Factor structure
The following factor analyses (principal component extraction, varimax normalized factor rotation) were therefore based on means across participants, supported by the robust results reported above. A two- factor solution could be interpreted as tension–relaxation and groove (with 67.7% total explained variance), a three- factor solution addedflow with the eigenvalue 1.72 and 74.7% total explained variance. A four-factor solution increased the explained variance to 79.8%, with the addition of a factor with high positive loadings for Happy, Rocking, and Having swing. Although the eigenvalue for the fourth factor initially was only 0.72 (5.14%), its explained variance increased to 14.8% by the factor rotation. The explained variance that can be attributed to groove was 25.5% for the two-factor solution, 25.5% for three factors, and 21.8% for the fourfactor solution, which also featured a dimension for Having swing. The factor loading matrix for this solution is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 can be interpreted as follows. Factor I seems to reflect rhythmical simplicity and the movement quality of walking. One could speculate that this correspond with uniform accentuation of regularly occurring events with intervals close to those characteristic for human gait. It might represent the commonly found simple–complex dimension, which covaries with the rhythmic simplicity associated with Walking,Calm, and Steady, and has negative loadings for the rhythmic complexity associated with Driving, Intensive, Bouncing, Rapid, and Having swing. Thus regular–irregular might be more fitting than simple–complex, for example.
Factor II has its highest loading for Groove and goes together with Driving, Intensive, and to some extent with Rapid and Bouncing. Both Driving and Intensive seem to reflect movement induction. This is not obviously the case for Rapid, however, but in a natural sample it is conceivable that music intended to be less Driving and Intensive is also slower. It is thus likely that Rapid is involved in spurious correlations as a result of dependencies inherent in the sample.
Factor III has high loadings for Happy, Rocking, and Having swing. It probably assumes the commonly found dimension happy–sad, which tends to covary with Rapid and Having swing because the swing music examples tend to be fast, and a high tempo is associated with happiness (Juslin & Laukka, 2003).
Factor IV is mainly associated with Flowing, but to some extent also with Solemn, Calm, and Steady. In previous research Flowing is rarely included, whereas Solemn is a commonly found factor. It is therefore difficult to interpret this factor. It might be the case that Flowing is a unique dimension for music experience, although this has not yet been established. Alternatively, the nature of the present music sample or the rating scales’ focus on rhythm might have emphasized this dimension in the minds of the listeners. Future research should include flowing in order to explore its nature and apparent correlation with Solemn.