The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Arts in Psychotherapy

The mechanism of music for reducing psychological stress:

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

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

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

1. Introduction
Psychological stress (hereafter referred to as stress) is one of
the most critical problems in modern society, and has become a
great risk to human health. Listening to music is a non-invasive
intervention, which can be used to alleviate stress because of its
close correlation with emotion (e.g., Bradt, Dileo, & Shim, 2013;
Linnemann, Ditzen, Strahler, Doerr, & Nater, 2015; Robb, Nichols,
Rutan, Bishop, & Parker, 1995; Thoma et al., 2015). Not all music
is appropriate for stress reduction however (Chafin, Roy, Gerin,
& Christenfeld, 2004; Yehuda, 2011). Knowing how various fac-
tors associated with music listening can impact on stress reduction
would enable music listeners to more readily choose music appro-
priate for this purpose, and increase efficacy.
Music is considered to have properties that induce arousal
(low arousal vs. high arousal) and valence (low pleasure vs. high
pleasure), which are in turn mediated by listeners’ music train-
ing background, music preference, and familiarity with the piece.
More specifically, low-arousal music is considered to be more
effective than high-arousal music in alleviating tension or state
∗ Corresponding author at: Music College, Shanghai Normal University, 100 E.
Guilin Road, Shanghai 200234, China.
E-mail address: cunmeijiang@126.com (C. Jiang).
anxiety (Fisher & Greenberg, 1972; Gan, Lim, & Haw, 2015; Iwanaga,
Kobayashi, & Kawasaki, 2005; Iwanaga & Moroki, 1999; Lingham
& Theorell, 2009; Sandstrom & Russo, 2010); high-pleasure music
tends to reduce stress more effectively than low-pleasure music
(Sandstrom & Russo, 2010); musically trained listeners were found
to have a lower state anxiety score after listening to low-arousal
music compared with untrained listeners (Smith & Morris, 1977);
familiar music can make listeners less anxious (Sung, Lee, Li, &
Watson, 2012), calm and tranquil (Margounakis & Politis, 2012).
Furthermore, it has been suggested that music preference corre-
lates negatively with state anxiety (Smith & Morris, 1977), and
positively with relaxation (Stratton & Zalanowski, 1984). The effect
of preferred music listening on stress reduction has been reported
for college students (Davis & Thaut, 1989; Iwanaga & Moroki, 1999;
Jeong, 2008), air traffic controllers (Lesiuk, 2008), and patients
(Clark et al., 2006; Rosenow & Silverman, 2014). There is also a pos-
itive correlation between years of music training and perceived and
felt emotions (Castro & Lima, 2014; Lima & Castro, 2011; Rawlings
& Leow, 2008). In these studies, the longer the music training lis-
teners have, the more intensely they were able to perceive and
experience the emotional impact of the music.
In contrast, other studies found no association between arousal
(Rohner & Miller, 1980; Stratton & Zalanowski, 1984), music pref-
erence (Sandstrom & Russo, 2010), familiarity (Chafin et al., 2004;
Hatta & Nakamura, 1991), music training (Knight & Rickard, 2001;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aip.2016.02.002
0197-4556/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68
Laohawattanakun et al., 2011) and stress reduction. These contra-
dictory findings suggest the relationships amongst these factors
are complex. Indeed, several studies have observed the interac-
tions between arousal and familiarity (Iwanaga, Ikeda, & Iwaki,
1996), between arousal and music preference (Jiang, Zhou, Rickson,
& Jiang, 2013), and between music type and music training (Wang,
2014). For example, Jiang et al. (2013) found that listening to low-
arousal music induced significantly lower tension and state anxiety
levels than listening to high-arousal music when music was not
preferred. However, there was no significant difference between
low-arousal and high-arousal music for reducing tension and state
anxiety levels when music was preferred.
The aim of the present study was to examine the mechanisms
through which music might alleviate psychological stress. Specif-
ically we aimed to determine how the factors influence stress
reduction and which factor plays the most important role in stress
reduction. In order to examine the role of music training on stress
reduction, we included participants with different lengths of music
training ranging from 0.5 to 14 years. Potential participants who
experienced induced stress after a mental arithmetic test were
included in this study.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Two hundred and eighty female undergraduates majoring in
music education were recruited for this study. This study was
approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Normal University.
All participants had normal hearing, volunteered for the research
and provided written informed consents. Eighty participants were
excluded because they did not experience induced stress after
a mental arithmetic test. Consequently, 200 participants took
part in this experiment and were assigned to eight experimental
groups (n = 25), each listening to one piece of music: familiar high
arousal-high pleasure music (FHHM), familiar high arousal-low
pleasure music (FHLM), familiar low arousal-low pleasure music
(FLLM), familiar low arousal-high pleasure music (FLHM), unfa-
miliar high arousal-high pleasure music (UHHM), unfamiliar high
arousal-low pleasure music (UHLM), unfamiliar low arousal-low
pleasure music (ULLM), and unfamiliar low arousal-high pleasure
music (ULHM). Table 1 presents the participants’ characteristics
and the means and standard deviations of tension and state anx-
iety levels before and after the mental arithmetic task (stressor).
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that there
were no significant differences in age, F(7,192) = 1.31, p = .249,
2p = .05, and length of music training, F(7,192) = 0.85, p = .549,
2p = .03, across the eight groups. To assess the efficacy of the
stressor, we conducted a two-way ANOVA on tension or state
anxiety level, with time (prestressor and poststressor) as the
within-subjects variable and group (FHHM, FHLM, FLLM, FLHM,
UHHM, UHLM, ULLM and ULHM) as the between-subjects vari-
able. For the tension level, There was a significant main effect of
time, F(1,192) = 1007.81, p < .001, 2p = .84, but the main effect of
group, F(7,192) = 0.55, p = .797, 2p = .02, and the time by group
interaction, F(7,192) = 0.43, p = .884, 2p = .02, were not significant.
For the state anxiety level, the main effect of time was signifi-
cant, F(1,192) = 604.13, p < .001, 2p = .76, although the main effect
of group, F(7,192) = 1.27, p = .266, 2p = .04, and the interaction
between time and group, F(7,192) = 0.49, p = .844, 2p = .02, did not
reach significance. These results indicated that the mental arith-
metic task increased participants’ stress levels, and the eight groups
did not differ in the tension and state anxiety levels prior to listening
to music.
63
2.2. Stimuli
A pretest study was conducted to select music excerpts for this
study. Thirty two music excerpts were selected by the experimen-
ters, each representing one of the four quadrants of Russell’s (1980)
circumplex model. In this model, emotional states reflect a mixture
of two core dimensions, valence and arousal representing pleasant-
ness (hedonic tone) and excitation (intensity). There are thus four
quadrants in the circumplex model including high-pleasure and
high-arousal emotions, low-pleasure and high-arousal emotions,
low-pleasure and low-arousal emotions, and high-pleasure and
low-arousal emotions. The heuristic value of the two-dimensional
model was confirmed measuring emotional expression and induc-
tion through music (e.g., Eerola & Vuoskoski, 2011; Ritossa &
Rickard, 2004; Schubert, 1999; Vieillard et al., 2008). Twenty female
undergraduates majoring in music education who did not partici-
pate in the formal experiment listened to the excerpts, and rated
each on valence, arousal, and familiarity. In terms of valence, the
excerpts with a mean rating higher than five were considered as
high-pleasure music, a mean rating lower than three being low-
pleasure music. Similarly, the excerpts with a mean arousal rating
higher than five were high-arousal music, while those with a mean
rating lower than three were considered as low-arousal music.
Familiar excerpts were those with a familiarity rating higher than
five, while unfamiliar excerpts were those with a familiarity rating
lower than three. In order to ensure the participants in the FHHM,
FHLM, FLLM, and FLHM groups were familiar with music excerpts,
all of the participants were asked to listen repeatedly to the four
pieces of music rated ‘familiar’ in the pre-test (Victory, Mars—the
Bringer of War, Ase’s Death, and Tempo di Bolero moderato assai),
and as far as possible to remember them within two weeks prior
to the formal experiment. Based on the ratings, the most repre-
sentative eight excerpts (see Table 2) were selected as the music
stimuli. All music excerpts were instrumental music composed by
Western composers to avoid the influence of lyrics on listeners’
emotional responses to music (Ali & Peynircioglu, 2006; Brattico
et al., 2011; Hunter, Schellenberg, & Schimmack, 2010; Stratton &
Zalanowski, 1994). The duration of all excerpts was 4:35 with a 1-
s fade-in and/or a 1-s fade-out (Kreutz, Ott, Teichmann, Osawa, &
Vaitl, 2008; Sandstrom & Russo, 2010).
2.3. Measures
A mental arithmetic test as a stressor was administered
to induce participants’ stress. There were 50 items (e.g., 1.
8026 − 37 = ? 10. 7386 × 2 = ?) in the test, and participants were
required to complete the items within 5 min.
The Tension Rating Scale was used to measure the levels of
tension participants felt. They were required to rate their own lev-
els of tension on a 4-point Likert scale with 1 being “not at all”,
2 being “slightly”, 3 being “moderately”, and 4 being “very much”.
Higher ratings indicate more tense participants felt. The State Anx-
iety Inventory, a subscale of State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI;
Spielberger, 1983), was used to measure the state anxiety levels.
STAI is a 40-item self-report questionnaire with 20 of the items
making up the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI), and the other 20 items
making up the Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI). The STAI uses a 4-point
Likert scale response format with a range from 1 (“not at all” for the
SAI or “almost never” for the TAI) to 4 (“very much so” for the SAI
or “almost always” for the TAI). Higher scores indicate higher lev-
els of anxiety. Test–retest stability coefficients for the SAI range
from .16 to .62, and correlations for the TAI range from .73 to .86
(Spielberger, 1983). The STAI has also demonstrated good concur-
rent and construct validity (Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh,
1999).
64 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68

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

Group Age Length Tension State anxiety

Prestressor Poststressor Prestressor Poststressor

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

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

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

Music Composer Excerpt Valence Arousal Familiarity

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

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

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

Table 3
Correlations for the variables.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

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

Model Tension State anxiety

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

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

Fig. 1. SEM depicting the relationship between valence and arousal and tension (a) and state anxiety (b) with music preference as a partial mediator. ***p< .001.
66 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68
Table 5
Dominance analysis of music preference (X1 ), arousal (X2 ) and valence (X3 ) in predicting tension and state anxiety.
Subset model Tension
Additional contribution of
2 2
R X1 X2
Null (no predictors) .651 .242
Models with one predictor
X1 .651 .049
X2 .242 .458
X3 .295 .356 .239
Models with two predictors
X1 , X2 .700
X1 , X3 .651 .055
X2 , X3 .534 .172
Models with three predictors
X1 , X2 , X3 .706
Overall average .410 .147
95% CI = [.16, .29], p < .001) on tension through music preference
were significant. Likewise, the indirect effects of valence (indirect
effect = −.32, SE = .05, 95% CI = [−.43, −.23], p < .001) and arousal
(indirect effect = .17, SE = .03, 95% CI = [.11, .23], p < .001) on state
anxiety through music preference were significant. Model 1 with
standardized regression coefficients is depicted in Fig. 1. As can
be seen, valence and arousal not only directly but also indirectly
through music preference influenced tension (Fig. 1a) and state
anxiety (Fig. 1b). The results suggest that the effects of valence and
arousal on stress are partly mediated by music preference.
3.3. Dominance analysis
Standardized regression coefficients may give an indication of
the relative importance of each predictor in the structural equa-
tion modeling (SEM), with higher values for regression coefficients
indicating more importance. As shown in Fig. 1, music preference
might be more important than valence and arousal for reducing
stress. In order to determine which factor plays the most important
role in the stress reduction, dominance analysis was employed in
the present study. Dominance analysis is considered to be a new
and reliable method for comparing the relative importance of pre-
dictors (Azen, 2013; Azen & Budescu, 2003; Budescu, 1993), and
has been widely applied in previous research (e.g., Kim, Petscher,
Schatschneider, & Foorman, 2010; Suh, Diener, Oishi, & Triandis,
1998; Tighe & Schatschneider, 2014). Table 5 summarizes the
results of dominance analysis for tension and state anxiety levels.
The first column identifies the variables in each subset model. The
columns labeled R2 represent the variance in tension or state anx-
iety levels explained by the model appearing in the corresponding
row. Columns labeled Xi show the increase in R2 as a result of adding
that particular predictor into the row model. In addition, the last
row labeled overall average was obtained by averaging the values in
the corresponding column above it. As can be shown, music prefer-
ence explained 41.0% of the variance in tension level, while arousal
and valence accounted for 14.7% and 14.9% of the variance, respec-
tively. Regarding the state anxiety level, 29.9% of the variance was
due to music preference, whereas 10.6% and 15.9% was attributed
to arousal and valence. These results confirm that music preference
is the most important predictor of stress level.
4. Discussion
It has been suggested that stress reduction efficacy would be
affected by many factors such as music arousal and valence, lis-
teners’ music preference, familiarity, and music training. Previous
research, however, has produced conflicting results. Based on this,
State anxiety
Additional contribution of
X3 R X1 X2 X3
.295 .510 .171 .301
.000 .510 .030 .007
.292 .171 .369 .298
.301 .216 .168
.006 .540 .024
.517 .047
.469 .095
.564
.149 .299 .106 .159
the purpose of the present study was to explore the mechanisms
of music for reducing stress to determine how the factors influence
stress reduction, and which factor is most salient. Our results indi-
cated that music preference, arousal and valence did predict stress
reduction, and the effects of valence and arousal on stress reduc-
tion were partially mediated by music preference. Music preference
plays a critical role when music is used for stress reduction. These
results have important implications for those wanting to use music
to reduce stress.
Our finding is consistent with previous evidence that music
preference is more important than arousal (Jiang et al., 2013), and
arousal is more important than valence (Sandstrom & Russo, 2010).
This may be due to the fact that music preference is positively cor-
related with the intensity of felt happiness (Hunter et al., 2010;
Kreutz et al., 2008) and peace (Kreutz et al., 2008). The more pref-
erence listeners have for the music, the more intense happiness or
peace they feel. Nonetheless, Sandstrom and Russo (2010) did not
find a significant correlation between liking music and stress levels.
The conflicting findings may be attributed to difference of point of
Likert scale the two studies used. A 4-point Likert scale was used
for rating preference in the study of Sandstrom and Russo (2010),
whereas a 7-point Likert scale was used in the present study. In
Sandstrom and Russo’s (2010) study, the restricted rating range (4-
point scale) may have pointed to nonsignificance even when there
was an actual correlation between the two variables (Kantowitz,
Roediger, & Elmes, 2014; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).
On the other hand, the relative importance of music preference
on stress reduction could be also explained by appraisal theory. The
theory claims that it is evaluations and interpretations of events,
not events per se that determine one’s emotional responses (e.g.,
Lazarus, 1982; Moors, 2013; Roseman, 1991; Smith et al., 1993). If
music is evaluated as preferred, then it could induce positive emo-
tions and contribute to relaxation. On the contrary, if music is not
liked, then it could cause negative emotions. This explanation has
been supported by neuroscientific evidence that intense pleasure in
response to preferred music is associated with dopamine activity in
the mesolimbic reward system (Montag, Reuter, & Axmacher, 2011;
Salimpoor, Benovoy, Larcher, Dagher, & Zatorre, 2011; Salimpoor
et al., 2013).
Our finding that arousal influences stress reduction, to a certain
extent, is in line with past research that found low-arousal music
has larger effect than high-arousal music in reducing stress (e.g.,
Gan et al., 2015; Iwanaga & Moroki, 1999; Jiang et al., 2013; Lingham
& Theorell, 2009; Sandstrom & Russo, 2010). However, other stud-
ies did not find significant differences in relaxation levels induced
by high-arousal and low-arousal music listening (Rohner & Miller,
1980; Stratton & Zalanowski, 1984). This discrepancy may result
 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68
from the difference in methodology between the studies. Unlike
the attentive music listening in the present study, Rohner and Miller
(1980) did not require participants to listen to the music. Rather,
they told them that the music was to help pass the time. Com-
pared with attentive music listening, passive music listening may
have weaker effects on stress reduction. In the study by Stratton
and Zalanowski (1984) mentioned above, both the low-arousal
and high-arousal music were participant-preferred, whereas in the
present study preferred and nonpreferred music was included. If
there is no difference between high-arousal and low-arousal music
in reducing stress when participants like the music (Jiang et al.,
2013), then the effect of arousal should not have been observed by
Stratton and Zalanowski (1984).
Although Sandstrom and Russo (2010) reported that high-
pleasure music was marginally better than low-pleasure music
in reducing state anxiety, the effect was not significant. This is
different from our finding which indicated that participants feel
less state anxiety when listening to music rated as pleasurable,
than music that is not. One possible explanation is the differ-
ence in duration of music clips between the two studies. In our
study, the duration of music clips was 4:35, while 2-min music
clips were used in Sandstrom and Russo’s (2010) study. When
the focus is on felt emotions, the induction of an emotional
response and the subsequent self-reporting of the experienced
emotion may require a longer duration (Eerola & Vuoskoski,
2013). It may be difficult to make a realistic evaluation within
a relative short clip (Ritossa & Rickard, 2004). Another possible
explanation relates to sample size. In the present study, there
were 200 participants, and each group contained 50 listeners.
However, Sandstrom and Russo (2010) included 63 participants,
each group contained at most 22 listeners. This relatively small
sample size may not have the power to detect the effect of
valence.
Familiarity ratings did not predict stress level in the present
study, which is consistent with some previous studies (Chafin et al.,
2004; Hatta & Nakamura, 1991), but not with others (Margounakis
& Politis, 2012; Sung et al., 2012). The conflicting findings may
be attributed to the relationship between familiarity and prefer-
ence. It has been reported that familiarity is positively correlated
with music preference (Rawlings & Leow, 2008; Ritossa & Rickard,
2004; Tan, Yowler, Super, & Fratianne, 2012). That is, familiar music
is also preferred. The effect of familiarity reported in Sung et al.’s
(2012) study may be due to the role of music preference, since the
researcher reported the familiar music was also preferred music
for participants. Likewise, the effect of familiarity in the study by
Margounakis and Politis (2012) may be attributed to the confusion
of familiarity and preference, although the researchers have not
reported the degree of liking for music excerpts.
Previous studies (Knight & Rickard, 2001; Laohawattanakun
et al., 2011) have reported that music training had no significant
effects on stress reduction. Our findings reinforce that even for
listeners with music training, the length of music training does
not affect the efficacy of music for stress reduction. It is, how-
ever, contradictory to the finding of Smith and Morris (1977), who
demonstrated that the effect of low-arousal music on state anxiety
reduction is greater for music majors than for nonmusic majors.
The discrepancy may be due to the difference in music prefer-
ence. Unlike the music major participants in the present study,
music major listeners in the study of Smith and Morris (1977) liked
low-arousal music more than nonmusic majors. It is therefore prob-
able that the effect of music training is attributable to the effect of
music preference. Indeed, music emotion studies also reveal music
training background would not affect intensity of felt emotion for
listeners (Harrer & Harrer, 1977; Kreutz et al., 2008).
In conclusion, although valence and arousal influence psy-
chological stress, these effects are partially mediated by music
67
preference. Our findings suggest that music preference plays a criti-
cal role on the potential for music to reduce stress, provide a deeper
understanding of stress-reducing effects of music, and have impor-
tant implications for individuals and clinicians who wish to use
music to reduce stress.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a grant from the National Nat-
ural Science Foundation of China (31470972) to C.J.
References
Ali, S. O., & Peynircioglu, Z. F. (2006). Songs and emotions: Are lyrics and melodies
equal partners? Psychology of Music, 34(4), 511–534.
Azen, R. (2013). Using dominance analysis to estimate predictor importance in
multiple. In Y. Petscher, C. Schatschneider, & D. L. Compton (Eds.), Applied quan-
titative analysis in education and the social sciences (pp. 34–64). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing
predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 129–148.
Bradt, J., Dileo, C., & Shim, M. (2013). Music interventions for preoperative anxiety.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.
CD006908.pub2
Brattico, E., Alluri, V., Bogert, B., Jacobsen, T., Vartiainen, N., Nieminen, S., et al. (2011).
A functional MRI study of happy and sad emotions in music with and with-
out lyrics. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 308. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.
00308
Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of
relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin,
114(3), 542–551.
Castro, S. L., & Lima, C. F. (2014). Age and musical expertise influence emotion
recognition in music. Music Perception, 32(2), 125–142.
Chafin, S., Roy, M., Gerin, W., & Christenfeld, N. (2004). Music can facilitate
blood pressure recovery from stress. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9(3),
393–403.
Clark, M., Isaacks-Downton, G., Wells, N., Redlin-Frazier, S., Eck, C., Hepworth,
J. T., et al. (2006). Use of preferred music to reduce emotional distress and
symptom activity during radiation therapy. Journal of Music Therapy, 43(3),
247–265.
Davis, W. B., & Thaut, M. H. (1989). The influence of preferred relaxing music on
measures of state anxiety, relaxation, and physiological responses. Journal of
Music Therapy, 26(4), 168–187.
Eerola, T., & Vuoskoski, J. K. (2011). A comparison of the discrete and dimensional
models of emotion in music. Psychology of Music, 39(1), 18–49.
Eerola, T., & Vuoskoski, J. K. (2013). A review of music and emotion stud-
ies: Approaches, emotion models, and stimuli. Music Perception, 30(3),
307–340.
Fisher, S., & Greenberg, R. P. (1972). Selective effects upon women of exciting and
calm music. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34(3), 987–990.
Gan, S. K.-E., Lim, K. M.-J., & Haw, Y.-X. (2015). The relaxation effects of stimulative
and sedative music on mathematics anxiety: A perception to physiology model.
Psychology of Music, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0305735615590430
Harrer, G., & Harrer, H. (1977). Music, emotion and autonomic function. In M. Critch-
ley, & R. A. Henson (Eds.), Music and the brain (pp. 202–216). London, England:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hatta, T., & Nakamura, M. (1991). Can antistress music tapes reduce mental stress?
Stress Medicine, 7(3), 181–184.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance struc-
ture analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Hunter, P. G., Schellenberg, E. G., & Schimmack, U. (2010). Feelings and perceptions
of happiness and sadness induced by music: Similarities, differences, and mixed
emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(1), 47–56.
Iwanaga, M., Ikeda, M., & Iwaki, T. (1996). The effects of repetitive exposure to
music on subjective and physiological responses. Journal of Music Therapy, 33(3),
219–230.
Iwanaga, M., Kobayashi, A., & Kawasaki, C. (2005). Heart rate variability with repet-
itive exposure to music. Biological Psychology, 70(1), 61–66.
Iwanaga, M., & Moroki, Y. (1999). Subjective and physiological responses to music
stimuli controlled over activity and preference. Journal of Music Therapy, 36(1),
26–38.
Jeong, H. C. (2008). The effect of music therapy on the physiological and psychologi-
cal status of women college students based on their preference of music. Journal
of Korean Academy of Adult Nursing, 20(2), 321–330.
Jiang, J., Zhou, L., Rickson, D., & Jiang, C. (2013). The effects of sedative and stimulative
music on stress reduction depend on music preference. The Arts in Psychotherapy,
40(2), 201–205.
Kantowitz, B. H., Roediger, H. L., & Elmes, D. G. (2014). Experimental psychology (10th
ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
68 J. Jiang et al. / The Arts in Psychotherapy 48 (2016) 62–68
Kim, Y.-S., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., & Foorman, B. (2010). Does growth rate in
oral reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement?
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 652–667.
Knight, W. E. J., & Rickard, N. S. (2001). Relaxing music prevents stress-induced
increases in subjective anxiety, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate in healthy
males and females. Journal of Music Therapy, 38(4), 254–272.
Kreutz, G., Ott, U., Teichmann, D., Osawa, P., & Vaitl, D. (2008). Using music to induce
emotions: Influences of musical preference and absorption. Psychology of Music,
36(1), 101–126.
Laohawattanakun, J., Chearskul, S., Dumrongphol, H., Jutapakdeegul, N., Yensuk-
jai, J., Khumphan, N., et al. (2011). Influence of music training on academic
examination-induced stress in Thai adolescents. Neuroscience Letters, 487(3),
310–312.
Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition.
American Psychologist, 37(9), 1019–1024.
Lesiuk, T. (2008). The effect of preferred music listening on stress levels of air traffic
controllers. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 35(1), 1–10.
Lima, C. F., & Castro, S. L. (2011). Emotion recognition in music changes across the
adult life span. Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 585–598.
Lingham, J., & Theorell, T. (2009). Self-selected “favourite” stimulative and sedative
music listening – How does familiar and preferred music listening affect the
body? Nordic Journal of Music Therapy, 18(2), 150–166.
Linnemann, A., Ditzen, B., Strahler, J., Doerr, J. M., & Nater, U. M. (2015). Music lis-
tening as a means of stress reduction in daily life. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 60,
82–90.
Margounakis, D., & Politis, D. (2012). Exploring the relations between chromaticism,
familiarity, scales and emotional responses in music. In Paper presented at the
19th Colloquium on Music Informatics.
Montag, C., Reuter, M., & Axmacher, N. (2011). How one’s favorite song activates the
reward circuitry of the brain: Personality matters!. Behavioural Brain Research,
225(2), 511–514.
Moors, A. (2013). On the causal role of appraisal in emotion. Emotion Review, 5(2),
132–140.
Rawlings, D., & Leow, S. H. (2008). Investigating the role of psychoticism and sen-
sation seeking in predicting emotional reactions to music. Psychology of Music,
36(3), 269–287.
Ritossa, D. A., & Rickard, N. S. (2004). The relative utility of ‘pleasantness’ and ‘liking’
dimensions in predicting the emotions expressed by music. Psychology of Music,
32(1), 5–22.
Robb, S. L., Nichols, R. J., Rutan, R. L., Bishop, B. L., & Parker, J. C. (1995). The effects
of music assisted relaxation on preoperative anxiety. Journal of Music Therapy,
32(1), 2–21.
Rohner, S. J., & Miller, R. (1980). Degrees of familiar and affective music and their
effects on state anxiety. Journal of Music Therapy, 17(1), 2–15.
Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and
Emotion, 5(3), 161–200.
Rosenow, S. C., & Silverman, M. J. (2014). Effects of single session music therapy on
hospitalized patients recovering from a bone marrow transplant: Two studies.
The Arts in Psychotherapy, 41(1), 65–70.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178.
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatom-
ically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak
emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 257–262.
Salimpoor, V. N., van den Bosch, I., Kovacevic, N., McIntosh, A. R., Dagher, A., & Zatorre,
R. J. (2013). Interactions between the nucleus accumbens and auditory cortices
predict music reward value. Science, 340(6129), 216–219.
Sandstrom, G. M., & Russo, F. A. (2010). Music hath charms: The effects of valence
and arousal on recovery following an acute stressor. Music and Medicine, 2(3),
137–143.
Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential
checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes
in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Schubert, E. (1999). Measuring emotion continuously: Validity and reliability of
the two-dimensional emotion-space. Australian Journal of Psychology, 51(3),
154–165.
Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). In search of the “hot”
cognitions: Attributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 916–929.
Smith, C. A., & Morris, L. W. (1977). Differential effects of stimulative and sedative
music on anxiety, concentration and performance. Psychological Reports, 41(3f),
1047–1053.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (Form Y). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Sydeman, S. J., Owen, A. E., & Marsh, B. J. (1999). Measuring anxiety
and anger with the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) and the state-trait anger
expression inventory (STAXI). In M. E. Maurish (Ed.), The use of psychological
testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (2nd ed., pp. 993–1021).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stratton, V. N., & Zalanowski, A. H. (1984). The relationship between music, degree
of liking, and self-reported relaxation. Journal of Music Therapy, 21(4), 184–192.
Stratton, V. N., & Zalanowski, A. H. (1994). Affective impact of music vs. lyrics. Empir-
ical Studies of the Arts, 12(2), 173–184.
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998). The shifting basis of life satisfac-
tion judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74(2), 482–493.
Sung, H., Lee, W., Li, T., & Watson, R. (2012). A group music intervention using
percussion instruments with familiar music to reduce anxiety and agitation of
institutionalized older adults with dementia. International Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 27(6), 621–627.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson Education.
Tan, X., Yowler, C. J., Super, D. M., & Fratianne, R. B. (2012). The interplay of pref-
erence, familiarity and psychophysical properties in defining relaxation music.
Journal of Music Therapy, 49(2), 150–179.
Thoma, M. V., Zemp, M., Kreienbühl, L., Hofer, D., Schmidlin, P. R., Attin, T., et al.
(2015). Effects of music listening on pre-treatment anxiety and stress levels in
a dental hygiene recall population. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
22(4), 498–505.
Tighe, E. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2014). A dominance analysis approach to
determining predictor importance in third, seventh, and tenth grade reading
comprehension skills. Reading and Writing, 27(1), 101–127.
Vieillard, S., Peretz, I., Gosselin, N., Khalfa, S., Gagnon, L., & Bouchard, B. (2008).
Happy, sad, scary and peaceful musical excerpts for research on emotions. Cog-
nition and Emotion, 22(4), 720–752.
Wang, W. (2014). A study of the type and characteristics of relaxing music for college
students. In Paper presented at the 167th Acoustical Society of America Meeting.
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural
equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling
(pp. 209–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Yehuda, N. (2011). Music and stress. Journal of Adult Development, 18(2), 85–94.