Access-Awareness-Agency (AAA) Model of Music-Based Social-Emotional Competence (MuSEC)

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Access-Awareness-Agency (AAA) Model of Music-Based Social-Emotional Competence (MuSEC) © The Author(s) 2019 Published version Saarikallio, Suvi Saarikallio, S. (2019). Access-Awareness-Agency (AAA) Model of Music-Based Social-Emotional Competence (MuSEC). Music and Science, 2, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059204318815421 2019 Research Article Access-Awareness-Agency (AAA) Model of Music-Based Social-Emotional Competence (MuSEC) Suvi Saarikallio Abstract Social–emotional competence (SEC) is a set of psychological resources, highly relevant for adaptive growth and wellbeing. Music has been argued to support social–emotional skills, yet there is little theoretical consensus about the underlying impact mechanisms and the special nature of music as a medium for SEC. This article presents a theoretical model of music-based SEC that combines research from general SEC models with music-specific literature from music psychology, music education, music therapy, and music for health and wellbeing. The proposed access-awareness-agency (AAA) model defines music-based social–emotional competence (MuSEC) as interplay of embodied access, reflective awareness, and sense of agency. These three components are defined as the core competencies that music in particular facilitates; competencies that underlie and explain further competence in behaviors ranging from affective self-regulation to social interaction. The article elaborates these MuSEC components and their potential connections to particular equivalents in general SEC and proposes hypotheses for empirically testing the model. The model offers a novel, integrative SEC-based perspective for advancing theoretical coherence in the growing field of music as social–emotional wellbeing and growth. Keywords Affective awareness, affective self-regulation, emotional development, expressive interaction, positive affect, sense of agency, social–emotional competence, wellbeing Submission date: 25 August 2017; Acceptance date: 5 November 2018 Introduction: Can music promote social–emotional competence? Music inherently relates to social–emotional behavior. It is a forum for emotions (Sloboda & Juslin, 2001), embodiment (Leman, 2016), and interaction (Clayton, 2009; Cross, 2014; Tarr, Launay, & Dunbar, 2014). Thus, in elaborating the relevance of music—whether discussing child development, education, or health promotion—we can certainly assume social–emotional aspects to play a role. This article approaches the social–emotional relevance of music from the perspective of skill development, that is, the potential of music to promote social–emotional competence (SEC). A growing body of research has evidenced the positive impacts and transfer effects of music engagement on cognitive achievement (Miendlarzewska & Trost, 2014; Schellenberg, 2004). However, considering the strong link between music and social and emotional experiences, one could particularly expect music’s transfer effects to occur in the social–emotional domain. Preliminary evidence shows that musically trained adults outperform musically untrained adults in recognizing emotions in spoken sentences (Thompson, Schellenberg, & Husain, 2004). Musical training relates to higher scores in the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) (Petrides, Niven, & Mouskounti, 2006) and lower scores of alexithymia (using the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)), that is, the inability to recognize emotions in self and others (Theorell, Finnish Centre for Interdisciplinary Music Research/Department of Music, Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyva ¨skyla ¨, Jyva ¨skyla ¨, Finland Corresponding author: Suvi Saarikallio, Docent of Music Psychology, Department of Music, Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyva ¨skyla ¨, P.O. Box 35, Jyva ¨skyla ¨40014, Finland. Email: [email protected] Music & Science Volume 2: 1–16 ªThe Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/2059204318815421 journals.sagepub.com/home/mns Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). l Lennartsson, Mosing, & Ullen, 2014). Musical training has also been found to correlate with a higher score on the Test of Emotion Comprehension (TEC), but the effect disappeared when general IQ scores were held constant (Schellenberg & Mankarious, 2012). Most studies in this field have been correlational, but Thompson, Schellenberg, and Husain (2004) conducted an intervention study with 6year-olds showing that children who received 1 year of musical training were better in identifying the difficult emotional expressions (anger and fear) in speech prosody than their peers in the control group (no training). An increasing amount of research is substantiating the positive impact of music engagement on pro-social interaction. Studies on group singing (Anshel & Kipper, 1988, Clift, 2012; Murcia & Kreutz, 2012) and dancing (Davidson & Emberly, 2012) indicate connections between musical activity and increased levels of social communication and bonding. Joint music engagement has been shown to increase children’s spontaneous cooperative and helpful behavior (Kirschner & Tomasello, 2010), and empathy (Rabinowitch, Cross, & Burnard, 2013). Rabinowitch, Cross, and Burnard (2013) designed an empathypromotion music program consisting of interactive musical games for a period of one school year and observed increases in primary school children’s empathy scores in comparison with a control group. Kirschner and Tomasello (2012) conducted an experiment with 4-year-old children: the experiment group, in which children participated in singing, playing and dancing, showed higher scores than a control group in spontaneous helping and cooperative problem-solving tasks. Costa-Giomi (2004) found that 3 years of weekly individual piano lessons resulted in improvements in school children’s self-esteem and school music marks, but not in academic achievement in math and language. The impact of music engagement on social bonding has also been evidenced through physiological correlates, such as release of oxytocin (Koelsch & Stegemann, 2012). However, some contradictory findings also exist; Schellenberg (2004) found that keyboard and Koda´ly voice lessons brought increases in children’s IQ scores but not in their social behavior as measured by the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC, Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992). Evidence is thus emerging about the connections of music engagement to social–emotional competencies such as emotion recognition, empathy, pro-social behavior, and self-esteem. However, the current research base comprises only a handful of studies, each of which has targeted somewhat different concepts as outcomes, employed different measures for assessing them, and investigated different types of musical behaviors as the source of impact. The field is currently too scattered to enable general conclusions about connections between music and SEC. The topic is complex, as music engagement can be anything from a solo violinist training for a performance to 4-year-olds participating in a music and movement group, to friends listening to music together. There is a notable discrepancy of most of the above-mentioned research on the impact of music on SEC being studied within music training and active music-making contexts, while most of the personal social–emotional uses of music are actually being studied in the context of everyday music listening (Scha¨fer, Sedlmeier, Stadtler, & Huron, 2013; Sloboda, Lamont, & Greasley, 2009; Va¨stfja¨ll, Juslin, & Hartig, 2012). A comprehensive understanding of music as a source of social– emotional competence should be able to integrate these fields. One of the only studies focusing on the impacts of different types of musical activities was conducted by Anshel and Kipper (1988), who compared the impact of music listening, singing, poetry reading, and film viewing on trust and cooperation. They found that the presence of music impacted trust, regardless of the activity type, while active engagement (versus passive engagement), impacted cooperation, regardless of whether music was present. In sum, there is some indication that music engagement relates to some aspects of SEC. However, music engagement is still often treated as a sort of a black box: the research does not attempt to explicate the mechanisms of the proposed impacts on outcomes. For example, does one type of musicking (personal music listening for mood regulation) have the same impact as another (engaging in a weekly brass band rehearsal)? What is the expected outcome in terms of social–emotional competence: improved ability to recognize tenderness in music, higher scores in empathy? What would be the underlying impact mechanism for these? Do different types of musical activities share the same mechanisms? A good example of a puzzling result is a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) that investigated the impact of preventive group music therapy on adolescents’ wellbeing and healthy use of music (Gold, Saarikallio, Crooke, & McFerran, 2017). The control group engaged in self-directed music listening, and both groups showed similar improvements. The impact mechanism remained an open question. As a whole, the field urgently needs conceptual clarification, integration, and coherence, particularly about the underlying impact mechanisms, to allow knowledge from studies from music psychology, music education, and music therapy to accumulate. This article takes a step toward addressing this need, through integrating approaches from general SEC research and various aspects of music research, with the aim of introducing a preliminary model of music-based social–emotional competence. The concept of social–emotional competence Social–emotional competence (SEC) refers to a set of psychological resources involved in social–emotional behaviour. Mayer and Salovey (1997) approached the topic from the perspective of intelligence, and developed a model of emotional intelligence that differs from general 2Music & Science intelligence and consists of four components: perceiving emotions (recognizing emotional information in faces and pictures), understanding emotions (knowing how emotions relate to each other and follow each other), managing emotions (regulation of emotions in self and in others), and using emotions to facilitate thought (generate a mood in the service of cognitive tasks). Bar-On’s (1997, 2006) conceptualization of emotional-social intelligence involved social aspects to a greater degree, consisting of the following areas: intrapersonal (emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-regard, self-actualization, independence), interpersonal (empathy, relationship skills, social responsibility), adaptability (problem solving, reality testing, and flexibility), and stress management (stress tolerance, impulse control). Rose-Krasnor (1997) focused particularly on social competence, operationalizing social competence as effectiveness in interaction involving social skills, peer status, relationship success, and functional goal-outcome assessments. Saarni’s (1999) pioneering theorizing about the concept of emotional competence fundamentally bridged emotional and social aspects with a model that consist of eight skills that are relevant for children’s social–emotional development: awareness of one’s own emotions, ability to discern and understand others’ emotions, ability to use the vocabulary of emotion and expression, capacity for empathic involvement, ability to differentiate subjective emotional experience from external emotion expression, adaptive coping with aversive emotions and distressing circumstances, awareness of emotional communication within relationships, and capacity for emotional self-efficacy. Following Saarni’s theoretical propositions, Halberstadt, Denham, and Dunsmore (2001) formulated a model of affective social competence that consists of awareness/identification, contextual understanding, and management/regulation of three affective components: sending affective messages, receiving affective messages, and experiencing affect. Denham et al. (2012) also recently integrated Rose-Krasnor’s (1997) model of social competence and Payton et al.’s (2000) model of social–emotional learning to show how the specific social and emotional skills relate to each other to form overall social–emotional competence. They argue that success in self-regulation, social interaction, and group involvement are founded on three emotional competence skills: self-awareness (identifying emotions, prosocial responsibility), self-regulation (managing emotions, cognition, and behavior), and social awareness (perspective-taking, understanding emotions, and caring for others), and two relational/prosocial skills: responsible decision-making (analyzing situations, goal setting, problem-solving) and relationship skills (cooperating, listening, taking turns, seeking help). In sum, several related models have been formulated in parallel, and in most of these the emotional and social components show considerable relatedness. The integration of social and emotional aspects follows Saarni’s (1999) pioneering thoughts about emphasizing the genuine internal experiential aspects of emotional competence, while acknowledging that emotional competence is contextually anchored in social meaning. Research has evidenced pathways between emotional competence and social competence: emotional competence, assessed at age 3–4 years through emotional expressiveness, emotion regulation, and emotion knowledge, has been shown to relate to social competence assessed at age 5–6 years in kindergarten, as evidenced by sociometric likability and teacher ratings (Denham et al., 2003). The relevance of social–emotional competence has been discussed particularly in relation to supporting healthy development in childhood and adolescence (Clarke, Morreale, Field, Hussein, & Barry, 2015; Hughes, White, Sharpen, & Dunn, 2000; Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley, 2015; Keane & Calkins, 2004; Steinberg, 2005), because these skills increase resilience and protect against the impact of psychosocial and environmental risk factors, thus preventing developmental trajectories that can lead to behavioral and mental health problems (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Eisenberg et al., 1999; Seiffge-Krenke, 2000). Towards a music-based model of SEC General social–emotional competence is a useful concept for theorizing on how affective-interactive experiences of music have relevance for personal growth and wellbeing. However, do theoretical frameworks from general psychology fully capture the essence of what music, in particular, is good for? Music is a specific, non-verbal, time-bound, symbolic, and artistic form of expression and experience. The special nature of music likely makes it well suited for advancing certain competencies, but perhaps not for some others. To provide grounded hypotheses about how music engagement relates to wellbeing through improving social– emotional competence, we need first to clarify those subcomponents of SEC that music, in particular, is able to facilitate. What, then, constitutes the core of music-based SEC? MacDonald, Kreutz, and Mitchell (2012) list several reasons for music’s impact on health and wellbeing: music is ubiquitous, emotional, participatory, engaging, distracting, physical, ambiguous, social, communicative, impactful on behavior, and part of identity. Factors such as Musical Seeking, Emotion Evocation, Mood Regulation, Social Reward, and Sensory-Motor rewards (Mas-Herrero, Marco-Pallares, Lporenzo-Seva, & Rodriquez-Fornells, 2013) have been defined to describe the musical reward experience. Others have variously described music as having psychological functions that can be grouped into Arousal and mood regulation, Self-awareness, Social Relatedness (Scha¨fer et al., 2013); Interpersonal relationships, Identity, Agency, and Emotions (Laiho, 2004); Affective, Social, Cognitive, Eudaimonic, Goal Attainment, Everyday Listening, Music-focused Listening, Saarikallio 3 Sleep-aid, and Creating a Personal Space (Groarke & Hogan, 2016); Intellectual Stimulation, Mindwondering and emotional Involvement, Motor synchronization and enhanced wellbeing, Updating one’s musical knowledge, Killing time and overcoming loneliness functions (Greb, Schlotz, & Steffens, 2017), or Cognitive, Physiological, Social Group, Social Individual, Emotional, and Specific Regulatory Strategies functions (Maloney, 2017). The social–emotional power of music evidently relies on the fact that music is a multi-faceted realm of experience and behavior. Music reaches human experience at a multitude of levels, simultaneously activating brain structures responsible for attention, self-regulation, motor behavior, and reward (Koelsch, 2014). In order to provide an overall framework, Bonde (2011) proposed a theoretical model of Health Musicing, a conceptualization of the dimensions through which music operates in supporting health promotion. The model contains two underlying dimensions that range from body to mind and from individual to social. Bonde’s model is a broad framework, but it captures some of the essential notions of contemporary music therapy literature concerning the ability of musicking to operate fluently as both a link from embodiment to meaningmaking and a dialogue between internal experiences and social participation. Somewhat similar aspects are addressed in MacDonald and Wilson’s (2014) model of how group music effects wellbeing: based on a review on musical improvisation from a health-perspective, their model emphasizes access to unconscious,creative absorption,creative interaction,andemotional expression as essential mechanisms explaining the health-relevance of improvisation. A model outlined by Saarikallio (2017) describes components that form a musical identity that fosters emotional health. The model identifies self-reflective awareness and sense of self-agency as ingredients that facilitate both management of negative affect and induction of positive affect, making music engagement beneficial for emotional health. Such models capture recent literature in music and health, music psychology, and music and emotion research, but none frame this literature within the SEC concept. The need for building a music-based understanding of SEC has been noted in recent discussion of music as part of public health (Saarikallio & Baltazar, 2018), but no prior models exist. This article seeks to bring the music literature in dialogue with the general SEC literature and create a music-based conceptualization of SEC. Access, awareness, and agency as the key assets of musicking In the following, a proposition for an access-awarenessagency (AAA) model for music-based SEC is outlined, referring to some of the major trends in recent music psychology, music therapy, and music education research. Access, awareness and agency are presented as key elements for making music a resource for improving social–emotional competence, in behaviors ranging from affective self-regulation to social interaction. Music as access—reaching embodied and non-verbal levels of experience Influenced and inspired by the previous models (e.g., Bonde, 2011; MacDonald & Wilson, 2014; Mas-Herrero et al., 2013), the current AAA model places access to embodiment as its starting point. One of music’s key strengths is its ability to reach the embodied, unconscious level of experience, and music research has been one of the pioneering fields of embodied cognition (Leman, 2016). The symbolic quality of music that allows playful, safe, and self-distancing reach of deeply meaningful personal content has already been discussed by philosophers such as Langer (1942). Pioneers of developmental psychology such as Daniel Stern (1985, 2010) and Colwyn Trevarthen (2013) argue that music operates through affective embodiment, similarly to the nonverbal, archaic forms of expression that are already present in infancy and even allow access to the subconscious. Stern introduced the concept of vitality affects to define the experiential world of an infant, in which the vital processes of the body, such as breathing, sleeping, and rising and declining of emotions, become recognized, defined, and are given meanings through the early, multisensory interactions between the infant and the caregiver, fostering the development of a sense of self-agency. Music effortlessly allows access to affective embodiment, in relation to both internal experiences and interpersonal interaction. Music is an effective form of expressive communication (Gross, 2014; Juslin & Laukka, 2003), able to communicate not only emotion (e.g., Gabrielsson & Lindstro¨m, 2001) but also social intentions, such as being domineering, disdainful or conciliatory (Aucouturier & Canonne, 2017). Probably the most widely studied characteristic of music that fosters embodied intersubjectivity is rhythmic periodicity: periodicity in music allows mutual synchronization and joint interpersonal action at the level of rudimentary embodied behavior (Keller, Novembre, & Hove, 2014; Knoblich, Butterfill, & Sebanz, 2011). The relevance of participation in interpersonal experiences at the embodied level has been evidenced: the experience of intersubjective synchrony effectively increases prosocial behavior among individuals (Cirelli, Wan, & Trainor, 2014; Rennung & Go¨ritz, 2016). Music’s ability to provide access to embodied, nonverbal levels of experience also resonates with how emotional processing is conceptualized in a therapy context: optimal emotional processing in psychotherapy should contain activation of emotional arousal, and the ability to emotionally tolerate that arousal, and also allow self-reflective meaning-making about the experience (Greenberg & Pascual-Leone, 2006). Music-making and music listening often serve as the embodied-symbolic trigger and the safe, tolerable space for emotional experiences to emerge and be 4Music & Science approached, facilitating the client’s initial access to and ability to endure difficult experiences, which can then be processed in discussion with the therapist (Erkkila¨, AlaRuona, Punkanen, & Fachner, 2012). The sense of communication without verbal exchange and the act of sharing emotional experiences non-verbally with the therapist and other clients have been identified as a fundamentally relevant aspect in client groups ranging from depression to autistic spectrum disorders (MacDonald & Wilson, 2014). Music as awareness—self-reflective comprehension of experience and behavior The essence of music as a form of SEC not only relates to accessing the embodied but also the potential of bringing these non-verbal levels of experience into dialogue with conscious reflection and meaning-making. Many theoretical propositions about the affective impact of music address the concept of affective awareness in one way or another. Even Ruud’s (1997) discussion about the awareness of feelings posits that music may enhance the ability to experience various emotional nuances, express various degrees of intensity of emotions, and that this may further help to maintain precise concepts about feelings. Similarly, Frijda and Sundararajan (2007) write about refined emotions and propose that musical emotions (as art experiences in general) are characterized by self-reflection, detachment, and elaborative awareness of the experience, which allows self-reflective understanding and the experience of emotional nuances. Garrido and Schubert (2010, 2011) further argue that music allows simultaneous absorption and dissociation, with the opportunity to affectively merge, yet appropriately dissociate oneself from, the affective content, and so also enables the enjoyment and appreciation of sad music and difficult emotions. Lehtonen (1993) states that music facilitates self-reflective processing of deeply personal affective experiences because it provides an affectively touching, yet content-free story line for personal mental processing, and DeNora (1999) calls music a “magic mirror” that allows one to reconfigure self-image. All of the above-mentioned accounts stress the possibility of accessing affective experience in a deeply personal, experiential, and meaningful manner that at the same time allows for reflection and self-distancing. This reflective meaning-making is apparent in the use of music for mood regulation in daily life, as described by a participant in an interview study (Saarikallio, 2011): [P]erhaps you can somehow live through your pain while you hear someone sing sad songs ...for me it helps, that if I’m dealing with some problem, and if there is also some music that deals with it, it does help me ...I believe the changes in harmony are such, when the chords progress, and certain evergreens, they bring so many associations, and somehow help you to work through ...I clearly work through my feelings through the music. Some have argued that immersion in a sad song can be beneficial if it allows solace, comfort, or reflective insight (Saarikallio & Erkkila¨, 2007) and, indeed, research on the health-relevance of musical affect regulation has identified reappraisal, the ability to obtain self-reflective insight, and reframing experiences in a more positive viewpoint as factors that explain the connection between music listening and indicators of health and wellbeing (Chin & Rickard, 2013; Miranda, Gaudrea, Debrosse, Morizot, & Kirmayer, 2012; Randall, Rickard, & Vella-Brodrick, 2014; Saarikallio, 2017; Thomson, Reece, & Di Benedetto, 2014; Van den Tol & Edwards, 2014). The relevance of music in facilitating conceptual meaning-making processes is not restricted to affect selfregulation but also concerns social interaction. Trevarthen (2013) argues that music conveys intersubjectivity through embodiment and meaningful affect and further connects the embodied experience to personal meaning. An interesting account combining both embodied and meaning-making levels of musical interaction for the enhancement of prosocial behavior was introduced by Rabinowitch et al. (2013), who outlined several empathy-promoting musical components in their intervention study; these included more basic components such as movement/motor resonance, entrainment, and imitation, but also more complex components such as joint intentionality and intersubjectivity. In terms of empathy promotion, the element of conceptual awareness of affective interaction may indeed play an important role: the conceptual ability to identify and label the emotional content of intended musical expression has been shown to relate to general empathy (Saarikallio, Vuoskoski, & Luck, 2014; Wo¨llner, 2012). Many authors have noted the inherent presence of both embodied and conscious levels of experience in music. Eerola, Vuoskoski, Peltola, Putkinen, and Scha¨fer (2018), for instance, argue that emotions in music are processed at three levels: biological, psycho-social, and cultural. In outlining the mechanisms through which music impacts emotions, Juslin and Va¨stfja¨ll (2008) argue that some of the mechanisms (e.g., entrainment, contagion) are more strongly rooted in biology while others (e.g., episodic memory, musical expectation) are based on learning and cultural meanings. In line with this, musical affect regulation seems to be divided between strategies and mechanisms that focus either on embodiment or reflection (Baltazar & Saarikallio, 2017). That is, body-focused pleasure and repairing strategies that are mostly realized through musical feature-dependent mechanisms (e.g., rhythm, acoustics, contagion) and cognitive, feelingsfocused and situational processing strategies that are typically realized through individual-dependent mechanisms (e.g., memories, identification). The relevance of music in facilitating self-reflective, conceptual understanding of social–emotional experience is also reflected by the fact that the few studies that so far have connected music to general SEC have indeed chosen Saarikallio 5 to focus on concepts such as emotion recognition (Thompson et al., 2004), emotion comprehension (Schellenberg & Mankarious, 2012), or alexithymia (Theorell et al., 2014). Music’s ability to allow embodied levels of experience to be concretized into meaning-making processes makes it a special tool that allows not only deep, experiential access to experiences but also facilitates self-reflective comprehension of them. Music as agency—ownership and control of one’s experience and behavior Music has yet another key strength in functioning as a form of social–emotional experience and behaviour: it can easily afford personal choice and ownership. Pioneering work by Even Ruud (1997) connected the health-relevance of music to awareness of feelings, agency, belonging, and meaning, emphasizing music as a forum that allows individuals to be agentic actors of their personal health promotion, instead of being medical objects. Christopher Small (1998) introduced the term musicking and Tia DeNora (1999) labelled music as a technology of self, both laying ground for the shift towards appreciating music users as active meaningmakers and music as a personal resource. The idea of conceptualizing music as a personal resource has been visible in the uses and gratifications approach that has been popular in media research on music (e.g., Arnett, 1995). Research on youth development has identified music’s ability to provide agency as an important element in adolescents’ growth towards independence: music is a forum far enough from adult control to allow personal control, not only over the sound environment but also of the mental content of what to think, how to feel, and what to pay attention to (Laiho, 2004). Recent literature in music cognition has used the term affordance to discuss how music functions as a resource for individuals (Krueger, 2018), and music therapy literature has used the terms musical affordance and musical appropriation to address music as a potential space to allow empowerment in client-therapist power-relations (Rolvsjord, 2006). Within music education, Lucy Green (2008) has built bridges between informal and formal learning by emphasizing the self-directedness of learning, and the concept of agency has been discussed recently in terms of democracy in the classroom, with authors stressing the importance of the learner’s experience and ability to have a say in their musical learning (Karlsen, 2011; Karlsen & Westerlund, 2011). Music indeed effortlessly offers possibilities for agency concerning both one’s internal emotional experience and social participation. It provides personalization to daily activities through listening choices (Sloboda & O’Neill, 2001), and the pleasure drawn from daily music listening is essentially constituted of feelings of self-determination and empowerment (Saarikallio, Maksimainen, & Randall, 2018). Ruud (1997) suggests that music serves as a daily resource for the sense of agency by providing experiences of controlling the environment, “being somebody,” and perceiving life as manageable and meaningful. Laiho (2004) emphasizes music as adolescents’ playground for training emotional self-control and self-expression. She argues that music allows young people to access deep inner experiences—by surrendering to pleasure-excitement and self-reflectively processing experiences—and yet it allows them to afterwards keep their cool by stating, “it was just a song.” The symbolic quality of music makes it an ideal tool for fluently negotiating one’s level of immersion and engagement, operating at an optimal, tolerable window of experiential depth, which allows a sense of self-control and agency concerning internal experience. Music also provides agency through participation, offering a dialogical space between individuals. This space allows participation in a manner that crosses borders of authority, facilitating agency in particular for those less in power (Karslen, 2011; Rolvsjord, 2006). A sense of belonging is an integral part of mental health yet is often especially endangered in relation to mental health problems (Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, Patusky, Bouwsema, & Collier, 1992). Through its ability to promote participation, a sense of unity, and relatedness, music has been considered as a resource for agency and participation in welfare promotion programs (Kruger & Stige, 2015). The health-relevance of agency in music engagement is perhaps best illustrated in situations where agency is lacking. Persons with a long-term illness seem to appreciate music listening particularly because it provides them an experience of personal empowerment (Batt-Rawden, DeNora, & Ruud, 2005). Individuals also differ in their abilities of establishing agency in music engagement: vulnerable adolescents (receiving support for depression, anxiety, or emotional and behavioral problems) appear relatively unable, in comparison with their healthy peers, to take action for changing, for instance, their maladaptive music use patterns towards more healthy ones (McFerran & Saarikallio, 2014). These depressed young people seem to gain agency for improving their music use patterns only as a result of an intervention that increases their awareness of the impact of music on them (Gold et al., 2017; McFerran & Saarikallio, 2014). The access-awareness-agency model of music-based SEC Based on the discussion above, this study proposes that the special nature of music-based SEC (MuSEC) centers around the access-awareness-agency (AAA) core, which is tied to music’s capacity to simultaneously support (a) immersive access to the non-verbal, embodied levels of social–emotional experience and behavior; (b) affective awareness of that experience and behavior at the level of self-reflective, conceptual understanding; and (c) a sense of agency—self-control, ownership and active participation— concerning such social–emotional experience and behavior. 6Music & Science This AAA core is considered to be the essential element of MuSEC, concerning all social–emotional musical behavior, whether the musical behavior involves affective selfregulation, pleasure induction, or social interaction, and whether this takes place in clinical care or everyday contexts. Use of music for affect self-regulation,positive affect induction, and social interaction represent types of social– emotional behavior in which one can be more or less competent. According to the proposed model, competence in each of these behaviors is explained by the presence of access, awareness, and agency. Of the three behaviors mentioned, self-regulation and social interaction can be seen to represent the opposing poles in the individual–social dimension that is present both in music-based models (Bonde, 2011) and in social versus emotional aspects of the SEC literature. Positive affect induction can be considered as part of affect self-regulation, but it is mentioned here separately because the experience of positive affect (Juslin & Laukka, 2004; Zentner & Scherer, 2008), strong experiences (Gabrielsson, 2010), flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 2008), pleasure and reward (Blood & Zatorre, 2001), aesthetic enjoyment (Juslin, 2013; Van Den Toll & Edwards, 2014), joy of dancing (Chin & Rickard, 2013), entertainment, strong sensation, revival (Saarikallio, 2008), and relaxation (VanGoethem & Sloboda, 2011) constitute such a prevalent feature of music engagement. Indeed, Groarke and Hogan (2016) recently argued that music is relevant for wellbeing not only through affect regulation and social connection but also through the eudaimonic functions that involve intense positive affectivity through personal meaning and transcendence. Figure 1 shows the AAA model of MuSEC, which outlines music as a special type of competence, characterized by an inherent interplay of embodied access, reflective awareness, and sense of agency concerning affective selfregulation, positive affect induction, and expressive interaction. Each of the core aspects of MuSEC is further expected to hold particular equivalents in general SEC, and these expected connections are discussed further in the following section. How does the AAA model of MuSEC relate to the general SEC? Hypothesized connections Table 1 lists all of the sub-components of general SEC discussed above according to their closest equivalent among the music-based access, awareness, and agency components. This table does not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of concepts but serves as an illustration of both awareness and agency relating to many concepts in general SEC, although SEC models do not generally verbalize the access component. Why is this? One explanation is that the access component is perhaps usually interwoven into awareness and agency, not identified as a component of its own. Access is about the non-verbal levels of experience that only become verbal—or audible—in something that affords concrete expression of the nonverbal. Overall, this observation strongly supports the argument that music constitutes a special, symbolic, non-verbal, artistic form of expression and experience and that there is a need for music-based theorizing in order to comprehensively understand the ways that music functions as a forum for the general social–emotional behavior. Access to embodiedsymbolic experience is perhaps always present in SEC, but music may provide a specific, tangible voicing for this component. Affective awareness, emotional clarity and comprehension The awareness-component of the AAA model has a clear link to the general concepts of affective awareness, clarity and comprehension. In terms of connecting music-based affective awareness to general SEC, it must, however, be first acknowledged that affective awareness is not a unified concept (Boden, Thomson, Dizen, Berenbaum, & Baker, 2013). The literature consists of several related terms, such as Emotion labeling (Swinkels & Giuliano, 1995), Emotional Clarity (Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995), and Emotion Differentiation (Barrett, Gross, Christensen, & Benvenuto, 2001). Overall, emotional awareness can be considered to consist of at least two facets (Boden & Thompson, 2015, 2016): attention to emotion and comprehension of emotion, the latter of which can further be separated into emotion differentiation (e.g., this is fear, not anger), and emotional clarity, the metaknowledge and understanding of the affective experience (Boden et al., 2013). Multiple well-validated measures for emotional attention and comprehension exist today (e.g., Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS), Salovey et al., 1995; Toronto Alexithymia Scale [TAS], Bagby Parker, & Taylor, 1994), although each focus on slightly different facets of the concept. In terms of health-relevance, it is not so much the attention to but the comprehension of emotion that has been shown to relate to health-relevant skills and outcomes like empathy, prosocial behavior, adaptive coping (Gohm, 2003), positive emotions, selfesteem, satisfaction with social support (Swinkels & Giuliano, 1995), as well as lowered levels of depression, social anxiety, physical symptoms, and cortisol (Salovey, Stroud, Woolery, & Epel, 2002). In music, the definition of affective awareness as a competence is far from being an established construct. One issue to pay attention to is the theoretical distinction between the emotion expressed in music and the emotion induced by music (Gabrielsson, 2002). Both of these can be seen as emotion comprehension, but as regards the distinction between emotion differentiation and emotion clarity (Boden et al., 2013), one could argue that the Saarikallio 7 ability to discern emotional content from musical expression relates more closely to emotion differentiation, while the ability to comprehend music’s affective impact in oneself and in others relates more to the meta-level emotional clarity and self-reflective understanding of the affective experience (see Boden et al., 2013). Recently, Saarikallio (2017) also proposed that competence in recognizing emotion expressed in music essentially relates to emotional communication, serving as a building block for the higher-order competencies in emotional communication and social interaction, while competence in recognizing emotions that music induces in self holds relevance for developing competence in self-regulatory processing. In sum, it can be argued that further clarification of the music-specific sub-components of the awareness-concept is needed. Agency, internal locus of control, and self-esteem Music’s ability to facilitate a sense of agency concerning one’s social–emotional experience and behavior also links strongly to concepts in general SEC. The concept of agency can be seen as a feeling of being the agent, the one who acts in one’s own life: this refers to the subjective awareness of Music-based social-emoonal competence General social-emoonal competence Adapve emoon regulaon Resilience Pro-social behavior Emoonal clarity & comprehension Self-agency, internal locus of control Affecve self-regulaon in music Pleasure and posive affect in music Expressive social interacon in music AA A AA A AA A Access Awareness Agency Embodied, non-verbal & symbolic access to experience & behavior Reflecve-conceptual comprehension & meaning-making of experience & behavior Sense of ownership and self-control of experience & behavior Figure 1. The access-awareness-agency (AAA) model of music-based social emotional competence (MuSEC). 8Music & Science Oikawa, M. (2002). Distraction as an intervention for depression: The distraction process. Japanese Journal of Education Psychology,50, 185–192. Peterson, C., Park, N., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction: The full life versus the empty life. Journal of Happiness Studies,6, 25–41. Petrides, K. V., Niven, L., & Mouskounti, T. (2006). The trait emotional intelligence of ballet dancers and musicians. Psicothema,6, 101–107. Payton, J. W., Wardlaw, D. M., Graczyk, P. A., Bloodworth, M. R., Tompsett, C. J., & Weissberg, R. P. (2000). Social and emotional learning: A framework for promoting mental health and reducing risk behaviors in children and youth. Journal of School Health,70, 179–185. Pinto, A., Kreipe, R. E., & McCoy, K. J. M. (1997). Impact of mood states on coping strategies in hospitalized adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health,20, 170. Randall, W., Rickard, N., & Vella-Brodrick, D. (2014). Emotional outcomes of regulation strategies used during personal music listening: A mobile experience sampling study. Musicae Scientiae,18, 275–291. Rabinowitch, T.-C., Cross, I., & Burnard, P. (2013). Long-term musical group interaction has a positive influence on empathy in children. Psychology of Music,41, 484–498. Rennung & Go¨ritz (2016). Prosocial consequences of interpersonal synchrony: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift fu ¨r Psychologie, 224, 168–189. Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behavior assessment system for children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Roddenberry, A., & Renk, K. (2010). Locus of control and selfefficacy: Potential mediators of stress, illness, and utilization of health services in college students. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,41, 353–370. Rolvsjord, R. (2006). Whose power of music? A discussion on music and power-relations in music therapy. British Journal of Music Therapy,20, 5–12. Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development,6, 111–135. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, 1–28. Ruud, E. (1997). Music and the quality of life. Nordic Journal of Music Therapy,6, 86–97. Saarikallio, S. (2008). Music in mood regulation: Initial scale development. Musicae Scientiae,12, 291–309. Saarikallio, S. (2011). Music as emotional self-regulation throughout adulthood. Psychology of Music,39, 307–332. Saarikallio, S. (2017). Musical identity in fostering emotional health. In. R. McDonald, D. Hargreaves, & D. Miell (Eds.), Handbook of musical identities. Oxford, London: OUP. Saarikallio, S., & Baltazar, M. (2018). Music as a forum for social-emotional health. In L. Bonde & T. Theorell (Eds.), Music and public health. A Nordic perspective (pp. 101–113). Dordrecht: Springer. Saarikallio, S., & Erkkila¨, J. (2007). The role of music in adolescents’ mood regulation. Psychology of Music,35, 88–109. Saarikallio, S., Maksimainen, J., & Randall, W. (2018). Relaxed and connected: Insights on the emotional-motivational constituents of musical pleasure. Psychology of Music. First published June 2018 (Online First). Saarikallio, S., Vuoskoski, J., & Luck, G. (2014). Adolescents’ expression and perception of emotion in music reflects their broader abilities of emotional communication. Psychology of Well-Being,21(4), 1–16, doi: 10.1186/s13612-014-0021-8 Saarni, C. (1999). The development of emotional competence. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Salovey, P., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (1999). Coping intelligently. Emotional intelligence and the coping process. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping, the psychology of what works (pp. 141–164). New York: Oxford University Press. Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the trait meta-mood scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125–154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Salovey, P., Stroud, L. R., Woolery, A., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Perceived emotional intelligence, stress reactivity, and symptom reports: Further explorations using the trait meta-mood scale. Psychology and Health,17, 611–627. Schaffer, H. R. (1996). Social Development. Oxford: Blackwell. Schellenberg, E. G. (2004). Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science,15, 511–514. Schellenberg, E. G., & Mankarious, M. (2012). Music training and emotion comprehension in childhood. Emotion,12, 887–891. Scha¨fer, T., Sedlmeier, P., Stadtler, C., & Huron, D. (2013). The psychological functions of music listening. Frontiers in Psychology,13, 511. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1995). Stress, coping, and relationships in adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2000). Causal links between stressful events, coping style, and adolescent symptomatology. Journal of Adolescence,23, 675–691. Sloboda, J. A., & P. N. Juslin (Eds.). (2001). Music and emotion. Theory and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sloboda, J. A., Lamont, A., & Greasley, A. (2009). Choosing to hear music: Motivation, process, and effect. In S. Hallam, I. Cross, & M. Thaut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (pp. 431–440). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Small, C. (1998). Musicking: The meanings of performing and listening. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Steinberg, L. (2005). Cognitive and affective development in adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,9, 69–74. Stern, D. N. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant. New York, NY: Basic Books. Stern, D. N. (2010). Forms of vitality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Swinkels, A., & Giuliano, T. A. (1995). The measurement and conceptualization of mood awareness: Monitoring and Saarikallio 15 labeling one’s mood states. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 934–949. Tarr, B., Launay, J., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). Music and social bonding: “Self-other” merging and neurohormonal mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology,5, 1096. Theorell, T. P., Lennartsson, A., Mosing, M.a., & Ullen, F. (2014). Musical activity and emotional competence – A twin study. Frontiers in Psychology,5, 774. Thomson, C., Reece, J., & Di Benedetto, M. (2014). The relationship between music-related mood regulation and psychopathology in young people. Musicae Scientiae,18, 1–16. Thompson,W.F.,Schellenberg,E.G.,&Husain,G.(2004). Decoding speech prosody: Do music lessons help? Emotion, 4, 46–64. Trevarthen, C. (2013). Embodied human intersubjectivity: Imaginative agency, to share meaning. Cognitive Semiotics, 4, 6–56. Van den Tol, A. J., & Edwards, J. (2014). Listening to sad music in adverse situations: How music selection strategies relate to self-regulatory goals, listening effects, and mood enhancement. Psychology of Music,4, 473–494. Van Goethem, A., & Sloboda, J. (2011) The functions of music for affect regulation. Musicae Scientiae,15, 208–228. Va¨stfja¨ll, D., Juslin, P. N., & Hartig, T. (2012). Music, subjective well-being, and health: The role of everyday emotions. In R. McDonald, G. Kreutz, & L. Mithcell (Eds.), Music, health, and wellbeing (pp. 405–423). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wo¨llner, C. (2012). Is empathy related to the perception of emotional expression in music? A multimodal time-series analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 6, 214–223. Zentner, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2008). Emotions evoked by the sound of music: Characterization, classification, and measurement. Emotion,8, 494–521. 16 Music & Science