Rentfrow ... Music Through The Ages

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
2013, Vol. 105, No. 4, 703717
2013 American Psychological Association

0022-3514/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0033770
Music Through the Ages: Trends in Musical Engagement and Preferences

From Adolescence Through Middle Adulthood
Arielle Bonneville-Roussy, Peter J. Rentfrow,
and Man K. Xu
Jeff Potter
Atof Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University of Cambridge
Are there developmental trends in how individuals experience and engage with music? Data from 2 large
cross-sectional studies involving more than a quarter of a million individuals were used to investigate age
differences in musical attitudes and preferences from adolescence through middle age. Study 1 investigated age trends in musical engagement. Results indicated that (a) the degree of importance attributed to
music declines with age but that adults still consider music important, (b) young people listen to music
significantly more often than do middle-aged adults, and (c) young people listen to music in a wide
variety of contexts, whereas adults listen to music primarily in private contexts. Study 2 examined age
trends in musical preferences. Results indicated that (a) musical preferences can be conceptualized in
terms of a 5-dimensional age-invariant model, (b) certain music-preference dimensions decrease with age
(e.g., Intense, Contemporary), whereas preferences for other music dimensions increase with age (e.g.,
Unpretentious, Sophisticated), and (c) age trends in musical preferences are closely associated with
personality. Normative age trends in musical preferences corresponded with developmental changes in
psychosocial development, personality, and auditory perception. Overall, the findings suggest that
musical preferences are subject to a variety of developmental influences throughout the life span.
Keywords: musical preferences, age differences, personality, life span development, exploratory
structural equation modeling
Are there age differences in the ways in which individuals

experience and engage with music? Anecdotally, it seems obvious
that young people invest more time and effort listening to music
compared with adults. However, despite growing interest in the
social-personality psychology of music (Rentfrow, 2012), we
know next to nothing about age trends in musical engagement or
preferences. The objective of the current project was to fill that
void by broadening our understanding of the role music plays
across the life span. To achieve that objective, we examined age
differences in musical engagement and preferences in two large
cross-sectional samples covering adolescence through middle
adulthood.
Musical Engagement, Preferences, and Age

Considerable evidence indicates that musical engagement and
preferences have a psychological basis. The theoretical framework
guiding much of the research in this area is that music reflects and
reinforces peoples psychological, biological, and social needs
(Rentfrow, 2012). Because practically all of the research in this
area has relied only on young people, it is impossible to know
whether music serves similar functions throughout the life span.
Are there age differences in musical engagement and preferences?
Musical Engagement
Music is a vehicle for self-discovery, self-regulation, and selfexpression for most young people. Studies consistently show that
young people place significantly more importance on music than
on clothing, films, books, magazines, computer games, TV, and
sports (e.g., Lonsdale & North, 2011; North, Hargreaves, & Hargreaves, 2004; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). Young people report
listening to music for arousal and emotion regulation, social networking, and self-expression (North et al., 2004; Rentfrow &
Gosling, 2003). They also report listening to music frequently and
in various settings, including public, private, social, and solitary
(North et al., 2004).
It is not clear whether music continues to play an important role
throughout the life span. Only two studies have examined musical
engagement in relation to age, and the results were not entirely
consistent. Lonsdale and North (2011) reported that people over 30
regard music as less important compared with adolescents,
whereas Laukka (2007) observed that adults 65 considered music
This article was published Online First July 29, 2013.

Arielle Bonneville-Roussy, The Psychometrics Centre, Department of
Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Peter
J. Rentfrow, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge; Man K.
Xu, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge; Jeff Potter, Atof
Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts.
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada and the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust for
Arielle Bonneville-Roussy. We are grateful to David Boyle for providing
access to the data used in Study 1.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peter J.
Rentfrow, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing
Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, United Kingdom. E-mail: pjr39@cam.ac.uk
703
704
BONNEVILLE-ROUSSY, RENTFROW, XU, AND POTTER
more important now than at any previous time in their lives. The
results from both studies also indicated that middle-aged and older
adults use music for purposes of arousal and emotion regulation.
In summary, research on musical attitudes and age clearly
indicates that music is very important during adolescence, but it is
unclear whether it remains as important in adulthood. Thus, if we
are to develop a thorough and complete understanding of the role
music plays throughout life, we need to investigate musical attitudes and beliefs from adolescence through adulthood.
Musical Preferences
The past decade has witnessed considerable interest in questions
concerning individual differences in musical preferences (e.g.,
Boer et al., Lam, 2011; Colley, 2008; George, Stickle, Rachid, &
Wopnford, 2007; Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Levitin, 2011; Rentfrow
& Gosling, 2003; Rentfrow & McDonald, 2010; Schfer &
Sedlmeier, 2009; Zweigenhaft, 2008). The results from these investigations converge on two conclusions: (a) There is a latent
structure underlying musical preferences and (b) preferences are
linked to various psychological characteristics. Studies on the
structure of musical preferences strongly suggest that individual
differences in music-genre preferences can be conceptualized in
terms of approximately four to six music-preference dimensions.
In a recent series of studies involving a wide range of musical
genres, Rentfrow, Goldberg, and Levitin (2011; Rentfrow et al.,
2012) identified five robust preference dimensions, labeled Mellow, Unpretentious, Sophisticated, Intense, and Contemporary
(MUSIC). Each dimension comprises multiple musical genres that
share common musical (i.e., loudness, timbre) and psychological
(i.e., complexity, affect) characteristics.
Research on the psychological correlates of musical preferences
indicates that preferences are associated with personality, values,
and cognitive abilities (e.g., Delsing, ter Bogt, Engels, & Meeus,
2008; Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Zilca, 2011; Rentfrow & Gosling,
2003, 2006; Zweigenhaft, 2008). For example, preferences for
sophisticated musical styles (classical, opera, and jazz) are positively related to Openness, imagination, liberal values, artistic
expression, and verbal ability. Preferences for intense music
(heavy metal and punk) are positively related to Openness, sensation seeking, and impulsivity. Also, preferences for contemporary
music (pop, rap, and dance) are positively associated with sociability, status orientation, and physical attractiveness.
There is also evidence that musical preferences are influenced
by the social connotations associated with music (Tarrant, North,
& Hargreaves, 2002), as people are drawn to musical styles with
social characteristics that reflect aspects of their identities. For
example, studies on music-genre stereotypes indicate that fans of
rock and heavy metal music are considered aggressive, disobedient, and independent, whereas fans of classical music are considered wealthy, intelligent, and sophisticated (Rentfrow & Gosling,
2007; Rentfrow, McDonald, & Oldmeadow, 2009). In addition,
studies of music preferences among adolescents suggest that individuals listen to particular styles of music to be popular among
peers and to enhance group affiliation (Bakagiannis & Tarrant,
2006; Boer et al., 2011; Tarrant et al., 2002). For example, Selfhout, Branje, ter Bogt, and Meeus (2009) found that the musical
preferences of individuals who mutually regarded each other as
best friends were significantly more similar than were preferences

among random strangers.
Research in this area has established a firm psychological basis
to understand musical preferences. However, most of the studies
are only with young people, so we do not know whether the same
psychological characteristics are related to musical preferences or
whether the magnitude of those associations generalizes to adults.
Age
There have been very few investigations of age differences in
musical preferences. Of the handful of studies conducted, there
appears to be consensus for the hypothesis that musical preferences crystallize in early adulthood and do not change from that
point onward (Holbrook & Schindler, 1989; North & Hargreaves,
1995). The evidence offered as support for the hypothesis essentially shows that people report stronger preferences for popular
music artists they listened to during young adulthood than they do
for popular artists who came before or after. However, the research
has relied on small samples, focused only on preferences for
popular music, and is entirely cross-sectional. As a result, it is not
clear how preferences for other genres vary by age or whether the
variance in musical preferences is greater in adolescence than
middle adulthood.
An alternative perspective is that musical preferences vary
throughout adulthood. Indeed, evidence from numerous studies of
normative changes in personality clearly suggest that Neuroticism
is comparatively high during adolescence and decreases as people
age, whereas Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are low during
adolescence and increase as individuals get older (e.g., Allemand,
Zimprich, & Hertzog, 2007; Lucas & Donnellan, 2011; Roberts,
Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006; Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter,
2011). This organization of traits converges with the storm and
stress period of adolescence when young people struggle to find
their place (Arnett, 1999), and the changes in these traits during
young and middle adulthood seem to correspond with the periods
of forming intimate relationships and pursuing careers. Thus, just
as normative changes in personality occur throughout the life span,
it seems reasonable to expect normative changes might also occur
in musical preferences.
Explanations for personality change emphasize the impact of
age-graded social roles, such as marriage, family, and work (Roberts, Wood, & Smith, 2005), as well as psychosocial developmental challenges (Erikson, 1950, 1968). For example, Eriksons life
span model of development argues that individuals are faced with
the challenge of balancing the demands of certain psychosocial
conflicts as they progress through different life stages. The challenge during adolescence is to develop a coherent identity and
autonomy; from late adolescence through early adulthood, the
challenge is to develop intimate bonds of love and friendship; and
through middle adulthood the two major life challenges are to
maintain intimate relationships and to pursue a profession. Given
that individuals use music for self-expression, arousal regulation,
and social bonding (tasks that are more or less salient at different
life stages), it is conceivable that musical preferences change in
concert with the social roles and life stages encountered throughout life.
Taken together, research on the links between music preferences
and personality, identity, and social bonding provide good reasons
AGE TRENDS IN MUSICAL ENGAGEMENT AND PREFERENCES
to believe that preferences might change throughout adulthood.

Indeed, adolescence through adulthood is marked by significant
changes that impact personality, identity, and social development.
Considering that people seek out styles of music that reinforce
their personalities, reflect their social identities, and enhance their
relationships, it stands to reason that the music they choose to
listen to might change as well.
Overview of the Current Research

The overarching aim of this work was to establish a foundation
on which to develop and test hypotheses about the development of
musical preferences. The theoretical framework guiding our investigation was informed by interactionist theories positing that individuals seek out environments that meet their needs (Buss, 1987).
Along these lines, and consistent with previous work, we reasoned
that individuals use music to satisfy and reinforce basic psychological needs. Thus, we expected age differences in musical involvement to correspond to normative changes in particular psychological processes.
Using multiple samples, methods, and recruitment strategies,
two large cross-sectional studies were conducted to investigate
trends in musical engagement and preferences from adolescence
through middle adulthood. In Study 1, we examined age trends in
musical engagement in a large nationally representative sample of
U.S. and U.K. residents, and in Study 2, we examined age trends
in musical preferences using data from a very large Internet
sample, and their relationships with gender and personality.
Study 1: Age Trends in Musical Engagement

Numerous studies have shown that young people listen to music
regularly and consider it very important (e.g., Rentfrow & Gosling,
2003; Tekman & Hortasu, 2002), but little attention has been
given to the musical attitudes or behaviors of adults. The primary
objective of Study 1 was to examine age differences in how much
importance people give to music, how often they listen to music,
and the contexts in which they listen to it.
Method
Participants. Participants were members of nationally representative Internet panels recruited by IPSOS, a global market
research company. Data on musical attitudes were available for
9,080 participants, of whom 4,009 (44.2%) were from the United
Kingdom and 5,071 (55.8%) were from the United States. The
sample consisted of 4,670 (51.4%) women and 4,410 (48.6%)
men. The average age of participants was 40.53 years and ranged
from 13 to 65 years (SD 14.67). Of those who indicated, 223
(2.5%) participants were Asian, 323 (3.6%) were Black or African,
380 (4.2%) were Hispanic or Latino, 7,766 (85.7%) were White,
and 89 (1.0%) were of another ethnicity.
Procedure. From March through April 2009, U.S. and U.K.
members of the IPSOS Internet panel were invited to complete a
survey about musical attitudes for EMI Music, a multinational
music company. The survey was designed to measure respondents
attitudes about music as well as their knowledge and familiarity
with a variety of artists in the EMI music catalogue. In exchange
for completing the survey, participants received value points that
could be used for purchasing a range of products.
705
Measures. Four items were used to assess music consumption. Participants were asked to estimate separately for the average
weekday and for the average weekend the number of hours they
spent listening to music that you have chosen/bought and listening to music that may be on in the background. The sum of the
four items was taken as a measure of music consumption (Cronbachs .78).
A single item was used to assess musical importance. Participants were asked to choose one statement from a list of five that
best reflected their attitude toward music. In decreasing order of
importance, the statements were as follows: Music means a lot to
me, and is a passion of mine; Music is important to me, but not
necessarily more important than other hobbies or interests; I like
music, but it does not feature heavily in my life; Music is no
longer as important as it used to be to me; and Music has no
particular interest for me. Musical importance was examined by
investigating the proportion of participants who endorsed each
item.
To study the contexts of music-listening behavior, participants
reported the frequency with which they listened to music in various situations. Using a 4-point scale with endpoints at 1 (Never)
and 4 (Frequently), participants reported how often they listened to
music while At home relaxing; At home relaxing with friends;
Out with friends; At work; Doing the housework; Doing
other tasks at home, e.g., DIY; and In the car. Analyses of the
associations among the items revealed a very large correlation
between Doing the housework and Doing other tasks at home,
e.g., DIY (r .75, p .001). Thus, we combined these two
variables to form a Doing housework or other tasks measure. All
in all, six music-listening contexts were examined.
Results and Discussion

Preliminary analyses revealed no gender or country differences
in the three sets of musical engagement variables. For the sake of
simplicity, we report results from analyses that did not include
gender as a covariate and that included participants from both the
U.S. and U.K. samples.
Music consumption. Across all ages, the amount of time
participants reported listening to music ranged from 0 to 96 hr per
week (M 16.21, SD 14.09). The correlation between the sum
of the four music-listening items revealed a negative relationship
between age and music consumption (r .20, p .001). Across
ages, 18 year-olds reported listening to the most amount of music
in an average week (25 hr), whereas 58-year-olds reported listening to the least amount of music (12 hr).
Musical importance. Descriptive statistics across all ages
indicated that 31% of participants felt passionately about music,
38% felt that music was at least as important as other hobbies and
interests, 26% reported that they liked music but that it did not
feature heavily in their lives, 4% felt that music was less important
than it used to be, and 1% reported that they had no particular
interest in music. To determine whether there were significant age
differences in musical importance, a series of chi-square analyses
were performed on the five musical importance categories from
age 13 to 65. The results revealed significant effects of age on
musical importance, 2(208) 886, p .001. Post hoc comparisons between groups revealed that the expected percentage of
participants who were passionate about music decreased from 41%
706
at age 13 to 15% at 65, whereas the proportion of participants who

thought that music was as important as other hobbies remained
fairly stable, from 38% at age 13 to 35% at 65. An increased
proportion of participants stated that music did not feature heavily
in their life, between 19% at age 13 and 42% at 65. Less than 10%
of participants of all ages thought that music was not important or
had no particular interest for them. Overall, these results indicate
that younger participants are more passionate about music compared with older participants but that music is generally quite
important to people of all ages.
Music-listening contexts. The relationships between age and
the frequency of music listening in different contexts were assessed using Pearsons correlations. All correlation coefficients
between age and contexts were significant at p .001. To avoid
interpreting spurious results, only correlation coefficients |.20|
are interpreted. Participants reported listening to music in the car
more often than in any other context (M 3.59, SD .81), and
this trend remained constant with age (r .04). The second most
common music-listening context was at home, relaxing alone
(M 3.19, SD .86); young participants reported listening to music
in this context slightly more than did older participants (r .13).
Doing housework or other tasks at home was a context in which
music was listened to occasionally (M 3.00, SD .95) and was
slightly more common among younger than older participants (r
.11). Participants reported listening to music at home, relaxing
with friends less often than the other contexts (M 2.88, SD
.98), and young people listened to music more in this context
compared with older participants (r .22). Out with friends was
a less popular music-listening context (M 2.51, SD 1.02), and
it was negatively associated with age (r .34). Finally, the least
frequent music-listening context was at work (M 2.32, SD
1.19), which was most stable with age (r .07).
Summary. Consistent with previous research, participants
over 30 considered music less important than did adolescents or
young adults, although middle-aged adults still listened to 12 hr or
more of music per week. The majority of participants across all
ages reported that music was either a passion or as important as
their other interests. Our analyses of music-listening contexts
indicated that adolescents listened to music in a wide variety of
public and private settings, whereas adults listened to music primarily in private. It is worth noting that although musics prominence declined after adolescence, in an absolute sense, music
continued to play an important role throughout adulthood. Nevertheless, the current findings are entirely cross-sectional, which
leaves open the possibility that the results reflect cohort differences and not developmental trends. Longitudinal research is
needed to examine intraindividual musical engagement.
Study 2: Age Trends in Musical Preferences

The results from Study 1 indicate that individuals become less
passionate about music as they age, but the majority of people
young and old alikestill place considerable importance on music. This raises the question: Do musical preferences change, just
as musical engagement changes, or are preferences stable across
the life span? Do age differences in musical preferences correspond to normative changes in personality? The objective of Study
2 was to explore age trends in musical preferences and to examine
the potential impact of personality on such trends.
Effectively investigating age differences in musical preferences

requires a robust framework for conceptualizing and measuring
preferences. The MUSIC model (Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Levitin,
2011) offers a potentially useful framework for conceptualizing
musical preferences, but all the current evidence supporting the
model has relied exclusively on young people. As a result, it is not
known whether the same music-preference dimensions generalize
across age. Thus, if we are to make meaningful comparisons of
musical preferences across age, it is crucial to first determine
whether the structure of musical preferences is age invariant.
Study Overview
Aims. The first aim of the project was to determine whether
the factor structure of musical preferences is invariant with age.
The second aim was to examine age trends in musical preferences
and to gauge the impact of personality on such trends. To address
the aims of the project, we used exploratory structural equation
modeling (ESEM) to examine measurement invariance of the
music preference structure across age. We then examined age
trends in preferences using regression analyses within SEM to
assess the links between music preferences, age, gender, and
personality.
Design. This study was designed to overcome several of the
shortcomings of previous research in this area. First, a very large
cross-sectional sample of nearly a quarter of a million respondents
was used in the current study. Such a large sample provides the
statistical power necessary to reliably detect interactions and curvilinear trends (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Second, samples with
narrow age ranges were used most in previous studies, with many
focusing only on adolescents and young adults or relying on small
samples of middle-aged adults (Holbrook & Schindler, 1989;
North & Hargreaves, 1995). In contrast, a much wider range of
participants between the ages of 12 and 65 was used in the current
study. Our sample also included at least 164 participants at each
individual year of age. Third, most of the studies that have examined age trends in music preferences assessed preferences for pop
music only (Holbrook & Schindler, 1989; North & Hargreaves,
1995). In contrast, the current study assessed individual differences in preferences for a wide assortment of music genres, which
allowed us to investigate whether the structure of preferences is
invariant across age and also whether trends in preferences vary by
musical style. Fourth, the current study included a measure of the
Big Five domains, which enabled us to investigate the impact of
personality on musical preferences from adolescence through middle adulthood. Given these design aims, we decided to rely on the
Internet to collect data for the current study.
A unique feature of the current project is that the data were
collected over a period of 8 years. This multiyear data collection
period produced variance in participants birth year that was not
shared with age at the time of participation. This aspect of the
research design enabled us to determine whether earlier born
versus later born participants music preferences differed systematically from each other, and thus whether birth-cohort effects
contributed to any of the current findings.
Method
Participants. Participants volunteered to complete a musicpreference survey over the Internet. As in all studies that collect
data from individuals over the Internet, there is the possibility that
respondents may complete a survey multiple times. Repeat responding has the potential to produce unreliable and misleading
results, so it was necessary to remove data from potential repeat
responders. Several criteria were used to eliminate repeat responders. We removed participants who indicated that they had filled out
the questionnaire more than once. In addition, the questionnaires
that were answered from the same IP address within less than 1 hr
and those from the same IP address that matched on several
demographic characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity) were also
eliminated. Finally, participants with spurious patterns of responses were removed from the database (e.g., those who responded to all the survey items with 1s or 2s).
Implementation of the aforementioned criteria resulted in data
for 254,825 participants. Of these participants, 147,589 (57.9%)
were female, and 107,236 (42.1%) were male. The average age of
participants was 23.52 years and ranged from 12 to 65 years
(SD 10.06). In terms of education, of those who reported, 76,692
(32.5%) participants reported having less than a high school degree,
19,021 (8.1%) had a high school diploma, 73,554 (31.2%) attended
some college, 31,810 (13.5%) had a college degree, and 34,606
(14.7%) had a postgraduate diploma. Among those who indicated
their socioeconomic status, 26,770 (21.9%) participants identified
themselves as working class, 23,728 (19.4%) identified as lowermiddle class, 47,482 (38.9%) identified as middle class, 20,638
(16.9%) identified as upper-middle class, and 3,546 (2.9%) identified
as upper class. Of those who indicated, 23,150 (9.3%) participants
were Asian, 7,899 (3.2%) were Black or African, 12,352 (4.9%) were
Hispanic or Latino, 189,595 (75.9%) were White, and 16,742 (6.7%)
reported another ethnicity.
Procedure. Data were collected as part of an ongoing study
of music preferences involving volunteers assessed over the
Internet (www.outofservice.com/music-personality-test/). The
website where the data were collected is noncommercial and
advertisement-free, and contains a variety of psychology measures. Potential respondents could find out about the site through
several channels, including search engines or unsolicited links on
other websites. The data reported in the current research were
collected between 2003 and 2010. Respondents volunteered to
participate in the study by clicking on the music test icon and
were then presented with a series of questions about their music
preferences, personalities, and demographics. After responding to
each item and submitting their responses, participants were presented with a customized personality evaluation based on their
responses to the music survey.
Measures. Music preferences were assessed using a revised
version of the Short Test of Music Preferences (STOMP-R; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). The STOMP-R comprises 23 music
genres: alternative, bluegrass, blues, classical, country, electronica/
dance, folk, funk, gospel, heavy metal, international/world, jazz,
new age, oldies, opera, pop, punk, rap, reggae, religious, rock,
soul/R&B, and soundtracks. Respondents were asked to report
their degree of liking for each genre using a 7-point rating scale
with endpoints at 1 (Dislike) and 7 (Like). Two items, soundtracks
and oldies, encompass music of many different styles and from
different time periods, and it is very likely that these items might
be interpreted differently by people of different ages. We thus
removed these two items from further analyses and relied only on
the remaining 21 genres.
707
Personality was assessed using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). The TIPI assesses
each of the Big Five domains with only two items and has strong
convergent and discriminant validity with longer measures of the
personality domains. In the current study, respondents were asked
to report the degree to which they agreed with each item using a
7-point rating scale with endpoints at 1 (Disagree) and 7 (Agree).
Analytic strategy. The analyses were designed to address two
goals. First, we wanted to determine whether the MUSIC model
was invariant across age. Second, we wanted to map age trends in
preferences and examine the impact of personality on those trends.
Those goals were accomplished within an SEM framework. All
analyses were conducted in Mplus 7.0 software (Muthn &
Muthn, 1998 2012).
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has traditionally been used
to evaluate the factor structure of an instrument. However, CFA
involves strict assumptions that are not easily met in psychological
research. For instance, CFA assumes highly restrictive, zero loadings for items that are nontarget loadings for factors. This in turn
could inflate the associations between factors and bias the relationship between the factors and external covariates. ESEM, which
combines features of CFA and exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
overcomes this restriction by allowing loadings of nontarget items
to be estimated and thus provides less biased factor correlations
(Morin, Marsh, & Nagengast, 2013). The main advantages of
ESEM over CFA are to integrate the less restrictive assumptions of
EFA with the benefits of SEM, such as the presence of goodnessof-fit indices, the possibility of performing multigroup invariance
analysis, and the combination of regression and structural equations in the same model (see Marsh et al., 2009; Marsh, Nagengast,
& Morin, 2012).
We took advantage of ESEM to accomplish the goals of this
study. Specifically, to determine whether the MUSIC model is
invariant across age, we first assessed the structural validity of a
five-factor model of music preferences. Next, measurement invariance was examined with three age groups (age 1219, age 20 39,
and age 40 65) under the ESEM analytic framework. We then
followed the measurement invariance steps suggested by Brown
(2006) by first testing for configural invariance, then weak (metric)
invariance, and finally strong invariance. Configural invariance
serves to confirm the equivalence of the factor structure across
groups, weak invariance ensures that the items within each factor
have comparable meanings across groups, and strong invariance
warrants mean-level comparisons across groups. To confirm measurement invariance, we used Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes
(MIMIC) within ESEM. Using MIMIC, the covariates can be
regressed on both the latent factor and the items, thus allowing
further tests of intercept invariance. As a measurement invariance
method, MIMIC is advantageous compared with multiple-group
analysis in that it preserves the continuous nature of the covariate
instead of dividing a continuous variable into categories (Morin et
al., 2013). Finally, to examine age trends in musical preferences
and to gauge the impact of personality on those trends, we regressed age and its polynomial increments, along with gender,
personality, and their interactions on the music-preference dimensions, using SEM.
We followed the recommendations of Marsh et al. (2009, 2012)
to evaluate the goodness of fit of the models tested. Accordingly,
a model with acceptable fit should have a comparative fit index
708
(CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .90, and models with

excellent fit should have fit statistics .95. Additionally, the
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root-mean-square residuals (SRMR) should be .08 for
acceptable and .05 for excellent model fit. Standard evaluation
of measurement invariance involves the comparison of chi-square
values (Brown, 2006), but chi-square measures are largely dependent on sample size and penalize large samples. Given the uncharacteristically large sample size used in this study, chi-square statistics are not presented. To compare the adequacy of a more
restrictive model in measurement invariance, Chen (2007) recommended that .010 in CFI or TLI, complemented by a change
of less than .015 in RMSEA or .030 in SRMR, reflects good model
fit. It is worth noting that because ESEM is a relatively new
measurement approach, model-fit comparison for invariance
should be used as guidelines and not as strict thresholds.
ized factor loadings of the ESEM, quartimin rotation, are reported

in Table 1.
The next step in our analyses was to examine configural, weak,
and strong invariance of the MUSIC factor structure between age
groups. We first split the sample into three groups representing
Eriksons (1950) three primary life stages: adolescence (1219;
n 118,605), young adulthood (20 39; n 112,343), and middle
adulthood (40 65; n 23,877). We next performed a series of
increasingly restrictive models, starting with the configural model,
then comparing the weak invariance model with the configural
model, and then the strong invariance model with the weak invariance model.
As can be seen in the first data row in Table 2, the assumption
of configural invariance between age groups was met. Three of the
four change indices of weak invariance were also within the
thresholds, indicating that metric invariance was also met, as
shown in the second data row. Strong invariance was then tested,
but the differences between the models were above threshold, as
shown in the third data row. Post hoc modification indices indicated that rap and funk music displayed small evidence of differential item functioning across groups. When the intercepts of these
two genres were freed, the general five-factor structure remained
unchanged. We found partial strong invariance when the intercepts
of rap and punk were freely estimated, as shown in the last data
row. To further assess intercept measurement invariance using
MIMIC, we regressed age, age quadratic (age2), and age cubic
(age3) on the MUSIC factors and the 21 items. This model fit the
data well (CFI .950, TLI .912, RMSEA .048, SRMR
.022). Post hoc examination of the modification index suggested
that rap and punk music genres could be predicted by the age
covariates, indicating potential noninvariance in item intercepts.
The addition of direct paths between age, age2, and age3, and rap
Results and Discussion

Age invariance of the MUSIC model. The first step in our
analyses was to examine the factor structure of musical preferences. Given previous evidence that individual differences in musical preferences can be characterized in terms of five factors, we
performed an EFA using quartimin rotation within the ESEM
framework. We expected a priori that some residuals of the observed music genres that share similar components would be
correlated (e.g., classical and opera, or jazz and blues). Failure to
take into account such correlated residuals can lead to bias in the
factor correlations (Jreskog, 1979; Marsh & Hau, 1996), so using
procedures consistent with other research (e.g., Marsh et al., 2013)
we allowed some residuals to correlate. The results with five latent
factors provided satisfactory to excellent fits to our data (CFI
.968, TLI .937, RMSEA .045, SRMR .018). The standard-
Table 1
Exploratory Structural Equation Model With Quartimin Rotation of 21 Music Genres
Five quartimin-rotated factors
Genre
Mellow
Unpretentious
Sophisticated
Intense
Contemporary
Electronica/Dance
World/International
New Age
Pop
Country
Religious
Blues
Jazz
Bluegrass
Folk
Classical
Gospel
Opera
Rock
Punk
Alternative
Heavy Metal
Rap
Soul/R&B
Funk
Reggae
.54
.50
.43
.14
.14
.08
.11
.15
.00
.15
.34
.00
.32
.13
.02
.17
.01
.06
.04
.13
.09
.01
.06
.14
.63
.52
.38
.02
.06
.10
.12
.04
.29
.08
.10
.07
.05
.24
.09
.26
.12
.10
.16
.31
.04
.16
.17
.17
.79
.64
.61
.55
.49
.41
.38
.10
.07
.01
.01
.18
.21
.36
.38
.09
.01
.16
.05
.03
.12
.06
.05
.06
.06
.08
.14
.08
.71
.68
.66
.40
.00
.14
.15
.07
.24
.00
.01
.22
.04
.08
.12
.11
.02
.18
.23
.11
.16
.10
.08
.02
.06
.69
.65
.53
.40
Note.
N 254,825. Coefficients are standardized. Primary factor loadings are in bold typeface.
709
Table 2
Multiple-Group Invariance of Age
Invariance
Model
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
SRMR
CFI
TLI
RMSEA
SRMR
M1
M2
M3
M3a
.965
.950
.935
.940
.931
.935
.921
.926
.047
.045
.050
.048
.020
.029
.036
.034
.015
.015
.010
.004
.014
.009
.002
.005
.003
.009
.007
.005
Note. M1M3 multiple-group models. Age groups are 1219; 20 39; 40 65. M1 configural model; M2 weak (metric) invariance; M3 strong
(intercept) invariance. M3a partial strong invariance with intercepts of Rap and Funk freely estimated; Delta coefficients are the absolute differences
between the models. M2 is compared with M1; M3 and M3a are compared with M2. CFI comparative fit index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA
root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR standardized root-mean-square residual.
and funk did not lead to a significant increase in model fits (CFI
.957, TLI .921, RMSEA .046, SRMR .019). This indicated
that the items intercepts were invariant across age measured as a
continuous variable, providing further support for strong measurement invariance.
Taken together, tests of measurement invariance using multiplegroup ESEM showed support for age invariance of musical preferences. The results from the analyses yield a factor structure that
resembles the MUSIC model reported in Rentfrow, Goldberg, and
Levitin (2011), Rentfrow et al. (2012), and Rentfrow, Goldberg,
and Zilca (2011). The factor loadings in the first data column of
Table 1 show large loadings for electronica/dance, world, and new
age, styles that are perceived as relaxing, unaggressive, and atmospheric, qualities consistent with the Mellow preference dimension. Genres with large loadings on the second factor were pop,
country, and religious, styles that typically have vocals and are
perceived as uncomplicated, unaggressive, and simple, consistent
with the Unpretentious dimension. The third factor included blues,
jazz, bluegrass, folk, classical, opera, and gospel, styles that generally use acoustical instruments; are clear sounding; and are
perceived as intelligent, deep, inspiring, and complex, consistent
with the Sophisticated dimension. The fourth factor included rock,
punk, alternative, and heavy metal, genres characterized by electric,
loud, and distorted instruments, and perceived as aggressive, tense,
and unromantic, consistent with the Intense dimension. And the fifth
factor included rap, soul/R&B, funk, and reggae, styles that are
percussive and electric and perceived as upbeat, danceable, and not
sad, consistent with the Contemporary dimension. The current
factors clearly resemble the MUSIC model. Therefore, we labeled
the factors in the current study accordingly. Given evidence for
partial strong invariance, the factor scores were saved and used to
examine age trends in musical preferences.
Age trends in musical preferences and their relationships
with gender and personality. To investigate age trends in musical preferences and to examine the impact of gender and personality on those trends, we conducted a series of regression analyses
within the SEM framework by specifying regression paths between age, age2, age3, gender, and each of the Big Five personality
traits, and their interactions. We first tested the age-only model to
see whether the age variables alone provide a good fit for age
trends in the MUSIC factors. We next tested the main-effects
model to assess the simultaneous influence of age along with
gender and personality on music preferences. And finally, we
tested the moderation effects model to examine the interactive
effects of age and gender, and age and the five personality dimen-
sions on music preferences. All in all, 27 regression paths per

MUSIC dimension were examined (nine main effects and 18
moderation effects), for a total of 135 paths.
For this series of analyses, factor scores for the MUSIC preference dimensions were computed and then standardized to a mean
of zero and a standard deviation of one to facilitate comparison,
gender was contrast-coded (0 males, 1 females), and the
personality variables were standardized. The large sample size
provided sufficient statistical power to detect small effects, but to
avoid accepting regression effects that are unlikely to be replicated
using smaller samples, we only focus on regression paths with
|.10|. These paths represent the unique contribution of the independent variables on the MUSIC factors and are far more conservative than Pearson correlations. To test the age-only model, all
135 regression paths were specified, but only age and the higher
order age polynomials were freely estimated; the other main effects and interactions were constrained to zero. The results indicated that the age-only model did not fit the data well (CFI .735,
TLI .680, RMSEA .050, SRMR .026).
We next tested the main-effects model by allowing the age
variables, gender, and all five personality traits to be freely estimated simultaneously. The results indicated that this model
achieved an excellent fit (CFI .981, TLI .970, RMSEA
.015, SRMR .006).
Finally, we tested the moderation effects model. Allowing the
135 paths to be freely estimated would yield a just-identified
model, with zero degrees of freedom. We relied on model modification indices obtained from the main-effects model to assess the
relevance of studying interaction effects on music preferences.
Comparatively large modification indices were found for the interactions between age and gender for the Intense music factor, so
we allowed the interaction terms of age, age2, and age3 with
gender to be regressed on Intense. Including these terms, however,
did not yield fit statistics that were significantly better than the
main-effects model (CFI .985, TLI .976, RMSEA .014,
SRMR .005). Furthermore, the expected path coefficients were
below our regression coefficient benchmark (all s |.09|, SE
.009).
The aforementioned results provided confirmation that there are
robust associations between musical preferences, age, gender, and
personality. On the basis of these findings, and for the sake of
parsimony, we retained the main-effects model for all subsequent
analyses. Regression paths for the main-effects model with interaction terms fixed to zero are displayed in Table 3. Age trends in
music preferences are graphed in Figure 1. The significant main
710
Table 3
Standardized Coefficients of the Path Model of Age Trends,
Gender, and Personality on MUSIC Preferences
95% CI
Model
Mellow
Intercept
Age
Age2
Age3
Gender
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness
Unpretentious
Intercept
Age
Age2
Age3
Gender
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness
Sophisticated
Intercept
Age
Age2
Age3
Gender
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness
Intense
Intercept
Age
Age2
Age3
Gender
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness
Contemporary
Intercept
Age
Age2
Age3
Gender
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Emotional Stability
Openness
Low
High
SE
.09
.16
.44
.31
.08
.05
.03
.03
.01
.19
.10
.15
.46
.29
.07
.06
.03
.03
.00
.19
.09
.16
.43
.32
.08
.05
.03
.02
.01
.20
.003
.003
.007
.007
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.28
.23
.17
.12
.24
.10
.13
.11
.02
.09
.29
.22
.18
.11
.24
.10
.12
.10
.02
.09
.28
.23
.15
.13
.25
.11
.13
.11
.01
.08
.003
.003
.007
.007
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.05
.43
.43
.28
.04
.04
.04
.05
.06
.18
.04
.42
.44
.27
.04
.05
.03
.05
.05
.17
.05
.44
.41
.30
.04
.04
.04
.05
.06
.18
.003
.003
.007
.007
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.01
.12
.02
.13
.01
.02
.02
.10
.02
.15
.01
.12
.01
.14
.01
.03
.03
.11
.03
.15
.02
.11
.04
.11
.01
.02
.02
.10
.02
.16
.003
.003
.007
.007
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.001
.003
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.08
.10
.22
.04
.06
.19
.06
.02
.01
.02
.08
.10
.23
.03
.06
.19
.06
.02
.01
.01
.07
.11
.20
.06
.07
.20
.07
.02
.02
.02
.003
.003
.007
.007
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
.001
Note. N 254,825. Age, personality, and the five MUSIC factors are
standardized. Gender is dummy-coded: male 0, female 1. MUSIC
Mellow, Unpretentious, Sophisticated, Intense, and Contemporary; CI
confidence interval; Age2 age quadratic; Age3 age cubic. Estimates in
bold typeface exceed the effect-size benchmark of |.10|. All cell entries are
from the main-effects path model.
effects of personality with one standard deviation above and below

the mean for the MUSIC dimensions are plotted against age in
Figure 2.
Mellow. The results from our analyses supported a cubic
model for the Mellow music-preference factor. As can be seen in
Panel A of Figure 1, preferences for Mellow increased steeply
during adolescence. Early in young adulthood, preferences flattened slightly and began to decrease from age 30 to the early 50s.
Preferences for this dimension increased from late 50s through 65.
Results presented in Table 3 and in Panel A of Figure 2 also
indicated that Openness was positively related to preferences for
Mellow music, such that participants who were high in Openness
scored approximately half of a standard deviation above those who
were low in Openness. This difference remained constant as participants aged, with an effect size of d .57 (mean low Openness
.25, mean high Openness .23).
Unpretentious. The age trends in preferences for Unpretentious music are shown in Panel B of Figure 1, and fit a linear
model. That is, preferences for Unpretentious music increased
from adolescence to young adulthood and on through middle
adulthood. As shown in Table 3, women displayed stronger
preferences for this factor compared with men (d .52; mean
men .24, mean women .17). Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were all positively related to preferences for Unpretentious music, such that people high on those
traits scored approximately one third to one half a standard
deviation higher in their preferences compared with people low
on those traits. These personality differences are plotted in
Panels B1B3 of Figure 2. They remained constant with age
(Extraversion d .32 [mean low Extraversion .15, mean
high Extraversion .11], Agreeableness d .61 [mean low
Agreeableness .30, mean high Agreeableness .19], Conscientiousness d .53 [mean low Conscientiousness .20,
mean high Conscientiousness .23]).
Sophisticated. As can be seen Panel C of Figure 1, the age
trend for the Sophisticated factor was fit best by a quadratic
model. Preferences for Sophisticated music increased sharply
during adolescence to early young adulthood, where they continued to increase, but at a slower rate, until the 50s when they
appeared to stabilize. As displayed in Table 3, and Panel C of
Figure 2, the results also revealed that preferences for Sophisticated music were positively related to Openness, such that
participants who were high in Openness scored approximately
one half of one standard deviation above those who scored low,
with an effect size of d .49 (mean low Openness .25,
mean high Openness .20).
Intense. The trend plotted in Panel D of Figure 1 reveals that
preferences for the Intense music factor were fit best by a quadratic
model. Preferences show rapid rise and then fall during adolescence,
with preferences for Intense music plateauing during young adulthood
and then decreasing sharply from late young adulthood through middle adulthood. As shown in Table 3, and Panels D1 and D2 of Figure
2, the results also revealed main effects of Conscientiousness and
Openness, such that participants who scored high in Conscientiousness liked intense music less than individuals low in this trait (d
.43; mean low Conscientiousness .16, mean high Conscientiousness .22), and those who scored high in Openness consistently
liked Intense music more than did participants who scored low (d
.45; mean low Openness .22, mean high Openness .17).
711
Figure 1. Mean Mellow, Unpretentious, Sophisticated, Intense, and Contemporary preference scores by age,
Study 2. Scores are standardized.
Contemporary. As displayed in Panel E in Figure 1, age trends

in preferences for Contemporary music were best fit by a quadratic
model. The trend lines reveal a rise in preferences for Contemporary
music during adolescence that stabilizes in early young adulthood,
and then begins to decline steeply from late young adulthood through
middle adulthood. As can be seen at the bottom of Table 3, and Panel
E of Figure 2, a main effect of Extraversion was also observed, such
that participants who were more extraverted also displayed greater
preferences for the Contemporary dimension, which corresponded to
a difference of just over half a standard deviation throughout adolescence and adulthood (d .63; mean low Extraversion .32, mean
high Extraversion .23).
Effects of birth cohort on age trends in music preferences.
It is possible that birth-cohort effects are responsible for the age
trends observed in the current study. Because the current study
included data collected over an 8-year period, we were able to
compare the preferences of participants who were the same age
(e.g., 35) when they originally completed the survey, but from
712
Figure 2. Main effects of age and personality traits on the Mellow, Unpretentious, Sophisticated, Intense, and
Contemporary preference scores, Study 2. Scores represent individuals high and low scores on the personality
traits (1 SD above and below the mean).
different birth cohorts (e.g., 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972,

1973, 1974, and 1975). To rule out possible cohort effects on
the relationships between age and music preferences, we regressed age, age2, age3, and year of survey completion (i.e.,
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010) on music
preferences and fixed all of the other regression paths to zero.
The model provided a poor fit of the data (CFI .736, TLI
.671, RMSEA .050, SRMR .026), and the path coefficients
for year of survey completion failed to reach our regression
coefficient benchmark ( .075, SE .002). These findings
strongly suggest that pronounced cohort effects did not drive
the age trends observed in the current study.
General Discussion
The current research sought to fill a gap in the emerging
literature on the social-personality psychology of music by
investigating age differences in how people experience and
engage with music. Two independent studies involving more
than a quarter million participants were conducted to examine
age trends in musical engagement and preferences. Findings
from the studies provide a solid foundation on which to develop
and test hypotheses about the role music plays throughout life.
Below we summarize the results and propose hypotheses for
future research.
713
Figure 2. (continued)
Summary of Results
The results from Study 1 shed light on age differences in
musical engagement. The results show that although music
declines in importance after adolescence, young and middleaged adults still consider music an important feature of their
lives. Findings from this study also suggest that young people
spend roughly 20% of their time listening to music, whereas
adults spend nearly 13% of their time listening to music (assuming the average person sleeps 8 hr per night). Furthermore,
the results indicate that young people listen to music in a variety
of contexts, whereas adults typically listen to music in private.
Study 2 revealed age trends in musical preferences. Results
from multigroup ESEM analyses indicated that the fivedimensional music-preference model is age invariant. These
findings suggest that the music-preference dimensions generalize across age and offer additional support for the robustness of
the MUSIC model. Results from the regression models revealed
clear age trends in music preferences, such that preferences for
the Mellow, Unpretentious, and Sophisticated dimensions increased with age, whereas preferences for Intense and Contemporary declined. The regression models also revealed main
effects of personality for all five preference dimensions. The
patterns of associations between Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, and Openness and the music-preferences
dimensions replicate previous research (e.g., Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003; Zweigenhaft, 2008) and lend further support for the
conclusion that musical preferences are manifestations of similar psychological characteristics throughout the life span.
714
Why Does Musical Engagement Decline With Age?

Adolescence is a period marked by identity uncertainty and
intense pressures to conform (Erikson, 1968; Harter, 1999; Hartup,
1989), and music plays an integral part in helping young people
explore their identities and form relationships with peers (Delsing,
2008; ter Bogt, Keijsers, & Meeus, 2013). Indeed, adolescents use
music as an identity badge that serves as a symbolic representation
of their values and beliefs (Frith, 1981). For example, by listening
to music with friends or in public, individuals are effectively
making statements about their preferences, beliefs, and lifestyles
for others to hear (Tarrant et al., 2002). Although such statements
are indirect, there is consistent evidence that music carries information about the social and psychological characteristics of the
listeners (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006, 2007; Rentfrow et al., 2009).
Yet, as individuals transition from adolescence to adulthood,
stable self-concepts are formed (Harter, 2003), the ability to resist
peer pressure increases (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007), and identity
becomes invested in newly emerging social roles (e.g., spouse,
parent, career professional). Raising a family and pursuing a career
provide adults with defining features of their identities. It seems
reasonable to suggest that the meaning derived from these roles
diminishes the function that music serves in shaping identity and
offering fulfillment. The current findings suggest that adults may
not have as much psychologically invested in music as young
people, and instead listen to music for purposes of relaxation and
entertainment. In this way, adults may rely on music less as a
means for identity development and more for purposes of emotion
regulation or stimulation.
Toward a Developmental Theory of Musical

Preferences
Although the current results are based entirely on crosssectional data, theory and research in developmental, personality,
and biological psychology offers clues for understanding age differences in musical preferences. We may thus draw on that research and the current findings to lay a foundation for developing
a theory of why musical preferences change with age.
Life span perspective. Eriksons (1950, 1968) psychosocial
stages of development provide a useful framework for understanding age differences in musical preferences. The current results
indicated that preferences for the Intense music-preference dimension were highest among adolescents and then declined through
middle adulthood. This dimension is marked by loud and distorted
sounds and is perceived as aggressive, tense, and antiestablishment
(Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Levitin, 2011; Rentfrow et al., 2012). The
psychosocial stage during adolescence is the challenge of developing a coherent identity. It thus seems reasonable to argue that the
rebellious connotations of Intense music might be what adolescents find appealing as they struggle to establish a sense of
independence and autonomy.
In early adulthood, once self-identities have formed, time and
effort are invested in developing intimate bonds of love
(Carstensen, 1992; Erikson, 1968). Our results indicated that the
Mellow and Contemporary dimensions were most popular during
young adulthood. These preference dimensions are considered
romantic, emotionally positive, and danceable (Rentfrow et al.,
2012). Taken together, it is conceivable that Mellow and Contem-
porary music are most popular during young adulthood because

these styles of music reinforce desires for intimacy and also
complement the settings where young people come together with
the goal of establishing close relationships (i.e., house parties,
dance clubs, bars).
By middle adulthood, the psychosocial stage that individuals
face is the challenge of developing a career, raising a family, and
maintaining friendships (Erikson, 1968; Hogan & Roberts, 2004).
Preferences for Unpretentious and Sophisticated music were highest during this life stage. Both music dimensions are perceived as
positive and relaxing, but whereas Unpretentious is more simple
and about themes of love and family, Sophisticated is more complex and indicative of high culture (Rentfrow et al., 2012). Thus,
the relaxing and familial themes of Unpretentious music may be
appealing for adults at a life stage where family life is the focus,
and the aesthetic qualities of Sophisticated music may be appealing among individuals preoccupied with the challenge of establishing social status and career success.
Personality. Also stemming from a life span perspective of
personality (McAdams & Olson, 2010), continuity and change in
particular traits appear to be expressed in musical preferences. Our
results strongly suggest that there is a moderate association between Extraversion and preferences for Contemporary music
throughout the life span. This suggests that sociability, positive
affect, and enthusiasm are related to preferences for fun and
sociable music throughout life. A comparatively small, but robust,
association was observed between Agreeableness and preferences
for Unpretentious. This is consistent with the hypothesis that
individuals of all ages who possess traits associated with warmth
prefer music that is inoffensive and gentle sounding. Although the
associations were comparatively small, Conscientiousness was
positively associated with preferences for Unpretentious but negatively related to Intense. Given that Intense has been associated
with disorderliness in past research (Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Levitin, 2011), it is not surprising that people of all ages who prefer
Intense music are comparatively low in conscientiousness. Finally,
Openness was moderately associated with Mellow, Sophisticated,
and Intense music from adolescence through to middle adulthood.
Research has shown that Sophisticated and Intense music are
perceived as complex and that Mellow and Sophisticated are
perceived as intelligent and thoughtful, psychological characteristics also associated with Openness (Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Levitin, 2011; Rentfrow et al., 2012).
In the same way that music reinforces dispositional personality
traits, it is conceivable that normative changes in personality might
contribute to age differences in musical preferences. Several studies indicate that Neuroticism is high and that Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness are low during adolescence (e.g., Allemand et
al., 2007; Roberts et al., 2006; Soto et al., 2011)a period marked
by significant cognitive and biological changes that influence
emotional stability, impulse control, and aggression (Keating,
2004; Kuhn, 2006; Tremblay, 1998). It is conceivable that these
changes contribute to a greater preference for fast and edgy music,
as it might reinforce or complement adolescents psychological
and physiological states. The normative increases in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness correspond with declining preferences
for Intense music and increasing preferences for Unpretentious
music, suggesting that as people become more caring and dutiful
with age, their degree of preference for warm and reflective music
also increases. There is also evidence that Openness increases as

people age, suggesting that people become more imaginative and
aesthetic (Soto et al., 2011), which appears to be reflected in
greater preferences for reflective, imaginative, and unconventional
music. The current results are cross-sectional and cannot determine
causality. Longitudinal research tracking personality and musical
preferences will be necessary for rigorously testing these hypotheses.
Biological maturation. Another explanation for age differences
in musical preferences arises from developmental changes in auditory
perception. There is evidence of developmental changes in auditory
threshold levels and in specific hearing impairments among normally
aging individuals that could influence the degree to which particular
musical styles are enjoyed. In terms of normative auditory development, as people age, they lose the capacity to hear high-pitched
and soft sounds, and show an increased risk for developing hearing
impairments (Brant & Fozard, 1990). For instance, people with
hearing recruitment tend to show higher sensitivity to sound intensity (Buus & Florentine, 2002). Another hearing problem that
can affect music preferences is hyperacusis, that is, a decreased
tolerance to certain sound frequencies (Anari, Axelsson, Eliasson,
& Magnusson, 1999). As a result of such changes, perceptions of
loudness increase more quickly as a function of objective sound
intensity for people with hyperacusis compared to people with
normal hearing function (Hood & Poole, 1966).
Research has shown that the aforementioned changes in hearing
are relatively frequent and develop over time, most often taking
decades to fully implement (Agrawal, Platz, & Niparko, 2008;
Gordon-Salant, 2005). Thus, it is easy to understand why middleaged adults were less likely to prefer loud and distorted music than
adolescents and young adults. For middle-aged people, the Intense
and Contemporary music dimensions, with their mostly large
changes in volume or their generally high intensity, might be
literally painful to hear and thus intolerable (Leek, Molis, Kubli, &
Tufts, 2008). Consistent with that hypothesis, research by Smith
(1989) indicated that age was negatively related to preferences for
listening to music at a high intensity. Although older adults displayed lower auditory threshold levels, they tended to listen to
music at a lower volume than did younger participants, suggesting
that loud music might be uncomfortable for older adults.
Limitations and Future Directions

A limitation with all studies based on cross-sectional designs is
that it is never clear whether the age differences observed were
driven by age effects, birth-cohort effects, or period effects (Lucas
& Donnellan, 2011). We took advantage of the multiyear design of
the current research to assess the degree to which cohort effects
might be responsible for the age differences observed in Study 2.
We did not detect pronounced cohort effects, though the results
should be interpreted with care due to the cross-sectional nature of
this study, as the 8-year period may not be sufficient for detecting
cohort effects. It is possible that less pronounced cohort effects
drive the current results. Indeed, given that musical styles evolve
and new genres emerge over time, it is only reasonable to expect
birth cohort to have some effect of musical preferences. Longitudinal studies that gather information about preferences, personality, life experiences, and social networks will be invaluable for
teasing apart the social and psychological factors that influence
715
music preferences and, at the same time, reveal the relative impact
of such factors throughout the life span.
A limitation of both studies was the fact that they relied solely
on self-report data. Given the current evidence that music is more
important among adolescents than adults, it is conceivable that
showing passion for music is more socially desirable for young
people. If so, social desirability might have inflated young participants reports of how important music was to them. Social desirability might have also affected young peoples self-reports of
which musical styles they most prefer. Future research that gathers
objective information about musical engagement and preferences
longitudinally would go a very long way in establishing the generalizability of the current results.
A potential limitation of Study 2 is that the data were collected
on the Internet. It is conceivable that older middle-aged adults who
volunteer to complete a survey online may be comparatively high
in Openness or savvy with new technologies. To address the
possibility of a selection bias, we used a procedure described by
Soto et al. (2011) to examine age variance in Openness across age
groups. If there was a selection bias for the older participants, we
should expect less variance in Openness among the older middleaged participants (because the majority of them should be similarly
high on this trait) than among the younger participants (because
they comprise a more representative sample). We tested that hypothesis by computing the standard deviation ratio of openness
between the three comparison groups (1219 vs. 20 39; 1219 vs.
40 65; and 20 39 vs. 40 65) and did not find evidence of a bias
in openness. Of course these results do not entirely rule out any
selection bias, yet the size of our sample and the evidence of small
variability between groups suggest there is not a pronounced bias.
We assessed music preferences using the STOMP-R, which
comprises music genre items. Recent research on the structure of
music preferences indicates that assessing individual differences in
music preferences by measuring affective reactions to audio excerpts of actual music could shed more light on age differences in
preferences (Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Levitin, 2011; Rentfrow et al.,
2012). Measuring affective reactions to auditory excerpts instead
of genre preferences overcomes the potential limitation that participants might be unfamiliar with the genre classifications. Another advantage of examining age differences in preferences for
musical clips is that it allows for studying age trends in preferences
for musical attributes, as well as the impact of auditory thresholds
on musical preferences. Such research has the potential to deepen
our understanding of why particular music dimensions are preferred more at certain periods of life.
Conclusion
In the current work, we examined age differences in musical
engagement and preferences. Our results are the first to comprehensively document the ways in which individuals experience and
engage with music from adolescence through middle adulthood.
We identified important age differences in the role music plays at
various periods in life; we obtained compelling evidence that
musical preferences develop throughout adulthood; and we spotted
normative trends in the styles of music individuals prefer at different life stages and how they are related to personality. These
results replicate and greatly extend our knowledge of the social
psychology of music by providing a crucial life span perspective
716
that, until now, has been absent. At the same time, the current
research highlights the real-world relevance of mainstream socialpersonality, developmental, and biological psychology by illustrating how basic concepts and theories in these fields can inform our
understanding of a facet of everyday life that is important to people
of all ages. It is only by broadening our research foci and adopting
a multidisciplinary perspective that we will develop a thorough
and complete understanding of the role of music through the ages.
References
Agrawal, Y., Platz, E. A., & Niparko, J. K. (2008). Prevalence of hearing
loss and differences by demographic characteristics among US adults:
Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 19992004. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168, 15221530. doi:10.1001/
archinte.168.14.1522
Allemand, M., Zimprich, D., & Hertzog, C. (2007). Cross-sectional age
differences and longitudinal age changes of personality in middle adulthood and old age. Journal of Personality, 75, 323358. doi:1.1111/j
.1467-6494.2006.00441.x
Anari, M., Axelsson, A., Eliasson, A., & Magnusson, L. (1999). Hypersensitivity to sound. Scandinavian Audiology, 28, 219 230. doi:
10.1080/010503999424653
Arnett, J. J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American
Psychologist, 54, 317326. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.5.317
Bakagiannis, S., & Tarrant, M. (2006). Can music bring people together?
Effects of shared musical preference on intergroup bias in adolescence.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 129 136. doi:10.1111/j.14679450.2006.00500.x
Boer, D., Fischer, R., Strack, M., Bond, M. H., Lo, E., & Lam, J. (2011).
How shared preferences in music create bonds between people. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1159 1171. doi:1.1177/
0146167211407521
Brant, L. J., & Fozard, L. J. (1990). Age changes in pure-tone hearing
thresholds in a longitudinal study of normal human aging. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 88, 813 820. doi:10.1121/1.399731
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214 1221. doi:10.1037/00223514.53.6.1214
Buus, S., & Florentine, M. (2002). Growth of loudness in listeners with
cochlear hearing losses: Recruitment reconsidered. JARO-Journal of the
Association for Research in Otolaryngology, 3, 120 139. doi:10.1007/
s101620010084
Carstensen, L. L. (1992). Social and emotional patterns in adulthood:
Support for socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 7,
331338. doi:1.1037/0882-7974.7.3.331
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464 504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
Colley, A. (2008). Young peoples musical taste: Relationship with gender
and gender related traits. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38,
2039 2055. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00379.x
Delsing, M., ter Bogt, T., Engels, R., & Meeus, W. (2008). Adolescents
music preferences and personality characteristics. European Journal of
Personality, 22, 109 130. doi:1.1002/per.665
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.
Frith, S. (1981). Sound effects. Youth leisure and the politics of rock n
roll. New York, NY: Pantheon.
George, D., Stickle, K., Rachid, F., & Wopnford, A. (2007). The association between types of music enjoyed and cognitive, behavioral, and
personality factors of those who listen. Psychomusicology, 19, 3256.

doi:10.1037/h0094035
Gordon-Salant, S. (2005). Hearing loss and aging: New research findings
and clinical implications. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 42(Suppl. 2), 924. doi:10.1682/JRRD.2005.01.0006
Gosling, S., Rentfrow, P., & Swann, W. (2003). A very brief measure of
the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality,
37, 504 528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Harter, S. (2003). The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of
self and identity (pp. 610 642). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hartup, W. W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologist, 44, 120 126. doi:10.1037/0003066X.44.2.120
Hogan, R., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). A socioanalytic model of maturity.
Journal of Career Assessment, 12, 207217. doi:1.1177/
1069072703255882
Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1989). Some exploratory findings on
the development of musical tastes. Journal of Consumer Research, 16,
119 124. doi:10.1086/209200
Hood, J. D., & Poole, J. P. (1966). Tolerable limit of loudness: Its clinical
and physiological significance. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 40, 4754. doi:10.1121/1.1910062
Jreskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical estimation of structural models in
longitudinal investigations. In J. R. Nesselroade & B. Baltes (Eds.),
Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development (pp.
303352). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Keating, D. (2004). Cognitive and brain development. In R. Lerner & L.
Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 45 84). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Kuhn, D. (2006). Do cognitive changes accompany developments in the
adolescent brain? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 59 67.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2006.t01-2-.x
Laukka, P. (2007). Uses of music and psychological well-being among the
elderly. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8, 215241. doi:10.1007/s10902006-9024-3
Leek, M. R., Molis, M. R., Kubli, L. R., & Tufts, J. B. (2008). Enjoyment
of music by elderly hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of the American
Academy of Audiology, 19, 519 526. doi:10.3766/jaaa.19.6.7
Lonsdale, A. J., & North, A. C. (2011). Why do we listen to music? A uses
and gratifications analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 108
134. doi:1.1348/000712610x506831
Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across
the life span: Longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 847 861.
doi:1.1037/a0024298
Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364
390.
Marsh, H. W., Muthn, B., Asparouhov, T., Ldtke, O., Robitzsch, A.,
Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation
modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439
476. doi:10.1080/10705510903008220
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, N., & Morin, A. J. S. (2012). Measurement
invariance of Big-Five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender,
age, plasticity, maturity, and La Dolce Vita effects. Developmental
Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0026913
McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. D. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology,
61, 517542. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100507

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
376 390. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376
Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory
structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.),
Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395 436).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (1998 2012). Mplus users guide. Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1995). Eminence in pop music. Popular
Music and Society, 19, 41 66. doi:1.1080/03007769508591606
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & Hargreaves, J. J. (2004). Uses of music
in everyday life. Music Perception, 22, 4177. doi:10.1525/mp.2004.22
.1.41
Rentfrow, P. J. (2012). The role of music in everyday life: Current
directions in the social psychology of music. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 6, 402 416. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012
.00434.x
Rentfrow, P. J., Goldberg, L. R., & Levitin, D. J. (2011). The structure of
musical preferences: A five-factor model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100, 1139 1157. doi:1.1037/a0022406
Rentfrow, P. J., Goldberg, L. R., Stillwell, D. J., Kosinski, M., Gosling,
S. D., & Levitin, D. L. (2012). The song remains the same: A replication
and extension of the MUSIC model. Music Perception, 30, 161185.
doi:10.1525/mp.2012.30.2.161
Rentfrow, P. J., Goldberg, L. R., & Zilca, R. (2011). Listening, watching,
and reading: The structure and correlates of entertainment preferences.
Journal of Personality, 79, 223258. doi:1.1111/j.1467-6494.201
.00662.x
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). The do re mis of everyday life:
The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1236 1256. doi:1.1037/00223514.84.6.1236
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2006). Message in a ballad: The role of
music preferences in interpersonal perception. Psychological Science,
17, 236 242. doi:1.1111/j.1467-928.2006.01691.x
Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2007). The content and validity of
music-genre stereotypes among college students. Psychology of Music,
35, 306 326. doi:10.1177/0305735607070382
Rentfrow, P. J., & McDonald, J. A. (2010). Preference, personality, and
emotions. In P. N. Juslin & J. Sloboda (Eds.), Handbook of music and
emotions: Theory, research, applications (pp. 669 695). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Rentfrow, P. J., McDonald, J. A., & Oldmeadow, J. A. (2009). You are
what you listen to: Young peoples stereotypes about music fans. Group
717
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 329 344. doi:10.1177/

1368430209102845
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of
mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A metaanalysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 125. doi:
1.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Smith, J. L. (2005). Evaluating Five Factor
Theory and social investment perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 166 184. doi:10.1016/j
.jrp.2004.08.002
Schfer, T., & Sedlmeier, P. (2009). From the functions of music to music
preference. Psychology of Music, 37, 279 300. doi:1.1177/
0305735608097247
Selfhout, M. H. W., Branje, S. J. T., ter Bogt, T. F. M., & Meeus, W. H. J.
(2009). The role of music preferences in early adolescents friendship
formation and stability. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 95107. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.11.004
Smith, D. (1989). Preferences for differentiated frequency loudness levels
in older adult music listening. Journal of Music Therapy, 26, 18 29.
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences
in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a large
cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
100, 330 348. doi:1.1037/a0021717
Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to
peer influence. Developmental Psychology, 43, 15311543. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531
Tarrant, M., North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2002). Youth identity and
music. In R. A. R. Macdonald, D. J. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (Eds.),
Musical identities (pp. 134 150). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Tekman, H. G., & Hortasu, N. (2002). Music and social identity: Stylistic
identification as a response to musical style. International Journal of
Psychology, 37, 277285. doi:1.1080/00207590244000043
ter Bogt, T. F. M., Keijsers, L., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2013). Early adolescent
music preferences and minor delinquency. Pediatrics, 131, e380 e389.
doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0708
Tremblay, R. E. (1998). Testosterone, physical aggression, dominance, and
physical development in early adolescence. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 22, 753777. doi:1.1080/016502598384153
Zweigenhaft, R. L. (2008). A do re mi encore: A closer look at the
personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 4555. doi:1.1027/1614-0001.29.1.45
Received August 21, 2012

Revision received May 13, 2013
Accepted June 19, 2013

Rentfrow ... Music Through The Ages

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Rentfrow ... Music Through The Ages

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

2013, Vol. 105, No. 4, 703717

2013 American Psychological Association

Music Through the Ages: Trends in Musical Engagement and Preferences

Are there age differences in the ways in which individuals

Musical Engagement, Preferences, and Age

This article was published Online First July 29, 2013.

BONNEVILLE-ROUSSY, RENTFROW, XU, AND POTTER

best friends were significantly more similar than were preferences

AGE TRENDS IN MUSICAL ENGAGEMENT AND PREFERENCES

to believe that preferences might change throughout adulthood.

Overview of the Current Research

Study 1: Age Trends in Musical Engagement

Results and Discussion

BONNEVILLE-ROUSSY, RENTFROW, XU, AND POTTER

at age 13 to 15% at 65, whereas the proportion of participants who

Study 2: Age Trends in Musical Preferences

Effectively investigating age differences in musical preferences

AGE TRENDS IN MUSICAL ENGAGEMENT AND PREFERENCES

BONNEVILLE-ROUSSY, RENTFROW, XU, AND POTTER

(CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) .90, and models with

ized factor loadings of the ESEM, quartimin rotation, are reported

Results and Discussion

AGE TRENDS IN MUSICAL ENGAGEMENT AND PREFERENCES

sions on music preferences. All in all, 27 regression paths per

BONNEVILLE-ROUSSY, RENTFROW, XU, AND POTTER

effects of personality with one standard deviation above and below

AGE TRENDS IN MUSICAL ENGAGEMENT AND PREFERENCES

Contemporary. As displayed in Panel E in Figure 1, age trends

BONNEVILLE-ROUSSY, RENTFROW, XU, AND POTTER

different birth cohorts (e.g., 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972,

AGE TRENDS IN MUSICAL ENGAGEMENT AND PREFERENCES

BONNEVILLE-ROUSSY, RENTFROW, XU, AND POTTER

Why Does Musical Engagement Decline With Age?

Toward a Developmental Theory of Musical

porary music are most popular during young adulthood because

AGE TRENDS IN MUSICAL ENGAGEMENT AND PREFERENCES

also increases. There is also evidence that Openness increases as

Limitations and Future Directions

BONNEVILLE-ROUSSY, RENTFROW, XU, AND POTTER

personality factors of those who listen. Psychomusicology, 19, 3256.

AGE TRENDS IN MUSICAL ENGAGEMENT AND PREFERENCES

Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 329 344. doi:10.1177/

Received August 21, 2012

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen