• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University M icrofilm s International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8403487 Blackburn, William David THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELF-CONCEPT TO ADOLESCENT’S MUSICAL PREFERENCES AND LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT WITH MUSIC LISTENING The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1983 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1983 by Blackburn, William David All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. G lossy photographs or p a g e s_______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print ______ 3. Photographs with dark background ^ 4. Illustrations are poor copy 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page_______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages_ 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine________ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______ 11. P a g e (s)______________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)______________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages n u m b ered _______________. Text fol lows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Other_________________________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELF-CONCEPT TO ADOLESCENT'S MUSICAL PREFERENCES AND LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT WITH MUSIC LISTENING DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor ol Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By William D. Blackburn, B.S., M.S.W. ***** The Ohio State University 1 9 8 J Reading Committee: Approved By Dr. Henry Angelino Dr. John Horrocks Adviser Dr. Dale Blyth Facu velopmenta1 Psychology ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first express my appreciation to the young people who participated as subjects in this project, and to Jennifer Malone of Northwest Counseling Services and John Caronis of Grandview Heights High School. I wish to thank Dr. John Horrocks for his willingness to be a part of this research and Dr. A. Peter Costanza for his recommendations. I especially want to thank Dr. Dale Blyth for his careful review of the manuscript and subsequent assistance, and Dr. Henry Angelino, my advisor, for his interest, patience, and guidance through­ out th is academic endeavor. Also, I must thank Dr. Donald Haefle for his expert advice. Finally, I wish to dedicate this work to my wife, Cindy, and daughter, Abbey, who have supported and en­ couraged me throughout the writing of this dissertation. i i VITA September 1, 1951 .... Born - Canton, Ohio 197 3...................................................B.S. Ma jor-Sociology and Social Work, Minor-Psychology, Urbana College, Urbana, Ohio 1974 ...................................................Social Work Intern, Huckleberry House, Columbus, Ohio 197 5 ...................................................M.S.W. Clinical Social Work, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1975-1983 .................................... Counselor, Administrator, Family Counseling Northwest, Family Counseling and Crittenton Services, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Developmental Psychology Studies in Psychology. Professors Henry Angelino, John Horrocks, Gerald Winer, John Gibbs, Henry Leland, and Charles Wenar i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... ii VITA...........................................................................................................................i i i LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................v iii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1 Definitions............................................................................ 18 Assumptions............................................................................ 19 H ypotheses ............................................................................ 19 Limitations............................................................................ 20 Significance of the Study......................................... 21 II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 24 Psychology of Music ........................................................ 24 Music Preferences............................................................. 24 Affective Response to Music.................................... 34 Physiological Measures......................................... 34 Mood Responses............................................................. 39 Experimental Aesthetics .................................... 47 Music Therapy....................................................................... 48 Self-Concept ....................................................................... 51 III. DESIGN AND PROCEDURE OF THE RESEARCH.................... 55 S u b je c ts ................................................................................. 56 Instruments............................................................................ 56 The Tennessee Self Concept Scale ..................... 56 The Music Interest Questionnaire,..................... 59 Selection of Subjects................................................... 70 Administration of the Instruments and Data C ollection............................................................. 71 Analysis of D a t a............................................................. 73 iv Chapter Page IV. RESULTS............................................................................................. 75 Hypotheses 1 and 2 ........................................................ 78 Hypotheses 3 and 4 ........................................................ 85 Summary of Hypotheses Testing on Stratified Sample........................................................ 96 Non-Rock Group Comparison......................................... 97 Results of Listening to Music Alone or With Friends...................................................................100 Analysis of Open Ended Questions.................... 100 V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.................................................................I ll Summary of R e s u l t s ..............................................................113 Hypotheses Testing.................................................. 113 Non-Rock Group Comparison...............................................114 Listening to Music Alone or With Friends........................................................................................114 Open Ended Q u e stio n......................................................... s 115 Comparison of Comments from Music Interest Questionnaire to Results from Hypotheses Testing Procedure. 115 General Implications ................................................... 116 Music Preferences....................................................................118 Level of Involvem ent.........................................................127 Listening Alone or With Friends................................131 Suggestions for Future Research................................132 Practical Applications .............................................

Load more

  170

Copy Link