Marketing Letters

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

The same old song: The power of familiarity in music choice

  • Morgan K. Ward
  • Joseph K. Goodman
  • Julie R. Irwin
Article

Abstract

Does "familiarity breed contempt" or is "to know you is to love you"? In this research, we explore the role of familiarity in music choice. We show that although consumers say they would prefer to listen to unfamiliar music, in actuality familiarity with music positively predicts preference for songs, play lists, and radio stations. Familiarity with music is at least as good, if not a better, predictor of choice as are liking, satiation (which actually positively predicts choice), and regret. We suggest that the need for familiarity is driven by consumers' low need for stimulation in the music domain, and show that when the need for stimulation decreases, the power of familiarity significantly increases. In addition to their theoretical contribution, these results are informative for music managers determining playlists, for the promotion of music events and products, and for advertisers selecting the most potentially lucrative music venues.

Keywords

Familiarity Mere exposure Optimum stimulation level Music Song 

References

  1. Arbitron (2007). Radio today: how America listens to radio. www.arbitron.com/study/grt.asp. Accessed 27 Jul 2010.
  2. Arbitron (2008). The Arbitron diary service. www.arbitron.com/diary/home.htm. Accessed 27 Jul 2010.
  3. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  5. Broniarczyk, S. M., Hoyer, W. D., & McAlister, L. (1998). Consumers' perceptions of the assortment offered in a grocery category: the impact of item reduction. Journal Marketing Research, 35, 166–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berryman, J. C. (1984). Interest and liking: further sequential effects. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, 3, 39–42.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, C. (1992). The desire for the new: its nature and social location as presented in theories of fashion and modern consumerism. In R. Silverstone & E. Hirsch (Eds.), Consuming technologies: media and information in domestic spaces. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Dotinga, R. (2005). Radio industry hits shuffle. Wired Magazine. http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2005/06/67727. Accessed 27 Jul 27 2010.
  9. eMarketer (2010). http://www.emarketer.com/. Accessed 19 Oct 2010.
  10. Edison Research (2006). Follow-up Edison media research study on 12–24 radio listening shows sharp decreases in TSL and usage. http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2006/09/followup_edison.php. Accessed 27 Jul 2010.
  11. Ferraro, R., Bettman, J. R., & Chartrand, T. L. (2009), The power of strangers: the effect of incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 729–741.Google Scholar
  12. Fiske, D. W., & Maddi, S. R. (1961). Functions of varied experience. Homewood: Dorsey.Google Scholar
  13. Furnham, A., & Bradley, A. (1997). Music while you work: the differential distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 445–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillebaart, M., Förster, J., & Rotteveel, M. (2012). Mere exposure revisited: the influence of growth versus security cues on evaluations of novel and familiar stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (forthcoming). Data collection in a flat world: the strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.Google Scholar
  16. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 306–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Little, J. (2010, February 5). Senior Consultant, Troy Research, InterviewGoogle Scholar
  18. Maddi, S. R. (1968). The pursuit of consistency and variety. In R. P. Abelson et al. (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  19. McAlister, L., & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety seeking behavior: an interdisciplinary review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mowen, J. C. (1988). Beyond consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 5, 15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & Hargreaves, J. J. (2004). Uses of music in everyday life. Music Percept, 22, 41–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Radio Advertising Bureau (2009). http://www.rab.com/public/pr/yearly.cfm. Accessed 27 Jul 2 2010.
  23. Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics, and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 272–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ratner, R. K., Kahn, B. E., & Kahneman, D. (1999). Choosing less-preferred experiences for the sake of variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Read, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1995). The diversification bias: explaining the difference between prospective and real-time taste for variety. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 34–49.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, T. D. (2009). Know thyself. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zajonc, R. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgan K. Ward
    • 1
  • Joseph K. Goodman
    • 2
  • Julie R. Irwin
    • 3
  1. 1.Cox School of BusinessSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA
  2. 2.Olin Business SchoolWashington University in St LouisSt LouisUSA
  3. 3.McCombs School of BusinessThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations