Background Results Method Discussion The Sound Of Politics Political Orientations And Musical Preferences Omari Stringer Mentor Chrysalis Wright University of Central Florida Charts amp Data Music is universal All across the world and throughout history humanity has relied on music for ple ID: 764770
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Background Results Method" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Background Results Method Discussion The Sound Of Politics: Political Orientations And Musical Preferences Omari Stringer Mentor: Chrysalis Wright University of Central Florida Charts & Data Music is universal. All across the world and throughout history, humanity has relied on music for pleasure, communication, and expression. Additionally, music has often been used to convey very specific messages through its lyrical content. Music fits in a larger media culture that can influence the thoughts and beliefs of many people. In this study, there was an interest in the relationship between music and political views or orientations. The late sixties and early seventies are known for the counter-culture movement and progressivism of their time. Fox and Williams (1974) focused on the idea of “protest music” and other types of music that convey political messages. However, times have changed significantly and we have seen the advents of not only new political movements, but new music forms and new technologies. As Eastman and Pettijohn (2015) noted, popular music is deeply influenced by sociocultural changes and we see it reflected in the music stylings and lyrical content. Initial studies measuring music involvement with political orientations have associated liberalism with increased time listening to music, attending more concerts, and listening to more of a variety of music (Fox & Williams, 1974; Peterson & Christenson, 1987). The current study hypothesized that there would be a significant relationship between political orientations and involvement in music and music genre preferences. It was also hypothesized that there would be a relationship between participant demographics music preferences. Furthermore, it was expected that participants would report a high level of music involvement (Agbo-Quaye & Robertson, 2010; RIAA, 2016). Additionally, it was hypothesized that participant demographic variables and music preferences could combine to help predict political orientation. Four hundred and forty-eight male (n = 157) and female (n = 301) college students participated in this online study. The age of the students ranged from 18-50 (M = 20.64). The majority of participants identified as White (51%, n = 227), followed by 22% Hispanic (n = 99), 16% African-American (n = 72), 7% Asian / Pacific Islander (n = 30), and 4% other (n = 20). As a whole, the sample leaned liberal, and the most popular music genres were: Rap / Hip-Hop (n = 127), Pop (n = 88), Alternative (n = 46), Rock (n = 44), and Religious Music (n = 37) Following the suggestion of Dixon (1980) and Kohn (1980), a total of seven items were used to assess participants’ music listening habits. Four items were developed for this study with three additional items coming from Mitchell and colleagues (2007). Another eleven items asked how often participants have purchased music songs based on music genre. Finally, eleven items asked participants to rate how often they listen to specific genres of music on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from never to always. A twenty-six question political orientation questionnaire adapted from Kerlinger (1984) was used to determine where participants fall on the liberal-conservative scale, in addition to a presidential preference and voter registration status questions. Lastly, the demographics section included 16 questions spanning socioeconomic status and ethno-racial status. Results of correlational analyses support hypothesis 1 and 2. Political orientation significantly correlated with alternative and religious music preferences. There was also a significant relationship between political orientation and presidential preference. Additionally, correlational analysis found that there were several relationships between race/ethnicity, age, and gender with music genre preferences and political orientation and presidential preference. Results of a linear regression analysis supported hypothesis 3 in that demographic variables and music genre preferences could help predict political orientation. While results indicate that three genres have a significant correlation to political preferences, any relationship is potentially confounded due to both the high availability of music and the high levels of involvement reported by participants. As mentioned in previous studies, involvement was also correlated to music preferences (Fox & Williams, 1974; Peterson & Christenson, 1987). But with a high level of involvement in this sample, they were not correlated. Additionally, as music becomes more “mainstream”, there is less variety and independence of genres, and more of a “blurring” of lines, meaning popular music can be a mix of several genres, with many identifying several different genres as their favorites. Additionally, as the literature reports, political attitudes are a result of a combination of factors including demographic variables (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status) and media; in this study music. Also, a significant relationship between political orientation and presidential preference confirms that most participants have consistent beliefs between their political attitudes and who they would vote for in a presidential election. Table 2. Regression Coefficients Table 1. Intercorrelations of Study Variables 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.1.Political Orientation -.03.16*.10*.40*-.44*-.09#-.11***-.03-.06-.01.21*2.Clinton Preference -.15**-.14**-.26*-.43*.07-.09#-.15*.07.10***.043.Cruz Preference -.08#-.16*-.27*-.05-.04-.06.02-.11***.22*4.Kasich Preference -.14**-.25*-.06.08#.01-.09#-.07.035.Trump Preference -.46*-.06-.01.13**-.03-.06-.046.Saunders Preference .05.06.04.01.07-.14**7.Music Involvement .02.03-.03.07.078.Alternative Music .58*.04-.22*-.15*9.Rock Music -.12***-.25*-.18*10.Pop Music .28*.0511.Rap Music .0112.Religious Music 13.14.15.16.17.18.19.1.Political Orientation.04.09***-.14**-.06.12**.03-.10***2.Clinton Preference-.08-.00-.01.15*-.18*.19*-.023.Cruz Preference.07.09***.04-.07.09***-.05-.034.Kasich Preference-.01.07-.08#-.07.08#-.01-.065.Trump Preference.00.08#-.08#-.20*.25*-.10***-.056.Saunders Preference.02-.15**.09#.12**-.16*-.04.11***7.Music Involvement.02-.09#.10***.13*-.14**-.00.078.Alternative Music.07-.07-.03-.26*.17*-.02.049.Rock Music.09#-.04-.24*-.27*.20*.03-.0210.Pop Music-.06.02.26*-.07-.01.07.0411.Rap Music-.27*-.02-.03.24*-.22*.05.0412.Religious Music.10***-.04.11***-.29*-.20*.03-.0613.Age -.17*.06-.05.08#-.07-.0714.Social Class .02-.12**.11***.02.0015.Gender .02-.02-.06.0516.Black -.44*-.12**-.23*17.White -.27*-.54*18.Asian -.14**19.Hispanic 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.Age.04-.08.07-.01.00.02.02.07.09#-.06-.27*.10***14.Social Class.09***-.00.09***.07.08#-.15**-.09#-.07-.04.02-.02-.0415.Gender-.14**-.01.04-.08#-.08#.09#.10***-.03-.24*.26*-.03.11***16.Black-.06.15*-.07-.07-.20*.12**.13**-.26*-.27*-.07.24*.29*17.White.12*-.18*.09***.08#.25*-.16*-.14**.17*.20*-.01-.22*-.20*18.Asian.03.19*-.05-.01-.10***-.04-.00-.02.03.07.05.0319.Hispanic-.10*-.02-.03-.06-.05.11***.07.04-.02.04.04-.06 Political OrientationAge.04Social Class.07Gender-.15**Black-.04White.21#Asian.07Hispanic.05Music Involvement-.06Alternative Music-.11#Rock Music.00Pop Music-.05Rap/Hip-Hop Music.04Religious Music.27*R2.13F5.03* *p< .001, **p <.01, #p < .06 *p < .001, **p <.01, ***p <.05, #p < .10