Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Aletta, F.; Lepore, F.; Kostara-Konstantinou, E.; Kang, J.; Astolfi, A. (2016)
Publisher: MDPI
Languages: English
Types: Article
Several studies have investigated how environmental sounds and music can modulate\ud people’s behaviours, particularly in marketing research. However, there are relatively few examples\ud of research about such relationships with a focus on the management of urban public spaces.\ud The current study investigated an open public space used mainly as a pedestrian crossing to analyse\ud the relationship between the audio stimuli and peoples’ behaviours. An experiment relying on\ud covert behavioural observation was performed. During the experiment, three different music stimuli\ud and a control condition (i.e., no music) were reproduced in order to find out firstly whether music\ud compared to no music could elicit an increase in the number of people stopping in the investigated\ud area, and secondly whether music is associated with a longer duration of stay for those who stop.\ud Results showed that the presence of music had no effect on the number of people stopping in the area,\ud but it had a statistically significant effect on the duration of stay for those who stopped. The above\ud findings support the idea that people felt more invited to stay in the area with music rather than with\ud no music, and suggest that the acoustical manipulation of the existing sound environment could\ud provide soundscape strategies capable of promoting social cohesion in public spaces.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Schafer, R.M. The Tuning of the World; Knopf: New York, NY, USA, 1977.
    • 2. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 12913-1:2014 Acoustics-Soundscape-Part 1: Definition and Conceptual Framework; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
    • 3. Areni, C.S.; Kim, D. The influence of background music on shopping behavior: Classical versus top-forty music in a wine store. Adv. Consum. Res. 1993, 20, 336-340.
    • 4. Yalch, R.F.; Spangenberg, E.R. The effects of music in a retail setting on real and perceived shopping times. J. Bus. Res. 2000, 49, 139-147. [CrossRef]
    • 5. Milliman, R.E. Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. J. Mark. 1982, 46, 86-91. [CrossRef]
    • 6. Sayin, E.; Krishna, A.; Ardelet, C.; Decré, G.B.; Goudey, A. “Sound and safe”: The effect of ambient sound on the perceived safety of public spaces. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2015, 32, 343-353. [CrossRef]
    • 7. Kampfe, J.; Sedlmeier, P.; Renkewitz, F. The impact of background music on adult listeners: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Music 2011, 39, 424-448. [CrossRef]
    • 8. Ryuma Kuribayashi, R.; Nittono, H. Speeding up the tempo of background sounds accelerates the pace of behavior. Psychol. Music 2015, 43, 808-817. [CrossRef]
    • 9. Easteal, M.; Bannister, S.; Kang, J.; Aletta, F.; Lavia, L.; Witchel, H.J. Urban sound planning in Brighton and Hove. In Proceedings of the Forum Acusticum, Krakow, Poland, 7-12 September 2014.
    • 10. Witchel, H.J.; Lavia, L.; Westling, C.E.I.; Healy, A.; Needham, R.; Chockalingam, N. Using body language indicators for assessing the effects of soundscape quality on Individuals. In Proceedings of the AIA-DAGA Conference on Acoustics, Merano, Italy, 18-21 March 2013.
    • 11. Schafer, T.; Huron, D.; Shanahan, D.; Sedlmeier, P. The sounds of safety: Stress and danger in music perception. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1-12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    • 12. Brown, A.L.; Kang, J.; Gjestland, T. Towards standardization in soundscape preference assessment. Appl. Acoust. 2011, 72, 387-392. [CrossRef]
    • 13. Department for Communities and Local Government. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3): Housing; Department for Communities and Local Government: London, UK, 2006.
    • 14. Dempsey, N. Are good-quality environments socially cohesive? Measuring quality and cohesion in urban neighbourhoods. Town Plan. Rev. 2009, 80, 315-345. [CrossRef]
    • 15. University of Sheffield. Available online: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/campusmasterplan (accessed on 24 July 2016).
    • 16. Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; Axelsson, O. Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 149, 65-74. [CrossRef]
    • 17. Lòpez-Méndez, A.; Westling, C.E.I.; Emonet, R.; Eastel, M.; Lavia, L.; Witchel, H.J.; Odobez, J.-M. Automated bobbing and phase analysis to measure walking entrainment to music. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, Paris, France, 23-30 October 2014.
    • 18. Yang, W.; Kang, J. Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces. Appl. Acoust. 2005, 66, 211-229. [CrossRef]
    • 19. Stockfelt, T. Sound as an existential necessity. J. Sound Vib. 1991, 151, 367-370. [CrossRef]
    • 20. Davies, W.J.; Adams, M.D.; Bruce, N.S.; Cain, R.; Carlyle, A.; Cusack, P.; Hall, D.A.; Hume, K.I.; Irwin, A.; Jennings, P.; et al. Perception of soundscapes: An interdisciplinary approach. Appl. Acoust. 2013, 74, 224-231. [CrossRef]
    • 21. Yang, M.; Kang, J. Pitch features of environmental sounds. J. Sound Vib. 2016, 374, 312-328. [CrossRef]
    • 22. Raimbault, M.; Lavandier, C.; Èrengier, M.B. Ambient sound assessment of urban environments: Field studies in two French cities. Appl. Acoust. 2003, 64, 1241-1256. [CrossRef]
    • 23. Axelsson, Ö.; Nilsson, M.E.; Berglund, B. A principal components model of soundscape perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010, 128, 2836-2846. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    • 24. Moore, B.C.J. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing; Academic Press: London, UK, 1997.
    • 25. American Standards Association. American Standard Acoustical Terminology (Including Mechanical Shock and Vibration; Acoustical Society of America: New York, NY, USA, 1960.
    • 26. Hevner, K. The affective value of pitch and tempo in music. Am. J. Psychol. 1937, 49, 621-630. [CrossRef]
    • 27. Balkwill, L.L.; Thompson, W.F. Across-cultural investigation of the perception of emotion in music: Psychophysical and cultural cues. Music Percept. 1999, 17, 43-64. [CrossRef]
    • 28. Krumhansl, C.L. An exploratory study of musical emotions and psychophysiology. Can. J. Exp. Psychol. 1997, 51, 336-352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
    • 29. Ellis, A.J.; Mendel, A. Studies in the History of Music Pitch; Frits Knuf: New York, NY, USA, 1968.
    • 30. Behavioral Observation Research Interactive Software (BORIS) version 2.95 User Guide. Available online: http://www.boris.unito.it (accessed on 24 July 2016).
    • 31. Martin, P.; Bateson, P. Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
    • 32. Stanton, L.A.; Sullivan, M.S.; Fazio, J.M. A standardized ethogram for the felidae: A tool for behavioural researchers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 173, 3-16. [CrossRef]
    • 33. Jaccard, J. Interaction Effects in Factorial Analysis of Variance; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998.
    • 34. Payne, S.R. The production of a perceived restorativeness soundscape scale. Appl. Acoust. 2013, 74, 255-263. [CrossRef]
    • 35. Guastavino, C.; Katz, B.F.; Polack, J.; Levitin, D.J.; Dubois, D. Ecological validity of soundscape reproduction. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2005, 91, 333-341.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects


Cite this article