Enhancing Sport, Work, and Other Pursuits
Nicola Dibben
The idea that music is “enabling” is firmly rooted in popular consciousness through its presence in commercial, community and health settings, and in a wealth of research attesting to music’s ubiquity, functionality and contribution to human flourishing. Psychological research in this topic attempts to discover and understand when, why and how humans experience music as facilitating activities which it accompanies. Indeed, the topic is so diverse that it is necessary to identify some boundaries in the context of this volume. First, I briefly consider the particular contexts and activities in which we find music, and the enabling effects which arise in them, examined through three specific examples. Second, I review the underlying routes by which music enables and offer a new synthesis. I end by questioning the dominance of research into music’s enabling effects: I consider the extent to which music may be “disabling,” thereby pointing towards a more critical and reflective psychological approach to understanding music in everyday life.
The numerous accounts of music’s functions in everyday life point to a variety of contexts for music listening. This chapter is primarily concerned with the enabling effects of listening to recorded music in the context of non-musical everyday activities without formal therapeutic or pedagogic purpose, as is found in music listening during office work, exercising, or travelling, for example.1 One feature of research into music’s enabling capacities is that contexts of music listening are often treated separately, resulting in a disorienting panoply of investigations into a myriad of everyday contexts. One successful remedy to this has been to group these into “functional niches” (categories of non-musical activities that music accompanies and enhances). In their overview of self-selected listening, Sloboda, Lamont, and Greasley (2009) identify six such niches: travel (e.g. the benefits of music for driver attention and mood), physical work (e.g. energizing and giving meaning to daily chores), what they term “brain work” (e.g. contexts for improving productivity and creativity), body work (e.g. enhancing the intensity and enjoyment of exercise), emotional work (e.g. regulating mood states), and attendance at live music events as an audience member, which could be broadened to include music in screen media.2 To these six, I add two additional categories which appear in the literature associated with imposed music listening: Music in commerce and marketing, and “social” work encompassing identity, self-exploration and self-expression, collective action, and social cohesion (DeNora, 2000). Rather than attempt to discuss all these contexts, I examine three functional niches to exemplify the evidence for music’s benefits and the commonalities which cut across them.
Many people listen to music while working or studying. In the early-twentieth century music was sometimes broadcast in factories as a means of increasing productivity and morale, whereas in the twenty-first century individualized music listening is the norm due to availability of mobile music listening technologies, and changes to production economies meaning an increase in office- and computer-based work. A qualitative study of music in two British office workplaces indicated that a large proportion of employees listened to music for much of their working time, generally while carrying out low-demand, solitary tasks with respondents reporting that it improved concentration, reduced stress, relieved boredom, was a way of exerting agency in the workplace, and of creating private space within the public office (Dibben & Haake, 2013). Similarly, adults and children frequently listen to music while studying, citing their belief that it increases focus (by blocking noise and stopping their mind from wandering), reduces boredom and increases motivation (by helping “pass the time”), and reduces stress and anxiety (via mood regulation).
However, self-report evaluations of auditory distraction can be inaccurate (Ellermeier & Zimmer, 1997), and the evidence is contradictory as to whether music is always beneficial to cognitive tasks. Some studies show that music may benefit mental tasks under certain circumstances, revealing improvements for attention, memory, mental arithmetic and learning (for example, Hallam, Price, & Katsarou, 2002). Other research suggests that music increases cognitive demands in a way which may be deleterious to certain tasks as described below.
This contradictory evidence can be explained by models of memory and attention, which have been brought to bear on studies of the Irrelevant Sound Effect (ISE): This is the well-established phenomenon in which serial recall performance is poorer in the presence of background sound than in a quiet condition (Sörqvist & Rönnberg, 2014). First, the ISE is characterized by the need to maintain order information in the focal task, and this seriation is a common feature of short-term memory tasks such as serial and free recall, mental arithmetic, and language learning. For tasks not involving maintenance of order information, such as those reported in Hallam et al. (2002) above, music is less disruptive. Second, for the ISE to be observed the sound must contain acoustical change between successive sound items. More steady-state sound (e.g. where there are few dramatic changes in the acoustic features of the music) is less disruptive. In this context working memory can be understood as the way attention is used to maintain or suppress information and avoid distraction, although there is still disagreement about the precise mechanisms responsible.
Individual differences in working memory can account for variations between individuals’ susceptibility to distraction in the presence of music. Researchers have used complex-span tasks (serial recall tasks interleaved with irrelevant processing tasks such as reading sentences) to measure working memory capacity (WMC) and correlated this with person-specific measures of distractibility. This shows that individuals with high-WMC are less susceptible to the effects of background noise on memory and reading comprehension, and therefore that age-related differences in distractibility can be explained by life-span changes in WMC, and differences between personality types can be explained by higher WMC amongst certain personalities (Sörqvist & Rönnberg, 2014). It appears that individuals with high-WMC have more effective gating of auditory-perceptual information at subcortical and cortical processing stages than do those with low capacity. In contrast to music heard prior to a task, where music can improve performance by changing emotional state (Schellenberg, Nakata, Hunter, & Tamoto, 2007), liking for background music does not influence serial recall performance. Indeed, disliked, unfamiliar music can even produce better performance than liked, familiar music if the disliked music is steady-state (Perham & Sykora, 2012). In summary, music’s effects on a concurrent task are dependent on contextual factors, including the cognitive demands of the particular task, individual differences in cognitive capacities, and characteristics of the music.
Music does seem beneficial for creative tasks. Research on the effects of mood on creativity suggest that creativity is enhanced by positive, activating mood states, which have an “approach motivation,” i.e. you do something because you think something good will happen (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008). Meta-analyses, such as that of Baas et al., indicate that these mood states may have a variety of effects: Positive moods may influence insight and originality by increasing cognitive flexibility (e.g. the ability to switch quickly from thinking about one dimension (e.g. color) to another (e.g. shape) and to think about more than one concept at the same time), while other moods may impact by increasing cognitive persistence (focused attention).
Music is commonly used to accompany exercise (e.g. in group aerobic sessions, or individual running routines) and to accomplish clinical goals in health-related physical activities. Music’s influence on movement involves cognitive, sensory-motor and psycho-emotional processes: Music has been found to divert attentional focus away from feelings of fatigue, encourage more rhythmic and efficient movements, induce a state of flow, and evoke useful memories, moods and emotions, including feelings of motivation and reward (Clark, Baker, & Taylor, 2016). Better understanding of the benefits of music for exercise and their causes, could enable more systematic applications, both in sport and in therapeutic settings.
The complexity of the topic is heightened by the different ways in which music is incorporated into exercise routines: Specifically, whether used before after or during exercise, and whether or not exercise movements are deliberately synchronized with the music. Used prior to or after exercise music can optimize arousal levels and attentional focus, whereas during exercise its contribution includes ergogenic as well as psychological effects. Use of music in synchrony with exercise movements as opposed to music which is rhythmically asynchronous with movements also has distinct benefits: Music which is not synchronized with movements is associated with psychological effects such as distraction from fatigue and increased positive affect, whereas music which is synchronous with repetitive endurance exercise also has positive ergonomic effects both for deliberate and spontaneous synchronization.
In one of the most comprehensive reviews of the topic, Karageorghis and Priest (2012a, 2012b) identified three main effects of music in exercise: Synchronization with the pulse of music can increase work output for sub-maximal exercise (ergogenic effects), music can reduce perceived exertion for sub-maximal exercise (psychophysical effects), and it can enhance positive affective states for exercise of medium and high levels of intensity (psychological effects). The ways in which music can influence positive affect are well documented in detail elsewhere (Juslin, 2013) so I briefly discuss psychophysical and ergonomic effects here instead.
Music’s ability to reduce perceptions of effort and fatigue in exercise, and consequently to increase work output, endurance and enjoyment, have been construed as a distraction mechanism by researchers in sports psychology (Karageorghis & Priest, 2012b). Neurophysiological evidence shows that when individuals perform movements, premotor and motor areas of the brain related to voluntary muscle contractions are active, and the sense of effort the individual perceives correlates with this central motor command (Morree, Klein, & Marcora, 2012). The cognitive explanation for music’s capacity to divert attention from physical effort is based on an information processing model of attention, which proposes that multiple sources of information (emotional and sensory) are processed in parallel at a pre-conscious stage, but at a conscious stage one focus of attention dominates. Hence, the perception of music during exercise and the perception of physical exertion compete for the same focal attention and so music prevents perception of fatigue being brought into focal awareness, until such time as the effects of exertion overpower the attentional draw of the music. However, given that even high intensity exercise can feel more pleasant in the presence of music, some aspects of music involved in positive affective states and reward may involve subcortical processing (the anterior cingulate cortex and amygdala), and by implication may be less influenced by attentional capacity.
The effectiveness of music’s temporal qualities for entrained movements (i.e. deliberately synchronized movements) is evident from studies of treadmill exercise, running and cycling. These show that participants exercise for longer in the presence of “motivational” synchronous music compared to no music, or a non-motivational music control, that the accuracy of the movements is improved, and is associated with improved energy efficiency (lower oxygen consumption, lower blood lactate levels), and work ouput (Karageorghis & Priest, 2012b). The neuropsychological explanation for these benefits highlights the role of brain structures involved in auditory-motor processing (cerebellum, basal Ganglia and motor cortex). The consensus is that music with a constant meter provides a repeating time measure providing an inter-beat reference against which the timing of movements can be iteratively judged and planned, enabling error correction and execution of precise and accurate movements (Thaut, 2015). Music also provides a motivational quality (Bood, Nijssen, Van Der Kamp, & Roerdink, 2013)—a meaningful and rich auditory context for this temporal pattern, rendering it more effective than a simple metronomic beat.
Research into the sonic characteristics of music associated with people exercising harder, for longer and with more enjoyment, has primarily focused on tempo, and used self-report instruments such as the Brunel Music Rating Inventory (Karageorghis, Priest, Terry, Chatzisarantis, & Lane, 2006). More recently attention has turned to understanding the role of additional sonic features via the theoretical perspective of embodied cognition. This offers a holistic framework, in which the relationships between musical features such as rhythm, tension, and relaxation, and spontaneous motoric and muscular changes, are viewed as facilitating effects of music on effort and speed. This approach frames the effects of music in terms of entrainment of “vigor,” attributable to particular acoustic features of experimental stimuli (the presence of a clear 4/4 meter beat, chord changes every 4 bars, and mean energy in particular frequency bands; Buhmann, Desmet, Moens, Van Dyck, & Leman, 2016). Much work remains to be done identifying the acoustic features of “motivational” music.
The importance of self-selection and the role of individual differences (age and gender) and social and cultural context as factors influencing the effectiveness of music in exercise have now begun to be explored and form part of theoretical frameworks (Clark et al., 2016).
Music’s occurrence in commercial settings is associated with a range of functions, including engaging consumers in adverts, improving recall for advert content, activating relevant knowledge to create meanings for the product, creating positive attitudes towards the advert and content, influencing message processing (Tan, Cohen, Lipscomb, & Kendall, 2013), and ultimately influencing product choice and expenditure (North & Hargreaves, 2008). The classical conditioning model proposes that when a positive stimulus, such as liked music, is paired with a neutral stimulus, the positive affect for the liked stimulus becomes associated with the neutral stimulus, increasing liking for it and positive judgments of it. In addition, environments and products associated with liked music appear to increase “approach” behaviors. There is also evidence that music can activate consumers’ knowledge in such a way as to influence product selection: In a field study (North, Hargreaves, & McKendrick, 1999) stereotypical French or German music played at a wine stall increased sales of French or German wine respectively.
Another way in which music can have commercial utility is by influencing consumers’ motor behavior: Music with more energizing potential (faster/louder) is associated with increased speed of movement in stores, online retail environments, eating in restaurants, and drinking in bars (see for a review North & Hargreaves, 2008). However, the identification of musical characteristics associated with these effects requires more systematic investigation, as discussed in relation to exercise above.
These examples of music enhancing cognitive work, exercise and commerce illustrate some of the interrelationships between music’s enabling effects. In other words, whether music is beneficial for some other activity or not depends on a range of contextual factors. While some music can distract the listener from a concurrent task (e.g. disrupt reading comprehension), other music can enhance focus on that task (e.g. by providing a relatively stable sound environment which masks other changing background sound); and while in some circumstances distraction may be a cause of impairment to a concurrent task, in others, it can be a positive aid (e.g. distraction from exercise fatigue); and while in some situations liking for the music is necessary for music’s positive effects, in others (such as certain concurrent cognitive tasks) liking has no bearing on performance.
These examples highlight common musical, socio-cultural, psychological, biopsychological, neurochemical and neurophysiological systems underlying music’s ability to enhance other activities. Indeed, in addition to conceptualizing music listening’s enabling effects in terms of the “functional niches” in which it happens, one can look across these individual contexts and effects to the processes which underlie them.
Based on existing literature and their explanatory frameworks, I identify four routes by which music listening facilitates concurrent tasks: perceptuo-cognitive, affective, attentional, and perceptuo-motor. These correspond to the functions of self-chosen music use identified by Sloboda, Lamont, and Greasley (2009, p. 431) (meaning enhancement, entrainment, distraction and energizing) but differ from previous formulations in two ways: The perceptuomotor category comprises both motor entrainment and un-entrained effects on “vigor,” consistent with an approach informed by embodied cognition; this allows the “affective” category to include effects of mood valence and not just the arousal (energy) dimension of mood.
Music is heard as having historically and culturally specific associations due to the history of use of its “materials” (melodies, harmonies, timbres, rhythms, etc.) which listeners pick up through exposure and informal and formal training. Hence, when an enculturated listener hears music, that music can activate associated knowledge (Dibben, 2001; Tagg & Clarida, 2003), e.g. a leaping brass motif is associated with heroic masculinity, historically in military and hunting contexts, and more recently in the theme tunes accompanying film heroes such as James Bond. From a psychological perspective such knowledge activation by music is a form of implicit memory recall and has been investigated using priming paradigms, and brain imaging studies which show that even brief, isolated musical sounds can activate semantic meanings (Painter & Koelsch, 2011). These implicit associations activated by music influence the meanings and values attributed to advertisements, brands and the products they promote, perception of physical and online environments, interpretation of television and film narratives, product choice and even other people. We may identify with the meanings and values expressed by a certain artist or kind of music, and use the music as part of a larger process of identity construction. In turn, branding companies use these meanings of music to endow products with particular appeal.
This affiliation with certain musics and avoidance of others is sometimes deployed as a tool to influence patronage and people’s behavior in particular places: For example, in the broadcast media, radio programming is designed to attract particular sectors of society who are the target consumers for relevant advertisers; in retail environments “youth music” might be played in a clothes shop aimed at an adolescent consumer group; and conversely, easy listening or classical music might be broadcast in a public space such as a metro station to deter adolescents from loitering (Hirsch, 2007). Moreover, the extent of “fit” between these meanings of the music and another product with which it is associated can indirectly influence our judgments of that product: A message (in an advert for example) is more persuasive when music activates information/associations which fit the advertised product (Kellaris, Cox, & Cox, 1993).
One additional consequence of music’s meanings for listeners is that music can influence perception in other sensory modalities (and vice versa). This includes the ways in which music influences visual perception in musical multimedia—film, television, gaming and mobile media (Tan et al., 2013; Tan, this volume), smell and taste (Spence, 2011). Cross-modal correspondences offer opportunities to design music to enhance experiential qualities of environments and products, such as odors, flavors and associated gustatory experiences, as well as visual and arguably motion-oriented experiences we may be more familiar with.
Music’s ability to influence affective states of listeners points to the utility of music as a tool for mood regulation, whether informal (e.g. part of a deliberate self-chosen mood regulation strategy; Saarikallio, 2011), or formal (e.g. a therapeutic intervention; Thaut, 2015). Music-induced changes in the arousal and valence of listeners’ mood states have been implicated in improvements to cognitive performance on tasks heard subsequent to music listening as described earlier. Music’s effects on mood also influence decision-making and evaluation, and it is these which are put to the service of influencing others in their evaluations of environments, products, and adverts (North & Hargreaves, 2010), such as in the classical conditioning example mentioned above. Indeed, music’s valence has been shown to influence evaluation not just of neutral or positive products and messages, but acceptance of unethical messages, and compliance with a request which could harm a third person (Ziv, 2016). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to go into further explanation but as in other instances, what seems to be going on is a series of cascade reactions to music: Music influences mood which itself impacts on other processes, which leads to, in this case, acceptance of messages.
Background music is by definition heard in the presence of some other activity to which it is ultimately unnecessary; therefore many of music’s effects can be attributed to its impacts on attention. Up until fairly recently background music’s distracting capacity was attributed to its “complexity,” loosely defined in terms of information load. More recently, specific psychoacoustic parameters have been identified which increase potential for distraction dependent upon task, music characteristics, and working memory capacity of the individual. For example, fluctuation strength (Ellermeier & Zimmer 2014)—how much the sound varies over time—is thought to interfere with a concurrent temporally structured task (such as verbal short-term memory tasks, mental arithmetic, and reading tasks). Conversely, music with more stable temporal characteristics can be used to mask more unpredictable environmental sounds, since the unvarying background music is less likely to capture focal attention, as when people use music to create an “auditory bubble.” It remains to be determined whether the measure of fluctuation strength is, by itself, an adequate predictor of the distraction potential of music, or whether other psychoacoustic and musical indices, such as dissonance loudness and tempo also contribute beyond fluctuation strength.
Music’s effects on attention also explain some of music’s persuasive effects: For example, the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (Cacioppo & Petty, 1984) argues that a stimulus (in this case music) accompanying a message that causes attention to be diverted away from the content of a message makes individuals become more prone to use peripheral routes to make judgments (such as liking for the music).
Music is often experienced in terms of its ability to induce a pleasurable desire to move, and the ability of music to influence human movement is well established in research. Music is effective in cueing periodic movement in healthy populations, and in people with movement disorders where it can influence the timing, spatial and force dynamics of movements (Thaut, 2015).
Tapping or moving along to a musical beat appears to be a simple task requiring little effort for the vast majority of people, yet the brain mechanisms underlying it involve a variety of functions ranging from basic timing processes to sensorimotor coupling and are distributed across neural regions. Even listening to music, without moving to it, involves neural processes and activates brain regions associated with the motor system, including premotor cortices, supplementary motor areas, cerebellum and the basal ganglia (Zatorre, Chen, & Penhune, 2007).
There is some debate over which musical features determine music-induced movement. A meta-analysis of empirical studies of impacts of background music revealed that the tempo of music influences the speed of actions performed in its presence (Kämpfe, Sedlmeier, & Renkewitz, 2011). However, the extent to which music’s effects on motor movement can be attributed to tempo alone are debatable, especially given the variability with which tempo has been manipulated in previous research (both in terms of bpm and in terms of isolating effects of tempo from other musical parameters; Bramley, Dibben, & Rowe, 2014) and evidence that walking speed varies systematically with changes in musical features other than tempo (Leman et al., 2013). One of the key characteristics appears to be the psychological construct of “groove,” namely that aspect of the music which induces a pleasant sense of wanting to move along with the music (“sensorimotor synchronization”) and in which the coupling feels easy (Janata, Tomic, & Haberman, 2012). Music which induces this pleasurable desire to move is characterized by four common features: beat salience and event density, repetition (which enhances predictability, with consequent improvements to sensorimotor synchronization) and an optimal level of syncopation determined by an inverted-U curve relationship between increasing rhythmic complexity on the one hand and experienced pleasure and self-reported desire to move on the other (Witek, Clarke, Wallentin, Kringelbach, & Vuust, 2014).
Some researchers understand sensorimotor coupling as an embodied enactment of musical meter in which the desire to move to syncopated music is a response to this invitation and the pleasure which is experienced is a result of the fulfilled desire (Witek et al., 2014; Janata et al., 2012). From the perspective of clinical applications of music-cued movement, sensorimotor coupling to music relies on associations between rhythm perception and brain areas responsible for motor perception and action. It has been argued that auditory rhythm and music trigger firing rates of auditory neurons, which entrain the firing patterns of motor neurons (Thaut, 2015). As a consequence, auditory stimulation is thought to prime the motor system, which increases the quality of the movement, and provides a specific period forming a stable anticipatory time reference, which optimizes motor planning, and execution (Thaut, 2015). Music’s ability to instill a pleasurable desire to move is recruited to enhance sports performance, speed of movements in retail environments, work tasks involving movement, and movement therapies where it is used to enhance gait and upper body training.
The discussion of three specific examples of “functional niches” in which music operates, and the summary of processes underlying them illustrates three important points for research in this area. First, any specific niche where music may appear can entail a number of different benefits, which may draw on any or all of the underlying processes. This highlights the necessity of identifying the specific phenomena to be understood, and drawing on the relevant psychological theories and evidence to better understand them. Second, music’s effects are contextual on the concurrent task or activity, characteristics of the music, and capacities and goals of the individual or group. Third, a consequence of this is that research in this area needs to recognize the mutuality inherent in the affordances offered to individuals/groups by music rather than a linear model in which music “produces” effects on listeners—a conceptualization which can fail to recognize the contingency of any such effects on other factors. The review above highlights the need to better understand the role of specific musical characteristics and indicates the current neglect of new modes of listening to and sharing music online, of multimedia and participatory experiences enabled by digitalization and social media, and the potential to use analysis of “big data” in research (audio analysis of music corpus, streaming usage, and social media) to better understand ways in which recorded music benefits listeners.
As this summary suggests, “ubiquitous” music has commonly been viewed by the social sciences as an enabling resource, or, from a more functionalist perspective, as a tool to improve human functioning. Indeed, the word “enabling” used in the title to this chapter has the neutral meaning “to allow” or “facilitate,” yet its everyday usage in relation to music psychology research is often taken to mean something unquestionably positive. A more critical perspective highlights the potentially negative ways in which music may be involved in human experience, and the need for a broader conception of the role of music in human flourishing.
A critique of psychological approaches to music in everyday life (Hesmondhalgh, 2013, pp. 35–42) notes the predominantly positive formulations of human agency implied in much research on musical participation, community music, and individualized music listening for mood regulation or other affective and social ends. We might also add to this list, the positive formulation of research into music in commercial applications such as retail environments and advertising where the rhetoric is one of using music to benefit industry. Hesmondhalgh points out that while many people often do have the opportunity to exert agency through musical engagement, they can also be limited in their capacity to do so by virtue of social, historical and biographical constraints. Given music’s evident involvement in social processes of a modern society marked by inequalities and exploitation, the effects of musical engagement are highly unlikely to be somehow free of these more negative aspects of modern life. Supporting evidence for Hesmondhalgh’s assertion comes from music psychology studies on more or less deliberate attempts to influence the behavior, subjective experience and thinking of other people, or oneself. Music’s capacity to influence others is deliberately deployed in ways which are morally dubious or unethical: Music can enhance acceptance of unethical messages and compliance (Ziv, 2016); it can encourage detrimental patterns of consumption such as the speed of bet placement in online gambling (Bramley et al., 2014); music broadcast in public places can deter specific groups of “unwanted” people from those sites (Hirsch, 2007); music is used by military personal to help produce aggressive mental and physical states appropriate to combat, and even as part of a portfolio of torture techniques (Cusick, 2008). Even our own, self-selected uses of music may be less helpful to our individual flourishing than we realize: For example, some listening behaviors may be maladaptive in so far as they facilitate mood regulation strategies such as rumination, venting or suppression which can be injurious to mental health (Saarikallio, 2011), or interfere with a cognitive task when we think it is helping. Lastly, Hesmondhalgh argues that psychological approaches ignore the role of aesthetic experience in daily life, and he calls for a broader stance on the role of music in human flourishing. This broader approach is not (just) a psychology of happiness, of pleasure or of wellbeing, but a fuller account of music’s role in attaining fundamental human “capabilities.”
The overview provided in this chapter attests to the many specific contexts of use for music in the early 21st century. The ubiquity of (recorded) music in daily life, both personalized and broadcast via mass media, can be expected to grow further given the increasing ownership of mobile listening devices (smartphones in particular), screen-based media (to which music is an audio adjunct), and internet-based on-demand music access. Research has evidenced a diverse range of “effects” of music listening and has started to link these to underlying psychological processes, and to specific musical and psychoacoustic features. However, this review also points to the need to better understand the specific mechanisms implicated in particular activities and effects. Doing so will inform sound/music design and automated music selection, increase awareness of maladaptive or unethical uses of music, and point the way to a fuller understanding of the value of music to human flourishing.
1 See chapters elsewhere in this volume for discussions of the enabling potential of music-making (e.g., improvisation and performance), music’s contribution to general intellectual functioning (“cognitive transfer effects”), and health and wellbeing. These are discussed in chapters surveying music and cognitive abilities (Gordon & Magne, this volume), and community music, therapy and their contribution to health, social functioning, cohesion, and identity (see Fachner, this volume, Saarikallio, this volume; Lamont, this volume; Vuoskoski, this volume).
2 The enabling effects of music in screen media (e.g., film, television, and computer gaming) are not examined here. Readers are referred to Tan (this volume) and Tan, et al. (2013).
DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). Why music matters. John Wiley & Sons.
North, A., & Hargreaves, D. (2008). The social and applied psychology of music. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134 (6), 779.
Bood, R. J., Nijssen, M., Van Der Kamp, J., & Roerdink, M. (2013). The power of auditory-motor synchronization in sports: Enhancing running performance by coupling cadence with the right beats. PloS ONE, 8 (8), e70758.
Bramley, S., Dibben, N., & Rowe, R. (2014). The influence of background music tempo and genre on virtual roulette. Journal of Gambling Issues, 29, 1–12.
Buhmann, J., Desmet, F., Moens, B., Van Dyck, E., & Leman, M. (2016). Spontaneous velocity effect of musical expression on self-paced walking. PloS ONE, 11 (5), e0154414.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 673–675.
Clark, I. N., Baker, F. A., & Taylor, N. F. (2016). The modulating effects of music listening on health-related exercise and physical activity in adults: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 25 (1), 76–104.
Cusick, S. G. (2008). “You are in a place that is out of the world . . . ”: Music in the detention camps of the “Global War on Terror.” Journal of the Society for American Music, 2 (1), 1–26.
Dibben, N. (2001). What do we hear, when we hear music?: Music perception and musical material. Musicae Scientiae, 5 (2), 161–194.
Dibben, N., & Haake, A. B. (2013). Music and the construction of space in office-based work settings. In G. Born (Ed.), Music, sound and the space: Transformations of public and private experience, (pp. 151–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the “irrelevant speech effect.” The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102 (4), 2191–2199.
Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (2014). The psychoacoustics of the irrelevant sound effect. Acoustical Science and Technology, 35 (1), 10–16.
Hallam, S., Price, J., & Katsarou, G. (2002). The effects of background music on primary school pupils’ task performance. Educational Studies, 28 (2), 111–122.
Hirsch, L. E. (2007). Weaponizing classical music: Crime prevention and symbolic power in the age of repetition. Journal of Popular Music Studies, 19 (4), 342.
Janata, P., Tomic, S. T., & Haberman, J. M. (2012). Sensorimotor coupling in music and the psychology of the groove. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141 (1), 54.
Juslin, P. N. (2013). From everyday emotions to aesthetic emotions: Towards a unified theory of musical emotions. Physics of Life Reviews, 10 (3), 235–266.
Kämpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2011). The impact of background music on adult listeners: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 39 (4), 424–448.
Karageorghis, C. I., Priest, D. L., Terry, P. C., Chatzisarantis, N. L., & Lane, A.M. (2006). Redesign and initial validation of an instrument to assess the motivational qualities of music in exercise: The Brunel Music Rating Inventory-2. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24 (8), 899–909.
Karageorghis, C. I., & Priest, D. (2012a). Music in the exercise domain: A review and synthesis (part I). International Review of Sport Exercise Psychol ogy, 5, 44–66.
Karageorghis, C. I., & Priest D. (2012b). Music in the exercise domain: A review and synthesis (part II). International Review of Sport Exercise Psychol ogy, 5, 67–84.
Kellaris, J. J., Cox, A. D., & Cox, D. (1993). The effect of background music on ad processing: A contingency explanation. The Journal of Marketing, 57, 114–125.
Leman, M., Moelants, D., Varewyck, M., Styns, F., van Noorden, L., & Martens, J. P. (2013). Activating and relaxing music entrains the speed of beat synchronized walking. PloS ONE, 8 (7), e67932.
Morree, H. M., Klein, C., & Marcora, S. M. (2012). Perception of effort reflects central motor command during movement execution. Psychophysiology, 49(9), 1242–1253.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2010). Music and marketing. In P. N. Juslin, & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 909–930) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & McKendrick, J. (1999). The influence of in-store music on wine selections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (2), 271.
Painter, J. G., & Koelsch, S. (2011). Can out-of-context musical sounds convey meaning? An ERP study on the processing of meaning in music. Psychophysiology, 48 (5), 645–655.
Perham, N., & Sykora, M. (2012). Disliked music can be better for performance than liked music. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26 (4), 550–555.
Saarikallio, S. (2011). Music as emotional self-regulation throughout adulthood. Psychology of Music, 39 (3), 307–327.
Schellenberg, E. G., Nakata, T., Hunter, P. G., & Tamoto, S. (2007). Exposure to music and cognitive performance: Tests of children and adults. Psychology of Music, 35 (1), 5–19.
Sloboda, J. A., Lamont, A., & Greasley, A. (2009). Choosing to hear music: Motivation, process and effect. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 431–440). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sörqvist, P., & Rönnberg, J. (2014). Individual differences in distractibility: An update and a model. PsyCh Journal, 3 (1), 42–57.
Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73 (4), 971–995.
Tagg, P., & Clarida, B. (2003). Ten little title tunes. Towards a musicology of the mass media. Montreal and New York, NY: The Mass Media Music Scholars’ Press.
Tan, S. L., Cohen, A. J., Lipscomb, S. D., & Kendall, R. A. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of music in multimedia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thaut, M. H. (2015). The discovery of human auditory–motor entrainment and its role in the development of neurologic music therapy. Progress in Brain Research, 217, 253–266.
Witek, M. A., Clarke, E. F., Wallentin, M., Kringelbach, M. L., & Vuust, P. (2014). Syncopation, body-movement and pleasure in groove music. PloS ONE, 9 (4), e94446.
Zatorre, R. J., Chen, J. L., & Penhune, V. B. (2007). When the brain plays music: Auditory–motor interactions in music perception and production. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8 (7), 547–558.
Ziv, N. (2016). Music and compliance: Can good music make us do bad things? Psychology of Music, 44 (5), 953–966.