Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Sibling musical interactions: exploring observational learning and deidentification in the family vehicle
(USC Thesis Other)
Sibling musical interactions: exploring observational learning and deidentification in the family vehicle
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Sibling Musical Interactions: Exploring Observational Learning
and Deidentification in the Family Vehicle
by
Alissa Marie Chitwood
A Dissertation presented to the
FACULTY OF THE THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF MUSICAL ARTS
Music Education
May 2018
Advisory Committee:
Dr. Beatriz Ilari, Chair
Dr. Peter Webster
Dr. Susan Helfter
ii
Dedication
To Caydence, Paxton, Aria, Bennett…
…and Nick.
iii
Acknowledgements
I am only who and how I am because of who the Lord has created me to be. Nothing I
have done can be attributed to my own strength and ability. My talents come from the Lord Jesus
Christ and I owe Him everything. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do
good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Ephesians 2:10). He has blessed me
with much, including my children who have inspired my work. I am often asked how I manage it
all, with school and four children, and the answer is simple: only by the grace of God. Having
gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them (Romans 12:6). May the Lord
use my work to bring Himself glory.
I am thankful for those who have made this journey possible. I would not have been able
to complete school and this dissertation without the support of my family and friends. I am
grateful for the many hours my mom, Lisa Ross, and sister, Ashley Juliot, have spent babysitting
my children over the years so that I could attend class. I am also grateful for my husband,
Nicholas Chitwood, and our children, as their patience and love have been crucial to the
completion of this dissertation. It brings me great joy that my three older children all know the
term “dissertation” as a normal part of their vocabulary.
Attending the University of Southern California and becoming part of the Thornton
School of Music has forever shaped my views on music education. I have been blessed to work
with amazing faculty and am proud to be a Trojan. To my advisor, Dr. Beatriz Ilari, thank you
for sharing your time and expertise with me. Thank you for being supportive of my role as a
student and mother. Words cannot adequately express what your mentorship in the field of early
childhood music has meant. To my other committee members and teachers, Dr. Susan Helfter
and Dr. Peter Webster, thank you for the time, talent, and rigor you have brought to the
classroom. Thank you for opening my eyes to a different type of music teaching and learning,
iv
and for contributing to my growth as a teacher and person. To Dr. Frank Manis and the
Psychology Department, thank you for allowing me to pursue an academic field in
developmental psychology and for providing me with the theoretical inspiration for this
dissertation.
I have been privileged to study, learn and grow alongside my fellow classmates. Jacob
Vogel, Elizabeth Palmer, Tina Huynh, Kathleen Janert, Richard Perez, Jihae Lim, Eun Cho, Jim
Wang, and Huei Yuan Pan thank you for encouraging and challenging me along the way. I look
forward to seeing how our careers intersect in the future and how we impact our respective areas
within music education.
Finally, a huge amount of gratitude is owed to the families who allowed me into their
lives, and to be present with them for 3 weeks of travel over their summer. Thank you for being
raw, real and willing to take on this endeavor with me. Thank you for your trust and sharing your
voice, and for allowing the music community to learn from your experiences. To my parent co-
researchers, I could not have done this study without you and it is only because of your
graciousness this was ever possible. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
v
Table of Contents
Dedication................................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. iii
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... ix
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter 1 : Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1
Researcher’s Voice.......................................................................................................................... 3
Research Goals................................................................................................................................ 6
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................ 9
Research Questions ............................................................................................................................. 9
Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................................................... 10
“Music in Everyday Life” .............................................................................................................. 10
Deidentification and Observational Learning Theories ................................................................... 12
Deidentification Theory. ..........................................................................................................................12
Observational Learning Theory. ..............................................................................................................14
Deidentification and Observational Learning theories within the study. ....................................................16
Definitions and Terms ....................................................................................................................... 17
Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................................... 22
Overview of Chapters ........................................................................................................................ 23
Chapter 2 : Review of Related Literature .............................................................................. 25
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 25
Sibling Relationships ......................................................................................................................... 25
Sibling Deidentification and Observational Learning ......................................................................... 28
Musical Development of Young Children .......................................................................................... 34
Spontaneous Music Making ............................................................................................................... 38
Musical Families ............................................................................................................................... 42
Musical Parenting .............................................................................................................................. 47
The Family Vehicle as a Musical Space ............................................................................................. 51
Parents as Co-Researchers ................................................................................................................. 53
Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................................. 55
Chapter 3 : Research Design .................................................................................................. 58
Recruiting Families and Obtaining Consent ....................................................................................... 61
Participants........................................................................................................................................ 66
The Mac Family ............................................................................................................................ 67
The Perez Family .......................................................................................................................... 70
Homeschooled .............................................................................................................................. 72
Data Collection Procedures................................................................................................................ 73
Pilot Study ........................................................................................................................................ 77
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 79
Limitations ........................................................................................................................................ 85
Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................................. 86
vi
Chapter 4 : Findings ............................................................................................................... 87
The Mac Family ................................................................................................................................ 87
The Week in Context ..................................................................................................................... 87
Musical Moments and Interpretation ............................................................................................. 95
Moment 1: Whose shot?. .........................................................................................................................96
Interpretation ......................................................................................................................................98
Moment 2: September. .......................................................................................................................... 100
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 100
Moment 3: Do re mi .............................................................................................................................. 101
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 102
Moment 4: Tooshi sushi. ....................................................................................................................... 103
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 105
Moment 5: How far they’ll go. .............................................................................................................. 106
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 108
Mac Family: Summary of Findings ............................................................................................. 110
The Perez Family ............................................................................................................................ 113
The Week in Context ................................................................................................................... 113
Musical Moments and Interpretation ........................................................................................... 121
Moment 1: Book on tape ....................................................................................................................... 121
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 122
Moment 2: Dancing toys ....................................................................................................................... 124
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 126
Moment 3: Tie-breaker .......................................................................................................................... 127
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 128
Moment 4: Frozen ................................................................................................................................. 129
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 133
Moment 5: Plugged noses ...................................................................................................................... 136
Interpretation .................................................................................................................................... 137
Perez Family: Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 138
Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................ 141
Chapter 5 : Discussion, Conclusion and Implications ......................................................... 142
Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 142
Research Question 1: Time Children Spent in Vehicle ................................................................. 142
Research Question 2: Children’s Spontaneous Music Making ...................................................... 143
Research Question 3: Sibling Musical Interaction Appearances ................................................... 144
Research Question 4: Time in Sibling Musical Interactions.......................................................... 146
Research Question 5: Sibling Deidentification and Observational Learning ................................. 149
Research Question 6: Positive and Negative Musical Interactions ................................................ 153
Parental Influences ...................................................................................................................... 155
Suggestions for Future Research ...................................................................................................... 157
Conclusion and Implications ............................................................................................................ 158
References ............................................................................................................................. 161
Song References .................................................................................................................... 170
Appendix A: IRB Study Approval Letter ............................................................................ 172
Appendix B: Child Consent Form ........................................................................................ 175
Appendix C: Parental Permission Form .............................................................................. 176
Appendix D: Parent Participant Consent Form .................................................................. 180
vii
Appendix E: Youth Assent Form ......................................................................................... 185
Appendix F: Secondary Passenger Information Sheet ........................................................ 189
Appendix G: Recruitment Script ......................................................................................... 192
Appendix H: Parent Travel Journal .................................................................................... 193
Appendix I: Demographic Background Survey ................................................................... 194
viii
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Demographic Information for the Mac Family .......................................................... 68
Table 3.2 Perceived Vehicle Activities of Participant Children ................................................. 69
Table 3.3 Demographic Information for the Perez Family ........................................................ 71
Table 3.4 Coding Categories Defined ....................................................................................... 83
Table 4.1 Mac Family Trip Information ................................................................................... 89
Table 4.2 Identified Songs Heard in the Mac Vehicle ............................................................... 94
Table 4.3 Perez Family Trip Information................................................................................ 114
Table 4.4 Identified Songs Heard in the Perez Vehicle ........................................................... 119
Table 5.1 Sibling Musical Interactions ................................................................................... 147
ix
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Approximate procedures calendar ........................................................................... 76
Figure 4.1 Mac Family vehicle layout ...................................................................................... 91
Figure 4.2 Mac Family car photo.. ........................................................................................... 92
Figure 4.3 Perez Family vehicle layout. ................................................................................. 117
Figure 4.4 Perez Family car photo ......................................................................................... 117
x
Abstract
Much of research in the field of music education has focused on the individual child or on
the family as a whole with the parents at the helm. Through this research we have learned that
the family has strong influences over the music making of children; however, little research has
actually focused on the role that siblings play within this family music-making sphere. It was the
purpose of this study to explore how siblings influenced the musical development of each other
under the context of deidentification (altering one’s activities and/or identity in order to
differentiate from another) and imitation within the family vehicle (Whiteman, McHale &
Crouter, 2007a).
For this collective-case study I collected data from two families from similar
SES/middle-class, backgrounds, and culture with at least two sibling children ages 2 to 10 years
old. The study was set in situ within the family vehicle where I used mounted dashboard cameras
to collect videos of siblings and their interactions as they naturally occurred within this space.
Data was collected over 3 weeks with the assistance of a parent co-researcher and was in the
form of video recordings, researcher transcriptions and notes, and a background survey.
Research questions asked included: 1) How much time do selected families (at least one parent
and two or more of their children) spend in the car on an average week?; 2) What does music
making look and sound like when it occurs spontaneously within the family vehicle?; 3) What do
sibling musical interactions look like in the presence of spontaneous music making?; 4)How
much of the time during a week do siblings engage in sibling musical interactions in the
vehicle?; 5) What do the processes of observational learning and deidentification look like in
sibling musical interactions within the family vehicle?; and 6) Of observed sibling musical
interactions, which ones may promote or hinder observational learning and/or deidentification
processes and as a result promote or hinder music making?
xi
Data was coded and analyzed for themes and central phenomenon. Parent co-researchers
participated in the triangulation of the analyses. Findings revealed both sibling deidentification
and observational learning processes at hand during sibling musical interactions. In each family,
children were found to be spending over 5 hours a week traveling in the car. Spontaneous music
making was observed throughout the week alongside sibling musical interactions. As expected,
some sibling musical interactions were influenced by or included parents. Throughout the
analysis, both positive and negative musical interactions were observed, contributing to both the
decrease and increase of music making observed in each studied family. A cross-case analysis
was presented in the final chapter of this study, along with suggestions for future research.
Conclusions and implications for parents, music educators and researchers are presented at the
end.
Key terms: deidentification, observational learning, music in everyday life, sibling musical
interactions, family vehicle
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Imagine four children, all under the age of 7, riding in a family van. The set up in the
vehicle has the younger two seat-belted into their car-seats placed in the middle row: Aria, a girl
3 years old sitting on the passenger side, and her baby brother in the center seat, Bennett, 7
months old. The two older children are in their car seats back in the third row: Paxton, a boy 5
years old on the far passenger side, and Caydence, a girl 6 years old on the far driver side.
Caydence and Paxton have just finished a day of school and were picked up by their mom and
siblings, and are now on their way to gymnastics class. Music is playing over the speakers in the
vehicle, the station set to the mom’s favorite radio station that plays popular Christian
alternative tunes. Over the drive, the radio station interjects in between songs to solicit for
financial support in the form of donations, so 17 minutes into the drive the mom changes the
audio to playing music over the car speakers using the Bluetooth connected to her cell-phone
music library. Music from the soundtrack Frozen comes on; “Let it Go” plays. After a moment of
brief listening, Aria begins singing along with the music, “[I can’t hold] it back anymore.”
Interjecting before continuing to sing, “That’s like my ipay [ipad]. Let it go! [listens]--- slam the
door.” She then stops singing to listen and proceeds to look out the window. Several verses go by
while the children are seemingly disengaged with the music; the older two are interacting in the
back appearing uninterested in the song. Then suddenly, the oldest child chimes in singing along
with the song, “[Be the good girl you] always have to be. [Conceal don’t feel] don’t let them
know. Well now they know!!” Paxton joins in to sing with Caydence, “Let it go! Let it go!” It
turns out they were listening after all.
2
A lot can be learned from simple interactions such as the one just described. In the day-
to-day functions of everyday life, musical moments and interactions can come suddenly and may
be fleeting. Yet while these collective moments may be influential in the musical development of
children, there is difficulty for researchers to capture and fully understand them. A musical
interaction among siblings might take place for 2 minutes out of a 30-minute period while
siblings are in close proximity, such as in the family vehicle. In other more spacious places like
the family home or at a park, these interactions may be even more sporadic or less visible.
Given, in part, the difficulties inherent in studying music in everyday life and particularly
among siblings, research in music education has looked at music within the family by examining
and exploring the music surrounding the individual child or on the family as a whole with a
strong focus on the parent-child dynamic. Such research has often relied on questionnaires and
interviews, and not on observations in naturalistic settings (Byrn & Hourigan, 2010; Custodero
& Johnson-Green, 2003; Custodero, 2006; Ilari, 2005). Through these works, it has been made
clear that the family has strong influences over the music making of children, including in the
development of musical skills, musicality, and language (see Forrester & Borthwick-Hunter,
2015). Children’s musicality develops early and is directly linked to their earliest encounters
with various members of the family during infancy, through infant-directed singing and listening
(Trehub & Henderson, 1994; Trehub, Unyk, & Kamenetsky, 1997; Trehub, Unyk & Trainor,
1993). And yet, much remains to be learned about children’s social attributes— such as their role
in their family structure, their social relationship within that role, their friendships, etc.— and the
activities they share together—such as types of play, places they go, etc.—, as these contribute to
3
a better understanding of children’s general musicality through their interdependence on each
other (Forrester & Borthwick-Hunter, 2015)
1
.
According to McHale, Updegraff, and Whiteman (2012, p. 913), “siblings can have direct
effects on one another’s development when they serve as social partners, role models, and foils
and that siblings can influence one another indirectly by virtue of their impact on larger family
dynamics.” Likewise, we know that siblings have a “centrality” in family life and influence child
and adolescent development. Yet, and in spite of the wealth of knowledge relating to sibling
influences in other fields (Aronovitch, 2012; Blazo, 2015; Bridges & Hoff, 2014; Downey &
Condran, 2004; Hughes, McHarg & White, 2018; McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012), little
research has actually focused on the role that siblings play within musical development.
Research in this area is urgently needed. Not only could additional studies help music educators
best understand the complete picture of influences on musical development, but such research
can help fill in gaps in the music education research literature. As Young (2012) pointed out,
family life provides challenges in terms of access for researchers, and is therefore an area where
growth is needed. Aside from contributing to our knowledge of sibling influences on music
making experiences of young children, this dissertation also offers insights into a new way of
collecting data in the natural space of the family home, with much consideration for issues of
access and privacy.
Researcher’s Voice
Before getting into the heart of the dissertation it is important that I, as the author and
researcher, disclose what drove my curiosity, the overall structure of the study, and my
1
Interdependence between social attributes and activities with general musicality means that social attributes and
activities will influence a child’s general musicality, and the child’s musicality will in turn influence his/her social
attributes and activities.
4
conceptual lens, which framed my research (Egbert & Sanden, 2014). Growing up in Southern
California, I was the eldest of six children until I was 15 years old, when my parents divorced
and then remarried. That was when I inherited an additional seven step-siblings, of which I was
basically still the eldest due to medical issues of my older step-brother. As the oldest of 13
children, for the most influential part of my life while in high school, I had daily encounters that
caused me to reflect on the meanings of experiences and values in regards to my
relationships/bond with my blood siblings, what the dynamic became when step siblings who
were raised differently joined the family, and what the experience of having different siblings,
who lived with different parents, meant. From these experiences, I became close with my own
five siblings to a depth that may have never been established had we not lived through that
experience. That is, I went from thinking that having five siblings was huge and burdensome to
feeling the number was small, intimate, and desired. This experience made me confident in the
positive value of having some siblings, the power to influence each other that siblings wielded,
and how siblings both bond together while also seeking to differentiate from each other
depending on the nature of the existing relationships between the family members.
Fast forward to today and I am a mother of four children—in fact, the mother of those
four children referenced in the opening vignette. The opening vignette was an actual encounter I
had with my children one day, one of several that I find myself experiencing each week amidst
all of our many travels. My children are constantly engaged with music. Being a musician
myself, I recognize that I may put them around more musical situations than typical children;
however, I also believe that they are typical children engaging in music making in typical ways.
Sometimes they are working together, singing together, and encouraging collective music
making. Other times they are fighting, antagonizing one another, and instructing each other to
5
stop singing so they can take the lead or perform a solo. I am deeply aware of the family
vehicle’s potential to investigate music making among children. I am also strongly convinced
that the space of the family vehicle provides an authentic view of everyday music experiences as
the vehicle provides a source of music more readily experienced than elsewhere in the home.
This, I believe, is due to the limited options for activity when riding in the car, combined with
the easy access to recorded music via the radio, phone Bluetooth connectivity, and other sources.
My voice in this dissertation takes on my experiences and is informed by the various
roles I play daily. I find myself in the simultaneous roles of mother, researcher, chauffer, soccer-
mom, coach, servant, teacher, volunteer, wife, and woman. It is through these roles that I have
come to view the world from a pragmatist point of view. The pragmatist point of view is one
where researchers have freedom of choice to choose methods, techniques, and procedures of
research that best meet their purposes. The pragmatist viewpoint is also concerned with
outcomes and implications of the research, with the latter commonly being set within the place
that it occurs (Egbert & Sanden, 2014; Stauffer, 2012). The issue of place is important in music
research because it not only considers the social context, time, and spaces where research is
conducted, but it also encourages consideration of human actions and interactions within the
research along with how these actions change in context (Stauffer, 2012). It is from this stance
that I have come to value the importance of studying music making as it exists in everyday life
(DeNora, 2000). My multiple roles of mother, musician, educator, and researcher have
encouraged me to investigate early childhood music learning. Information learned from this
study may benefit my own understanding of the topic, and also allow me to potentially impact
my children’s musical development in ways that are beneficial to them.
6
When I began my own musicianship training, through learning to play the flute in sixth
grade, I did so alongside my fourth-grade brother, who was learning to play the trumpet. We
both advanced quickly, even making the city All-Star Band together. I later learned that I was
accepted into the band, in part, because the directors wanted my brother to be in it since they
needed more trumpets. This experience happened only because of the relationship that I had with
my brother. My ability to learn the flute quickly turned out to be formative in shaping how I was
encouraged to continue playing the instrument in the following years. Over time, I continued to
play the flute and became heavily involved in my middle and then high school band programs,
while my brother eventually quit playing trumpet when he entered high school. I believe that
these musical interactions, our shared musical experiences, and even our quick musical progress
influenced our musical development, and constituted one motivating factor that may have
encouraged my continued involvement musically for many years.
Research Goals
These experiences constitute my conceptual lens (Creswell, 2013; Egbert & Sanden,
2014). This lens, therefore, shapes the goals for this research which were three-fold: 1) To
examine sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle; 2) To explore how sibling musical
interactions in the family vehicle may promote identity development with a particular focus on
deidentification, shape interactions between family members, and potentially influence musical
development; and 3) To discuss implications of study findings for music teaching and learning.
Statement of the Problem
According to U.S. Current Population Survey data available from the Integrated Public
Use Microdata Series (IPUMS), as of December 2017, 77.2% of youth age 18 and under live
with at least one sibling (Ruggles, Genadek, Goeken, Grover, & Sobek, 2017). Examining this
7
data further reveals that 39.8 % of youth live with one sibling, 22.8% live with two siblings, and
over 14.6% live with three or more siblings. Given that such a large amount of youth now lives
at home with their siblings and the importance of siblings within the family, it makes sense for
music researchers to investigate the role that siblings play in the ongoing musical experiences,
and subsequent development of each other.
While it is significant to investigate the family dynamic, as families influence the music
making of their members (Gingras, 2013), it is insufficient to group siblings and parents
together. We know that parents have a distinct role in the participation and music making of their
children (Hargreaves & North, 1997; Ilari, 2017). One gap in the literature is the lack of research
on non-parental or other family influences that motivate or discourage music making among
children. While some music researchers have attempted to comment on the musical influences of
siblings on each other, this has usually been done as an aside—as an area of secondary
importance to the studies (Borthwick & Davidson, 2002; Cali, 2015; Gingras, 2012; Koops,
2014).
Additionally, research investigating sibling influences in music is limited because of the
difficult nature of pinpointing these interactions and understanding them. Part of the difficulty in
this research lies in properly assessing sibling influences ecologically in the home or other
spaces, without impacting the outcomes through researcher interference in the natural space
and/or forcing children to stay within proximity to each other in an artificial manner (Howe &
Recchia, 2005; Kramer & Gottman, 1992; Volling, Youngblade, & Belsky, 1997). In order to
learn how sibling interactions, with and without parental influence, shape the music making of
children, researchers must find ecological spaces to understand what is happening “naturally.”
8
Considering this problem of space, I reflected on my own experiences with my children
and the time spent with them constantly in the car, driving to school and various activities. It was
during these activities that I began to see the musical space of the car as one that offered
ecological potential for studying siblings, as my children both encouraged and discouraged each
other’s music making in this space. Custodero (2007) addressed some of the different types of
ecologies of music making in early childhood. While she did not specifically mention the car,
she referred to “other” spaces outside of the home, including through her study of music making
in another means of transportation: the subway. Custodero (2007, p. 47) reminded us that,
“observing young children outside the classroom provides reminders of how they are naturally
musical and sensitive to context. It allows the spirit of inquiry to inform and reinforce practice.”
Considering the comments offered by Custodero and examining the literature on music making
in the family vehicle, I found the space of the car to be under-investigated— particularly with
regards to children’s music making. Yet siblings wield influence within the family vehicle and
also participate in music making. Therefore, this space serves as a credible musical place
(Gingras, 2013; Koops, 2014; Stauffer, 2012).
Furthering the need to study the music-making influences of siblings, developmental
psychology research has shown that younger siblings close in age have tendencies to engage in
deidentification, while siblings spread apart in age have tendencies to engage in observational
learning/imitation (Whiteman, McHale, & Crouter, 2007a). Music educators know that music
making is important for all children. Finding ways to help children be successful in their music
making includes understanding the processes that may influence this music making. As such, this
calls for a better understanding of the role of sibling interactions play in musical development.
Thus, it becomes important to investigate how deidentification and observational learning
9
processes are present in sibling musical interactions, and how they may influence music making
and subsequent musical development in children.
Purpose of the Study
This study explored music making in the car from an ecological perspective through an
examination of the spontaneous music making and their sources of influence in this everyday life
space. Studying families from an ecological perspective is challenging, as there are concerns of
intrusion and access. Through the thoughtful use of technology, I purposefully examined music
making in two families with the use of a video camera. Through this in-depth multiple case study
(Yin, 2018), I aimed to produce knowledge regarding the roles that sibling-members of two
families played in regards to children’s music making and interpersonal interactions (including
with parents), with implications for their musical development.
This study informs music educators about the potential influences— positive and
negative— of siblings in children’s music making in everyday life. By better understanding
children’s spontaneous music making together with their siblings, educators may become aware
of additional potential outside influences that may impact their teaching, and can work towards
finding means of addressing potential influences that may decrease music making.
Research Questions
1. How much time do selected families consisting of at least one parent and two or more of their
children spend in the car on an average week?
2. What does music making look and sound like when it occurs spontaneously within the family
vehicle?
3. What do sibling musical interactions look like in the presence of spontaneous music making?
10
4. How much time during a week do siblings engage in sibling musical interactions in the
vehicle?
5. What do the processes of observational learning and deidentification look like in sibling
musical interactions within the family vehicle?
6. Of observed sibling musical interactions, which ones may promote or hinder observational
learning and/or deidentification processes and as a result promote or hinder music making?
Theoretical Framework
The study was framed by three main theoretical components that are based on earlier
theories: 1) DeNora’s notion of “Music in Everyday Life”; 2) Deidentification Theory; and 3)
Observational Learning Theory. Each of these components fit together to provide the theoretical
foundation of the study.
“Music in Everyday Life”
Contributing to the overall positioning of the paper, it is important to reiterate that this
research was set in the context of everyday life. Music in everyday life is a theoretical stance that
considers the semiotic relationship between social life and music, or the act of deriving meaning
from musical experiences (DeNora, 2000). While semiotics is a field of study, another definition
provided by the Oxford English Dictionary (1986) states that semiotic as an adjective is defined
as: symbolic or serving to convey meaning. Therefore, the notion of “music in everyday life”
considers how music meaning is derived and only understood through consideration of the
context and setting of music along with the social interpretation by both participants and analysts
(DeNora, 2000), or collectively the place where music is present (Stauffer, 2012).
In the book, Music in Everyday Life, DeNora (2000) provides the groundwork for why
music should be studied in everyday contexts. DeNora posits that the meaning of music is
11
directly related to the social lives of those taking part in it, whether through listening, playing,
creating, or other music activities. Music exists “in dynamic relation with social life, helping to
invoke, stabilize and change parameters of agency, collective and individual” (DeNora, 2000, p.
20). Defining agency as, “feeling, perception, cognition and consciousness, identity, energy,
perceived situation and scene, embodied conduct and comportment” (2000, p. 20), DeNora
elaborates that, “if music can affect the shape of social agency, then control over music in social
settings is a source of social power” (2000, p. 20). Additionally, she articulates five ways
through which music is powerful in human life: 1) music influences identity through memories
and past experiences; 2) music is used to provoke action and set the mood; 3) music is
transformative and used in self-regulation; 4) music is deeply connected with the body and works
with entrainment through intentional and unintentional movement/body rhythms; 5) music is
used for social ordering and also for social power. Such power, DeNora explains, is observed in
public settings to manipulate behaviors.
Since music influences social agency and possess such social power, it can only be
understood as it exists in social contexts. DeNora contends that music exists within an
“intertextual” relationship to other things (2000, p. 28). This means that music can only be
understood in relationship to other things; for instance, a same piece of music can be used for
different occasions or reasons such as a birthday party and a school dance, or a piano recital and
a funeral. As such, music can only be understood within the context of social relationships,
whether those participating are neighbors or strangers, friends or family, or friends or enemies.
Even music for its own sake will inevitably be set within a place, which will impact how it is
received by the listener, and the listener’s enjoyment or not of the music will be influenced by
their social experiences, background, and connections with the music. Since understanding and
12
interpreting music meaning exists within and is necessarily linked to these experiences and
relationships, it becomes important to study music in everyday life. Meaning making and
interpretation of music cannot be achieved simply by considering the music alone, therefore, it
becomes necessary to observe music “in situ” and within the contexts of everyday environments
and activities (DeNora, 2000, p. 31). Under this position, this study required studying sibling
musical interactions within the context of their everyday environments, with one such place
being the family vehicle.
Deidentification and Observational Learning Theories
As noted, the aim of the study was to explore ways that siblings may influence one
another’s musical development by processes that encourage psychological deidentification and
observational learning, with both of these theories framing the study. While I recognize that
developmental research in music has led to a disagreement among scholars about what precisely
musical development entails, I intentionally use a broad definition of musical development.
Young (2012) described musical development simply as the development of musical skills such
as pitch perception, singing, etc.; I adopt this definition of musical development for the purpose
of this study. Because musical skills are developed through music making (Flohr & Trevarthen,
2007), the assumption here is that through understanding the influences on music making, such
the social and psychological influences—for instance, siblings and the processes that lead to
deidentification and observational learning—, one can, in turn, understand the broader influences
on children’s musical development.
Deidentification Theory. Deidentification Theory posits that as siblings grow older, they
begin to differentiate from each other in order to craft a unique identity as a member of the
family (Doughty, 2015; Schachter, Shore, Feldman-Rotman, Marquis & Campbell, 1976;
13
Whiteman et al., 2007a). Such differentiation emerges as a way to reduce direct comparison,
competition, and rivalry between siblings (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956; Schacter et al., 1976;
Whiteman et al., 2007a). Consistent with Deidentification Theory, as younger siblings deidentify
from each other, I suspect that music participation—whether through singing, instrumental
playing, classes or lessons—may also decrease. Just as when a sibling might identify as the
“athletic sibling”, or “artistic,” or “academic child” in the family, in music this can take place
when one sibling has taken on the identity as the musician in the family, or the musically
gifted/talented, with the other child/ren in the family deciding to pursue other activities to avoid
direct comparisons and competition.
Importantly, deidentification does not always happen the same way for every child and
does not result in the same outcome (Doughty, 2015; Whiteman, 2004). This suggests that,
musically speaking, there are multiple ways through which children could choose to deidentify.
For example, one such way children may find their own niche in music making that is different
from their siblings might be to abandon music making all together. An alternative way might be
that siblings may simply choose different instruments from each other to play, or different styles
of music to engage with. How and to what extent children deidentify depends on many factors,
such as outside environmental and social influences, general recognition from others, and the
child’s personality to name a few. These factors are not within the scope of this study and can
only be determined over time.
Deidentification Theory helps to explain why children will increase differences between
one self and a sibling, in order to create an identity that is separate with less competition
(Doughty, 2015; Schacter, et al., 1976; Whiteman et al., 2007a). As competition fosters rivalry
and conflict, in an attempt to reduce competition and find their unique identity within a family,
14
children will deidentify from other siblings. The act of deidentifying may not always be a
conscious decision. Under deidentification, siblings who are more objectively similar—such as
similar in age and sex—are more likely to differentiate in order to reduce rivalry and competition
which would be more prevalent than two siblings of differing ages and sex (Whiteman et al.,
2007a). The process of deidentifying tends to happen more frequently among siblings close in
age, increasing in childhood from age 9 until about the age 13 (Doughty, 2015).
While sibling deidentification is a theory of identity development— and as such not
inherently bad or good, but a way to understand sibling identity development— in this study, I
assume that the interactions which lead to deidentification can also lead to decreased music
making. Should a child decide, consciously or otherwise, that they do not identify as a musician
or do not perceive themselves as musically talented, under the explanations provided by
deidentification theory, he/she would decrease his/her music making and subsequently their
musical development. Deidentification Theory is therefore used in this study to address how
sibling interactions may influence learning and development. Furthermore, in this study sibling
deidentification through musical interactions is understood to be negative, as it may cause
children to detract from music making, at times resulting in missed opportunities for musical
engagement.
Observational Learning Theory. While sibling deidentification is a real cause for
concern among music educators, Observational Learning Theory offers an alternative
explanation (Whiteman et al., 2007a). Observational learning is the central component of
Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, where children are known to learn through observation of
others (Bjorklund, 2012). Through the role of observation, the theory surmises that a model can
transmit new ways of thinking and behaving to the onlooker (Bandura, 1999). Modeling within
15
this theory is “not merely a process of behavioral mimicry,” but serves to “convey rules for
generative and innovative behavior” (Bandura, 1999, p. 25). As these rules and knowledge are
conveyed the onlooker will have learned from observing the model, although it may or may not
be evident in their subsequent behavior (Bjorkland, 2012). In the context of sibling relationships
and interaction, observational learning theory postulates that siblings learn through observing
and imitating each other, particularly when there is separation in the power dynamic between the
children, along with an observed nurturance and similarity between the two (Mischel, 1966 as
cited in Whiteman et al., 2007a).
Research suggests that imitation, and hence, observational learning is more likely to
occur in sibling relationships where there is a difference in power dynamic, such as between an
older and younger sibling (Whiteman et al., 2007a). “Older siblings provide younger siblings
with models and explicit direction for how to behave; [therefore] younger siblings serve in the
corresponding roles of learners” and since this creates a complementary relationship these older
siblings are viewed as more powerful (Whiteman et al., 2007a). As older siblings are often
viewed as more powerful than their younger counterparts, they may possess social agency and
abilities to influence behaviors.
While it is possible that observational learning can lead to decreased music making when
the “child” model observed is devaluing music or discouraging music making, this is also likely
to occur when the “child” model is participating in non-music activities. Thus, I suspect that it is
far more likely that observational learning within sibling musical interactions will allow children
who engage in observational learning and imitation of their siblings’ music making to become
drawn to music making themselves. As siblings choose to imitate the musical actions of their
older students/siblings/parents, they can be encouraged to join in music making, furthering their
16
musical development, and encouraging part of their musical identity development. As noted
earlier, observational theory provides an alternative process by which children may combat the
potential negative effects of sibling deidentification through music, particularly where musical
development is concerned.
Deidentification and Observational Learning theories within the study. The
abovementioned theories informed the study through the theoretical assumption that over time
children will seek to deidentify or differentiate themselves from their siblings to create their own
identities within the family, and that the process of deidentifying from siblings is a reaction to
conflict, competition, and rivalry within sibling relationships and interactions. However, while
deidentification processes are instigated through sibling interactions, observational learning may
provide a counterweight. Through encouraging musical imitation and positive musical
interactions, rivalry, conflict, and competition may be reduced.
In order to explore deidentification and observational learning processes as they relate to
sibling musical interactions, I examined the time siblings spent together in the family vehicle and
the amounts of time siblings spent musically interacting in this space, using theories of
deidentification and observational learning as my lenses. I anticipated that siblings would
demonstrate both deidentification and observational learning throughout the week, especially
since all children involved in the study were in the early years of childhood (aged birth to 8,
following the UNESCO 2014 definition). This age group was deemed optimal because it offered
a window into children’s music making prior to the established period of increase in
differentiation typically found between ages 9 and 13 (Doughty, 2015).
Thus, I entered the field expecting that siblings would both demonstrate the desire to
deidentify in their music making behaviors, as well as observe/imitate each other depending on
17
what the goal of their behaviors were. For instance, children unconcerned with the audience in
the vehicle and who were just interacting with each other in a neutral or positive disposition,
outside of competition and rivalry, would gravitate toward displaying observational learning
through the form of imitation, even if they were close in age, temperament, and interests. On the
other hand, siblings who were feuding or seeking more attention from the audience (i.e.,
parents), regardless of their potentially un-similar interests, age, or personalities, would
deidentify with their siblings as evident through music making interactions that discouraged joint
interaction. Entering the field, it was clear to me that the goals of children’s musical behaviors
might not simply be internally motivated, being potentially shaped by outside influences such as
those coming from parents. It was likely that parents would influence the music making of the
children and their subsequent musical interactions at some point throughout the week, yet these
were considered a secondary focus in this study.
Definitions and Terms
The following definitions were used in this study:
Access: Admittance and permission necessary to study an individual, situation, or group.
Camera: A Z-Edge 2K high dynamic range, high-definition, vehicle-traveling recorder
mounted to the family vehicle, powered by a charging cable that stored video footage on a 64
gigabyte micro-SD memory card.
Case study: “An empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the
“case”) and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and
context may not be clearly evident” (Yin, 2018, p.15).
Collective case study: A multiple case study that utilizes two or more cases.
18
Complementary relationship: The relationship observed between two individuals where
there is difficulty in understanding the other perspective, such as between a parent and a child
(Dunn, 1983), or an older sibling and a younger sibling (Whiteman et al., 2007a).
Constructionist epistemology: The idea that “knowledge for each individual is viewed
as a construction based on the individual’s experiences” (Egbert & Sanden, 2014, p. 21).
Deidentification: The act of altering one’s activities and/or identity in order to
differentiate from another.
Deidentification Theory: A theory proposing that siblings differentiate from each other
as they age in order to form their own identity in the family, reducing competition, rivalry, and
comparison between siblings (Schachter, Shore, Feldman-Rotman, Marquis & Campbell, 1976;
Whiteman et al., 2007a).
Differentiation: The act of changing characteristics of oneself in order to become
different from another.
Ecological: A term having to do with the relationships of a living organism socially and
as they are positioned in their “natural” environments.
Exploratory case study: A type of case study “whose purpose is to identify the research
questions or procedures to be used in subsequent research study, which might or might not be a
case study” (Yin, 2018, p. 287).
Family vehicle: The main mode of transportation of a family such as a car, van, sports-
utility-vehicle, truck, etc.
Identity: A complex construct relating to individual and/or collective beliefs about
whom one is and who one acts as being in interpersonal and intergroup interactions (Vignoles,
Schwartz & Luyckx, 2011). “Identity consists of the confluence of the person’s self-chosen or
19
ascribed commitments, personal characteristics, and beliefs about herself; roles and positions in
relation to significant others; and her membership in social groups and categories (including both
her social status within the group and the group’s status within the larger context); as well as her
identification with treasured material possessions and her sense of where she belongs in
geographical space” (Vignoles et al., 2011, p.4).
Imitation: The process of copying or echoing another human being in reference to
something previously encountered.
In-situ: The place and context in which situations occur in the everyday social settings
(DeNora, 2000).
Music listening: The observed process of children hearing music and, in some way,
responding to it. Responses can be produced through verbal and/or visual cues and may be brief,
demonstrating that the child has an awareness of the music that they are hearing.
Music making: The act of spontaneously engaging with music through vocalizations,
movement to music including gesturing and motioning, singing, playing on
body/objects/instruments, inventing tunes, etc. (Custodero, Cali, & Diaz-Donoso, 2006).
Music in everyday life: The notion that music should be studied in “real life” contexts
and can only be understood as it relates socially to other things. DeNora (2000) argues that music
should be studied in the social contexts in which it occurs, in order for one to understand and
interpret its meaning. DeNora further argues that this is a highly subjective approach.
Musical development: The development of musical skills (Young, 2012) resulting from
children’s experiences and encounters with music through active participation in music listening
and music making, resulting in potential growth of musical skills over time.
20
Musical interaction: A term used to identify an interaction that had one or more
participants, including some combination of children and parents, where music was present
either through music making, listening, talking about music, encouraging, or instructing music
making.
Musical parenting: A term that encompasses the variety of activities, behaviors, and
beliefs that parents have or use as they parent their children, which impact the way that parents
musically interact, teach, and raise their children.
Negative musical interaction: Those interactions that are seen to be detrimental to music
making, discouraging, or distinguishing music making in one or more of the participants.
Observational Learning Theory: A theory positing that children learn through
observing and imitating another child, particularly when the other child possesses power,
nurturance, and similarity to the observer (Whiteman et al., 2007a).
Parent-child musical interaction: An interaction between a parent and one child that
included music making, listening, talking about music, encouraging, or instructing music
making.
Parent co-researcher: Parents who take part as collaborative partners in the research
process, and aid in researching their children (Kabuto, 2008).
Positive musical interaction: Those interactions that are seen to promote or encourage
music making in one or more of the participants.
Pragmatic framework: A framework built upon the “world view that uses multiple
methods of data collection to best answer the research question, … employ[s] multiple sources of
data collection, … focus[es] on the practical implications of the research, and … emphasize[s]
21
the importance of conducting research that best addresses the research problem” (Creswell, 2013,
p 28).
Reciprocal relationship: A term used to describe the peer relationship between children
that lends to a mutual similarity/likeness and understanding (Dunn, 1983).
Reciprocity: The “close matching of perspectives, interests, and ability that fosters the
beginnings of understanding another person, the self, and social roles and rules more generally”
(Dunn, 1983, p. 806).
Siblings: Two or more children that are related by blood, and/or share the same parents
either through birth, or legal processes.
Sibling influences: The ways in which siblings encourage music making or interfere
with the music making of one another.
Sibling musical interaction: An interaction between two or more children, with or
without a parent participating, in the presence of music either through music making, active
music listening, or talking about music, where one child is involved in music making in a manner
that also engages or attempts to engage the other.
Semiotics: An adjective used to describe that something is symbolic, and is therefore
used to convey meaning.
Technology: Tools that can be used to create music. These may include computers,
tablets, musical instruments, and/or writing tools such as pens and pencils.
Trip: The time between newly entering until exiting the family vehicle upon a point of
arrival. Here, it also refers to the time when a video recording ends and right before a new travel
clearly begins.
22
Assumptions
Two families with multiple children were the objects of this study. These families came
from similar socio-economic status of the middle-class, educational, religious, and cultural
backgrounds as myself. They were selected from volunteer Southern California families,
consisting of siblings ages newborn and up, but not older than 15 years old and living in the
home. While the Mac Family (pseudonym) was a nuclear family with a mom, dad, and their two
children, the Perez Family was a blended family. The Perez Family consisted of a mom, dad,
their three children, as well as other older adult children from the father’s previous marriage. The
adult step-children in the Perez Family were essentially part of another family, for purposes of
this study. As they were raised with their own mother and father—who were married at the
time—, did not live in the Perez home and had never lived with the younger Perez children, as
well as were adults with their own homes and families, it was assumed that they would not
impact the study in this way. For this reason, when I refer to the Perez Family, I am referring to
the mother, father, and the three children they had together.
The focal participants of the study were the children in each family, ages 2 years or older.
As I shared a similar demographic background, I was able to interpret, understand, and derive
meaning from the data in insightful ways, providing the opportunity for more accurate
understanding of the events. Furthermore, I also assumed that since these families had children
within the age range of 2 to 10 years old, spontaneous music making would be present in the
data.
Delimitations
This study did not intend to offer explanations of how musical development occurs nor
how deidentification or observational learning theories begin, progress, and/or end as observed
23
over the course of data collection. Rather, the study sought to understand how these theories may
inform naturalistic observations of children’s spontaneous music making in the family vehicle,
and how the latter might shape the interactions between them. This study did not intend to
generalize, as it is centered in a collective case study of two families. Instead, it offered an
exploration of sibling influences on spontaneous music making and musical development, as
they occurred in a natural setting (i.e., the family vehicle). Lastly, this study focused solely on
musical influences within the family vehicle. Therefore, any comparison to influences outside
the family vehicle should be done with caution and are grounds for further study.
Overview of Chapters
Chapter 1 provides the background for the study and details the positioning and
theoretical lens I took in the study. It also identifies the need for the study, states the purpose,
and guides research questions, assumptions, delimitations, and provided definitions of key terms.
Chapter 2 includes a review of literature across domains of psychology and music education in
order to provide the foundation for exploring sibling musical interactions in the study. Both
theoretical and empirical works related to sibling relationships, sibling deidentification,
observational learning, musical development, musical families, and music in the family vehicle
are explored. Research for parents as co-researchers was highlighted to provide support for the
study structure. In Chapter 3, I explain the qualitative methodology used in the design of this
collective case study, detailing the procedures used in both data collection and analysis,
introducing the study participants, and recognizing the limitations for the study. Chapter 4
includes the findings for each separate case, through a description of the context for the week
and followed by a presentation of five select musical moments and their interpretation. In
24
Chapter 5, I provide a cross-case analysis of the findings, along with conclusions, implications,
and suggestions for future research.
25
Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature
Introduction
In this chapter, I examine literature across the domains of psychology and music
education research in order to build a foundation for understanding sibling relationships as they
have been studied both outside and within music. I further discuss music education research as it
relates to the studying of musical environments and music making in children. The literature
reviewed was selected in order to investigate the research goals and problems identified in
Chapter 1. In addressing these goals and problems, this review examined the role of siblings
within the family both within and apart from music research, examined research related to the
theoretical framing of the study, considered existing research regarding the research goals, and
investigated the role parents could help play in the design of the study. The chapter is composed
of the following sections: 1) sibling relationships; 2) sibling deidentification and observational
learning; 3) musical development of children; 4) spontaneous music making; 5) music in
families; 6) musical parenting; 7) the family vehicle as a musical space; and 8) parents as co-
researchers.
Sibling Relationships
“Siblings are building blocks of family structure” (McHale et al., 2012, p. 924).
In the field of psychology there is an abundance of studies on family dynamics and this
extends to attention toward sibling relationships and influences (Aronovich, 2012; Danacý, Çetin
& Doðan, 2015; Davies & Gentile, 2012; Downey, 1995; Downey & Condran, 2004). These
studies range from providing an understanding of the nature of sibling influences on
relationships and behaviors to developmental perspectives, as well as learning and social
learning perspectives. Some of the influences that were found to influence sibling relationships
26
and behaviors included gender, age spacing, child disability/illness, parental marital status,
socio-cultural factors, conflict, and personality (McHale, Updegraff, & Whiteman, 2012). While
studies aiming to understand sibling relationships in the field of psychology have not focused in
large part on music or musical outcomes, understanding their theoretical underpinnings aids
music researchers, by offering a theoretical lens for which to interpret music-related data.
One article of significance is “Sibling Relationships in Early Childhood” by Dunn
(1983). This was one of the first prominent reviews into the literature on sibling relationships,
which was a relatively new area of study at the time. As such, this work is still highly referenced
as a core work in the field. In this article, Dunn makes the case for the reciprocal nature of the
sibling relationships versus complementary relationships. She wrote that:
To begin to describe the processes that lead to the differences between siblings growing
up within the same family and to assess the relative importance of sibling and parental
influence on development, we need as a first step to understand the nature of the
relationship between young siblings and how it influences and is influenced by the other
relationships a child forms (Dunn, 1983, p. 788).
A reciprocal relationship is one that focuses on children’s relationships with other
children and the peer-relationship between the two; one that allows the child to understand the
perspective of each other. A complementary relationship is observed between a parent and child
or an older child and a younger child, where there is difficulty in matching perspectives, and
therefore there is a lack of understanding of the child perspective from the older member in the
relationship. Reciprocity is the “close matching of perspectives, interests, and ability that fosters
the beginnings of understanding another person, the self, and social roles and rules more
generally” (Dunn, 1983, p. 806). Sibling relationships fit into a mix of these two types of
27
relationships in that siblings recognize and share each other’s interests as well as a vested
emotional interest. Siblings can also act as caregivers in similar ways as adult caregivers.
To illustrate further how reciprocity versus complementary types of relationships may
exist between siblings, Dunn goes on to discuss the nature of the relationship between young
siblings versus those between older siblings in terms of imitation and modeling, and how this
nature of the relationship may result in positive and negative interactions. Behavior leading to
negative interactions stood out as more common from older to younger siblings, although
younger siblings became “increasingly aggressive” over time (Dunn, 1983 p. 793). Positive
interactions, on the other hand, were found to increase from younger to older siblings as a
function of children’s growth and siblings engaging in reciprocal relationships.
Touching on a teaching perspective, Dunn (referencing Cicirelli, 1972) pointed out that
younger siblings learned more from older siblings than from unrelated teachers. The potential for
siblings to learn from and influence each other, often through imitation, touches on these
concepts of reciprocity. When exploring sibling interactions, determining whether interactions
are positive or negative is important, including where music is concerned. These interactions
have the potential to encourage and increase music making, and in turn musical development, as
well as discourage and diminish music making, therefore hindering children’s musical
development.
Current sibling research puts strong focus on how siblings influence each other.
Researchers have found that birth order, age gap between siblings, whether siblings are same-sex
or not, and the number of siblings can all influence family systems and social-cognitive
development (Hoffman, 1991; McHale et al., 2012). Increasing the number of siblings in the
family has also been linked with a dilution of resources and to younger children decreasing in
28
academic achievement when compared with older children in a same family (Downey, 1995).
Additionally, researchers have also found that older siblings have the potential to influence the
competence of younger siblings—directly and indirectly— through influencing their parents
(Brody, Kim, Murry, & Brown, 2003). Parents have the power to shape how siblings behave
toward each other and the family unit—or family community (Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017)—
provides the opportunity for siblings to form alliances (Hughes, McHarg & White, 2018). How
then does this sibling influence extend to music education? Before this can be answered,
researchers must understand the how siblings influence each other musically and whether and
under what circumstances siblings encourage or diminish music-making in each other.
Sibling Deidentification and Observational Learning
“Ecological theory, family systems theory, and Adlerian ideas about differentiation are
all congruent with the idea that sibling relationship dynamics have the ability to influence
individual development and well-being” (Doughty, 2015, p. 3).
Whiteman, McHale, and Crouter (2007a) addressed how siblings learn. They described
two different processes or learning theories: deidentification and observational learning. Looking
back to the Theory of Individual Psychology by Alfred Adler (see Ansbacher & Ansbacher,
1956), Adler is attributed with first establishing the foundation for Deidentification Theory
(Whiteman et al., 2007a). Deidentification Theory suggests that when siblings seek to establish
their own identities within the family, they will differentiate from each other by selecting
activities and parts or aspects of their identities to enhance that are separate from those of their
siblings (Whiteman et al., 2007a). Given the label as deidentification theory by Schacter et al.
(1976), this theory has been developed over time to include a common theme that “siblings
protect themselves from social comparison and rivalry by defining themselves differently from
one another” (Whiteman et al., 2007a, p. 644).
29
The Theory of Individual Psychology by Alfred Adler (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956) is
a theory of social psychology. Influential to this day, Adler’s theory was based upon the notion
that individuals will always move toward building up their individuality by positioning
themselves in a manner that promotes a goal of superiority or perfection. Adler considers this the
“dynamic force behind all of human activity” (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956, p. 1). “The
individual’s opinions of himself and the world, his “apperceptive schema,” his interpretations, all
as aspects of the style of life, influence every psychological process” (Ansbacher & Ansbacher,
1956, p. 2). Adler maintained that this move toward superiority may be unconscious or
conscious, explaining unconscious in terms of what is not yet understood. Additionally, even if
the desire to move away from inferiority is unconscious, this underlying goal of superiority is
always influential. Additionally, in an effort to understand the individual, one must also consider
the social situation including social values, social interest and social problems, and other social
issues as these are all subjective and cannot be separated. Understanding Adler’s theory in
relation to the preservation of self-interest, anything that conflicts with the individual’s need for
superiority will result in the adjusting of his/her individual psychology in order to preserve
and/or regain this feeling. Sibling competition, conflict, and rivalry all threaten the balance of
superiority between siblings, and thus siblings will differentiate from each other to preserve their
own superiority within their roles in the family (for an example case see Ansbacher &
Ansbacher, 1956, p. 308). In regards to sibling influences, Adler writes, “With amazing
frequency, the failures of one child are found beside the excellencies of the other. The greater
activity of the one may bring about the passivity of the other” (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956, p.
382). Therefore, as the foundation for deidentification, this means that siblings will deidentify
from their siblings as their sense of superiority is challenged.
30
In their study investigating observational learning and deidentification processes,
Whiteman et al. (2007a) drew on data from years 6 and 7 of a longitudinal study, having 171
nuclear families with 2 adolescent siblings as the primary participants. Data was collected
through in-person and telephone interviews of various family members. Second-born siblings
were asked to answer semi-structured interview questions using a 1-5 Likert point scale rating
system. Modeling and deidentification processes were assessed based on these answers. Findings
revealed that there was no evidence of modeling or deidentification being more prevalent in
same-sex versus mixed-sex siblings (Whiteman et al., 2007a). Additionally, it was found that
both “modeling and deidentification patterns were characterized by second-borns trying to be
like or different from their older siblings in the domains measured [sports, arts, academics, and
conduct]” (Whiteman et al., 2007a, p. 644). The study further revealed that younger siblings
were found to engage in processes related to observational learning and deidentification. A
surprise finding within the study was that a third group was observed, which was that there were
also “younger siblings who did not appear to use their older siblings as referents” (Whiteman et
al., p. 655). While surprising given the research on how older siblings provide role models for
younger siblings, this third group was consistent with participants from other research studies
that investigated sibling relationship types where the latter were classified as distant or
uninvolved (Whiteman et al., 2007a).
Whiteman and Christensen (2008, p. 24) noted that both observational learning and
differentiation processes were evident among sibling influences in adolescence. They stated that,
“differentiation influence and being a role model were prevalent for firstborns, whereas
modeling and modeling plus differentiation were more prevalent for second-borns”. This study
drew data from a longitudinal study of family relationships where initial participants were 191
31
first and second-born siblings. The data used in this study were collected by home interviews
where siblings answered open-ended questions that were audio recorded and transcribed, and by
the end, after attrition, yielded a sample size of 171 second-borns and 167 firstborns. Data was
then coded by a team of three and given a rating to be used in quantitative analysis. Findings
showed that sibling influence processes were salient, but the nature and correlates of these
processes might be different depending on positioning within the family, or if respondents were
younger or older siblings. This study showed that while siblings looked to each other as models
of appropriate behaviors and attitudes in some instances, there were other instances when they
looked at each other as competitors or foils as in the case of deidentification (Whiteman &
Christensen, 2008).
Research suggests that siblings close in age that share same sex tend to participate in
deidentification (Whiteman, et al., 2007a), while siblings who are spread apart in age have
tendencies to participate in observational learning (Whiteman, et al., 2007a). Researchers have
also found that there is often a combination of deidentification and observational learning
processes within sibling relationships (Whiteman & Christensen, 2008; Whiteman, McHale, &
Crouter, 2007b). Deidentification within families might look like one child identifying as athletic
with another identifying as being artistic. Or it may be even more nuanced. For example, as both
children might identify as musicians, there may be a distinction within this identity. One child
might identify as being a singer, while another child might identify as being the piano player in
the family. On the other hand, observational learning within a musical context in families might
look like older children or parents participating in music making with younger children copying
them. Contrary to deidentification theory, the belief that as “similarity is thought to enhance
imitation” and “modeling is more likely in the context of a nurturing relationship” (Whiteman et
32
al., 2007a, p. 644), observational learning theory suggests that siblings who are spread apart in
age, have a close relationship, and are the same sex have a tendency to participate in
observational learning.
For children participating in observational learning and imitation of other siblings, an
explanation for why siblings seem similar is presented over a wide range of domains (Whiteman
et al., 2007a, 2007b). While music is not among those discussed, when considering observational
learning theory in light of Dunn’s notion of reciprocity (1983), researchers can begin to
theoretically understand why younger siblings may choose to imitate their older siblings as there
are likely more positive interactions between them. It seems logical to think that this would
extend into the domain of music making as well. Therefore, as siblings understand and relate to
each other, form attachments and begin to understand their roles within the family based on their
age, positionality and relationships, older siblings may offer a potential musical role model for
their younger siblings.
On the other hand, it would seem that siblings whom are close in age and in situations
where a well-defined balance of power and nurturance are inexistent, imitation is less likely to
occur, even in spite of the existence of reciprocal relationship and the ability to understand one
another. When considering the valence that accompanies reciprocity, in these cases reciprocity is
probably more negatively focused and competition more likely to exist among siblings, creating
a need for differentiation. It is with this negativity where the theoretical concept of
deidentification is salient. As children who are close in age are more likely to differentiate
themselves from their siblings, deidentification occurs. Deidentification is, therefore, the
“tendency for siblings to define themselves different from one another in order to reduce
33
competition, establishing their own identities within the family” (Whiteman et al., 2007a, p.
644).
A more recent study on the matter is a dissertation by Doughty (2015). In this work,
Doughty suggested that siblings’ relationships possessed power to influence individual
development (refer to the quote that opens this section). Based on this assumption, the author
empirically examined sibling differentiation in activity interests longitudinally from the year
1995/1996 and extended over the course of 10 years in 203 families. Through this study,
Doughty provided evidence of deidentification over time, exemplifying “the power of sibling
influences” (Doughty, 2015, p. 74). The author interviewed mothers, fathers and two siblings
from the same families, and also had siblings complete a Likert-scale 1-4 activity interest form.
She later input these data into a multi-level-model and conducted a statistical analysis. At the
start of the study, the youngest sibling participants were in middle school. While not all aspects
of her study were relevant to this dissertation, of particular importance was the finding that
sibling differentiation was found to increase between ages 9 and 13, becoming stable or possibly
declining from age 13 to 18, before increasing again after age 18 (Doughty, 2015). Additionally,
Doughty discussed how some activities might not lead into sibling rivalry. This finding provides
hope for music educators, since deidentification is not a guaranteed process. Therefore, having a
child who has siblings who are or identify as musicians does not necessarily mean that the child
will deidentify musically. Since an emphasis on scores, winning, and ranking may promote
rivalry which encourages deidentification, then so long as music educators make an effort to
reduce comparisons that encourage this type of competition there should be space for
observational learning to occur.
34
In summary, the literature shows that both observational learning and deidentification are
likely to be present in sibling interactions. Research suggests that older children will offer peer
models for their younger siblings and this may lead to observational learning, especially where
there is a similarity and closeness between the children. Observational learning is not always
directly observed, but when it is, may take the form of imitation, echoing, copying, and
participating. Research also suggests that children may deidentify from their siblings when there
is a closeness in age and sex between the children. While not all instances of conflict, rivalry,
and competition have been shown to predict deidentification as expected due to individual
differences and personality, they are still possible influences that may introduce feelings of
inferiority that children have to resolve. Finally, it is possible that children will not appear to
deidentify from, or imitate, one another, as was the case in Whiteman et al. (2007a).
Musical Development of Young Children
Given the theoretical lens of the study considers the importance of the child’s identity in
directing their subsequent music making, it becomes important to understand the impact musical
identities may have in the matter. A child’s musical identity plays a key part of musical
development (Hargreaves, MacDonald, & Miell, 2012). According to Hargreaves et al., “musical
identities influence not only the development of specific musical skills but also the rate at which
that development occurs” (p. 130). Therefore, given that deidentification and observational
learning processes play a role in shaping a child’s musical identity, it is logical to assume that
these processes will also play a role in children’s musical development.
Forrester and Borthwick-Hunter (2015), addressed the concept of musical development
through a review of 27 longitudinal studies published between 1979 and 2012. The authors
referenced the broad range of definitions of musical development as musical skill acquisition,
35
musical intelligence, the ability to understand or produce music, and communicative musicality
which concerns the production and reception of music. They also explained how understanding
of musical development exists on a spectrum of these definitions, ranging from precise and
specific musical skills to broad communicative musicality and this should be considered when
conducting developmental music research (Forrester & Borthwick-Hunter, 2015). For the
purpose of this dissertation, musical development is defined here as the development of musical
skills, as suggested by Young (2012).
Flohr and Trevarthen (2007) suggested that children’s musical development is fostered
by support and encouragement of spontaneous musical movement, rhythmic expression, and
singing. For these authors, musical development can be either nurtured through mentoring or be
left alone, where it may grow as the child is able or wither as a result of the child selecting other
ways to socially interact. Recognizing young children’s music learning potential and that
“musical experiences for young children provide an optimal period for growth” (Flohr, 2010, p.
16), musical development is enhanced by mentoring, interactions, and through children’s
participation in music making.
In the developmental music research literature, young children have been found to be
considerate of their siblings in their musical interactions. In a study by Trehub, Unyk, and
Henderson (1994), 42 musically untrained children between the age of 2.6 years old through 8.3
years old were recorded in their homes as they sang two times. The first time the children sung,
they sang directly to their infant sibling. The second time around, the children sang when their
infant sibling was not in view. Songs were recorded by an audio recorder and lapel microphone.
Renditions by 22 children who had interacted with the sibling during the infant-directed song and
sung songs in both contexts and without parental interference were included in the final sample.
36
Adult listeners judged the recordings on a number of criteria as they analyzed data. Findings
showed that “children sang in a perceptibly different manner in the presence of their infant
sibling compared to a context in which the infant was out of view” (Trehub et al., 1994, p. 741).
Furthermore, infant-directed song renditions exhibited analogous features of infant-directed
speech, including a loving tone and elongation of endings. This study was possibly the first
demonstration that children used infant-directed singing when they sang to their infant siblings.
Another study that considered sibling musical influence, although only as a small portion
of the focus, was detailed in a book by Pitts (2012). The author gathered data from 72 adult
participants including life histories as they responded to questions regarding their musical
background, memories, those who were influential, musical highlights, and regrets about missed
opportunities. The data was coded and analyzed using mixed methods to search for trends and
qualitative analyses of the narratives. While this work was not focused on musical development,
the author was able to glean, through life histories, how siblings influenced the musical lives of
study participants. Adopting a broad definition of musical development, Pitt’s work is one of the
few to demonstrate the effect of siblings on musical influences that guide musical development.
In chapter 4 of Pitt’s book, subtitled “Significant people in music learning,” the author
devoted five pages to the topic of siblings, extended families and friendships as musical
influences. In the three pages devoted to sibling influences and interactions, Pitts described how
siblings influenced one another’s exposure to musical taste and musical activities. Siblings also
contributed to musical memories of the older participants as they reflected on experiences from
when they were younger. These memories included playing instruments, taking lessons and
serving as musical role models. As expected, siblings were also found to be an obstacle to
participants’ musical ambitions. The obstacles mentioned included complaints of sibling
37
practicing as well as of a lack of ability to pursue desired musical instruments as parents limited
instrument choices so that children within the family were not learning the same ones. While
Pitt’s findings of sibling musical influences may seem obvious, the research is still lacking in
terms of supporting findings and in identifying interactions as they happen spontaneously
between siblings, especially among children.
In another developmental study, Forrester (2010) focused on the “emergence of
musicality as a social practice” (p. 134). Defining musicality as a broad music-like behavior,
Forrester observed his own child over the course of 2 years and 10 months, from age 1 to 3 years
10 months. Data was collected in the form of 31 digital video-recordings that were filmed during
meal-times as the child interacted with her mother, father, and older 8-year-old sibling. Forrester
identified 39 examples (excerpts) of musicality within the recordings. Two independent raters
viewed the recordings and created their own excerpts. As these co-raters found 7 recordings to be
musically ambiguous, the final analysis included 32 agreed-upon examples of musicality, which
Forrester used as his constructed data set. These data along with movie and sound extracts were
created to aid in the analysis.
Forrester’s study provided a description of his child’s music making during the preschool
years, highlighting earliest childhood proclivities towards imitation, sympathetic reciprocity, the
emotional engagement with spontaneous music-making, and the ability to understand the
emergence of musicality through an ecological perspective (Forrester, 2010). Of particular
relevance and interest to the current study is that Forrester found musicality with others “closely
related to affective and emotional/social aspects of the interaction” (2010, p. 149). A limitation
of this study was the fact that Forrester did not indicate whether the interactions were different
when the child was dealing with an adult or a sibling. He noted that during the later period of the
38
recordings, there was an increased occurrence of spontaneous musicality. With music making as
a social practice, the child’s development of musicality began initially with “finding form and
expression in the dyadic interaction, then closely synchronized with a partner, and then gradually
becomes more self-focused” (Forrester, 2010, p. 150). In relationship to the present study, these
findings suggest that the development of musicality in Forrester’s child began with observational
learning through interactions with a parent or sibling, moving to joint music making, before
finally being self-focused. While there is much value in Forrester’s ethnographic case study,
further comparisons of everyday family interactions are still needed.
Spontaneous Music Making
One way that children engage in music is through spontaneous music making (Barrett,
2003; Custodero, Cali & Diaz-Donoso, 2016; Flohr & Trevarthen, 2007; Forrester, 2010;
Gluschankof, 2005; Young, 2012). Encompassed within spontaneous music making are musical
play, creation of vocalizations and songs, the use of body movement, and the use of objects,
instruments, and technology to create and play music (Young, 2012). The environments that
young children navigate in provide a variety of opportunities for music making that range from
the highly formal to those less formal, where they may imitate, listen, or participate on the side
(Young, 2012).
Custodero, Cali, and Diaz-Donoso (2016) observed children’s spontaneous music making
as it occurred in the subway. This form of transportation presented an opportunity for the authors
to study music making within an ecological context. Viewed as a social environment where
children naturally make music, this was also a public space where access to children was
relatively easy as the latter were confined. In this study, field observers collected data over 3
weeks as they were riding on three different train lines in a subway in Manhattan, New York.
39
These field observers rode in groups of two or three on one of the three train lines one round trip
per day for three separate Sundays between May and June of 2012. Data was collected via field-
researchers completing a “Spontaneous Music Observational Protocol for each musical episode
observed” (Custodero et al., 2016, p. 60), and followed up with field-researchers’ written
narrative accounts of each episode. Data was then viewed multiple times, coded, and interpreted.
The specific number of children observed was not stated in the article, only that of the data
gathered, 69 musical episodes found. These musical episodes were coded for musical behaviors,
which included vocal and movement behaviors. It is unknown whether the 69 musical episodes
referred to 69 distinct participants or if there was more than one episode with a same participant.
Also, it was not clear which episodes referred to individual or groups of children. Study findings
were that music making was present in children from infancy to middle childhood until about
age 10 (Custodero et al., 2016). The authors found musical materials to be mostly invented, but
they were also responsive, learned and imitated. The types of spontaneous music making
included singing, spontaneous vocalizations, chanting and humming, along with movement
behavior, listening, and instrument playing. Vocal behaviors were described as an “essential part
of children’s spontaneous music making since they were involved in about 81% of the musical
episodes” (Custodero et al., 2016, p. 65). Finally, of particular interest was a finding that, “most
musical behaviors occurred when the accompanying adult did not interfere” (Custodero et al.,
2016, p. 71).
Barrett (2003, p. 197) suggested that “children are active participants (…) in the
construction of their musical worlds, rather than passive recipients of those offered to them
through adult-mediated action in the spaces of popular, media, and institutional cultures.”
Through a single participant case study, the author analyzed song making in a single
40
kindergarten student. The study was conducted at a whole-day kindergarten program that met 2
full days a week from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m. in a large semi-rural school in Australia. There were 24
children in the kindergarten class and the researcher was part of what was identified as a music
corner, where any of the children could participate in throughout the day. The researcher took on
the role of researcher-observer and made weekly visits over 2 months toward the end of the
school year to collect data. Data was collected in the form of researcher field notes, audio
recordings, and musical artifacts. Barrett (2003) found that the single participant identified as
Chelsea, actively engaged in song making and as such she was directly engaged with shaping her
musical culture and narratives. Additionally, the content of Chelsea’s songs revolved around
themes of her daily life with characters that were part of her home life. Barrett concluded that as
children engage in spontaneous music making, they actively participate in their music making,
drawing on their own lives for musical material, which includes their experience of popular
culture.
Gluschankof (2005) took on the role of researcher-ethnographer to observe children in
the music areas in their kindergarten, ages 4 to 6 years old. Observations were done in three
kindergartens that were classified and located as follows: 1) Jewish/ non-urban cooperative
village; 2) Jewish/ urban teacher training college; 3) Arab/an urban church-operated school. The
Jewish kindergartens were selected based on their orientation toward Western culture while the
Arab kindergarten was selected based on its roots in Middle-Eastern culture. The researcher
collected data via video recordings between November 1996 and June 1997. To collect the data,
the researcher used a portable camera she held and followed the children. As a researcher-
observer, the researcher interacted with children on their prompting. As the researcher role was
different in each of the three kindergartens, data collection varied slightly for each of the sites. In
41
the end, there were 27 hours of raw data, with 12 hours from the non-urban Jewish kindergarten,
8.5 hours from the urban Jewish kindergarten, and 6.5 hours from the Arab kindergarten.
Gluschankof then viewed the raw data, sorting out the musical episodes, which were later
transcribed and analyzed quantitatively. Further analyses took place through a qualitative
approach, through transcriptions with added musical notation and stills from the video
recordings. The qualitative analysis had data coded for themes, patterns, and saliences. Findings
were presented through three distinct cases for each site.
Taking all three cases together, Gluschankof (2005, p. 208) found that music making in
schools was “multifaceted, holistic, and rich, yet expressed differently in each kindergarten.”
Some of the characteristics of children’s music making that were observed in the study included:
use of a variety in timbre, the creation of musical pieces that used note values that were in a ratio
of 1:2 (i.e. quarter and eighth notes), musical intensity of medium loudness, tempi ranging from
54-132 beats per minute, and rhythmic pattern repetition, with children participating in
instrumental, vocal, and movement expressions. The characteristics of children’s music making
in this study support the various ways that spontaneous music making has been observed in other
research (Custodero et al., 2016; Young, 2012).
Among her findings, Gluschankof summarized the musical style of children’s music
making as follows: 1) “it avoids any extreme,” 2) “is expressed in the unity of the experience,”
and 3) “is characterized by short-term directionality and low complexity” (2005, p. 219).
Gluschankof wrote that the musical style of observed children more closely resembled non-
Western musical styles rather than Western musical styles. The findings are consistent with
Barrett (2003), in that the kindergartners developed a style of musical play that reflected a
42
“merging of their home, community and school cultures,” including the contexts and beliefs
created and brought in by adults in their environments (Gluschankof, 2005, p. 226).
Musical Families
Music within families is a key area to begin to understand the musical interactions and
family influences that shape music making among children. While almost all of the literature
included in this review only considers the influences on a single child and their families
collectively with any siblings grouped together with parents, this literature is useful in
understanding the existing research in families as siblings are an extension of the family, and the
present research fits within this category.
Custodero (2006) studied 10 families, drawing participants from a previous study
(Custodero & Johnson-Green, 2003). To select these 10 families, 138 families of the initial 2,250
participants in the Custodero and Johnson-Green (2003) study were contacted, based on
predetermined criteria. From those 138 families, 10 agreed to participate. To gather data from
these families, Custodero collected data in the form of parent interviews, child observations,
parent journals, and researcher reflections, which were written after each of two family visits.
Data were then analyzed through examining singing as it was found in the context of the
interview. Coding data by singing categories, emergent themes were found. Stories from parents
and child observations were used in the author’s attempt to understand meaning-making in
families. Bringing together the themes and stories, narratives were constructed for the families.
Of the 10 narratives, three were highlighted in the study, chosen by the researchers due to their
diverse musical content and contexts. Three themes relating to the use of singing within the
families emerged: routines, traditions, and play. Within the category of routines, singing was
used to accompany basic daily activities. Some families had dedicated special times for singing
43
together, and invented songs were part of daily spontaneous music making among family
members. Singing was also used to both honor past traditions and create new traditions. Families
desired to pass on cultural singing traditions, but also create their own family singing practices.
Singing used throughout children’s play included songs that were invented, learned, and adapted
from existing repertoires. In their conclusion, the researchers suggested that the collaborations
and interactions found regarding choice of repertoire, individual performance, and adult-free
music making may influence learning contexts.
In her dissertation examining music in 10 families with children 7 to 10 years old, Cali
(2015) reported on data obtained through in-depth interviews with parents and children, a
showcase of musical artifacts
2
from each family via a researcher “show-and-tell”, and a
collection of other artifacts
3
each family documented the course of 7 consecutive weeks. At the
end of the 7-week period, Cali conducted a focus group to reflect on their musical experiences
collectively. Data was presented through transcriptions and interpretations provided from Cali
for each of the families, which she grouped based on parent’s musical background. In her final
chapter she then brought all the findings of the individual cases into view, addressing her
research questions, as findings were made evident across the cases. Cali’s first research question
was of particular interest to the present study as it accounted for the musical experiences and
musical memories of families with children ages 7 to 10 years old. She found that families
reported both spontaneous and formal musical experiences in their daily lives. These
spontaneous musical experiences occurred in shared contexts, which included music listening,
“especially in the car” (Cali, 2015, p. 282). Furthermore, spontaneous musical experiences in
participating families included music making by means of singing and dancing. Cali considered
2
These artifacts included photographs, videos, musical instruments, and various concert programs.
3
These artifacts included written reflections, photographs, drawings, videos, texts or e-mails, and voice messages.
44
the role of siblings briefly in her study as she remarked that, “in families with siblings, children
often spent time on their own making music together” (Cali, 2015, pp. 282-283).
A more recent study by Costa-Giomi and Benetti (2017) investigated how musical
interactions were present in a musically oriented family with three young children, to
demonstrate how this contributed to the family’s sense of community. Using a digital audio
recording device, the youngest member of the family, 15-month-old Travis, wore the small
device on his person as he went about two separate typical days in the presence of his family.
With 22 hours of time recorded, data was generated by listening to the files in 5-minute
segments, only listening to the first 30 seconds of each. Of those files identified with musical
episodes, the entire sound file was then listened to and general information about the setting was
noted. Using repeated listening to the sound files, along with this written information, the
musical episodes were coded and analyzed. This study revealed that music was present in Travis’
soundscape through a strong presence of live music over recorded music, music making through
singing, the use of traditional children’s songs, the use of invented songs, rhythmic speech, and
the presence of musical toys. The only recorded music heard was found while the family traveled
in the family car heading out to dinner. Musical interactions in this context were observed as
“accompaniments to other activities” (Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017, p. 298). Through these
other activities, music was used to engage Travis, to communicate, and to encourage emotional
connections between the child and his companions. A secondary finding in the study was the
participation in a musical moment by Travis’ 3-year-old sibling. The researchers found that
“musical interactions between two members of the family facilitated participation by other
members in way that speech interactions did not. (...) The ways in which musical interactions
welcomed and accommodated more participants contributed to a perceived sense of inclusion in
45
the family” (Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017, p. 300). A key take-away from this study was that
musical ideas were shared easily, spontaneously, and throughout the time observed in the study.
Thus, the results of this study encourage research of a similar manner within families, and
support further investigation of musical interactions among family members.
A few criticisms of this particular study are how data was recorded and analyzed.
Recording data only using an audio recording device likely missed every example of music
making that was not aural. Children are known to engage in music making in a multimodal way,
through a combination of listening, singing, body movements, and at times the use of objects.
Without visual data, it is likely that there were interactions missed between Travis and his family
that could have further informed the study. Grouping together family participants in the data
analysis rather than considering the interactions between children and each individual family
members resulted in a missed opportunity to comment on sibling influences in a manner that is
distinct from parental influences. Additionally, by handling such a large amount of data and
observing it only a few seconds at a time, it is likely that some (or many) musical episodes were
missed. The researchers acknowledged that singing in families had been reported by parents to
take place frequently and yet they found it amounted to a small portion of the day. They
interpreted this to mean that music making occurred frequently for short durations, which may
not have been completely accurate.
Gingras (2013) conducted a longitudinal qualitative case study of five families. Gingras’
data collection took place over the course of 8 weeks. Each of these five families had a child
enrolled in first grade, and both child and parent participants took part in the study. Data was
collected via the child participants through digital recording media, an individual interview, three
focus group discussions, and video recordings. Parents provided demographic and musical
46
background information, an overview of family musical life via questionnaires and an interview.
Parents in this study also took on a supporting role in conducting the data collection. Consistent
with qualitative methodology, data was analyzed throughout the study, using findings from some
data sources such as video recordings and questionnaires, to inform other parts of the study.
Video recordings were transcribed and along with field notes, coded and examined for patterns,
themes, and stories. Analyses were done first on a case-by-case basis for each of the five
participating families and then through a cross-case analysis, interpreting the findings as a group.
Gingras (2013) detailed findings through presenting musical portraits presented in
chapters 4-7. Each of these portraits presented findings from each family relating to the same
musical finding and how it was expressed within that family. These portraits are summarized as
follows: 1) Musical activities occurred around the house in rooms that supported specific types
of music making; 2) All parents interacted to different capacities with their children while they
practiced the piano; 3) Families participated in musical activities throughout the day; and 4) Cars
as excellent spaces to sing. Concluding her study, Gingras presented cross-case analyses where
among her findings, she found that the families engaged in music making primarily through
singing, She also found that families engaged in music making through playing musical
instruments, through watching musical performances, and moving to music. Additionally, she
reported that parents were not always aware of the musical behaviors of their children, that
families used music to share culture and religious view with their children, and that the presence
of media and technology enhanced the music making of the families she studied. Gingras
reinforced the notion that families are important and present in the musical lives of children.
Within chapter 7, “Music on the Go,” Gingras’ portrait of the cars as a musical
environment is particularly relevant to the present study as it captured the nature of music in this
47
setting (Gingras, 2013). Most parents and all participating children were found to sing in the car.
Musical activities in the car identified via the cross-case analysis included families listening to
music, which often reflected the driver’s personal musical tastes, and singing. Additionally, it
became evident that family member’s musical values and beliefs were influential on each other.
These influences were observed in the subsequent attitudes and behaviors of family members
and resulted in the children embracing the music of their parents resulting in shared musical
preferences. This sharing of musical preferences likely contributed to the child’s musical
identity. Acknowledging that “musical moments” united family members and allowed for them
to connect, Gingras also discussed how the participating families shared these moments, as they
occurred throughout her study. Through the shared singing of invented tunes, traditional tunes,
familiar melodies with new lyrics, and the interactions that follow, families were found to
enhance conversation and demonstrate emotional connections to each other. Yet, a small
criticism of Gingras’ study is that additional family members were not considered “official”
participants, even though data was gathered about them. As such, siblings were not included in
the study’s focus, and took a secondary place in the study. In her dissertation, Gingras described
the events with siblings and parents intertwined, leaving out the impact of siblings on children’s
musical development.
Musical Parenting
Musical parenting is a term that encompasses the variety of activities, behaviors, and
beliefs that parents have or use as they parent their children. Found through play and dedicated
teaching moments, through shared musical experiences, as well as through their beliefs and
values about music, musical parenting impacts the way parents musically interact, teach, and
overall raise their children. As such, musical parenting is apparent throughout research of
48
musical families. The way that parents transmit musical knowledge to their children may be
intentional or unintentional, but is typically present through parent-child music interactions. It is
important to consider musical parenting in the present study, as siblings usually share parents
and live in the same home. It is expected that some influence of musical parenting will likely be
evident through parents’ interactions based on these musical childrearing practices. Several
studies discuss ways in which parents interact musically with their children, and in turn provide
children with guidance as a result of their musical parenting (Byrn & Hourigan, 2010; Custodero
& Johnson-Green, 2003; Ilari, 2005, 2017). Some limitations within many of these studies is the
lack of primary consideration of the influence of siblings on parental beliefs and behaviors and
the methods used to gather data, including self-reports (Bryn & Hourigan, 2010; Custodero &
Johnson-Green, 2003; Ilari, 2005); however, much can still be learned from this research about
the beliefs and ways that parents interact with and provide experiences for their children
musically.
Ilari (2017) details the ways in which parents participate in musical parenting. Through a
series of vignettes, the author illustrates the complexity involved in the music making of young
children and touches on how musical parenting has been found throughout research to influence
these experiences. Opening with a vignette regarding the child Francesco, Ilari illustrated how
Francesco’s mother intentionally crafted and used child-friendly characters to transmit musical
content. Connecting this parental influence to existing literature, Ilari explains how her example
illustrated a common formal educational practice associated with families from the middle-class.
This practice was such that parents use a style of music transmission where their children are
engaged with “musical repertoire and practices [that have been](…) purposefully selected and
customized to optimize children’s learning and development” (Ilari, 2017, p. 3) She then goes on
49
to explain other parenting strategies regarding musical engagement including the use of guided
repetition, musical experiences that allow for learning via implicit, reactive and deliberative
modes of learning and activities that tap into these methods and strategies depending on what the
learning goals are. Throughout the rest of the article, Ilari discusses how children are engaged
through their musical spaces and social experiences, suggesting that individual agency results
from exposure to and engagement with different repertoires and practices in varied spaces. Music
is embedded with meaning depending on the child’s culture. Parents also have beliefs of
appropriate music. All of these factors influence young children both as musical agents and in
their musical engagement.
Looking to specific studies of parental engagement, Ilari (2005) interviewed 100 mothers
and caretakers of infants who were between 7 and 9 months old living in Canada to understand
their musical beliefs and perceptions on musical activity with their baby. These semi-structured
interviews, were recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. Transcriptions were later
coded and analyzed using statistical methods. Findings from Ilari (2005) revealed that music
making was a “prominent activity in most Canadian homes” (p. 655), the mother’s prior musical
experiences were perceived to influence their musical behavior with their infants, current
occupation of the mother played a role in how they engaged their infant musically, and language
and culture were important in how mothers musically parented their children, with mothers
holding beliefs regarding appropriate music for their infants to engage with.
Custodero and Johnson-Green (2003) were also interested in the musical experiences and
musical parenting of infants. To investigate this topic, the researchers conducted telephone
interviews with a random sampling of 2,250 people using a predetermined survey, Parent’s Use
of Music with Infants Survey (PUMIS). Survey responses were then coded, with correlations
50
computed across the data set. Findings from the study indicated that parental musical experience
influenced how parents sang and played music for their infants. Parents who had a strong
recollection of their own parent’s singing were more likely to sing to their own children.
Additionally, having an instrumental background and taking lessons were correlated with playing
recorded music for infants. An interesting finding of the study was that no matter the level of
previous musical experience of parents within the study, all were found “significant” in how they
associated with the category of made-up-songs (invented-tunes) (Custodero & Johnson-Green,
2003). While this study only took self-reports and therefore results are based on parental
perceptions, the study does make it clear that parents’ previous musical experiences will
influence their musical parenting (Custodero & Johnson-Green, 2003). This suggests that
understanding parental past musical experiences is helpful in understanding the way they
musically parent their children.
Bryn and Hourigan (2010) conducted a comparative case study using Custodero’s (2006)
study as a model. Participants for this study were five mothers of infants and the study took place
over 8 weeks. Data was collected through interviews, in-home observation field notes, and e-
journals. Data was then coded and grouped into coded areas, with themes emerging from the
data. Findings confirmed that musical interactions were central to the mother-infant relationship.
Mothers used these musical interactions to communicate with their infants, and communication
through songs and movement provided useful ways in expressing meaning in a way that infants
would better understand. Such musical communication helped to strengthen bonds between
mother and child. Mothers used musical interactions to promote learning and discovery for their
infants, believing that music was important for child development. Music was also used as a
reinforcement tool. Music was found during deliberate teaching moments—such as repetition to
51
reinforce spelling of a child’s name and the reinforcement of daily routines— and through
instances of play. Mothers used recorded music to maintain a pleasant atmosphere at home and
to promote learning and discovery via interactions. Of particular interest to this study was the
fact that two of the mothers used recorded music in the car with their infants (Bryn & Hourigan,
2010). The mothers used music in the car setting for purposes of entertainment, emotional
regulation through providing a calm environment, and as a means to pass time during long trips.
The researchers also noted that older siblings often determined the listening choices for the
family within the car. The researchers concluded that musical interactions were important to the
mothers because they served as a way for them to pass along family history and traditions to
their children.
The Family Vehicle as a Musical Space
Numerous studies have pointed to the potential for the family car to serve as a musical
space and yet few have conducted research explicitly examining music making in this space
(Bryn & Hourigan, 2010; Cali, 2015; Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Gingras, 2013; Ilari, 2017;
Koops, 2014). One key study “Songs from the Car Seat: Exploring the Early Childhood Music-
Making Place of the Family Vehicle” was conducted by Koops (2014). In this study, Koops
examined the car as a space for children’s music making. Interestingly, she acknowledged that
the family car provides room for sibling musical interactions, although this was not the focus of
her study. Much like the Custodero et al. (2016) study, the Koops (2014) study was set within a
mode of transportation and music making within this space was explored.
The study was designed as a qualitative case study conducted over the course of 9 weeks.
Study participants were nine children between the ages of 10 months and 4.5 years. Data was
collected via parent journals, parent-filmed videos, researcher field notes of music classes, and
52
parent answers to reflective questions at the conclusion of the study. Parents participated in the
study by assisting the researcher in writing journals about musical activities and providing video
and written documentation about children’s music making both at home and within the car over
the course of the study. Koops was both the researcher and teacher of the music classes that the
child participants attended. Therefore, families attended music classes during the 9-week period
of the study. In the classes, the researcher introduced musical activities for the families to
experiment in the car. Parents were asked to engage in the musical activities with their children,
which were subsequently featured in the video. In data analysis, the researcher transcribed and
analyzed the data to arrive at emergent themes.
Findings from the study revealed that singing songs was a common car activity, with
repertoire including familiar songs as well as invented songs, and lyric-less tunes. Music
listening was also a common activity in the family car, as was playing games and engaging in
activities from music class. In examining the characteristics of the car that enabled music
making, Koops (2014) wrote that parents believed the car was conducive to music making
because it reduced distractions, provided a lack of parental eye-contact between the parent and
the children giving them more room to create music, and opened up space for sibling
interactions. However, even with the space being conducive to music making, Koops found that
parents did not musically saturate the space. While siblings were not the focus of the study, they
were still found to share positive musical interactions and participate in imitation in the car.
Koops also noted that older siblings tended to suggest ways to participate in music making with
younger siblings, with younger siblings singing along with their older siblings. The information
relating to sibling music making, however, ends there. Koops did not address the nature of the
interactions between children and children and parent(s), and the types of learning that took
53
place. While an interesting observation, the study offered only a preliminary view of siblings
shared music making in the family vehicle.
A further criticism of the study is that, the design did not encourage the study of
spontaneous music making, but rather provided musical assignments for families to complete in
the car. By directing families to complete these experiences, one cannot be sure that the sibling
influences would naturally and spontaneously occur without direct parent or teacher influence.
While it is useful for educators to observe that by providing families with musical
interactions/activities to complete in the car is beneficial to increased music making, the limited
scope and inability to generalize the outcomes of the study encourages further investigation into
the matter.
Parents as Co-Researchers
“Parent-research has the potential to be a new way of thinking about how to research the
continuity between home and school and the dynamic nature of childhood within the modern
ecological make-up of the home” (Kabuto 2008, p. 190). In the field of music, scholars (e.g.,
deVries 2005, 2009, 2011; Forrester, 2010; Sole, 2014) have partnered with parent-researchers to
offer insight into the music making of their study participants. While these studies should be
carefully scrutinized, they demonstrate the ability of parent-researchers to effectively contribute
to the music teaching and learning community.
Considering the premise of the present study to examine music in everyday life, and the
naturalistic spaces where such research should be carried out, it becomes clear that parents are
perhaps the only ones who can provide “almost round-the-clock observations needed to
illuminate these types of personal and social relationships” (Kabuto, 2008, p. 182). Parent
researchers can take one of two roles when it comes to conducting research. The first is that of
54
the lead researcher, researching his/her own children. The second is that of a co-researcher. In
the role of lead researcher, the complete structure, study design, all ethical and methodological
considerations, and everything else related to the study is in the hands of the parent researcher. In
the role of co-researcher, researchers in a field will often rely on the aid of parents to engage in
data collection (e.g. Sole, 2014), but the design and all methodological considerations are left up
to the lead researcher. In the present study, parent co-researchers were valuable in navigating
issues of privacy, and aided in the research process.
While not all researchers recognize that parents have participated as co-researchers in
their studies, the use of parents in data collection procedures is not new for music research
(Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Gingras, 2013; Koops, 2014; Sole, 2014). Some researchers refer
to parents as “assistants” (Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Gingras, 2013; Koops, 2014), while
others acknowledge the greater role parents play. Sole (2014), for example, acknowledged the
role of parents as co-researchers in her study, as data collection would be severely impacted and
likely impossible without the parent’s assistance.
Sole (2014) conducted a collective case study of eight families with toddlers over 4
weeks. The study was designed to examine spontaneous music making of toddlers just before
they fell asleep each night. Using parent observations and reflections as her primary data sources,
Sole also had parents collect audio recordings of their observations. It is important to stress that,
without parents acting as co-researchers, her study would likely not have yielded the same in-
depth findings. The co-researcher role is time consuming and requires a large commitment from
participants that not all parents can commit to, hence two families had to withdraw from the
study due to feeling overwhelmed. Sole coded the data, created descriptions of the sounds heard
in the toddlers’ bedrooms, and then identified all the musical utterances and vocalizations.
55
Findings were presented through elaborated portraits of meaningful observations for each family
that contained key observations, descriptive information and parent views, followed by a final
portrait of the entire 4-week period for each family. Study findings revealed that when looking at
all the cases combined, all nine toddlers engaged in spontaneous musical and non-musical
vocalizations before they fell asleep. Participation in research the observation process also
caused parents to re-examine their attitudes and practices, as they became more aware of their
musical experiences with their children. In other words, participation in the research process
proved beneficial for both the researcher and the parents.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, I have reviewed and combined research across the field of psychology,
considering child development, and music education, including theories of sibling
deidentification and observational learning (Doughty, 2015; Schacter et al., 1976; Whiteman et.
al., 2007a), combined with research on sibling relationships (Dunn, 1983). Through reciprocal
sibling relationships the power dynamic between siblings may yield positive or negative learning
experiences (Dunn, 1983), which, in turn may impact the musical development of the child. Such
learning experiences may influence not only how children make music, but also how they are
motivated toward music making, providing motivation for a child to musically deidentify or
imitate their siblings. Musically speaking, these positive learning experiences yield like
increased music making experiences where negative learning experiences yield decreased music
making experiences.
Music education literature on musical development, spontaneous music making, and
musical families, including musical parenting, were also highlighted. This provided an
illustration of children’s music making, the way they have been influenced musically by their
56
families and how their music making has been influenced as a result, and provides the basic
understanding of the limited role that siblings have been studied within music thus far. Setting
the premise for understanding music making in the present study, spontaneous music making
was described and types of ways that children have participated in their music making in other
studies was reviewed. Studies revealed that the car often serves as a musical space within
families, although it has been under-investigated. At the end of the chapter, I have discussed the
importance of the parent co-researcher role that provides assistance in shaping the design of the
current study, as it was illustrated by a recent study.
Considering the chapter as a whole as it relates to the present study, music education
research has brought up sibling influences (Bryn & Hourigan, 2010; Cali, 2015; Gingras, 2013;
Koops, 2014; Pitts, 2012), but further investigation of the topic particularly in music in everyday
life is lacking. Often such results are provided as secondary findings in music research and are
not elaborated on, likely due to the design and aims of these studies. In formulating the research
questions, the literature lead to further questions that remained unanswered in the presence of the
established literature. The music literature reviewed in this chapter hinted at the importance of
sibling interactions within the space of the family vehicle without directly studying it (Cali,
2015; Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Koops, 2014). This repeated presence of sibling influences
in the place of the family vehicle served as a guide in crafting my research questions. From this
research I sought to better understand sibling music making, sibling musical interactions, and
provide a description of what sibling musical influences were in the family vehicle.
Psychological literature related to sibling relationships and influences, led to theories of
deidentification and observational learning. The ways that siblings respond to each other as a
result of these theories became an important question in shaping how the research questions
57
considered sibling musical interactions specifically. In order to begin work to fill in this gap in
the literature, study the research questions, and shed some light on sibling musical influences in
everyday contexts, I discuss the design of the study in the next chapter.
58
Chapter 3: Research Design
This study was structured as an exploratory collective case study (Barrett, 2014;
Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2018). An exploratory case study, as defined by Yin (2018, p. 287), is “a
case study whose purpose is to identify the research questions or procedures to be used in
subsequent research study, which might or might not be a case study.” Given the lack of research
on sibling music interactions in the field of music education, this study serves this purpose.
While the definition of case studies is varied and vast (Barrett, 2014), the present study is based
on the two-part definition of a case study found in Yin (2018, p. 15):
1. A case study is an empirical method that:
• investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the “case”) and within its real-life
context, especially when
• the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident….
2. A case study:
o copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more
variables of interest than data points, and as one result
o benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide design,
data collection, and analysis, and as another result
o relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a
triangulating fashion.
Given my view of truth as “what works at the time,” existing both within an external
world independent of as well as within the mind, which fits within a pragmatic framework or an
interpretive framework that “focuses on the outcomes of the researcher rather than the antecedent
conditions” (Creswell, 2013, p. 28), I found the case study design to be appropriate because it
59
allowed for a subjective interpretation of children’s music making in the social context of the
family vehicle. My subjective conceptual lens is also consistent with a constructionist
epistemology, or the idea that, “knowledge for each individual is viewed as a construction based
on the individual’s experiences” (Egbert & Sanden, 2014, p. 21). I believe that there are some
concrete truths in life, but when it comes to music education research and social experiences,
there are far more socially constructed truths that depend on the individual’s experience. A case
study design is aimed at conducting research in real life settings; therefore, this design choice
was consistent with music in everyday life being studied in situ. This choice was also one that
would allow the research questions to be effectively explored in depth with select families.
This collective case study gathered two cases and explored the issue of sibling influences
on music making within the family vehicle. Reflecting on the research questions, I decided the
best way to gather data to address these questions— regarding time spent in the family vehicle,
what music making looks and sounds like, what sibling musical interactions look like, as well as
what observational learning and deidentification looks like—, would be through video data that
was able to have continual access, as well as capture date and time information. By using a video
camera to collect data, I was able to gather data on family car trips as families went about their
normal travel that could then be analyzed to address all of my research questions over a period of
time without being present. The use of a video camera, along with a parent co-researcher in
gathering the data, made it so that data could be collected naturalistically and unobtrusively.
The cases within the collective case study were bound by time and space, as each family
recorded over 3 weeks of travel within their family vehicles as they went about their daily
business. As the research questions were concerned with a set time and space, the bound nature
of the collective case study was fitting. Furthermore, the research sites were each family’s
60
transport vehicles and each case was not necessarily connected to each other, with the exception
of the issue being considered. The collective case study format allowed for the logic of
replication between the two different cases, and also for themes across the cases to become
apparent through cross-case analysis (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2018).
Creswell (2013) identified case study designs as necessarily requiring the use of multiple
forms of data collection. As such, data were collected for the study in multiple ways. The
primary method for data collection was video data that were recorded, transcribed, and coded for
emergent themes. These data included observations of two sets of siblings, one for each family
participating in the study. The data were collected via dashboard camera videos that were used to
address the research questions through timing data gathered, as well as providing means to
observe spontaneous sibling interactions themselves without researcher intrusion. The secondary
forms of data collection included demographic surveys that parents completed prior to the start
of the study, researcher notes, and transcriptions of the videos. Lastly, member checking with the
parent co-researchers, helped to identify and clarify any misunderstood interactions, since
parents had a greater understanding of the data due to their presence in the lives of their children
(see Sole, 2014).
Matsunobu & Bresler (2014) described qualitative research as a “collaborative
endeavor.” In the current study, collaboration was sought with the parents, as they participated as
co-researchers. In order to triangulate the data and ensure its reliability (see Yin, 2018), parents
were not informed about the theoretical framing of the study; they were simply told that the aim
of the research was to examine sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle. Parents were
informed of the role they needed to take in this study prior to the start of data collection. The
research purpose was described to participants, who signed consent forms prior to data collection
61
(Appendices B, C, D, E). Attempting to minimize disruption to their lives as well as to collect
data in situ, I asked parents to go about their trips as they normally would; as naturally as
possible. An important assumption in this study was that even though parents were participating
as co-researchers and present during data collection, it was unlikely that their presence in this
role would largely impact their children’s music making. As Koops (2014, p. 61) suggested, “the
divide between front seat and backseat in the car may have helped children feel a greater sense of
independence and freedom in their music making.” Therefore, the design of the study was
premised upon the presence of parents serving as co-researchers in the car would not impact the
music making of the children differently than their normal role as parent.
While parents were not the focus specifically within the scope of research questions or
theoretical framework of the study, it was likely that themes would emerge from their
interactions with their children, in response to sibling musical interactions in the car. These
themes were likely because children cannot drive cars and are therefore under some sort of
supervision in the family car, typically parental supervision. As children interact in the car it is
given that not all interactions will be harmonious, with parents intervening as necessary.
Furthermore, musical parenting research provides an understanding that parents create musical
environments for their young children (Gibson, 2009), and there is no reason to believe the space
of the family vehicle will be any different. Out of a desire for a clear understanding of music in
everyday life, the semiotic nature of music, and the contained social environment the car creates,
these influences were not necessarily concretely excluded from the findings.
Recruiting Families and Obtaining Consent
Families with multiple children between the ages of 0 and 15, with at least two of the
children being between the ages of 2 and 10, were recruited to participate in this study. They
62
were recruited through convenience sampling (Creswell 2012), found by first inviting personal
acquaintances to participate followed by the use of a snowball technique (Creswell, 2013), with
parents suggesting names of other parents who were potentially willing to participate. Each
family was invited by means of verbal prompts (see Appendix G), with parents being invited to
have their children take part in the study. Families that were invited into the study, whether
through convenience sampling or snowball technique, were done so because of the family’s
musical or lack of musical background, which would provide useful for replicating the study
with two families while considering their contrasting musical backgrounds (Yin, 2018).
Study participants were selected from middle-class, California families consisting of 1-4
siblings ages newborn and up, with at least two children between the ages of 2 and 10 years old,
but not older than 15 years old and living in the home. It was important that participants did not
depart much from my own background in terms of socio-economic status and culture. This was
done to ensure that I would be able to understand and interpret the data in a culturally informed
way without bringing in views void of contextual understanding as an outsider looking in, as
“music learning is intimately linked to the many cultures and subcultures that surround the
individual” (Ilari & Young, 2016, p. 1).
It was important when selecting participants that these families had at least two sibling
children in the age range between 2 and 10 years old. The reason for this was based on the study
by Custodero et al. (2016), who found socially spontaneous music making in children of these
ages. It was also important that all siblings remained living in the home at the time of the study
and were not yet able to drive themselves places. Children who are of age to drive may not
normally be found in the family vehicle together. By potentially asking them to be together in the
63
family vehicle, I would be creating an artificial situation, which contradicted my wish to carry
out a naturalistic study.
In addition to the finding that socially spontaneous music making occurred in children
age 2 to 10 (Custodero et al., 2016), I also considered the law that went into effect in 2017 in
California, requiring car safety-seats to be rear facing until 2 years of age, to determine the
minimum age for participation in the study. Methodologically speaking, it would have been
difficult to ensure inclusion of rear facing siblings in the video recordings in terms of the
interactions of rear facing siblings toward older siblings, given the use of the cameras, if children
younger than 2 were to be included in the focus of the study. Additionally, research by Dunn
(1983, p. 792) suggested that by the second year of life, “second-born siblings are capable of
imitating their older siblings significantly more than the other way around” and this warrants
study as it relates to musical activity. Children age 2 and up also make better use of language
skills to communicate, which turns the analysis of any musical interactions more feasible and
understandable. On that note, Forrester (2010), found that it was around 18 months of age that
behaviors that were treated explicitly as musical by other, including adults and older siblings,
emerged.
As for the large age range potential of all siblings in the family that was present in the
study, by including families with children as old as 15, the study afforded the inclusion of any
adolescent siblings living in the home prior to the time that siblings are beginning to drive.
Including families with older siblings also allowed for the observation of potential influences of
age differences in sibling interactions. In terms of family size, I included families with up to four
children based on two important factors. First, as the research on academic achievement by
Downey (1995) suggested, there may be a limit of four children that exists before resource
64
dilution comes into play. According to Downey (1995), resource dilution begins “with the
assumption that parental resources are finite and that as the number of children in the family
increases, the proportion of parental resources accrued by any one child decreases” (p. 748).
Therefore, I decided that it was important to consider sibling interactions of families up to this
size in the present study. Second, my pilot study (see forthcoming section) revealed that sibling
interactions are also based upon proximity to other siblings in vehicles; children sitting in the
third row are more difficult to hear and observe. Family vehicles at most allow for three siblings
to sit in one row, before requiring additional children to move to the back row when both parents
are present in the vehicle. In California, children under the age of 8 must ride in car safety-seats,
and the width of these car safety-seats makes it uncertain whether or not more than two can fit
within one row across depending on the model of vehicle and the model of safety-seat. With
three children in one row however, a third row in the vehicle becomes inaccessible unless
children enter through the trunk space of the vehicle or climb over seats. In this set up, the child
sitting in the back may be left out of sibling interactions. However, families with four children
will likely have two children riding in the second row, with two additional children riding in the
third row to provide better access for those sitting in the rear. This still offers a partially open
view to the back through whatever seat is vacant in the middle. However, families with more
than four children are guaranteed to have seating arrangements that obscure this model, making
children either sit in the front away from other siblings or with three in the middle and two + in
the rear, or three + in the rear and two in the middle. The more children that are close together
and further away from the camera, the more difficult it is to see and hear all children in the
video.
65
I began recruitment in April 2017 after IRB approval came (Appendix A). Research
invitations were given by word of mouth via the IRB approved prompts (Appendix G), and
families who wanted further information were asked to contact me. Of the research invitations
extended, 12 families requested further information. I emailed these families the information and
consent forms to review (Appendices B, C, D, E), and followed up with these families after a
few days. Of the 12 families who requested further information, three decided to pursue further
participation. These three families then scheduled a meeting at their homes to review consent
forms in person, go over the details of the study, and install the camera. At the meeting when
families were signing consent forms, the children were included in the conversation and given
the opportunity to decide for themselves if they wanted to participate or not. Children old enough
to assent were asked to sign assent forms, although all children were asked for their verbal
agreement to participate and be video recorded prior to data collection. Families were never
pressured to participate. Families that agreed to participate needed to provide their own vehicle
for the study, along with appropriate safety restraints. Also, parents needed to agree to serve as
co-researchers in the study (Kabuto, 2008). Families who did not meet these criteria were
excluded.
Following the signing of consent documents, the parent co-researchers were asked to
complete a demographic background survey (see Appendix I). This survey was designed to
confirm the families were eligible to participate in the study, based on the pre-determined criteria
for study participants— such as family size and children ages. It was also used to provide
information about the background, education, and past musical experiences of each family. As I
already knew the families that had agreed to participate as acquaintances prior to this meeting—
and therefore had an idea about their family construction, background, and musical experiences
66
prior to the participants deciding to participate in the study—, this survey was useful in
confirming the families would be ideal for the study and match desired participant requirements.
The results of the demographic survey were consistent with what I knew about the families, and I
was able to confirm that there was indeed a matching of our SES/culture, as well as I had
recruited families with varying degrees of musical backgrounds as desired. These results allowed
me to move forward with data collection. The survey also provided additional information for
the study to help me gain a closer understanding of the family, including perceptions on music
making, family travel and car activities.
The parent participant who consented to be the co-researcher was tasked with operating
the camera during data collection. The parent co-researcher agreed to record the family trips for
the duration of 3 weeks and was asked to complete a travel journal (Appendix H) at the end of
either each trip or each day, in order to provide context for the video recordings. Parent co-
researchers were permitted to stop recording as they wished and/or if any passengers in the
vehicles did not agree to being recorded. These co-researchers were asked to distribute
information sheets (Appendix F) and obtain verbal consent for any secondary passengers riding
in their vehicle that may be recorded. If those individuals did not wish to be recorded, they were
instructed to stop the recording and begin again when those passengers were no longer in the
vehicle. While secondary passengers were present during the week in each family, as observed in
the video recordings, there was never an instance where the secondary passengers requested the
camera to be turned off.
Participants
Three families originally agreed to participate in the study; however, data collection only
provided reliable data for two of them. Therefore, only two families completed participation in
67
the study from beginning to end. Data were collected at the end of the school year during
children’s summer break. Some families waited until they returned from vacation to begin data
collection. The first family that agreed to participate was a family of four, with a mother, father,
and two children: one boy, age 9, and one girl, age 5. The second family that agreed to
participate was a family of five, with a mother, father, and three children: two girls, ages 7 and 5,
and a boy, age 3. In order to protect the privacy and insure anonymity of identities, pseudonyms
have been given for all participants and families discussed.
The Mac Family
In order to get written consent and set up the camera, I met with the first family, the Mac
Family, at their home. Video data collection with this family started on July 12, 2017 and
continued until July 31, 2017. Demographic information about the Mac Family is presented in
Table 3.1. Additional information about the Mac Family pertinent to the study was gathered from
the co-researcher Alexis, through the demographic background survey (see Appendix I).
In the survey, Alexis shared information in regards to her own perceptions of the family’s
musical interests, musical interactions, daily travels, and car activities. Alexis rated her own
liking of music on a scale of 1 to 5, as she loved it and estimated that on a typical day she spent
two and a half to four hours listening or playing music. She wrote that she listened primarily to
musical theater and worship music, and that this music was sometimes different from that which
her kids heard; indicating that the music that she listened to was more “kid-focused”. She
acknowledged that this music also was different when the children’s father was in the car. With
Kris present, the music heard in the car encompassed a broader range of genres, with musical-
selections such as 1980s music, country, pop, and hip-hop.
68
Table 3.1 Demographic Information for the Mac Family
Alexis acknowledged that both she and her husband Kris normally sang to their children,
and that when they did so, it was typically their favorite songs as well as made-up songs. She
also reported that she listened to recorded music with her children at home. This music included
musical theater, worship, and some popular music. While they listened to the music, it was not
uncommon for them to dance or work in the house.
When asked about her children, Alexis rated their interests in music each as a 7 on a scale
of 1 to 7, where 7 indicated that they showed complete interest in music. Alexis acknowledged
Demographic Information for the Mac Family
Mac Family
Members
(Pseudonym)
and
Age
Ethnicity
Highest
Education/
School Grade
Job/
School
Musical Classes/
Lessons Received
Alexis, 38* White Masters Educator/Music
Teacher
Private singing lessons for four
years in college; choir in high
school; piano lessons beginning
in elementary school through
college.
Kris, 40 Hawaiian Masters Educator/ASB
Director
Sang in choir during college;
Participated in church musicals
a long time ago.
Caleb, 9 Hawaiian/White 4
th
Grade Homeschool/Charter Musical Theater School for 3
years; Rock the Arts through
Church for 1 year; Private piano
lessons off and on for 4 years;
Guitar lessons for 2 years;
Voice lessons for 6 months;
Music class through a
Homeschool Co-op for 1
semester; and Musical
Munchkins for 7 years.
Sophia, 5 Hawaiian/White 1
st
Grade Homeschool/Charter Rock the Arts through Church
for 1 year; Piano lessons for two
years, Music class through a
Homeschool Co-op for 1
semester, and Musical
Munchkins for 6 years.
*Parent co-researcher
69
that her children spent most of their time in the car with her, and estimated it to be on average
about 5-10 minutes a day; of that entire time, children were traveling with their siblings. When
driving in the family vehicle, she wrote that her children often were transported to church 5-7
times a week, school once a week, classes 2 times a week, and stores once a week. During their
time in the family car, Alexis acknowledged that her children did participate in various activities
while in the vehicle (see Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 Perceived Vehicle Activities of Participant Children
Completing her demographic background survey, Alexis added that she was teaching
private voice/piano lessons in the home 1-3 days per week. In order to fully understand the
musical background of her children, it is important to stress that her children were exposed to
these ongoing lessons and as they occurred over the previous 9 years. As a result, her children
had heard classical music, operas, Liedern, songs from musical theater, pop/rock/country songs,
jazz songs as well as traditional, classical, and jazz piano music.
Vehicle Activity Mac Family Perez Family
Drive No No
Eat/Drink Yes Yes
Have a conversation with an adult in the car Yes Yes
Listen to music from a source other than the radio Yes Yes
Talk on the phone No No
Listen to the radio- music No Yes
Listen to the radio- talk/sports No Yes
Watch a movie/television show No Yes
Sleep No Yes
Play car games No Yes
Have a conversation with a child in the car Yes Yes
Sing Yes Yes
Play on a tablet computer or other handheld electronic device Yes No
Read a book Yes Yes
Color/draw a picture Yes No
Other No No
Perceived Vehicle Activities of Participant Children
70
The Perez Family
The second family, the Perez Family, met with me at their home to sign consent forms
and set up the camera, to collect data beginning on July 30, 2017. Video data collection
continued from July 30, 2017 through August 13, 2017. Demographic information about the
Perez Family participants is presented in Table 3.3. As in the Mac Family, the co-researcher,
Maria Perez, was also the children’s mother. The Perez Family was a blended family and
included children from their father’s previous marriage. At the time of data collection, these
other children were adults with homes of their own, some with families. They were not part of
the Perez children’s daily lives and were often viewed more in lines with aunts and uncles, as
evidenced by Maria referring to their sister’s husband as their uncle. These adult children also
had children that were the same age and younger than the Perez children, making them more in
line with cousins rather than nieces and nephews. Since these adult children did not share a
mother with the Perez children, were not living in the home to influence the impact of resource
dilution, and were essentially a part of another family when they were children and during the
stage in their lives when the study took place, the adult children were not found to impact the
study in any way. As the Perez family had less than four children living at home, all younger
than 15 years of age, they were deemed to meet all requirements to participate in the study.
Additional information about the Perez family pertinent to the study, was gathered from Maria
via the demographic background survey (see Appendix I).
71
Table 3.3 Demographic Information for the Perez Family
In the demographic survey, Maria shared that she would rate her liking of music on a
scale of 1 to 5, as a 4 indicating that she did like music to some extent. When asked about how
many hours a day she spent listening or playing music, she estimated it to be between 4 and 6
hours. She typically listened to the radio—citing stations such as 98.7 KSGN, 103.5 KOST,
107.9 KWAVE, 102.7 KIIS—, and recorded Disney songs. This music was the same that her
children heard.
Regarding musical interactions with her children, Maria said that she normally sang to
her children, and that it typically was the song “We Are a Family.”
4
She also wrote that other
people did normally sing to her children, but she was not clear whom. Her children listened to
4
This is the 1979 song by Sister Sledge.
Demographic Information for the Perez Family
Perez Family
Members
(Pseudonym)
and
Age
Ethnicity
Highest
Education/
School
Grade
Job/
School
Musical Classes/
Lessons Received
Maria, 40* Mexican Bachelors Housewife Piano lessons for 3 years as a
child.
Vincent, 50 Mexican Bachelors Project
Manager
Played flute for a year in
elementary school; 2 years of
guitar in high school.
Elena, 7 Mexican 2
nd
Grade Homeschool No history of music classes
Isabella, 5 Mexican Kindergarten Homeschool No history of music classes
David, 3 Mexican N/A N/A No history of music classes
*Parent co-researcher
72
recorded music with their mother, and this music was often Disney and the radio. When listening
to this repertoire, they would often dance and sing. Maria made sure to mention that her children
were about to begin piano lessons in the upcoming fall, and that she believed her children’s
interest in music on a scale of 1 to 7, would be 5 for each of them. This indicated some level of
interest in music from each of them.
The children spent most of their time in the car with Maria, for 1 to 2 hours per day, and
with all children present. Maria wrote that she transported her children to places including
Sam’s Club, Winco Foods, The Dollar Store, Target, ballet classes, gymnastics classes,
Grandma’s house in San Diego, and church. While riding in the family vehicle, Maria also
acknowledged that her children did participate in various activities. Table 3.2 offers a
description of perceived car activities by Maria and Alexis, who were also the parent co-
researchers.
Homeschooled
Information from the demographic background survey revealed that both the Perez and
the Mac Families homeschooled their children. Further conversation with the parent co-
researchers revealed that Alexis Mac had been homeschooling her children for 4 years, while
Maria Perez had been homeschooling her children for 1 year at the start of data collection. It is
important to recognize that it was possible that the results of the study reflected the increased
amount of time that the children in these families spent together. The familiarity and comfort the
Mac and Perez children had with each other due to this additional exposure that school-aged
children may miss out on while they attend classes apart from their siblings, may have led to
increased music making compared to other families with children of the same ages. Given that
73
the present study was a collective case study this was unproblematic with the study design,
although worthy of noting.
Data Collection Procedures
As described earlier, parent co-researchers completed demographic surveys (Appendix I)
with background information during the first visit, right after signing consent forms (Appendices
B, C, D). Next, I informed the parent co-researcher on how to operate the camera and installed
the camera in the family vehicle. All three families were set up with a Z-Edge 2K HDR HD
vehicle traveling recorder, vehicle mount, charging cable, and four 64 gb micro-SD memory
cards. This camera had a fish eye lens and captured the entire width of the vehicle; therefore, it
could be positioned carefully in each car to observe all children. This made it unnecessary to use
multiple cameras in a same vehicle. The camera recorded in sound so it was set up as best it
could to be close to the children. It was important to use a camera for this purpose rather than
simply an audio recording device, as musical interactions are multimodal and can come in the
form of physical movement including dancing, pushing, shushing, playing the “air guitar”, a
combination of them, or otherwise. Such interactions were best able to be captured through a
video-camera. Video data offered a window into children’s musical interactions in the car,
including who was speaking or singing and when these behaviors occurred, and the source of
recorded and live music, among others.
I set up the camera in the parent-designated family vehicle so that the camera was ready
to record when the car was turned on. As each vehicle was different, the exact location for each
participant was not predetermined, but decided in situ during the initial camera placement in the
vehicle. All California laws were followed when it came to positioning the camera within the
vehicles. Each camera was positioned so that it focused on what was happening inside the
74
vehicle with the view being directed toward the location of where the children normally sat, and
not on what was happening outside, nor the driver. When the camera was plugged in, it was set
to automatically turn on when the car was running, and set to switch off when the car power
would shut off. This allowed for the video camera to be less burdensome for participating
families when recording each outing, making it so families were less likely to forget to turn the
camera on at the start of each trip and providing for more complete observation videos. When the
camera was recording, parents were asked to keep the camera mounted in the location I
positioned it in.
Parent co-researchers were given the option of removing the camera from its mount and
placing it in a secure location at their discretion, when anyone in the vehicle did not wish to be
recorded and/or in order to leave the vehicle secure with the camera out of sight when it was not
being operated. This was done to manage any risks that the camera may pose to the car. Families
were shown how to manually turn off the camera while it was plugged in, in case it became
necessary to do so. They were asked to manually turn it back on if they turned it off while it was
plugged in, as soon as they were willing to resume data collection. In other instances where the
camera may have been unplugged, families were asked to plug it back in, and/or remount as soon
as they were willing to resume data collection.
As my interest in this study was in sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle,
recordings took place over 3 consecutive weeks in order to give time for the family to acclimate
to the camera in the vehicle, as well as to collect various samples of the family's regular car trips.
It was unlikely that the camera negatively impacted children participants during this time, as they
are growing up in a culture where cameras are pervasive and much of their lives are documented.
However, this familiarity with being recorded did not mean the children in the study would be
75
unaware of the camera; research has shown children are interested in video-cameras when they
are present in their spaces (Sparrman, 2005). In order for the family as a whole to acclimate to
the camera, the latter was installed in each family vehicle for at least one week prior to the
beginning of data collection (see Creswell, 2013; Young, 2012). Families were asked to continue
on with their lives, simply going about their daily trips, as they would normally do in the absence
of the camera. Parent co-researchers were also asked, at the end of each trip and/or each day, to
log in a journal their children’s travel destination along with any memorable sibling interactions
that stuck out to them to help provide context for the recordings.
As each micro-SD card was only able to hold up to 24 hours of footage before looping
back and recording over the beginning videos, families were given four micro-SD memory cards
that were labeled A, B, C, and D, that they were asked to switch in and out, to prevent data from
being recorded over. Given that families were unlikely to travel in their vehicles for more than
24 hours over the course of 2 days, they were asked to switch out memory cards every few days.
Most opted to switch out the cards only once or not at all in between researcher visits. Memory
cards were labeled to help families know which cards they were to use next and which they had
already used. Over the course of the 3 weeks, I scheduled times and places to meet up with the
families that were convenient for them, to retrieve the memory cards and back up the data to a
secure computer (see Figure 3.1 for the approximate procedures calendar and where in the
process these back-ups occurred). During the 3 weeks of data collection, parents were also asked
to report back to me, should there be any problems with the camera, mount, charger and/or
memory cards (e.g., camera breaks). I was prepared to replace any defective item with a new
one, at no cost to the participants. Over the course of the study, only the Mac Family needed to
76
receive a new charger cable at one point during data collection. This happened during the
acclimation week and did not interfere with data collection that was subsequently analyzed.
While families did have more than one vehicle, this study was concerned with travel in
the space of the primary family vehicle; therefore, it was unnecessary to move the camera to
different vehicles, such as for other outside drivers, but the parent co-researcher was given
permission to do so if siblings were riding together in another vehicle during data collection.
While the Mac Family did move the camera to another vehicle at one point during the
acclimation period, this was the exception and did not happen again during any point of data
collection. For the rest of the time, the camera remained within the primary family vehicle in all
families.
Pilot Study (September – October, 2016)
IRB Application, Approval, and Amendments (December – April, 2017)
Recruitment period (February – June, 2017)
Data Collection period (July – August, 2017)
*Visit, Camera Set Up and Consent forms signed
Day 1* Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7
Day 8 Day 9 Day 10 Day 11 Day 12 Day 13 Day 14
Day 15 Day 16 Day 17 Day 18 Day 19 Day 20 Day 21
Acclimation week
Visit to back-up the memory card
Visit to collect the equipment
Data Analysis (September – January, 2017)
Parent Co-Researcher Member Checking (January – March, 2018)
Figure 3.1 Approximate procedures calendar. A visual of the 3 weeks of data collection.
77
At the conclusion of the 3-week period, I met up with the participants to collect all
materials from the vehicle including the camera, mount, memory cards, charging cable, and
journal. Participants were given the option to request to view any videos recorded by notating
this in the parent journal and/or informing me at the member-checking phase. I agreed to make
copies of all recordings available to the participants to view. Parent participants were given the
choice to exclude any of the videos from the data, if they desired. However, the timing
information would still be included to present a complete picture of the amount of time spent in
the car, even if the details regarding particular instances were excluded. For any data that
participants wished to exclude, the data were stricken from transcriptions. None of the
participating families opted to exclude any data from the videos.
Pilot Study
Prior to the start of the study, a pilot study was conducted with my own four children in
our family vehicle. At the time of the pilot study, my children’s ages were 6 years 9 months, 5
years 5 months, 3 years 3 months, and 7 months. This experience offered me with an
understanding of how to structure the data collection for the present study, to consider what I
was asking the families to do, to learn firsthand some of the difficulties and questions that may
arise, and to conduct a trial of audio/visual data collection. By placing myself in the role of
parent-researcher, I was also able to better understand the role of parent co-researcher that I later
asked of participating parents. This allowed me to navigate the responsibility the role entailed
and fully know what I was asking of the parents in the study.
For the pilot study, data were collected during customary family car trips between
September 29, 2016 and October 18, 2016. The camera for this pilot study was the same one that
was used in the current study and was set to record for the entire duration of time, being left in
78
the vehicle, in order to allow the children time to acclimate to its presence. The camera was
mounted to the interior windshield on the passenger side in my family’s van, a 2014 Honda
Odyssey 8-Passenger Van. As in the current study, the camera was plugged into the vehicle so
that it would turn on when the van was running and recording what was occurring inside the
vehicle, rather than looking outward at the road.
During data collection, I consciously assumed my primary role as a parent in order to
preserve, as much as possible, the natural environment and usual interactions with my children,
as they would normally occur in everyday life. At times, this decision proved to be difficult as I
navigated both the parent-researcher role and my responsibility as a parent. Due to this dual role
of parent and researcher, I was constantly aware of my responsibilities, and at times unable to
retreat fully into either position during the pilot study. There were situations when the children
would argue or want certain music that created conflicts between my two roles. In these
moments, I opted to consciously and repeatedly embrace my role as a parent, handling the
situation as I normally would as the children’s mother, while still making the conscious decision
to not play any music too loudly in the van, in order to preserve the ability to hear what was
going on later on. I was keenly aware of the camera and anything musical that was happening in
the car. I willingly verbally reprimanded children when necessary, navigated sibling conflicts,
and also chose willingly to sing along and be silly with my children, as I normally do.
The results of the pilot study confirmed that music making and sibling influences on
music making did occur in the space of the family vehicle, and that the overall structure and
timeline of the present study would be effective. However, the pilot study showed that some
adjustments were needed. The pilot study allowed some familiarization with the camera and how
to operate it, allowing me to better instruct the parent co-researcher when operating the camera.
79
The pilot study also demonstrated that the volume of the recordings allowed for those within the
vehicle to be heard, and showed that the entirety of the inside width of the vehicle was able to fit
into the video. However, an examination of the video recordings indicated that the placement of
the camera could be better. In considering the placement of the camera, the location was
adjusted. Rather than placing the camera in the front of the vehicle, the camera was now placed
behind the driver. This was done to help the parent co-researcher be less concerned about being
in the video, helping alleviate some potential risk for participants by capturing the driver in the
video, as well as providing a better view of the siblings and better audio quality as well. Lastly, I
revised the instructions given to parent co-researchers, encouraging them to behave as they
normally would. As noted earlier, parents were not told the theoretical components of the present
study in an attempt to help them disconnect from the researcher role. While the parent co-
researcher was probably still aware of the camera for the duration of any trip given his or her
responsibility to check the equipment, these instructions also allowed them to behave more
naturally and not face the dilemma of which role to play. When parent co-researchers inquired
about the volume of the radio, they were told that it was possible for the radio to be too loud if it
sounded extremely loud from inside the vehicle, but that it would be fine if they treated the
volume as they normally would. If they wanted to play it softer for the sake of the camera
recording, that would be all right also.
Data Analysis
Following data collection, I found parent journals to be often incomplete or missing. It
was my conscious decision at this point to omit the journals from data analysis, as they often
provided information that was apparent in the video transcriptions, like travel destinations, and
therefore did not add anything new. During the first week of data collection, the parent co-
80
researcher from the Perez Family admittedly struggled with the journals. When I met with her to
back-up the memory card before week two, I suggested she verbally give context for her family
trips when she began each trip in the car, instead of needing to write anything down. As with the
journals, this information was present at times, but not always. Any additional information about
the children’s musical interactions was inconsequential, if at all present.
Data analysis was therefore based on the following data: video recordings for the second
week of travel for each family and their transcriptions, researcher notes, and the demographic
background surveys completed by the parent co-researcher at the start of the study. I decided to
use the second week of recordings, as there were ample amounts of data available that were full
of sibling musical interactions. The third week of recordings was taken in case more evidence
during the analyzed time period was necessary, as well as in case a technical problem was
encountered during the second week, necessitating an additional week of recording. By recording
the additional week up front during initial data collection, it put less of a burden on families
should additional data be needed, and was ethically considerate of the entrance, presence, and
exit of the recording equipment, as well as the involvement of the parent co-researcher’s time
and participation in data collection. Furthermore, this period of time was one after the children
were adequately acclimated to the camera. The last week of recordings were retained for future
use, although they were not included in this study.
In order to analyze the data, the video recordings were saved to a password-protected
computer and opened using the application VLC Media Player (Version 2.2.6 Umbrella). Once
all the videos were uploaded to the computer, it was evident there was a massive amount of data
gathered. It was at this point, after having reviewed the videos for the Mac and Perez Families,
that I decided there was enough material present to complete the present study under a two-
81
family collective case study rather than using three families and collecting more data from an
additional, fourth family.
Using the VLC Media Player, I watched and transcribed all videos collected from the
Mac and Perez families during week two of data collection. This corresponded to a period
between July 21 to July 28, 2017 for the Mac family and August 7 to August 13, 2017 for the
Perez family. The process of watching and transcribing videos took place over the course of 4
months, allowing for ample time to observe and annotate every second of the collected data. This
ensured that all music making over the week was accounted for and included in the
transcriptions. Videos were transcribed with parent conversations omitted unless they directly
concerned the children or music making in the vehicle. Additionally, sibling conversations that
had no music context were often summarized, but not explicitly transcribed. In the process of
transcription, I included verbal transcriptions and summaries, as well as actions and researcher
notes. The camera saved portions of the trip in 5-minute segments as the maximum length it
would go before starting a new video. Thus, over the course of the second week that data were
looked at for each family there was a total of 210 useable videos and circa 14 hours of video
footage for subsequent analysis and interpretation. As a result, there were 135 pages of
transcriptions/notes/summaries between the two families that were created and used for analysis.
Transcribed data were entered into the computer program, ATLAS.ti Qualitative Data
Analysis (Version 8.1.3) where it was first coded for themes situated by music making in the
family vehicle. These themes included spontaneous music making behaviors categorized by three
main headings: vocal behaviors, movement behaviors, and rhythmic behaviors. Each music
making behavior was coded by type and then by musical interaction if one was present, either
between siblings and/or parents. These interactions were then categorized as either positive or
82
negative, and where applicable, according to observational learning or deidentification (see
Table 3.4). Within the codes listed in Table 3.4, that were identified for all families, there were 7
coded moments of possible deidentification, 49 coded moments of observational learning, 30
coded moments of negative musical interactions, and 81 coded moments of positive musical
interactions. As deidentification as a process becomes clear over time, it is important to
recognize that the coded moments of deidentification in this study were identified in analysis as
those moments that might lead to further deidentification in the future. In these moments,
processes that may have led to deidentification were present; what was observed in the moments
themselves was a differentiation between the siblings in terms of music making and musical
taste/preference, that shaped the musical interaction as a result.
83
Table 3.4 Coding Categories Defined
After coding the main music making behaviors, other music influences and behaviors
were coded. These included: music listening behaviors, influences of music message and lyrics
influences, the presence of recorded music and the song titles of what they heard. These new
codes were situated within the previous codes, to build a more complete understanding of the
musical moments that occurred in the vehicle.
Through data analysis, it became evident that other not-explicitly musical artifacts were
interacting with children’s music making, such as the use of toys, books, technology, eating, and
Coding Categories Defined
Category Definition Examples/Markers
Positive
musical
interactions
Self-directed musical behaviors, music making,
and music participation can be innately
satisfying to participants (Regelski, 2004),
therefore interactions that are positive are any
musical behavior/interaction that occurs that is
not essentially negative
Singing together;
complimenting music making;
smiling; kind glances while
making music together; other
types of music making
occurring together between
siblings
Negative
musical
interactions
Those behaviors/interactions that discourage
music making and encourage children to
compete rather than imitate each other.
Hushing; sibling physical
altercations- pushing, shoving,
placing a hand over a mouth;
verbal reprimanding; changing
the song to compete or sing on
top of each other; etc.
Observational
learning
Children learn through observing and imitating
others, particularly when other children possess
power, nurturance, and similarity to the
observer.
Echoing; copying; responding to
someone’s music making by
making music; imitating; etc.
Deidentification Siblings differentiate from each other as they
age in order to form their own identity in the
family, reducing competition, rivalry and
comparison between siblings.
Siblings taking different classes
from each other where one
might take music and one may
not; the stopping of music
making directly as the response
to disagreement, conflict,
competition, comparison, or
rivalry; differentiation of
behaviors/preferences that
shaped the sibling musical
interaction.
84
discussions about music. Furthermore, the theme of social agency (DeNora, 2000) became clear
as children were engaged in decision-making related to the music that was present, as well as
their participation in it. These themes were subsequently coded for and situated within the
broader categories of music making and musical interactions. Through these codes, musical
moments were fully dissected and used to address the research questions. After all data were
coded, timing information was gathered. This included descriptive information regarding time of
permanence in the vehicle as well as the amount of time of sibling musical interactions in the
vehicle.
Following coding, I took information gathered through the demographic background
survey and analyzed it in relationship to the data and themes that emerged from the videos in
order to analyze sibling musical interactions in each family. Once the initial analysis was written
for each family, I returned, once again, to the parent co-researchers for member checking and for
further information on any key sibling interactions revealed in the analysis. I emailed the
findings to the participant families and asked to schedule a follow-up meeting with the parent co-
researcher, at a time and location of their convenience. Parent co-researchers were asked to
review the data drawn from the video transcriptions and confirm the findings were represented
accurately and they were in agreement with the interpretation. They were also asked to respond
with any additional contextual information that may have helped further understanding of the
findings for the moments described. Parent co-researcher Alexis, responded via a text message
conversation, confirming she received the emailed findings via a written document and was
eager to review them. After having the document for a month without reply, Alexis was
contacted a few times via email and telephone. Initially, when emailed if she had anything to
add, she added nothing further and offered no changes to the document. However, the second
85
time she was contacted via telephone, she clarified some of the musical background information
for herself. After discussing the findings, she clarified one minor aspect of the findings for her
family. The Mac Family findings were updated to reflect this discussion. In a third and final
phone call, Alexis, with the input from her husband, provided musical background information
for Kris. After I emailed co-researcher Maria her findings, I contacted her a few weeks later so I
could stop by her house and chat with her about the findings. We briefly met at Maria’s home
where she had nothing to add; she was initially in agreement with the findings as they were
presented. I later contacted Maria via telephone to inquire about the musical background
information for her husband. Once Vincent was home later that evening, Maria responded to the
request and with Vincent’s input, provided with this information via text message. The same
night, in a follow up phone conversation, we further discussed the findings and she provided
some clarification to minor details in the study after she had a chance to more closely review the
study. The results were updated to reflect this discussion.
Triangulation was present in the analysis of this study through the multiple forms of data
collected via videos, demographic surveys, and researcher transcription/notes, parent co-
researcher member checking, and cross-case analysis. Once each individual family’s case
analysis was complete, both cases were cross-analyzed and emergent themes for the overall
collective case study emerged.
Limitations
Due to the design of the study, limitations emerged during data collection. First, children
still demonstrated an awareness of the camera, even though they were given ample time to
acclimate to its presence. Second, as the data was collected in situ, I was unable to control when
the family traveled or their actual destinations. While the data was collected during summer
86
when there were longer daylight hours, there were times when night trips occurred, with data
being collected when it was dark. In such cases, anything that was not auditory or in a light was
lost, such as children’s musical movements. Third, I was only able to control how the camera
was positioned during initial set-up and during the weekly memory card downloads, but not for
the rest of the week. Therefore, it was not possible to control when and how the camera collected
data, as it was up to the parent co-researcher to help ensure that the camera was operating,
positioned correctly and up to their discretion when to turn it off or leave it on. Lastly, as the
parents were the drivers of the vehicles they often did not write in their journals consistently (or
at all), and so this type of data, although initially considered, was not included.
Chapter Summary
This chapter discussed the research design of the study. Highlighting the qualitative
nature of the design, the study was an exploratory collective case study (Barrett, 2014; Creswell,
2013; Yin, 2018). Bounded by the members of immediate participating families, time, and space,
the study took place over the course of 3 weeks in the primary family vehicle for each of the
participating families. Prior to the start of the study a pilot study was conducted utilizing my own
family to help guide and shape the present study. Two families, the Mac and Perez Families,
fulfilled all study requirements and offered reliable data for this study. Data were collected using
a demographic background survey, as well as through a camera placed within each family
vehicle to collect multiple videos. Data were transcribed, analyzed, and coded for themes.
Triangulation of the data was done through the use of multiple forms of data collected, member
checking, and cross-case analysis of the two cases. Lastly, limitations of the study design were
discussed.
87
Chapter 4: Findings
This chapter includes the findings of the two bounded cases examined in this study: The
Mac Family and the Perez family. A section is devoted to each family and is divided into the
following subsections: 1) The Week in Context; 2) Musical Moments and Interpretation; and 3)
Family Findings Summary. In section 1, contextual features for each family during this week are
examined including what a “typical” travel was like, along with the information addressing
research questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 regarding the amount of time spent in the car, typical music
making, broadly addressing what sibling musical interactions looked like, the amount of time
siblings spent engaging in sibling musical interactions, and of these interactions what types of
interactions were observed that hindered or promoted music making. In section 2, detailed data
describing important musical moments and the context, each moment followed with an
interpretation is provided. Through these moments and interpretations, research questions 3, 5,
and 6 are explored as specific sibling musical interactions, observational learning, and processes
that may lead to deidentification are considered. In section 3, a summary of the findings for each
family is presented across the different musical moments and their corresponding emergent
themes. This summary more broadly addresses the research questions, as observed across the
moments detailed in the early section. A cross-case analysis was not included in this chapter, but
rather was reserved for Chapter 5 as part of the overall discussion and implications for the entire
study.
The Mac Family
The Week in Context
As described in Chapter 3, data were collected during a warm summer week in sunny
Southern California. The Mac Family was in the car slightly more frequently than during the
88
course of the school year, travelling to a few extra play-dates with friends, but as the children
were homeschooled, daytime trips were not out of the ordinary. Typical travel for Caleb and
Sophia included running errands with Alexis to various stores, going to restaurants, friend’s
homes, and church. This observed travel was consistent with Alexis’ survey descriptions of the
places her children typically travelled to.
Over the course of the week, Caleb and Sophia went on a total of 34 separate recorded
trips with either Alexis or Kris driving, and spent a total of 5 hours 24 minutes 27 seconds in the
car. A trip was defined as the time from newly entering the family vehicle until exiting the car
upon a point of arrival, or until the time the video recording ended before a new travel clearly
began. These trips ranged in travel length from as short as 1 minutes 24 seconds, to as long as 32
minutes 52 seconds, with the majority of them taking 7 minutes or less. This pointed to the type
of travel the family often did with their children, indicating that the children spent most time in
the vehicle relatively close to home and traveled around town when they were “out and about.”
During these trips their mother, Alexis was almost always in the vehicle. See Table 4.1 for
details of the Mac Family trip information.
89
Table 4.1 Mac Family Trip Information
Date Trip
Length
(min:s)
End Time Parents Present
7/21 1 05:35 7:38 p.m. Both
7/21 2 24:39 8:39 p.m. Both
7/21 3 22:51 9:29 p.m. Both
7/22 4 04:54 5:43 p.m. Mom
7/22 5 04:14 8:41 p.m. Mom
7/23 6 05:16 10:44 a.m. Both
7/23 7 07:18 12:53 p.m. Both
7/23 8 32:52 1:34 p.m. Both
7/23 9 16:20 2:53 p.m. Both
7/23 10 11:39 3:11 p.m. Both
7/23 11 03:38 7:51 p.m. Both
7/23 12 04:44 8:56 p.m. Both
7/24 13 04:48 11:19 p.m. Mom
7/24 14 05:23 12:22 p.m. Mom
7/26 15 04:43 10:00 a.m. Mom
7/26 16 01:24 10:12 a.m. Mom
7/26 17 04:37 10:19 a.m. Mom
7/26 18 21:20 11:39 a.m. Mom
7/26 19 03:21 11:48 a.m. Mom
7/26 20 13:14 12:47 p.m. Mom
7/26 21 15:46 1:32 p.m. Mom
7/26 22 04:53 3:06 p.m. Mom
7/26 23 03:53 5:45 p.m. Mom
7/26 24 05:24 7:21 p.m. Mom
7/26 25 05:09 8:25 p.m. Dad
7/27 26 10:49 11:55 p.m. Mom
7/27 27 02:38 12:20 p.m. Mom
7/27 28 05:00 12:30 p.m. Mom
7/27 29 06:16 2:07 p.m. Mom
7/27 30 05:10 6:01 p.m. Mom
7/27 31 07:56 7:36 p.m. Both
7/27 32 19:37 8:42 p.m. Both
7/28 33 17:16 8:38 a.m. Mom
7/28 34 11:50 10:09 a.m. Mom
Total Time: 324:27
The video recordings showed that when the children were riding in the car, they made
music, played with toys such as various types of Rubik’s Cubes, ate or drank, colored, talked to
each other and with the others people in the vehicle, played with technology, and looked out the
Mac Family Trip Information
90
window. The use of technology by the children, toys, eating/drinking, and coloring mostly
presented a distraction to music making when present. There were several instances when Caleb
was playing on one of his parent’s cell phones appearing to be completely disengaged from most
of the music making that surrounded him. Additionally, the use of toys during these trips was
prominent for both children; when music making was not happening in the vehicle, they were
usually playing with toys. Rarely did the children sit in silence looking out the window. When
music making or toys were not present, they often were engaged in conversation with others in
the vehicle. Interestingly, music was never used as a background during these car trips.
For the most part, Caleb and Sophia got along with each other and did not fight in the
vehicle, although there were moments of conflict in these moments, Alexis was heard
disciplining and intervening as necessary, embracing her role of mother. Like with most families,
a variety of conversations could be heard in the car. These conversations revolved around details
about what endeavors the family was embarking upon, what presents to purchase for a friend’s
birthday, locations the family considered for meals, as well as musical choices and preferences.
Most of the travel took place during daylight hours, with only six of the trips occurring
after 8 p.m., after the sun had set for the day. Of all trips taken, both parents were present for 12,
with 21 of them with Alexis only. It was notable that apart from weekend travel (i.e. July 21 and
July 23), Kris was only in the car with the children for evening trips after 7 p.m. This made sense
since Kris worked during the day, being away from the family for the other trips.
The trips were done exclusively in the Mac Family vehicle, a 2003 Toyota Sequoia. The
family used the first two rows for seating and the remainder of the rear of the vehicle as trunk
space. The seating arrangement in this vehicle was such that the parents sat in the front row, and
the children sat in the middle row. Even though Caleb was old enough by California law and no
91
longer required a car safety-seat, he sat in a no-back booster seat directly behind the front
passenger, while Sophia sat in a 5-point harness car safety-seat directly behind the driver’s seat.
There was an additional seat between the two children that was often used to hold items the
children would later access, including toys, Bibles for church, and water bottles.
Within the vehicle, the camera was attached to a bendable, extended camera mount that
was positioned coming off the grab handle above Caleb’s seat. It was angled to capture across
the vehicle so that both children could be seen (refer to Figures 4.1 and 4.2 for a diagram and
photo of the car seating arrangement with the camera). As Caleb’s door did not open from the
inside and the family parked the car in their garage, which had limited room on the passenger
side of the vehicle, he often exited out of Sophia’s door. The camera’s position was, therefore,
unproblematic.
Figure 4.1 Mac Family vehicle layout.
Representation of the family’s seating arrangement
within their vehicle.
= Camera Position
Sophia Caleb
Driver
Rear of Vehicle
92
During the week, the camera recorded Caleb and Sophia engaged in a variety of forms of
spontaneous music making including singing, humming, whistling, dancing, gesturing, clapping,
tapping, and more. Music was a constant presence during their time in the family vehicle; some
form of music making took place at least one time per trip during 33 out of the 34 car trips taken
over the week. Music making was at times done individually, at other times collaboratively, and
sometimes done collectively, but not intentionally together.
Musical interactions in the Mac Family vehicle came in one of two forms: through sibling
musical interactions, or parent-child music interactions. A sibling musical interaction was
identified as an interaction between two or more children, with or without a parent participating,
where music was present either through music making, listening, or talking about music where
one child was involved in music making in a manner that also engaged or attempted to engage
the other. A parent-child musical interaction was identified as an interaction between a parent
Figure 4.2 Mac Family car photo. Display of camera set-up.
93
and one child that included music making, listening, talking about music, encouraging, or
instructing music making.
Of the sibling musical interactions identified, Caleb and Sophia spent 1 hour 1 minutes
40 seconds or 19% of the total time spent in the vehicle, engaged in sibling musical interactions
over the course of the week. This did not necessarily include time spent passively hearing music
in the vehicle. Recorded music was present in the vehicle through songs played from a phone’s
playlist as well as from the radio, and songs were often requested from the children. Table 4.2
provides a list of the songs that were heard over the course of the week, which clearly influenced
children’s music listening, music making, and musical interactions in the family vehicle during
the week.
94
Table 4.2 Identified Songs Heard in the Mac Vehicle
Song Title Artist/Recording Source Genre
School Song* Matilda on Broadway Phone Musical Theater
When I Grow Up* Matilda on Broadway Phone Musical Theater
Revolting Children* Matilda on Broadway Phone Musical Theater
When I Grow Up/Naughty (Reprise) Matilda on Broadway Phone Musical Theater
My Shot* Hamilton An American Musical Phone Musical Theater
I Will Not Forget You The Maranatha! Vocal Band Phone Christian
You Are So Good To Me (You Are Beautiful) Third Day Phone Christian
Pathetic Matilda on Broadway Phone Musical Theater
Story 1: Once Upon a Time Matilda on Broadway Phone Musical Theater
Rise and Sing* Fee Phone Christian
Make It Loud* Yancy Phone Christian
I’m Counting on God* Desperation Band Phone Christian
Watch Me Silento Caleb Pop
September Earth, Wind, and Fire Radio Disco/Soul
Ready or Not After 7 Radio Contemp. R&B
Blended Family Alicia Keys Radio R&B/Soul
Soul on Fire Third Day Radio Christian
Alive Hillsong Young and Free Phone Christian
Let it Be Known Worship Central Phone Christian
Better Than the Best Thing Yancy Phone Christian
Jump Up* Tru Worship Phone Christian
Brave feat. Temree Miller Phone Christian
Never be Shaken New Life Worship Kids and Shout Praise Kids Phone Christian
Because of Your Love Tim Hughes Phone Christian
God is For Me Yancy Phone Christian
Evidence of You Yancy Phone Christian
Deep Cries Out* Bethel Music and William Matthews Phone Christian
Here I am to Worship Jeremy Camp Radio Christian
You Raise Me Up The Afters Radio Christian
Jesus I Believe Big Daddy Weave Radio Christian
Do Re Mi The Sound of Music Caleb Pop/Movie
Do You Want to Build a Snowman Frozen Soundtrack Sophia Pop/Movie
How Far I’ll Go Moana Soundtrack Family Pop/Movie
Who Will Buy Oliver! Caleb Musical Theater
*Designates songs heard more than once
Caleb and Sophia heard recorded music in the family vehicle for a total of 1 hour 38
minutes 56 seconds, which corresponded to 30.6% of the total time spent in the family vehicle. It
is worth noting that only in car trips 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 24 there was recorded music playing
during the trip. Even though Caleb and Sophia were involved with music making for 33 out of 34
of the recorded trips, in 26 of 34 there was no recorded music being actively played in the family
vehicle. The absence of recorded music in the car did not deter children from making music.
Rather, they engaged with music through: 1) rhythmic behaviors like clapping, patting, and/or
Identified Songs Heard in the Mac Vehicle
95
drumming on toys; 2) vocal behaviors such as singing invented and existing songs from recorded
music, random vocalizations, and whistling tunes; and 3) movement behaviors such as dancing
or gesturing, usually in combination with a performed vocal behavior by either themselves or
their sibling.
Within these interactions, both negative and positive interaction types, as defined earlier
(see Chapter 3), were observed. There were times when the children agreed about what they
wanted to listen to and other times when they did not. At times, Caleb and Sophia smiled and
encouraged the music making of each other; in other moments, they ignored each other’s music
making, even when directly spoken to. Yet, most of the sibling musical interactions throughout
the week were positive, with few negative interactions observed. The parent-child interactions
were, also, both positive and negative. For example, there were moments when Alexis would
sing with a child and moments when Alexis would refuse to play music that had been requested.
Observational learning was evident and was identified in several separate moments throughout
the week, while direct and obvious moments of deidentification were not as apparent, but still
present.
Musical Moments and Interpretation
This subsection presents select musical moments gathered from the video transcriptions,
when both Caleb and Sophia were present throughout the week. I did not attempt to explain
every musical moment in which they were involved. Rather, I chose to highlight five key
moments that could help address the role that sibling musical interactions played in the music
making, and therefore broader musical development of one another, as observed in the video
recordings of Mac Family. I decided that in order to provide illustrations from each family
without presenting one family’s sibling musical interactions as more informative, five moments
96
would be showcased for each. Parent-child musical interactions are included here only because
they were part of sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle.
Moment 1: Whose shot?. During the first trip the family took on July 21, 2017, the
entire family was present. They were heading out to dinner for the evening. Fifteen minutes into
the trip, Caleb and Sophia were listening to and singing with the song “Revolting Children” from
the soundtrack for the Broadway Musical, Matilda (Minchin, 2014, track 20). This music was
being projected over the vehicle speakers, from a source on their mother’s phone.
Context: Family heading to a restaurant.
Recording: (2017-07-21-19-29-16)
00:00 Caleb/Sophia: [still singing with music] U-S-I-N-G. Oh yeah. We’ll be R-E-V-O-L-T-I-
N-G ooh it is 2-L-8-4-U-E R-E-volting. We are revolting children living in
revolting times, we sing revolting songs using revolting rhymes. We’ll be revolting children till
our revolting’s done. It is 2-L-8-4-U. We are revolting
Sophia: [singing this part only while Caleb waits] children living in revolting times
00:29 Caleb/Sophia: [Both take a deep breath and sing together loudly, grooving while looking at each
other] WHOA-O-O-O-O-O-O-OA!!
[Note: Sophia looks at Caleb first while singing and then Caleb looks back and locks gaze with
Sophia to finish the phrase]
00:33 Caleb/Sophia: [still singing with music, but not as loud] we’ll be revolting children till
our revolting’s done it is 2-L-8-4-U. We are revolting.
00:41 [song ends, Sophia yawns looking out window]
00:43 [new song begins “When I Grow Up (Reprise)” from Matilda on Broadway]
00:50 Sophia: [sings with music] When I grow up. When I grow up [holds out this second up with
music in second set]. I will be
00:56 Caleb/Sophia: [singing together with music] tall enough to reach the
Caleb: [yawns while mouthing] branches
Sophia: [singing with music at the same time as Caleb above] branches that I need to reach to
climb the trees you get to climb when you’re grown up. And when I grow up when I grow up
when I grow up
01:15 Caleb/Sophia: [singing quietly with music] I will be smart enough to answer all the questions that
you need to know the answer to before you’re grown up. And when I grow up I will eat sweets
every day on the way to work, and I will go to bed late every night and I will wake up when the
sun comes up and I will watch cartoons [Sophia looks straight at the camera at this point 01:45]
until my eyes go square, [01:48 looks back up] and I won’t [Caleb wags her finger moving with
the music] care ‘cos I’ll be all grown up when I grow up. [Caleb/Sophia yawn together]
01:59 Caleb/Sophia: [singing with the music, Sophia starts bobbing her body dancing to the beat,
mouthing/singing most of the words] Even if you’re little you can do a lot, you
mustn’t let a little thing like little stop you. If you sit around and let them get on top you won’t
change a thing.
97
02:13 Caleb/Sophia: [still singing, Sophia stopped bobbing] Just because you find that [Sophia wags her
finger 3 times, “life’s” “not” “fair”] life’s not fair it doesn’t mean you have to grin and bear it. If
you always take it on the chin and wear it, you might as well be saying [02:24 Glances at camera
and then away, Sophia shakes finger] you think that it’s okay. And that’s not right. [Sophia does
one shake finger at end on “right”]
02:30 Caleb/Sophia: [still singing with music] And if it’s not right you have to put right. But nobody
else is gonna put it right for me. Nobody but me is gonna change my story. Sometimes you have
to be a little bit, Maggots, naughty. [02:49 Sophia looks over at Caleb who looks back and they
smile at each other about what they just sang].
02:51 [song ends]
Alexis: Okay, what’s next?
Caleb: Can we do Shot?
Sophia: No
Alexis: K
02:58 Sophia: I want to do the, the School Song from Matilda again.
Alexis: No, we just did that one baby.
03:06 Sophia: No not that one
Alexis: The one we started with right?
03:10 Sophia: Yeah
Alexis: Yeah we’re... we did that one already.
03:14 Sophia: I really want to do it again.
03:16 Alexis: We’ll get back to it…
03:22 Alexis: Alright.
03:24 Sophia: Not shot.
03:26 [music starts “My Shot” from Hamilton An American Musical, Sophia covers her ears for a
second]
03:28 Caleb: [begins to sing/rap and dance as soon as song begins] I am not throwing away my shot. I
am not throwing away my shot. [Sophia shakes head disapprovingly at Caleb who smiles at her,
raises his eyebrows and grooves his shoulders dancing and keeps singing] Hey yo, I’m just like
my country I’m young, scrappy and hungry. And I’m not throwing away my shot.
03:38 Caleb: [rapping with the music] I’m a get a scholarship to King’s College. [Caleb is using his
hands while he raps, moving them around. Sophia begins to move her body directly to the music]
I prob’ly shouldn’t bra, but dag, I amaze and astonish. The problem [Sophia moves her hands
with the music beats in the background] is I got a lot of brains but no polish. [Sophia moves her
hands with the music beats in the background] I gotta holler just to be heard. With every word, I
drop knowledge.
03:49 Caleb: [still rapping and grooving with the music, meanwhile here Sophia begins to dance with
the music. Looking at Caleb, she appears to be imitating his style in her moves] I’m a diamond in
the rough, a shiny piece of coal. Tryin’ to reach my goal. My power of speech: unimpeachable.
Only nineteen but my mind is older. These New York City streets get colder, I shoulder Ev’ry
burden, ev’ry disadvantage I have learned to manage, I don’t have a gun to brandish. I walk these
streets famished. The plan is to fan this spark into a flame. But damn, it’s getting dark, so let me
spell out the name.
04:10 Caleb: [still rapping and moving with the music] I am the [Sophia is bobbing with each letter and
dancing with her hands tapping out the rhythm] A-L-E-X-A-N-D-E-R—we are meant to be… A
colony that runs independently. Meanwhile, Britain keeps [leaves out shittin’] on us endlessly.
Essentially, they tax us relentlessly. Then King George turns around, runs a spending spree. He
ain’t ever gonna set his descendants free. So there will be a revolution in this century. Enter me.
He says in parentheses. Don’t be shocked when your history book mentions me. I will lay down
my life it is sets us free. Eventually, you’ll see my ascendancy.
04:41 Caleb: [singing with music] I am not
98
04:42 Caleb/Sophia: [singing together, Sophia lip-singing or very quiet] throwing away my shot.
Caleb: [singing with music while Sophia is dancing and shaking her finger no] I am not throwing
away my shot.
04:47 Caleb: [keeps singing with the music, appears to be smiling at the driver] Hey, I’m just like my
country I’m young, scrappy and hungry and I am not throwing away my shot.
Caleb: [looks out the window, keeps singing with the music] I am not throwing away my
Caleb/Sophia: [both singing, Sophia quietly] shot. I am not throwing away my shot. [Sophia
struggling with the following words, but doing her best to mouth singing along. C1 has them
down perfectly] Hey I’m just like my country [Caleb looks at Sophia, smiles approvingly, and
reaches up to touch her carseat shoulder and get her attention] I’m young, scrappy and hungry
and
05:00 [recording ends]
Trip Transcription from July 21, 2017 beginning at 7:29 p.m.
Interpretation. This moment illustrates some of the ways that Caleb and Sophia
participated in spontaneous music making both vocally and through movement. It began with a
positive sibling musical interaction as both Caleb and Sophia were involved in singing along
with the recording of “Revolting Children” (Minchin, 2014, track 20). Both children sang
together, and at times separately, keenly aware of each other’s singing, as evidenced by their
locked gaze on each other. These positive interactions continued through the next song “When I
Grow Up/Naughty (Reprise)” (Minchin, 2014, track 21).
Following “When I Grow Up/Naughty (Reprise)” (Minchin, 2014, track 21), Alexis
allowed the children to actively select what music they would hear next. A request by Caleb to
put on “My Shot” (Miranda, 2015, track 3) instantly moved the situation from a positive
interaction into a negative one, as conflict entered the scene when Sophia immediately expressed
distaste for this choice, both objecting the song and offering an alternative one. This was one of
the few moments that prompted possible deidentification through differentiation between the
children, as it introduced conflict and competition in song selection. Through Alexis siding with
Caleb’s choice over Sophia’s, the resulting outcome may have pushed Sophia toward decreased
music making.
99
The discussion between Alexis, Caleb, and Sophia regarding what song to play next and
the input received from the children provided a clear example of the sibling musical interaction
with a parent interacting, which influenced their subsequent music making moving experiences.
It also displayed an opportunity for the children to engage in social agency, with Alexis yielding
power to the children and Caleb ultimately “winning” this power. Sophia instantly covered her
ears when “My Shot” (Miranda, 2015, track 3) came on over the speakers, and Caleb continued
to happily engage in singing and dancing, while smiling at Sophia. Though this smile could have
been perceived as smug, given the subsequent musical interactions, it seems as if Sophia
interpreted this as her brother’s encouragement for her to enjoy the music, as he began to dance
while singing. During this time, both parents remained quiet while Caleb was singing. Both
listening attentively to the music and to Caleb’s singing.
Initially unhappy with the musical choice, Sophia quickly shifted into displaying
observational learning as she began to move to the music, copying Caleb’s gestures. This shift
indicated that observational learning became a tool through which she could engage in music
making, rather than choosing to deidentify because she did not have her musical preference
selected. Sophia engaged in spontaneous music making through rhythmically moving her hands
to the beat and then danced to the music, imitating Caleb. While Caleb was the only one singing
along with the music from the start and for a good portion of the song, when the chorus picked
up, in spite of her initial objections, Sophia began to sing with Caleb. The interaction ended with
Caleb smiling in approval at Sophia and reaching out to her, to make sure that she saw his smile.
The encouragement provided by Caleb, and Sophia’s change of attitude regarding this song, is an
example of how observational learning may be used to increase participation and created a sense
100
of belonging for Sophia as she engaged in music making with her brother. Caleb’s smile ended
the moment, illustrating a positive musical interaction between the two siblings.
Moment 2: September. On a Sunday, during the eighth car trip of the week, and more
precisely two days after the first trip, the Mac Family headed out to lunch at the Roadhouse
Restaurant following their morning at church. The entire family was present in the car. The
transcription that appears below refers to the immediate beginning of the trip, which started at
the 00:00 mark.
Context: Family heading to the Roadhouse restaurant, then the park.
Recording: (2017-07-23-13-01-21)
00:00 [Caleb is playing with a different type of Rubik’s Puzzle]
02:16 [“September” by Earth Wind and Fire comes on]
02:22 [both kids start dancing in their seats to the music, Caleb does so while still playing with his
puzzle]
02:23 Sophia: {humming with the music} [then singing] way
Kris: I think it’s pretty cool that my 5-year-old daughter knows Earth Wind and Fire.
Alexis: {laughs}
02:35 Caleb: [joins Sophia in singing with the music as soon as Kris compliments Sophia] Ba duda, ba
duda, ba duda, badu, Ba duda, badu, ba duda, badu, Ba duda, badu, ba duda
Kris: I have trained them well.
Trip Transcription from July 23, 2017 beginning at 1:01 p.m.
Interpretation. This brief moment shows a parent-child interaction between Sophia and
Kris that directly influenced the music making of Caleb. Beginning with the sibling musical
interaction between Sophia and Caleb that initiated when the song “September” (White, McKay,
& Willis, 1978) came on, both children engaged in spontaneous music making through dancing,
Caleb doing so while playing with a toy. Caleb then continued to play with his Rubik’s Puzzle,
choosing not to sing along with the music. This demonstrated how artifacts could interfere with
music making in the family vehicle by providing a distraction to the musical opportunities that
are afforded in that space, while also setting up the interaction that followed.
101
Inspired by the music, Sophia immediately began to engage in spontaneous music
making; first dancing with Caleb and continuing even after he stopped, through humming and
singing. This resulted in Sophia instantly receiving praise from her dad, as he complimented her
knowledge of the Earth, Wind and Fire song. Promptly in response to Kris’ praise of Sophia,
Caleb joined his sister in the singing, demonstrating that he also had knowledge of the song. Kris
then responded to Caleb and Sophia with further satisfaction, as indicated by his bragging to
Alexis that he trained their children well. This interaction is a demonstration of another form of
observational learning as it occurred within the vehicle in not a strictly sibling-prompted manner.
Likely, and only because of the parent-child interaction, did Caleb participate in this
observational learning by imitating and seeking the same acknowledgement from his father.
Such desire to be included in the praise his father was giving shows how Caleb desired to
find a sense of inclusion and belonging in the music making. Observational learning in this case
was not specific to song lyrics or style, as Caleb already knew the song, but instead learning
about how to get his father’s praise and achieve belonging through music making. In what could
have turned into a situation promoting possible deidentification based on unintentional prompted
rivalry, the interaction was positive instead of negative because Kris was proud of both his
children in the end. The recording went on to show that Caleb returned to playing with his
Rubik’s Puzzle, while Sophia continued to discuss the reason she knew the song and then sing
further. Even while Sophia continued her music making in the presence of her brother, Caleb
chose to remain focused on his toy, despite his awareness of the music.
Moment 3: Do re mi. In the morning of trip 15, on Wednesday, July 26, 2017, Caleb,
Sophia, and Alexis engaged in music making in the absence of recorded music. During this trip,
mother and children were in the car headed to the grocery store, with both Caleb and Sophia
102
playing with different Rubik’s Cubes. This musical moment began as the car started backing out
of the family’s garage and continued for 3 minutes 48 seconds, which was all, but one minute of
the 4 minutes 43 seconds long trip.
Context: A trip to the grocery store.
Recording: (2017-07-26-09-56-16)
00:00 [Recording starts with both kids in their seats playing with Rubik’s Puzzles and the
camera gets adjusted to be in a proper position]
00:01 Sophia: Do this to solve it. Hmm this is pretty bad
Caleb: [singing to self slowly, sounds like a scale] Mo, be, c, be, me, ray, {sings something while
yawning}
Sophia: Caleb, I solve it.
Caleb: [yawns] Good job.
Sophia: I want to play a game
Caleb: Good job.
00:44 Caleb: [singing to self, while looking around] de di da. do, re, mi. The first three notes. Do re mi.
Do re mi. [says something quickly and peppy]{unclear} got to be. [singing] Doe a dear, a female
dear. Ray a drop of golden sun. Me a name, I call myself. Far, a long long way to run.
01:23 Sophia: Caleb, I just want to play with this cube while you solve that one.
Caleb: I don’t know how to solve this one. I also do-
Sophia: Don’t you want to learn how to solve all your cubes? [the car is shaking and the camera
loses adjustment, likely due to Caleb’s knee bumping the set up as it is resting on the car door by
the camera mount resulting in part of Sophia’s head is cut off, but mouth is visible]
Caleb: [starts singing again] do re mi. The first three notes. [yawns] do re mi, the first three notes.
01:47 Sophia: [starts singing something, repeats it three times] {unclear stops at 02:05}
02:11 Caleb: {sings something to himself, unclear}
02:14 Sophia: [begins singing a scale] do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do
02:40 Sophia: {singing to self under breath briefly, stops at 02:46}
02:51 Caleb: So that’ll right, left, right, left, right, left, right, left, right, left, right, left. [singing] do re
mi, the first three notes are [yawn] [speaking] If I did the left first, left right, left right, left right,
left right, left right. [singing] do re mi, the first three notes. dun dun dun dun.
Trip Transcription from July 26, 2017 beginning at 9:56 a.m.
Interpretation. This moment illustrates both positive and negative sibling musical
interactions, observational learning, and the influence of toys in the music making of both
children. When Caleb began singing “Do Re Mi” from the Sound of Music (Hammerstein &
Rodgers, 1959), Sophia interrupted him to share her success at solving one of his Rubik’s cubes.
While this interaction was not intentionally harmful, it shows Sophia’s self-centered focus and
can be considered as an interference with Caleb’s music making, being therefore negative.
103
However, this interaction also demonstrates her desire to share her accomplishments with him, as
she seeks his recognition. This desire for recognition highlights an important dynamic in the
sibling relationship that encourages observational learning through finding acceptance and
belonging, since Sophia often looked up to Caleb.
While Sophia’s focus on playing with her toy took her away from immediately
participating in music making, she later showed observational learning as she sang a scale and a
tune that were consistent with the song Caleb had sung—one that was not heard anywhere else in
the vehicle at the time. While she may have been previously familiar with the song, in this
moment she observed his music making and participated in her own music making, therefore
learning from her brother’s example and increasing her broader musical development as a result
of this musical experience.
Sophia’s music making was likely brief, due to the distraction presented by her Rubik’s
Cube, but it was still important as it demonstrated how sibling musical interactions may be
fleeting. It also indicated that she was listening attentively, being aware of her brother’s music
making in the family vehicle, even if she was not actively participating in music making with
him. This moment was also clearly a positive musical interaction: Sophia picked up on Caleb’s
music making and was motivated to make music herself as a result of her observation.
Interestingly enough, Caleb sang while solving his Rubik’s Cube. He interrupted his
singing as he focused on the steps needed to solve the puzzle. This is consistent with the finding
that artifacts such as toys, prove distracting and may detract children from music making.
However, once the distraction subsided, Caleb picked up with his singing again.
Moment 4: Tooshi sushi. This moment highlights a song that the children created
together during trip 17, which was prompted by the sushi they sampled while they were at the
104
grocery store, which they had left 6 minutes earlier. Caleb, Sophia, and Alexis were present for
this trip, which began with the family having just left the dry cleaners and they were on their way
home.
Context: Heading home from the dry cleaners, after grocery shopping.
Recording: (2017-07-26-10-14-48)
02:14 Caleb: Toosi, sushi
Sophia: Tooshi [pointing to her teeth and looking at Caleb]
02:18 Caleb: I only like toosi, I only like tooshi, toosi, tooshi sushi. Toosi, tooshi sushi. Tooshi sushi.
Tooshi sushi. Tooshi sushi.
Sophia: Tooshi is a butt.
Caleb: Tooshi
Sophia: And a sushi is fish.
Caleb: Tooshi, too, tooshi, tooshi sushi is a tongue twister.
02:37 Sophia: Butt fish, Butt fish, Butt fish. Fish.
Alexis: That sounds like a fun song. [sings] Tooshi, sushi.
Caleb: [sings, copying style and interval from Alexis] Tooshi Sushi.
02:43 Sophia: [sings, copying style and intervals from Caleb] Butt fish, Butt fish… Butt fish, butt fish.
Alexis: {laughs}
Caleb: [sings, repeating starting to go up a scale] Tooshi, tooshi.
Sophia: [sings, copying her brother in style and pitch] Butt fish, butt fish.
Caleb: [sings, still ascending] Sushi, sushi.
Sophia: [sings, still copying/ascending] Butt fish, butt fish.
Caleb: [sings, still ascending] Tooshi, tooshi.
02:53 Caleb/Sophia: [singing at the same time, but not the same words] Sushi, sushi/ Butt fish, butt fish.
Sophia: [speaking rhythmically] Butt, butt fish.
Caleb: Tooshi, tooshi, tooshi, toosh.
Sophia: Butt, butt, butt fish.
Sophia: Cause that’s what he saying. Tooshi is a butt and sushi is a fish.
Caleb: {laughs}
03:08 Alexis: Well, I think if we are going to write songs we need to write songs that our friends can
sing along with us, and that doesn’t get anyone in trouble.
Sophia: I know…
03:17 Caleb: [speaking] Tooshi, sushi! Butt fish. {laughs}
Sophia: Tooshi sushi.
Caleb: Tooshi sushi.
Alexis: That includes you, don’t get in trouble yourself.
Caleb/Sophia: Butt fish. [smiling and giggling]
Caleb: Tooshi, sushi. Butt fish! {laughs} That’s great.
Caleb: [looking out the window] He’s talking.
Alexis: I’m just going to go around.
Caleb: He’s not wearing a shirt. [laughs] Hah!
03:45 Caleb: [looking out the window] TOO-SHI-SU-SHI! And he’s on our street. TOO-SHI-SU-SHI!
Sophia: You’re saying that
03:54 Caleb: [looks up and says it looking at Sophia] TOO-SHI-SU-SHI!
Sophia: You’re saying that to your seat belt.
03:59 Caleb: [quieter, into the seatbelt] Tooshi, sushi.
105
Sophia: You said that to your
Caleb: Sushi, sushi, sushi, sushi,
04:04 Caleb/Sophia: [Sophia joining Caleb, but singing] sushi.
Sophia: [singing] Sushi…
Caleb: [speaking quickly] Tooshi sushi, tooshi sushi, tooshi sushi.
Sophia: [singing] Tooshi.
[kids are unbuckling]
Sophia: [singing] Sushi.
Caleb: [sings, in a higher pitch than Sophia previously] Tooshi, sushi! [exits car across Sophia]
Sophia: [lowers to a speaking voice] Butt fish {chuckles}.
Alexis: Sophia, there’s one honey.
Sophia: Okay, I’m sorry.
Alexis: I love that you guys make up songs, but make them appropriate. Okay.
Trip Transcription from July 26, 2017 beginning at 10:14 a.m.
Interpretation. This moment showcases spontaneous music making through the creation
of a song by Caleb and Sophia. A fun and positive sibling musical interaction prompted by their
mother mentioning that their silly words sounded like a fun song, which she then demonstrated,
this moment was not entirely void of parental influence. Here, the children were engaged in
observational learning as Caleb imitated the style, tune, and lyrics from Alexis, and Sophia in
turn imitated the style and tune of Caleb, albeit changing the lyrics.
As the events unfolded, Alexis continued her involvement in the creative process through
advising her children to sing songs that their friends could also sing, while attempting to turn the
song away from using language such as “butt fish”, which she deemed inappropriate. Caleb and
Sophia ignored their mother and continued in this positive musical interaction where they both
laughed and had fun through music making. Through ignoring their mother’s instruction, Caleb
and Sophia demonstrated social agency in their exertion of will over their lyric choices. This
interaction continued as the family traveled home and concluded upon their arrival at home. As
they arrived home, Alexis encouraged her children’s music making through expressing her love
for their creation of songs, but then instructed them to create “appropriate” songs. How she
interacted with their children can be viewed as negative in the sense that she limited their
106
creative music making. At the same time, this is an example of a positive musical interaction
since she was encouraging about their music making, all while helping them choose lyrics that
more closely resembled their family values.
Moment 5: How far they’ll go. This musical moment took place on the final day of the
week, during trip 33. In the morning of Friday, July 28, Caleb, Sophia, and Alexis were heading
to Wal-Mart to purchase a birthday present for a friend. This moment occurred 9 minutes into the
car trip. Prior to this moment, Sophia was caring for her baby doll and Caleb was discussing how
he hoped he would like his classes once they resumed.
Context: Mother and children on their way to Wal-Mart.
Recording: (2017-07-28-08-26-38)
03:24 Caleb: [starts singing to self out of nowhere] What a wonderful feeling {sings while yawning,
unclear} {hums}
Caleb: [speaking] I’m not sure if-
Alexis: Where is that from, um {sings the same melody back to him on la}?
Caleb: [singing “Who Will Buy” from Oliver! Musical] To keep this sky so blue, there must be
someone who will buy,
Sophia: [speaking] {unclear}
Caleb: [singing] this wonderful feeling {hums}
Sophia: {sings the similar song on ahh}
Caleb: [singing] so what am I to do
Caleb/Sophia: [singing together] to keep this sky so blue, there must be someone who will buy.
Caleb: [singing] Who will buy. Who will buy. Who will buy
04:19 Sophia: [singing] Who will buy this wonderful feeling. {unclear}
Caleb/Sophia: So what am I to do, to keep the sky so blue. There must be someone who will buy.
Who will buy, this wonderful feeling?
Alexis: [speaking] No {unclear}
Caleb: [speaking] Whatever
Sophia: [singing] Who will buy this wonderful feeling
Caleb/Sophia: Can you feel…{both humming}
04:48 Caleb: [speaking] You’re correcting me when you don’t even know the words.
Alexis: I guess I {unclear}
Caleb: I don’t really either. I know a few. Wai[t]- Oh, ooh do you have your iPod? Please, please.
05:00 [recording ends]
Trip continues (2017-07-28-08-31-39)
00:00 Caleb: Please, please. Yeah. Do you have your iPod? [smiles] [singing “My Shot” from
Hamilton] I am not throwin’ away my shot. I’m not throwin’ away my shot. And I’m just like my
country, I’m young scrappy and hungry and I’m not throwin’ away my shot. I got a scholarship to
Kings College… [speaking, smiles] I don’t really know the rest.
Alexis: {sighs} moving on to about your love of rap.
107
Caleb: I’m pretty sure Skylar is kinda the same way.
Alexis: So the only problem is that in our society, in our country.
Caleb: It gets worse, it’s not very good [nods].
Alexis: {sighs} Yeah, they, um, it just promotes things that aren’t good.
Caleb: I like the music.
Alexis: I know. Everybody likes the music, but it promotes a really horrible lifestyle.
Caleb: And bad words. Bad words, but good music.
Alexis: I really want them to have more rappers that come out and stay positive.
[This whole time Sophia is sitting in her seat, quietly looking out the window, holding her baby
doll]
00:56 Alexis: Maybe by the time you’re a teenager…
Caleb: Folders
Alexis: someone will have braked through who has really great messages and a rap. {laughs}
Caleb: Well there, well Michael has Christian rap.
Alexis: He does? Who does he listen to? Like Toby Mac? Who else does he listen to?
Caleb: I don’t know
01:13 Alexis: I will ask them about it.
Caleb: [starts singing again] {unclear} this wonderful feeling. I’m not throwin’ away my shot,
I’m not throwin’ away my shot. And I’m just like my country. I’m young scrappy and hungry and
I’m not throwin’ away my shot. [speaking] Can you play that song?
01:31 Alexis: Probably on the way home.
01:43 Caleb: [singing] Rise up. Whoa. Rise up. Whoa. Time to take a shot, time to take a shot. {blows
raspberry} time to take a shot. Time to take a shot. Rise up. Whoa. Rise up. {hums} [looking at
keys he’s holding]
02:12 Caleb: You remember, remember when we were at grandma and papas two times ago and um and
we were watching the, the kid show where all of the kids, it was like kids, kids got tied on that
thing
Alexis: Oh my gosh, yes, oh that.
Caleb: That was funny, and the little kid, the kid who was ra-, rapping.
Alexis: I don’t remember the rapping.
Caleb: It was rapping to the other guys and the guys were like and, he- okay I’m done. I lost.
Sophia: Do you mean Nanny 2?
Caleb: Okay, I’m done.
Alexis: No, he means a show we watched.
Caleb: I lost.
Alexis: It was back, I don’t know, like in April when we went.
Caleb: He did a rap contest and he was like [funny voice] okay. I quit. You win.
02:57 Caleb: {hums a bit from “My Shot”}
Caleb: [singing under breath] it’s not a moment it the movement. It’s got something to prove
that… move like movin’. I think your pants are caught, and I like you a lot. {laughs}
Alexis: {laughs} Silly son.
Caleb: [singing] I think your pants are caught.
Alexis: [starts singing “How Far I’ll Go” from Moana] I’ve been staring
Alexis/Caleb/Sophia: [join in singing] at the edge of the
Caleb/Sophia: [Caleb very loudly, Sophia normal] Water! Long as I can remember, never really
knowing why. I wish,
Caleb: [speaking] staccato
Caleb/Sophia: [singing, but Caleb singing very staccato and not in perfect time with Sophia] I
could be the perfect daughter, but I come back to the water. No matter how hard I try.
Alexis: legato please
108
Caleb/Sophia: [Caleb singing normal now] every turn I take, every trail I track, every path I
make, every road leads back, to the place I know where I cannot go. Where I long
04:00 Sophia: [singing] to be
Caleb: [speaking] Wanna hear something, okay can I tell you something funny before we keep
singing?
Trip Transcription from July 28, 2017 beginning at 08:21 a.m.
Interpretation. Throughout this moment there is evidence of both sibling musical
interactions by means of spontaneous music making, and parent-child interactions through their
conversation about rap. There is also evidence of social agency as Caleb pushed for his musical
preferences and sang rap, and observational learning when both children sang “Who Will Buy”
from Oliver! (Bart, 1963) and “How Far I’ll Go” from Moana (Miranda, 2016). The moment
began with Sophia, who heard and imitated Caleb by singing “Who Will Buy” (Bart, 1963) with
him. In the absence of recorded music, her only way to participate in music making during that
moment, was a direct result of Caleb having sung it first. Sophia did not show any interest in
singing this song with Caleb, until Alexis showed an interest in it. The resulting sibling musical
interaction was likely a consequence of Sophia’s desire to be included in the interest Alexis and
Caleb shared.
Further on, Alexis critiqued Caleb’s lyric choice by telling him “No.” This was meant to
inform the child that he sang a lyric incorrectly, to which he replied cynically that she was
correcting him when she didn’t even know the words. This response further promoted the theme
of social agency, as Caleb was vocal and defended his singing through his response. Social
agency was then further evident as Caleb exerted his musical preference by shifting the musical
repertoire and singing “My Shot” (Miranda, 2015). This prompted a negative musical interaction
between Alexis and Caleb, as she began to elaborate on the flaws of rap songs. In spite of Alexis’
criticisms of rap, Caleb maintained that he enjoyed the genre and continued to sing “My Shot,”
even without the musical recording he requested being physically present.
109
Alexis’ criticism of rap likely pushed Sophia to avoid participating in music making with
Caleb as he sang “My Shot” (Miranda, 2015) during this car trip. This prompted Sophia to
momentarily, if not longer, deidentify with music making when it came to this musical moment,
and potentially contributed to increasing her distaste for rap, which was evident in the first
musical moment detailed previously (see Moment 1: Whose Shot?). As Sophia engaged in
sibling musical interactions via music making by singing along with Caleb during “Who Will
Buy” (Bart, 1963) and then again when “How Far I’ll Go” (Miranda, 2016) began, it becomes
evident that her lack of music making during “My Shot” (Miranda, 2015) was likely due to
Alexis’ influence.
Caleb was not deterred in singing rap by the conversation he shared with his mother, so
Alexis began singing “How Far I’ll Go” (Miranda, 2016), interrupting Caleb. Immediately,
Caleb and Sophia joined in the song and began to sing along, demonstrating observational
learning via imitation of their mother. Here, learning was about musical lyrics generating an
increase in music making, which in turn contributed to their broader musical development. While
the interruption was negative in terms of decreasing Caleb’s music making through his rap
selection, this also was a positive musical interaction for Sophia as music making increased as
she began to participate. Alexis used this new song to exert her will, demonstrating her agency
and power as the mother, with the new song serving as a tool to steer children’s music making in
a direction she desired, and away from rap. In an effort to maintain some power and therefore
agency in this new song, Caleb emphasized the musical style in which he would sing (i.e.
staccato), carrying out a phrase in this manner. Alexis instructed him to sing legato once more
and Caleb yielded to Alexis’ instruction, continuing his music-making interaction with Sophia,
and granting Alexis power over aspects of his music making once again.
110
Mac Family: Summary of Findings
The Mac children engaged in spontaneous music making in a variety of ways throughout
the week. They were constantly involved in singing, dancing, signing to songs, gesturing,
clapping, humming, whistling, listening to recorded or self-produced music, and inventing tunes.
It was interesting that recorded music never served as background in this family vehicle;
whenever recorded music was present, one or more family members actively engaged with it in a
unique way.
Observations from the video recordings along with their transcriptions evidenced the
several moments of observational learning that occurred for the Mac children. Most of these
observational learning moments stemmed from Sophia (the youngest child) imitating Caleb (the
oldest), as well as both children imitating their mother Alexis. Sibling rivalry seemed to further
prompt music making as opposed to diminish it, as both children desired recognition and
validation from their parents in moments when the other sibling received recognition and/or
praise. As there was a little over a 3-year age gap between the two children, both children were
of different genders, and the given importance of music making in the family as Alexis was a
music teacher, it was likely that there was not the need to deidentify musically as much. Music
making was valued in this family and provided the children an opportunity to find belonging and
a sense of inclusion through participation. It is possible that further on, having a parent who was
also a music teacher could result in more rivalry and the need to deidentify should one child
come to be viewed as more talented. At this time, there was no apparent direct comparison
between the two children and their musical abilities. Additionally, it was probable that there were
other ways through which children were able to distinguish themselves, with music being
something that they could share with their mother.
111
Deidentification processes was less obvious in this family, although there were moments
when they were still present. In the two moments prior, where possible deidentification were
identified, Sophia seemed to differentiate/deidentify from Caleb, choosing to decrease music
making in the presence of rap. This, however, was likely a response to Sophia desiring to exert
her own musical tastes, and also to adhere to her mother’s preferences. Deidentification moments
in the Mac Family happened in combination with parent-child interactions and this was not likely
a coincidence. As deidentification happens when children desire to reduce competition, rivalry,
and conflict, and seek to establish their own identity in the family (Whiteman et al., 2007a), the
presence of Alexis put the conflict between the siblings in “Moment 1: Whose shot?” and the
desire for Sophia to please Alexis in “Moment 5: How far they’ll go”, right in alignment with the
need for Sophia to deidentify from Caleb. While long-term deidentification remains unknown,
the moments captured illustrate how deidentification processes through differentiation may
present themselves even over the course of a single moment.
Emergent themes that arose from the analysis of data from the Mac Family included the
use of technology and toys as a deterrent from music making, social agency as an influence in
music making, and the need for children to “belong” as an influence in music making. When
Caleb played on his parent’s cell phone or with his Rubik’s Cube, as he did often throughout the
week, his music making was observed to decrease compared to when he was not doing those
things. Similarly, when Sophia played with her Rubik’s Cube or her doll, or ate, or colored as
she did throughout the week, her music making was also observed to decrease. Social agency
was evident through the various members of the family exerting their will on the musical
situations and music played within the vehicle, such as when Alexis began singing to change the
song during “Moment 5: How far they’ll go” and her children joined in with her. As members of
112
the family exercised their social agency, music making increased on many occasions. There were
also moments when music making decreased, such as when requests for musical preferences and
recorded music went unrecognized. The need for children to “belong” was evident in various
interactions throughout the week. Examples of this need to belong emerged in the choices and
ways the children participated in music making that allowed them to collectively and
collaboratively engage in music making. Two such examples are found in Moments 1 and 2. As
Sophia made the choice to go against her musical preference and participate in music making
with her brother, she found encouragement and belonging (See Moment 1: Whose shot?). As
Caleb made the choice to stop playing with a toy and started singing to show his father he also
knew the song and should be included in praise, he demonstrated his desire to belong (See
Moment 2: September). Each of these themes is seen as an influence in children’s music making,
and therefore, in sibling musical interactions, including in terms of missed opportunities.
Finally, there was a variety of influences on the music making of the children, including
some that were subtle in nature. There were positive musical interactions that were accompanied
by negative musical interactions. These positive and negative sibling musical interactions that
were observed in the Mac Family—and strictly between the children—, could be seen through
embodied and verbal cues such as encouraging smiles, reaching out and touching one another,
interrupting one another, arguing about what songs to listen to, locked gazes, and singing
together, to name a few. Other observed positive and negative musical interactions found within
the sibling musical interactions that included participation from a parent, were found to occur as
the parent (usually the mother) offered instruction about what to sing, corrected their children,
praised or uttered encouraging words, with children being allowed to select the music, laugh,
clap, sing together, and feel pride, among others.
113
The Perez Family
The Week in Context
Data was collected during a hot and sunny summer August week in Southern California.
Over the course of the week, the Perez family traveled in their family vehicle as they normally
would, even during the summer months. Since the Perez children were homeschooled by their
mother and routinely traveled with her, the timing of their trips was consistent with their typical
routines. Maria wrote in the survey that her children accompanied her to stores, the gym, the
park and church, so it was unsurprising that over the course of the week these same destinations
appeared in the videos. The travel observed in the videos included far away trips to visit the
children’s older adult step-sister who was visiting from out of state, going to the gym, getting
food from Del Taco, running errands, along with one trip to the park and then church on the final
day of data collection.
Over the course of the week, Elena, Isabella, and David went on a total of 21 separate
recorded trips with either Maria or Vincent driving, spending a total of 8 hours 49 minutes 57
seconds in the car. These trips ranged in travel length from as short as 5 minutes 4 seconds, to as
long as 1 hour 25 minutes 18 seconds, with the majority of these trips taking 20 minutes or less.
There was one seemingly shorter trip as evident through the video data collected, the trip which
took 4 minutes 55 seconds. However, given the trip description provided through a co-researcher
shout out at the beginning of the video recording, I later confirmed that this trip was actually the
beginning of a longer trip that was not captured by the recording as the family opted to plug in
their video player so the children could watch a movie and did not turn the camera back on.
Therefore, this trip was not the shortest, even though its exact length remains unknown. The
114
family was observed mostly traveling within town and the immediate neighboring cities, as they
lived on the border between three cities.
During these car trips, the mother, Maria, was almost always present. Travel with their
father, Vincent, happened less frequently though; he was only present in five of all 21 trips.
While Maria was the solo driver with the children for 16 trips during the week, Vincent was only
by himself in the car with the children for two of them. With the exception of the out-of-town
trip the family took to visit the step-sister and the return trip home, all of the trips occurred
during daylight hours and were concluded before 6 p.m. Information about these trips is detailed
in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Perez Family Trip Information
Date Trip
Length
(min:s)
End Time Parents Present
8/07 1 79:54 6:45 p.m. Both
8/07 2 85:18 10:22 p.m. Both
8/08 3 14:23 10:33 a.m. Mom
8/08 4 39:03 12:45 p.m. Mom
8/08 5 18:24 4:53 p.m. Mom
8/08 6 21:52 5:55 p.m. Mom
8/08 7 04:55 12:45 p.m. Both
8/09 8 17:19 9:28 a.m. Mom
8/09 9 23:53 11:56 a.m. Mom
8/09 10 17:53 4:36 p.m. Mom
8/09 11 14:48 5:48 p.m. Mom
8/10 12 14:19 10:37 a.m. Mom
8/10 13 14:19 12:05 p.m. Mom
8/11 14 20:48 9:40 a.m. Mom
8/11 15 45:41 11:33 a.m. Mom
8/11 16 31:22 1:06 p.m. Mom
8/11 17 09:42 2:07 p.m. Mom
8/12 18 15:34 10:21 a.m. Mom
8/12 19 29:48 11:56 a.m. Mom
8/13 20 05:04 10:40 a.m. Dad
8/13 21 05:38 12:29 p.m. Dad
Total Time: 529:57
Perez Family Trip Information
115
When riding in the car, the children were observed participating in the same repeated
activities: sleeping, staring out the window, eating or drinking, reading books, playing with toys,
talking, and making music. Sleeping was an activity that was only observed in 3-year-old David,
occurring during nap times or very late-night travel as in trip 2. Eating and drinking were
frequent activities, as the children went through the drive thru on several occasions with their
mother to grab lunch or a snack. Children were also given gum to chew following the time spent
at the gym. Book reading was a staple activity for these children, being present in three-fourths
of the recorded trips. The use of books and eating or drinking were observed as distractions from
music making; when children were engaged in such activities, they were almost always
disengaged with any music present in the vehicle, and did not engage in any self-initiated forms
of music making during those times. Another distraction from music making occurred when
Maria turned off music that was playing over the speakers, in order to encourage Elena to read to
her younger siblings. As a note, the value that Maria placed on reading, turning off music to
emphasize the activity, was an example of a negative musical interaction in terms of music
making that resulted in observational learning toward reading more books throughout the week.
When toys were present in the vehicle, each was used in a different way depending on
who was playing with them. While David used his toys to engage in pretend play, augmenting it
with sound effects, like when he played with his super hero toy during the recording of trip 16,
Isabella and Elena used their toys to interact with the music. This occurred, when they made their
stuffed bear and stuffed cat dance to the music, as observed in the recording of trip 4. In the
recordings, David played more frequently with toys than Elena and Isabella, who were more
involved with books. This use of toys versus books was likely due to the fact that Elena already
knew how to read, whereas Isabella was still learning, and David was not able to read.
116
The conversations in the vehicle that were heard throughout the week ranged from
informational conversations about where the family was heading to instructional conversations
about how to behave. Some of the conversations included what the children wanted to eat, the
contents of the books that they were reading, what the children observed on the outside of the car
like traffic patterns, and was the intended message of lyrics of the music that they heard.
Telephone conversations were often present in the vehicle as Maria used her car’s Bluetooth
capability to talk on the phone over the speakers in the car. The conversations between siblings
often took place between Elena and David, and Elena and Isabella. While Isabella did speak with
David, it was less frequently, perhaps due to their seating arrangement in the family vehicle.
The Perez Family Vehicle was a 2014 Honda Odyssey. All recorded trips occurred within
this minivan, which seated eight people, with three rows of seats. The Perez family had all three
children riding in the middle row, and kept the rear row folded down to gain extra trunk space in
the vehicle, only utilizing it for seating when other people traveled with them. All three children
in the Perez family were under the age of eight, and in accordance with California law, sat in
appropriate car safety-seats. Elena sat in the middle using a high-back booster. David sat behind
the front passenger seat, in a 5-point harness car safety-seat. Isabella sat behind the driver, also in
a high-back booster.
Within the vehicle, the camera was attached to a bendable, extended camera mount that
was secured within the rear back pocket of the front passenger seat. The mount was then snaked
upwards along the upright armrest of the front passenger seat, and positioned using the armrest
as a support, as the mount was tucked between the armrest and the seat with the camera itself
sitting slightly above the armrest end. Due to this positioning, the camera recorded all videos
upside down. This positioning was necessary in order to best capture all children in the vehicle
117
= Camera Position
Isabella David Elena
Driver
Rear of Vehicle
and remain out of their way. The videos were later rotated 180 degrees, using the VLS player, in
the analysis phase. See Figures 4.3 and 4.4 for a diagram and photo of the car seating
arrangement with the camera.
Figure 4.3 Perez Family vehicle layout.
Representation of the family’s seating
arrangement within their vehicle.
Figure 4.4 Perez Family car photo. Display of camera set-up.
118
Throughout the week, the camera recorded a high prominence of recorded music playing
in the vehicle. This music was often in the background, though at times the children
demonstrated to be actively listening to it, as evident by their reactions to questionable lyrics.
There were also times when it was highly likely that the children were listening to the music,
even though they were clearly not paying attention to it, as they were focused on other activities.
Recorded music was played through the car speakers with the source being either the radio, or a
music player application on Maria’s cell phone. Table 4.4 provides a list of all songs that were
heard throughout the week. Elena and Isabella often referred to music they listened to that was
more upbeat as their mom’s “gym music”. While the children requested soundtracks when they
were given the option of providing input about the music heard, in most trips one could hear
music that was not explicitly directed for the children playing. Elena, Isabella, and David heard
recorded music for a total of 3 hours 19 minutes 39 seconds, which amounted to 40.3% of the
time all three children spent in the family vehicle in the course of a week
5
. This timing did not
include clear moments when commercials were playing over the radio in lieu of music, even if
some contained jingles, which also influenced children’s music making in the car. Of the 21 car
trips, only trips 2, 7, 8, and 20 had no recorded music present.
5
During trip 2, after 31 minutes 18 seconds Isabella exited the family vehicle to finish the trip home with her father
in his car (they picked up the car at a midpoint where he had originally parked in the middle of trip 1). This was the
only observed moment during the week when all three children did not ride together the entire time.
119
Table 4.4 Identified Songs Heard in the Perez Vehicle
Identified Songs Heard in the Perez Vehicle
Song Title Artist/Recording Source Genre
Lead Me to the Cross Hillsong United Radio Christian
Finally Home Mercy Me Radio Christian
Honest The Chainsmokers Radio Dance
Nothing Holdin’ Me Back Shawn Mendes Radio Pop
Attention Charlie Puth Radio Funk/Pop
Hair Up Trolls Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Can’t Stop the Feeling Justin Timberlake from Trolls Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Get Back Up Again Anna Kendrick from Trolls Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
They Don’t Know Ariana Grande from Trolls Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Habits (Stay High)* The Chainsmokers Radio Edit by Tove Lo Radio Dance
I Will Survive Gloria Gaynor Radio Pop/Dance
Wild Thoughts* DJ Kahled (ft. Rhianna) Radio Contemp. R&B
Wish I Knew You The Revivalists Radio Alt./Indie
Closer The Chainsmokers (ft. Halsey) Radio Dance
Slow Hands Niall Horan Radio Pop
Issues Julia Michaels Radio Pop
Feel It Still Portugal. The Man Radio Alt./Indie
Never Gone Colton Dixon Radio Pop
Love With Your Life Hollyn Radio Christian
Malibu Miley Cyrus Radio Pop
Rebel Yell Billy Idol Radio Punk Rock
Oh Sheila Ready for the World Radio Contemp. R&B
Strong Enough Matthew West Radio Christian
Home Chris Tomlin Radio Christian
Shape of You* Ed Sheeran Radio Pop
We Belong Together Mariah Carey Radio R&B/Soul
Scars to Your Beautiful Alessia Cara Radio Pop
What a Feeling Irene Cara Radio Dance
Say You Won’t Let Go James Arthur Radio Pop
Together Forever Rick Astley Radio Pop
Someone Like You* Adele Radio Pop
La Isla Bonita Madonna Radio Pop
Freedom! ‘90 George Michael Radio Jazz/Pop
1999 Prince Radio Funk
I Want to Know What Love Is* Foreigner Radio Rock
Hot N Cold Katy Perry Radio Alt. Rock/Pop
Shalala lala Vengaboys Radio Dance
Chandelier Sia Radio Pop
Under Pressure Queen Radio Rock
Stay Rhianna (ft. Mikky Ekko) Radio Pop
Frozen Heart Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
For the First Time In Forever* Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Love is an Open Door Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Let It Go* Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Reindeer Are Better Than People Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
In Summer Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
For the First Time In Forever
(Reprise)
Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Ho Hey The Lumineers Radio Alt./Indie
What’s Love Got to Do With It Tina Turner Radio Pop
Hey, Soul Sister Traub Radio Pop
Fixer Upper Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Vuelie (fea. Cantus) Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Elsa and Anna Frozen Soundtrack Phone Pop/Movie
Cheap Thrills Sia Phone Pop
One Last Time Ariana Grande Phone Pop
Know No Better Major Lazer (ft. Travis Scott, Camila Cabello &
Quavo)
Radio Dance
Despacito Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee (ft. Justin Bieber) Radio Latin Pop
*Designates a song heard more than once
120
Spontaneous music making from the children was evident throughout the trip. Most of
the music making had its origin in Elena, followed by Isabella, with David being least involved.
The types of spontaneous music making that occurred in the trips were singing, gesturing, head
bobbing, dancing, composing, singing while making a distinct rock-star type pose while singing
(i.e. head tilted and eyes closed), humming, finger tapping, and clapping. Such music making
occurred individually, collaboratively, and collectively. Of the 21 trips, 15 had some form of
spontaneous music making from one or more of the children; spontaneous music making was not
seen in trips 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 17.
As in the Mac Family, children’s music making resulted in musical interactions in the
family vehicle and were present through two forms: sibling musical interactions and parent-child
musical interactions. Sibling musical interactions were found to take place for 59 minutes 18
seconds throughout the entire week, or 12.5% of the entire time spent in the car with all three
children present. This time did not include the moments siblings spent together hearing music
that was not observed with some sort of music making, talking about music, or actively listening.
Of these two forms of interactions, both negative and positive musical interaction types
were observed across every interaction form (including both sibling musical interactions and
parent-child musical interactions). With three children in the vehicle, compared to the Mac
Family, there were more opportunities for differing opinions, conflict, encouragement, and other
interactions. Many of the musical interactions had to do with music listening and music
preferences that were manifested in the vehicle. Some of the positive musical interactions
included words of encouragement or affirmation toward music making from both the children
and Maria, engaging in role-playing while singing, asking for someone to sing, and smiling.
Some of the negative musical interactions included criticism aimed at a child, halting recorded
121
music playing in the car, requesting to stop music from being played in the car, and the
interruption of the children’s music making. While a number of negative musical interactions
were observed, the majority of them were still positive. Moments of observational learning and
deidentification were clearly present throughout the week.
Musical Moments and Interpretation
This subsection presents select musical moments gathered from the video transcriptions,
when Elena, Isabella, and David were present, in the course of the studied week. As with the
Mac Family, I did not attempt to explain every musical moment that the children were involved
with. Rather, I highlighted five key moments that could help address the role that sibling musical
interactions played in the music making that was observed in the video recordings. Parent-child
interactions are included here as they influenced sibling musical interactions.
Moment 1: Book on tape. On August 7, 2017, the Perez Family took their first trip and
headed to a city over one hour away from home, to visit their adult step-sister and her family
who were visiting from out of state. On the way there, Alexis and the children had stopped along
the way to pick up Vincent, who met them after work and left his car in a midpoint city. During
this time, the family traveled during rush hour traffic heading north on a major freeway in
Southern California. The destination was a Chili’s restaurant where they were meeting up for a
large family dinner, with other step-siblings and nieces/nephews present as well. As David was
asleep during this point in the trip, the moment only was between Maria, Elena, and Isabella.
This moment took place 57 minutes into the drive.
Context: Heading out-of-town to visit family at Chili’s restaurant.
Recording: (2017-08-07-18-15-10)
02:30 Maria: Elena, Isabella. Do you guys want a book on tape or do you want music?
Elena: Umm, book on tape. [Isabella goes to answer, but never says anything]
Maria: Book on tape.
Isabella: [mumbling under breath] I can’t say anything
122
Elena: No, you did say something.
Maria: {laughs, copying Isabella} I can’t say anything.
(short conversation about needing a drink)
02:56 [book on tape turns on, something about Narnia]
04:27 [there is background music during the story being told]
04:48 [epic sounding music plays]
05:00 [recording ends]
Trip continues (2017-08-07-18-20-11)
00:00 [music being played through 00:12 before story resumes with music in background]
00:49 Isabella: {sighs} I wish we had Moana, ‘cuz. Not Moana, but. You know how…
00:54 Maria: I can do a sound track. Do you guys want to do sound track music now?
Isabella: Like we never do, like, we never do Moana. Moana.
01:05 [book on tape stops, music starts playing]
Maria: Okay, you guys aren’t really paying attention. Are you paying attention to the story?
Elena: [nods]
Isabella: [quietly] Uh, yes.
Maria: Or do you guys want a, sound track music?
Isabella: I want sound track.
Elena: [shakes head no]
Maria: You want a story?
Elena: [nods head yes]
[Isabella makes a sad face]
Maria: K, just listen for a minute. We’ll do songs right now, I’ll meet in the middle.
(Vincent and Maria are talking, Isabella asking Maria a question about Vincent and Maria)
02:47 [Elena smiles and begins dancing her head side to side] [the song at this point is “Attention” by
Charlie Puth]
Maria: Come on Isabella. It’s dance music.
Isabella: I’m just tired.
Maria: You are? You’re the one that took a nap today too.
Isabella: Yeah but I {unclear}.
Trip Transcription from Aug. 7, 2017 beginning at 6:17 p.m.
Interpretation. This moment captures the influence of books in the family vehicle and how
music making was in direct competition with this alternative activity. The moment began when
Maria asked her two daughters which one of two activities they preferred to do next: listen to music
or listen to a book on tape. Elena selected the book on tape, which upset Isabella. By asking the
two girls which activity they preferred to do, Maria provided them with an opportunity to exercise
their preferences over the listening selection; however, by promptly repeating Elena’s request for
books before Isabella had a chance to answer, Isabella felt that her voice was not heard. A conflict
emerged as Elena and Maria made light of Isabella’s concern when she tried to voice how she felt.
123
As a result, a book on tape was played over the car speakers. While Elena was interested
and listened to the book on tape, Isabella continued to be unhappy. Interestingly enough, the
book on tape made use of background music to emphasize the story being told and recorded
music was heard in a non-song format through this. Yet, this music was not enough to satisfy
Isabella.
Shortly into the story, Isabella eventually brought herself to state her initial preference—
she wished she were listening to music. This time Maria repeated back Isabella’s request, and
halted the book on tape. This prompted a conflict between Elena and Isabella, as Elena desired to
continue with the book on tape and Isabella wanted to hear a soundtrack to Moana. In an effort to
resolve the conflict between the two, Maria ended up turning on music. She claimed that she was
meeting the two sides “in the middle” because it would only be for a short time. However,
instead of putting on the requested soundtrack, as the mother was using her phone as a
navigational tool and this music was only present on her phone, music from the radio came on.
Neither girl was interested in this music, and so Maria attempted to motivate Isabella’s interest in
the music by encouraging her to dance. Isabella rejected this encouragement by replying that she
was “tired”.
This moment immediately contained a variety of negative musical interactions that had
the potential to increase sibling deidentification, although deidentification was not directly
observed. The interaction began with a discussion about the music and moved toward an
interaction in how the children related to the playing of recorded music. From the beginning, the
conflict between the two sisters, when Isabella felt that her voice was not being heard, interfered
with Isabella’s feeling of acceptance, instantly creating a negative interaction as music was not
played. The potential for music making was decreased. When music was finally played,
124
Isabella’s voice was still not heard as the music that was requested seemingly went ignored.
Since in her opinion her request went ignored, as she did not know that soundtrack music was
not available at the time, Isabella did not participate in music making, not even once recorded
music was present, likely due to feeling deflated and a lack of belonging. This situation placed
the sisters in direct competition for their preference to be acknowledged from their mother.
Moment 2: Dancing toys. On Tuesday, August 8, 2017, during trip 4 and around noon,
Maria and her children left the gym. The family was headed to a party rental place to return
tables and chairs that they used over the weekend for Elena’s birthday party. All three children
were talking about how hungry they were, while the radio played in the background when the
song “Despacito” by Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee came on (Ayala, Ender & Rodriguez, 2016).
Isabella and Elena were holding stuffed toys and David looked out the window, as he rested his
arms up behind his head.
Context: Heading to party rental business and then home.
Recording: (2017-08-08-12-16-08)
02:54 [new song begins, “Despacito (ft. Justin Bieber)” by Luis Fonsi and Daddy Yankee]
03:29 [song volume turns up loudly, lyrics are in Spanish]
03:42 Elena: [sways head and sings the end of each long note with the music “ooohh, Despa… cito…”]
oo.. a.. oo
03:47 Isabella: Mommy! Is this like, what is this song?
03:53 Maria: Um, I don’t know.
03:54 Isabella: Is it from your gym?
03:56 Maria: Yeah, like little dance songs
3:58 [Isabella opens up mouth in surprised, pleased smile]
03:58 Elena: How did you get it on?
Maria: Huh?
Elena: How did it get on?
04:03 Maria: A different radio station.
Elena: Oh.
Maria: You like it?
04:07 Elena: Yeah.
04:15 Maria: Let me see you dance again.
[Elena starts smiling, hugging stuffed toy, and dancing in her seat]
Maria: Isabella… No?
04:21 Isabella: [smiles and holds up her stuffed bear and starts dancing the bear to the music]
125
Maria: {laughs}
David: Mommy, stop laughing at me (he’s looking out the window resting his head, and
seemingly unaware of what his sister is doing)
04:30 Elena: [dances with her head again]
David: Stop laughing at me mommy. (Note: Maria isn’t presently laughing anymore)
Isabella: Mom, look at my bear [raises bear for her to see it’s still dancing]
[Elena looks at Isabella and stops her own dancing]
04:35 Maria: I like it.
04:35 [Elena starts having her own stuffed cat dance, copying Isabella]
04:39 Elena: Oh wait, let’s have a dance competition. Between yours against mine.
04:43 Isabella: Elena, Elena Let me see, is yours going first or mine? I say yours.
04:48 [Elena raises stuffed cat that is neon and yellow, to dance]
04:50 [Isabella has her bear dance while Elena is having her cat dance]
[David is just looking out his window, away from Elena and Isabella]
05:00 [recording ends]
Trip continues (2017-08-08-12-21-08)
00:00 [recording starts with Elena and Isabella playing with toys in dance competition, radio still
playing]
00:06 Isabella: [makes a dance move where the bear is upside down] Mommy, my bear is
Elena: Look at this Isabella, look at this
[Elena has cat dance on his tail bouncing up and down]
Isabella: [laughs] Ha ha.
Isabella: Elena look at my bear. Do you know how, how my other bears can dance? Look it.
00:23 Isabella: [singing with music] pa-cit.
Elena: [has cat dancing] Look at my {unclear}.
00:34 Isabella: [raises bear and continues with bear dancing] Elena, look at mine.
Elena: Isabella look at this. [Looks at Isabella to make sure she’s looking] Look it, I want to show
you something [bounces cat off tail, flips cat over tail and lands]
Isabella: Look what mine can do. [Lifts bear and wiggles its hands then quickly brings it over to
Elena] Muah [uses bear to kiss Elena]
Elena: {unclear}
Isabella: Is that cute?
Elena: Yeah.
00:56 [Isabella smiles and staring at Elena, dances bear quickly across her lap before giving Elena
another kiss]
00:57 Isabella: Muah!
Elena: Sherbert [the toy cat] is going to be so excited to see yours. He’s been waiting almost
forever to see him.
Isabella: You gotta bring, Elena you gotta bring the bear.
Elena: Well, actually I did. [Isabella kisses Elena with bear]
Isabella: You did?
Elena: [nods] mhh hmm
Isabella: [raises toy bear to kiss Elena a few times] Muah muah muah. Elena, my bear really likes
kissing you.
01:18 [radio volume turned down]
(Elena and Isabella briefly converse to toys, dancing has stopped with the kissing)
01:29 [song ends]
Trip Transcription from Aug. 8, 2017 beginning at 12:19 p.m.
126
Interpretation. This moment illustrates how toys were integrated into the music making
of the Perez family. For the Perez children, the stuffed toys were not a deterrent to music
making. Stuffed toys are typically used in pretend play, and Elena and Isabella used them as an
integral part to their spontaneous music having them pretend to dance and engaging in music
making themselves through the movement of their toys. Other spontaneous music making that
was observed in this example included singing and dancing.
There are two key musical interactions that can be observed here: the first is a sibling
musical interaction with parent participation and the second a sibling musical interaction without
parent participation. The former interaction began with a discussion about the song that was
heard, how the music was played over the radio, followed by Maria encouraging both Isabella
and Elena to dance to the music. Elena began to dance immediately, and Maria checked in with
Isabella who was not dancing. Isabella smiled at the acknowledgement, and then used her stuffed
bear to dance to the music, fulfilling her mother’s request while differentiating herself from her
sister. When Maria responded with laughter, David took it to be somehow critical of him, and
asked Maria to stop laughing at him. This showed that David was completely out of touch with
what his sisters were doing at the time, and might explain why he did not join them in music
making, as he was staring out the window. As Isabella continued to dance with her bear and
Elena with herself, Isabella sought approval from her mother. Maria replied that she liked it. As a
result, Elena sought to be included in the approval, and thus began to copy Isabella by making
her toy cat, Sherbert, dance. This imitation is an example of observational learning and the need
to belong. As Elena felt the need to be included in the activity that her mom was enjoying, she
sought a sense of belonging that she accomplished by participating in the imitation. Furthermore,
through observational learning, while possibly memory was incorporated into this scene, Elena
127
still learned from her sister how to use her toy to participate in music making in a way that
brought approval from their mother. She also learned how to move musically with the music,
increasing her music listening skills through the interaction that may not have happened in the
same way, without it. The result was a positive sibling musical interaction.
Next, Elena turned the dancing into a competition with Isabella. During this competition,
the sibling musical interaction that was void of parent participation took over, as Maria was no
longer involved. Competition is believed to promote deidentification among siblings, and in this
case, had the potential to generate a negative musical interaction. Rather than being particularly
competitive and dancing simultaneously, however, the girls showed off their dance moves to
each other, engaged in cooperative play by taking turns, and the moment ended with Isabella
giving “toy kisses” from her bear to Elena. The two girls engaged in differentiation, and possible
deidentification, by finding their own roles within the music making and sticking to them. The
end result was a positive sibling musical interaction, with the potential of promoting further
music making in the future.
Moment 3: Tie-breaker. The family just left a local park on Wednesday, August 9,
2017, where they had just met friends for a play date. As they went about trip 9, they stopped at
Del Taco for lunch, and were now headed home. This moment took place 19 minutes into the
trip. All three children were busy eating in the car: Elena was eating a taco, and Isabella and
David eating burritos. With the car silent as children were eating, Maria turned on the radio.
Context: Heading home for the afternoon.
Recording: (2017-08-09-11-47-25)
03:59 [radio turns on]
04:05 [radio station switches, song on is “Malibu” by Miley Cyrus]
04:08 Isabella: I want this music.
04:11 David: Nooo. I don’t like this music.
Isabella: You don’t like this music?
David: No.
128
Elena: Bubba.
David: Oh, I like it.
04:17 [radio station switches, new song on is in the “Rebel Yell” by Billy Idol]
04:17 Elena: Okay, actually I’m the tie-breaker… [after the music had switched] I like it.
04:20 [David starts dancing to the music, in his seat while eating ends around 04:36]
Elena: Mom is this beef? [Referring to her taco]
Maria: Turkey.
Elena: Oh.
04:40 [Elena briefly dancing by wagging her finger in the air, while eating]
Trip Transcription from Aug. 9, 2017 beginning at 11:51 a.m.
Interpretation. This trip provides an example of a sibling musical interaction that
included parent participation. During this trip, David exerted his musical preference by objecting
to Isabella and to the music that was played on the radio. Questioned about it by Isabella, David
remained consistent in his dislike of the music. But then when his oldest sister Elena entered the
conversation, David changed his mind. Demonstrating David’s social desire to be accepted by
Elena and the power that Elena had as the oldest sister, this moment of observational learning
took place not via imitation, but through observation of the music that his sisters enjoyed.
Through questioning and intervening about his response to the music, David learned about the
musical preferences of his older sisters, and changed his mind so that he could “be with” them
through sharing a same preference.
In response to David’s earlier objection, the radio station was changed. This shows how
even though Maria was not engaged in the conversation, she was still aware of the what went on
in the vehicle, and participated through changing the station as requested. As soon as David had
adjusted his preference and as the music was changed, Elena announced that she would be the
“tie-breaker” between Isabella and David. As she paused to listen to the (new) music, she
declared that she also liked the music. David began dancing with the new music, while the girls
continued to eat and listen.
129
Upon deciding that she was the “tie-breaker”, Elena used her role as the oldest child and
only sibling to yet have a voice in the discussion to help navigate a conflict between her
youngest siblings. Her place as a tie-breaker and role-model for her younger brother, shows how
the family often resolved differences among the children, by taking a vote.
6
When musical
interactions are associated with a vote, as seen here, the outcome can be decreased music
making, missed opportunities, and negative musical interactions, as the vote may take away from
the music that was inspiring the interaction. Luckily, due to the role of observational learning, in
this instance, David had already decided to like the song, choosing to be in agreement when the
tie-breaking vote came through
7
. The interaction was therefore not impacted negatively. This is
interesting because the song had now changed and it was possible that none of the children
would actually like it. While it may have been a coincidence/chance that the music was actually
enjoyed, it was also likely David’s choice to like whatever music was on regardless of his initial
preference. Considering the entire moment, from when the music elicited a negative reaction
from David, to his sisters’ encouragement and subsequent switch of the radio station, which
culminated in David’s music making, it is possible to see how this moment reflected a positive
sibling musical interaction.
Moment 4: Frozen. Taking place on Friday, August 11, approximately 33 minutes into
trip 15, this next moment captures a range of interactions. Maria and her children had left the
gym, traveled to Del Taco and got lunch through the drive-thru, and were now headed to Sam’s
6
During the member checking phase, further conversation with Maria revealed that while vote taking was a
common practice within the family, when the children were unable to resolve their differences and come to a
consensus via voting, she would often participate in the resolution by selecting an alternative solution that none of
the children voted for. This was to help avoid the girls consistently outvoting David, 2-1, but also encouraged them
to work toward an agreement.
7
As David placed his vote prior to the tie-breaker, observational learning could have additionally resulted from past
situations where the children were expected to come to a consensus. David may have changed his preference ahead
of the tie-breaking vote in anticipation of the need to agree with his sister, Isabella, per his mother’s expectation.
130
Club to get gasoline for their vehicle. A few minutes prior, “Stay” by Rhianna (Ekko & Parker,
2012, track 2) played on the radio. Isabella told her mom that she liked this music. Several
minutes into the song, however, Isabella asked if she could stop the music. Isabella attempted to
please her mom, by recognizing that Maria was listening to “beautiful music”, in spite of her
request to stop the song. As a result, Maria began to play music from the Frozen Soundtrack. A
few songs into this soundtrack, the following moment began.
Context: Heading to Sam’s Club Warehouse to get gasoline for the vehicle.
Recording: (2017-08-11-11-17-51)
03:58 Elena: [humming, head tilted eyes closed, chewing gum] {humming with music}
Maria: And then Dollar Tree.
04:02 Maria/Elena/Isabella: [singing with music, Isabella’s hand raised in the air] To be!
Maria: [singing] Ooh.
04:04 Elena: Good job Isabella.
Elena: Please don’t get embarrassed. [Elena reaches over to Isabella and holds her right arm;
Isabella has her arms straightened out in front of her, hands in lap left over right and shoulders
almost up to ears, bouncing around looking shy]
04:08 Maria: Mama, can’t get embarrassed. Come on, show me confidence.
Isabella: I can’t do that.
Elena: Mom, she’s got a little red every now and when I start singing
04:13 Maria: [singing] Love is an open door.
04:18 Elena: When I stop it’s ‘cuz she gets a little red.
Maria: [singing] an open door.
04:21 Elena: [singing] door
Elena: [singing] more… you
04:26 [Isabella looks up at Elena, gets her attention, starts bouncing in her seat]
Elena: Do you need me to hit your tummy?
Elena: You need me… [interrupted by Maria]
04:37 Maria: [responding to Hans asking Anna to marry him in the music] Whoa.
04:42 Elena: [looks front to Maria, responding to Anna saying yes] She said the wrong thing.
Maria: She’s crazy.
04:44 [song ends]
Elena: Mm hmm.
David: [starts speaking to himself, appearing to copy the song] Hey. {unclear} she marry
Maria: Dummy, Elsa. Or Anna.
04:52 [new song comes on, “Let It Go” from Frozen]
Maria: {gasps} The jam.
Elena: [pointing straight at the camera] Did you say dummy Anna?
Maria: Well ‘cuz she said yes to a man she doesn’t even know.
Elena: She only met him that (continues immediately on next recording)
05:00 [recording ends]
Trip continues (2017-08-11-11-22-51)
00:00 Elena: one day though.
131
Maria: Elena can you know enough in one day?
Elena: Mm Hmm.
Maria: No. You cannot kiddo.
Maria: [singing] footprint to be seen
Isabella: [nudging Elena] Elena, that’s you.
Maria: [singing] –solation.
Elena: [singing and dramatically throwing one hand in the air] queen.
Isabella: hah [smiles at Elena and roles eyes up]
00:19 [at this point David is raising his hands in a ballerina fashion over his head, to the music copying
Elena, lowers his hands around 00:30]
Elena: [singing and using her hands like she was creating icicles like Elsa] howling like a swirling
storm inside.
Elena: {humming with music “couldn’t keep it in”}
Maria: [singing this part with Elena] swirling storm inside
Maria: [singing] –ven knows I tried.
00:30 Elena: [singing] I tried.
[after David lowers hands here, he begins swirling his thumbs around each other]
Elena: [singing] Don’t let them in,
Maria: [singing with Elena] Them in
Elena: [singing and moving her hands around still] Don’t let them see… good girl you always
have to be… don’t see... let them know.
00:46 [music stops]
Maria: Hold on.
[windows roll down]
Elena: [singing to self without music, but continuing the song] Now I know. Let it go. Let it go.
David: [singing with Elena] go…
Elena: Can’t hold it back anymore.
David: [singing with Elena] more…
Elena: Let it go.
David: [singing with Elena] go…
Elena: Let it go.
David: [singing with Elena] go… let it…
Elena: Stay away and slam the door.
David: [singing with Elena] door
Elena: [singing] I don’t care. [speaking] Wait, does that say no device?
01:11 [song come back on, this time not over the car speakers, so probably Maria’s cell phone]
Elena: Oh. [singing] go..
01:14 [music stops]
01:19 [music is playing, but it is now a different song]
01:20 [music switches back to “Let it Go”]
Elena: [singing] Go. Turn away and slam [puts hand out and slams an fake door] the door.
[Isabella lifts hands up and starts shaking them in two fists above her]
[Elena notices Isabella]
Elena: [copying Isabella] You were like mm [does the same gesture Isabella just did]
Elena: [singing] …going to say. The storm rage on [lifting hands up like Elsa]
[David watching Elena copies and lifts his hands up to the music like Elsa also]
Elena: Never bothered me anyway [wags finger no]
[David is copying all of Elena’s gestures at this point, finger tapping]
Elena: {humming with music}
Elena: [singing] … small
Isabella: [talking out the window to Maria who is pumping gas] Mom can you hear the music?
132
Maria: Yeah.
[David is no longer coping Elena since she stopped moving her hands]
Elena: [singing] -trolled me… get to me at all. To see, what I can do. Test the limits and …
through. [looks out the window at Maria while singing now] no wrong.. me.. free. Let it
Elena/David: [singing Elena is looking out window at Maria, David is doing a hand motion and
looking out the other window] go.
Maria: Use your hands.
Elena: [starts doing hand motions while singing] Let it
Elena/David: Go
Maria: [can be seen moving her hands around in the window outside the vehicle] Good David
[Isabella looking at Elena smiling]
Elena: [singing and doing motions] and sky.
Isabella: Elena, look at… [brief pause, points to window] [looks out the window] mommy.
Elena/David: [Elena singing and motioning while looking at Isabella, David singing and
motioning in his seat looking up] Go… go…
Isabella: [speaking to Isabella] Elena {says something unclear}
Elena: [singing, but messing up the lyric that is supposed to be “never see me cry”] and slam the
door
[David copies Elena and slams his hands together after she does]
[Elena turns to Isabella and says something inaudible]
Maria: Woohoo go David [David is still doing hand gestures]
02:33 Isabella: {speaking at the same time as Elena, says something to Maria unclear}
02:33 Elena: [speaking to Maria] I need to hit Isabella on the stomach because she hit my fingers and
tummy (Note: I did not see this happen anywhere in the proximity of this statement)
Maria: Go David, make your castle
02:41 [Elena looks at David and then starts copying that he’s doing motions and starts motioning her
own castle, like David]
Elena: [mumble singing] air into the ground {hums}
Isabella: [speaking to Maria] Do you know why I’m not doing it?
Maria: No I don’t.
02:52 [David stops doing hand motions and starts rubbing his face for a moment, Elena continues
motioning while humming with the music]
Isabella: ‘cuz it’s Elena’s turn ‘cuz she’s [pointing to Elena] Elsa and [pointing to self] I’m Anna
Elena: [singing] blast… going back the past is in the past. Go. Let it go. {hums}
Isabella: [talking to Maria out window] For my birthday I’m having an Elsa and Anna party.
Maria: Really?
[Isabella nods]
03:25 Elena: [speaking out the window] I was going to have another Elsa and Anna party.
Isabella: That means that, like, I mean after
Elena: Wait. Didn’t you say you were going to have a Moana party like me?
Isabella: [puts hands up, doesn’t look over shoulder to Elena, but almost in a “no” stop sign
fashion] Not anymore.
Maria: {says something unclear}
03:36 [David starts hitting Elena’s arm to get her attention]
Isabella: Now I changed it. Now I’m, now I’m going to do that after my Elsa party.
Elena: [looking at David who is hitting her arm, raises her arm out of the way and growls at him
to stop] grrrr.
David: [coping Elena growls back and lifts his hand like her to copy] grrr
Elena: {laughs} Ha [drops hand down, David copies] {laughs}
Isabella: Mom, look at my nail. It’s really sharp.
Elena: [lifts arm up again and then drops it] Ha
133
[David copies Elena when she does it and does it with her]
Maria: [to Isabella] It hurts?
03:53 [song ends]
Trip Transcription from Aug. 11, 2017 beginning at 11:21 a.m.
Interpretation. This extended moment began with Elena’s self-proclaimed singing
pose—head tilted and eyes closed while singing— that she had taught to Isabella earlier in the
week. Capturing two songs that were part of the music making observed in this car trip, in the
beginning Maria was singing along with her daughters to “For the First Time in Forever” from
the Frozen Soundtrack (Anderson-Lopez & Lopez, 2013, track 3). Elena then recognized her
sister’s singing and complimented her, which resulted in Isabella immediately acting shy and
also withdrawn. Both Elena and Maria requested that she not become embarrassed, and Maria
also instructed her to show her confidence, to which Isabella replied that she could not. From
then on and until the next song came on, Isabella no longer participated in music making. Even
though Maria intended to encourage her child, the end result was a negative musical interaction.
As this initial musical interaction with Isabella was ending, David was heard responding
to the song lyrics at the end of the song, prompting a discussion of the message behind the lyrics
initiated by Maria. Elena seemed concern at her mother’s criticism of Anna on camera, as she
pointed to the camera at her mother’s remark “dummy Anna.” This concern demonstrated an
awareness of the camera, although it did not impact nor detour the conversation. Maria discussed
with her children whether or not it was a good idea to marry someone “you just met”, and if “you
[could] know enough.” As Elena was not sharing nor responding with the desired outcome,
Maria stated her belief. This musical interaction demonstrated the mother’s role in passing on
family values through the discussion that took place. When Elena did not yield to the implied
belief system shared by her mother, Maria exercised her agency as she contradicted the child.
This made Maria’s preference the “correct” choice, and the discussion ended there. This
134
interaction did not influence music making in a negative way, as the family shifted immediately
to music making along with the song, “Let it Go” (Anderson-Lopez & Lopez, 2013, track 5), the
mother’s “jam.”
The introduction of a new song sparked a renewed musical interest in Isabella, who
reminded Elena that she “was Elsa” and should be singing. Isabella’s engagement with the song
demonstrated how she was indeed listening to it. This sibling musical interaction (as Isabella
reminded Elena to sing), led into a shared sibling musical interaction between David and Elena.
Elena took on the role of Elsa, engaging in spontaneous music making through song and
gestures, with David copying her. Maria was also engaged in music making with her children
during this song, through singing, encouraging and instructing musical participation, and moving
with the music herself.
When the family arrived at the gas station, Maria exited the vehicle to pump gas, yet the
camera was left recording. The music continued to play through the van, as the vehicle had the
ability to play music through an accessory mode that did not require the engine to be running.
While Maria was out of the vehicle, Isabella’s window was rolled down. As Elena and David
continued with their music making, Isabella spoke with her mother about her ability to still hear
the music. Maria was then observed encouraging David’s music making and motioning, as he
copied Elena, who pretended to be Elsa. This motioning included using their arms and hands to
pretend to have “magical ice powers” like Elsa and moving them as if sending out magic in order
to build an ice castle, as Elsa does in the movie. Maria was observed at the side of the video
modeling this motioning for her children, who were fully aware of her influence. At one point in
time, Elena discontinued her music making as she had a conflict with Isabella. However, as
Maria continued to encourage David, Elena became aware of this praise, soon ignoring the
135
problem she had with her sister. She began to copy David, in order to become included in the
ongoing musical action.
As Maria pumped gas into the vehicle, Isabella asked her if she knew why she (Isabella)
was not singing. As Maria responded with a negative, Isabella informed her mother that she was
not participating because she (Isabella) “was” Anna and Elena “was” Elsa. This information
helps to provide context for why during this moment, in spite of her immediate interest and
evident listening as “Let it Go” (Anderson-Lopez & Lopez, 2013, track 5) came on, Isabella did
not engage in music making. She then proceeded to have a conversation with her mother about
future birthday plans and how she wanted to have a Frozen party. This conversation also
distracted Elena from music making. As she joined the conversation between her sister and
mother, she ceased to participate in music making for the remainder of the song. David stopped
his music making to rub his face and look out the window. As neither sisters nor mother were
participating in music making, David did not resume to make music either.
The music making evident by Elena and David throughout the latter part of this moment,
shows a sibling musical interaction that highlights observational learning. Through observing
Elena and also through encouragement from Maria, David learned how to participate in music
making through singing and motioning. This resulted in a positive musical interaction for David
in the sense that he increased his music making. Observational learning was also evident as
Elena observed the praise that Maria bestowed on David, and consequently engaged in music
making by copying David. The observational learning in this moment shows Elena’s desire to
belong. It also shows she learned from how David received praise through his music making,
increasing her music making as the result.
136
One additional negative musical interaction that was influential in this moment, was the
decision from Elena and Isabella to take on characters in their music making. While this decision
was made entirely by the children in the sense that it was their decision as to how to participate
musically together, this sibling musical interaction highlights how the Perez daughters navigated
music making collaboratively and reducing rivalry, with each daughter having their own role and
responsibilities. This effort to reduce rivalry is likely a result of processes that lead to sibling
deidentification. As Isabella elected to portray Anna, there were missed opportunities for her
music making, with the latter decreasing when compared to her sister and brother.
Moment 5: Plugged noses. Sunday, after church, Vincent and his children rode in their
family vehicle home. They were accompanied by Vincent’s grandson, Adam, who sat in the third
row of the vehicle. Maria rode in an alternate car with Adam’s mother (i.e. Vincent’s adult
daughter from a previous marriage, who lived locally) and the rest of her family. This trip
occurred on the final day of data collection, and was the final trip the family took before I met
with them at 1 p.m. that day. The trip began at 12:23 p.m. David was playing with a toy plane in
the vehicle and both of his sisters were seated without holding anything in their hands.
Context: Heading home from church.
Recording: (2017-08-13-12-23-41)
00:00 [recording starts with kids buckled in their seats, Vincent checking Adam is buckled in the back,
Elena and Isabella are waving to their niece in the car next to them, David is holding a happy
meal toy in his hand from Despicable Me 3]
(Discussion about a fly in the car, kids begin kicking their feet to get the fly to move)
01:22 [radio heard on in the background very soft]
(kids discuss the fly)
03:08 (Elena/Vincent discuss what to have for lunch, Isabella chimes in)
(kids begin to plug their nose about a smell)
(Elena/Isabella start discussing stuff with plugged nose, David copies Isabella, plugging his nose)
04:32 Isabella: [begins singing while plugging her nose with her right hand, holding the left hand up to
the sky] I love you, I love
Elena: Nice singing Isabella
04:40 Isabella: Thank you. I like your singing too.
04:46 Isabella: [singing with finger plugging nose] I know how you’ve [unplugs nose, and gestures with
hands] feel
137
Elena: She’s all [singing, repeating Isabella] I know how you’ve
04:48 David: [begins speaking/singing with his nose plugged] {words are unclear, but sound sing-songy
much like what Isabella is singing, at the last word around 04:52}
Isabella: [singing plugging nose] feel
David: [talking with plugged nose] {gasp} I saw a firefly.
04:53 [car pulls into driveway]
Elena: Did you say feel or fail?
Isabella: Feel.
Elena: Feel.
David: [talking normal] I saw a firefly guys.
05:00 [recording ends]
Trip Transcription from Aug. 13, 2017 beginning at 12:23 p.m.
Interpretation. This moment provides an example of just how fleeting sibling musical
interactions can be over the course of a car trip. The family only lives a short 5-minute trip from
their church, just up the road and less than a mile away. While recorded music was present in the
vehicle, it only served as background music and did not seem to influence any observed music
making experiences. This highlights a main way that the Perez children encountered music
throughout the week, with music serving as background throughout many trips the children took.
The observed spontaneous music making found in this selection included singing an invented
tune, while the children plugged their noses and experimented with how that impacted the sound.
The sibling musical interaction happened between all three children, without parental
participation, only lasting for a brief 21 seconds. The interaction likely would have continued
longer, had the trip been longer, but ended as soon as the family arrived at their home. While
Elena and Isabella’s plugged their noses, sung and engaged musically together, David
participated through plugging his nose, although not singing at first and just looking around.
When Elena complimented Isabella’s singing though, David who had been quietly looking
toward his sisters, began to make his own “sing-songy” statement, even if his words were
unclear. While his song went unrecognized by his sisters, it was clearly influenced by them.
David showed observational learning as he observed his sisters’ music making and then
138
responded in a manner that imitated their example, yet in his own way. This provided a positive
musical interaction for all three children.
Perez Family: Summary of Findings
The Perez children engaged in spontaneous music making in a variety of ways through
the course of a week. They were singing, gesturing, humming, clapping, listening to recorded
music from the radio or books-on-tape, making stuffed toys dance, and inventing tunes.
Recorded music was a staple presence, being present for 40.3% of the total time the children
were in the vehicle. Often, recorded music was simply playing in the background although
children may or may not have been listening actively. Books were a constant presence in the
vehicle and were included in three-fourths of the car trips the children went on. The time spent
on reading these books almost always took time away from music making. The few times this
did not happen was during the book-on-tape as music was used as a background to the story
telling, and also during one story with a song written into it, which Elena sung to her siblings.
Video observations evidenced the several moments of observational learning that
occurred for the Perez children. These observational learning moments often stemmed from the
younger children, David (the youngest child) or Isabella (the middle child), imitating Elena (the
oldest child), as well as all three children observing and learning from their mother Maria. As
noted, Elena was often the leader in music making and her siblings followed suit. Yet, there were
times when the other two children received recognition from Maria, causing Elena to copy them.
In such cases, observational learning often stemmed from the child or children’s desire to please
their mother and engage their sense of belonging with whatever was happening in the vehicle at
the moment. For the youngest child, David, observational learning also was a way through which
139
he navigated social agency, as he exercised his will and whatever power he possessed over the
music he was listening to, as well as how he contributed to shaping his own musical preferences.
Deidentification processes were not uncommon among the interactions found in this
family, yet it was not always found to result in negative musical interactions. Deidentification
through differentiation was more prominent with Isabella and Elena, likely due to their closeness
in age and sex, as opposed to David who was younger and of the opposite sex. In three of the
five moments detailed above, deidentification moments were found in response to the presence
of competition and rivalry. Differing listening preferences for audiobooks versus music, notions
of “right” ways to dance with toys, and parts within songs, prompted competition and rivalry.
Momentary sibling deidentification/differentiation often led to music making through taking
turns and role assignments, so that each child had their own responsibility. This helped to
alleviate any conflict that resulted from competition and rivalry, while allowing children to find a
sense of belonging and inclusion within and through their music making.
Emergent themes that arose as a result of the analysis of data from the Perez Family
included the use of books as a deterrent from music making, social agency, and the need to
“belong” as an influence in children’s music making. The focus of attention that is required in
reading takes away from children’s ability to listen and engage with music making in their
surroundings. This was observed in the Perez children through their responses to music when
they read books. Social agency was observed as children exercised their will and preferences, as
well as their roles within the family—such as Elena being the oldest and therefore the “tie-
breaker”—, to gain power over their activities including music. Instances where this was best
observed was when Maria turned on the radio and children responded to the music by expressing
what they heard and how they felt about it. Additionally, Maria used her power and agency to
140
influence her children’s music making through the music that she selected to play (or not play)
for them, the activities that she encouraged them to engage with— at times this being music and
other times being reading—, and their understanding of the music through a discussion about
what the lyrics meant and their underlying messages. The need for children to “belong” was
evidenced by musical behaviors and attitudes shifting, as they sought to gain acceptance by their
siblings and/or their mother, as well as to be able to participate in the music making that the
others were engaged with. This often took place with David seeking to be included in the
activities of his sisters, and with Elena and Isabella seeking approval and praise from their
mother. Each of these themes was seen to influence in children’s music making in the family
vehicle, and therefore, sibling musical interactions, including missed opportunities.
Finally, there were several sources of influence on the music making of the Perez
children. Musical interactions ranged from positive to negative, with some occurring within a
same moment. At times, children were found to increase their music making as a result of these
musical interactions, yet in other moments, they were found to decrease their music making. The
positive sibling musical interactions that were observed in the Perez Family children took place
through words of affirmation, smiles, laughter, and collective and collaborative music making.
Negative sibling musical interactions occurred when children interrupted one another, as well as
when there were interferences provided from eating together and reading books, harsh words,
being ignored, the use of non-plush toys, disagreements about what music to listen to, and
conflict and competition. Maria was found to both facilitate and hinder the music making of her
children. The promotion of books over music making throughout the trips appeared intentional
on her part and reflected the value that she and her family placed on reading at this point in their
lives. However, it was likely unintentional how children’s music making decreased in other
141
times, as Maria was likely unaware of how her well-intentioned praise and encouragement
prompted rivalry and competition between her children.
Chapter Summary
This chapter detailed the findings of the two cases: The Mac Family and The Perez
Family. Through separate sections that detailed the sibling musical interactions over the course
of one week, I provided some context to help the reader understand the role and presence of
music making in sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle. Next, I described five select
moments of sibling musical interactions from each family, to illustrate spontaneous music
making, observational learning and possible sibling deidentification, as well as positive and
negative musical interactions that I observed within each family. Emergent themes that
influenced sibling musical interactions and the music making of the children within each family
were presented, along with a summary of the findings for each family. In the following chapter, a
cross-case analysis of the findings from each family will be discussed.
142
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusion and Implications
Discussion
The children in this study spent a lot of time in the car over the course of the average
week. The Mac children were observed spending 5 hours 24 minutes 27 seconds traveling in the
family vehicle, and the Perez children were observed spending 8 hours 49 minutes 57 seconds.
This large amount of time provided plenty of opportunity for children to engage in music making
and sibling musical interactions through their proximity and therefore influence they provided to
each other, the availability of recorded music, and the lack of other activities available.
It made sense then, that both of these families were observed engaging in musical
interactions over the course of their trips. As families are a child’s first musical community
(Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017), through their family community, children were willing to
engage in music making with other members of the family, sharing in this interest, and this was
evident in the place of the family vehicle (Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Stauffer, 2012). In the
family vehicle, this shared music making among members took place between parent and child
and siblings, although more frequently between siblings.
The present discussion highlights the ways that findings present across both families
come together to provide a better picture of child music making and sibling musical interactions
in the family vehicle. Cross-case findings were separated into sections based on research
questions, with themes serving as guiding frames in the discussion.
Research Question 1: Time Children Spent in Vehicle
How much time do selected families (at least one parent and two or more of their children)
spend in the car on an average week?
143
This question was addressed in the opening introduction for the discussion in Chapter 5,
first paragraph. For more detailed trip information for each family, refer back to Tables 4.1 and
4.3.
Research Question 2: Children’s Spontaneous Music Making
What does music making look and sound like when it occurs spontaneously within the family
vehicle?
Video recordings from the Perez and Mac families showed a strong prevalence of
children’s music making within the place of the family vehicle. Children’s spontaneous music
making in both families happened throughout the week and took place collectively,
collaboratively, or individually. The children’s spontaneous music making included vocal
behaviors such as singing existing and invented tunes, movement behaviors such as dancing and
gesturing, and rhythmic behaviors such as clapping and tapping, which is consistent with other
studies (Custodero et al., 2016; Gingras, 2013; Gluschankof, 2005; Koops, 2014). Furthermore,
there was an overwhelming amount of singing and other vocal behaviors observed over the
course of a week for all participants including both children and parents, with 272 occurrences of
vocal behavior within moments during the week, compared to 35 occurrences of rhythmic
behavior and 105 occurrences of movement behavior. This type of music making was consistent
with the large percentage of children’s spontaneous singing as observed by Custodero et al.
(2016). Additionally, as in Gingras (2013), almost all members of the family were observed
singing in the vehicles over the course of the week (with only one person not heard singing, i.e.,
Vincent). The repertoire that that was present in both families was also consistent with previous
findings, as the children took part in singing traditional, adapted, and invented songs (Costa-
Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Custodero, 2006; Gingras, 2014)
144
Music making in the car was not always continuous. Rather it was often interspersed
throughout the trips as children weaved music throughout their conversations, and used it to fill
in silences. Through their musical engagement, all of the participating children used music
making as a means to think through their present experiences. Additionally, as conversation
brought about opportunities for musical recall from past experiences and/or musical memories,
the children, also, engaged in spontaneous music making (such as with Barrett, 2003). Children
in both families were observed singing invented tunes in response to a present activity, such as
putting shoes on or exiting the car or going to the store. They were also observed singing
invented tunes in response to a past activity, such as having eaten sushi or been to summer camp.
Children also sang traditional and adapted songs throughout the course of the week, and these
songs usually involved recalling songs the children had previously heard or learned. Music
making was also a response to their immediate surroundings, including to a sibling making
music or to a recorded piece music, in addition to providing a source of entertainment and
enjoyment (Bryn & Hourigan, 2010; Hughes et al., 2018).
Research Question 3: Sibling Musical Interaction Appearances
What do sibling musical interactions look like in the presence of spontaneous music making?
Sibling musical interactions were present in both families. These interactions appeared
during collective, collaborative, and individual music making moments, as well as times of
music listening and discussions involving music. Sibling musical interactions appeared in 91
moments amidst both families over the course of the week and were observed both with and
without parental participation or influence. Of these 91 moments, 34 of the moments collectively
between the two families had some form of parental participation, whereas 57 had none (see
Table 5.1 at the end of the section). The lack of parental participation or influence within many
145
of the moments supports the finding that children often spent time immersed in their own music
making (analogous to Cali, 2015).
Sibling musical interactions were often brief. The longest sibling musical interaction for
the Mac Family only lasted 5 minutes 34 seconds. The longest sibling musical interaction for the
Perez Family only lasted 7 minutes 10 seconds. The fact that music often appeared briefly
throughout the week points to the use of music as a means to enhance their experience within the
family vehicle, although it wasn’t the entirety of the experience. The placement of sibling
musical interactions as part of the traveling activity—fitting within the space, but not being the
defining interaction within the space, comes as no surprise as other literature also indicates that
songs are used to surround the activities of daily life, accompanying these other activities
(Barrett, 2003; Costa-Giomi & Benetti, 2017; Gingras, 2013).
Within sibling musical interactions, spontaneous music making was observed along with
discussions about music and listening to music. Of the spontaneous music making observed
throughout the sibling musical interactions, most of the interactions involved singing from one or
more of the children. Of the 91 moments of sibling musical interactions observed across both
families, 85 of them included music making behaviors and 81 included children’s singing. This
amounted to 90% of all sibling musical interactions that included singing.
Tucked within the sibling musical interactions was the theme of social agency (DeNora,
2000). As children demonstrated power over music and their musical preferences, both in what
they listened to and through their music making, they were able to influence and navigate sibling
musical interactions. This was a clear indication that children were exercising their agency as
active participants in their music making, which is consistent with finding by Barrett (2003).
Furthermore, children influenced each other throughout their sibling musical interactions as they
146
shared their musical tastes/preferences and musical activities with each other (as was found in
Pitts, 2012).
Research Question 4: Time in Sibling Musical Interactions
How much of the time during a week do siblings engage in sibling musical interactions in the
vehicle?
Each family spent close to an hour in sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle
during the week. For the Mac Family, sibling musical interactions accounted for 1 hour 1 minute
40 seconds of the time they were in the car and for the Perez Family, sibling musical interactions
accounted for 59 minutes 18 seconds. While this was not the same percentage of time since each
family spent different amounts of time in the vehicle, it is interesting that the timing was so
similar between the two cases.
Table 5.1 identifies the moments of sibling musical interaction throughout the study, and
broken down by family. Across both families, these interactions often were brief with the
average sibling musical interaction lasting only 78.7 seconds in the Mac Family and 80.7
seconds in the Perez Family. In the sibling musical interactions for both families, some of the
moments contain parental influence or participation with the children in some capacity. Of the
sibling musical interactions observed for the Mac Family, 12 moments out of 47 included some
form of parental influence or participation. Of the sibling musical interactions observed for the
Perez Family, 22 moments out of 44 contained parental influence or participation.
147
Table 5.1 Sibling Musical Interactions
Sibling Musical Interactions
The Mac Family The Perez Family
Moment* Time Frame Duration
(seconds)
Child
Singing
Parent
Influence
Moment* Time Frame Duration
(seconds)
Child
Singing
Parent
Influence
1 03:32 – 05:51 139 Yes No 1 00:49 – 02:55 126 No Yes
2 03:29 – 05:35 126 Yes No 2 04:54 – 05:43 49 No Yes
3 04:52 – 06:01 69 Yes No 3 02:21 – 05:09 168 Yes Yes
4 01:52 – 02:44 52 Yes No 4 00:42 – 01:10 28 Yes No
5 02:49 – 06:41 252 Yes No 5 01:42 – 08:52 430 Yes Yes
6 02:13 – 02:32 19 Yes No 6 02:23 – 03:29 66 Yes No
7 04:38 – 04:57 19 Yes No 7 03:35 – 05:24 109 Yes Yes
8 00:50 – 01:23 73 Yes No 8 00:35 – 01:38 63 Yes Yes
9 02:28 – 02:54 24 Yes No 9 02:16 – 02:23 7 No No
10 02:31 – 02:38 7 Yes No 10 03:42 – 06:18 156 Yes Yes
11 01:24 – 01:40 16 Yes No 11 00:25 – 01:10 45 No No
12 00:16 – 00:57 41 Yes Yes 12 01:21 – 03:32 131 Yes No
13 01:20 – 01:44 22 Yes No 13 03:26 – 04:01 35 Yes Yes
14 00:20 – 01:11 51 Yes No 14 00:10 – 00:34 24 Yes No
15 00:44 – 03:48 184 Yes No 15 04:12 – 04:29 17 Yes No
16 02:20 – 03:25 65 Yes No 16 00:55 – 01:03 8 Yes No
17 00:40 – 02:22 102 Yes No 17 04:03 – 05:18 75 Yes Yes
18 03:24 – 04:48 84 Yes Yes 18 03:42 – 04:05 83 Yes No
19 02:54 – 03:31 37 Yes No 19 04:20 – 04:39 79 Yes No
20 01:19 – 02:34 75 Yes No 20 03:09 – 05:07 118 No Yes
21 01:54 – 05:20 266 Yes No 21 03:00 – 06:03 183 Yes Yes
22 00:53 – 01:17 24 Yes No 22 02:48 – 03:26 38 Yes No
23 01:57 – 02:46 49 Yes No 23 03:27 – 04:26 59 Yes No
24 04:00 – 05:38 98 Yes No 24 04:51 – 06:06 75 Yes No
25 03:42 – 03:48 6 No No 25 01:58 – 04:25 147 Yes Yes
26 00:50 – 02:51 121 Yes No 26 00:46 – 01:14 28 Yes No
27 02:51 – 03:38 47 Yes Yes 27 01:19 – 03:26 127 Yes Yes
28 03:26 – 09:00 334 Yes No 28 00:00 – 00:16 16 Yes Yes
29 04:10 – 07:44 214 Yes No 29 00:30 – 00:59 29 Yes Yes
30 03:35 – 04:10 35 No Yes 30 03:43 – 04:44 61 Yes Yes
31 02:22 – 02:44 22 Yes Yes 31 04:44 – 05:46 62 Yes Yes
32 01:49 – 04:35 166 Yes No 32 04:13 – 04:46 33 Yes No
33 00:18 – 01:07 49 Yes No 33 04:46 – 04:56 10 No No
34 00:49 – 01:26 37 Yes Yes 34 00:42 – 02:10 88 Yes No
35 02:08 – 02:29 21 Yes No 35 02:10 – 03:43 93 Yes Yes
36 02:02 – 03:19 77 Yes Yes 36 04:01 – 04:52 42 Yes No
37 03:58 – 04:40 42 Yes No 37 00:02 – 00:41 39 No Yes
38 00:07 – 00:57 50 Yes Yes 38 01:15 – 01:33 18 Yes No
39 02:14 – 04:28 134 Yes Yes 39 04:32 – 08:12 220 Yes Yes
40 02:23 - 03:31 68 Yes No 40 03:51 – 05:00 69 Yes Yes
41 03:51 – 03:53 2 Yes No 41 01:17 – 04:56 219 Yes Yes
42 03:26 – 06:18 172 Yes Yes 42 02:41 – 03:21 40 No No
43 02:20 – 02:29 9 Yes No 43 01:36 – 01:51 15 Yes No
44 03:51 – 04:32 41 Yes No 44 04:32 – 04:53 21 Yes No
45 02:57 – 04:00 63 Yes Yes
46 00:00 – 00:09 9 Yes No Total Time: 3558
47 02:33 – 04:00 87 No Yes
Total Time: 3700
*Note: These moments are not in order of occurrence, but in order of how they were coded.
These moments have no numerical relation to the moments discussed in Chapter 4.
148
It is interesting that the Mac Family, who had a music teacher mother, had actually less
parental influence across their sibling musical interactions compared to the Perez Family. This is
the opposite of what the literature suggests (Custodero & Johnson-Green, 2003; Illari, 2005). Of
those parental influences for the Mac Family, a majority of them contained participation relating
to talking about music or offering instruction and less had music making with the children. When
Alexis Mac made music with her children, she sang very quietly. It is possible that Alexis was
less involved in participating with her children because she wanted her children to have more
autonomy in their music making and this was influenced by her music teacher background. I am
certain that throughout the study she was more aware of her children’s music making, as she told
me such was true in conversations I had with her in subsequent conversations. Therefore, what is
more likely however, is that as the parent co-researcher and music teacher since she was more
aware the purpose of the study was to investigate sibling music making, she decided to disengage
so that their interactions would come through without her influence. It is also interesting that
almost every Perez sibling musical interaction that had a parent influence or participate had the
Maria Perez involved via music making with her children. I anticipate had Alexis Mac not
known the study was directly looking at her children’s music making, she (as Maria) would have
engaged in more music making with them.
Both the Perez and Mac families incorporated recorded music via the radio and playlists
on cellular phones during their travel. Children from both families demonstrated both active and
passive music listening. Active music listening was evident as children engaged with the music
they were listening to, demonstrating an awareness of it. While passive music listening does not
imply that children were not listening to the music of their surroundings, there was no evidence
in these moments that the children were actually attending to the music in a deliberate way. The
149
only reason this designation was important in this study was because in moments where
children’s active music listening was not evident, these moments were not included in the timing
provided in understanding the sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle. The amount of
time described in these sibling musical interactions for both families may therefore actually be
higher than described, if passive music listening is included. Nevertheless, sibling musical
interactions were interspersed throughout most of the car trips throughout the week for each
family.
Research Question 5: Sibling Deidentification and Observational Learning
What do the processes of observational learning and deidentification look like in sibling musical
interactions within the family vehicle?
Deidentification and observational learning were present in both families throughout the
week. This section is designed to describe observed ways that both possible deidentification and
observational learning were observed throughout the study. I do not claim that every type of
described momentary deidentification and/or observational learning happened for every child
within both families. Rather this section was designed to give an overview of what observed
deidentification and observational learning processes looked like so that similar processes may
be identified in future studies.
Sibling deidentification presented itself in two ways throughout the study: 1) by means of
a child not participating in music making, as well as, 2) by means of children finding their own
ways to participate that was distinctly separate from their siblings. Possible deidentification
within the study often presented through sibling differentiation, and while experiences varied
from family to family, it was consistent that across both cases, this separation of preferences,
tastes, and/or ways to respond to music making, that ultimately can influence a child view
150
toward their identity, often happened in response to a parent rather than a sibling. When criticism
was present, children sought approval from their parent, which resulted in a lack of music
making and differentiation from one or more siblings within a moment. Furthermore, as parents
shared their musical tastes (similar to Pitts, 2012), children sought to adhere to their parent
preferences and therefore momentarily deidentified with a sibling who was not in agreement and
was making music in a way that was outside of the support of the parental preference.
Sibling deidentification processes were also present in sibling musical interactions that
were first initiated between the siblings as conflicts between them arose. When the outcome of
these conflicts resulted in more parental involvement, one of the siblings was usually found to
deidentify musically, whereas the alternative was that when the conflict was left for the children
to navigate amongst themselves they did not. This notion of conflict resulting in deidentification
is supported by the findings of Schacter et al. (1976). It was possible that these conflicts led to
feelings of inferiority among the siblings, consistent with Alder’s theory (Ansbacher &
Ansbacher, 1956), which in an effort to work to increase the child’s sense of superiority resulted
in siblings differentiating in their subsequent music making.
Momentary deidentification in this study also took the form of missed opportunities for
children to engage in music. While looking at deidentification for these two cases for such a
short time period that a week is, it is not possible to know the extent that future deidentification
will have. However, over the course of the week as siblings appeared to deidentify, music
making often appeared to decrease compared to the moment right before this momentary
deidentification took place. Often, moments of deidentification were resolved through
negotiating participation, and not avoiding participation altogether. This participation negotiation
still led to a decrease in music making. Such decrease in music making can only be described as
151
a missed opportunity, as it is impossible to know what would have transpired without the
interaction that prompted the differentiation in the first place.
Deidentification was not such a straight-forward process to observe. There were moments
when deidentification processes would expect to resolve negatively such as in rivalry and
conflict, but the opposite was true. This was also found to be the case in Doughty (2015), as not
all activities that prompted sibling rivalry within that study led to deidentification although they
seemed they should.
Observational learning, on the other hand, was found much more frequently in the course
of the week. Observational learning seemed to primarily take the form of sibling’s imitating,
echoing, or copying one another. There were times when observational learning occurred as a
result of a child witnessing another sibling or parent making music and joining them, rather than
strictly imitating them. It also occurred as a result of a child observing a sibling receive praise or
encouragement, so the child observed how this was received and began music making as a result.
Through this observational learning, children learned to increase their music making, and
in doing so, they created a sense of belonging through shared music making with siblings and
parents. The children in this study were observed embracing the musical preferences of both
siblings and parents through observational learning, as was seen in Gingras (2013). Through this
sense of belonging, children were also able to gain a sense of “being with” others in the family
through this inclusive shared experience (see Ilari & Gluschankof, 2009). At times, children were
observed to be included in sibling musical interactions as a result of observational learning,
while at other times music making was merely a tool for them to find inclusion in praise and
encouragement that other children were receiving both from siblings and parents. Observational
152
learning, therefore, prompted children to seek recognition and validation for their own music
making, and accompany their sibling.
The theme of finding acceptance and belonging was very prevalent in sibling musical
interactions involving observational learning. Showcasing the importance of family dynamics,
children often shifted their musical preferences and/or attitudes in addition to their musical
behaviors, which resulted in increased music making. Observational learning provided a way for
children to learn how to participate with the rest of the family without being left out of the
moment and allowed for them to have shared musical partners (see Ilari & Gluschankof, 2009).
Learning was evident throughout the week, in the modes identified as implicit, reactive
and deliberate (Custodero, 2006; Young & Ilari, 2012). In the case of sibling musical
interactions, implicit learning was evident as music listening connected children to learning from
recorded music in the background of another child singing along and/or through listening to
recorded music strictly in the background (as was the case often in the Perez Family), and
through being in the presence of other siblings making music. Observational learning from
listening to the music alone and/or listening to a sibling engaged in music making, in this sense
would not have necessarily been intentional, but still likely. In the case of intentional
observational learning, reactive learning was evident as children reacted to the music making of
their parents and siblings and the responses from each of the aforementioned parties and learned
how to make music and find belonging within those instances. Deliberate learning was also
evident through observational learning as children’s music making was informed as a result of
deliberate parent instruction, and parent and sibling encouragement.
An important component of observational learning found in this study was that memory
influenced known songs being sung, enabling observational learning. Since children often knew
153
the lyrics of songs heard and being sung, they were able to observe the music making of their
siblings and engage in music making collaboratively although not necessarily imitatively. The
youngest participant, David, who was less familiar with the song lyrics relied more heavily on
strict imitation/echoing/copying, than the other older children throughout the study.
In accordance with previous studies (Dunn, 1983; Whiteman & Christensen, 2008), older
siblings often served as musical models for their younger siblings, whereas the younger siblings
participated more often in deidentification. While Whiteman et al. (2007a) identified three
groups of siblings—those who modeled, those who deidentified, and neither—, the present study
only observed the first two of the three groups and they were blurred together depending on the
specific moment of sibling musical interaction observed. This likely demonstrates that the
siblings in the study shared a closeness that allowed them to connect and influence each other,
rather than being disinterested and disconnected from each other.
Research Question 6: Positive and Negative Musical Interactions
Of observed sibling musical interactions, which ones may promote or hinder observational
learning and/or deidentification processes and as a result promote or hinder music making?
Across the moments containing sibling musical interactions, both positive and negative
musical interactions were observed. Interestingly, both of these interaction types were observed
at times included within the same moment. Sibling influences and parent influences within
sibling musical interactions were not consistent in outcome, with no indication of whether a
positive or negative musical interaction could be expected based on the influence. For example,
collaborative exchanges about repertoire were found (as in Custodero, 2006). At times, these
exchanges led to differentiation and decreased music making, while in other times they led to
observational learning and increased music making. Parental and/or sibling encouragement was
154
another influence that either resulted in increased music making or decreased music making
dependent upon how it was perceived by the child it was directed toward.
The types of positive musical interactions that were observed across both studies included
siblings embodied and verbal cues, eye contact, and gentle reinforcing touches. Since these
behaviors were found to promote positive musical interactions, it is also worth considering that
these behaviors also indicate prosocial behavior. Hughes et al. (2018) found sibling interactions
in combination with the “sibling” role and complementary relationship to offer an introduction
for understanding sibling influences on prosocial behavior. Through a review of other studies,
Hughes et al. (2018) presented emergent themes related to how siblings might influence one
another’s prosocial behavior. Themes from this review found that prosocial behaviors
encouraged children to participate in an enjoyable activity, allowed older children to teach and
care for younger children providing nurturance, and also offered parents opportunities to
intervene and mediate children’s relationships. Children, in turn, will copy siblings’ behaviors as
they receive praise and therefore model their behavior after them (Hughes et al., 2018). Prosocial
behaviors, then, seemingly contribute not only to positive musical interactions, but to
observational learning, being connected with the theme of belonging in the present study.
Therefore, within music research, prosocial behaviors fit within the influence of what
Forrester (2010) identifies as musicality as a social practice, and contribute to what Ilari and
Gluschankof (2009) identify as the desire for young children to engage in belonging. Hence
when these social influences and behaviors mean that siblings engage in sibling musical
interactions that promote positive musical interactions, the result is increased music making. It is
also possible that when these social influences and behaviors lead to other activities, it may result
in decreased music making.
155
As children found belonging through sibling musical interactions within the family
vehicle, the result was frequently increased music making. Children’s social agency also led to
increased music making when children were given the power to choose the recorded music that
was played in the family vehicle. When children’s musical preferences were acknowledged and
musical requests were fulfilled, the result was increased music making from the child who was
granted the power. At times this led to increased music making for the siblings as well, although
other times when this introduced conflict to the power balance another child may have had in the
moment, it did not increase music making for the affected sibling.
Negative musical interactions were present when children’s requests and/or preferences
went unrecognized, when there were distractions present, when children were observed to be
disputing/arguing, and as a result of interruption from siblings and/or parents. Consistent with
research showing that conflict can add to deidentification (Schacter et al., 1976), when conflicts
were created through a lack of belonging such as through arguments and/or requests being
disregarded, the outcome was often decreased music making. The presence of distractions from
books, non-plush toys, food, and drinks also resulted in decreased music making as children’s
attention was taken away from music making and directed toward the alternate activity.
Furthermore, interruptions resulted in decreased music making and these interruptions came
from both parents and siblings via asking questions, making comments, changing the topic, and
the like.
Parental Influences
Prior to the study, the demographic surveys completed by the co-researchers were
completed to not only aid in understanding the members of the family in terms of age, education
and race, but also to understand the family members musical background. For both families, the
156
information presented in the survey was confirmed through observation throughout the course of
the week, and the mothers’ perceptions were found to be accurate in terms of daily travel,
activities within the car, types of music making the kids participated in, and styles of music
heard. This demonstrated that mothers were very aware of their children within these spaces and
at least aware of some of the influences they had on their children, such as music heard and
activities children participated in within the space of the family vehicle, prior to the start of the
study.
Considering the role of parental influences further across the study, secondary findings
were evident in regard to musical parenting. Within the present study, parents were seen using
their influence to shape family values through discussion with their children about the music
selection, message behind certain lyrics and the genres of music heard. This was consistent with
the findings in Ilari (2017) that parents have appropriate beliefs about music, and Gingras (2013)
that parents use music to transmit family values. Also, as was found in Ilari (2017), through their
agency, mothers, the mothers were observed using music to transmit knowledge to their children.
This knowledge included the styles of music that was important including musicals and Christian
music, as well as activities where music is present and important such as dancing and gym
music.
Musical parenting also meant that in the present study parents, and most often the
mothers, used music as a tool to help them accomplish their will, such as when children were not
adhering to a request or instruction prior to a parent engaging in music making and/or turning
off/changing music. The mothers also were observed to influence the presence of recorded
music, through negotiating conflict among their children by playing gatekeeper to the recorded
music played in the vehicle. At times, parents yielded the musical decisions to their children and
157
at other times they went by their own listening preferences. Music was also observed to be a tool
that parents used to connect their children to themselves, which included using music to share
past experiences, reflecting on parent’s own childhood memories, as well as musical
backgrounds and songs from that period.
Suggestions for Future Research
Children in the present study spent a lot of time traveling in cars over the course of a
week and as such, were naturally in close proximity to each other for a large amount of time each
week. As a result, several sibling musical interactions in each family vehicle were observed over
the course of a week. The family vehicle in the present study provided a musical stimulating and
rich environment to observe and learn from. While the extension to other families cannot be
certain, especially as these families both were homeschooling their children and other families
with less time together may spend less time in the car, it is likely that children in other families
spend at least a portion of their time in their own family vehicles and likely engage in their own
sibling musical interactions as well, and this is a point that deserves further study. The present
study began an exploration of sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle and further
studies could build upon the work that has been done with other families to contribute to the
broader understanding of sibling musical interactions, observational learning, and
deidentification processes.
Furthermore, sibling musical interactions seem to result in observational learning and
deidentification. While the lines between the two may be blurred and what causes one child to
imitate and another to differentiate varies depending on the circumstance and the child, one thing
is certain is that siblings are very important in the music making of one another. Future research
should continue to look at these reciprocal sibling models and investigate how siblings impact
158
one another’s music making in other places within everyday life beyond just the family vehicle.
Additionally, as deidentification and identity development become clearer over time, future
research could continue to build upon investigating sibling deidentification when it comes to
musical identity development in more of a longitudinal manner.
Finally, future research should continue to have parents take on the role of co-
researchers, in order to gain access to everyday life settings that outside researchers would not
have access to. By using parents as co-researchers, parents will likely learn more about their
children as they more closely observe them. This will also help alleviate concerns of intrusion, as
parents are a daily part of their children’s lives and are not intrusive in untypical ways. Further
study should be done on how parents benefit or not through participation as co-researchers and
how this may impact their children’s music making.
Conclusion and Implications
“Children are astute observers of their social world, such that interactions between parents and
between parents and children are very likely to shape how siblings behave toward each other.”
(Hughes et al., 2018, p. 99)
Sibling musical interactions in the family vehicle were prevalent and informative
throughout the course of a week when examining two families. These interactions were not cut
and dry, and contained mixtures of positive and negative musical interactions within the same
overarching moment identified as a sibling musical interaction. While observational learning
processes were more abundant than deidentification processes, there were sibling musical
interaction moments where these processes clearly intersected. Encompassing most moments
was the influence of the desire to find inclusion in a shared activity, as well as belonging within
the family.
159
By using a video camera within the natural space of the family vehicle, aided by parent
co-researchers, I was able to have an insider’s view at sibling musical interactions. What I found
was a musically rich environment that stimulated spontaneous music making, music listening,
and family discussions around musical topics. While several moments throughout the week
captured an awareness of the camera on behalf of the children, the study was unlikely impacted,
as behaviors were not adjusted in those moments. Likewise, children engaged in behaviors that
were unlikely to occur in the presence of an outside researcher, which had the camera been
influential they would have likely halted.
In so far as both parents and educators are concerned with increasing and improving the
music making of their children and students, this study provides support for considering the
influence of siblings on the music making of each other. As siblings offer peer models for
children, the desire and need to belong will shape how children learn from each other. Parents
should be wary of their influence in terms of how their participation in their child’s music
making can foster or hinder musical participation. This at times is dependent upon on how
siblings are allowed to share in the music making or find approval from their parents.
Encouragement may not always work for every child and may result in decreased music making
instead of the intended increase.
As with parents, there are implications for those adults in a similar role of authority
within a child’s life depending on a different social situation. For teachers, sibling musical
interactions and likely reciprocal peer interactions may encourage or discourage music making
within the classroom. This likely depends on how the participants within the classroom—peers,
siblings, teacher— offer a sense belonging to children. Music teachers often may find that they
have taught multiple siblings within a family, and should be wary to offer comparison between
160
the siblings, lest it may lead to rivalry and competition that could decrease the music making of
their student and lead to deidentification processes.
Children will navigate their own music making using their own agency, and the social
agency afforded at times via musical preferences and power. Just as the opening quote of the
section suggests that children’s behaviors are shaped based on social observations and
interactions (Hughes et al., 2018), children’s musical behaviors are found to be included within
this. As such, this study suggests that allowing siblings to participate in musical interactions is
likely to increase music making far more than decrease it, although further study is needed to
support this more broadly. So long as adults, such as parents and teachers, stay out of sibling
musical interactions that result in conflict and/or rivalry, these complications to music making
are likely to be resolved by siblings in a way that allow both children to share in the activity
together. This may lead to a shift in attitudes, musical preferences, and musical behaviors that
accommodate their siblings, or it may lead to negotiation of what future music making looks
like. For young children, this may mean that observational learning may accommodate siblings
and allow for increased music making. Alternatively, a decrease in music making may be
observed; however, any momentary deidentification/differentiation as a result is likely to occur
through a negotiation of roles/participation rather than outright abandonment of music making
within young children. Sibling musical interactions in the present study were highly influenced
by children’s need and desire to share in music making together, find inclusion, and belonging.
As long as children enjoyed their music making and the sibling musical interaction that stemmed
from it, they continued to engage in the moment. The implication then is that the same may be
true for other siblings as well, who may further their musical development through such
spontaneous music making activities. This is worthy of further study.
161
References
Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler. New
York: Basic Books.
Aronovitch, P. (2012). The relationship between the existence of older siblings and child
language (M.S.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1112060918).
ATLAS.ti, Qualitative Data Analysis (Version 8.1.3, build 522) [Computer Software]. Berlin,
Germany: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 2(1), 21-41.
Barrett, J. (2014-07-01). Case Study in Music Education. In The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative
Research in American Music Education: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2018,
from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801998442
72.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199844272-e-007.
Barrett, M. (2003). Meme engineers: Children as producers of musical culture. International
Journal of Early Years Education, 11(3), 15-212.
Bjorkland D. F. (2012). Children’s Thinking: Cognitive Development and Individual Differences.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Borthwick, S. J., & Davidson, J. W. (2002). Family dynamics and family scripts: A case study of
musical development. Psychology of Music, 30(1), 121-136.
162
Bridges, K., & Hoff, E. (2014). Older sibling influences on the language environment and
language development of toddlers in bilingual homes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(2), 225-
241.
Brody, G. H., Kim, S., Murry, V. M., & Brown, A. C. (2003). Longitudinal direct and indirect
pathways linking older sibling competence to the development of younger sibling
competence. Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 618-628.
Byrn, M. D., & Hourigan, R. (2010). A comparative case study of music interactions between
mothers and infants. Contributions to Music Education, 37(1), 65-79.
Cali, C. (2015). Music in family: Experiences of mutuality in middle childhood (Order No.
3707244). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global. (1695831165).
Costa-Giomi, C., & Benetti, L. (2017). Through a baby’s ears: Musical interactions in a family
community. International Journal of Community Music, 10(3), 289-303.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. 4
th
Ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Custodero, L.A. (2006). Singing practices in 10 families with young children. Journal of
Research in Music Education, 54(1), 37-56.
Custodero, L. A. (2007). Responding to the ecologies of music making in early childhood. Orff
Echo, 39(3), 45-48.
163
Custodero, L. A., Cali, C., & Diaz-Donoso, A. (2016). Music as transitional object and practice:
Children’s spontaneous musical behaviors in the subway. Research Studies in Music
Education, 38(1), 55-74.
Custodero, L. A., & Johnson-Green, E. A. (2003). Passing the cultural torch: Musical experience
and musical parenting of infants. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2), 102-
114.
Danacý, M. Ö., Çetin, Z., & Doðan, Ö. (2015). The effect of adolescents' reading children's
literature to their younger siblings on their book reading habits. Creative Education, 6(18),
2013-2020.
Davies, J. J., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Responses to children's media use in families with and
without siblings: A family development perspective. Family Relations, 61(3), 410-425.
DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.
de Vries, P. (2005). Lessons from home: Scaffolding vocal improvisations and song acquisition
with a 2-year-old. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(5). 307-312.
de Vries, P. (2009). Music at home with the under-fives: What is happening? Early Child
Development & Care, 179(4), 395-405.
de Vries, P. (2011). An 8-year-old’s engagement with preferred music: A case study. Research
Studies in Music Education, 33(2), 161-177.
Doughty, S. E. (2015). Sibling differentiation in activity interests: Longitudinal linkages to
sibling relationship quality and self-worth (Order No. 10025228). Available from ProQuest
Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (1770111131).
164
Downey, D. B. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children's
educational performance. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 746-761.
Downey, D. B., & Condron, D. J. (2004). Playing well with others in kindergarten: The benefit
of siblings at home. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2), 333-350.
Dunn, J. (1983). Sibling relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54(4), 787-811.
Egbert, J., & Sanden, S. (2014). Foundations of education research: Understanding theoretical
components. New York & Abingdon: Routledge.
Flohr, J. W. (2010). Best practices for young children's music education: Guidance from brain
research. General Music Today (Online), 23(2), 13-19.
Flohr, J. W., & Trevarthen, C. (2007). Music learning in childhood: Early developments of a
musical brain and body. In W. Gruhn, & F. Rauscher (Eds.), Neurosciences in music
pedagogy (pp. 53-99). Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Forrester, M. A. (2010). Emerging musicality during the pre-school years: A case study of one
child. Psychology of Music, 38(2), 131-158.
Forrester, M. A., & Borthwick-Hunter, E. (2015). Understanding the development of musicality:
Contributions from longitudinal studies. Psychomusicology, 25(2), 93-102.
Gibson, R. E. (2009). Musical parenting: An ethnographic account of musical interactions of
parents and young children (Order No. 3377340). Available from ProQuest Central;
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Social
Science Database. (305015781).
Gingras, P. (2013). Music at home: A portrait of family music-making (Ph.D.). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(1318666604).
165
Gluschankof, C. (2005). Spontaneous musical behaviors in Israeli Jewish and Arab
kindergartens- Searching for universal principles within cultural differences. PhD
dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Hargreaves, D., MacDonald, R., & Miell, D. (2012-08-08). Musical Identities Mediate Musical
Development. In The Oxford Handbook of Music Education, Volume 1.: Oxford University
Press. Retrieved 19 Feb. 2018, from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801997308
10.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199730810-e-8.
Hargreaves, D., & North, A. (Eds). (1997). The social psychology of music. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hoffman, L. W. (1991). The influence of the family environment on personality: Accounting for
sibling differences. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 187-203.
Howe, N., & Recchia, H. (2005). Playmates and teachers: Reciprocal and complementary
interactions between siblings. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(4), 497-502.
Hughes, C., McHarg, G., & White, N. (2017). Sibling influences on prosocial behavior. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 20, 96-101.
Ilari, B. (2005). On musical parenting of young children: Musical beliefs and behaviors of
mothers and infants. Early Child Development and Care, 175 (7&8), 647-660.
Ilari, B. (2017) Saramouche goes to preschool: The complex matrix of young children’s
everyday music. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(1), 1-9.
Ilari, B., & Gluschkanof, C. (2009). Music in the early years: Research, theory and practice.
Early Childhood Development and Care, 179(6), 685-693.
166
Ilari, B., & Young, S. (2016). Children's home musical experiences across the world.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kabuto, B. (2008). Parent-research as a process of inquiry: An ethnographic perspective.
Ethnography and Education, 3(2), 161-177.
Koops, L. I. (2014). Songs from the car seat: Exploring the early childhood music-making place
of the family vehicle. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(1), 52-65.
Kramer, L., & Gottman, J. M. (1992). Becoming a sibling: "with a little help from my
friends.". Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 685-699.
Matsunobu, K., & Bresler, L. (2014-07-01). Qualitative Research in Music Education: Concepts,
Goals and Characteristics. In The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American
Music Education: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 3 Feb. 2018, from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801998442
72.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199844272-e-002.
McHale, S. M., Updegraff, K. A., & Whiteman, S. D. (2012). Sibling relationships and
influences in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 913-930.
Pitts, S. (2012). Chances and choices: Exploring the impact of music education. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Regelski, T. A. (2004). Social theory, and music and music education as praxis. Action,
Criticism, and Theory for Music education, 3(3), 1-52.
Ruggles, S., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Grover, J. & Sobek, M. (2017). Integrated Public Use
Microdata Series: Version 7.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V7.0.
Schachter, F. F., Shore, E., Feldman-Rotman, S., Marquis, R. E., & Campbell, S. (1976). Sibling
167
deidentification. Developmental Psychology, 12(5), 418-427.
Semiotic adj. and n. (1986) In OED Online. Retrieved from
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/175722.
Sole, M. (2014). Songs from the crib: Toddlers' private bedtime vocalizations. A collective case
study (Order No. 3613567). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text;
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1512222571).
Sparrman, A. (2005). Video recording as interaction: Participant observation of children’s
everyday life. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(3), 241-255.
Stauffer, S. (2012-05-25). Place, Music Education, and the Practice and Pedagogy of Philosophy.
In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy in Music Education. : Oxford University Press.
Retrieved 5 Feb. 2018, from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801953947
33.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195394733-e-023.
Trehub, S. E., Unyk, A. M., & Henderson, J. L. (1994). Children's songs to infant siblings:
Parallels with speech. Journal of Child Language, 21(3), 735-744.
Trehub, S. E., Unyk, A. M., Kamenetsky, S. B., Hill, D. S., Trainor, L. J., Henderson, J. L., &
Saraza, M. (1997). Mothers' and fathers' singing to infants. Developmental Psychology,
33(3), 500-507.
Trehub, S. E., Unyk, A. M., & Trainor, L. J. (1993). Adults identify infant-directed music across
cultures. Infant Behavior & Development, 16(2), 193-211.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2014). Holistic
early childhood development index (HECDI) Framework: A technical guide. Paris, France:
168
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Retrieved 28 Feb. 2018,
from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002157/215729E.pdf.
Vignoles V.L., Schwartz S.J., Luyckx K. (2011). Introduction: Toward an Integrative View of
Identity. In: Schwartz S., Luyckx K., Vignoles V. (eds). Handbook of Identity Theory and
Research. Springer, New York, NY
VLC Media Player (Version 2.2.6 Umbrella) [Computer Software]. Paris, France: VideoLAN.
Volling, B. L., Youngblade, L. M., & Belsky, J. (1997). Young children's social relationships
with siblings and friends. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67(1), 102-111.
Whiteman, S. D. (2004). Competing processes of sibling influence: Social learning and sibling
deidentification (Order No. 3157590). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full
Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305146015).
Whiteman, S. D., & Christiansen, A. (2008). Processes of sibling influence in adolescence:
Individual and family correlates*. Family Relations, 57(1), 24-34.
Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2007a). Competing processes of sibling
influence: Observational learning and sibling deidentification. Social Development, 16(4),
642-661.
Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2007b). Explaining sibling similarities:
Perceptions of sibling influences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(7), 963-972.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6
th
Ed. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Young, S. (2012). Musical childhoods. In O. N. Saracho, & B. Spodek (Eds.), Handbook of
research on the education of young children (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Young, S., & Ilari, B. (2012-08-08). Musical Participation from Birth to Three: Toward a Global
169
Perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of Music Education, Volume 1. : Oxford
University Press. Retrieved 25 Feb. 2018, from
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019973
0810.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199730810-e-17.
170
Song References
Anderson-Lopez, K., & Lopez, R. (2013). For the first time in forever [Recorded by Kristen Bell
and Idina Menzel]. On Frozen: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack [MP3 file]. Burbank,
CA: Walt Disney Records.
Anderson-Lopez, K., & Lopez, R. (2013). Let It Go [Recorded by Idina Menzel]. On Frozen:
Original Motion Picture Soundtrack [MP3 file]. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Records.
Ayala, R., Ender, E., & Rodriguez, L. (2016). Despacito [Recorded by Luis Fonsi and Daddy
Yankee, featuring Justin Bieber]. On Despacito [Radio]. Los Angeles, CA: Universal
Latin.
Bart, L. (1963). Who will buy. On Oliver! The Original Broadway Cast Recording [MP3]. New
York, NY: Masterworks Broadway.
Ekko, M., & Parker, J. (2012). Stay [Recorded by Rihanna, featuring Mikky Ekko]. On
Unapologetic [Radio]. West Hollywood, CA: NightBird Recording Studios.
Hammerstein, O. (Lyricist), & Rodgers, R. (Composer). (1959). Do re mi. The Sound of Music.
New York, NY: Columbia Masterworks.
Minchin, T. (2014). Revolting children [Recorded by Original Broadway Cast]. On Matilda The
Musical: Original Broadway Cast Recording [MP3 file]. New York, NY: Broadway
Records/Yellow Sound Label.
Minchin, T. (2014). When I grow up/Naughty (Reprise) [Recorded by Original Broadway Cast].
On Matilda The Musical: Original Broadway Cast Recording [MP3 file]. New York,
NY: Broadway Records/Yellow Sound Label
Miranda, L.M. (2015). My shot [Recorded by Miranda, L.M., Odom, L. J., Ramos, A., Diggs,
171
D., & Onaodowan, O.]. On Hamilton an American musical: Original Broadway Cast
Recording [MP3 file]. Los Angeles, CA: Atlantic Recording Corporation.
Miranda, L.M. (2016). How far I’ll go [Recorded by Auli’i Cravalho]. On Moana:
Original Picture Soundtrack [MP3 file]. Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Records.
White, M., McKay, A., & Willis, A. (1978). September [Recorded by Earth, Wind and Fire].
September [MP3 file] New York, NY: Columbia.
172
Appendix A: IRB Study Approval Letter
2/ 19/ 2018 ht t ps : / / i s t a r .us c .e du/ i S t a r/ D oc / 0/ U 5H P Q I7D RJ 14H 3IA 7U 599P R4CA / from S t ri ng.ht m l
ht t ps : / / i s t a r .us c .e du/ i S t a r/ D oc / 0/ U 5H P Q I7D RJ 14H 3IA 7U 599P R4CA / from S t ri ng.ht m l 1/ 3
University of Southern California University Park Institutional Review Board
3720 South Flower Street Credit Union Building (CUB) #301
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702
Phone: 213-821-5272
Fax: 213-821-5276
upirb@usc.edu
Date: Apr 20, 2017, 08:43am
Action Taken: Approve
Principal
Investigator:
Alissa Chitwood
THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
Faculty
Advisor:
Beatriz Ilari
THORNTON SCHOOL OF MUSIC
Co-
Investigator(s):
Project Title: Musical Interactions In Family Vehicles
Study ID: UP-17-00184
Funding Types: No Funding
The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee determined that your project meets the
requirements outlined in 45 CFR 46.110 categories (6) & (7) to receive expedited review. This study was found
to involve no more than minimal risk and was approved on 04/19/2017. In approving this research, the IRB
determined that all of the requirements under 45 CFR 46.111 and 45 CFR 46.404 (relating to minors) were
satisfied. Minors are not eligible to participate.
The study has been approved for a period of one year. If you plan to continue this study beyond the expiration
date of 04/18/2018, you are required to submit a continuing review application to the UPIRB at least one month
before the study is set to expire. No study-related activities may be conducted once the expiration date has
passed.
The following materials were reviewed and approved:
Approved Child Assent Form, dated 04-15-2017
Approved Information Sheet for Secondary Participants, dated 04-16-2017
Approved Parental Permission Form, dated 04-16-2017
Approved Recruitment Tool, dated 04-16-2017
Approved Youth Assent Form, dated 04-16-2017
Minor revisions were made to the recruitment and consent documents by the IRB Administrator. The IRBA
revised documents have been uploaded into the relevant iStar sections. If revisions are made to the application,
and changes are required to the documents, please create an amendment, at which time the IRBA revised
documents will become available to the study personnel. All current changes must be accepted using the track
changes feature in Microsoft Word and the changes saved. The study personnel can then revise the documents,
173
2/ 19/ 2018 ht t ps : / / i s t a r .us c .e du/ i S t a r/ D oc / 0/ U 5H P Q I7D RJ 14H 3IA 7U 599P R4CA / from S t ri ng.ht m l
ht t ps : / / i s t a r .us c .e du/ i S t a r/ D oc / 0/ U 5H P Q I7D RJ 14H 3IA 7U 599P R4CA / from S t ri ng.ht m l 2/ 3
including the date in the footer. The PI/study staff revised documents must then be uploaded into iStar using the
"upload revisions" function; thereby replacing the obsolete documents. Please do not remove the obsolete
version from the application.
To access IRB-approved documents, click on the “Approved Documents” link in the study workspace.
These are also available under the “Documents” tab.
Researchers are reminded that Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) is mandatory for all
investigators on NSF grants, as well as some NIH training awards, and PHS traineeships. The Good
Clinical Practice (GCP) certificate is required for studies which are determined to meet NIH’s Clinical
Trail determination.
Researchers are reminded that as mandated reporters, they must report all instances of suspected child
abuse, per USC policies at http://policy.usc.edu/mandated-reporters/
Principal Investigator Responsibilities:
As the Principal Investigator, you are required to ensure that this research, and the actions of all project
personnel involved, will conform with the protocol and its modifications as approved by the IRB; as well as
HHS regulations (45 CFR 46); IRB Policies and Procedures; and applicable state laws.
You must inform the IRB immediately if you become aware of any violations to the approved protocol, HHS
regulations (45 CFR 46), IRB Policies and Procedures or applicable state laws. You are responsible for
reporting any unanticipated adverse events or injuries to the IRB no later than 10 business days from their time
of occurrence, using the Reportable Event activity in iStar. You are also required to inform the IRB immediately
of any significant negative changes in the risk/benefit relationship of the research; as well as of any actions by
the sponsor or funding agency, including warnings, suspension or termination of your participation in this
research. Failure to comply may result in suspension or termination of the research project, notification of
appropriate governmental agencies by the IRB, and/or suspension of your freedom to present or publish results.
Any proposed changes in the research project must be submitted, reviewed and approved by the IRB before
they can be implemented. The only exceptions are changes necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards
to the research subjects, which can be made immediately, and must be reported to the IRB within 5 business
days of implementation.
You must maintain all required research records and recognize that the IRB is authorized to inspect these
records at its digression. A final progress report is required by the IRB upon completion or termination of the
study.
Informed Consent:
Informed consent must be obtained in the research participants’ native or preferred languages. If a participant
speaks Spanish and the informed consent document has been translated into Spanish, you must utilize the
Spanish Informed Consent document, the Spanish Experimental Subject's Bill of Rights and the Spanish HIPAA
Authorization form.
For participants who speak other languages, you must have a translator verbally translate the English informed
consent document for each participant, and, if applicable, you must provide each participant with a Short Form
and Experimental Subject’s Bill of Rights in their preferred language (available on the IRB website in multiple
languages: http://www.usc.edu/admin/provost/oprs/hsirb/forms).
“Assent” means a child’s affirmative agreement to participate in research. Researchers are reminded that
mere failure to object should not, absent affirmative agreement, be construed as assent
STUDIES INVOLVING A WAIVER OF SIGNED CONSENT:
The waiver of signed consent has been approved under 45 CFR 46.117(c)(2) for the secondary participants only.
174
2/ 19/ 2018 ht t ps : / / i s t a r .us c .e du/ i S t a r/ D oc / 0/ U 5H P Q I7D RJ 14H 3IA 7U 599P R4CA / from S t ri ng.ht m l
ht t ps : / / i s t a r .us c .e du/ i S t a r/ D oc / 0/ U 5H P Q I7D RJ 14H 3IA 7U 599P R4CA / from S t ri ng.ht m l 3/ 3
All submissions, including new applications, contingency responses, amendments and continuing reviews are
reviewed in the order received.
Attachments:
Social-behavioral health-related interventions or health-outcome studies must register with c l i n i c al tr i al s .gov or
other International Community of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) approved registries in order to be published
in an ICJME journal. The ICMJE will not accept studies for publication unless the studies are registered prior to
enrollment, despite the fact that these studies are not applicable “clinical trials” as defined by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). For support with registration, go to www.clinicaltrials.gov or contact Jean Chan (
jeanbcha@usc.edu, 323-442-2825).
Approved Documents: view
This is an auto-generated email. Please do not respond directly to this message using the "reply" address. A
response sent in this manner cannot be answered. If you have further questions, please contact iStar Support at
(323) 276-2238 or istar@usc.edu.
The contents of this email are confidential and intended for the specified recipients only. If you have received
this email in error, please notify istar@usc.edu and delete this message.
175
Appendix B: Child Consent Form
176
Appendix C: Parental Permission Form
177
178
179
180
Appendix D: Parent Participant Consent Form
181
182
183
184
185
Appendix E: Youth Assent Form
186
187
188
189
Appendix F: Secondary Passenger Information Sheet
190
191
192
Appendix G: Recruitment Script
193
Parent Travel Journal
Driver: _________________ Date: __________________ Time (if applicable): ______________________
Travel began: ____________________________________________________________
Travel destination: ________________________________________________________
Notable sibling interactions: ____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Contextual information: _______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Parent Travel Journal
Driver: _________________ Date: __________________ Time (if applicable): ______________________
Travel began: ____________________________________________________________
Travel destination: ________________________________________________________
Notable sibling interactions: ____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Contextual information: _______________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Notes: _____________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix H: Parent Travel Journal
194
Appendix I: Demographic Background Survey
Sibling Musical Interactions in the Family Vehicle Between Children Ages 0-15
Dear Parent/Guardian, Thank you very much for taking the time to participate in this study.
Please answer the following questions at the best of your knowledge. Most of the questions
require only a check mark or a short answer. All responses will be treated confidentially and
coded, so that only the principal researcher will be able to link the anonymous survey with the
video/interview data. All results will be shared with you once the study is completed.
1. Demographics
1.1 Who are you? (circle one)
Children’s mother
Children’s father
Other (who?) ___________________
1.2 How would you classify your marital status? (circle one)
Married Single Divorced Other____________
1.3 How many members are in your household? ___________________
1.4 Neighborhood/City where you live: _______________________________________
1.5 Please complete the following information for each member of your household:
Parent 1 (Yourself)
Birthdate: _________________________________________
Occupation: _________________________________________
Ethnicity: _________________________________________
Highest educational degree: _________________________________________
Parent 2 (check one) ____Mother ____Father ____Other (who:____________)
Birthdate: _________________________________________
Occupation: _________________________________________
Ethnicity: _________________________________________
Highest educational degree: _________________________________________
Child 1 (check one) ____Boy ____Girl
Birthdate: _________________________________________
195
2
Ethnicity: _________________________________________
Current grade level in school: _________________________________________
Does this child reside solely in your home? YES NO
IF No, how much time does this child live in your residence? ________________
Child 2 (check one) ____Boy ____Girl
Birthdate: _________________________________________
Ethnicity: _________________________________________
Current grade level in school: _________________________________________
Does this child reside solely in your home? YES NO
IF No, how much time does this child live in your residence? ________________
Child 3 (check one) ____Boy ____Girl
Birthdate: _________________________________________
Ethnicity: _________________________________________
Current grade level in school: _________________________________________
Does this child reside solely in your home? YES NO
IF No, how much time does this child live in your residence? ________________
Child 4 (check one) ____Boy ____Girl
Birthdate: _________________________________________
Ethnicity: _________________________________________
Current grade level in school: _________________________________________
Does this child reside solely in your home? YES NO
IF No, how much time does this child live in your residence? ________________
OTHER INDIVIDUALS Please list anyone else who lives in your household and their
relationship to your children: _______________________________________________
196
3
2. Musical experiences
2.1 Did you take music lessons growing up? YES NO
2.2 If you answered YES to the previous question, what lessons did you take and for how
long?
_______________________________________________________________________
2.3 Do you like to sing? YES SOMETIMES NO
2.4 On a scale of 1 (Hate it) to 5 (love it), how would you rate your liking for music?
HATE IT 1 2 3 4 5 LOVE IT
2.5 How many hours a day do you spend listening or playing music on a typical day?
____ less than 1 hour ___ 1-2 hours ___ 2.5-4 hours ___ 4-6 ____ 7+
2.6 What types of music do you usually listen to? Please name at least 2. (You can also
name composers, bands or interpreters if you prefer) ____________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
2.7 Is this repertoire different from the ones your children hear? YES SOMETIMES NO
If YES, what is different about it and for whom? _______________________________
______________________________________________________________________
3. Musical experiences of families
3.1 Do you normally sing to your children? YES SOMETIMES NO
3.2 IF you answered YES, what songs do you sing?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3.3 Does anybody else sing to your children? YES SOMETIMES NO
If you answered YES, who sings to your children? ___________________________
3.4 What do they sing? ____________________________________________________
197
4
_______________________________________________________________________
3.5 Do you listen to recorded music with your children? YES SOMETIMES NO
IF you answered YES or SOMETIMES, what do you listen to?
_______________________________________________________________________
3.6 Do you do anything together when listening to the music? YES SOMETIMES NO
If you answered YES or SOMETIMES, what do you do?
___________________________________
3.7 Have any of your children ever participated in music classes? YES NO
IF you have answered YES, which child/ren and which classes?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3.8 Are any of your children currently participating in any music classes (e.g., Music
Together, Kindermusik, Gymboree, music lessons, school ensembles, etc?) YES NO
3.9 If you answered YES, which child/ren with what classes and since when?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
3.10 How much interest does each of your children show in music?
Child 1.
(None) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (completely interested)
Child 2.
(None) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (completely interested)
Child 3.
(None) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (completely interested)
Child 4.
(None) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (completely interested)
198
5
4. Family Car Experiences
4.1 Which adult do the children spend the most time with in the car on a daily basis:
Mother/Guardian Father/Guardian Both Parents Equally Other (who?)___________
4.2 How much time do you estimate the children spend in the car on a daily basis?
_______________________________________________________________________
4.3 How much time do you estimate the children spend with their siblings in the car on a
daily basis? _____________________________________________________________
4.4 What places do you find yourself transporting your children to/from?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
4.5 What activities do your children normally do in your car? (check all that apply):
____ Drive
____ Eat/Drink
____ Have a conversation with an adult in the car
____ Listen to music from a source other than the radio
____ Talk on the phone
____ Listen to the radio- music
____ Listen to the radio- talk/sports
____ Watch a movie/television show
____ Sleep
____ Play car games
____ Have a conversation with a child in the car
____ Sing
____ Play on a tablet computer or other handheld electronic device
____ Read a book
____ Color/draw a picture
____ Other (what? ________________________________________________)
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Much of research in the field of music education has focused on the individual child or on the family as a whole with the parents at the helm. Through this research we have learned that the family has strong influences over the music making of children
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Exploring the contributions of teacher authenticity in two high school band programs in Greater Los Angeles
PDF
Recovery from task specific embouchure dystonia in brass players: a multiple case study
PDF
The musical childhoods of Vietnamese and Vietnamese American elders raised in Vietnam between 1931-1975
PDF
Forming relationships: investigating social capital in a low socio-economic school music program
PDF
Case study of constructivist philosophy and policy implementation for music teaching and learning in two elementary schools in Los Angeles
PDF
Transformation of habitus and social trajectories: a retrospective study of a popular music program
PDF
A crafted intergenerational district band: A bounded case study of participant experiences
PDF
Voices from within: perceptions of community youth orchestras and musical identities of child musicians
PDF
Strategic risk-taking in the choral rehearsal
PDF
Collegiate bands and hazing: a study of the perceived effect of anti-hazing policies
PDF
Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States
PDF
Through their song: a case study in social perspective taking with a community college choir
PDF
The relationship between small ensemble experiences, empathy, and emotional self-regulation skills in music students
PDF
Subjective experience, job satisfaction, and professional actions of music teachers as a predictor of flow state
PDF
Mindset and its role in first-year music teachers in differing cultures
PDF
System dynamics of in-home family eating behavior: insights from intensive longitudinal data using Ecological Momentary Assessment and wearable sensors
PDF
Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model
PDF
Spatial and temporal patterns of brain activity associated with emotions in music
PDF
Braver together: exploring the communicative and psychological experiences of LGBTQ youth and families
PDF
Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Chitwood, Alissa Marie
(author)
Core Title
Sibling musical interactions: exploring observational learning and deidentification in the family vehicle
School
Thornton School of Music
Degree
Doctor of Musical Arts
Degree Program
Music Education
Publication Date
04/10/2018
Defense Date
03/20/2018
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
deidentification,family vehicle,music in everyday life,OAI-PMH Harvest,observational learning,sibling musical interactions
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Ilari, Beatriz (
committee chair
), Helfter, Susan (
committee member
), Webster, Peter (
committee member
)
Creator Email
achitwoo@usc.edu,alissachitwood@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-10155
Unique identifier
UC11669380
Identifier
etd-ChitwoodAl-6188.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-10155 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ChitwoodAl-6188.pdf
Dmrecord
10155
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Chitwood, Alissa Marie
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
deidentification
family vehicle
music in everyday life
observational learning
sibling musical interactions