Prior studies have mainly explored seating in a concert hall using methods of architectural ... demonstrated that body movement is an important channel for communication between .... and what kind of factors may affect seat selection. ... I want to sit in a seat near the centre position (It does not differ by the concert hall or.
Kawase, S. (2013). Factors influencing audience seat selection in a concert hall: A comparison between music majors and nonmusic majors. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 305-315. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0568-0
This is the preprint.
Factors influencing audience seat selection in a concert hall: A comparison between music majors and nonmusic majors
Abstract: The current study investigated audience seat selection in a concert hall. After a preliminary survey that examined the importance of seat location and concertgoers’ reasons for selecting certain seats, we created a questionnaire and asked 60 music majors and 65 nonmusic majors to answer questions about seat selection. They were asked to refer to a concert hall seat map and to choose their preferred seat for six different types of concerts. The questions were developed to determine their main reasons for favouring a seat—the quality of sound, visibility of the performer(s), or visibility of the stage. The main results suggest that (1) both music and nonmusic majors prioritize visual factors over auditory factors when selecting a seat; (2) seating selection in the two groups was highly similar, although it varied somewhat in relation to the quality of sound; (3) with regard to horizontal direction, preferred seats concentrated close to the centreline except for concerts with a piano soloist. In terms of vertical direction, posterior seats were preferred for large-scale bands, whereas anterior seats were preferred for small-scale performances, except for rock bands.
1. Introduction Among the diverse components of audience behaviour, seat selection is a specifically flexible strategy that audience members can manipulate, depending their intentions for the concert experience. Seats can be freely selected at the ticket counter or through an online reservation system, although available seats may be limited. Furthermore, audiences seem to attach great value to seat location because it influences the
audio-visual information received from performers, which affects audiences’ decoding of the performance. Indeed, several concert venue websites provide information about the visibility and acoustics of the seats, implying that concertgoers may choose their seats based on their predictions of the audio and visual elements that will significantly affect musical communication. Prior studies have mainly explored seating in a concert hall using methods of architectural acoustics, as studies have revealed a relationship between hall design and acoustical parameters. Conductors’ or critics’ subjective evaluations of acoustical quality in concert halls seem to be based on objective acoustical characteristics. Halls highly rated by conductors and critics have specific acoustical elements according to, for example, the Binaural Quality Index (BQI; Berenek, 2003; Hidaka & Berenek, 2000). Ando (1983) examined subjective preferences for the sound field in a preconstruction concert hall by varying the acoustical parameters. Thus, acoustical studies have indicated that the structure of concert venues affects both objective acoustical parameters and subjective evaluations. Whereas the aural experience has been frequently investigated, several studies have highlighted the influence of visual information in the concert venue by simulating the sound and visual field from several seats in concert halls. Jeon, Kim, Cabrera, and Bassett (2008) did investigate the effects of visual cues on seat preference in an opera theatre. In their experiments, conducted with sound that was recorded in several seat positions and screen images, found that auditory factors were the more important in determining seat preference. Sato et al. (2012) also simulated sound and visual fields, suggesting that participants used mainly acoustical information to judge seat preferences. Tokunaga, Okuie, and Terashima (2013) suggested that visual information
affected the evaluation of reverberation and loudness under simulated auditorium conditions. Cabrera, Nguyen, and Choi (2004) showed how both auditory and visual impressions in different seating locations influenced audience members’ impressions in two auditoriums. Valente and Braasch (2010) presented videotaped solo music and speech performers under four auditory conditions in a multipurpose space. Their results showed that auditory evaluations by participants (who included some musically trained students) varied depending on differences in visual information. These findings suggested that seat position in a concert hall in terms of the view significantly influences audience members’ impressions of a performance. Though offering valuable insights into seating selection, the existing literature stems only from experimental situations that altered auditory or visual stimuli in an attempt to clarify how audience members perceive audio-visual information. However, in actual situations, audience members select their seats in advance of a concert without actual visual or acoustical information unless they have been to that hall and have been able to listen from various seats. Thus, concertgoers’ pre-concert motivation or their intentions in seat selection remain to be elucidated. Given the influence of auditory and visual information on seat selection, we also need to account for these two elements in musical communication. Many studies have shown that performers’ intentions can be conveyed to listeners by musical sound alone (reviewed in Juslin, 2001). That is, performers’ intentional expression influences the acoustical parameters of the performance, and listeners, including musicians, can decode the performers’ intention via the acoustical parameters (e.g., Gabrielsson & Juslin, 1996; Juslin, 2000; Nakamura, 1987). These findings suggest that musical sound is the essential channel of communication for both performers and listeners.
Visual information also significantly influences communication between performers and audience members, and several studies have provided evidence that visual information is also important for decoding performances. Most studies have demonstrated that body movement is an important channel for communication between audiences and performers (Broughton & Stevens, 2009; Dahl and Friberg 2007; Davidson, 1993; Luck, Toiviainen, & Thompson, 2010; Vines, Krumhansl, Wanderley & Levitin, 2006). Other than body movement, the length of time that performers looked at the audience (which, in the study, consisted of nonmusical students) enhanced the quality of the musical experience (Antonietti, Cocomazzi, & Iannello, 2009). The understanding of song lyrics was improved when participants could see as well as hear the singer (Jesse & Massaro, 2010). Visual cues, including facial expression (Ohgushi & Hattori, 1996; Thompson & Russo, 2007), performers’ attire (Griffiths, 2008), and attractiveness and stage behaviour (Wapnick, Mazza, & Darrow, 1998) also played a significant role in conveying intention to audience members. The
question
remains:
how
do
audience
members
decode
these
two
modalities—visual and audio—while perceiving them simultaneously? Studies on audiences’ decoding of performances have demonstrated such audio-visual interaction. Ohgushi (2005) showed that visual information was more important to audience members than acoustical information in decoding the pianist’s performance manner (i.e., whether it was deadpan, projected, or exaggerated). According to that study, listeners majoring in the fine arts did not significantly use acoustical cues in decoding the performance manner as intended by the performer, and even listeners who majored in music were more profoundly affected by visual than by acoustical information. Davidson (1993) also showed that observers who were music students used the body
movement cues of the violinist and the pianist to decode the manner of performance. She also suggested that participants could most successfully decode the performance manner when both visual and audio information were present. These studies suggest that visual information significantly affects the conveyance of performers’ expressions or intentions to audience members. In light of the influence of these two modalities on audience members, several questions arise: How do audience members consider these two modalities when selecting seats? Do they regard one as more important than another, or are they equally important? How do audio-visual interactions affect seat preference? These issues are investigated in the current study. It is also necessary to consider the influence of other determinative factors, such as musical genre or ensemble size, which may affect the auditory or visual information expected by audience members. It also can be inferred that seating behaviour will change depending on the number of performers (i.e. the size of the orchestra), a factor which directly influences the auditory and visual milieu. Additionally, it is necessary to observe audience members’ behaviour for various musical genres (e.g. classical music or pop music), which have different performance styles and thus require different audience etiquette (Davidson, 1997). The current study investigated the multifaceted determinative factors of audience members’ seating behaviour by employing a two-phase questionnaire survey. First, we hypothesized criteria for audience members’ seating preferences via a preliminary survey. Second, we conducted a main survey that simulated preparation to attend a live performance. Participants were asked to look at a seating map and to choose a favourable seat. This kind of seating map is often used at ticket counters or by online
reservation systems; thus, this method simulates real-world audience experiences and supports the validity of using such a seat map to investigate seating selection, even though previous studies have rarely employed the entire seating chart of a concert venue. To examine diverse audiences, we compared music and nonmusic majors, given that musical expertise influences musical competence. Musical training tends to contribute not only to being a good performer but also to being a good listener with relation to such elements as auditory acuity or speech (reviewed in Schellenberg, 2009; Strait & Kraus, 2011). Furthermore, listeners majoring in music and the fine arts have shown a difference in decoding the expression intended by the performer (Ohgushi, 2005). These studies indicate that musical expertise may influence audience behaviours. Several issues emerge from such differences: does seating selection behaviour vary between music and nonmusic majors? Do music majors’ reasons or strategies for seat selection differ from those of nonmusic majors? Do music majors pay more attention to auditory factors than nonmusic majors do? Accordingly, it would be reasonable to compare highly musically trained audiences with generalized audiences.
2. Preliminary survey An exploratory survey was conducted to analyse whether seating position was important for audience members. The survey asked participants to answer questions about what performance, performer, and environmental factors might significantly affect their selection of seating. The survey included open-ended questions in order to obtain a wide range of narratives about what factors could influence seating position.
2.1. Method 2.1.1. Participants. The participants were 24 undergraduate students at Soai University, Osaka, Japan. Participation was voluntary and optional. Twenty-one valid responses were received from 3 males and 18 females (mean age = 20.5 years, S.D. = 0.68). The gender imbalance reflected the higher numbers of women enrolled in that University. Almost all the participants were amateur performers. Their individual experiences with musical instruments varied, with an average of 12.1 years of performing experience.
2.1.2. Materials. Participants were required to complete questionnaires consisting of five items about the seating position (Appendix A). The questionnaires were designed to obtain fundamental information about whether and why seat location in a concert is important and what kind of factors may affect seat selection. So that hypotheses could be developed for testing in the main survey, seat location and factors determining seat location were emphasized during questionnaire development.
2.1.3. Procedure. The survey was conducted in a college classroom. First, participants were required to fill in a section about personal details, after which they answered the questions. They were given sufficient time to complete the questionnaires, which took them about 10 minutes.
2.2. Results
First, this study examined the importance of seating location. In response to Question 1, 20 out of 21 participants answered that seating position is ‘important’. The reasons given for this importance (Question 2) were roughly divided into the following factors: acoustic (e.g. ‘I think that the echo of the sounds differs’), visual (e.g. ‘It depends on whether I can see the performers’ facial expressions or not’), communication related (e.g. ‘The emotions conveyed by the performers differ’), individual (e.g. ‘Whether my friends are playing’), and other factors (e.g. ‘I think that some locations are more suitable for atmosphere’). Second, factors determining the choice of seating position were analysed. The following responses were obtained for the question on the importance of seating position (Q.3): seven participants responded that both the concert hall and performer were important; six stated that neither was important (i.e. they always took the same seat); two responded that only the concert hall was important; and three stated that only the performers were important (three did not answer this question). Participants who attached importance to the concert hall paid attention to the structure of the hall or its acoustical traits (e.g. ‘The sounds differ in different halls’ or ‘It depends on the existence or non-existence of the ceiling’). In contrast, participants who placed importance on the performers attributed their choice to differences caused by instruments or their attitude toward the performers (e.g. ‘My choice of seat location differs according to the instrument’ or ‘I want to listen to the music nearer to the performers I like’). Question 5 was designed to elucidate what factors participants regard as important when they choose seats. Excerpts from the responses are illustrated in Table 1. Several participants mentioned quality of sound and visibility as their reasons for choosing a particular seat. Specifically, participants seem to choose their seats consciously and for
reasons that can be articulated. Several participants answered that they would change seating location according to the performer or the situation. These participants also mentioned distance from performers as a factor. Several participants raised the issue of genre, using phrases such as ‘in the case of classical music’.
Table 1. Answers to Question 5: ‘If you were free to choose your audience seat for a live performance, what do you think would be important in selecting your position?’ Answers to Question 3 are in parentheses. It depends on the place from which I am able to see the performers easily (It differs by the concert hall and by performers). If a pianist plays, I will choose a seat from which I am able to see the pianist’s hands. If the performance is opera, I will choose a seat approximately in the centre of the hall from which I am able to see the whole stage. If the performance is orchestra, I will choose a seat in the back because I want to hear the resonance of the whole orchestra (It differs by the concert hall and by the performers). In classical music, it depends on whether I am able to see the performers easily or listen to the music easily. In a live concert [Author’s note: In Japan, ‘live’ is often used in reference to live performances of pop music, so ‘live’ in this case probably means a pop music concert], I will choose a seat in front and as close to the stage as possible to see the performers well. If friends of mine are playing, I will take a seat in which the performers are able to see me (It differs by the concert hall but does not differ by the performers). I will choose a seat near the centre because the sound is more whole and balanced (It does not differ by the concert hall but does differ by the performers). I want to sit in a seat near the centre position (It does not differ by the concert hall or the performers). I choose a seat based on the closeness and the ease of listening to the sounds (It does not differ by the concert hall or the performers).
2.3. Discussion Most of the participants reported that the location of the seat is important when listening
to
music.
Their
reasons
were
divided
into
acoustic,
visual,
communication-related, individual, and other factors. Above all, acoustical and visual information is likely to have triggered the communication factor, because people employ mainly visual and auditory channels during musical communication. A few participants pointed out individual factors that may influence seating behaviour as well as their motivation for attending a concert (Pitts, 2005). However, given that in reality, only a few concert attendees will have a particular relationship with the performers, it is not practical for purposes of the study to adopt a particular relationship (e.g. friends) between participants and performers as a factor. Hence, as discussed in the introduction, we limited our examination to the influence of visual and auditory factors. In terms of situational factors, participants described the importance of a particular hall or the performers—factors that would influence them to change their seat location. Several participants mentioned music genres. These indicated that the conditions of a concert hall and the identity of the performers needed to be controlled for in order to analyse seating behaviour in a concert hall.
3. Main survey Following the results of the preliminary survey, the main survey was designed to explore differences in seating preferences based on the performers and the effects of auditory or visual determinative factors. The participants were asked to give the reasons for seating choices in hypothetical situations of concerts by various performers, differing in size or genre. Participants’ responses were believed to reveal the factors
audiences regard as important when choosing seats.
3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants. Music majors and nonmusic majors both participated. First, 60 undergraduate students majoring in music (55 females and 5 males, mean age = 21.1, years, S.D. = 4.7) with an average of 15.5 years of performing experience participated in this survey. This imbalance between genders arises from the fact that the number of female students majoring in music is generally much larger than that of male students in Japan. Therefore, the participants can be regarded as a typical sample of students majoring in music in Japan. The average number of instruments on which participants had performed was 2.5 (S.D. = 1.5). The majority (54) had taken piano lessons, regardless of their speciality (e.g. flute, violin) because Japanese music majors typically learn to play the piano when they are young. That is, not all of them were pianists. The average
frequency of listening to music in an auditorium or a live setting was 6.8 times per year (S.D. = 5.4). Second, 65 nonmusic majors studying in such fields as psychology or foreign language (60 females and 5 males, mean age = 20.1 years, S.D. = 3.4) participated in this survey. These students had an average of 6.7 years’ performing experience, and their average frequency of listening to music in an auditorium or a live setting was 3.4 times per year (S.D. = 7.5). To compare music majors and nonmusic majors, the gender balance was conformed similarly between the two groups: the number of females was much larger than that of males. This level of performing experience of nonmusic majors arises from the fact that in Japan, many children take music lessons without intending to become music professionals. Music lessons are one
of several activities—such as calligraphy, abacus, or swimming—that students can elect for individual enrichment.
3.1.2. Materials. The seating chart was used for this phase of the study. Its ecological validity was supported by the fact that concertgoers frequently purchase tickets with reference to seating maps, printouts, or online seating charts. That is, audience members generally select their seats before going to a concert. Participants were asked to answer questionnaires based on a seating chart (see Appendix B) of an unidentified hall. The hall was actually NHK Hall, home of the NHK Symphony Orchestra in Tokyo, Japan, with a seating capacity of approximately 3600. NHK Hall was chosen for this study because it is used for performances of both pop and classical music. By using the same hall for all performances, we were able to restrict biases to adjust for the factors of the hall. The chart was printed in colour onto A3 paper. Participants were asked to select the seats that they would (1) want the most and (2) want the least during performances by six different kinds of performers. Participants were able to refer both to full-colour pictures of the views from each seat and to the seating chart. The pictures were taken from several angles among the seats to help participants realistically visualize the views when using the seating chart. These illustrations and pictures were downloaded from the web page of the NHK Hall (permission to use them was obtained from the concerned authorities). The six performance situations were a solo pianist, a string quartet, an orchestra, a jazz quartet, a jazz big band, and a rock band. The different ensemble sizes for classical and pop music were chosen based on the results of the preliminary survey. Figure 1 was
used in the questionnaires to allow participants to visualize the staging for each type of performance. Participants were instructed to suppose that they liked each performer equally. The conditions were presented as follows: they had previously listened to a performance by any of the artists before on the radio or on a CD, but it was the first time that they were attending a concert by the performer(s); they were unaccompanied; and all other seats were fully occupied.
Percussion Tympani Trombone Tuba Horn
Pianist
Second violin
Piano
Cello
Harp
Clarinet Flute
Second violin
First violin
Audience seat
Viola
Trumpet
First violin
Bassoon Oboe
Double bass
Viola Conductor
Cello
Audience seat Audience seat
Piano soloist
Piano
String quartet
Drums Bass guitar
Drums
Trumpetry Piano Bass Trombones Guitar Saxophones Saxophone Conductor
Audience seat Jazz band
Audience seat Big band
Orchestra
Bass guitar
Drums Guitar Vocal
Audience seat Rock band
Figure 1. Category of performers and stage layout for each performance
Participants were required to rate each of three reasons for which they chose a particular seat by using a 7-point scale (7: very true; to 1: not true at all). The reasons were ‘because I think that the sound is good’, ‘because I think that I can see performers well’, and ‘because I think that I can see the whole stage well’. These three reasons were based on the results of the preliminary survey (i.e. including both auditory and visual factor). To avoid omission of other reasons, an open-ended field was provided for
participants to describe other reasons for seat selection. They were also asked whether they knew of or had ever visited the hall employed in this study. Three participants (two music majors and one nonmusic major) knew that the hall was NHK Hall. However, because they stated that they had never been there, their responses were analysed along with those of the others.
3.1.3. Procedure. The survey was conducted at Soai University, Osaka University, and Osaka Shoin Women's University by the experimenter and lecturers at these universities. Participation was voluntary. Participants could take as much time as necessary to complete the survey, for which the average time was 20–30 minutes.
3.1.4. Measurements of seating position. The coordinates of each seating position were determined by locating pixel coordinates in the two-dimensional image file of the seating chart schematic of NHK Hall. The height of each seat location was not considered in the participants’ factors decisive for selection because the seating chart was two-dimensional—that is, it did not provide information about the precise height of each seat, although the chart showed the approximate height of the floors by means of a cross-section diagram. The coordinates of the third floor seats were calculated under the assumption that the seats were directly above the seats on the second floor as described in the chart. The width of the seats in pixels differed slightly by each block in the seat map image. Thus, the average width of a seat was calculated using the central 12 seats of row C1 on the first floor. Similarly, row gaps, that is, the distance between seats, were calculated using the C row on the
first floor; then, a standardized distance from the stage and standard deviation in row units were obtained.
3.2. Results 3.2.1. Participants’ favourite seating location. Figure 2 shows the coordinates of seats preferred for each performance. Both music majors and nonmusic majors preferred anterior seats for a rock concert, whereas the posterior seats were preferred for an orchestra performance. Seats along the centreline of the hall were preferred in performances other than those involving a solo pianist, for which seats slightly left of centre were preferred. The non-preferred seats were excluded in the statistical analyses after employing coordinates because their distribution was extreme: many participants considered the ends of rows and the right or left edges to be unfavourable. The audience seat location preferences were then averaged by distance in seats from the centre of the hall (the centreline), and standard deviations in seat units were calculated (Table 2). The average horizontal (i.e. right or left) coordinate of seats selected by both groups for all performers was within two seats of the centreline except in the case of the piano soloist. With respect to music majors, all ensembles except the jazz band showed a greater variation of opinion vertically—i.e. how close or far they wanted to be from the stage—but more uniformity about being in the middle (except for a piano soloist). Specifically, variation in the horizontal direction of music majors was small for the orchestra and the string quartet. By comparing seat preferences between similarly scaled ensembles—such as the string quartet and the jazz band, or the orchestra and the big band—this result suggested that the range of seat selection in the
case of classical music performers was smaller than that for other ensembles. However, the distribution of distance from the stage was similar, although it varied for each performer. In contrast, for nonmusic majors, horizontal distributions were slightly larger than those of music majors, although the notable differences observed in the music majors were not present. There seemed to be no specific tendency depending on performers.
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
Piano soloist solo
String quartet
Orchestra
Jazz band
Big band
Rock band
(a)
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
Piano soloist solo
String quartet
Orchestra
Jazz band
Big band
Rock band
(b) Figure 2. Coordinates of preferred seats for each type of performance. Error bars represent standard deviations; (a) represents the result for music majors and (b) that for nonmusic majors.
Table 2. Preferred seat location by type of performer. The centreline represents the centreline of the hall. The numbers in this table were calculated according to the average seat width and size of row gaps (e.g. the coordinates of the seats preferred by music majors for a solo pianist were 7.88 seats left of the centreline).
Distance form centerline (SD)
Distance from the stage (SD)
Music majors Piano soloist String quartet Orchestra Jazz band Big band Rock band
-7.88 1.06 0.03 -1.5 -0.28 0.66
(10.23) (6.34) (7.75) (13.51) (10.21) (9.87)
20.17 20.38 32.18 19.71 27.22 15.88
(11.15) (10.79) (11.79) (10.82) (13.15) (13.63)
Nonmusic majors Piano soloist String quartet Orchestra Jazz band Big band Rock band
-5.1 -1.41 -0.33 -0.06 -1.41 -0.76
(11.03) (12.46) (14.76) (12.62) (13.46) (13.48)
20.58 22.58 28.8 21.07 24.55 16.13
(11.69) (10.55) (11.84) (11.75) (11.97) (13.45)
Significant differences in music majors’ ratings by performer type were observed in the horizontal and the vertical directions for the coordinates of seat position (analysis of variance with the Greenhouse-Geisser correction under an assumption of the violation of sphericity—hereinafter ANOVA), right-and-left axis: F (3.718, 208.220) = 9.017, p < .001; anteroposterior axis: F (3.579, 200.416) = 19.498. p < .001). Multiple comparisons were also conducted (Bonferroni’s method). The horizontal direction of favourable seats was significantly towards the left (p < .05) for a solo pianist compared to other performances. Significant differences were found in the vertical direction
between the orchestra and others, except for big band (p < .001), between piano solo and big band (p = .023), between jazz band and big band (p < .001), and between big band and rock band (p < .001). The posterior seats were preferred in large ensembles. Significant differences in nonmusic majors’ ratings by performer type were observed in the vertical directions for the coordinates of seat position (ANOVA, F (3.896, 214.288) = 14.970. p < .001); however, they were not observed in the horizontal directions. Significant differences were found in the vertical direction between orchestra and others, except for big band (p < .001), between jazz band and big band (p = .010), between string quartet and rock band (p = .015), and between big band and rock band (p < .001). We conducted a t-test on the vertical and horizontal directions for the coordinates of seats preferred by both types of participants for each performer. There was no significant difference between music majors and nonmusic majors.
3.2.2. The reasons for participants’ choice of seat. We next analysed the grounds on which participants chose their favourite or least-favourite seats. Figure 3 shows the average of responses for the reasons reported by the participants for their preferred seats.
Quality of sound Visibility of performer(s) Visibility of the stage 7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Piano soloist
String quartet
Orchestra
Jazz quartet
Big band
Rock band
(a) Quality of sound Visibility of performer(s) Visibility of the stage
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Piano soloist
String quartet
Orchestra
Jazz quartet
Big band
Rock band
(b) Figure 3. The average rating values of reasons for preferred seat selection. Error bars represent standard errors; (a) represents the result for music majors and (b) that for nonmusic majors.
Values were compared via a two-way ANOVA, which was conducted for performers and for the audio-visual cues evaluated by participants. The results for music majors showed a main effect by performers (F (3.724, 201.118) = 18.278, p < .001), a main effect by cues (F (2, 108) = 25.802, p < .001), and an interaction between performers and cues (F (6.321, 341.339) = 6.164, p < .001). The results for nonmusic majors showed a main effect by performers (F (3.527, 208.088) = 5.892, p < .001), a main effect by cues (F (1.728, 101.963) = 8.142, p < .001), and an interaction between performers and cues (F (7.020, 414.152) = 5.775, p < .001). An ANOVA and multiple comparisons (Bonferroni’s method) were conducted for audio-visual cues within each performance type (Table 3).
Table 3. The summary of the results of the ANOVA for each performer and post hoc test. VP represents visibility of performer, So represents quality of sound and VS represents visibility of stage. The post hoc test was conducted by Bonferroni’s method. Performance type
p
Post hoc test
df
F
2, 118
16.473
So**, VP > VS** VP > So**, VP > VS**
Music major Piano soloist String quartet Orchestra Jazz quartet Big band
2, 118
8.900
VS**
2, 114
5.168
.007
1.758, 100.190
21.826
So**, VP > VS**
Piano soloist
1.638, 103.189
16.754
So**, VP > VS**
String quartet
1.750, 108.483
2.072
.137
Orchestra
1.653, 100.817
2.791
.076
Jazz quartet
1.666, 101.642
3.220
.053
Big band
1.674, 103.804
5.426
.009
VP > So**
2, 124
7.809
.001
VP > So**, VP > VS**
Rock band
VP > So*
Nonmusic major
Rock band
**p VS**, VS > So*
Orchestra
1.795, 104.096
5.351
.008
VS > So*
Jazz quartet
1.785, 101.717
4.288
.020
VP > VS*
Big band
1.654, 89.314
3.142
.057
Rock band
1.468, 83.674
9.099
.001
Piano soloist
1.689, 106.391
15.479
So**, VP > VS**, VS > So*
String quartet
1.613, 100.027
17.415
So**, VP > VS**, VS > So*
Orchestra
1.436, 86.180
20.130
So**, VS > So**
Jazz quartet
1.803, 109.979
22.579
So**, VP > VS**, VS > So**
Big band
1.720, 106.668
32.256
So**, VP > VS**, VS > So**
Rock band
1.795, 111.280
19.329
So**, VP > VS**, VS > So**
Music major
VP > So**, VP > VS**
Nonmusic major
**p
