The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Arts in Psychotherapy

The mechanism of music for reducing psychological stress:

Music preference as a mediator
Jun Jiang a , Daphne Rickson b , Cunmei Jiang c,∗
a
Education College, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China
b
New Zealand School of Music, Wellington, New Zealand
c
Music College, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In order to examine the mechanisms through which music might alleviate psychological stress, a study
Received 22 August 2015 of the effects of music listening following induced stress was conducted. Female music education stu-
Received in revised form 7 February 2016 dents (N = 200) were randomly assigned to eight groups, after experiencing induced stress via a mental
Accepted 16 February 2016
arithmetic test. Individuals in each group listened through headphones to one piece of music classified
Available online 27 February 2016
in terms of the levels of arousal and valence of music, and familiarity. Participants rated their tension
and state anxiety levels before and after music listening, as well as their levels of valence and arousal for
Keywords:
music, music preference, and familiarity, after listening. The results revealed that the levels of arousal and
Valence
Arousal
valence, and the degree of music preference predicted tension and state anxiety levels, and the effects
Music preference of music valence and arousal on stress reduction were partially mediated by music preference. The most
Psychological stress important factor in reducing stress was the degree of liking for the music, but not the degree of familiarity
Mediator with the music. Our findings have important implications for individuals, and clinicians, who use music
to reduce stress.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction anxiety (Fisher & Greenberg, 1972; Gan, Lim, & Haw, 2015; Iwanaga,
Kobayashi, & Kawasaki, 2005; Iwanaga & Moroki, 1999; Lingham
Psychological stress (hereafter referred to as stress) is one of & Theorell, 2009; Sandstrom & Russo, 2010); high-pleasure music
the most critical problems in modern society, and has become a tends to reduce stress more effectively than low-pleasure music
great risk to human health. Listening to music is a non-invasive (Sandstrom & Russo, 2010); musically trained listeners were found
intervention, which can be used to alleviate stress because of its to have a lower state anxiety score after listening to low-arousal
close correlation with emotion (e.g., Bradt, Dileo, & Shim, 2013; music compared with untrained listeners (Smith & Morris, 1977);
Linnemann, Ditzen, Strahler, Doerr, & Nater, 2015; Robb, Nichols, familiar music can make listeners less anxious (Sung, Lee, Li, &
Rutan, Bishop, & Parker, 1995; Thoma et al., 2015). Not all music Watson, 2012), calm and tranquil (Margounakis & Politis, 2012).
is appropriate for stress reduction however (Chafin, Roy, Gerin, Furthermore, it has been suggested that music preference corre-
& Christenfeld, 2004; Yehuda, 2011). Knowing how various fac- lates negatively with state anxiety (Smith & Morris, 1977), and
tors associated with music listening can impact on stress reduction positively with relaxation (Stratton & Zalanowski, 1984). The effect
would enable music listeners to more readily choose music appro- of preferred music listening on stress reduction has been reported
priate for this purpose, and increase efficacy. for college students (Davis & Thaut, 1989; Iwanaga & Moroki, 1999;
Music is considered to have properties that induce arousal Jeong, 2008), air traffic controllers (Lesiuk, 2008), and patients
(low arousal vs. high arousal) and valence (low pleasure vs. high (Clark et al., 2006; Rosenow & Silverman, 2014). There is also a pos-
pleasure), which are in turn mediated by listeners’ music train- itive correlation between years of music training and perceived and
ing background, music preference, and familiarity with the piece. felt emotions (Castro & Lima, 2014; Lima & Castro, 2011; Rawlings
More specifically, low-arousal music is considered to be more & Leow, 2008). In these studies, the longer the music training lis-
effective than high-arousal music in alleviating tension or state teners have, the more intensely they were able to perceive and
experience the emotional impact of the music.
In contrast, other studies found no association between arousal
(Rohner & Miller, 1980; Stratton & Zalanowski, 1984), music pref-
∗ Corresponding author at: Music College, Shanghai Normal University, 100 E.
erence (Sandstrom & Russo, 2010), familiarity (Chafin et al., 2004;
Guilin Road, Shanghai 200234, China.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Jiang). Hatta & Nakamura, 1991), music training (Knight & Rickard, 2001;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2016.02.002
0197-4556/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68 63

Laohawattanakun et al., 2011) and stress reduction. These contra- 2.2. Stimuli
dictory findings suggest the relationships amongst these factors
are complex. Indeed, several studies have observed the interac- A pretest study was conducted to select music excerpts for this
tions between arousal and familiarity (Iwanaga, Ikeda, & Iwaki, study. Thirty two music excerpts were selected by the experimen-
1996), between arousal and music preference (Jiang, Zhou, Rickson, ters, each representing one of the four quadrants of Russell’s (1980)
& Jiang, 2013), and between music type and music training (Wang, circumplex model. In this model, emotional states reflect a mixture
2014). For example, Jiang et al. (2013) found that listening to low- of two core dimensions, valence and arousal representing pleasant-
arousal music induced significantly lower tension and state anxiety ness (hedonic tone) and excitation (intensity). There are thus four
levels than listening to high-arousal music when music was not quadrants in the circumplex model including high-pleasure and
preferred. However, there was no significant difference between high-arousal emotions, low-pleasure and high-arousal emotions,
low-arousal and high-arousal music for reducing tension and state low-pleasure and low-arousal emotions, and high-pleasure and
anxiety levels when music was preferred. low-arousal emotions. The heuristic value of the two-dimensional
The aim of the present study was to examine the mechanisms model was confirmed measuring emotional expression and induc-
through which music might alleviate psychological stress. Specif- tion through music (e.g., Eerola & Vuoskoski, 2011; Ritossa &
ically we aimed to determine how the factors influence stress Rickard, 2004; Schubert, 1999; Vieillard et al., 2008). Twenty female
reduction and which factor plays the most important role in stress undergraduates majoring in music education who did not partici-
reduction. In order to examine the role of music training on stress pate in the formal experiment listened to the excerpts, and rated
reduction, we included participants with different lengths of music each on valence, arousal, and familiarity. In terms of valence, the
training ranging from 0.5 to 14 years. Potential participants who excerpts with a mean rating higher than five were considered as
experienced induced stress after a mental arithmetic test were high-pleasure music, a mean rating lower than three being low-
included in this study. pleasure music. Similarly, the excerpts with a mean arousal rating
higher than five were high-arousal music, while those with a mean
rating lower than three were considered as low-arousal music.
2. Method Familiar excerpts were those with a familiarity rating higher than
five, while unfamiliar excerpts were those with a familiarity rating
2.1. Participants lower than three. In order to ensure the participants in the FHHM,
FHLM, FLLM, and FLHM groups were familiar with music excerpts,
Two hundred and eighty female undergraduates majoring in all of the participants were asked to listen repeatedly to the four
music education were recruited for this study. This study was pieces of music rated ‘familiar’ in the pre-test (Victory, Mars—the
approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Normal University. Bringer of War, Ase’s Death, and Tempo di Bolero moderato assai),
All participants had normal hearing, volunteered for the research and as far as possible to remember them within two weeks prior
and provided written informed consents. Eighty participants were to the formal experiment. Based on the ratings, the most repre-
excluded because they did not experience induced stress after sentative eight excerpts (see Table 2) were selected as the music
a mental arithmetic test. Consequently, 200 participants took stimuli. All music excerpts were instrumental music composed by
part in this experiment and were assigned to eight experimental Western composers to avoid the influence of lyrics on listeners’
groups (n = 25), each listening to one piece of music: familiar high emotional responses to music (Ali & Peynircioglu, 2006; Brattico
arousal-high pleasure music (FHHM), familiar high arousal-low et al., 2011; Hunter, Schellenberg, & Schimmack, 2010; Stratton &
pleasure music (FHLM), familiar low arousal-low pleasure music Zalanowski, 1994). The duration of all excerpts was 4:35 with a 1-
(FLLM), familiar low arousal-high pleasure music (FLHM), unfa- s fade-in and/or a 1-s fade-out (Kreutz, Ott, Teichmann, Osawa, &
miliar high arousal-high pleasure music (UHHM), unfamiliar high Vaitl, 2008; Sandstrom & Russo, 2010).
arousal-low pleasure music (UHLM), unfamiliar low arousal-low
pleasure music (ULLM), and unfamiliar low arousal-high pleasure
music (ULHM). Table 1 presents the participants’ characteristics 2.3. Measures
and the means and standard deviations of tension and state anx-
iety levels before and after the mental arithmetic task (stressor). A mental arithmetic test as a stressor was administered
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that there to induce participants’ stress. There were 50 items (e.g., 1.
were no significant differences in age, F(7,192) = 1.31, p = .249, 8026 − 37 = ? 10. 7386 × 2 = ?) in the test, and participants were
2p = .05, and length of music training, F(7,192) = 0.85, p = .549, required to complete the items within 5 min.
The Tension Rating Scale was used to measure the levels of
2p = .03, across the eight groups. To assess the efficacy of the
tension participants felt. They were required to rate their own lev-
stressor, we conducted a two-way ANOVA on tension or state
els of tension on a 4-point Likert scale with 1 being “not at all”,
anxiety level, with time (prestressor and poststressor) as the
2 being “slightly”, 3 being “moderately”, and 4 being “very much”.
within-subjects variable and group (FHHM, FHLM, FLLM, FLHM,
Higher ratings indicate more tense participants felt. The State Anx-
UHHM, UHLM, ULLM and ULHM) as the between-subjects vari-
iety Inventory, a subscale of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI;
able. For the tension level, There was a significant main effect of
Spielberger, 1983), was used to measure the state anxiety levels.
time, F(1,192) = 1007.81, p < .001, 2p = .84, but the main effect of
STAI is a 40-item self-report questionnaire with 20 of the items
group, F(7,192) = 0.55, p = .797, 2p = .02, and the time by group
making up the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI), and the other 20 items
interaction, F(7,192) = 0.43, p = .884, 2p = .02, were not significant. making up the Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI). The STAI uses a 4-point
For the state anxiety level, the main effect of time was signifi- Likert scale response format with a range from 1 (“not at all” for the
cant, F(1,192) = 604.13, p < .001, 2p = .76, although the main effect SAI or “almost never” for the TAI) to 4 (“very much so” for the SAI
of group, F(7,192) = 1.27, p = .266, 2p = .04, and the interaction or “almost always” for the TAI). Higher scores indicate higher lev-
between time and group, F(7,192) = 0.49, p = .844, 2p = .02, did not els of anxiety. Test–retest stability coefficients for the SAI range
reach significance. These results indicated that the mental arith- from .16 to .62, and correlations for the TAI range from .73 to .86
metic task increased participants’ stress levels, and the eight groups (Spielberger, 1983). The STAI has also demonstrated good concur-
did not differ in the tension and state anxiety levels prior to listening rent and construct validity (Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh,
to music. 1999).
64 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68

Table 1
Participants’ characteristics and means and standard deviations of tension and state anxiety levels before and after the stressor for the eight groups.

Group Age Length Tension State anxiety

Prestressor Poststressor Prestressor Poststressor

FHHM 20.28 (1.31) 4.92 (3.51) 1.24 (0.52) 2.88 (0.83) 34.12 (8.29) 49.08 (9.12)
FHLM 20.60 (1.83) 4.00 (2.67) 1.24 (0.44) 2.92 (0.70) 39.64 (7.43) 55.56 (9.78)
FLLM 20.64 (1.38) 4.58 (3.14) 1.24 (0.44) 2.72 (0.79) 36.36 (8.26) 51.16 (11.07)
FLHM 20.52 (1.45) 4.92 (2.86) 1.24 (0.52) 2.80 (0.82) 35.24 (7.58) 53.52 (11.20)
UHHM 20.28 (1.57) 4.98 (3.12) 1.28 (0.46) 3.04 (0.79) 37.20 (6.49) 53.00 (10.63)
UHLM 19.88 (1.24) 5.70 (3.54) 1.12 (0.33) 2.72 (0.68) 36.08 (7.99) 51.52 (9.54)
ULLM 20.36 (1.22) 4.86 (3.36) 1.28 (0.46) 2.92 (0.86) 38.12 (7.18) 52.40 (9.74)
ULHM 19.76 (1.16) 3.88 (2.96) 1.24 (0.44) 3.00 (0.82) 37.36 (6.47) 54.12 (10.66)

FHHM, familiar high arousal-high pleasure music; FHLM, familiar high arousal-low pleasure music; FLLM, familiar low arousal-low pleasure music; FLHM, familiar low
arousal-high pleasure music; UHHM, unfamiliar high arousal-high pleasure music; UHLM, unfamiliar high arousal-low pleasure music; ULLM, unfamiliar low arousal-low
pleasure music; ULHM, unfamiliar low arousal-high pleasure music; Length, length of music training.

Table 2
Music characteristics and mean ratings of valence, arousal and familiarity for each excerpt (SDs in parentheses).

Music Composer Excerpt Valence Arousal Familiarity

Victory T. Huljić 0:03–4:38 6.70 (0.47) 6.30 (0.73) 5.85 (0.67)

Mars, the Bringer of War G. Holst 3:53–8:27 1.65 (0.75) 6.05 (0.51) 5.70 (0.66)
Ase’s Death E. Grieg 0:00–4:35 1.30 (0.47) 1.50 (0.51) 5.65 (0.67)
Tempo di Bolero moderato assai M. Ravel 0:06–4:41 5.75 (0.44) 1.85 (0.37) 5.75 (0.44)
Acroyahsi Y. Chryssomallis 3:46–8:21 6.45 (0.51) 6.10 (0.72) 2.05 (0.94)
Threnody for the K. Penderecki 0:02–2:30 1.05 (0.22) 6.60 (0.50) 1.15 (0.37)
Victims of Hiroshima 3:30–5:37
Lachrimae Antiquae J. Dowland 0:00–4:35 2.35 (0.75) 1.75 (0.64) 1.50 (0.69)
Nature’s Path D. May 0:11–4:46 6.10 (0.64) 1.45 (0.60) 1.25 (0.44)

Valence, arousal, music preference and familiarity were and music preference ratings, but not with length of music training
assessed with the following questions: “Rate how pleasant the and familiarity rating. In addition, there were significant correla-
music sounds” (from 1 = very unpleasant to 7 = very pleasant), “Rate tions between arousal and music preference ratings, and between
how stimulating the music sounds” (from 1 = very calming to 7 = very valence and music preference ratings. Neither length of music train-
stimulating), “Rate how much you like the music you just heard” ing nor familiarity rating was correlated with music preference
(from 1 = strongly dislike to 7 = strongly like), and “Rate how much rating, in either the tension, or the anxiety rating. Because stress
you are familiar with the music you just heard” (from 1 = very unfa- reduction efficacy does not appear to be affected by length of music
miliar to 7 = very familiar) on a 7-point Likert scale. training and familiarity, these two factors were not entered into the
subsequent mediation and dominance analyses.
2.4. Procedure
3.2. Mediation analysis
Participants were tested individually in a quiet classroom. First,
they rated their levels of tension and completed the SAI. Then they According to appraisal theory, emotions are evoked by evalua-
performed a mental arithmetic test presented on paper by ver- tions of events (e.g., Lazarus, 1982; Moors, 2013; Roseman, 1991;
bally reporting answers within 5 min. After completing the mental Smith, Haynes, Lazarus, & Pope, 1993). In other words, the influ-
arithmetic test, they were asked to rate their tension levels and ence of a stimulus on emotion is mediated by cognitive appraisals
complete the SAI, before listening to a piece of music through AKG such as preference and familiarity (Scherer, 2001), and thus music
K512 MKII stereo headphones connected with a laptop computer preference and familiarity may represent cognitive appraisals.
(Acer Aspire 4720Z) at a desired loudness level. Finally, the lev- However, familiarity was correlated neither with tension nor with
els of tension and state anxiety were immediately reobtained after state anxiety, as revealed by the correlation analyses. It was thus
listening to music. Meanwhile, participants also rated the levels of hypothesized that music preference may mediate the relationship
music valence, music arousal, music preference and familiarity. The between music and stress. The structural equation modeling (SEM)
experiment lasted approximately 25 min. was used to test whether music preference partially (Model 1)
or completely (Model 2) mediates valence and arousal’s effects
3. Results on tension or state anxiety. Model fit was assessed with the chi-
square (2 ) test and several additional fit indices (West, Taylor, &
A correlation analysis was used to investigate which factors Wu, 2012), including the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis
could predict stress reduction. Based on the correlation results, index (TLI), the standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR),
mediation analysis was used to reveal how the factors influence and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) with
stress reduction, and dominance analysis was finally employed to its 90% confidence interval (CI). A good-fitting model is indicated
determine the dominant factor in predicting stress reduction. by CFI and TLI values above .95, an RMSEA value below .06, an SRMR
value smaller than .08, and a nonsignificant 2 test (Hu & Bentler,
3.1. Correlation analysis 1999; West et al., 2012).
As illustrated in Table 4, the SEM revealed that Model 1 had a
Table 3 shows Spearman’s correlations for arousal, valence, good fit to the data in tension and state anxiety. However, Model
length of music training, music preference, familiarity, tension 2 did not fit the data in tension and state anxiety. Moreover,
and state anxiety after listening to music. As can be seen, both the indirect effects of valence (indirect effect = −.44, SE = .04, 95%
tension and anxiety ratings were associated with arousal, valence, CI = [−.52, −.35], p < .001) and arousal (indirect effect = .22, SE = .03,
 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68 65

Table 3
Correlations for the variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Arousal –
2. Valence .005 –
3. Length of music training .002 −.006 –
4. Music preference −.292** .662** .010 –
5. Familiarity .003 .034 −.029 .082 –
6. Tension .467** −.542** −.008 −.780** −.041 –
7. State anxiety .345** −.545** −.056 −.668** −.093 .759** –
**
p < .01.

Table 4
Goodness-of-fit summaries for the two models.

Model Tension State anxiety

2 a b
 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR 2 df pa CFI TLI RMSEAb SRMR

1 0.01 1 .937 1.00 1.02 0.00 [0.00, 0.06] 0.00 0.01 1 .937 1.00 1.02 0.00 [0.00, 0.06] 0.00
2 33.94 3 <.001 0.93 0.85 0.23 [0.16, 0.30] 0.07 23.22 3 .001 0.94 0.88 0.18 [0.12, 0.26] 0.06
a
Bollen–Stine bootstrap p value based on 5000 resamplings.
b
90% CI in brackets.

Fig. 1. SEM depicting the relationship between valence and arousal and tension (a) and state anxiety (b) with music preference as a partial mediator. ***p< .001.
66 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68

Table 5
Dominance analysis of music preference (X1 ), arousal (X2 ) and valence (X3 ) in predicting tension and state anxiety.

Subset model Tension State anxiety

Additional contribution of Additional contribution of

2 2
R X1 X2 X3 R X1 X2 X3

Null (no predictors) .651 .242 .295 .510 .171 .301

Models with one predictor

X1 .651 .049 .000 .510 .030 .007
X2 .242 .458 .292 .171 .369 .298
X3 .295 .356 .239 .301 .216 .168

Models with two predictors

X1 , X2 .700 .006 .540 .024
X1 , X3 .651 .055 .517 .047
X2 , X3 .534 .172 .469 .095

Models with three predictors

X1 , X2 , X3 .706 .564
Overall average .410 .147 .149 .299 .106 .159

95% CI = [.16, .29], p < .001) on tension through music preference the purpose of the present study was to explore the mechanisms
were significant. Likewise, the indirect effects of valence (indirect of music for reducing stress to determine how the factors influence
effect = −.32, SE = .05, 95% CI = [−.43, −.23], p < .001) and arousal stress reduction, and which factor is most salient. Our results indi-
(indirect effect = .17, SE = .03, 95% CI = [.11, .23], p < .001) on state cated that music preference, arousal and valence did predict stress
anxiety through music preference were significant. Model 1 with reduction, and the effects of valence and arousal on stress reduc-
standardized regression coefficients is depicted in Fig. 1. As can tion were partially mediated by music preference. Music preference
be seen, valence and arousal not only directly but also indirectly plays a critical role when music is used for stress reduction. These
through music preference influenced tension (Fig. 1a) and state results have important implications for those wanting to use music
anxiety (Fig. 1b). The results suggest that the effects of valence and to reduce stress.
arousal on stress are partly mediated by music preference. Our finding is consistent with previous evidence that music
preference is more important than arousal (Jiang et al., 2013), and
3.3. Dominance analysis arousal is more important than valence (Sandstrom & Russo, 2010).
This may be due to the fact that music preference is positively cor-
Standardized regression coefficients may give an indication of related with the intensity of felt happiness (Hunter et al., 2010;
the relative importance of each predictor in the structural equa- Kreutz et al., 2008) and peace (Kreutz et al., 2008). The more pref-
tion modeling (SEM), with higher values for regression coefficients erence listeners have for the music, the more intense happiness or
indicating more importance. As shown in Fig. 1, music preference peace they feel. Nonetheless, Sandstrom and Russo (2010) did not
might be more important than valence and arousal for reducing find a significant correlation between liking music and stress levels.
stress. In order to determine which factor plays the most important The conflicting findings may be attributed to difference of point of
role in the stress reduction, dominance analysis was employed in Likert scale the two studies used. A 4-point Likert scale was used
the present study. Dominance analysis is considered to be a new for rating preference in the study of Sandstrom and Russo (2010),
and reliable method for comparing the relative importance of pre- whereas a 7-point Likert scale was used in the present study. In
dictors (Azen, 2013; Azen & Budescu, 2003; Budescu, 1993), and Sandstrom and Russo’s (2010) study, the restricted rating range (4-
has been widely applied in previous research (e.g., Kim, Petscher, point scale) may have pointed to nonsignificance even when there
Schatschneider, & Foorman, 2010; Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis, was an actual correlation between the two variables (Kantowitz,
1998; Tighe & Schatschneider, 2014). Table 5 summarizes the Roediger, & Elmes, 2014; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
results of dominance analysis for tension and state anxiety levels. On the other hand, the relative importance of music preference
The first column identifies the variables in each subset model. The on stress reduction could be also explained by appraisal theory. The
columns labeled R2 represent the variance in tension or state anx- theory claims that it is evaluations and interpretations of events,
iety levels explained by the model appearing in the corresponding not events per se that determine one’s emotional responses (e.g.,
row. Columns labeled Xi show the increase in R2 as a result of adding Lazarus, 1982; Moors, 2013; Roseman, 1991; Smith et al., 1993). If
that particular predictor into the row model. In addition, the last music is evaluated as preferred, then it could induce positive emo-
row labeled overall average was obtained by averaging the values in tions and contribute to relaxation. On the contrary, if music is not
the corresponding column above it. As can be shown, music prefer- liked, then it could cause negative emotions. This explanation has
ence explained 41.0% of the variance in tension level, while arousal been supported by neuroscientific evidence that intense pleasure in
and valence accounted for 14.7% and 14.9% of the variance, respec- response to preferred music is associated with dopamine activity in
tively. Regarding the state anxiety level, 29.9% of the variance was the mesolimbic reward system (Montag, Reuter, & Axmacher, 2011;
due to music preference, whereas 10.6% and 15.9% was attributed Salimpoor, Benovoy, Larcher, Dagher, & Zatorre, 2011; Salimpoor
to arousal and valence. These results confirm that music preference et al., 2013).
is the most important predictor of stress level. Our finding that arousal influences stress reduction, to a certain
extent, is in line with past research that found low-arousal music
4. Discussion has larger effect than high-arousal music in reducing stress (e.g.,
Gan et al., 2015; Iwanaga & Moroki, 1999; Jiang et al., 2013; Lingham
It has been suggested that stress reduction efficacy would be & Theorell, 2009; Sandstrom & Russo, 2010). However, other stud-
affected by many factors such as music arousal and valence, lis- ies did not find significant differences in relaxation levels induced
teners’ music preference, familiarity, and music training. Previous by high-arousal and low-arousal music listening (Rohner & Miller,
research, however, has produced conflicting results. Based on this, 1980; Stratton & Zalanowski, 1984). This discrepancy may result
 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68 67

from the difference in methodology between the studies. Unlike preference. Our findings suggest that music preference plays a criti-
the attentive music listening in the present study, Rohner and Miller cal role on the potential for music to reduce stress, provide a deeper
(1980) did not require participants to listen to the music. Rather, understanding of stress-reducing effects of music, and have impor-
they told them that the music was to help pass the time. Com- tant implications for individuals and clinicians who wish to use
pared with attentive music listening, passive music listening may music to reduce stress.
have weaker effects on stress reduction. In the study by Stratton
and Zalanowski (1984) mentioned above, both the low-arousal
and high-arousal music were participant-preferred, whereas in the Acknowledgement
present study preferred and nonpreferred music was included. If
there is no difference between high-arousal and low-arousal music This research was supported by a grant from the National Nat-
in reducing stress when participants like the music (Jiang et al., ural Science Foundation of China (31470972) to C.J.
2013), then the effect of arousal should not have been observed by
Stratton and Zalanowski (1984).
Although Sandstrom and Russo (2010) reported that high- References
pleasure music was marginally better than low-pleasure music
in reducing state anxiety, the effect was not significant. This is Ali, S. O., & Peynircioglu, Z. F. (2006). Songs and emotions: Are lyrics and melodies
equal partners? Psychology of Music, 34(4), 511–534.
different from our finding which indicated that participants feel Azen, R. (2013). Using dominance analysis to estimate predictor importance in
less state anxiety when listening to music rated as pleasurable, multiple. In Y. Petscher, C. Schatschneider, & D. L. Compton (Eds.), Applied quan-
than music that is not. One possible explanation is the differ- titative analysis in education and the social sciences (pp. 34–64). New York, NY:
Routledge.
ence in duration of music clips between the two studies. In our Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing
study, the duration of music clips was 4:35, while 2-min music predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 129–148.
clips were used in Sandstrom and Russo’s (2010) study. When Bradt, J., Dileo, C., & Shim, M. (2013). Music interventions for preoperative anxiety.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.
the focus is on felt emotions, the induction of an emotional CD006908.pub2
response and the subsequent self-reporting of the experienced Brattico, E., Alluri, V., Bogert, B., Jacobsen, T., Vartiainen, N., Nieminen, S., et al. (2011).
emotion may require a longer duration (Eerola & Vuoskoski, A functional MRI study of happy and sad emotions in music with and with-
out lyrics. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 308. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.
2013). It may be difficult to make a realistic evaluation within 00308
a relative short clip (Ritossa & Rickard, 2004). Another possible Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of
explanation relates to sample size. In the present study, there relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin,
114(3), 542–551.
were 200 participants, and each group contained 50 listeners.
Castro, S. L., & Lima, C. F. (2014). Age and musical expertise influence emotion
However, Sandstrom and Russo (2010) included 63 participants, recognition in music. Music Perception, 32(2), 125–142.
each group contained at most 22 listeners. This relatively small Chafin, S., Roy, M., Gerin, W., & Christenfeld, N. (2004). Music can facilitate
sample size may not have the power to detect the effect of blood pressure recovery from stress. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9(3),
393–403.
valence. Clark, M., Isaacks-Downton, G., Wells, N., Redlin-Frazier, S., Eck, C., Hepworth,
Familiarity ratings did not predict stress level in the present J. T., et al. (2006). Use of preferred music to reduce emotional distress and
study, which is consistent with some previous studies (Chafin et al., symptom activity during radiation therapy. Journal of Music Therapy, 43(3),
247–265.
2004; Hatta & Nakamura, 1991), but not with others (Margounakis Davis, W. B., & Thaut, M. H. (1989). The influence of preferred relaxing music on
& Politis, 2012; Sung et al., 2012). The conflicting findings may measures of state anxiety, relaxation, and physiological responses. Journal of
be attributed to the relationship between familiarity and prefer- Music Therapy, 26(4), 168–187.
Eerola, T., & Vuoskoski, J. K. (2011). A comparison of the discrete and dimensional
ence. It has been reported that familiarity is positively correlated models of emotion in music. Psychology of Music, 39(1), 18–49.
with music preference (Rawlings & Leow, 2008; Ritossa & Rickard, Eerola, T., & Vuoskoski, J. K. (2013). A review of music and emotion stud-
2004; Tan, Yowler, Super, & Fratianne, 2012). That is, familiar music ies: Approaches, emotion models, and stimuli. Music Perception, 30(3),
307–340.
is also preferred. The effect of familiarity reported in Sung et al.’s
Fisher, S., & Greenberg, R. P. (1972). Selective effects upon women of exciting and
(2012) study may be due to the role of music preference, since the calm music. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34(3), 987–990.
researcher reported the familiar music was also preferred music Gan, S. K.-E., Lim, K. M.-J., & Haw, Y.-X. (2015). The relaxation effects of stimulative
and sedative music on mathematics anxiety: A perception to physiology model.
for participants. Likewise, the effect of familiarity in the study by
Psychology of Music, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0305735615590430
Margounakis and Politis (2012) may be attributed to the confusion Harrer, G., & Harrer, H. (1977). Music, emotion and autonomic function. In M. Critch-
of familiarity and preference, although the researchers have not ley, & R. A. Henson (Eds.), Music and the brain (pp. 202–216). London, England:
reported the degree of liking for music excerpts. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hatta, T., & Nakamura, M. (1991). Can antistress music tapes reduce mental stress?
Previous studies (Knight & Rickard, 2001; Laohawattanakun Stress Medicine, 7(3), 181–184.
et al., 2011) have reported that music training had no significant Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
effects on stress reduction. Our findings reinforce that even for ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
listeners with music training, the length of music training does Hunter, P. G., Schellenberg, E. G., & Schimmack, U. (2010). Feelings and perceptions
not affect the efficacy of music for stress reduction. It is, how- of happiness and sadness induced by music: Similarities, differences, and mixed
ever, contradictory to the finding of Smith and Morris (1977), who emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(1), 47–56.
Iwanaga, M., Ikeda, M., & Iwaki, T. (1996). The effects of repetitive exposure to
demonstrated that the effect of low-arousal music on state anxiety music on subjective and physiological responses. Journal of Music Therapy, 33(3),
reduction is greater for music majors than for nonmusic majors. 219–230.
The discrepancy may be due to the difference in music prefer- Iwanaga, M., Kobayashi, A., & Kawasaki, C. (2005). Heart rate variability with repet-
itive exposure to music. Biological Psychology, 70(1), 61–66.
ence. Unlike the music major participants in the present study,
Iwanaga, M., & Moroki, Y. (1999). Subjective and physiological responses to music
music major listeners in the study of Smith and Morris (1977) liked stimuli controlled over activity and preference. Journal of Music Therapy, 36(1),
low-arousal music more than nonmusic majors. It is therefore prob- 26–38.
Jeong, H. C. (2008). The effect of music therapy on the physiological and psychologi-
able that the effect of music training is attributable to the effect of
cal status of women college students based on their preference of music. Journal
music preference. Indeed, music emotion studies also reveal music of Korean Academy of Adult Nursing, 20(2), 321–330.
training background would not affect intensity of felt emotion for Jiang, J., Zhou, L., Rickson, D., & Jiang, C. (2013). The effects of sedative and stimulative
listeners (Harrer & Harrer, 1977; Kreutz et al., 2008). music on stress reduction depend on music preference. The Arts in Psychotherapy,
40(2), 201–205.
In conclusion, although valence and arousal influence psy- Kantowitz, B. H., Roediger, H. L., & Elmes, D. G. (2014). Experimental psychology (10th
chological stress, these effects are partially mediated by music ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
68 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68

Kim, Y.-S., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., & Foorman, B. (2010). Does growth rate in Sandstrom, G. M., & Russo, F. A. (2010). Music hath charms: The effects of valence
oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement? and arousal on recovery following an acute stressor. Music and Medicine, 2(3),
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 652–667. 137–143.
Knight, W. E. J., & Rickard, N. S. (2001). Relaxing music prevents stress-induced Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential
increases in subjective anxiety, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate in healthy checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes
males and females. Journal of Music Therapy, 38(4), 254–272. in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
Kreutz, G., Ott, U., Teichmann, D., Osawa, P., & Vaitl, D. (2008). Using music to induce versity Press.
emotions: Influences of musical preference and absorption. Psychology of Music, Schubert, E. (1999). Measuring emotion continuously: Validity and reliability of
36(1), 101–126. the two-dimensional emotion-space. Australian Journal of Psychology, 51(3),
Laohawattanakun, J., Chearskul, S., Dumrongphol, H., Jutapakdeegul, N., Yensuk- 154–165.
jai, J., Khumphan, N., et al. (2011). Influence of music training on academic Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of the “hot”
examination-induced stress in Thai adolescents. Neuroscience Letters, 487(3), cognitions: Attributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal of
310–312. Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 916–929.
Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. Smith, C. A., & Morris, L. W. (1977). Differential effects of stimulative and sedative
American Psychologist, 37(9), 1019–1024. music on anxiety, concentration and performance. Psychological Reports, 41(3f),
Lesiuk, T. (2008). The effect of preferred music listening on stress levels of air traffic 1047–1053.
controllers. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 35(1), 1–10. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (Form Y). Palo
Lima, C. F., & Castro, S. L. (2011). Emotion recognition in music changes across the Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
adult life span. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 585–598. Spielberger, C. D., Sydeman, S. J., Owen, A. E., & Marsh, B. J. (1999). Measuring anxiety
Lingham, J., & Theorell, T. (2009). Self-selected “favourite” stimulative and sedative and anger with the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) and the state-trait anger
music listening – How does familiar and preferred music listening affect the expression inventory (STAXI). In M. E. Maurish (Ed.), The use of psychological
body? Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 18(2), 150–166. testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (2nd ed., pp. 993–1021).
Linnemann, A., Ditzen, B., Strahler, J., Doerr, J. M., & Nater, U. M. (2015). Music lis- Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
tening as a means of stress reduction in daily life. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 60, Stratton, V. N., & Zalanowski, A. H. (1984). The relationship between music, degree
82–90. of liking, and self-reported relaxation. Journal of Music Therapy, 21(4), 184–192.
Margounakis, D., & Politis, D. (2012). Exploring the relations between chromaticism, Stratton, V. N., & Zalanowski, A. H. (1994). Affective impact of music vs. lyrics. Empir-
familiarity, scales and emotional responses in music. In Paper presented at the ical Studies of the Arts, 12(2), 173–184.
19th Colloquium on Music Informatics. Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfac-
Montag, C., Reuter, M., & Axmacher, N. (2011). How one’s favorite song activates the tion judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality
reward circuitry of the brain: Personality matters!. Behavioural Brain Research, and Social Psychology, 74(2), 482–493.
225(2), 511–514. Sung, H., Lee, W., Li, T., & Watson, R. (2012). A group music intervention using
Moors, A. (2013). On the causal role of appraisal in emotion. Emotion Review, 5(2), percussion instruments with familiar music to reduce anxiety and agitation of
132–140. institutionalized older adults with dementia. International Journal of Geriatric
Rawlings, D., & Leow, S. H. (2008). Investigating the role of psychoticism and sen- Psychiatry, 27(6), 621–627.
sation seeking in predicting emotional reactions to music. Psychology of Music, Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston,
36(3), 269–287. MA: Pearson Education.
Ritossa, D. A., & Rickard, N. S. (2004). The relative utility of ‘pleasantness’ and ‘liking’ Tan, X., Yowler, C. J., Super, D. M., & Fratianne, R. B. (2012). The interplay of pref-
dimensions in predicting the emotions expressed by music. Psychology of Music, erence, familiarity and psychophysical properties in defining relaxation music.
32(1), 5–22. Journal of Music Therapy, 49(2), 150–179.
Robb, S. L., Nichols, R. J., Rutan, R. L., Bishop, B. L., & Parker, J. C. (1995). The effects Thoma, M. V., Zemp, M., Kreienbühl, L., Hofer, D., Schmidlin, P. R., Attin, T., et al.
of music assisted relaxation on preoperative anxiety. Journal of Music Therapy, (2015). Effects of music listening on pre-treatment anxiety and stress levels in
32(1), 2–21. a dental hygiene recall population. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
Rohner, S. J., & Miller, R. (1980). Degrees of familiar and affective music and their 22(4), 498–505.
effects on state anxiety. Journal of Music Therapy, 17(1), 2–15. Tighe, E. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2014). A dominance analysis approach to
Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and determining predictor importance in third, seventh, and tenth grade reading
Emotion, 5(3), 161–200. comprehension skills. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 101–127.
Rosenow, S. C., & Silverman, M. J. (2014). Effects of single session music therapy on Vieillard, S., Peretz, I., Gosselin, N., Khalfa, S., Gagnon, L., & Bouchard, B. (2008).
hospitalized patients recovering from a bone marrow transplant: Two studies. Happy, sad, scary and peaceful musical excerpts for research on emotions. Cog-
The Arts in Psychotherapy, 41(1), 65–70. nition and Emotion, 22(4), 720–752.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Wang, W. (2014). A study of the type and characteristics of relaxing music for college
Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. students. In Paper presented at the 167th Acoustical Society of America Meeting.
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatom- West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural
ically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling
emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 257–262. (pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Salimpoor, V. N., van den Bosch, I., Kovacevic, N., McIntosh, A. R., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, Yehuda, N. (2011). Music and stress. Journal of Adult Development, 18(2), 85–94.
R. J. (2013). Interactions between the nucleus accumbens and auditory cortices
predict music reward value. Science, 340(6129), 216–219.