Running head: MUSICAL ABILITY AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY Intelligence, Practice, Musical Ability, and Cognitive Complexity

This study addresses various factors that influence an individual’s level of cognitive complexity in the domain of music. Specifically, the links between intelligence, practice, musical ability, and musical cognitive complexity were assessed. It was hypothesized that higher intelligence, more hours of practice, and greater musical ability would predict greater musical cognitive complexity, and that intelligence, practice, and their interaction would predict greater musical ability. A total of 72 participants completed a questionnaire assessing number of hours practiced, musical experience, and intelligence. Additionally, they completed the repertory grid technique with musical elements in order to assess musical cognitive complexity. There was a significant positive correlation between intelligence and musical ability, a significant positive correlation between musical ability and musical cognitive complexity, and a significant positive correlation between practice and musical ability. Multiple regression results indicate that neither of the hypotheses were supported. Results are discussed in terms of implications that musical training may have for musical cognitive complexity. Running head: MUSICAL ABILITY AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY Intelligence, Practice, Musical Ability, and Cognitive Complexity When listening to the melancholy nocturnes of Chopin, or the improvised modal explorations of Miles Davis, it is difficult not to wonder how these musicians experienced music. Most people who attempt to play a musical instrument would agree that the acquisition of musical skill is no easy feat. It takes hours of practice just to develop the motor skills to accurately play one piece of music. It takes even more skill to artfully link a variety of notes into a cohesive composition that resonates with the listener. It seems only natural that individuals who developed their musical ability (through the understanding of scales, rhythms, chord progressions, and improvisation) would demonstrate greater musical cognitive complexity when compared to individuals who never developed the motor skills necessary to play a three-chord song. However, what role does intelligence play in this process and how might it interact with musical experience to enhance an individual's level of musical cognitive complexity? The focus of the present study is to explore the role of personal characteristics and musical experience as predictors of musical cognitive complexity. The rationale for this study will be provided in three parts. The first section will address Personal Construct Theory as a foundation for understanding cognitive complexity. The following section focuses on variables that could potentially influence musical cognitive complexity, including intelligence, practice, and musical ability. The model for the current study will be presented in the third section. Personal Construct Theory Personal Construct Theory postulates that individuals differ in how they make sense of the world (i.e., how they construe) because people revise their perspectives based on what they experience (Experience Corollary, Kelly, 1955). Although there are many ways to analyze a Running head: MUSICAL ABILITY AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY person’s intrinsic cognitive experience (e.g., fMRI studies, ERP signals), Personal Construct Theory (PCT, Kelly, 1955) has the capacity to assess how people make sense of their experience in a deep and meaningful way, tapping into idiosyncratic ways of thinking (Aldridge & Aldridge, 1996). Furthermore, PCT is capable of making predictions about an individual’s cognitive experience. George Kelly (1955) suggested that individuals make sense of and give meaning to their experiences in a way that is similar to how a scientist conducts research. People create an idiosyncratic theoretical framework that allows them to anticipate events in terms of this system, known as a construct system in Personal Construct Theory. The core beliefs of individuals, their perspectives and biases, and the experiences that they have been through allow people to anticipate events. Humans are like scientists in that we develop hypotheses, or expectations from our theories, our personal construct system. We subject our expectations to testing, (e.g., if I do not speed, I will not get pulled over) and change our theory (e.g., if I do not speed and don't have a broken brake light, I will not get pulled over) when it does not apply. Furthermore, Personal Construct Theory posits that individuals have construct systems that allow them to make sense of the world. These constructs are bipolar in nature, such that the two labels can be placed at opposite ends of the spectrum (Dichotomy Corollary, Kelly, 1955). In order to explore this personal construct system, Kelly (1955) developed the repertory grid technique. Kelly (1955) stated that a system of constructs is a type of conceptual grid where events can be analyzed in their psychological dimensions. Repertory grids are about constructs. Kelly (1955) defined a construct as a way that two or more things are similar and thereby different from a third; he utilized this definition in order to elicit constructs from individuals with the repertory grid. Three elements are presented to an individual; they are then asked to identify Running head: MUSICAL ABILITY AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY how two of the elements are similar and different from a third. The participant then applies the opposing labels, e.g., “happy vs. sad”, thus resulting in a construct. This process is known as triadic elicitation. Originally, elements consisted of people (Kelly, 1955); however, since its inception, the use of different types of elements has expanded, including the use of art paintings and music pieces (Diamond, 1993; Hargreaves & Coleman, 1981; Gilbert, 1998). The repertory grid technique has been validated through its ability to detect individual differences and is capable of detecting differences between individuals with varying degrees of musical experience (Gilbert, 1998; Thompson, 1988). Furthermore, it is capable of detecting differences between the creativity of individuals through the use of cognitive complexity (Quinn, 1980). This suggests that idiosyncratic ways of thinking are tapped with the repertory grid. One example of how constructs frame individuals' expectation for events can be found in music. Studies of PCT and Music. The Experience Corollary, proposed in George Kelly's (1955) Personal Construct Theory, suggests that people who possess higher musical ability will make sense of music differently than individuals with lower or no musical ability, given that individuals with higher levels of musical ability revised their perspectives through continuous practice. The theory also posits that constructs are bipolar in nature, such that the two labels can be placed at opposite ends of the spectrum (Dichotomy Corollary, Kelly, 1955). This allows individuals to organize novel stimuli, including musical chords. An example of how constructs help individuals organize novel stimuli would be the construct major chord vs. minor chord. The C major, comprised of the notes C, E, G, is an example of a major chord. An example of a minor chord would be C minor, consisting of the notes C, E flat, and G. A musician who makes sense of music using the construct “major vs. minor chords” would be able to discern other major and minor chords that would not necessarily have C as their root note. That is, a musician who had Running head: MUSICAL ABILITY AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY never heard the chord F minor before, but who utilizes the construct major chord vs. minor chord to make sense of music, would be able recognize that the novel stimulus F minor is not a major chord. Several studies applied PCT to analyze how individuals with varying degrees of musical experience differ in how they make sense of music, including music therapists (Aldridge & Aldridge, 1996), music students (Gilbert, 1998), musicians and non musicians (Hargreaves & Colman, 1981), and experts (Thompson, 1998). These studies helped to develop predictions about how people make sense of music. For example, it is important to know how music therapists make sense of music because of the potential impact it could have on a patient’s therapy. Aldridge and Aldridge (1996) used the repertory grid to understand how a music therapist, who was interested in how her patients developed their melodic playing, organized music with respect to the component of melody. The authors made the argument that the repertory grid is capable of eliciting deeper levels of idiosyncratic understanding that are not apparent in everyday life. Aldridge and Aldridge (1996) chose eight different melodies that were meaningful to the music therapist (two from Strauss, one each from Schostakowitch, Bach, Chopin, Janacek, Granados, and Dvorak). After selection of the musical pieces, called elements, three melodies were presented and the participant was asked which two are similar and which one is different, thus labeling the constructs at this point. Seventeen different constructs were elicited, including energetic vs. soft, indivisible vs. separable, balance vs. tension, closed vs. open, and coarse vs. tender. Her analysis of the constructs elicited from the repertory grid revealed that orientation (e.g., the construct, urge to move forward vs. holding back), forming (indifferent vs. arousing), feeling (deep vs. superficial), and musical (rhythmically uniform vs. turbulent melody) were important to how she construes Running head: MUSICAL ABILITY AND COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY music. It is important to note, however, a major limitation of this study. There was only one participant; therefore, no comparisons between individuals with different levels of musical experience could be made. The authors would probably argue that the focus of the study was to explore how that particular music therapist made sense of music (given h