All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Longitudinal Study Examining The Priming Effects of Music on Driving Anger, State Anger, and Negative-Valence Thoughts
Unformatted Document Text:  Violent Music 16 Venturesomeness scale. Venturesomeness was measured using items from Eysenck, Pearson, Easting, and Allsop’s (1985) L7 scale for this study. The items were measured on a 7-point scale with 1 = no and 7 = yes, and attained a respectable reliability of ( = .80). Results Overall, the respondents in this sample reported moderate driving anger (M = 4.66, SD = 1.02), minimal state anger (M = 1.78, SD = .99) and negative valence thoughts (M = -.03, SD = .29) within the baseline condition. A manipulation check tested the perceived violence for each music condition using a 1 = not violent to 7 = violent scale, Wilks = .17, F(2, 48) = 119.14, p < .001, eta 2 = .83. The Mauchly’s sphericity test was not significant, therefore paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate differences between the three music conditions. Because of an increase in the chance of a Type 1 error, a Bonferroni-type correction was made to the alpha level by dividing the conventional alpha level (.05) by the number of conditions (3). The new alpha level is .0167. Paired samples t-tests revealed all music conditions were statistically significant at p < .001: violent music and violent lyrics (M = 5.28, SD = 1.90) versus violent music with no lyrics (M = 4.12, SD = 1.97), t(49) = 4.32; violent music with no lyrics versus nonviolent music with non-violent lyrics (M = 1.10, SD = .30), t(49) = 10.76; violent music and violent lyrics versus nonviolent music with non-violent lyrics, t(49) = 15.28. The first four hypotheses predicted that respondent’s driving anger, negative- valence thoughts, and state anger, would be moderate during baseline (no music) reports, the aforementioned would be lower when exposed to nonviolent music and would linearly increase as the level of music violence increased. These analyses indicated a

Authors: Quick, Brian.
first   previous   Page 16 of 33   next   last



background image
Violent Music
16
Venturesomeness scale. Venturesomeness was measured using items from
Eysenck, Pearson, Easting, and Allsop’s (1985) L7 scale for this study. The items were
measured on a 7-point scale with 1 = no and 7 = yes, and attained a respectable reliability
of ( = .80).
Results
Overall, the respondents in this sample reported moderate driving anger (M =
4.66, SD = 1.02), minimal state anger (M = 1.78, SD = .99) and negative valence thoughts
(M = -.03, SD = .29) within the baseline condition. A manipulation check tested the
perceived violence for each music condition using a 1 = not violent to 7 = violent scale,
Wilks = .17, F(2, 48) = 119.14, p < .001, eta
2
= .83. The Mauchly’s sphericity test was
not significant, therefore paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate differences between
the three music conditions. Because of an increase in the chance of a Type 1 error, a
Bonferroni-type correction was made to the alpha level by dividing the conventional
alpha level (.05) by the number of conditions (3). The new alpha level is .0167. Paired
samples t-tests revealed all music conditions were statistically significant at p < .001:
violent music and violent lyrics (M = 5.28, SD = 1.90) versus violent music with no lyrics
(M = 4.12, SD = 1.97), t(49) = 4.32; violent music with no lyrics versus nonviolent music
with non-violent lyrics (M = 1.10, SD = .30), t(49) = 10.76; violent music and violent
lyrics versus nonviolent music with non-violent lyrics, t(49) = 15.28.
The first four hypotheses predicted that respondent’s driving anger, negative-
valence thoughts, and state anger, would be moderate during baseline (no music) reports,
the aforementioned would be lower when exposed to nonviolent music and would
linearly increase as the level of music violence increased. These analyses indicated a


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 16 of 33   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.