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 17 significant quadratic contrast for the four conditions in reported negative-valence thoughts, F(1,49) = 37.45, p < .001, eta 2 = .43 (See figure 1), driving anger, F(1,49) = 18.18, p < .001, eta 2 = .27 (See figure 2), and state anger F(1,49) = 27.15, p < .001, eta 2 = .36 (See figure 3), thus providing strong evidence for Berkowitz’s (1994) model, Quick (2002), and Hennessy & Wiesenthal’s (1997) work. As music increased in violence the respondents’ number of negative-valence thoughts, would also increase, was evaluated by running a repeated measure within- subject MANOVA over the four conditions. Participants reported significant differences in negative-valence thoughts Wilks = .30, F(3, 47) = 36.63, p < .001, eta 2 = .70, driving anger, Wilks = .65, F(3, 47) = 8.33, p < .001, eta 2 = .35, and state anger Wilks = .56, F(3, 47) = 12.28, p < .001, eta 2 = .44. The Mauchly’s sphericity test was not significant, therefore paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate differences between the four conditions. To reduce the chances of committing 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 (4). The new alpha level is .0125. Hypothesis 1: Violent Music and Negative-Valence Thoughts As predicted, while respondents were exposed to violent music with violent lyrics reported the most negative thoughts (M = -65, SD = .37), followed by when they were exposed to violent music with no lyrics (M = -.28, SD = .49), and nonviolent music with non-violent lyrics (M = .17, SD = .49). All comparisons were statistically significant at p < .001: violent music and violent lyrics versus violent music with no lyrics, t(49) = 5.5; violent music with no lyrics versus nonviolent music with non-violent lyrics, t(49) = 4.7;

Authors: Quick, Brian.
first   previous   Page 17 of 33   next   last



background image
Violent Music
17
significant quadratic contrast for the four conditions in reported negative-valence
thoughts, F(1,49) = 37.45, p < .001, eta
2
= .43 (See figure 1), driving anger, F(1,49) =
18.18, p < .001, eta
2
= .27 (See figure 2), and state anger F(1,49) = 27.15, p < .001, eta
2
=
.36 (See figure 3), thus providing strong evidence for Berkowitz’s (1994) model, Quick
(2002), and Hennessy & Wiesenthal’s (1997) work.
As music increased in violence the respondents’ number of negative-valence
thoughts, would also increase, was evaluated by running a repeated measure within-
subject MANOVA over the four conditions. Participants reported significant differences
in negative-valence thoughts Wilks = .30, F(3, 47) = 36.63, p < .001, eta
2
= .70, driving
anger, Wilks = .65, F(3, 47) = 8.33, p < .001, eta
2
= .35, and state anger Wilks = .56,
F(3, 47) = 12.28, p < .001, eta
2
= .44. The Mauchly’s sphericity test was not significant,
therefore paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate differences between the four
conditions. To reduce the chances of committing 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 (4). The new alpha level is .0125.
Hypothesis 1: Violent Music and Negative-Valence Thoughts
As predicted, while respondents were exposed to violent music with violent lyrics
reported the most negative thoughts (M = -65, SD = .37), followed by when they were
exposed to violent music with no lyrics (M = -.28, SD = .49), and nonviolent music with
non-violent lyrics (M = .17, SD = .49). All comparisons were statistically significant at p
< .001: violent music and violent lyrics versus violent music with no lyrics, t(49) = 5.5;
violent music with no lyrics versus nonviolent music with non-violent lyrics, t(49) = 4.7;


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
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 17 of 33   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.