Getting aesthetic chills from music: The connection between openness to experience and frisson

Abstract

Earlier research has emphasized the emotional nature of frisson (pleasurable aesthetic chills) and has suggested that the personality trait Openness to Experience may predict more frisson episodes. The present study tested these notions by administering a measure of Openness and inducing actual instances of frisson using musical stimuli. One hundred college students completed the NEO-PI-R, which assesses the five factors of personality (Openness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness), and then listened to five musical selections that were likely to elicit frisson. Frisson was assessed via a combined self-report and physiological (galvanic skin response) measure. As predicted, frequency of frisson was positively correlated with overall Openness to Experience, as well as five of its six subfacets: Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Ideas, and Values. Examination of the more specific relationships suggests the possibility that cognitive attentiveness to music may be more closely related to frisson than had been emphasized in past research.

Full text

Psychology of Music
1 –15
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305735615572358
pom.sagepub.com
Getting aesthetic chills
from music: The connection
between openness to
experience and frisson
Mitchell C. Colver and Amani El-Alayli
Abstract
Earlier research has emphasized the emotional nature of frisson (pleasurable aesthetic chills) and
has suggested that the personality trait Openness to Experience may predict more frisson episodes.
The present study tested these notions by administering a measure of Openness and inducing actual
instances of frisson using musical stimuli. One hundred college students completed the NEO-PI-R,
which assesses the five factors of personality (Openness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness,
and Conscientiousness), and then listened to five musical selections that were likely to elicit frisson.
Frisson was assessed via a combined self-report and physiological (galvanic skin response) measure.
As predicted, frequency of frisson was positively correlated with overall Openness to Experience, as
well as five of its six subfacets: Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Ideas, and Values. Examination of the
more specific relationships suggests the possibility that cognitive attentiveness to music may be more
closely related to frisson than had been emphasized in past research.
Keywords
Arousal, frisson, music perception, openness to experience, personality
Over the past few decades, research has exposed a particularly curious phenomenon: aesthetic
chills, or the ability of some people to experience pleasurable chills and goose bumps in response
to emotionally moving stimuli. In an early and influential paper written on aesthetic chills,
Sloboda (1991) suggested that, due to the numerous descriptive terms that have been associ-
ated with this experience (chills, thrills, goosebumps, shivers, and goosetingles), researchers
would benefit from borrowing the succinct French term, frisson, in order to provide continuity
Psychology Department, Eastern Washington University, USA
Corresponding author:
Amani El-Alayli, Psychology Department, Eastern Washington University, 135 Martin Hall, Cheney, WA 99004,
USA.
Email: aelalayli@ewu.edu
572358POM0010.1177/0305735615572358Psychology of MusicColver and El-Alayli
research-article2015
Article
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Psychology of Music
to this body of research. We chose to follow this tradition as we examined the relationship
between personality and frisson.
In his seminal investigation on the topic, Goldstein (1980) synthesized the following
description of what frisson feels like: a pleasurable chill or tingle originating ‘in the area of
the upper spine and back of the neck… spreading… in a radiating or sweeping pattern, upward
over the scalp… outward over the shoulders and arms, down the spine… [which] may be
accompanied by “goose bumps” on the arms’ (pp. 126–127). Other studies have shown that
these physiological effects last for about 10 seconds, on average, and usually come in what
are described as waves of pleasure (Panksepp, 1995; see also Blood & Zatorre, 2001). Music
has been found to be the most common frisson-producing stimulus reported (Goldstein,
1980), and, consequently, many studies have focused on frisson as a response to musical
stimuli (e.g., Grewe, Nagel, Kopiez, & Altenmüller, 2007b; Guhn, Hamm, & Zentner, 2007;
Panksepp, 1995).
Fortunately for researchers, most listeners are able to pinpoint precise moments in musical
selections when they are likely to experience frisson (Sloboda, 1991). Guhn et al. (2007) found
that certain musical instances were independently identified and shared by a significant num-
ber of listeners as the cause of frisson. Common examples of such musical instances are unex-
pected harmonies, unexpected dynamics, or the unexpected entrance of a new voice (such as a
solo). The unexpected entrance of a new voice seems to be the most significant musical cause
of frisson (Grewe, Nagel, Kopiez, & Altenmüller, 2007a; Panksepp & Bernatsky, 2002). Meyer
(1956) suggested that unexpected musical instances are emotionally charged for the listener
because they violate the musical expectations of the listener and are, thus, pleasant surprises.
In line with the pleasant nature of the experience as a reaction to music, Panksepp (1995)
found that the degree to which an individual reported liking any given piece of music was posi-
tively related to the intensity of their experience of frisson.
At least part of what makes frisson so captivating to the interest of research is, as Grewe,
Katzur, Kopiez, and Altenmüller (2010) explain, that ‘no other known indicator of emotions
combines a strong, positive, subjective feeling, and a measureable physiological arousal
response in one reaction’ (p. 221). Despite a healthy body of frisson research, estimates of how
prevalent the effect is amongst the general population have varied widely (see Goldstein, 1980;
Panksepp, 1995; Grewe et al., 2007b), leading researchers to pursue individual differences as
a desirable lens through which to study frisson in greater depth. Beginning with McCrae
(2007), studies have repeatedly shown a positive link between frisson and the personality trait
of Openness to Experience, one of the domains of the Five Factor Model of personality (McCrae
& Costa, 1997). Openness refers to an individual’s ‘recurrent need to enlarge and examine
experience’ (McCrae & Costa, 1997, p. 826), especially through cognitive exploration (DeYoung,
2014). It includes ‘active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, pref-
erence for variety, intellectual curiosity, and independence of judgment’ (Costa & McCrae,
1992, p. 15).
This tendency for people high in Openness to explore sensory experiences may help explain
why McCrae (2007) found a significantly positive correlation between individuals’ overall
Openness score and their endorsement of a frisson-related item, item 188 (r = .59, for the
American sample), on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae,
1992). This item directly addresses the experience of frisson and reads, ‘Sometimes when I am
reading poetry or looking at a work of art, I feel a chill or wave of excitement’ (McRae, 2007,
p. 6). Surprisingly, McCrae (2007) found that this Openness item was the best overall indicator
of Openness across all translations of the NEO-PI-R and that the experience of frisson is a uni-
versal marker of Openness.
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Colver and El-Alayli 3
McCrae (2007) also suggested that two subfacets of Openness, Aesthetics and Feelings, are
most likely the strongest correlates of the experience of frisson. Specifically, individuals high in
Aesthetics are ‘moved by poetry, absorbed in music, and intrigued by art’ (Costa & McCrae,
1992, p. 17) more readily than their peers, and individuals high in Feelings experience ‘deeper
and more differentiated emotional states and feel both happiness and unhappiness more
intensely than others’ (p. 17), lending insight into why McCrae (2007) would conceptually
identify these emotion-laden subfacets as being most likely linked to frisson, which is an emo-
tional experience.
Several self-report studies seem to have confirmed the findings of McCrae and demonstrated
a clear connection between Openness and self-reported frisson as a response to music (e.g.,
Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011; Nusbaum et al., 2014; Silvia & Nusbaum, 2011). In particular, Silva
and Nusbaum’s (2011) study examining the relationship between The Big Five Aspects Scale
and self-reported frisson episodes found that individuals high in Openness reported experiencing
frisson more often. Interestingly, the study also found a negative correlation between the cogni-
tive aspect of Openness (Intellect) and self-reported experiences of frisson, lending support to
McCrae’s (2007) suggestion that Aesthetics and Feelings are the two subfacets of Openness
most likely to correlate (positively) with the experience of frisson.
Of particular interest to the present study, the methodologies used by the aforementioned
researchers have relied on self-report data alone. In all three studies (Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011;
Nusbaum, et al., 2014; Silvia & Nusbaum, 2011), participants were asked to report the general
frequency of their chill episodes, rather than the researchers recording live instances of those
episodes using physiological measures. Surprisingly, no study found in an extensive literature
review has undertaken the task of directly correlating Openness to live, empirically recorded
experiences of frisson, although Liljeström, Juslin, and Västfjäll (2013) came close. In their
study, the NEO-PI-R was administered and participants’ emotional reactions to music were
assessed physiologically, but not specifically coded as frisson. Their analyses indicate that
individuals who score high on Openness are more likely to experience intense emotions while
listening to music, but, as stated above, these findings were not specifically analysed relative to
the experience of frisson.
The present study seeks to go well beyond these methodologies by measuring actual episodes
of frisson, concurrent with self-reported confirmation of each episode, in addition to examin-
ing all five traits of the NEO-PI-R including all of their 30 subfacets. Primarily, the present study
suggests that Openness to Experience, as one of the primary components of personality, could
explain a large share of the individual differences in frisson experiences. Furthermore, since
McCrae (2007) intuitively suggested that Aesthetics and Feelings are the two subfacets most
likely to correlate with the experience of frisson, the present study was designed to more thor-
oughly investigate these claims and to do so in an empirical manner by correlating each of the
subfacets of Openness with the experience of frisson using a combined self-repor t/physiological
measure.
Because frisson is such an intensely physiological experience, studying live, empirically
observed instances of frisson is especially valuable. As an improvement on earlier neurophysi-
ological methodologies (Blood & Zatorre, 2001), Salimpoor, Benovoy, Larcher, Dagher, and
Zatorre (2011) used fMRI to conduct an analysis of the temporal components of the experi-
ence of frisson, examining the stages of frisson as it unfolds over time, rather than examining
frisson as one holistic neurophysiological event. Their results indicate that frisson may initially
begin as a cognitive experience that crescendos into an emotional release. Salimpoor et al.
(2011) found that, while the rewards associated with frisson clearly reside in an especially
emotional area of the striatum (the nucleus accumbens), neural activity leading up to the onset
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Psychology of Music
of a frisson causing event was more closely associated with activity in the caudate. This finding
is important because studies have found that the caudate is involved in executive functioning,
particularly the ability to make predictions and to understand connections between actions
and outcomes (Grahn, Parkinson, & Owen, 2009). Since frisson has been repeatedly and
empirically associated with anticipation, (Grewe, et al., 2007a; Guhn et al., 2007; Panksepp &
Bernatsky, 2002; Sloboda, 1991), this finding of the involvement of the caudate before frisson
occurs is particularly fitting and may point to a greater involvement of cognition in the experi-
ence of frisson than previously presumed in the literature.
This fMRI research suggests that the cognitive aspects of Openness to Experience may be
particularly important in the experience of frisson. Three of the subfacets of Openness are espe-
cially cognitive in nature (see Costa & McCrae, 1992, for descriptions). The Fantasy subscale
refers to the tendency to engage in daydreaming and make-believe in which meaning and
pleasure are derived from a purely cognitive experience. The Ideas subscale, arguably the most
cognitive and intellectual of the Openness subscales, refers to intellectual curiosity. The Values
subscale is marked by a tolerance for controversy and differences, a preference for flexibility of
thought and open-mindedness, and a willingness to yield to changing trends.
Each of these subfacets could logically be related to frisson experiences derived from listening
to music. Beaty and colleagues (2013) found that Openness was closely related to a predilection
for experiencing musical imagery, a way of processing music that combines listening with day-
dreaming. Such fantastical cognitive immersion, which could stem from the Fantasy component
of Openness, may feed directly into the musical attentiveness that so readily lays a foundation for
the experience of frisson. Similarly, the Ideas subfacet has been linked to the ability to naturally
detect complex patterns in sensory information (such as music) without conscious effort
(DeYoung, 2014). Given that frisson tends to occur near unexpected musical events that violate
established patterns within the aggregate of the musical piece, it makes sense that Ideas might
be strongly connected to frisson. Individuals high in Values may process the unexpected musical
events more openly than the average listener and might subsequently be better able to process
the musical events more positively, given their tolerance for things that are different.
Thus, the fMRI research suggests that the cognitive components of Openness may contrib-
ute strongly to the experience of frisson, at least when frisson is assessed physiologically. While
fMRI is perhaps one of the finest physiological measures available, the most commonly used
measure of physiological arousal in frisson research is galvanic skin response (GSR). GSR has
been shown in several studies to be a reliable method of assessing whether or not a person is
actually experiencing a frisson episode. For example, using musical stimuli, Guhn et al. (2007)
found that GSR levels were significantly higher in participants experiencing frisson (see also
Craig, 2005). Similarly, Rickard (2004) found that emotionally powerful music elicited signifi-
cant increases in skin conductance, while having ‘no significant effect on . . . heart rate, skin
temperature, electromyography, or salivary cortisol’ (p. 382). This left her with the conclusion
that GSR is an especially sensitive measure of frisson, especially compared to other biological
feedback measures (Rickard, 2004). Steinbeis, Koelsch, and Sloboda (2006) also confirmed
that changes in GSR significantly corresponded with frisson episodes induced by musical pas-
sages (see also Panksepp, 1995).
As such, the objective of the present study was to administer the NEO-PI-R and then record
participants’ GSR levels during exposure to emotionally powerful music capable of eliciting a
frisson response. The hope was to extend the previously established connection between
Openness and frisson using live, physiologically recorded frisson episodes, rather than relying
on self-report measures alone. Specifically, it was primarily hypothesized that physiologically
recorded instances of frisson would correlate positively with Openness. Similarly, it was
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Colver and El-Alayli 5
hypothesized that physiologically recorded instances of frisson would also exhibit strong cor-
relations with the more emotional subfacets of Openness (Aesthetics and Feelings), as had been
suggested by McCrae (2007). We also expected frisson to correlate strongly with the cognitive
aspects of Openness (Fantasy, Ideas, and Values), given the involvement of the role of executive
functioning in the onset of frisson experiences. Additionally, administering the entire NEO-PI-R
allowed for analysis of the individual subfacets of Openness, as a means of shedding more light
on the influence of individual differences relative to the experience of frisson while simultane-
ously providing greater insight into the emotional and cognitive contributing factors related to
the experience.
Method
Participants
Participants were 113 undergraduate students at a 4-year university in Washington State.
They participated in exchange for course credit within the departments of psychology and
music. Data from 13 participants were excluded due to the following reasons: a) one participant
openly admitting to providing false reports of frisson upon the conclusion of the listening ses-
sion, b) inaccurate GSR data (due to equipment failure, experimenter error, or participant fidg-
eting), c) one participant admitting an inability to read English well enough to complete the
survey, and d) one participant’s inability to finish the study in the allotted time. Of the remain-
ing 100 participants, data from three were excluded as a result of being more than three stand-
ard deviations from the mean number of frisson episodes experienced during the 10-minute
listening session (M = 2.68, SD = 3.69). However, including their data in the analyses produced
the same statistical results. Thus, the primary sample consisted of 97 participants (62%
females, Mage = 21). An additional fourth outlier was removed in analyses conducted on a sup-
plemental self-report measure of frisson in order to eliminate all scores that fell beyond three
standard deviations from the mean on that measure.
Design
A correlational design was used to examine the relationship between the experience of frisson
and various aspects of personality, most notably Openness. Multiple regression analyses were
also performed on frisson to examine the unique influence of the different Openness subfacets.
Materials and apparatus
The materials used included a basic demographic information form (age, sex, and course of
study) and the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992), a standardized measure of five broad person-
ality domains. This measure asks participants to indicate the extent to which they disagree or
agree with 240 different statements about themselves using a 5-point scale from 1, Strongly
Disagree, to 5, Strongly Agree. Scores were averaged for each of the five traits, which included:
Openness (M = 4.94, SD = 0.40, α = .88), Conscientiousness (M = 2.42, SD = 0.40, α = .89),
Extraversion (M = 2.47, SD = 0.45, α = .91), Agreeableness (M = 2.44, SD = 0.35, α = .85),
and Neuroticism (M = 1.87, SD = 0.41, α = .89). Though not specific foci of the study,
Conscientiousness refers to being efficient and organized, Extraversion refers to being outgoing,
Agreeableness refers to being friendly and compassionate, and Neuroticism refers to being
emotionally unstable and sensitive. These traits and all of their subfacets were assessed for
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Psychology of Music
purely exploratory reasons. Our focus was on Openness and its subfacets, the descriptive statis-
tics for which are presented in Table 1.
The musical pieces used for the study were selected based on their likelihood of producing
frisson in participants due to the presence of salient instances of frisson-inducing musical
events that had been identified in previous research (Grewe et al., 2007a; Guhn et al., 2007;
Panksepp & Bernatsky, 2002). Specifically, after sifting through music from a range of genres
and styles (especially pieces identified in previous literature and by lab members as frisson-
producing), nearly two dozen pieces were identified by a person trained in musical theory as
examples containing instances of the unexpected entrance of a new voice. The unexpected
entrance of a new voice was selected as a prime stimulus for frisson induction given its status in
the extant literature as the most common contributor of music-induced frisson experiences.
These specific musical instances of the unexpected entrance of a new voice within each piece
were subsequently pre-tested on three male and three female college student volunteers who
reported regularly experiencing frisson in their day-to-day lives. Five of the pieces produced fris-
son in all six pre-test listeners and were selected to be used as the experimental stimuli: 1) the
first 2 minutes and 11 seconds of J. S. Bach’s St. John’s Passion: Part 1- Herr, unser Herrscher;
2) the first 2 minutes and 18 seconds of Chopin’s Piano Concerto No. 1; 3) the first 53 seconds
of Air Supply’s Making Love Out of Nothing At All; 4) the first 3 minutes and 21 seconds of
Vangelis’ Mythodea: VI; 5) the first 2 minutes of Hans Zimmer’s Oogway Ascends. The length
of each selection was determined by starting the track at the beginning of the piece and allow-
ing it to play through the first frisson-inducing moment of the piece and on to the next occur-
ring coda, giving a sense of musical finality and closure to each listening episode. This method,
while differing from earlier methods that used fixed periods of time for each listening session
(e.g., 1 minute of music, regardless of whether the cutoff point made musical sense), was used
to maintain fidelity to the compositional structure of each piece and to allow the listener to
develop ample and appropriate musical expectations for each piece before encountering frisson-
inducing moments. This approach was pursued under advisement of a professional music the-
ory specialist.
GSR was measured using the GSR2 Biofeedback Machine and its accompanying CalmLink
Biofeedback software. A follow-up questionnaire assessing familiarity and liking of the musical
selections was also used. Overall familiarity with the pieces of music was assessed as a supple-
mental measure to ensure that it did not interfere with frisson experiences. Familiarity was
assessed using a Likert scale from 1, Unfamiliar, to 10, Familiar (M = 2.91, SD = 2.13). As
another measure of familiarity, this survey asked participants to name the musical selections to
the best of their ability (although only two participants were familiar enough with the pieces to
be able to name any). Additionally, the measure assessed participants’ liking of each musical
selection using a 5-point scale from 1, Dislike, to 5, Like.
Procedure
Participants were brought into the lab on an individual basis, where they completed the basic
demographic information form and the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). After completing
this materials packet, participants sat in a comfortable chair in a small laboratory room where
they could experience the musical stimuli alone. Participants were connected to the GSR
machine using fingertip sensors attached to the index and middle fingers on their left hand.
Participants were instructed to keep their hand as still as possible throughout the listening ses-
sion because movements can lead to false readings. The experimenter then provided the follow-
ing instructions to be followed during the experiment:
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Colver and El-Alayli 7
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for primary variables.
Variable αM SD As correlated with variable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Number of frisson experiences – 2.68 3.69 –
2. Self-reported frisson experiences – 4.08 5.46 .90** –
3. Openness to experience .88 2.47 0.40 .45** .47** –
4. Openness to fantasy .77 2.55 0.64 .41** .32** .67** –
5. Openness to aesthetics .80 2.48 0.75 .26* .33** .74** .41** –
6. Openness to feelings .73 2.76 0.59 .24* .33** .57** .22* .39** –
7. Openness to actions .48 1.89 0.44 .13 .17 .45** .15 .39** .11 –
8. Openness to ideas .83 2.58 0.73 .35** .35** .71** .37** .41** .18 .25** –
9. Openness to values .80 2.60 0.66 .32** .24* .57** .33** .13 .27** .03 .35** –
10. Liking of musical selections – 3.60 0.83 .27** .26* .33** .20 .29** .26** −.03 .23* .22*
Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Psychology of Music
We’re going to have you listen to some music over the next 15 minutes. We’re going to be measuring
your reaction to a number of different pieces of music. This machine measures the amount of blood
and water in your skin. It will attach to your hand like this [demonstrated on self], with your index and
middle fingers on the sensors… Now, I need to explain what we’re trying to measure. There are certain
types of people that get physical chills or goosebumps on their neck, back, and arms, or elsewhere
when they listen to certain types of music… Whether or not you have ever experienced physical chills
or goosebumps in reaction to music before now, what I’m going to ask you to do is, while you listen to
this music, if you should happen to experience any chills or goosebumps on your neck, back, arms, or
elsewhere, just press and hold down this red button during the entire experience. Press it down when
the physical chills or goosebumps start and hold it down until they end. This may or may not occur
several times over the next 10 minutes. Either way, it’s okay. I’d like you to indicate it as often as you
experience physical chills or goosebumps by pressing this red button. Now we’re going to begin. Please
try to keep your body fairly still during this part of the experiment. I’m going to dim the lights a bit and
shut the door. Try to relax and enjoy the music as you would listening at home. Do you have any other
questions? Now let’s begin. I’ll come back in when the experiment is over, which will be in about 10
minutes.
The experimenter answered any questions the participants had, secured headphones to the
participants’ head, dimmed the lights to a pre-established standardized level, left the room, and
shut the door. In an adjacent room, the experimenter began playback of the five music clips (set
to play at a standardized volume for all participants) and began monitoring GSR. Roughly 10
seconds of silence acted as a rest period between each musical selection.
During each listening session, the experimenter recorded the start and stop time of any
instances of self-reported frisson that occurred, as indicated by a light and buzzer (located out-
side of the participants’ sight and earshot). This mechanism was activated by the participants’
indicator button and remained continuously active during the entire length of each button
press, such that a participant could not only indicate the timing of each frisson episode, but also
the length. As such, frisson episodes were not merely recorded by tally, but by temporally accu-
rate timestamp (indicating onset, length, and cessation of each frisson episode).
The self-reported timing data was examined alongside a temporal log of the participants’
GSR levels. Instances in which the press of the indicator button simultaneously coincided with
an abrupt positive directional change in the GSR graph were coded as individual frisson epi-
sodes in our primary assessment of frisson. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of this pro-
cess, which exhibits the GSR data of one participant whose results portray a particularly salient
and comprehensive example of this process.
In keeping with Rickard (2004), test trials demonstrated that pressing the self-report button
in a neutral context (not concurrent with the experience of frisson) does not cause significant
increases in the GSR data (as might be expected), let alone any changes that would be mistaken
for the sudden, visually dramatic, and sustained increases present during a frisson episode, as
shown in Figure 1. Descriptive statistics showed that 60% of the 97 participants experienced
frisson at least once.
Following all five musical selections, participants were disconnected from the equipment
and instructed to complete the follow-up questionnaire regarding familiarity and liking. After
completing this final questionnaire, participants were debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.
Results
The primary hypothesis was that higher Openness would correlate positively with frisson in
response to specific musical instances. As predicted, higher overall Openness scores were related
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Colver and El-Alayli 9
to more frisson experiences during the 10-minute listening session, r(95) = .45, p < .001. In
line with the findings of McCrae (2007), overall Openness correlated with participants’
responses to NEO-PI-R item 188 at a significantly positive level, r(95) = .69, p < .001. Item 188
also correlated significantly with number of frisson episodes participants experienced, r(95) =
.29, p = .004. The significance of this correlation provided some validation for McCrae’s use of
that item as an indicator of frisson.
To examine the contribution of Openness while controlling for the other four main personal-
ity dimensions, we conducted a Simultaneous Multiple Regression analysis with each of the
five facets of the NEO-PI-R entered as predictors and the number of frisson experiences treated
Figure 1. The five lines each represent the GSR of participant number 81, relative to each of five listening
sessions (with each line representing GSR recorded during a specific song, displayed here in overlay).
This participant did not signal a frisson episode with the indicator button during either the first or third
listening sessions. As such, instances of increase in GSR that occurred during either of these sessions
were identified as non-frisson arousal. During the second listening session, the participant signaled for 2
seconds at 0:01:03, for 2 seconds at 0:01:15, for 2 seconds at 0:01:22, and for 4 seconds at 0:02:10. Since
the GSR graph includes coinciding increases in GSR, these four self-reported episodes of frisson were
considered actual and real. Similarly, during the fourth listening session, the participant signaled for 3
seconds at 0:01:28. Since this coincided with an increase in GSR, another episode of frisson was identified.
Note that, as before, the subsequent increase in GSR near the end of the fourth listening session was not
accompanied by a signal by the participant and was therefore also identified as non-frisson arousal. Finally,
during the fifth listening session, the participant signaled for 5 seconds at 0:00:58 and again for 7 seconds at
0:01:11, both of which coincide with instances of increase in GSR and therefore were documented frisson
episodes. As such, participant number 81 was coded as having experienced seven total frisson episodes
during the entire 10-minute listening period. Or, in other words, participant number 81 experienced seven
total increases in GSR that were temporally consistent with their self-reported instances of frisson.
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 Psychology of Music
as the criterion. The full model was statistically significant, F(5, 91) = 4.93, p < .001. As
hypothesized, the Openness dimension was a statistically significant predictor within the model,
β = .45, p < .001, while the remaining four facets were unrelated to frisson, βs = −.07 to −.01,
ps = .513 to .900.
Correlations were also performed separately between frisson and each of the six facets of
Openness (see Table 1 for these values). Openness to Aesthetics and Openness to Feelings were
both positively correlated with frisson, but these were not the strongest relationships between
Openness and frisson. As shown in the table, Openness to Fantasy had the strongest positive
correlation with frisson, followed by Openness to Ideas and Openness to Values. The sixth facet
of Openness, Openness to Actions, was the only facet of Openness not found to have a signifi-
cant relationship with frisson, perhaps partly due to its especially low internal consistency reli-
ability (see Table 1).
To examine the contribution of each subfacet of Openness while controlling for the remain-
ing subfacets, we included all six Openness subfacets as predictors in a Simultaneous Multiple
Regression performed on the number of frisson experiences. The overall model was significant,
F(6, 90) = 4.88, p < .001. Interestingly, the only facet of Openness whose unique variance was
related to frisson experiences was Openness to Fantasy, β = .27, p = .014.
To gain a more comprehensive picture of potential personality differences, correlations were
performed between each of the five domains (and 30 subfacets) of the NEO-PI-R to uncover any
other possible correlations with our primary measure of frisson. The domain of Openness and
its five aforementioned facets were the only significant positive correlates of frisson found
within the data. A facet of Conscientiousness, Self-Discipline (M = 2.33, SD = 0.70, α = .84),
served as the only negative correlate of frisson, although it reached only marginal significance,
r(95) = −.19, p = .06. Although prior work on sensation-seeking (Grewe et al., 2007b) would
suggest a negative correlation between frisson and the Excitement-Seeking facet of Extraversion
(M = 2.56, SD = 0.63, α = .65), no such relationship emerged in the present study, r(95) =
−.08, p = .414.
Supplemental analyses were performed to examine the possible roles of familiarity and lik-
ing of the musical pieces in the experience of frisson. As in previous research (Grewe, Kopiez, &
Altenmüller, 2009), having greater familiarity with any given piece was not significantly cor-
related with number of frisson experiences, r(93) = .08, p = .433, confirming that familiarity
did not complicate the results.
Also in-line with past research (Panksepp, 1995), we found a significant positive correlation
between how much individuals liked the pieces of music and how often they experienced frisson
during the 10 minute listening session, r(95) = .27, p < .01. Since liking and frisson were
related, we computed partial correlations between Openness and frisson, while factoring out
the influence of liking to see whether it accounted for any of the Openness-frisson relation-
ships. The correlations between frisson and overall Openness, Fantasy, Ideas, and Values all
remained significant. However, the correlations between frisson and Aesthetics, r(92) = .19,
p = .069, and Feelings, r(92) = .19, p = .073, dropped to marginal significance. The inclusion
of liking in the regression which examined the predictive effects of the Openness subfacets on
frisson had no effect on the outcome. Openness to Fantasy served as the only significant predic-
tor, β = .27, p = .017, and liking was not statistically significant, β = .14, p = .172.
In order to further tease apart the difference between using the combined measure of frisson
(which included both self-report and GSR data) and using a self-reported measure of frisson
alone, correlations between Openness and frisson were also computed using participants’ but-
ton-press counts by themselves, without referencing physiological data at all (see Table 1 for
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Colver and El-Alayli 11
these values). The correlation with overall Openness was equal in strength regardless of which
frisson measure was used. The most notable differences were that the correlation between the
Fantasy subfacet and frisson became significantly weaker when using the self-report measure
of frisson, t(93) = 2.14, p = .035, whereas the correlation between the Feelings subfacet and
frisson became significantly stronger when using the self-report measure of frisson, t(93) =
−2.08, p = .041.
We also performed a Simultaneous Multiple Regression examining the effects of the
Openness subfacets on self-reported frisson. Once again, the overall model was significant, F(6,
89) = 4.57, p < .001. However, the only facet of Openness whose unique variance was related
to frisson experiences was Openness to Feelings, β = .21, p = .05, when physiological data were
not taken into account.
Discussion
The present study investigated whether qualitative differences in personality, particularly
Openness, may affect frisson experiences. Although a relationship between Openness to
Experience and frisson has been posed in past research, it was tested using only self-report
measures of frisson and without examining direct responses to live frisson-inducing musical
stimuli (McCrae, 2007; Nusbaum & Silvia, 2011; Nusbaum et al., 2014; Silvia & Nusbaum,
2011). Using a combined self-report/physiological measure of frisson, the present study
found that higher Openness scores on the NEO-PI-R correlated with a greater number of
actual experiences of frisson (aesthetic chills) during a live music listening session. This
result both substantiates an Openness-frisson relationship and sheds greater light on its
complex nature.
Previous research had pointed to Aesthetics and Feelings as the two subfacets of Openness
most likely to correlate with frisson (McCrae, 2007). There was some evidence of this in the
present study, but only when examining self-reported frisson. The Feelings subscale was iden-
tified as the only Openness subfacet with a unique contribution to frisson experiences.
However, judging by the results involving our primary measure of frisson, cognitive and
intellectual factors may play an even bigger role in frisson than emotional and aesthetic fac-
tors, something not indicated by previous research using self-report measures. When using
this combined physiological/self-report measure of frisson, Fantasy (a cognitive dimension of
Openness) was shown to be the only subfacet whose unique variance was related to the expe-
rience of frisson.
As such, the results of the present study indicate that emotions alone may not explain the
phenomenon of frisson as comprehensively as previously shown in research that relied exclu-
sively on self-report measures of frisson. Cognitive factors have been mentioned in previous
research, but rarely given the spotlight. For example, a significant finding of Grewe et al.
(2007b) was that listeners who tend to focus more attention on the music they listen to are also
more likely to experience frisson. Within the present study, the relatively strong significant cor-
relations we found between frisson and Fantasy, Ideas, and Values (with particular attention
given to Fantasy) may be a viable link to why attentiveness and other cognitive features matter
so much to frisson. In fact, Fantasy, Ideas, and Values were the only three facets of Openness
that were still correlated with the combined self-report/physiological measure of frisson after
accounting for individual differences in liking of the musical pieces. Thus, the results of the
present study warrant a more in-depth exploration of the contributing factor that the cognitive
components of Openness play into the experience of frisson. DeYoung (2014) reminds us that
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 Psychology of Music
Openness was originally referred to as Inquiring Intellect, and was indicative of the ability to
process complex information with greater flexibility.
On the emotional side of the spectrum of Openness, while Aesthetics is characterized by an
appreciation for and involvement in the fine arts (Costa & McCrae, 1992), this subfacet may be
less conceptually related to the anticipation that facilitates frisson than other cognitive compo-
nents, such as Fantasy. Similarly, Feelings, while an excellent indicator of experiencing emo-
tions in great depth, may lend a hand in intensifying the experience of frisson, but may not
necessarily enable it to happen in the first place. The relatively underemphasized nature of the
cognitive features of frisson within the extant literature could be precisely why, as one exam-
ple, Grewe et al. were ‘surprised’ (2010, p. 233) to find that 17 of their participants were able
to elicit frisson using nothing more than mental self-stimulation.
Given the findings of the present study, it might be reasonable to conclude that processing
music in a cognitive or intellectual way might make the unexpected musical instances that
cause frisson more cognitively salient to listeners, subsequently causing listeners to be more
emotionally moved and, therefore, likely to experience frisson. This conclusion, which advances
a cognitive foundation for frisson, is conceptually in line with one of the more prominent theo-
ries of how musical expectation evokes strong emotional reactions. Huron (2006) outlines the
ITPRA theory of expectation, which posits that emotional response systems can be conceptu-
ally divided into two different domains: pre-outcome responses and post-outcome responses. In
the first category, Huron outlines Imagination Response and Tension Response, which define the
experiences of the listener before the onset of a musical event, such as the unexpected musical
instances that so frequently enable frisson.
Huron’s Imagination Response describes the human ability ‘to make future outcomes emo-
tionally palpable’ (2006, p. 8) and that this ability extends directly from accurate predictions of
future events (expectation). Along these same lines, Kaufman et al. (2010) associated Openness
with the ability to detect patterns within stimuli (also called implicit learning). In other words,
the conceptual foundation of Huron’s Imagination Response is closely aligned with meaningful
cognitive components of Openness, as described by Kaufman at al. (2010). Similarly, Huron’s
(2006) description of the Tension Response is also closely related to some of the more cognitive
aspects of Openness. Specifically, Huron (2006) explains that the Tension Response extends from
mental and physiological anticipation and a critical aspect of this response is perceptual prepa-
ration, which benefits from precise, accurate, and vigilant anticipation of future events. Not
surprisingly, Huron’s theory, as it relates to frisson and Openness, is supported by the fact that
Openness has been defined as ‘engagement with perceptual or sensory information’ (DeYoung,
2014, p. 7), and has been associated with the surprisingly cognitive ‘ability to maintain and
manipulate information in short term memory, despite distraction’ (DeYoung, 2014, p. 16). As
such, it is reasonable to assume that cognitively apt engagement with a piece of music might
make individuals who are high in Openness all the more susceptible to experiencing the tension
and release so frequently associated with frisson
While these results and implications do not undermine the body of previous research that
has primarily associated frisson with emotional factors (see Blood & Zatorre, 2001; Grewe et al.,
2007a; Panksepp, 1995; Rickard, 2004; Sloboda, 1991; Steinbeis et al., 2006), the strong cor-
relations between frisson and Fantasy, Ideas, and Values in the present study help to expand
and enrich our understanding of the frisson phenomenon, especially as it relates to individual
differences. However, these results are also in contrast to the work of Silvia and Nusbaum
(2011), in which results of the Big Five Aspects Scale (BFAS) showed a negative correlation
between the cognitive aspect of Openness (Intellect) and self-reported experiences of frisson.
One possibility that this discrepancy may point to is a significant difference in the nature of
results obtained using a self-report measures of frisson alone. The results of the present study
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Colver and El-Alayli 13
demonstrate that self-report measures may tend to skew results in favor of the more emotional
subfacets of Openness over the more cognitive or intellectual subfacets (see Table 1).
While earlier research has emphasized emotional factors over cognitive factors, this emphasis
may likely be a product of the zeal of an earlier generation of frisson researchers for emotion
research in general (see Panksepp, 1995). This is understandable and not necessarily inappro-
priate given the characteristically emotional nature of the experience. Emotional explanations
could also have extended from early neurophysiological methodologies that painted an over-
generalized emotional (rather than cognitive) picture of the experience of frisson in the first
place (see Blood & Zatorre, 2001). As previously explained, the methodologies of Salimpoor et
al. (2011) significantly improved on earlier methodologies to reveal certain temporal nuances
of the experience. These nuances, such as the involvement of the caudate (which is physiologically
connected to both executive functioning and making predictions), speak to the importance of
examining to what extent cognition aids in the precipitation of frisson episodes. For example,
while the outcomes of an episode of frisson are clearly emotionally charged for the listener, the
results of the present study, in connection with the work of Salimpoor et al. (2011), could easily
implicate that cognitive aspects of Openness may be more closely associated with the psycho-
logical mechanisms that create frisson episodes in the first place.
The most notable limitation of the present study was the use of GSR data collection software
that was not sophisticated enough to be subjected to pre-processing by high-pass filtering to
obtain the phase part of the signal, as outlined in Grewe et al. (2007b). While this means that
the present study is not as technically sophisticated as other studies might be, a good-faith effort
was put forward to ensure that GSR data analysis was fair, consistent, and accurate so far as
options within the software allowed it to be. Directions for future studies include replication
using more sophisticated physiological equipment, most especially fMRI and the type of optical
recording device used by Benedek, Wilfling, Lukas-Wolfbauer, Katzur, and Kaernbach (2010),
which appears to be one of the finest methodologies for recording instances of frisson in an
objective and continuous manner. An ideal study might involve a blend of methodologies: the
self-selection of musical pieces used by Silvia and Nusbaum (2011), the administration of the
entire NEO-PI-R or similarly robust measures of personality as in Liljeström et al. (2013), and
the use of an optical recording device as in Benedek et al. (2010), as one possible combination
of methodologies.
In sum, frisson likely includes an important cognitive component associated with anticipa-
tion, prediction, and working memory, all of which have been directly associated with the more
cognitive features of Openness. In other words, for people high in Openness, unexpected musi-
cal events may be far more cognitively salient and, subsequently, far more emotionally moving
and likely to induce frisson. This knowledge could allow individuals to put forth more cognitive
effort in order to achieve frisson experiences more readily.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-
for-profit sectors.
References
Beaty, R. E., Burgin, C. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Kwapil, T. R., Hodges, D. A., & Silvia, P. J. (2013). Music to the
inner ears: Exploring individual differences in musical imagery. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4),
1163–1173.
Benedek, M., Wilfling, B., Lukas-Wolfbauer, R., Katzur, B. H., & Kaernbach, C. (2010). Objective and
continuous measurement of piloerection. Psychophysiology, 47(5), 989–993.
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14 Psychology of Music
Blood, A., & Zatorre, R. (2001). Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with activity in
brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98,
11818–11823.
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory
(NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Craig, D. G. (2005). An exploratory study of physiological changes during ‘chills’ induced by music.
Musicae Scientiae, 9(2), 273–287.
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Openness/intellect: A dimension of personality reflecting cognitive exploration. In
M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, M. L. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social
psychology, Volume 4: Personality processes and individual differences (pp. 369–399). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Goldstein, A. (1980). Thrills in response to music and other stimuli. Physiological Psychology, 8, 126–129.
Grahn, J. A., Parkinson, J. A., & Owen, A. M. (2009). The role of the basal ganglia in learning and mem-
ory: Neuropsychological studies. Behavioural Brain Research, 199(1), 53–60.
Grewe, O., Katzur, B., Kopiez, R., & Altenmüller, E. (2010). Chills in different sensory domains: Frisson
elicited by acoustical, visual, tactile, and gustatory stimuli. Psychology of Music, 39, 220–239.
Grewe, O., Kopiez, R., & Altenmüller, E. (2009). The chill parameter: Goose bumps and shivers as promis-
ing measures in emotion research. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 61–74.
Grewe, O., Nagel, F., Kopiez, R., & Altenmüller, E. (2007a). Emotions over time: Synchronicity and devel-
opment of subjective, physiological, and facial affective reactions to music. Emotion, 7, 774–788.
Grewe, O., Nagel, F., Kopiez, R., & Altenmüller, E. (2007b). Listening to music as a re-creative process:
Physiological, psychological, and psychoacoustical correlates of chills and strong emotions. Music
Perception, 24, 297–314.
Guhn, M., Hamm, A., & Zentner, M. (2007). Physiological and musico-acoustic correlates of the chill
response. Music Perception, 24, 473–483.
Huron, D. (2006). Sweet anticipation: Music and the psychology of expectation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaufman, S. B., DeYoung, C. G., Gray, J. R., Jiménez, L., Brown, J., & Mackintosh, N. (2010). Implicit
learning as an ability. Cognition, 116(3), 321–340.
Liljeström, S., Juslin, P. N., & Västfjäll, D. (2013). Experimental evidence of the roles of music choice,
social context, and listener personality in emotional reactions to music. Psychology of Music, 41(5),
579–599.
McCrae, R. (2007). Aesthetic chills as a universal marker of openness to experience. Motivation and
Emotion, 31, 5–11.
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In: R. Hogan, J.
A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 825–847). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Meyer, L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Shivers and timbres personality and the experience of chills from
music. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(2), 199–204.
Nusbaum, E. C., Silvia, P. J., Beaty, R. E., Burgin, C. J., Hodges, D. A., & Kwapil, T. R. (2014). Listening
between the notes: Aesthetic chills in everyday music listening. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity,
and the Arts, 8(1), 104–109.
Panksepp, J. (1995). The emotional sources of ‘chills’ induced by music. Music Perception, 13, 171–207.
Panksepp, J., & Bernatsky, G. (2002). Emotional sounds and the brain: The nuero-affective foundations of
musical appreciation. Behavioral Processes, 60, 133–155.
Rickard, N. S. (2004). Intense emotional responses to music: A test of the physiological arousal hypoth-
esis. Psychology of Music, 32, 371–388.
Salimpoor, V. N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A., & Zatorre, R. J. (2011). Anatomically distinct
dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music. Nature Neuroscience,
14(2), 257–262.
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Colver and El-Alayli 15
Silvia, P., & Nusbaum, E. (2011). On personality and piloerection: Individual differences in aesthetic
chills and other unusual aesthetic experiences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5,
208–214.
Sloboda, J. A. (1991). Music structure and emotional response: Some empirical findings. Psychology of
Music, 19, 110–120.
Steinbeis, N., Koelsch, S., & Sloboda, J. (2006). The role of harmonic expectancy violations in musi-
cal emotions: Evidence from subjective, physiological, and neural responses. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 18, 1380–1393.
at Utah State University on April 29, 2015pom.sagepub.comDownloaded from