affective functions and intrapersonal, interpersonal/social − that may be situated along individualism and collectivism, respectively. Given that these functions for music listening seem to be quite equivalent across countries, the mean-levels might be compared to examine possible differences. Notably, it was found that music listeners living in more collectivistic societies (Philippines, Kenya, Mexico, and Turkey) made more use of music to convey cultural identity than those in more individualistic societies (Germany and New Zealand; Boer et al., 2012).

Dance

A cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence has to consider that music and dance often beat together in adolescence. In many cultures, music listening and dancing in social settings are intertwined (Gregory, 1997). Music is multimodal (e.g., auditory, kinetic, visual), yet Western cultural perspectives on music easily separate music listening and dancing (Dissanayake, 2006, 2008). In fact, music inexorably involves movement and synchronization (e.g., playing, tapping, grooving, dancing; Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009). The psychology of music has, however, focused a lot on music listening as an individual, non-participatory, and contemplative experience in which people sit and listen (Boer & Fischer, 2012; North & Hargreaves, 2008). As noted by Kirschner and Tomasello (2009), many cultures ritualize music listening as an active social activity that simultaneously involves singing and dancing while sharing various motives with other people. Nevertheless, there are very few studies pertaining to culture, psychology, and dance in adolescence. This is even more surprising given the immense popularity of dance in nightclubs, parties, and youth entertainment in general (e.g., music videos, concerts, television shows, video games). Interestingly, studies are emerging and inform on dance in ethnocultural groups and in multicultural contexts. For instance, hip-hop dance was used to promote healthy behaviors and well-being in Canadian adolescents living in a multicultural and disadvantaged urban community (Beaulac, Kristjansson, & Calhoun, 2011; Beaulac, Olavarria, & Kristjansson, 2010). In the United States, break-dancing has served as a strategy for Native American youths to develop competency, resistance, and cultural identity (Deyhle, 1998). Ethnographic work in multicultural hip hop clubs suggested that American adolescents use that scene as a milieu to develop gender roles, sexual assertiveness, and sexual appeal (Muñoz-Laboy, Weinstein, & Parker, 2007).

Language

Music and language are two means of syntactic communication that have both audible and written forms (Levitin & Tirovolas, 2009; Patel, 2003). A cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence would need to better understand how language and music coalesce meaningfully, especially in song lyrics that are popular in adolescence. However, there are few studies pertaining to culture, psychology, and song lyrics in adolescence. This is surprising given that speech and lyrics can be important in the overall musicality of songs. Language, speech, and music can share a lot in common, notably emotional processing (Juslin & Laukka, 2003; Thompson & Balkwill, 2010). This might be epitomized by African talking drums that create a fusion of music playing and spoken language (Gregory, 1997). Furthermore, many adolescents memorize and sing the English lyrics of their favorite American and European songs, despite language barriers. However, they also reinterpret lyrics according to their own cultural references. In Botswana, for instance, a study has shown that although adolescents preferred American music videos over African ones, they did not necessarily understand the American cultural symbols and language (Lloyd & Mendez, 2001). Indeed, songs can have different meanings across cultures because the lyrics are to various degrees reinterpreted from the specific linguistic perspective of adolescents’ cultures.

Song lyrics can be considered as particularly important cultural products in adolescence. Morling and Lamoreaux (2008) argue that cultural products (i.e., cultural manifestations that are public, shared, and tangible, such as texts and media) provide a way to study culture not only in the mind but also in the world, as cultural psychology recommends. For instance, cultural products from the United States tend to be more individualistic and less collectivistic than those from Asian and Latin American societies (Morling & Lamoreaux, 2008). DeWall, Pond, Campbell, and Twenge (2011) also theorize that song lyrics are powerful and tangible sociocultural products that can discern cultural changes across generations. As such, they found that the evolution of popular song lyrics from 1980 to 2007 reflected an increase in individualism in the United States. In addition, song lyrics can even capture cross-cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies. For example, American songs can express more negative filial piety from children to parents, whereas Chinese songs can express more positive filial piety from children to parents (Rothbaum & Xu, 1995). Moreover, American and Chinese love songs can be similar in expression of intense desire, but different in expression of embedded love (Rothbaum & Tsang, 1998). Therefore, song lyrics are key cultural products that provide a tangible way to study the evolution of youth cultures both in the ecology and mind of adolescents.

Social networks and multitasking

A cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence has to consider that many music genres are cultural products of globalization that have increasingly connected people for centuries. Bakagiannis and Tarrant (2006) found that shared music preferences create a superordinate social identity that can convert perceptions of others who are perceived as out-group members into more positive musical in-group members. This music-based social identity evokes a shared global youth culture. Longitudinal analyses from social networks such as Facebook also revealed that young Americans tend to befriend with those who share similar music tastes (Lewis, Gonzalez, & Kaufman, 2012). In the Netherlands, longitudinal data showed that music tastes are indeed used by adolescents to initiate friendships (Selfhout, Branje, ter Bogt, & Meeus, 2009). Multifaceted mechanisms may explain these music-based social affiliations and similarity among friends. Young people seem to use music preferences to acquire and express valid and reliable information about personality (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006), although this can sometimes fail and lead to stereotyping (Rentfrow et al., 2009). Values also seem to mediate the link between shared music preferences and social bonding among late adolescents in Western (Germany) and Eastern (Hong Kong) societies (Boer et al., 2011).

A cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence has to acknowledge that technological innovations that connect young music listeners within and across social networks not only involve multiple people but also multiple tasks. Media multitasking is an increasingly typical behavior in adolescence and it refers to the concurrent use of multiple and various media applications (Roberts et al., 2009). There is evidence that music listening is not experienced in a media vacuum given that contemporary multitasking adolescents use music as the soundtrack of their daily social media activities (Brown & Bobkowski, 2011; Roberts et al., 2009). This phenomenon will be on the rise as more than 5 billion people may own a multitasking smartphone in about 10 years (Miller, 2012). In sum, music psychologists should also situate the roles of music within technological resources (e.g., smartphones) that involve social media multitasking in adolescence.

Ethnicity and cultural diversity

A cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence needs to consider that ethnicity and cultural diversity are crucial in the lives of many adolescents (Fuligni et al., 2009). Specifically, the development of ethnic identity is very important for adolescents who are in the process of exploring and committing to various ethnocultural backgrounds (French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2006; Phinney & Ong, 2007). The significance that one gives to his/her ethnic music is already used as a cultural marker in scales measuring ethnic identity (for review, see Phinney, 1990). In turn, we further posit that music is a cultural product that might particularly contribute to the development of ethnic identity in many adolescents.

Hip hop is a good example of how music can contribute to ethnic identity in adolescence. Larson et al. (2009) maintain that adolescents worldwide listen to and perform hip hop music; and that it has become a positive force through the reciprocal influence of their local culture and African American urban culture. In many multicultural societies, music inspired by African American cultures illustrates the contribution of music to the development of ethnic identity in adolescence. For instance, the hip hop vernacular has served as a resource for ethnic identity development in multiethnic youths living in the French-speaking society of Québec, in Canada (Sarkar & Allen, 2007). In general, however, research on music among ethnocultural groups of adolescents has usually been conducted in the United States. Studies have described how African American adolescents can listen to music for emotion regulation, and in significant cultural, social, and community events (Bordere, 2008; Hakanen, 1995). Some studies have also found that Black youths can develop an ethnic identity, a sense of belonging, and resilience when participating in musical activities inspired by African American cultures (e.g., hip hop music, gospel music; Payne & Gibson, 2009; Strayhorn, 2011). That said, of course, many adolescents belonging to other ethnocultural groups have also adopted music as a resource to develop ethnic identity and resilience. In Canada, for instance, Indigenous youths employ hip-hop as a means to contest subjugation and racism (Buffam, 2011). In the United States, participation in cultural activities that include music and dance seem to promote ethnic identity among Native Americans living in urban areas (Schweigman, Soto, Wright, & Unger, 2011). In Sweden, Latina women can negotiate popular representations of their cultural identity (Latinidad) through Latin music (Lundström, 2009). Lastly, in Latino and African American late adolescents (and emerging adults); positive ethnic identity was associated with hip hop music-based empowerment at the individual and community levels (Travis & Bowman, 2012).

Music can also contribute to the acculturation process that shapes multicultural identity in adolescence. Acculturation “refers to the process of cultural and psychological change that results following meeting between cultures” (Sam & Berry, 2010, p. 472). Multi- or biculturalism involves orienting oneself among different cultures (e.g., identifying to both a heritage and a host culture; Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2013). Acculturation is a pivotal process in such multi- or biculturalism as it can involve changes in ones’ cultural identity in terms of cultural practices, values, and identities within and across contexts of reception (Schwartz, Unger, Zamboanga, & Szapocznik, 2010). Many adolescents develop a complex hybrid identity from exploring and experiencing other cultures (Arnett, 2002; Jensen, 2012; Larson et al., 2009). Adolescents can be especially open to exploring different cultural frames as they are not completely committed to their cultural backgrounds (Arnett, 2002). Music and media are already known to be a resource (or “cultural space”) for adolescents to explore and experiment different identities, values, emotions, taboos, to maintain competency and social capital through their knowledge of popular culture, to acquire information about the world, and to blend local and global cultures (Larson et al., 2009; Roberts et al., 2009). Hence, music provides sociocultural resources (e.g., songs, concerts, celebrations, ceremonies) that may facilitate changes in cultural identity (or cultural frame switching) in ethnic minority adolescents that experience acculturation in multicultural societies.

Cultural competence in music-based interventions

Music-based therapies can play a substantial role in helping adolescents (McFerran, 2010). Cultural competence in psychotherapeutic interventions can improve the clinical outcomes among ethnocultural groups (Kirmayer et al., 2011; Ryder, Ban, & Chentsova-Dutton, 2011; Sue, Zane, Hall, & Berger, 2009). This is the case when interveners develop cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills; consider communication issues, cultural variations of symptoms, and acculturation; and collaborate with interpreters, culture brokers, family members, and community organizations (Kirmayer et al., 2011; Ryder et al., 2011; Sue et al., 2009). In general, a cultural perspective may be paramount for understanding how music can improve people’s well-being (for review, see Saarikallio, 2012). Many music therapists are already sensitized to cultural competence, although they often lack multicultural training, even in culturally diverse societies like Canada and the United States (Young, 2009). This may partially result from the lack of research on cultural competence in music-based therapy with culturally diverse adolescents. Nevertheless, studies on music-based intervention and culture have emerged. Music therapy has been used to promote resilience in North Korean refugee adolescents residing in South Korea (Choi, 2010) and in Sudanese refugee adolescents living in Australia (Jones, Baker, & Day, 2004). Dance/movement therapy was conducted in Sierra Leone as a healing activity for Sierra Leonean adolescents who were former child soldiers (Harris, 2007). Projects in music education found that Swedish adolescent immigrants could use music to shape their cultural identity (Saether, 2008). Music-based prevention has also been used to promote health behaviors in African American adolescents (Lemieux, Fisher, & Pratto, 2008; Mosnaim, Cohen, Rhoads, Rittner, & Powell., 2008; Stephens, Braithwaite, & Taylor, 1998).

Acknowledging and using elements of musical cultures (e.g., hip hop) may improve therapeutic processes (e.g., alliance) in culturally-sensitive therapies for ethnic minority youth. In the United States, Tyson (2003) suggests that rap music is particularly pertinent for the cultural relevance of interventions among many ethnic minority youth (e.g., African Americans and Latinos) as it can strengthen the therapeutic bond between therapists and young clients. Tyson (2003) further asserts that the worldwide success of hip hop music among youth can stem from its transcendence of ethnic, social, political, and economic barriers. Notably, the sociocultural and developmental elements in hip hop music (e.g., Black sociocultural experiences, storytelling, identity, self-esteem, coping, growth, solidarity, empowerment, community, critical awareness, action for social justice, resistance against oppression, aiming for prosperity) can be used as tools for interventions that promote resilience and positive youth development (Payne & Gibson, 2009; Travis & Deepak, 2011; Tyson, 2003; Tyson et al., 2012). In culturally competent music-based therapy, the cultural meaning of a given music genre – in a given cultural context – may also depend on what young clients want to live and explore. In all cases, more evidence-based research should determine how music can be a therapeutic resource for promoting resilience and empowerment in adolescents of all ethnocultural backgrounds.

Limitations

This review has at least five important limitations. First, for sake of representativeness of our field, we focused whenever possible on psychological studies. However, on occasion, we had to review studies in allied disciplines (e.g., sociology, anthropology, music therapy, dance therapy, and social work). This can illustrate the need for much more interdisciplinary collaborations. Moreover, we reviewed many studies on music in adolescence that could arguably overlap among developmental, cultural, and social psychology. We insisted on their cultural and developmental elements, although others may prefer to focus on their social psychological aspects. In all cases, these three disciplines share a common transactional perspective in which there can be a reciprocal interplay between music, listeners, and contexts. Second, we had to review some studies that overlapped with emerging adulthood, although older participants were usually late adolescents. This can indicate that a cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence needs to ameliorate our understanding of developmental transitions before, during, and after adolescence. Third, we did not offer a comprehensive catalogue of cultural specificities according to different sociocultural contexts. This is because the majority of music studies in adolescence were not explicitly designed – in their theory and methodology – to identify and compare sociocultural specificities. Fourth, our review did not consider the potential gender differences that are known in adolescent psychology (Galambos, Berenbaum, & McHale, 2009) as well as in music psychology (O’Neill, 1997). Fifth and last, the paucity of research precluded us from building an integrative theoretical model.

Research directions

We can suggest five major directions for future cultural research on music in adolescence. First, an explicit and comprehensive definition of culture should capture the interplay between the mind and world of adolescents. This definition can be more comprehensive or specific, according to research objectives. That said, adopting too narrow and exclusive a definition of culture could lead cultural researchers to underestimate the number of studies relevant to music and culture. It can also lead scholars who are not specialized in cultural psychology to take for granted (or ignore) the cultural nature of their own work on music. Music scholars can also build on the knowledge in cultural psychology by using key notions and constructs that have been extensively used to operationalize the concept of “culture,” notably individualism, collectivism, independence, and interdependence.

Second, music psychologists could benefit from building on research in the cultural and developmental aspects of personality (Heine & Buchtel, 2009; McAdams & Olson, 2010), notably because personality is a fundamental psychological system that can predict musical behaviors in adolescence (Delsing et al., 2008). The relative stability and change that characterize personality across cultures (Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martínez, 2007) and throughout the life span (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006) encompass integrative structures and processes of human nature, which probably have profound implications for a cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence.

Third, research on culture and music in adolescence deserves developmental theorizing given that adolescents experience rapid and intense biopsychosocial changes as they progress through the second decade of life (Steinberg, 2011). On the one hand, studies on music in adolescence often underutilize developmental theories (e.g., Ecological System Theory of human development; Bronfenbrenner, 1979) that could contribute to the interpretation of their findings. As an alternative to using a general developmental framework, researchers could nonetheless position their findings within a major theme of adolescent development, such as identity, autonomy, family and peer relationships, motivation, intimacy, sexuality, school, and leisure. Identity, in particular, is probably among the most pertinent developmental concepts for research on music and culture in adolescence because it is at the intersection of adolescent psychology (e.g., identity formation) and cultural psychology (e.g., ethnic and cultural identity; Phinney & Ong, 2007; Steinberg, 2011). On the other hand, many studies in music psychology forget that their convenience samples consist of adolescents. Researchers in music psychology should consider that their adolescent participants are going through successive periods of intense transition and maturation from childhood to adulthood. These periods can include early adolescence (10–13 years), middle adolescents (14–17 years), late adolescence (18–21 years), or even emerging adulthood (18–25 years; Steinberg, 2011). In sum, findings on music in adolescence may reveal qualitative and quantitative changes across these developmental periods, as well as variations across sociocultural contexts.

Fourth, music scholars should conduct more cultural research that can integrate cultural-comparative and cultural-specific findings. The issue of replication of findings across sociocultural contexts is thus central. To this end, researchers must use equivalent measures that are well validated across cultures. This can be achieved by combining etic and emic measures and using mixed methods (e.g., ethnography, in-depth interviews, psychometrics, analysis of cultural products, longitudinal studies, experimental designs, online surveys, quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis). This enhanced methodology calls for an increase in interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers from different cultures. In all cases, researchers should also consider advanced technologies that support social-media multitasking (e.g., smartphones) not only as a research method but as a de facto natural habitat for many adolescents. Collecting diverse types of data would also be fruitful to better operationalize the interplay between mind and culture. For instance, researchers could analyse self-report measures of cultural identity in combination with content analysis of tangible cultural products (e.g. songs, dances, videos, social media) in which adolescents are immersed in everyday life.

Fifth and last, music psychology should also consider that cultural diversity exists between people as well as within the same person. Of course, researchers should conduct more cross-cultural research that compares musical behaviors among adolescents that self-identify to different sociocultural backgrounds or that live in different countries or societies. However, contemporary adolescents are increasingly multi- or bicultural, notably as a result of globalization, migration, and multiculturalism. Music scholars must thereby adopt a much more multifaceted and developmental outlook on culture as a phenomenon that can undergo change and remain stable within the same adolescent. A practical venue is to use notions of cultural psychology that have operationalized culture as either a developmental (e.g., ethnic identity, acculturation) or dynamic phenomenon in everyday life (e.g., culture-as-situated cognition, cultural frame switching). In sum, a cultural-developmental psychology of music in adolescence is a call to make the best of many worlds, while considering that the world grows in everyone.