Cognitive Styles of Music Listening

Author(s): Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert and Laura A. Mitchell

Source: Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1 (September 2008),
pp. 57-73
Published by: University of California Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/mp.2008.26.1.57
Accessed: 19-03-2017 22:26 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 57
C OGNITIVE S TYLES
G UNTER K REUTZ
Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg,
Germany
E MERY S CHUBERT
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
L AURA A. M ITCHELL
Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland,
United Kingdom
BARON - COHEN S EMPATHIZER - SYSTEMIZER - THEORY
(E-S theory, Baron-Cohen, Knickmeyer, & Belmonte,
2005) distinguishes two general cognitive styles.
Empathizing is characterized as the capacity to respond
to feeling states of other individuals, whereas systemiz-
ing is characterized as the capacity to respond to regu-
larities of objects and events. To investigate these traits
within the music domain, a questionnaire study (N =
442) was conducted. Construct validity and reliability
of the measurement instrument were assessed by factor
analysis procedures. A simplified unit weighting
(SUW) scale was used to determine individual differ-
ences in music empathizing (ME) and music systemiz-
ing (MS). Significant effects of sex and of music
performance experience were observed. A highly simi-
lar pattern of results emerged from a replicating survey
(N = 155) using a short-version of the questionnaire.
These results suggest that the ME and MS traits corrob-
orate and extend the general E-S theory.
Received June 30, 2007, accepted April 11, 2008.
Key words: music cognition, empathizer-systemizer-
theory, sex differences, musicians, music performance
A
BASIC OBSERVATION OF MUSIC PSYCHOLOGY is
that listening to music may give rise to a large
variety of experiences (Bharucha, Curtis, &
Cavoo, 2006) that are based on highly inter-related
emotional and cognitive processes in the brain
(Koelsch, Maess, Grossmann, & Friederici, 2003; Kreutz
& Lotze, 2008; Krumhansl, 2002). For example, one
individuals deepest appreciation of music may be
based on the structural features of a musical work,
Music Perception VOLUME 26, ISSUE 1, PP. 5773, ISSN
RIGHTS RESERVED. PLEASE DIRECT ALL REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY OR REPRODUCE ARTICLE CONTENT THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS S
RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS WEBSITE , HTTP :// WWW. UCPRESSJOURNALS . COM / REPRINTINFO. ASP.
This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 57
OF M USIC L ISTENING
whereas for another individual the emotional content
of a piece of music may elicit strong experiences
(Gabrielsson & Lindstrm Wik, 2003). Thus the possi-
bility arises that music processing depends on cognitive
styles that vary between individuals as well as between
situations and contexts of listening (Chamorro-
Premuzic & Furnham, 2007).
The purpose of the current study is to address cogni-
tive styles in music from the perspective of Baron-
Cohens (2003) empathizer-systemizer (E-S) theory.
This theory originated from the study of autism and
can be seen as a new formulation of his extreme male
brain theory (EMB theory, Baron-Cohen, 2002). In
particular, the EMB theory provides an account for the
male dominance in the occurrence of autism in chil-
dren and adults. From this view, autism is seen as the
expression of a male trait and an extreme form of male
brain type and brain functioning. In other words, there
exists a continuum between male and female brain
types that can be best explained by evolutionary cogni-
tive adaptation to environmental demands. These
demands range from the generation and intuitive
understanding of emotions in other individuals of a
group (empathizing) to the devotion of mental power
to non-social tasks such as abstract spatiotemporal rea-
soning that would be necessary for the understanding
of the physical characteristics and behaviors of objects
(systemizing). Obviously, while empathizing would
provide advantages to promote group cohesion and
conflict management in social hierarchies, systemizing
would provide advantages for the development of tools
and the exploitations of materials to enhance chances
of survival during environmental change. Individuals
are normally neither extreme empathizers nor extreme
systemizers, meaning that these brain types would
function complementarily rather than in isolation, even
though one trait can be more prominent than the other
or both traits may occur in balance. However, it is
argued that when autism occurs, empathetic cognitive
style is compromised by structural and/or functional
impairment of relevant brain structures (Baron-
Cohen, 2003).
The E-S theory deviates from the EMB approach by
focusing on the psychological differences between male
and female brain types. It has thus become a prominent
theory that explains the psychological differences
0730-7829, ELECTRONIC ISSN 1533-8312 2008 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA . ALL
DOI:10.1525/MP.2008.26.1.57
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 58
58 Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert, & Laura A. Mitchell
between males and females on the basis of biological
factors to which cultural influences are subordinate
(Baron-Cohen et al., 2005). For example, males were
found to outperform females in certain cognitive tasks,
which include mental rotation of objects (Shepard &
Metzler, 1971), or reading maps (Kimura, 1999). By
contrast, females were found more successful in tasks
that require emotion recognition (McClure, 2000),
social sensitivity (Baron-Cohen, ORiordan, Jones,
Stone, & Plaisted, 1999) and verbal fluency (Hyde &
Linn, 1988). Females were also found superior in the
detection of temporal and dynamic nuances in expres-
sive music performances (Kamenetsky, Hill, & Trehub,
1997).
Further evidence to support the E-S theory has been
advocated from a neurobiological perspective. Baron-
Cohen and co-workers conclude from their review of
research on sex differences in human brain structures
that males have larger brains than females, but rela-
tively smaller corpora callosa. The implication of such
anatomical differences is an increased local connectiv-
ity and a decreased interhemispheric connectivity in
males as compared to females. Systemizing is expected
to rely on greater local connectivity whereas empathis-
ing is believed to require the cooperation of longer-
distant neural networks (Baron-Cohen et al., 2005).
However, the authors admit that the available evidence
only indirectly supports the E-S theory. Controversies
over the general approach to sex differences as advo-
cated by the E-S theory notwithstanding, there is ini-
tial evidence that would support the notion of
empathizing and systemizing as cognitive traits, in
general, and of their developmental and biological ori-
gins, in particular.
Baron-Cohens claim that all psychological differ-
ences between men and women could be explained by
empathizing and systemizing has recently been chal-
lenged by Nettle (2007). This author observed that
empathizing was highly correlated (r = .75) with agree-
ableness as one of the Big Five personality dimensions
(McCrae & Costa, 1999), whereas systemizing did not
so clearly align with the Big Five dimensions. Moreover,
psychological differences in levels of interests in the arts
and technology between the sexes were noted. Females
were more attracted to the arts, whereas males were
more attracted to technology. However, it seems impor-
tant to note that music did not align with any compo-
nents in the respective factor analysis (Nettle, 2007).
Thus there is at least an indirect indication that music
should be granted a special status as it is not easily sub-
jectively subsumed under the arts, technology, or
leisure activities.
This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Despite the general support for the E-S theory, these
findings leave a paradox, namely that it should be dif-
ficult to explain why males appear to be extremely suc-
cessful in achieving mastery in the creative arts. If
males had less general interest in the arts, as a conse-
quence, females should be more successful in produc-
ing art works than males. One way of resolving the
paradox could be that males and females are equally
attracted to the arts, but for different reasons. In brief,
males should attribute higher significance to art if
technical aspects of are considered, whereas females
should attribute higher significance to art if emotional
aspects are considered.
Previous research has identified factors influencing
music processing that include the recipients sex
(Koelsch et al., 2003; Nater, Abbruzzese, Krebs, &
Ehlert, 2006), as well as his or her music background
and training (Baraff & Coley 2003, Gromko, 1993). For
example, Koelsch et al. (2003) presented male and
female listeners with chord sequences containing struc-
tural irregularities. These musical syntax violations
elicited electric brain responses with different spa-
tiotemporal patterns for the two sexes. In particular,
responses in females were bilaterally distributed across
the scalp, whereas responses in males were asymmetric
with preponderance to the right hemisphere. The
authors suggest that these sex differences in music pro-
cessing have the opposite pattern as compared to the
processing of linguistic syntax: while males showed bal-
anced electrical responses to syntax violations,
responses from females were shifted toward the left
hemisphere. Interestingly, sex differences in electric
brain responses to chord sequences have been observed
in children as young as five years of age (Koelsch,
Grossmann, Gunter, Hahne, Schrger, & Friederici,
2003). Note that musical syntax violations are inter-
preted as analogues to syntax violations in speech
(Jackendoff & Lerdahl, 2006), thus reflecting a common
origin of the two domains at some level of cognitive pro-
cessing (Koelsch, Gunter, Wittfroh, & Sammler, 2005).
With respect to emotional responses to music listening,
Nater et al. (2006) found that psychophysiological
changes differed between males and females when listen-
ing to heavy metal and renaissance music. While male
responses were rather similar across conditions, females
tended to show symptoms of hypersensitivity in the
unpleasant music condition (heavy metal) as compared
to the pleasant condition (renaissance music). The
authors argue that the observed sex differences reflect
more general psychological traits (Nater et al., 2006).
Sex differences have long been observed not only on
the perception side but also on the production side of
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 59
music (Farnsworth, 1969; North & Hargreaves, 1995,
1996). In search for objective measures of success in
music composition and performance, North and
Hargreaves (1995) used public polling, encyclopaedia
space allocation, and record sales as indicators of chart
success. Males outperformed females in all of these
measures, irrespective of the musical genre. North and
Hargreaves (1996) extended these findings by showing
that male classical composers and pop performers
dominated the rankings provided by readers of a news-
paper, who voted for their favourite as well as the
greatest artists in these categories. North, Colley, and
Hargreaves (2003) conducted experiments in which
adolescent participants rated the compositions of
unfamiliar pieces of music that were associated with
fictitious biographies, one presented as the music by a
female composer, and the other by a male composer.
Results showed that in general, music was rated more
forceful and innovative and less gentle, warm, and
soothing if associated with a male composer rather
than a female composer. However, it seems worth not-
ing that boys and girls are similar in their musical
aptitude according to quantitative assessments of chil-
drens music listening skills (see ONeill, 1997, for a
review).
In sum, there is preliminary evidence of sex differ-
ences in relation to music listening at different levels of
processing, including perception and production. The
implication is that these domain-specific differences
may reflect broader differences of brain types as well as
cognitive styles, which are characteristic of the two
sexes.
The present study was designed to explore cognitive
styles of music processing on the basis of the general E-
S theory. Its goal is three-fold, (i) to develop psychome-
tric music empathizing and music systemizing scales,
(ii) to establish preliminary validity and reliability of
the scales, and (iii) to address individual effects of sex
and music performance experience in music empathiz-
ing and systemizing.
With regards to the first goal we investigate whether
cognitive styles of music processing may be empirically
determined with the aid of psychometric assessment.
In line with the assumption that male and female brain
types affect domain-specific cognitive processing, it is
hypothesized that two factors of cognitive processing
of music exist that align with the general empathizing
and systemizing constructs. Second, to construct
music empathizing and music systemizing scales on
the basis of factor scores, different weighting proce-
dures must be considered to provide the means for
applications of the music empathizing and systemizing
This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 59
scales within subsequent investigations into individual
differences. Third, by addressing individual differences
in these traits, both extensions as well as differentia-
tions of the general E-S theory are conceivable.
Although the general interest in the arts and humani-
ties has been conceived of as an expression of the
female brain type (empathizing), as stated above, the
status of music has remained unclear (Nettle, 2007;
Zbikowski, 2002). However, in line with the general
E-S theory, it is hypothesized that significant influ-
ences of sex exist with respect to both scales: Females
are expected to score higher in music empathizing and
to score lower in music systemizing. In addition, to
address the issue of domain-specificity, any influences
of levels of music performance experience were to be
considered in relation to the two cognitive styles of
music processing.
The study is conducted in two parts, referred to as
Surveys 1 and 2. Survey 2 was included in an attempt to
enhance validity of the novel construct by using a
shorter version of the original questionnaire that is
based on the results from Survey 1, and was submitted
to an independent sample of participants. Moreover, in
Survey 2 the instructions to the participants were
adjusted to provide less direct information about the
empathizing and systemizing concepts. This was done
to examine whether possible demand characteristics in
Survey 1 influenced responses.
Survey 1
Method
PARTICIPANTS
Participants of this study were recruited from various
populations that included students from the Glasgow
Caledonian University, the staff of the Royal Northern
College of Music, and the subscribers to music research
related e-mail lists. Further, all respondents were
encouraged to send the link forward to their family,
friends, and peers to volunteer for this study. Following
the invitation by e-mail, a total of 442 respondents (143
male; 296 female; 3 participants did not report their
sex; mean age = 32.6 years, SD = 13.1 years, range = 12
to 87 years) were included in this survey.
QUESTIONNAIRES
The main questionnaire of the study, henceforth the
Music-empathizing-systemizing (ME-MS) inventory
was developed in several stages by adapting the short
version of the general E-S inventory (Wakabayashi et
al., 2006) to music. To this end, the first and third
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 60
60 Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert, & Laura A. Mitchell
author of the present investigation independently
developed a list of potentially relevant items that would
best convey the meaning of empathizing and systemiz-
ing in the music domain as possible parallel constructs
of the general E-S theory. The resulting grand list of
ME-MS items was discussed by all three authors. At this
stage, 44 items were retained, of which 25 represented
hypothetical music empathizing and 19 represented
hypothetical music systemizing. To reduce a potential
bias resulting from a lack of attention demand, 17 items
from the pool were stated in the negative (indicated by
an n following the numerical identifier for each item;
see Appendix A for details). The questions thought to
be representative of music empathizing were coded
ME and those thought representative of music sys-
temizing were coded MS with attached numerals for
the specific items. To allow confirmation that the
music-related items aligned with the general dimen-
sions, items 14, 22, 28, and 34 for empathizing and
items 08, 10n, 12, and 22 for systemizing were included
from the original inventory used by Wakabayashi et al.
These items were chosen on the basis of high factor
loadings on the respective scales. Note that one of the
general systemizing items (If I were buying a stereo, I
would be interested in the technical specifications.)
was retained for the subsequent identification and vali-
dation analyses. Following the discussions about several
items about which the authors had different views as to
their representation of music empathizing or systemiz-
ing, it was decided to keep these ambiguous items
within the inventory as they were deemed relevant to
capture the facets of any of the two cognitive styles. A
four-point Likert-scale was used that paralleled the
response format of the Wakabayashi et al. (2006) inven-
tory. The scale points were thus coded as 1 = strongly
agree, 2 = slightly agree, 3 = slightly disagree, and 4 =
strongly disagree.
The sections in the survey following the ME/MS
inventory were designed to check the participants
music preferences and to collect background informa-
tion. For the present study, music performance experi-
ence as well as basic demographic variables will be
considered only. The respondents indicated their high-
est level of musicianship by choosing from a menu that
included: Professional, Semi-professional, Amateur,
Occasional, Hardly ever play or played, and Other (please
specify). The last items of the questionnaire were
optional, and asked what occupation the respondents
pursued and where they were located. In addition,
opportunity was given to provide an e-mail address for
participation in the prize draw, and to provide general
comments about the questionnaire.
This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
DESIGN AND PROCEDURE
Participants were invited via e-mail containing a link
that guided them to the welcome page of the study. The
survey itself was constructed using the environment
provided by SurveyMonkey.comTM through which all
questionnaires were delivered. The welcome page
informed the respondents about the nature, purpose
and scope of the study and instructed them on how to
fill in the survey as follows:
Welcome! This questionnaire is about the so-called cog-
nitive style. Some people are slightly more interested in
other people than they are, for example, in technology.
For other people, the reverse is true. Either way, there is
no right or wrong cognitive style in that sense. They
can just be different. Here we would like to invite you to
fill in a questionnaire that will inform us about your
cognitive style. The purpose of this research is to find out
what aspects of music are more or less important to dif-
ferent people when listening to or thinking about music.
Importantly, we are interested in all music listeners, not
only musicians. Please be aware that all of your per-
sonal information is strictly confidential. You do not
need to give us your name or contact details. However, if
you wish to be informed about the outcomes, you may
provide your e-mail address at the end that enables you
then to participate in the PRIZE DRAW. Your address
will be in any event detached from your data to ensure
your anonymity. While filling in your responses, please
read the lines carefully and click the button in each line
that is most appropriate for you.
In addition, we would like you to provide us with
some further information about yourself in another
short questionnaire afterwards. By completing these
questionnaires, you are providing informed consent for
us. Thank you very much indeed for your participation!
Respondents were then directed to the music
empathizing and systemizing inventory, which was
divided into two parts for convenience. The items
within the two parts were presented in randomized
order and respondents had to rate each of the items
before they were allowed to move forward to the other
parts of the survey.
Results
Analyses toward the construction of the music
empathizer and music systemizer scales were con-
ducted in four phases. In the verification phase, all ME
and MS items were submitted to a Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) to check whether they
aligned with the selected EQ and SQ items from Baron-
Cohens Cognitive Style questionnaire. The identification
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 61
phase was then conducted on only the ME and MS
items, again using PCA, to see if the resulting factor
structure and loadings were consistent with the preced-
ing analysis. The validation phase included only those
items that loaded strongly onto either of the proposed
ME and MS dimensions. The final confirmation and scor-
ing analysis was conducted first to confirm how well the
music-only items aligned with the newly derived ME and
MS constructs, and thus to determine an appropriate
scoring regime. Varimax rotation was used for all factor
analyses. The required factor loading for items to be
retained during the subsequent factor analytical proce-
dures was set to greater than .40 for the predicted factor.
The significance criterion for all analyses was set to
p = .05. N varied between 433 and 442 within individ-
ual analyses due to missing values. The results of the
first three analysis phases are summarized in the factor
loading matrix shown in Table 1.
The verification factor analysis, represented in the
columns two and three of Table 1, demonstrates that all
four general EQ items from the general Cognitive Style
Questionnaire align with 19 of the 25 proposed ME
items following the set criterion of factor loadings (first
ME column (2) of Table 1). Of these 19 items, seven
have loadings greater than .50 upon this component.
However, only three of the four general SQ items align
with nine out of the 18 proposed MS items.
The identification factor analysis was then conducted
with the ME and MS items only. A similar two-factorial
solution was obtained as in the verification phase that
is represented in columns four and five in Table 1. In
both analyses, a number of ME and MS items revealed
either no loadings or substantial loadings on both fac-
tors. Consequently, all these items, which can be identi-
fied in the Appendix, were omitted from the validation
factor analysis.
A total of 13 ME items and a total of nine MS items
(including SQ3: If I were buying a stereo, I would want
to know about its precise technical features.) were
entered into the validation factor analysis. The variance
explained by the first two factors was 34% (factor 1:
21%; factor 2: 13%).
Following the factor analyses, the internal reliability
of the scales was assessed by calculating the Cronbach
alpha values, which were good for each of the scales:
ME scale = .79; MS scale = .77.
SCORING
Several scoring regimes were explored as discussed by
Grice (2001). Two approaches to scoring are described
here: the regression method and a simplified unit
weighting.
This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 61
The regression method applies a linear ordinary least
squares calculation to finding item weightings and then
converts them to z-scores. These weightings were gen-
erated in SPSS during the validation factor analysis. In
the same analysis, the component coefficient matrix
was also calculated. While the regression method is
commonly used for scoring an inventory, it is also com-
plicated to calculate without computational aids. The
weightings for each question (scores from 1 to 4, for
agree through to disagree respectively) are shown in
Table 2 for the two methods.
Grice (2001) argues that simpler scoring methods,
such as unit weighting, may be acceptable and in some
cases more reliable than more complicated approaches.
Unit weight scoring simply accumulates an item
response or ignores itthat is, each item is weighted by
either 1 (1 for negatively stated items) or 0. The test
developer then has the choice of either factoring in the
number of questions answered (so that unanswered
and omitted questions do not falsely deflate the score),
or to transform the scores so that the extremes of each
item scale are reflective (instead of 1 to 4 for an item
score, 2 to +2, for example). With this reflective
(symmetrical about 0) transformation an item score of
zero due to unanswered or omitted items does not
falsely inflate either a positive or negative score.
For our purposes, to ensure that the relative distance
between scores remained unaltered and the points on the
scale remain integers, the 4 point item score was trans-
formed to an adjusted item score of 3 (agree), 1, +1,
or +3 (disagree), respectively, for n questions, and +3
(agree), +1, 1, 3 (disagree) for other questions. The
weightings assigned to these item scores is shown in the
Unit columns of Table 2. To calculate the weightings,
the regression scores were divided by .15 and rounded.
This value was selected to achieve the aim of the unit
weighting approach, i.e., to produce (after rounding)
integers of 1, 0, and 1 only. A smaller divisor may pro-
duce weightings greater than |1|, and a number greater
than .15 may produce weightings which never reach |1|.
The descriptive statistics of this unit weighting method
are shown in second row of each dimension in Table 3.
The unstandardized summed unit weight scores were
then once again transformed by subtracting the
rounded mean to produce simplified unit weight
(SUW) scores, as according to the following formulae:
ME SUW Score = (weight adjusted item score)17
MS SUW Score = (weight adjusted item score)6
This produced a score that had a mean close to 0
(actual mean before the transformation was 17.41 for
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 62

62 Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert, & Laura A. Mitchell

TABLE 1. Factor Loadings for Analysis Phases 1-3 After Varimax Rotation.

Item Code 1. Verification 2. Identification 3. Validation

Factors ME MS ME MS ME MS
ME1 .37 .41
ME2n .36 .36
ME3 .60 .55 .58
ME6n .54 .57 .58
ME8 .45 .48 .51
ME10 .41 .35 .47 .38
ME12n .36 .37 .31 .43
ME13 .46 .34 .41 .42
ME14n .41 .45 .45
ME15 .60 .63 .67
ME16n .55 .59 .64
ME17 .70 .68 .73
ME18n .42 .47 .47
ME20n .47 .53 .58
ME21 .48 .45 .46
ME22n .44 .45 .51
ME23 .48 .48 .48
ME24 .41 .40
MS1/ME25 .47 .46 .49
MS2n .67 .72 .70
MS4n .38 .39
MS6n .60 .60 .66
MS7 .65 .64 .66
MS8 .31 .35
MS11 .46 .51 .52
MS12n .31 .36
MS13 .55 .62 .60
MS15 .37 .39 .319 .41
MS17 .511 .54 .57
MS18 .394 .41 .42
MS19n .642 .60 .66
EQ1 .520
EQ2 .514
EQ3 .646
EQ4 .619
SQ1 .580
SQ2n .309
SQ3 .590 .57
SQ4 .525
VE (%) 13.39 8.98 12.23 10.05 21.05 13.17
Total EV 7.10 4.76 5.50 4.52 4.63 2.90
Note: Verification, Identification and validation of factor efficacy with all variables and reduced sets of variables, respectively.
VE (%) = Percentage of variance explained; Total EV = Total Eigenvalue. Loadings less than .3 were omitted. Items that were
retained for Phase three are bold marked. Multi-factorial solutions were obtained in all three phases. Factors 1 and 2 of the
validation phase are represented in columns 6 and 7. Eigenvalues (percentages of variance explained) for the remaining three
factors were as follows: Factor 3 = 1.46 (6.65); Factor 4 = 1.24 (5.62); Factor 5 = 1.07 (4.85). The suffix n after the item code
indicates that the item was stated in a negative form. See the Appendix A for question text associated with item codes.

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 63

Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 63

TABLE 2. Two Types of Item Response Weightings SUW score was to the regression method. Both meth-
(Regression and Unit) Used to Produce MS and ME Scores. ods were highly correlated with each other for ME
scores and for MS scores (r = .99, p < .001 for both).
Weighting Method
Although the SUW score is susceptible to greater
Regression Unit error than the regression method, it is considered a
worthwhile alternative for further applications, where
Item Code ME MS ME MS appropriate, because it is simpler to calculate. In addi-
ME03 0.142 0.009 1 0 tion, the SUW approach facilitates convenient inter-
ME08 0.125 0.012 1 0 pretation: scores of 10 correspond to about one
ME15 0.163 0.008 1 0 standard deviation from the mean (according to
ME17 0.177 0.005 1 0 Table 3 the empirical values of the standard devia-
ME21 0.115 0.014 1 0 tions were 11.3 for the ME scale and 10.3 for the MS
ME23 0.115 0.011 1 0 scale). Therefore, the SUW method was employed for
ME25/MS01 0.111 0.039 1 0 subsequent analyses.
ME06n 0.151 0.060 1 0
ME14n 0.116 0.044 1 0 INFLUENCES OF SEX AND MUSIC PERFORMANCE
ME16n 0.160 0.021 1 0 EXPERIENCE
ME18n 0.114 0.007 1 0 About half of the sample (46.4%) had no experience at
ME20n 0.148 0.037 1 0 all in playing a musical instrument and a small minor-
ME22n 0.125 0.013 1 0 ity (4.6 %) had very little experience. Within the other
MS07 0.015 0.199 0 1 half of the sample, professionals and semi-professionals
MS11 0.017 0.149 0 1 amounted to 27.1% of the sample, while the remaining
MS13 0.030 0.185 0 1 21.9% were amateurs. Thus participants were regrouped
MS17 0.023 0.162 0 1
into three cohorts: professionals (including semi-profes-
MS18 0.022 0.129 0 1
SQ3 0.041 0.178 0 1 sionals), amateurs (including occasional players), and
MS02n 0.012 0.209 0 1 nonmusicians. Table 4 summarizes the distribution of
MS06n 0.041 0.205 0 1 participants for the three levels of expertise, grouped
MS19n 0.042 0.206 0 1 by sex.
Table 5 presents the mean differences between scores
Note: Items associated with designated codes in the first column are presented in
the Appendix. For explanation of weighting methods see Table 3 and text.
for the two sexes and levels of music performance expe-
rience. A repeated measures 2 (sex)  3 (music per-
formance experience)  2 (music cognitive styles)
ME and 5.79 for MS) and a standard deviation of analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted using the
approximately 10, and was based on the rounded simplified unit weighting scores as the dependent vari-
descriptive scores shown in Table 3. Pearson correla- able for music empathizing (ME) and music systemiz-
tions were conducted to determine how similar the ing (MS). In this analysis, the first two factors were

TABLE 3. Descriptive Statistics for Regression, Unit Weight and SUW Scores.

Cognitive Style Score Weighting Method Mean SD LBCI95 UPCI95

ME Regression .00 1.00 .09 .09

Unit 17.41 11.29 16.36 18.47
SUW .41 11.29 .64 1.47
MS Regression .00 1.00 .09 .09
Unit 5.79 10.29 4.83 6.75
SUW .21 10.29 1.17 0.75
Note: ME Score refers to scoring for Music Empathizing Score; MS Score refers to scoring for Music Systematizing Score; Regression Method is based
on weighting of raw item scores (1, 2, 3, 4) listed in Table 2. Unit refers to unstandardized unit weighting transformation, with item scores scaled to
values of 3, 1, +1, +3 and summed as according to unit weightings in Table 2. SUW refers to simplified unit weight, using the unit weight method,
but adjusted with the rounded mean (17 for ME and 6 for MS) of the unit score distribution to recover the approximate location of the zero point of
the standardised regression score. LBCI95 is lower bound of 95% Confidence Interval for Mean, UBCI95 is upper bound of 95% Confidence Interval
for Mean.

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 64

64 Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert, & Laura A. Mitchell

TABLE 4. Number of Participants Representing Three
Levels of Music Performance Experience for Females and
Males within Survey 1 (N = 433).
Level of experience Females Males
Professionals 56 61
Amateurs 77 38
Nonmusicians 160 41
Total 293 140
entered as independent between-subjects measures and
the third factor functioned as the dependent, within-
subject measure.
Sex did not produce a significant effect on cognitive
styles, F(1, 427) = 1.11, n.s., whereas music perform-
ance experience did, F(2, 427) = 14.60, p < .001, partial
2 = .06. The interaction of these variables again was
not significant, F(2, 427) = .99, n.s. Finally, the three-
way interaction just failed to produce a significant
effect, F(2, 427) = 2.46, p = .09. The difference between
the two scales of the cognitive styles measure was sig-
nificant, F(1, 427) = 19.22, p < .001, partial 2 = .04, as
were the interactions between this variable and sex, F(1,
427) = 55.29, p < .001, partial 2 = .12, as well as with
music performance experience, F(2, 427) = 5.33, p <
.01, partial 2 = .02.
Since the overall tests suggested significant interactions,
and despite the absence of a significant main effect of sex,
each of the two cognitive style scales were subsequently
examined by means of univariate ANOVAs. A significant
main effect of sex was observed for both music empathiz-
ing, F(1, 432) = 11.70, p < .001, partial 2 = .03, and for
music systemizing, F(1, 432) = 37.53, p < .001, partial 2
= .08. Music performance experience produced a signifi-
cant effect on music systemizing only, F(2, 432) = 25.00,
Total p < .001, partial 2 = .10. Posthoc comparison using
Tukeys test for unequal group sizes showed that profes-
117 sional musicians scored significantly higher than did
115 amateurs, and that amateurs scored significantly higher
201 than nonmusicians on MS (p < .05). No significant inter-
433 actions were found in any of these analyses.
Figure 1 shows error bar plots of the sex differences
for ME and MS representing the observed main effects.
Females scored higher than males on the music
empathizing score, whereas the reverse pattern held for
the music systemizing score.
The three levels of music performance experience
produced systematic differences along the MS scale
only. A clear pattern can be seen where decreasing lev-
els of playing experience were associated with decreas-
ing (total) scores in music systemizing (Figure 2).
Discussion
This first survey aimed to develop preliminary psycho-
metric scales for measuring empathizing (ME) and sys-
temizing (MS) as specific cognitive traits in the music
domain. A further goal was to establish validity and
reliability for these measures, and to assess individual
differences associated with them.
First of all, a principal component analysis was con-
ducted. Intended ME and MS items aligned with items
that were representative of the general trait. Follow up
identification and validation analyses then filtered
through a number of items that were strongly and

TABLE 5. Means (and SDs) of Music Cognitive Style (ME and MS) Scores (Using
SUW) for Females and Males and Three Levels of Music Performance Experience.

Music cognitive styles

N = 433 ME MS

Level of
experience Females Males Total Females Males Total

Professionals 0.89 0.64 0.09 3.04 7.43 5.32

(10.09) (10.00) (10.02) (7.86) (8.42) (8.41)
Amateurs 3.08 4.31 0.63 0.14 5.94 2.06
(8.98) (11.81) (10.55) (9.02) (8.52) (9.24)
Nonmusicians 0.95 4.31 1.63 6.31 1.20 4.78
(11.95) (13.56) (12.33) (9.59) (8.78) (9.88)
Total 0.46 2.71 0.57 2.82 5.20 0.23
(11.00) (11.68) (11.31) (9.92) (8.90) (10.30)

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 65

Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 65

FIGURE 1. Music empathizing (ME, left columns) and music systemizing (MS, right columns) mean scores, by sex. Error bars represent 1 standard
error. The y-axis represents the simplified unit weighting score (SUW, see text for details).

independently associated with either of the ME (n = 13)
and MS (n = 9) traits. The scales were statistically reli-
able and hence used to investigate any systematic influ-
ences of sex and music training on these traits. While a
more thorough interpretation of these findings will be
left to the General Discussion below, it may be noted
that patterns of sex influences were found in accordance
with our working hypotheses. Females scored high on
music empathizing and low on music systemizing,
whereas males produced the reverse pattern. These
findings are in line with the general traits of empathiz-
ing and systemizing as proposed by the E-S-theory
(Baron-Cohen, 2003), which attributes higher degrees
of empathizing to females and higher degrees of sys-
temizing to males.
A further differential influence on music cognitive style
was noted with respect to the individual level of music
training. Three groups were constructedprofessional

FIGURE 2. Music systemizing scores by levels of music performance experience for females, males, and total sample. The y-axis represents mean
simplified unit weighting scale. Error bars represent 1 standard error.

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 66

66 Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert, & Laura A. Mitchell

musicians, amateur musicians, and nonmusicians
which differed in their degrees of music systemizing,
but not empathizing. Again, these findings are sub-
jected to further discussion below.
Survey 2
Results from the survey above suggest construct valid-
ity and reliability of measures of music cognitive styles
called music empathizing and music systemizing. In
addition, influences of sex and music training on these
cognitive styles were noted. The purpose of the second
survey was to further enhance the validity of this novel
construct through replication. There were two impor-
tant modifications compared to the first survey. First,
the instructions were shortened and simplified, and any
reference to the general cognitive style was omitted.
Second, in this survey only the items from the valida-
tion phase of the first survey were included. As final
refinements, equal numbers of items (nine) represent-
ing the two cognitive styles were used. Four of the nine
items of each style were stated in the negative.
Welcome! This survey explores ways of thinking about
music. In particular, you will be asked to rate to what
extent you agree with several statements. These state-
ments address some aspects that could be more or less
important to you when you listen to music.
The remaining instructions were similar to Survey 1,
except that no mention of cognitive styles was made
and no prize draw was announced.
Respondents were then directed to the short version
of the music empathizing and systemizing inventory.
Again, the inventory was divided into two parts for
convenience and the items within each of the two parts
were presented in randomized order.
Results
To determine whether the shorter version of the ME-
MS-inventory would still contain the intended com-
ponents, a principal components analysis was
conducted in the manner of the validation phase in
Survey 1.

Method
TABLE 6. Factor Loadings of Items Representing Music
PARTICIPANTS Empathizing (ME) and Music Systemizing (MS) after
Participants of this study were recruited from popula- Varimax Rotation.
tions similar to that used in Survey 1, but this time also
Item Code ME MS
including music performance students of the Royal ME3 .63
Northern College of Music. A total of 155 respondents ME6n .59
(50 male; 105 female; mean age = 30.06 years, SD = 11.77 ME8 .49
years, range = 18 to 71 years) were included in this survey. ME14n .45
ME15 .57
QUESTIONNAIRES ME16n .62
With the exception of the main questionnaire, the ME17 .59
Music-Empathizing-Systemizing (ME-MS) inventory ME18n .41
(see Appendix B for details), the questions were identi- ME23 .42
cal to those used in Survey 1. Again, questions repre- MS2n .79
MS6n .75
senting music empathizing were coded as ME and
MS7 .6
those thought representative of music systemizing were MS11 .51
coded as MS with attached numerals for the specific MS13 .58
items. Modifications of the ME-MS-inventory included MS15n .71
a reduction to nine items per scale (four of them stated MS17 .65
in the negative). The item responses were coded as 3 = MS19n .60
strongly agree, 1 = slightly agree, 1 = slightly disagree, MS20 .45
and 3 = strongly disagree (negatively stated questions VE (%) 12.03 24.65
would be adjusted later in the scoring stage of analysis). Total EV 2.17 4.44
Note: Data were derived from 18-item version of ME-MS-inventory (N = 155).
DESIGN AND PROCEDURE VE (%) = Percentage of variance explained; Total EV = Total Eigenvalue. Items with
Participants were again invited via an e-mail containing loadings less than .3 are omitted. Eigenvalues > 1 (percentages of variance explained)
for the remaining factors were as follows: Factor 3 = 1.43 (7.93); Factor 4 = 1.19
a link to guide them to the welcome page of the survey. (6.63); Factor 5 = 1.01 (5.61). n after item code indicates that the item was stated
They were instructed as follows: in a negative form. See Appendix B for text associated with item codes.

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 67

Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 67

The ME and MS-items aligned with the two compo-
nents as expected, but with the MS-items comprising
the first component and the ME-items comprising the
second component, both together explaining a total of
36.68% of the variance. This result is still similar to the
validation phase of Survey 1 (cf. Table 1).
Following the factor analyses, the internal reliability
of the scales was assessed by calculating the Cronbach
alpha values. Reliability of music empathizing was
somewhat lower and that of music systemizing was
somewhat higher than those values obtained for Survey
1: ME scale = .69; MS scale = .81.
SCORING
Scores were calculated using the same procedures as in
Survey 1. The simplified unit weighting (SUW) con-
sisted of summed item scores such that for the ME
scale, ME items each received a weighting of 1, or 1 if
the question was expressed in the negative, with all
other (i.e., MS) items receiving a weighting of 0. And
for the MS scale, MS items received a weighting of 1, or
1 if the question was expressed in the negative, with all
other (i.e., ME) items receiving a weighting of 0. The
dependent variables representing music cognitive styles
were thus calculated as follows:
ME SUW Score = adjusted item score13
MS SUW Score = adjusted item score10
ME SUW scores (M = .44; SD = 7.62) and MS SUW
scores (M = .41; SD = 10.31) were thus used as
dependent measures in the subsequent analysis.
SUW was highly correlated with regression weighting
(r = .98, p < .001 for each scale across the two weight-
ing methods).
TABLE 7. Number of Participants Representing Three
Levels of Music Performance Experience for Females and
Males within Survey 2 (N = 155).
Level of experience Females Males Total
Professionals 31 21 52
Amateurs 26 15 41
Nonmusicians 48 14 62
Total 105 50 155
INFLUENCES OF SEX AND MUSIC PERFORMANCE
EXPERIENCE
Applying the same strategy as in Survey 1 to this sam-
ple, three cohorts of participants were constructed rep-
resenting three levels of music performance experience.
The largest group of 62 (40.0 %) participants had no
experience at all in playing a musical instrument and
were classified as nonmusicians; 41 (26.5 %) of partici-
pants were counted as amateurs, and 52 (33.5 %) as
professionals. Table 7 summarizes the distribution of
participants for the three levels of expertise, grouped
by sex.
Table 8 presents the mean differences between scores
for the two sexes and levels of music performance expe-
rience. A repeated measures ANOVA (see Survey 1 above
for details) was conducted, revealing a similar pattern of
results as in Survey 1. There was no significant effect for
sex, F(1, 148) = 0.27, n.s., while the effect of music per-
formance experience was significant, F(2, 148) = 12.16,
p < .001, partial 2 = .14, with no interaction between
the two independents, F(1, 148) = 0.46, n.s.
The interaction between both sex and cognitive style,
F(1, 148) = 11.38, p < .001, partial 2 = .07, and music

TABLE 8. Means (and SDs) of Music Cognitive Style (ME and MS) Scores (Using
SUW) for Females and Males and Three Levels of Music Performance Experience.

Music cognitive styles

N = 155 ME MS

Level of
experience Females Males Total Females Males Total

Professionals 4.00 0.29 2.50 2.35 5.09 3.46

(5.89) (8.47) (7.20) (7.93) (8.09) (8.04)
Amateurs 2.23 1.33 0.92 1.92 5.93 3.39
(7.40) (8.47) (7.90) (9.86) (7.81) (9.27)
Nonmusicians 1.66 1.57 1.63 7.21 3.14 6.27
(7.36) (8.56) (12.33) (9.91) (10.21) (10.05)
Total 1.00 0.72 0.44 2.08 3.04 0.41
(7.62) (8.37) (7.62) (10.39) (9.33) (10.31)

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 68

68 Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert, & Laura A. Mitchell

6
Females
5
Males
4 Total

3
Music Empathizing Score

2
Nonmusicians
1

0
1
1
2 3
2 Professionals

4 Amateurs
Group
5
10
Females
8 Males
Total
6
Music Systemizing Score

2 Nonmusicians
3
0
1 2
Professionals Amateurs
2

10

FIGURE 3. Mean of (a) music empathizing and (b) music systemizing scores by music performance experience and sex. Error bars represent 1 stan-
dard error.

performance experience and cognitive style, F(2, 148) =
5.40, p < .001, partial 2 = .07, were both significant,
while the three-way interaction was not, F(2, 148) =
0.34, n.s. This time the two cognitive style measures
were statistically similar, F(1, 148) = 0.31, n.s., a result
that deviates from the Survey 1 analysis.
Subsequent univariate ANOVAs for the two cognitive
style measures showed a main effect of sex for music sys-
temizing only, with males scoring higher than females,
F(1, 149) = 5.16, p < .05, partial 2 = .03. By contrast,
music performance experience influenced both music
empathizing, F(2, 154) = 3.18, p < .05, partial 2 = .04,
and music systemizing, F(2, 154) = 14.27, p < .001, par-
tial 2 = .16. Posthoc comparison using Tukeys test for
unequal group sizes showed that, in general, higher lev-
els of music performance experience were associated
with higher values in both cognitive style scales (p < .05).
However, there was no systematic difference between the
scores of professional musicians and amateur musicians
for MS, which contrasts with the results from Survey 1.
Again, no significant interactions were found.
Figure 3 depicts the music cognitive style scores for
the participant groups representing three levels of
music performance experience and sex.

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 69
Discussion
The pattern of findings of Survey 2 by and large resem-
bles the initial observations. A further principal com-
ponent analysis (PCA) first confirmed the alignment of
the 18 items that were selected to represent ME on the
one hand and MS on the other with these scales.
Although the order of components was reversed as
compared to Survey 1, a similar amount of variance
explained was achieved, which indicated that the lower
number of participants in Survey 2, who filled in a
short version of the preliminary inventory, did not con-
tribute to an increase in error variance. Reliability for
both scales was in an acceptable range. It is worth not-
ing that the inclusion of eight negatively stated items
should give rise to some increase of error variance,
while forcing the participants to concentrate more on
individual items.
There were similarities and differences to be noted
when influences of individual differences on music
cognitive styles were addressed. Perhaps most impor-
tantly, the patterns of sex influences were nearly identi-
cal in the two surveys. There were some important
deviations in the patterns of influences associated with
levels of music performance experience. Survey 2
showed that both ME and MS were affected by expert-
ise, and not only MS as was the case in Survey 1.
However, the significantly higher scoring of musicians
as compared to nonmusicians on MS in both surveys
corroborates the notion of a specific role of this vari-
able in the cognitive processing of music in distin-
guishing these groups of participants.
General Discussion & Conclusions
Following Baron-Cohens empathizer-systemizer (E-S)
theory, this is the first study to address the development
and application of measures of empathizing and sys-
temizing specifically in the music domain. It demon-
strates the clear presence of these two, independent
dimensions of music processing and thus corroborates
and extends the E-S theory (Baron-Cohen et al., 2005).
The so-called music empathizing (ME) and music sys-
temizing (MS) scales emerged from principal compo-
nent analysis procedures that were performed on the
responses to online-surveys. It was found that a num-
ber of the proposed ME and MS items separately
aligned with a selection of general E-S items. The
resulting ME scale thus included 13 items and the MS
scale included 9 items in the first survey and this was
refined to 9 items for both scales in the second survey.
Both scales were internally consistent and reliable.
This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 69
The construction of dependent measures of the ME
and MS dimensions entailed comparisons between dif-
ferent weighting procedures that included a simplified
unit weighting (SUW) and the regression method.
While the former method was employed in the present
study, both methods appear to be likely alternatives for
the application of the scales in the future.
The components identified as music empathizing
and music systemizing are reminiscent of the find-
ings of a previous study on uses of music in everyday
life (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2007). In par-
ticular, these authors identified three uses of music,
which they termed emotional, cognitive, and back-
ground. No sex differences were found when the
individual factor scores were considered. Thus it
appears important to note both similarities and dif-
ferences in the responses to music listening, if the
context of reflection relates to the perception of
music as opposed to the functions of music in every-
day life. This means, for example, that music
empathizers and music systemizers may evoke differ-
ent strategies to derive similar levels of cognitive
stimulation or emotional reward from music listen-
ing as common goals for both types of listeners.
Sex and music performance experience were found to
differentially influence the two cognitive styles.
Specifically, both surveys show that females are positive
music empathizers and negative music systemizers,
whereas males are negative empathizers and positive
systemizers. These findings thus support the notion of
gender-specific styles of music processing as suggested
in recent neurocognitive studies (Koelsch et al., 2003;
Nater et al., 2006).
In addition, a differential influence of music perform-
ance experience on music cognition was noted. The two
surveys reported here are in conflict with each other as to
whether or not levels of expertise have any systematic
influence on music empathizing. It appears, however,
that there is an interaction with sex within this associa-
tion. In particular, males in both surveys did not differ in
their levels of ME, irrespective of training. By contrast,
female professional musicians were high on ME in Survey
2, an issue that warrants further investigation. Both sur-
veys were consistent in showing a profound influence of
music training on MS. Although this differentiation was
most pronounced in the comparison of professionals
and nonmusicians, the status of amateur musicians with
respect to MS is less clear. For the time being, we propose
that amateurs are more similar to professional musicians
than to nonmusicians in this respect.
Taken together, the present findings might shed new
light on sex differences, for example, that have been
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 70
70 Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert, & Laura A. Mitchell
frequently reported with respect to music production
(North & Hargreaves, 1995). Proficiency in music per-
formance should be associated with a cognitive style
that favors the perception of musical structure and
other aspects that relate to the technical realization of
music over its potential emotional effect on listeners.
However, the self-reported music performance experi-
ence levels should be understood as approximate
indices to the participants preparatory state. Further
studies are needed to investigate this differentiation in
different music cultures and communities, for example,
classical versus pop musicians.
Limitations of the present study must be considered
at all stages of the scale development as well as with
respect to the analysis of individual differences by
applying the new ME and MS scales. First of all, there
were multifactor solutions in all factor analysis proce-
dures, which suggest that there may exist additional
cognitive styles in listening to music that are inde-
pendent of ME and MS. However, these additional fac-
tors only represent substantially smaller proportions of
variance and thus are to be considered subordinate to
the proposed two-factor solutions presented. Second, a
number of weighting procedures have been consid-
ered. The simplified unit weighting (SUW) emerged as
a plausible solution, which preserves the structure of
the original scales before transformation and thus pro-
vides a pragmatic option for scoring ME and MS
scales.
It is far from clear how the sex differences observed
in the present study relate to the findings of previous
studies on music perception and production using dif-
ferent methodologies. The most striking difference is
References
B ARAFF, E., & C OLEY, J. D. (2003, July). Thinking about music:
Novice and expert inductive reasoning. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston,
MA.
B ARON -C OHEN , S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of
autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 248-254.
B ARON -C OHEN , S. (2003). The essential difference: Male and
female brains and the truth about autism. New York: Basic Books.
B ARON -C OHEN , S., K NICKMEYER , R. C., & B ELMONTE , M. K.
(2005). Sex differences in the brain: Implications for
explaining autism. Science, 310, 819-823.
B ARON -C OHEN , S., OR IORDAN , M., J ONES , R., S TONE , V., &
P LAISTED, K. (1999). Recognition of faux pas by normally
developing children and children with Asperger syndrome or
This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
that previous work has relied on obtaining responses
from listening rather than from reflecting in the
absence of musical sound. Future studies might exam-
ine the relationship between sex, musical expertise,
and music cognition in some more detail by specifi-
cally including more objective measures of musical
proficiency as well as incorporating music listening
tasks.
In conclusion, the present study provides a valid
and reliable means for the investigation of cognitive
styles in music listening. It thus corroborates the cur-
rent view of music as a link between cognition and
emotion (Krumhansl, 2002) by providing quantita-
tive measures of two key dimensions, i.e., music
empathizing and music systemizing. These measures
accommodate two distinct purposes. First, they
address the psychological differences in musical rea-
soning in relation to general theories of cognitive
processing, and second, they reflect music in our con-
scious thoughts both as a cultural technique and as a
language of emotion.
Author Note
The authors wish to acknowledge the most valuable
comments from Prof. W Jay Dowling and three anony-
mous reviewers.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Prof. Dr. Gunter Kreutz, Department of
Music, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg,
Ammerlnder Heerstr. 114-118, D-26129 Oldenburg,
Germany; E-MAIL: gunter.kreutz@uni-oldenburg.de.
high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 29, 407-418.
B HARUCHA , J. J., C URTIS , M., & PAROO, K. (2006). Varieties
of musical experience. Cognition, 100, 131-172.
C HAMORRO -P REMUZIC , T., & F URNHAM , A. (2007).
Personality and music: Can traits explain how people use music
in everyday life? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 175-185.
FARNSWORTH , P. R. (1969). The social psychology of music (2nd
ed.). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
G ABRIELSSON , A., & L INDSTRM W IK , S. (2003). Strong
experiences related to music: A descriptive system. Musicae
Scientiae, 7, 157-217.
G RICE , J. W. (2001). A comparison of factor scores under
conditions of factor obliquity. Psychological Methods, 6, 67-83.
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 71
G ROMKO, J. E. (1993). Perceptual differences between expert
and novice music listeners: A multidimensional scaling
analysis. Psychology of Music, 21, 34-37.
H YDE , J. S., & L INN , M. C. (1988). Gender differences in
verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104,
53-69.
JACKENDOFF, R., & L ERDAHL , F. (2006). The capacity for
music: What is it, and whats special about it? Cognition, 100,
33-72.
K AMENETSKY, S. B., H ILL , D. S., & T REHUB , S. E. (1997).
Effect of tempo and dynamics on the perception of emotion
in music. Psychology of Music, 25, 149-160.
K IMURA , D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
KOELSCH , S., G ROSSMANN , T., G UNTER , T. C., H AHNE , A.,
S CHRGER , E., & F RIEDERICI , A. D. (2003). Children
processing music. Electric brain responses reveal musical
competence and gender differences. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 15, 683-693.
KOELSCH , S., G UNTER , T. C., W ITTFROH , M., & S AMMLER , D.
(2005). Interaction between syntax processing in language
and in music: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 17, 1565-1577.
KOELSCH , S., M AESS , B., G ROSSMANN , T., & F RIEDERICI , A.
D. (2003). Electric brain responses reveal gender differences
in music processing. Neuroreport, 14, 709-713.
K REUTZ , G., & LOTZE , M. (2008). Neuroscience of music and
emotion. In W. Gruhn & F. Rauscher (Eds.), Neurosciences in
music pedagogy (pp. 143-168). New York: Nova.
K RUMHANSL , C. L. (2002). Music: A link between cognition
and emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11,
45-50.
M C C LURE , E. B. (2000). A meta-analytic review of sex differences
in facial expression processing and their development in
This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 71
infants, children, and adolescents. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 424-453.
M C C RAE , R. R., & C OSTA , P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of
personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139153). New
York: Guilford Press.
NATER , U. M., A BBRUZZESE , E., K REBS , M., & E HLERT, U.
(2006). Sex differences in emotional and psychophysiological
responses to musical stimuli. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 62, 300-308.
N ETTLE , D. (2007). Empathizing and systemizing: What are they,
and what do they contribute to our understanding of psycholo-
gical sex differences? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 237-255
N ORTH , A. C. C OLLEY, A. M., & H ARGREAVES , D. J. (2003).
Adolescents perceptions of the music of male and female
composers. Psychology of Music, 31, 139-154.
N ORTH , A. C., & H ARGREAVES , D. J. (1995). Eminence in pop
music. Popular Music and Society, 19, 41-66.
N ORTH , A. C., & H ARGREAVES , D. J. (1996). Affective and
evaluative responses to the arts. Empirical Studies of the Arts,
14, 207-22.
ON EILL , S. A. (1997). Gender and music. In D. J. Hargreaves &
A. C. North (Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 46-63).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
S HEPARD, R. N., & M ETZLER , J. (1971). Mental rotation of
three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703.
WAKABAYASHI A., B ARON -C OHEN , S., W HEELWRIGHT, S.,
G OLDENFELD, N., D ELANEY, J., F INE , D., ET AL . (2006).
Development of short forms of the Empathy Quotient (EQ-
Short) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQ-Short). Personality
and Individual Differences, 41, 929-940.
Z BIKOWSKI , L. M. (2002). Conceptualizing music. Cognitive
structure, theory, and analysis. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 72

72 Gunter Kreutz, Emery Schubert, & Laura A. Mitchell

Appendix A

Items of Music-Empathizing-Systemizing Inventory Used in Survey 1.

Music Empathizing Items

ME01 The personality of good musicians is what attracts me to music.
ME02n It would be difficult for me to pick up, if a performing musician is distressed while playing.
ME03 I think that I can easily sense how performers feel while playing music.
ME04 I like to dance to music that is good for dancing.
ME05 I tend to still like poor music performances, if I can relate to the performer.
ME06n I never guess the emotions of the performer(s).
ME07 I prefer to watch live performers rather than listening to recordings.
ME08 Music is important to me mainly because it expresses something personal and touching.
ME09n I think that the musical identity of the performer should be far less important than the music he or she plays.
ME10 Listening to music gives me generally more images of people than of objects.
ME11n I do not really enjoy the atmosphere of big rave parties or rock concerts.
ME12n I have a poor sense of what is in a musicians mind.
ME13 When I listen to good instrumental music, it feels in a way like someone is telling me a story.
ME14n I never find the lyrics of a song to be meaningful to me.
ME15 When listening to music, I have thoughts about the emotional state of the writer/composer at the time.
ME16n I do not feel I am able to identify with the singers/writers of my favourite music.
ME17 I feel when listening to music I can understand the emotions the writer/performer is trying to express.
ME18n I do not care about the lives of my favourite artists at the times they produced a certain song/album.
ME19 I like to read the biographies of my favourite artists.
ME20n It is unimportant to me to understand the emotions behind a song.
ME21 I could easily choose examples from my music collection of songs that make me feel relaxed, uplifted, sad etc.
ME22n It is difficult for me to imagine the state of mind of composers what they might have been going through
while writing a piece of music.
ME23 I often experience physical sensations such as tears, shivers etc when listening to certain pieces of music.
ME24 Music can give me sensations of chills.

Music Systemizing Items

MS01 = MS25 Music is a kind of language that can be more effective than verbal language.
MS02n I am not interested in understanding the structure of a piece of music.
MS03 Music performance is only important in as much as it underlines the structure of the composition.
MS04n I do not believe that music represents the universe.
MS05 I think that people who do understand the rules of music composition gain most out of it.
MS06n I am not intrigued about the physics and acoustics of musical instruments.
MS07 I often wonder how the mechanics of musical instruments work.
MS08 I find it generally easier to understand a piece of music than to understand peoples talk.
MS09 It is unimportant to me whether other people have the same musical taste as me.
MS10 I tend to avoid large concert audiences.
MS11 I like hearing the different layers of instruments and voices in a song/piece of music.
MS12n I have never found myself wondering what happens next in my favourite music.
MS13 I find written music scores very interesting and I especially like the organised way that music is laid out.
MS14n I do not find the rhythm of a piece of music particularly important and interesting.
MS15 I like the way a song comes together from all its different parts.
MS16n I think it is least important that music has mathematical foundations.
MS17 At concerts, I like to see the roles of the different band/orchestra members and how it all comes together.
MS18 I like to keep my music collection clearly ordered, e.g. alphabetically or by genre.
MS19n I am not at all interested in the production side of music and the technologies involved.
MS20 I like music to fit clearly into a particular genre, i.e. classical, folk etc.
MS21n I am easily bored by songs with clearly defined structure a verse and chorus etc.

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 73

Cognitive Styles of Music Listening 73

Appendix A

(Continued)

General Empathizing Items

EQ14 I can tune into how someone else feels rapidly and intuitively.
EQ22 I am good at predicting how someone will feel.
EQ28 Other people tell me I am good at understanding how they are feeling and what they are thinking.
EQ34 Friends usually talk to me about their problems as they say that I am very understanding.

General Systemizing Items

SQ08 I am fascinated by how machines work.
SQ10n I find it difficult to understand instruction manuals for putting appliances together.
SQ12 If I were buying a stereo, I would want to know about its precise technical features.
SQ22 If I were buying a computer, I would want to know exact details about its hard disc drive capacity and processor
speed.
Note: the suffix n refers to items stated in the negative.

Appendix B

High-Loading Music-Empathizing-Systemizing Items Identified by Factor Analyses in Surveys 1 and 2.

Music Empathizing Items

Survey 1 Survey 2 Item
ME03 ME01 I think that I can easily sense how performers feel while playing music.
ME08 ME02 Music is important to me mainly because it expresses something personal and touching.
ME15 ME03 When listening to music, I have thoughts about the emotional state of the writer/composer at the time.
ME17 ME04 I feel when listening to music I can understand the emotions the writer/performer is trying to express.
ME23 ME05 I often experience physical sensations such as tears, shivers etc when listening to certain pieces of music.
ME06n ME06n I never guess the emotions of the performer(s).
ME14n ME07n I never find the lyrics of a song to be meaningful to me.
ME16n ME08n I do not feel I am able to identify with the singers/writers of my favourite music.
ME18n ME09n I do not care about the lives of my favourite artists at the times they produced a certain song/album.

Music Systemizing Items

Survey 1 Survey 2 Item
MS07 MS01 I often wonder how the mechanics of musical instruments work.
MS11 MS02 I like hearing the different layers of instruments and voices in a song/piece of music.
MS13 MS03* I especially like the organised way that music is laid out.
MS17 MS04* At concerts, I like to see the roles of the different band/orchestra members.
MS18 MS05 I like to keep my music collection clearly ordered, e.g., alphabetically or by genre.
MS02n MS06n I am not interested in understanding the structure of a piece of music.
MS06n MS07n I am not intrigued about the physics and acoustics of musical instruments.
MS15n MS08n* I do not find it interesting how music is created from different parts.
MS19n MS09n I am not at all interested in the production side of music and the technologies involved.
Note: the suffix n refers to items stated in the negative; Items marked with an asterisk were slightly revised for balance in Survey 2.

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Music2601_04 8/7/08 3:26 PM Page 74

This content downloaded from 142.58.132.175 on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:26:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms