A preview of this full-text is provided by University of California Press.
Content available from Music Perception: an interdisciplinary journal
This content is subject to copyright.
THE REPEATED RECORDING ILLUSION:THE EFFECTS OF EXTRINSIC
AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE FACTORS ON MUSICAL JUDGMENTS
MANUEL ANGLADA-TORT &DANIEL MU
¨LLENSIEFEN
Goldsmiths, University of London, London, United
Kingdom
T
HE REPEATED RECORDING ILLUSION REFERS TO
the phenomenon in which listeners believe to hear
different musical stimuli while they are in fact identical.
The present paper aims to construct an experimental
paradigm to enable the systematic measurement of this
phenomenon, investigating potentially related extrinsic
and individual difference factors. Participants were told
to listen to ‘‘different’’ musical performances of an orig-
inal piece when in fact they were exposed to the same
repeated recording. Each time, the recording was
accompanied by a text suggesting a low, medium, or
high prestige of the performer. Most participants
(75%) believed that they had heard different musical
performances. Participants with high levels of neuroti-
cism and openness were significantly more likely to fall
for the illusion. While the explicit information pre-
sented with the music influenced participants’ ratings
significantly, the effect of repeated exposure was only
significant in the more familiar music condition. These
results suggest that like many other human judgments,
evaluations of music also rely on cognitive biases and
heuristics that do not depend on the stimuli themselves.
The repeated recording illusion can constitute a useful
paradigm for investigating nonmusical factors because
it allows for the study of their effects while the music
remains the same.
Received: September 22, 2016, accepted February 24,
2017.
Key words: aesthetics, individual differences, explicit
information, music performance, judgments and
preferences
I
N
1977,
THE
G
ERMAN RADIO STATION
WDR 3
conducted an audience participation experiment
during a live program (see the description in Behne,
1987). The radio broadcaster misled the audience to
think that they would hear three different performances
ofthesameexcerptofBruckner’sSymphonyNo.4,
providing brief information about three different con-
ductors (Karl Bo¨hm, Leonard Bernstein, and Herbert
von Karajan) just before each recording was played.
However, the radio broadcaster played the same record-
ing three times. The radio station received 536 calls.
81.7%of the callers were misled and reported differ-
ences between the identical music recordings. Only the
remaining 18.3%of the listeners who called in reported
that there were no differences between the three perfor-
mances. Nevertheless, we note that the audience partic-
ipation experiment had several shortcomings, such as
a lack of control over experimental conditions and
a potential sampling bias for those listeners who
believed they had heard different musical performances
to call the radio station. Therefore, one of the main
motivations of the present paper was the replication
of this phenomenon in an experimental setting.
We will refer to this phenomenon, where listeners are
under the impression that they hear different musical
performances while in fact they are identical, as the
repeated recording illusion. Duerksen (1972) was
amongstthefirstacademicstudiestouseasimilar
approach. He played two tape recordings of an identical
piano performance to music major and nonmusic major
students. Participants were told that one performance
was by an eminent professional pianist and the other
one by a student. Both groups rated technical and musi-
cal characteristics of the music recording consistently
lower when told the performance was by a student than
when told it was by a professional. However, Duerksen
(1972) merely attributed the findings to an effect of
expectations and did not investigate whether partici-
pants believed that they had heard the same or different
musical performances.
There are a number of studies that used similar exper-
imental paradigms, presenting participants with identi-
cal recordings in succession (Behne & Wo¨llner, 2011;
Cavitt, 1997, 2002; Elliott, 1995; Griffiths, 2008; Juch-
niewicz, 2008; Radocy, 1976; Silvey, 2009). The main
purpose of these studies was to investigate nonmusical
factors that influence evaluations of musical perfor-
mances, such as the effect of expectations (Cavitt,
1997, 2002; Duerksen, 1972), authority (Radocy,
1976), musicians’ body movements (Behne & Wo¨llner,
Music Perception,VOLUME 35, ISSUE 1, PP. 94–117, ISSN 0730-7829, ELECTRONIC ISSN 1533-8312. ©2017 BY THE R EGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ALL
RIGHTS RESERVED.PLEASE DIRECT ALL REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY OR REPRODUCE ARTICLE CONTENT THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS’S
REPRINTS AND PERMISSIONS WEB PAGE,HTTP://WWW.UCPRESS.EDU/JOURNALS.PHP?P¼REPRINTS. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/MP.2017.35.1.94
94 Manuel Anglada-Tort & Daniel Mu¨llensiefen