https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5744-778X
Figures
Abstract
Background
Excessively loud music is frequently played at leisure activities, posing significant health risks. However, the lack of consensus on consumers’ preferred music settings makes it difficult to implement preventive measures against high noise levels. Therefore, our objective is to systematically evaluate how different musical characteristics influence the experiences and behaviors of individuals engaged in leisure activities.
Methods
We conducted a search for studies examining the effects of musical characteristics on individuals at leisure activities where the musical experience is of primary focus. The search was performed using the Medline Pubmed, Embase Elsevier, Cochrane, PsychInfo, and ClinicalTrial.gov databases. The exclusion criteria included: leisure activities related to sports, studies evaluating music as a treatment, lab settings, case studies, and participants below 15 years old. The NOS, RoB2, and ROBINS-I tools were used to assess risk of bias. Results relevant to our outcomes of interest were extracted and summarized in tables.
Results
We identified 2503 studies, of which 37 studies were included for data extraction. The total number of participants in this systematic review was 16843. Among the 37 studies, 23 were observational with the remainder being experimental control trials. Risk of bias in the studies was high. Our findings indicate that musical characteristics such as low frequencies, high groove, high tempo, and live performance enhanced participants’ movements and emotions. Excessively high levels, such as those found in nightclubs, were deemed unnecessary by those exposed. These extreme volumes also caused discomfort and posed a risk to hearing health.
Interpretation
The high risk of bias makes it difficult to draw conclusions based on the data in this systematic review. Therefore, and in order to inform policy makers, we need adequate randomized controlled trials in order to assess the effects of different levels of loudness on music experience.
Registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD42023412634
Citation: Daelemans C, Bonapart C, Smit AL, Stegeman I (2025) It’s all in the music: A systematic review on the effects of musical characteristics on participants’ experience and behavior during leisure activities. PLoS One 20(7): e0315986. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315986
Editor: Bruno Alejandro Mesz, Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, ARGENTINA
Received: December 3, 2024; Accepted: July 4, 2025; Published: July 22, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Daelemans et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All data extraction files are available from the Zenodo database: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15419911.
Funding: Dorhout Mees Stichting provided the funding for this work in the form of salaries for the authors I.S and A.L.S. However, the funder did not play any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The grant number is unavailable. URL to the funder website: https://www.dorhoutmeesstichting.nl/dorhout-mees-stichting/.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Over the years amplified music has gained popularity, however, so have dangerous sound levels at musical leisure activities [1]. For instance, studies from the 2000s onwards have reported nightclub sound levels averaging 103.4 dBA, compared to 97 dB in the 1970s [2]. The World Health Organization (WHO) [3] has identified these noise levels as an increasing health threat, as they often exceed the limits set by both the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) and the US-OSHA [3]. Events are not the only sources of loud music that pose a threat as headphones have now become prevalent, especially among adolescents [4].
The consequences of such sound levels pose a threat to hearing health: the WHO estimates that over one billion young people are at risk of hearing loss arising from sound exposure [3]. Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is a type of sensorineural hearing loss that progresses with continual exposure to high decibels [5]. Tinnitus, threshold shifts, and notch hearing loss are widely accepted precursors of hearing damage [4]. Tinnitus can cause a significant personal and societal burden as around 10–20% of affected individuals in the United States report that it severely impacts their quality of life [6].
In response to these health risks, several organizations have attempted to implement prevention policies. In 2022, the WHO published a global standard recommending that venues and events limit their sound volumes to a maximum of 100dB(A) when played continuously for a 15-minute period. This guideline is said to also accommodate for artistic expression and enjoyment of amplified music to be maintained [3]. Nine european countries, such as Switzerland, Belgium, and Germany, have also taken the initiative to write their own detailed regulations [7]. These include: specified sound level limits, real-time sound level monitoring, provision of warning, provision of earplugs, access to quiet zones or rest areas, and restricting access to loudspeakers [7]. Campaigns such as “Know Your Noise”, “Dangerous Decibels”, and “Don’t Lose The Music” have also been set up to educate consumers on loud music and the risks they expose themselves to [2,7]
Despite the regulations already in place, these efforts are limited by the public’s preferences [8]. At events like concerts, festivals, or nightclubs the music being played is a key aspect for the clients’ attendance [9]. Minor et al. [10] developed a model involving six factors contributing to musical satisfaction. They found that musical sound was the most influential factor, with participants ranking sound quality and volume as the two most important aspects. Some individuals find that louder music conveys stronger emotions, enhancing the overall musical experience [11]. According to the arousal hypothesis, loud and high-tempo music induces an enhanced behavioral response: “they make me feel happy and energized and I want to turn it up even louder” [11]. Welch and Fremaux [11] mention that emphasized feelings of identity, masking of thoughts, increased intimacy, and easier socializing are other positive outcomes of loud music reported by nightclub attendees. To maximize revenue, venue owners are naturally invested in maintaining customer satisfaction with the music. For example, venue owners could be reluctant to decrease sound levels as it is hypothesized that loud music entices customers to increase their drinking speed, consumption, and attendance [2,10]. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether customers actually want or need such high music levels to have fun. For instance, several studies have demonstrated that individuals prefer slightly lower volumes [2,11,12]
These findings highlight that sound levels are a crucial element of many leisure events, with both positive and negative effects on attendees. The boundary between recommended sound levels for health and audience preferences remains ambiguous. Desired sound levels also vary between individuals and can depend on external factors, such as music preferences, since listeners often choose to play their favorite songs louder than others [13]. However, sound level is not the only musical characteristics that can influence the attendees’ satisfaction or experience. Music is composed of various structural components such as frequency, tempo, time stretch, groove and the song’s predictability [14–17]. There also exist different music genres and ways in which a musical piece can be played or mixed. For instance, certain styles are considered to be groovier, increasing the desire to move [18]. Music has the ability to convey powerful messages and emotions to its listeners, often through its lyrics or modality which carries emotional connotation [16,19]. Additionally, Minor et al. [10] emphasized that listeners also evaluate musician-related aspects such as creativity and interpretation when assessing satisfaction. Given the complexity of these influences, it is challenging to determine how musical elements could be adjusted to meet public health goals without compromising enjoyment. Therefore, in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of how music affects attendees at leisure events, we propose conducting a broad literature review that examines a wide range of musical features and their impact on diverse outcomes.
Understanding the influence that musical characteristics can have on one’s experience at events can not only deepen our knowledge of musical satisfaction but also aid policymakers in navigating around the public’s opinion to create guidelines for a safer yet equally entertaining experience. For instance, frequencies below 50 Hz have been shown to reduce listeners’ preferred sound pressure level [20]. Therefore, adjusting certain musical elements, such as lowering a song’s frequency, could help compensate for limitations on sound levels, potentially reducing health risks in nightlife settings while maintaining customer satisfaction. In line with this, our review seeks to answer the following research question: among participants of leisure activities, how do musical characteristics influence their experience and behavior according to the current literature?
Methods
We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement as seen in S1 Checklist [21]. The review’s pre-registered protocol can be found on PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023412634).
Eligibility criteria
Published studies reporting the effects of musical characteristics on individuals attending leisure activities where the musical experience is one of the main aims were considered eligible for inclusion. In this review, musical characteristics were grouped into several categories: sound levels, structural elements of the music (e.g., frequency, time stretch, tempo), music genre, lyrics, emotional connotations of the music, and elements related to the performance or musician (e.g., live, improvised). As our research question focuses on the experience and behavior during the investigated leisure activities, we considered the ambiance conveyed by the music and the musical performance to be relevant for inclusion. However, any characteristics related solely to the performance and not to the music itself were excluded—for example, lighting, the musician’s clothing style, etc. Concerning leisure activities, we only included those where one of the primary reasons for attendance was the music being played, such as nightclubs, festivals, and concerts. For instance, articles focusing on activities such as football matches and the use of headphones during sports were excluded. Furthermore, studies that evaluated the use of music as a treatment were considered to have a non-conforming study design and were therefore excluded. We also excluded studies based on study design if they reversed our intended independent variables and outcomes (e.g., studies that investigated how drug consumption alters music preferences), or if they investigated only a single musical characteristic without including a control group, thereby limiting the interpretability of their findings. Experiments conducted in laboratory settings were only eligible if they aimed to closely simulate real-world leisure activities. To ensure ecological validity, these studies had to replicate key aspects of the experience they sought to model. For instance, an experiment investigating concert attendance needed to be held in an actual concert hall or a comparable venue, and include features such as live music, realistic acoustic conditions, and an audience of engaged participants to reflect the atmosphere of a typical concert environment. Only studies presenting original data, whether qualitative or quantitative, were included. Case studies were excluded. The review focuses on participants aged 15 years or older, hence any studies where more than 50% of participants were below 15 were excluded. Only the participants’ experience and behavior were considered outcomes of interest, therefore any physiological outcomes were excluded. Studies focusing on outcomes of hearing health were only included if they also provided additional outcomes that met our inclusion criteria. The different outcomes were used to group studies for synthesis and presentation of results.
Search strategy and information sources
Medline Pubmed, Embase Elsevier, Cochrane, and PsychInfo were searched on 19 October 2023. To ensure the review reflects the most up-to-date research, the search was repeated on 24 October 2024. The search strategies for each database are available in S1 File. Clinical trials.gov was also searched on both dates for ongoing studies. No filters or limits were used at the time of the search.
Study selection
The extracted studies from each database were exported to Rayyan [22] and screened independently by two reviewers (CD and CB) for eligibility based on their title/abstract. Then, the full texts of the resulting studies were screened by the same reviewers according to the in/and exclusion criteria.
Data collection
The data was collected by two reviewers (CD and CB) using a form developed beforehand on Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) [23]. Only interventions and outcomes relevant to the research question were extracted. If data was unclear or missing, the corresponding authors of the studies were contacted by email with no reminder being sent in case of no answer, unless contact was previously established. In cases where data remained missing after reaching out to the authors, we extracted any relevant in-text results in the form of quoted text. In this review, three authors were contacted to obtain clarification on unclear data. All of our data was published on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15419911) [24].
Data items
The extraction form was composed of eight sections. The design details section included recruitment and sampling procedures, enrolment and start dates, methods used to address missing data, source of funding, and conflict of interest of the study. The experimental groups and their details were recorded in two separate sections: arms and arm details respectively. Group details included participant recruitment and their baseline characteristics (sex, age, and socio-economic status). The details regarding the intervention were extracted into the sample characteristics section. The outcomes relevant to this review and their details (specific measurements and methods of aggregation) were recorded and classified as continuous or categorical in the outcomes and outcome details sections. The total scores of validated questionnaires used to provide a measure of experience or behavior were only extracted if a majority of the questions were relevant to the outcomes of interest. The outcome results for each arm were recorded in a separate section named results. Finally, the last section was dedicated to the risk of bias assessment. Concerning observational studies, the assessment could be completed directly on the SRDR platform. In the case of an experimental controlled trial, the reviewers completed a pdf form of the corresponding risk of bias assessment tool.
Risk of bias assessment
Two reviewers (CD and CB) worked independently to assess each study. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale (NOS) for observational studies, including case-control and cohort studies [25]. The confounders determined as the most important to control for the comparability assessment were: age, hearing health, and frequency of attendance to the researched leisure activity. If all three were controlled a point for comparability to analysis was given. These three factors were selected as comparability criteria because they can vary substantially across studies and may influence participants’ preferred sound levels and related behaviors [2]. As no official NOS version exists for cross-sectional studies, an adapted version published by the University of Gent [26] was used. Concerning experimental controlled trials, the risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2/RoB 2 for crossover trials [27], and the ROBINS-I [28] tools for randomized and non-randomized trials respectively. Only minor discrepancies were encountered in our risk of bias analysis. These were resolved through discussion and consensus between the reviewers. All risk of bias assessment criteria can be found in S2 File.
Effect measures
When possible, the means, standard deviation (SD), 95% confidence interval (CI), p-value, or percentages and ranges of outcomes were retrieved. If these effect measures were not reported in the article according to the interventions of interest, the corresponding authors were contacted to obtain the raw data. In this review, we used the raw data of four included articles with the approval of the corresponding authors. No second attempts were necessary to get in contact with them.
Statistical methods
Descriptive analysis was performed on reported data on participants’ experience and behavior. Studies that used the same sample population to test the control and experimental groups of their independent variables were eligible for direct comparison between groups. The raw data was obtained and the mean difference between groups (MD) for each participant’s outcome results was calculated. Then the mean of all those MDs was calculated for that sample population. Using those results a paired sample t-test to the value of 0 (representing no change) was performed. If the raw data could not be obtained, or the study did not use the same sample population, then a one-sample t-test was performed to assess its difference from the null hypotheses. Significance was determined as a p-value of less than 0.05. Excel and SPSS were used as calculation programs. The results of individual studies and their syntheses are displayed in our results table or summarized in the main text.
Results
Study selection
A total of 2503 articles were extracted from the four databases, this number was reduced to 2218 after the removal of duplicates. 84 studies were included after the title/abstract screening. After the full texts of the articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility, 44 were excluded mainly due to unrelated outcomes or designs that did not align with our inclusion criteria, and others for alternative reasons (see Fig 1). This resulted in 37 studies included for data extraction. After a brief search on the ClinicalTrial.gov register, no clinical trials corresponding to our eligibility criteria were found.
Study characteristics
The characteristics of the 37 studies included can be seen in Table 1. Out of the 37 studies, 23 were observational with 2 of them following a cohort design (either retrospective or prospective), 2 case-control retrospective studies, 18 cross-sectional studies, and 1 longitudinal retrospective study. Although Degeest et al. [29] originally conducted a longitudinal study, their primary aim was to perform test-retest evaluations of two questionnaires at different time points. Therefore, only the initial dataset was used to avoid repetition, and the study will be treated as cross-sectional from this point forward. The sample sizes ranged from 16 [11] to 3256 [30], totaling to 16843 participants in this systematic review. In all the studies’ population samples, more than 50% of the participants were above 15 except for Theorell et al. [31] where one of the population subgroups was excluded since the sample consisted of children.
The most common musical characteristic assessed was sound levels as it was investigated in 20 out of 37 studies. Other characteristics investigated include frequency, time stretch, tempo, groove, predictability, emotional connotations, music genre, lyrics, performance style, and performance type. The types of outcomes assessed varied and therefore have been grouped into nine categories:
- Attitude to loud music: including attitudes towards a new noise legislation
- Movement
- Groove
- Body feel
- Emotions: including enjoyment, absorption, piece appreciation, piece connection, emotions like happiness and calmness which are defined as valence, arousal, emotional experiences, emotional intensity
- Harmful behavior: including substance use such as alcohol consumption and drug consumption, sexual tension and aggression, aggression incidents
- Effects on hearing health
- Attitude to hearing protection devices (HPDs)
- Use of HPDs
Nightclubs and concerts were the most common domains of focus in the included studies (18 out of 37 studies). For lab-based studies, such as the one by Cameron et al. [32], which took place in a research performance hall (LiveLab), the leisure activity being simulated was reported in Table 1. We did not specifically note in Table 1 that these studies were conducted in lab settings, as their high ecological validity justified reporting the intended leisure activity rather than the research environment. Twelve studies out of 37 did not focus on a specific leisure activity as their research question included any leisure activity where the purpose of the attendance was amplified music [29,30,33,34]. Dotov et al. [15] study design includes four intervention groups (low groove/low tempo, high groove/low tempo, low groove/high tempo, and high groove/high tempo).
Risk of bias
Both cohort studies (Table 2) were considered having a low risk of bias. Conversely, the case-control studies (Table 3) by Carter & Black [35] and Hunter et al. [34] were determined to have a high risk of bias due to the exposure and comparability criteria respectively. Out of the 7 points that could be rewarded for the risk of bias analysis of cross-sectional studies (Table 4), the included papers’ scores ranged from 1 to 5. The lowest score was assigned to Forsyth [40], receiving only one point for case representation. This was largely due to the study design, which relied on observers taking field notes to record outcomes. These subjective observations significantly increased the risk of bias. In contrast, Sanchez et al. [47] and Mahomed et al. [45] had the most limited risk of bias, scoring five points, primarily due to the selection criteria.
Experimental control trials were split based on their randomization procedure. None of the 8 randomized control trials (Table 5), which also included crossover studies, were judged to be of low risk. Dolan et al. [37] and Engels et al. 2011 [39] were both considered to have a high risk of bias. Despite Dolan et al. [37] exhibiting a low risk of bias for most criteria, their randomization procedure was flagged as high risk, which automatically classified the study as having a high risk of bias. The included non-randomized control trials (Table 6) also had a high risk of bias. Notably, the study by Theorell et al. [31] was deemed to have a critical risk of bias, primarily due to inadequate control of confounding factors and flawed participant selection. They chose cohorts from different populations, with the pre-recorded group consisting solely of elderly listeners aged 63 and above, while the live performance cohort had a broader age range of 22–83.
Effects on attitude to loud music
Results across studies showed different attitudes towards loud music. As presented in Table 7, 75.9% of outcomes investigated reported that less than 50% of participants had a positive attitude towards loud music. Beach et al. [2] is one of the few studies which recorded particularly high percentages of positive attitude as 76.1% (n = 422) and 76.6% (n = 290) of nightclubs and live music venues attendees respectively have reported not avoiding particular nightclubs or venues which played extensively loud music. Furthermore, Gilles et al. [12] determined that in two of their research conditions 75.6% and 64.6% of their participants believed noise levels should stay the same or be raised. In the study of Cameron et al. [32] on a scale from 1 (much quieter) to 9 (much louder) a mean of 6.18 (SD = 1.59, 95% CI = 5.74–6.62) was reported. The Youth Attitude to Noise Scale (YANS) is a 19-item questionnaire measuring attitudes toward noise on a 5-point Likert scale that has been developed by Olsen & Erlandsson in an unpublised dissertation. These items group into four factors: noise linked to youth culture, ability to concentrate in noise, daily noises, and influence over the sound environment. The full questionnaire has been extracted from another article by Zocoli et al. [59] and is available in S3 File. This review focuses only on the first factor, which relates to leisure activities involving loud music. The Youth attitude to noise scale revised (YANS-R) is a revised version based on the first factor of the original YANS [55]. It includes 11 items targeting attitudes toward loud music in specific settings. These questionnaires were used in 8 studies to assess participants’ sentiments towards noise and its association to elements of youth culture. Among these 8 studies, all except Zocoli et al. [58] reported statistically significant results, with scores ranging from 2.27 to 3.46, as shown in Table 7.
Carter & Black [35] described that a considerable reason for people to avoid loud situations at leisure activities is that it is “too hard to hear conversation”. Contrarily, Welch & Fremaux [11] interviewed patrons to understand why they enjoyed loud sounds, and they found the most important reasons to be: arousal through “enhancing emotions, motivation to move and providing direct physical sensations”. Hunter et al. [34] collected qualitative data where individuals attending leisure activities explained both points of view: “The benefits outweigh the risks listening to it at a certain volume, it definitely would compromise the experience having to turn it down”, “When you can feel your body shaking because of the bass, it’s too much”.
Effects on movement
Four of the 34 included studies presented data about the effects of music on participants’ movements. Researched musical characteristics were different in each of the studies. Cameron et al. [32] investigated the effects of low frequencies using very low frequency (VLF) speakers on the participants’ movement speed and self-reported movements. There was a speed difference of +0.118 m/s (p < 0.001) when VLF was turned on compared to when it was turned off. On a scale from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much) the mean movement rating of the overall concert was 5.24 (p < 0.001). Dotov et al. [15] researched the effects of groove and tempo on four measures of movement. The difference of each participant’s measures, when the independent variable (groove or tempo) was high vs low, were calculated, as seen in Table 8. In this review, we used the low groove/low tempo group as the control, representing the low condition for both variables. Only movement energy showed a significant increase, with changes of +68.0 kgcm2s-2 (p < 0.0001) when high-groove music was played, and +35.4 kgcm2s-2 (p < 0.0001) with high-tempo music. Swarbrick et al. [48] investigated the impact of performance type on the vigor and entertainment of the participants’ movements. Concerning vigor, the live and pre-recorded conditions means were 16.9 mm/s (95% CI:12.6 to 21.3) and 8.33 mms/s (95% CI: 5.72 to 10.9) respectively. This significant difference was not observed for entertainment. Lastly, Burger et al. [14] researched the impact of frequency flux, time stretch, and tempo on the synchronization ability of several body parts (foot, hip, hand, and head) to the bar and beat. Due to the extensive data, the detailed results were not included in Table 8. Overall, their results revealed a complex interplay among all three musical characteristics. For instance: “strong low-frequency spectral flux was found to result in tighter synchronization at slower tempi at the beat level, whereas it became a less salient cue at faster tempi” [14].
Effects on emotions
From the eleven studies which investigated the effects of music on emotions, eight sub-outcomes could be identified. Most of the articles can be seen in Table 9. Enjoyment was the first sub-outcome explored. It was measured by Cameron et al. [32], Kayser et al. [43], and Egermann et al. [17] who used frequency, emotional connotations, and expectedness as their independent variables respectively. The VLF effects on in-concert enjoyment was + 0.0741 (p > 0.05). Yet, the overall enjoyment post-concert was significantly higher than 5 (indicating neutrality) (M = 6.57, p < 0.0001). Songs with happy connotations increased enjoyment by 1.44 (p > 0.05), failing to reach statistical significance. Egermann et al. [17] could not provide access to raw data; however, they reported no effect on enjoyment ratings for both very unexpected and very expected segments.
Absorption, which included both engagement and dissociation, was explored by Merrill et al. [46]. The authors conducted additional statistical analyses (not presented in Table 9) and found that the romantic music genre elicited significantly higher dissociation ratings compared to the contemporary genre. However, no significant effects were observed for engagement.
Piece appreciation and connection were investigated across different music genres by Tschacher et al. [50] using a multilevel regression model. Their findings indicated that participants rated their appreciation for the piece significantly higher when the genre was classical or romantic compared to contemporary music (p < 0.01). However, no significant differences were found for piece connection [50]. These results were excluded from Table 9 due to the complexity of the regression model.
Emotional valence, including happiness and calmness, was addressed in three studies as seen in Table 9. For example, Dotov et al. [15] demonstrated that increasing the groove or tempo increased the participants’ sense of happiness by 0.636 (p < 0.001) and 0.606 (p < 0.001) respectively on a 6-point Likert scale.
Arousal was explored by Kasyer et al. [43] who found an increase of 2.89 (p < 0.001) on an 11-point Likert scale in songs with happy connotations. Egermann et al. [17] results’ showed that unexpected events had a significant impact on arousal. Theorell et al. [31] also collected data on arousal and valence; however, due methodoligical issues and potental bias, the significance of these results is very limited. The study by Swarbrick et al. [48] also measured these sub-outcomes, however, due to minimal difference in scores between the post and pre-concert questionnaires for these sub-outcomes, their data was not reported in Table 9.
Other emotional experiences were investigated by Zentner et al. [57], Coutinho et al. [36], and Merrill et al. [46]. Contemporary music had an estimated marginal mean (emmeans) of +0.739 (95% CI = 0.548–0.931) for negative emotions, which was significantly higher than the emmeans of −0.370 (95% CI: −0.562 to −0.178) and −0.442 (95% CI: −0.634 to −0.251) for classical and romantic pieces respectively [46]. Due to practical reasons and lack of raw data, neither of the data for the articles by Zentner al. [57] and Coutinho et al. [36] could be extracted. Zentner et al. [57] found that the most felt emotions at a classical, jazz, rock, and world genre music festival were relaxed, happy, joyful, and dreamy. Coutinho et al. [36] reported that only feelings of wonder, sadness, and boredom were statistically different between their two live versus audio-video-recording performances. Wonder and sadness were higher in the live condition whilst boredom was lower.
Emotional intensity was investigated by Dolan et al. [37] who recorded an increase of +1.32 (p < 0.001) on a scale from 0 (not all all/none) to 5(totally/completely) when the performance was improvised compared to prepared. Dotov et al. [15] effects of groove and tempo on emotional intensity was of +1.73 (p < 0.0001) and +0.788 (p < 0.001) respectively.
Effects on harmful behavior
A total of 7 articles reported data on harmful behavior. The most common musical characteristic researched was music genre. Surprisingly, the ANCOVA test performed by Engels et al. [38] revealed that classical music significantly increased overall alcoholic consumption compared to the three other genres (popular, hard rock, and gangsta rap). On the other hand, Forsyth [40] recorded their highest percentage of drunk clients (78.3%) at hardcore venues, although classical music was not investigated. Hardcore venues also had the highest recorded number of aggression incidents (n: 19 out of the 487 clients), although this is hard to compare as each venue had a different number of total clients. Other results by Forsyth [40] can be seen in Table 10. Hardcore venues showed a high percentage of MDMA use (48%) especially compared to the visitors of the club/mellow party [49]. Using a multilevel regression model, Sanchez et al. [47] found that attending a nightclub playing funk, electronic, pop dance, or forro/zouk significantly increased the odds of experiencing sexual assault compared to nightclubs playing eclectic music.
The two studies by Guéguen et al. [41,42] investigated the impact of sound levels on alcohol consumption. In both cases high sound levels had a main effect on the number of drinks ordered (p < 0.03 and p < 0.001 respecitively). Finally, a study by Engels et al. [39] investigated whether alcohol references in song lyrics would have an impact on alcohol consumption. They found that the bars that played songs with alcohol references had a mean turnover €8 higher than those without.
Hearing and HPD outcomes
Some of the included studies collected data on hearing health outcomes. For instance, Beach et al. [2] and Degeest et al. [33] reported that 86.0% and 64.8% of their participants, respectively, had experienced noise-induced tinnitus. Similar findings were observed for NIHL: 70.8% of participants in Degeest et al. [33] reported experiencing NIHL “sometimes to always” after noise exposure. Mahomed et al. [45] also found that 21.4% of their participants experienced NIHL after each loud noise exposure. Additionaly, 82.6% of participants described being at least sometimes sensitive to noise following loud music exposure [33]. Widen [54] reported that 5.4% of their 240 participants had permanent tinnitus and 14.1% experienced hyperacusis at least 50% of the time. Zocoli et al. [58] found that participants commonly experienced temporary tinnitus after specific music-related exposures: 45% after leaving a disco club, 28% after attending a concert, and 11% after listening to music through an audio device. However, permanent tinnitus was also rare in their sample, reported by only 0.4% of participants. [59]
Participants’ attitudes toward HPDs was another recurrent outcome investigated by the included studies. Beach et al. [2], Degeest et al. [33] and Eichwald et al. [30] reported a variety in willingness to use HPDs ranging from 14.9% to 68.3%. Degeest et al. [29,33] used factor 5 of the Beliefs About Hearing Protection and Hearing Loss (BAHPHL) [60] questionnaire to assess the behavioral intentions of their participants regarding hearing health on a scale from 1–5. A high score corresponds to an attitude where one does not care about the possible consequences of hearing loss and is unaware of the benefits of HPDs. Whilst the Degeest et al. 2021 study [33] reported a mean of 3.3 (95% CI = 3.03–3.57) on the questionnaire, the Degeest et al. 2018 study [29] showed a lower mean value of 1.98 (95% CI = 1.66–2.30). This may be due to differences in sample sizes (n = 236 and n = 43 respectively) or the different age groups of focus (teenagers attending high school and young adults of 18–30 years old respectively). Keppler et al. [44] reported a mean of 2.94 (SD = 1.10) on the BAHPHL questionnaire. Prevention of noise-induced hearing symptoms was determined as the most important reason to use HPD by Gilles et al. [12]. The most significant reason to not use it was” I never thought about using it.”
Carter & Black [35] reported that use of hearing protectors in loud environments was low among all participants. HPD use was most frequently reported during several of the highest-noise activities (nightclubbing, firearms, and power tool use). However all articles reported a low use of HPD’s with the highest percentage reaching 17% [44,45,51,53,54,56,58].
Discussion/conclusion
We explored the effects of several musical characteristics on outcomes regarding participants’ experience or behavior at leisure activities where the main reason for attendance is the music. While drawing conclusions is challenging due to the methodological limitations of the included studies, we do find that a mixed attitude towards loud music was identified. Participants seemed to acknowledge the high music volumes being played and actually indicated a preference for lower volumes where the conversation is possible. Nevertheless, participants also declared that they would not avoid a nightclub/music venue because of the loud volumes played [2]. These responses highlight the need for the venues to be mindful of their customers’ health. A different population studied by Cameron et al. [32] expressed their wish for louder music to be played at the concert they were attending, however, the volumes played during their experiment generally fluctuated between 60 and 80dB, which is considerably lower than the normal volumes played at nightclubs or music venues. The discrepancy in the results found on attitude to loud music can also be explained by a confounder that was not considered in the results: hearing health antecedents. Beach et al. [2] identified important changes when evaluating the impact of tinnitus antecedents and self-perceived risk of the noise levels on their results. Participants who often experience tinnitus or had a high self-perceived risk were significantly more likely to prefer lower music volumes. These two variables can be traced back to the level of education on the risks of loud music, as people suffering from hearing disorders are more likely to educate themselves on the matter [61]. Even though teenagers are particularly at risk of developing NIHL, they are less mindful of the dangers of loud music [3,61]. For instance, Degeest et al [29] demonstrated that high schoolers scored significantly higher on the BAHPHL questionnaire compared to young adults [33]. Indicating an attitude where one does not care about the possible consequences of hearing loss and is unaware of the benefits of HPDs. These results highlight the need to strengthen current education and prevention programs to target youth, particularly in schools or universities.
With this review we identified VLF, high groove, high tempo, and live performances as variables that positively affect participants’ recorded movements. More movements in response to the music can be linked to a greater appreciation and increased dancing. Although not directly studied in present study, dancing is a major factor involved in some of the investigated leisure activities such as nightclubs. For instance, dancing can stimulate the production of endorphins, elevating one’s moods [62]. Emotions is another outcome that was shown to be heightened by certain musical characteristics. Live performance, high tempo, high groove, songs with happy connotations, and unexpectedness increase the emotional intensity or the participants’ sense of happiness. Although Cameron et al. [32] did record high self-rated enjoyment scores at their VLF concert, this outcome was not compared to non-VLF concert scores, thereby limiting the reliability of these results. The lack of statistical difference between the in-concert VLF on versus off ratings further suggests that VLF does not significantly increase enjoyment. The positive effects of live performances on both movements and emotions can be exemplified by the tendency of crowds to place themselves in front of the DJ booth.
As previously mentioned, nightclub owners are often reluctant to lower music levels due to the hypothesized impact it may have on alcohol consumption. Only two of our included studies investigated the impact of sound levels on alcohol consumption. Since these studies were conducted by the same research team and exhibited some concerns regarding bias, our findings on this topic are limited. Therefore, more research is needed to gain a more definitive understanding of this matter. When evaluating harmful behavior, the review primarily included studies that investigated the effects of music genre. According to our results, specific music genres like classical, hardcore, funk, electronic, pop dance, and forro/zouk were associated with an increase in aggression, sexual assault incidence, and substance consumption. Overall, these results denote the importance that musical characteristics other than volumes can have on one’s experience and behavior, which is useful for venue owners who are trying to reduce the sound levels played without decreasing their customer’s musical experience. Although our review offered some valuable conclusions, they are not sufficient to provide exact recommendations to venue owners, which highlights the need for more research on how musical characteristics other than sound levels could impact customers—particularly in the context of potential interventions.
The research questions of this review was intentionally broad, as it aimed to explore several relationships between musical characteristics and participants’ behaviors and experiences. This breadth allowed us to identify several distinct patterns, detailing outcomes in the following domains: attitude lo loud music, effect on movement, emotions, harmful behaviour and hearing outcomes. However, it also required discussing studies with highly heterogeneous methodologies, measures, and reported outcomes, which limited our ability to pool data or draw overarching conclusions. Nevertheless, this diversity enabled us to formulate specific conclusions from the literature within several individual domains. In some cases, the variability across findings within a single domain further complicated cross-study comparisons. Nonetheless, our comprehensive literature search ensured that a wide range of relevant perspectives were captured, contributing to a richer, more nuanced understanding of the relation between musical characteristics and participants’ behaviors and experiences.
Drawing strong conclusions based on this review was also limited by the high risk of bias present in some of the included studies. However, as previously mentioned, the breadth of our review allowed for domain-specific conclusions to be drawn. Because findings were interpreted within their respective domains, the presence of high risk of bias in certain studies did not necessarily affect the validity of the conclusions drawn from other domains. Examples of high risk of bias studies include Theorell et al. [31] who used differing and inconsistently described sample populations across conditions, raising concerns about comparability. Furthermore, several studies used observations as a method to measure their outcome. For example, Forsyth [40] relied on data from two observers, which, given the large sample sizes, may have missed subtle or verbal cues. Carter & Black [35] and Hunter et al. [34] also presented a higher risk of bias, however their outcome was the participants’ attitude to loud music which was the most frequently investigated outcome across the included studies, mitigating the impact of bias in these two cases. Nevertheless, the presence of these methodological limitations calls for a cautious interpretation of our results and highlights the need for more rigorous research in this domain, including non-observational standardized outcome measures, clearer reporting of sample characteristics, and more robust methods to minimize bias.
Apart from the risk of bias introduced by the study designs of the majority of studies included in this review, the absence of a standarzided and validated tool for assessing musical experiences limits the quality of the presented outcomes. Besides this, unaddressed confounding factors such as age of the studied population, hearing health history, and frequency of attendance should be taken into account in studies before drawing conclusions on the relationship between the actual music characteristics and the participants’ experience and behavior during leisure activities. These factors, while included in the risk of bias assessment, were inconsistently reported across studies and introduced significant heterogeneity. They were not extracted or used in this review based on the exploratory basis of our study, which limits the strength of our conclusions.
With this systematic review, we highlighted the variety of effects that different musical characteristics can have on one’s experience and behavior. Although highly amplified music is an important part of the studied leisure activities, participants also acknowledge finding it too loud on certain occasions. This observation, in addition to the considerable risks involved with loud sounds, emphasizes the need to divert the focus to other musical characteristics when wanting to maximize attendees’ experiences. Our findings provide new insights into the impact of music on the experience of leisure activity attendees, but more importantly it highlights the lack of adequate studies assessing this topic. In order to reach adequate prevention of hearing damage, and to limit the growing number of individuals with tinnitus and hearing loss we need well performed studies of high quality. These findings can serve as valuable input for shaping future prevention policies. We hope this systematic review will be the starting point for new research.
Supporting information
S1 File. Search strings.
Includes search strings for the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Embase Elsevier, and PsychInfo.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315986.s001
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Carter L, Black D, Bundy A, Williams W. An Estimation of the Whole-of-Life Noise Exposure of Adolescent and Young Adult Australians with Hearing Impairment. J Am Acad Audiol. 2016;27(9):750–63. pmid:27718351
- 2. Beach EF, Gilliver M. Time to Listen: Most Regular Patrons of Music Venues Prefer Lower Volumes. Front Psychol. 2019;10:607. pmid:30967814
- 3.
WHO global standard for safe listening venues and events. 2022.
- 4. Johnson O, Andrew B, Walker D, Morgan S, Aldren A. British university students’ attitudes towards noise-induced hearing loss caused by nightclub attendance. J Laryngol Otol. 2014;128(1):29–34; quiz 33–4. pmid:24398027
- 5. Vos T, Allen C, Arora M, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Brown A, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1545–602. pmid:27733282
- 6. Henton A, Tzounopoulos T. What’s the buzz? The neuroscience and the treatment of tinnitus. Physiol Rev. 2021;101(4):1609–32. pmid:33769102
- 7. Beach EF, Mulder J, O’Brien I, Cowan R. Overview of laws and regulations aimed at protecting the hearing of patrons within entertainment venues. Eur J Public Health. 2021;31(1):227–33. pmid:33011812
- 8. Dehankar SS, Gaurkar SS. Impact on Hearing Due to Prolonged Use of Audio Devices: A Literature Review. Cureus. 2022;14(11):e31425. pmid:36523704
- 9. Bowen HE, Daniels MJ. Does the music matter? Motivations for attending a music festival. Event Management. 2005;9(3):155–64.
- 10. Minor MS, Wagner T, Brewerton FJ, Hausman A. Rock on! An elementary model of customer satisfaction with musical performances. Journal of Services Marketing. 2004;18(1):7–18.
- 11. Welch D, Fremaux G. Why Do People Like Loud Sound? A Qualitative Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(8):908. pmid:28800097
- 12. Gilles A, Thuy I, De Rycke E, Van de Heyning P. A little bit less would be great: adolescents’ opinion towards music levels. Noise Health. 2014;16(72):285–91. pmid:25209038
- 13. Dolan AO, Perugia E, Kluk K. Preferred music-listening level in musicians and non-musicians. PLoS One. 2022;17(12):e0278845. pmid:36542625
- 14. Burger B, London J, Thompson MR, Toiviainen P. Synchronization to metrical levels in music depends on low-frequency spectral components and tempo. Psychol Res. 2018;82(6):1195–211. pmid:28712036
- 15. Dotov D, Bosnyak D, Trainor LJ. Collective music listening: Movement energy is enhanced by groove and visual social cues. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2021;74(6):1037–53. pmid:33448253
- 16. Kellaris JJ, Kent RJ. The influence of music on consumers’ temporal perceptions: Does time fly when you’re having fun?. J Consum Psychol. 1992;1(4):365–76.
- 17. Egermann H, Pearce MT, Wiggins GA, McAdams S. Probabilistic models of expectation violation predict psychophysiological emotional responses to live concert music. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2013;13(3):533–53. pmid:23605956
- 18. Stupacher J, Hove MJ, Janata P. Audio Features Underlying Perceived Groove and Sensorimotor Synchronization in Music. Music Perception. 2016;33(5):571–89.
- 19. Warburton WA, Mohi S, Sweller N, Tarabay C, Spencer L, Olsen K. Violent and prosocial music: Evidence for the impact of lyrics and musical tone on aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Aggress Behav. 2024;50(3):e22148. pmid:38747497
- 20.
Burton J. Perception of Low Frequency Content of Amplified Music! in Arenas and Open-air Music Festivals.! MSc by research thesis. University of York; 2016.
- 21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. pmid:33782057
- 22. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210. pmid:27919275
- 23.
SRDR: Systematic Review Data Repository. 2013.
- 24. European Organization For Nuclear Research, OpenAIRE. Zenodo. 2013. Available from:
- 25.
Wells GA, Wells G, Shea B, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. 2014.
- 26. Moskalewicz A, Oremus M. No clear choice between Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;120:94–103.
- 27. Sterne J, Savović J, Page M, Elbers R, Blencowe N, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366.
- 28. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. pmid:27733354
- 29. Degeest S, Maes L, Leyssens L, Keppler H. The test-retest reliability of questionnaires regarding attitudes and beliefs toward noise, hearing loss, and hearing protector devices in young adults. Noise Health. 2018;20(93):31–6. pmid:29676292
- 30.
Eichwald J, Themann CL, Scinicariello F. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Safe Listening at Venues and Events with Amplified Music-United States, 2022. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2023;72.
- 31. Theorell T, Bojner Horwitz E. Emotional Effects of Live and Recorded Music in Various Audiences and Listening Situations. Medicines (Basel). 2019;6(1):16. pmid:30678173
- 32. Cameron DJ, Dotov D, Flaten E, Bosnyak D, Hove MJ, Trainor LJ. Undetectable very-low frequency sound increases dancing at a live concert. Curr Biol. 2022;32(21):R1222–3. pmid:36347227
- 33. Degeest S, Keppler H, Vinck B. Leisure Noise Exposure and Associated Health-Risk Behavior in Adolescents: An Explanatory Study among Two Different Educational Programs in Flanders. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(15):8033. pmid:34360342
- 34. Hunter A. “There are more important things to worry about”: attitudes and behaviours towards leisure noise and use of hearing protection in young adults. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(6):449–56. pmid:29378448
- 35. Carter L, Black D. More to Lose? Noise-Risk Perceptions of Young Adults with Hearing Impairment. Semin Hear. 2017;38(4):319–31. pmid:29026264
- 36. Coutinho E, Scherer KR. The effect of context and audio-visual modality on emotions elicited by a musical performance. Psychol Music. 2017;45(4):550–69. pmid:28781419
- 37. Dolan D, Jensen HJ, Mediano PAM, Molina-Solana M, Rajpal H, Rosas F, et al. The Improvisational State of Mind: A Multidisciplinary Study of an Improvisatory Approach to Classical Music Repertoire Performance. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1341. pmid:30319469
- 38. Engels RCME, Poelen EAP, Spijkerman R, Ter Bogt T. The effects of music genre on young people’s alcohol consumption: an experimental observational study. Subst Use Misuse. 2012;47(2):180–8. pmid:22217071
- 39. Engels RCME, Slettenhaar G, ter Bogt T, Scholte RHJ. Effect of alcohol references in music on alcohol consumption in public drinking places. Am J Addict. 2011;20(6):530–4. pmid:21999498
- 40. Forsyth AJM. “Lager, lager shouting”: the role of music and DJs in nightclub disorder control. Adicciones. 2009;21(4):327–45. pmid:20011990
- 41. Guéguen N, Jacob C, Le Guellec H, Morineau T, Lourel M. Sound level of environmental music and drinking behavior: a field experiment with beer drinkers. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32(10):1795–8. pmid:18647281
- 42.
Guéguen N, Le Guellec H, Jacob C. Sound level of background music and alcohol consumption: An empirical evaluation. 2004;99.
- 43. Kayser D, Egermann H, Barraclough NE. Audience facial expressions detected by automated face analysis software reflect emotions in music. Behav Res Methods. 2022;:1493–507.
- 44.
Keppler H, Dhooge I, Vinck B. Hearing in young adults. Part I: The effects of attitudes and beliefs toward noise, hearing loss, and hearing protector devices. 2015;17.
- 45. Mahomed H, Panday S. Awareness, attitudes and perceptions of students towards leisure noise in Durban, South Africa. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2024;71(1):e1–10. pmid:38949431
- 46. Merrill J, Czepiel A, Fink LT, Toelle J, Wald-Fuhrmann M. The aesthetic experience of live concerts: Self-reports and psychophysiology. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts. 2023;17(2):134–51.
- 47. Sanchez ZM, Santos MGR, Sanudo A, Carlini CM, Martins SS. Sexual Aggression in Brazilian Nightclubs: Associations with Patron’s Characteristics, Drug Use, and Environmental Factors. Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48(2):609–18. pmid:30552603
- 48. Swarbrick D, Bosnyak D, Livingstone SR, Bansal J, Marsh-Rollo S, Woolhouse MH, et al. How Live Music Moves Us: Head Movement Differences in Audiences to Live Versus Recorded Music. Front Psychol. 2019;9:2682. pmid:30687158
- 49. M ter Bogt TF, Engels RCME. “Partying” hard: party style, motives for and effects of MDMA use at rave parties. Subst Use Misuse. 2005;40(9–10):1479–502. pmid:16048829
- 50. Tschacher W, Greenwood S, Egermann H, Wald-Fuhrmann M, Czepiel A, Tröndle M, et al. Physiological synchrony in audiences of live concerts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2023;17(2):152–62.
- 51. Warner-Czyz AD, Cain S. Age and gender differences in children and adolescents’ attitudes toward noise. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(2):83–92. pmid:26642751
- 52. Weichbold V, Zorowka P. Will adolescents visit discotheque less often if sound levels of music are decreased? HNO. 2005;53(10):845–51. pmid:15696311
- 53.
Weichbold V, Zorowka P. Der Einfluss der Information über Gehörgefährdung durch laute Musik. 2002;560–4.
- 54. Widén SE. A suggested model for decision-making regarding hearing conservation: towards a systems theory approach. Int J Audiol. 2013;52(1):57–64. pmid:23088163
- 55. Widen S, Bohlin M, Johansson I. Gender perspectives in psychometrics related to leisure time noise exposure and use of hearing protection. Noise Health. 2011;13(55):407–14. pmid:22122957
- 56. Widén SEO, Erlandsson SI. The influence of socio-economic status on adolescent attitude to social noise and hearing protection. Noise Health. 2004;7(25):59–70. pmid:15703150
- 57. Zentner M, Grandjean D, Scherer KR. Emotions evoked by the sound of music: characterization, classification, and measurement. Emotion. 2008;8(4):494–521. pmid:18729581
- 58. Zocoli AMF, Morata TC, Marques JM, Corteletti LJ. Brazilian young adults and noise: attitudes, habits, and audiological characteristics. Int J Audiol. 2009;48(10):692–9. pmid:19863355
- 59. Zocoli AMF, Morata TC, Marques JM. Youth Attitude to Noise Scale (YANS) questionnaire adaptation into Brazilian Portuguese. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2009;75(4):485–92. pmid:19784414
- 60.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Criteria for a recommended Standard. Occupational exposure to noise. Revised criteria. DHHS, (NIOSH) Publication No 98–126. 1998.
- 61.
Ritzel D, McCrary-Quarles A. Hearing Loss Prevention and Noise Control 2013.
- 62. Wargo A. The psychology of dance. The Graduate Review. 2021;6:35–40.