Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Physiological Arousal and Music Genre - Coggle Diagram
Physiological Arousal and Music Genre
Variables
Independent Variables:
Change in music genre;
a recorded difference in music genre could be studied to see the effects and potential changes in an individual's arousal levels. It is commonly discussed that different genres of music can elicit different emotions through pieces of physiological arousal; by investigating the impact on participants through a change in music genre, this topic can be tested for.
Difference in genre preference;
participants are asked of their preferred genre, and the change in arousal levels can be correlated to that specific preference. The experiment can test a person's preference in music and whether it has an effect on the intensity of the arousal level change.
Quality of sleep;
participants can be asked to record the quality of sleep the night/week before, and their changes in arousal levels/heart rate can be attributed to the amount/quality of sleep from the relevant time before
Dependent Variables:
Change in (self-reported) arousal levels;
the comparison between the self reported arousal levels before and during the listening of music
Change in heart rate between two genres;
the comparison between a participant's heart rate before and during/after listening to music
Self-reported effect of each song;
qualitative data of
Situational Variables:
Weather;
the impact of weather on a participant might affect their ability to focus on the music, or might dull their arousal levels/reactions to the music due to the distraction brought on by the weather.
Audio quality;
the quality of the audio, along with the volume might skew a participant's opinions on the music. Poor audio quality or low volume might lessen the effect of each song, and good audio quality or high volume might heighten the effect of the songs
Participant Variables:
Preference in genre;
if not being accounted for or experimented upon within the experiment, a participant's preference in genre could affect arousal levels
Stimulant consumption;
the consumption of stimulants or any other mood affecting substances (such as caffeine, sugar, etc.) could affect how intense a participant's resting/change in arousal levels
Constant Variables:
Music being listened to;
every participant will listen to the same music - the same songs and for the same amount of time, so as to keep a fair experiment
Sample Size
Sample;
students across Stage 1 Psychology classes
Pros:
Students are within a similar age range, therefore age is not a factor that could affect the results in any way
Participants have similar levels of knowledge around the topic
Cons:
Cannot be representative of a larger population due to the specificity of the sample group; if this experiment was to be representative of a large population, a more diverse spread of participants would be necessary
ie. different schools, different pathways, different ages, etc.
Potential for bias due to pre-existing knowledge is very likely, which might cause participants to answer in a way they feel they are expected to and that would give the most fitting results for the hypothesis
Sample;
randomly selected (& consenting) senior students from the student body
Pros:
Participants are likely to be more diverse than if chosen from specifically a Psychology class
Can be representative of a larger population, due to the increased diversity of selected students
Students are from a similar age range (Year 10-12s), removing the potential factor for influence
Participants are self-volunteered (most likely through a Google Form), therefore adhering to the ethical consideration of voluntary participation
Cons:
Some of the participants may have more pre-existing knowledge on the topic than others, which may cause issues with the accuracy and reliability of the results
Sample;
randomly selected (& consenting) staff and students from the school community
Pros:
High diversity of participants, meaning results can be representative of an even larger population
Participants are self-volunteered, therefore adhering to the ethical consideration of voluntary participation
Participants are randomly selected, lowering the chance of bias
Cons:
Large diversity in age, which might skew the results
Might cause a huge differentiation of knowledge on the topic due to the inclusion of both younger students and teachers
Ethical Considerations
Informed consent:
The participants of the experiment were all teenagers, and oftentimes they are not considered able to provide consent. Though no deception was used throughout the experiment, it might cause issues with some caregivers/parents if an individual were to only consent to the experiment completely for themselves.
Voluntary participation:
All the participants who were a part of the experiment were given consent forms, to be able to personally consent as well as get a parent to if needed.
Confidentiality:
Each participant was assigned an identification number randomly selected and assigned in order to keep confidentiality when studying the results. If a specific individual's result was to be investigated, they would only be identified by their ID number.
Right to Withdrawal:
The option to withdraw at any given point throughout the experiment was provided if needed; the idea was even heavily supported if found necessary to any participants.
Accurate Reporting:
The results were directly exported from the Google Form into a Google Sheet, where the numerical data is all spread out and neatly arranged. There is no chance of inaccurate reporting from the researchers, and the only way this ethical consideration would be breached is if the participant had chosen to forge their results or make them up.
Deception/Debriefing:
Though no deception was used throughout the experiment, there was a debrief at the end to let the participants know what the data was to be used for, and to confirm their anonymity.
Investigation Design
Observational Quantitative:
recording self-reported levels of arousal/heart rate before and during listening of certain genres, with the differentiation of preferred genres to define the groups
Pros:
easy to compare data in numerical form, making it easier to compile into graphs and diagrams
Cons:
groups are not randomly allocated, which could potentially cause bias
results are not very personalised or might not be accurately representative of a person's arousal levels - their body might react significantly differently to their mind, which means they may experience more physiological arousal but their body does not express it.
Observational Qualitative:
interviewing/surveying participants on how they feel before and during/after listening to different genres of music while being affected by a certain external variable (eg. caffeine/sugar consumption, sleep, etc), with the consumption of such defining the groups
Pros:
the data collected is more personalised, rather than specifically based on data
If dealing with substances such as caffeine, the observational design upholds ethical considerations in the sense where participants are not forced to intake any substances against their own will for the experiment
Cons:
Qualitative data allows for bias and can be easily affected by uncontrollable variables that may not be related to the experiment
The extra freedom and flexibility allowed by the use of qualitative data can let extraneous variables become more effective/prominent within results
Experimental Quantitative:
recording self-reported levels of arousal/heart rate before and during listening of certain genres, while being affected by a controlled external variable (eg. caffeine, alcohol, etc.)
Pros:
experiment can be used to correlate the external variable to certain reactions based on the outcome
Experimental design means randomised groups, which removes the potential factor of bias
quantitative data is easier to graph and compile into easily digestable tables and infographics, compared to qualitative data
Cons:
having another aspect to the experiment might make it too complex, with too much to factor in for variables
Randomly allocated groups could potentially be unethical, if participants are forced to intake any substances against personal wishes
Experimental Qualitative:
recording feelings and describing their personal experience with their change before and during/after listening to music, while being affected by a controlled external variable (eg. caffeine, alcohol, etc.)
Pros:
Qualitative data of this sort gives researchers more to discuss, as the participants have more freedom in the ways they can describe how they felt besides rating themselves on a scale of 1-10 or measuring their heart rate
Experimental design means the groups are randomly allocated, removing the factor for bias
Cons:
could potentially be unethical if groups are randomly allocated and certain participants are forced to consume substances against their personal wishes
Results could be easily influenced by other variables and reasons besides what is just being recorded as a part of the experiment
There is more opportunity for extraneous variables to come into play and affect results, as the increase in freedom of expression for the participant requires more personal answers
Inquiry Questions
The effect of preference of genre on arousal levels;
groups are defined by preference in genre, and the data is compared to see whether the group with a preference for the genre has a more intense change in arousal levels than the unpreferred group
Pros:
Data is measurable numerically, and can be easily compared
Data is more catered towards participants
Results can be generalised based on groups
Can define correlation between the two variables
Cons:
Groups are pre-defined, which might allow for bias
Certain participants might not have any real preference, which could affect the accuracy of the results if they fall under neither groups
The effect of music genre on arousal levels;
only one group, who listens to both genres of music and records change in arousal levels according to the genre
Pros:
Can show causation between the two recorded variables
Experiment is fairly simple, leaving very little room for error to occur
Cons:
No real defined control and experiment groups
Allows for a large range of extraneous variables to affect the results
The effect of caffeine on arousal levels while listening to music;
groups are defined by whether or not they have consumed caffeine, and the data is compared and intensity of arousal level changes are correlated to the consumption of caffeine
Pros:
Can show correlation of caffeine consumption and its possible effect on arousal levels
Discusses a more specified topic with caffeine intake being recorded
Cons:
Pre-defined groups could potentially cause result-affecting bias
Introducing a new variable creates a more complex experiment, which allows for a lot more extraneous variables
The effect of quality of sleep on arousal levels while listening to music;
participants are divided into groups based on their self-reported quality of sleep, and the intensity of arousal level changes are correlated to this
Pros:
Groups can be easily defined
Quality of sleep is easy to record from participants qualitatively
Provides an in-depth understanding of each individual participant
Cons:
Pre-defined and non-random groups could potentially cause bias
Researcher bias is harder to control