\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Gap between Liking and Listening to Highbrow Music: Examining the Role of the Breadth of Taste, Absorption in Music and Cultural Capital},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2020-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2020)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2020-01-15}
\title{Gap between Liking and Listening to Highbrow Music: Examining the Role of the Breadth of Taste, Absorption in Music and Cultural Capital}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Yevhen  Voronin}

             \affil[1]{  University of Cologne}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 7 December 2019 Accepted: 5 January 2020 Published: 15 January 2020}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


People might like many types of music equally, but they cannot listen to all the music that they prefer with the same frequency. The behavioural pattern requires the selection process. Therefore, the gap between the emotional and behavioural dimensions occurs. This paper focuses on highbrow (sophisticated) music and examines the contribution of three predictors to the gap: 1) the breadth of tastes, 2) absorption in music and 3) cultural capital.By estimating the originally collected dataset among students at the National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy", the factor analysis shows that three genres reflect sophisticated music in the sampleclassical music, jazz and R&B/soul/blues. The gap between the degree of liking and listening is precisely the highest for them.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{musical preferences, cultural omnivorousness, musical omnivorousness, cultural capital}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
esearch in cultural sociology shows that musical tastes (or specific combinations of them, or breadth of preferences) can reflect the position in the social structure \hyperref[b5]{(Bourdieu 1984;}\hyperref[b33]{Peterson 1992}). However, the composition of the construct of musical tastes and its complexity tends to be underestimated in contemporary research. In turn, musical preferences can unfold in three components: 1) Cognitive aspect as knowledge of a specific musical domain; 2) Emotional feedback that indicates the degree of liking; 3) Behavioural practices that indicate the frequency of the engagement patters (such as listening). At the same time, people might like many types of music equally, but they cannot listen to all the music they prefer with the same frequency. Hence, the behavioural pattern requires mostly the selection process. In other words, people both listen and do not listen to the music they "like" according to their decisions.\par
Considering music as an indicator or a product of social stratification (e.g. \hyperref[b5]{Bourdieu 1984;}\hyperref[b33]{Peterson 1992}; Richard A. Peterson and Kern 1996; Peterson and Simkus 1992; Prior 2013), some genres in a specific cultural domain can be considered as highbrow or sophisticated. This taste can be related to the relatively higher classes in the social structure \hyperref[b5]{(Bourdieu 1984)}. Therefore, we assume that musical preferences can be deformed due to different factors such as social desirability and visualised by the gap between emotional and behavioural dimensions of musical taste. By focusing on sophisticated (highbrow) music, this paper raises the question: "What distinguishes those people who select not to listen to highbrow music when they report to like it from people who indicate relatively perfect correspondence between two dimensions. In other words, for whom the gap between degree of liking highbrow musical genres and degree of listening to them is rather bigger or smaller.\par
This study estimates the contribution of main aspects that make differences in cultural sociology to the gap between emotional and behavioural components of musical preferences: 1) The breadth of music people like and listen to as two indicators of cultural omnivorousness (Omnivore-Univore Thesis: \hyperref[b33]{Peterson 1992)}; 2) The level of absorption in music as an indicator of individual emotional response to music (Sandstrom and Russo 2013); 3) Cultural capital (Distinctions: \hyperref[b5]{Bourdieu 1984)}, mainly embedded characteristics as parents' education and behavioural sophisticated patterns. For the effect estimation, an original dataset collected on students from the National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy" (Kyiv, Ukraine) is analysed. This paper enhances the common understanding of musical preferences and inconsistency between emotional and behavioural dimensions. The contribution reflects two perspectives: 1) in-depth research by estimating potential correlates of the gap between degree of liking and listening to highbrow music; 2) debates on cultural omnivorousness by assessing the role of being omnivore from emotional and behavioural viewpoints. From a broader perspective, this research opens a new framework for future development in cultural sociology and reveals a research significance of the different dimensions of the preferences in music. 
\section[{I.}]{I.} 
\section[{Theoretical Framework a) Musical preferences and highbrow genres}]{Theoretical Framework a) Musical preferences and highbrow genres}\par
Musical preferences are connected to personal and social values, identity, and other individual or social aspects \hyperref[b25]{(Horsfall, Meij, and Probstfield 2014)}. Focusing on social stratification, Bourdieu's class theory of taste suggests that cultural preferences reflect (and produce) the positions in the hierarchical social structure \hyperref[b5]{(Bourdieu 1984)}. Habitus, as a navigator, adapts tastes to the aesthetic criteria for a specific class. For example, high positions can correspond to legitimate cultural patterns such as liking classical or jazz music. Hence, the term "highbrow" music reflects the music that is preferred by relatively high-classes. However, the distinctions can appear not only between different music but also within a specific genre \hyperref[b18]{(Frith 1999)}.\par
The audience, nonetheless, can perceive music from different perspectives  {\ref Gosling 2003:1241)}. Even the categories of the analysis differ across research, focusing on genres (Bonneville-Roussy et al. 2013; Chung, Greasley, and Hu 2019; \hyperref[b16]{Elvers et al. 2015)}, specific compositions \hyperref[b14]{(Dixon 1980)}, general attributes \hyperref[b17]{(Finnas 1987;}\hyperref[b47]{Schwartz and Fouts 2003)} or a combination of several dimensions \hyperref[b20]{(George et al. 2007}). Sociologists P.  {\ref I. Gosling (2003:1241)} note that musical tastes should be measured in the categories that people are guided by when assessing preferences in everyday life. The genre characteristics represent one optimal solution \hyperref[b37]{(Prior 2013)}. Fundamental limitations of this approach are that it provides only a "generalised picture of actors' musical tastes and no means of assessing the functional role of music in real lives"  {\ref (Rimmer 2012:313)} and preassumes a singular hierarchy of the cultural legitimacy  {\ref (Rimmer 2012:314)}. Additionally, the categories should consider and reflect the features of the cultural domain.  \hyperref[b42]{(Rentfrow and Gosling 2003)}.\par
The subsequent research proves a better fit of 5-factor solution using the revised questionnaire \hyperref[b40]{(Rentfrow et al. 2011}). Now 23 genres are combined into these five categories: Mellow: (electronica/dance, new age, world), Unpretentious (pop, country, religious), Sophisticated (blues, jazz, bluegrass, folk, classical, gospel, opera), Intense (rock, punk, alternative, heavy metal), Contemporary (rap, soul/r\&b, funk, reggae). This model is called MUSIC and proves to be a robust framework to capture musical tastes \hyperref[b41]{(Rentfrow et al. 2012)}.\par
In the mentioned research on musical preferences, highbrow genres are unified into Sophisticated or Reflective and Complex dimensions. Regardless of the measurement, perception of certain cultural products in terms of social stratification can differ in cultural domains. As an illustration, Bennet et al \hyperref[b1]{(Bennett et al. 2009}) indicates a decline of symbolic value related to classical music in the cultural domain in the United Kingdom. In the following subchapters, a view on sophisticated (highbrow) music is analysed from different perspectives. 
\section[{b) Cultural omnivorousness}]{b) Cultural omnivorousness}\par
The first perspective of the analysis is the role of the breadth of personal tastes that conceptualised as cultural (or musical) omnivorousness in various studies. The concept is introduced by R. \hyperref[b33]{Peterson (1992)} by showing that people who occupy high-status positions in the society tends to be omnivore in their tastes when lower positions follow a snobbish orientation \hyperref[b33]{(Peterson 1992}; Richard A. Peterson and Kern 1996; Peterson and Simkus 1992). To some extent, it contradicts R. Bourdioue's Distinction theory \hyperref[b5]{(Bourdieu 1984}) and offers a new view on the relations between social stratification and cultural tastes. Some empirical research has supported to some extent the fundamental assumption about a shift towards the "univore-omnivore" cleavage in taste (e. g.  \hyperref[b7]{(Bryson 1996}; R.A. . Even that omnivorousness in different fields has a complementary relation (Purhonen, Gronow, and Rahkonen 2010), a simple volume of musical tastes does not reflect the whole theoretical definition of the concept provided by \hyperref[b27]{Lizardo and Skiles (2012)}. The omnivorous taste is reconceptualised to be "a transposable form of the aesthetic disposition available most readily to individuals who convert early aesthetic training into high cultural capital occupational trajectory"  {\ref (Lizardo and Skiles 2012:263)}. Therefore, in this study, the breadth of musical preferences is considered only as a potential indicator of being culturally omnivore and does not cover the whole dispositions of omnivores.\par
Potential relations of "Omnivore-univore thesis" to the gap between emotional and behavioural dimensions holds ambiguity. From the one hand, previous research shows that being omnivore can be both a status (van Eijck and Lievens 2008) and identity markers \hyperref[b28]{(Lukas 2015)}. Also, it is a relevant indicator of the prestige \hyperref[b26]{(Kwon and Kwon 2013)}. For self-affirmation of being in these circles, people might indicate a significant breadth of their tastes. When it comes to the behaviour, however, the preference to other genres prevails. From another side, people with a more significant volume of tastes have a broader choice that can also increase the probability for the gap.\par
The main point is that initially being omnivore indicates preferences towards high legitimacy music in combination with liking other cultural patterns \hyperref[b33]{(Peterson 1992}; R.A. \hyperref[b36]{Peterson and Simkus 1992)}. This underlying assumption determines the priority of omnivores to highbrow products, meaning that omnivores have a more intensive involvement with legitimate culture (Warde, Wright, and Gayo-Cal 2008). Also, in the contemporary world, omnivorousness can mark high cultural capital (Chen 2016; Roose, van Eijck, and Lievens 2012; Warde and Gayo-Cal 2009). Following this, culturally omnivore people will give preferences to precisely listening to highbrow music. It leads to the hypothesis on the gap decrease: H1: The broader musical preferences decrease the gap between the degree of liking and listening to highbrow music. 
\section[{c) Absorption in music}]{c) Absorption in music}\par
Music taste has a broader meaning than an indicator of the social groups or position in the society (DeNora 2000). Hence, the second dimension of the interest is an individual level of musical absorption or involvement \hyperref[b46]{(Sandstrom and Russo 2013)}. The importance of perception is commonly neglected in contemporary research. Absorption in music looks at the individual level to find differences in the emotional responses to the music (Sandstrom and Russo 2013). People show a different level of the absorption: "the ability and willingness to be emotionally drawn in by a stimulus"  {\ref (Sandstrom and Russo 2013:223)}. Testing on the classical music stimulus, respondents with a higher absorption level show a better understanding of music. "Higher levels of absorption in music are associated with stronger responses to music along the valence dimension [positive-negative] of emotion (i.e., greater polarisation)"  {\ref (Sandstrom and Russo 2013: 222)}. This argument supports last findings on the higher absorption of musicians as expert listeners compared to non-musicians (Hernandez-Ruiz, Dvorak, and Weingarten 2020). In turn, a cluster where expert listeners prevail demonstrate the highest engagement to music across almost all genres with an observed tendency toward sophisticated music like jazz or classical music  {\ref (Elvers et al. 2015:5)}.\par
This study assumes that higher absorption also indicates the emotional importance of music perception in life. Highly absorbed people have a good understanding of the music in terms of emotions and of its relative importance in their life. Therefore, a consistency between the degree of liking and frequency of listening is expected as an outcome. The hypothesis is: H2: Higher absorption in music decrease the gap between the degree of liking and listening to highbrow music. 
\section[{d) Cultural capital}]{d) Cultural capital}\par
Following the main component of Distinction theory \hyperref[b5]{(Bourdieu 1984)}, our tastes can be formed by our positions in the social structure. In other words, preferences are social markers and socially rooted. Habitus as disposition together with inherited and gained cultural, economic, social and symbolical capitals \hyperref[b6]{(Bourdieu 1986}) form tastes and corresponding practices in a particular field \hyperref[b5]{(Bourdieu 1984;}\hyperref[b31]{Osypchuk 2013)}.\par
Habitus and gained capitals brightly demonstrate the class different precisely in the musical field. P. Bourdieu's interprets that "nothing more clearly affirms one's "class", nothing more infallibly classifies, than tastes in music"  {\ref (Bourdieu 1984:18)}. A relatively defined highbrow legitimate music (e.g. classical music, jazz) refers to the higher classes, while preferences towards marginalised musical genres link to the low positions in the social structure. Besides, P. Bourdieu's theory highlights high-status cultural exclusiveness of other cultural patterns \hyperref[b5]{(Bourdieu 1984}) that is mostly contradicted by the "omnivore-univore" hypothesis \hyperref[b33]{(Peterson 1992}; R.A. \hyperref[b36]{Peterson and Simkus 1992)}.\par
Contemporary research remarks that a highclass does not longer attach to the only legitimate culture. This type of cultural products is also consumed by relatively low-classes (Ashwood and Bell 2017:628). People with different backgrounds now can engage in music in various forms; therefore, "an insistence on generalised hierarchies of taste" reflects an unrealistic narrowness (de Boise 2016:189). However, the difference in cultural capital (as the one the most difficult to gain) still can be prominent after controlling for omnivore tastes. Precisely cultural capital crates a framework that forms a feeling towards different types of culture \hyperref[b37]{(Prior 2013)}. For example, highbrow and lowbrow divisions can still occur, taking into account an omnivore orientation \hyperref[b12]{(Coulangeon 2013)}.\par
From another perspective, people might attempt to gain social status (Lizardo and Skiles 2012:277) by indication preferences towards legitimate or sophisticated culture. Exaggeration of tastes leads to a dissonance between the behaviour and emotions. This paper assumes that consistency between these two dimensions in the musical field is higher for people who gained higher cultural capital rather than for those who have a relatively low cultural capital and simulate tastes. Overall, this pattern does not assume a single hierarchy of the cultural products but rather orientates towards the existence of sophisticated styles of culture in a particular cultural domain. 
\section[{H3: Higher cultural capital decreases the gap between the degree of liking and listening to highbrow music.}]{H3: Higher cultural capital decreases the gap between the degree of liking and listening to highbrow music.}\par
For capturing cultural capital, this study focuses on both inherited and behavioural characteristics: the education level of mother and father (Willekens, Daenekindt, and Lievens 2014), frequency of attending theatres and reading books. Control for other dimensions is ensured by collecting data from a homogeneous environment of students that has the same maim social status. Additionally, household income controls for the differences in the economic capital, and gender -for the potential social division of music for male and female.\par
A general framework of the research is visualised in Figure \hyperref[fig_0]{1}.  
\section[{Methods and Data}]{Methods and Data}\par
This study bases on the originally collected dataset among student at the National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. The instrument consists of seven blocks: musical preferences, musical behaviour patterns, attendance of musical concerts, cultural behaviour patterns, absorption in music, engagement to social networks and socio-demographic. For the analysis, only several components are used, namely musical preferences, musical behaviour patterns, attendance of theatres/opera, frequency of reading books and socio-demographical variables. 
\section[{a) Operationalisation i. Musical preferences}]{a) Operationalisation i. Musical preferences}\par
As a part of the preparatory phase for the survey development, a free listing procedure was conducted among the general population of students. Recruitment took place in the last academic week of the autumn semester (18-22.12.2017) in the campus venues and university libraries. The students voluntarily agreed to participate in the survey.\par
Focusing on the research interest of this article, the free listing asks to finish (or answer) three main sentences: 1) "I love listening to this kind of music?"; 2) "Please list all music genres you know?"; 3) "For each genre that you know and have indicated in the previous question, indicate the musical composition that corresponds to the genre or artist that you think plays in the corresponding genre".\par
This mechanism helps to understand categories of thinking about music and extract 38 musical (sub-) genres (to which they could indicate an example of a performer or a composition of the corresponding genre). The results show that participants tend to perceive music preferences using a genre category. What is interesting is that respondents perceive hip-hop and rap music or electronic and club music as different constructs. All answers were unified to develop the instrument following the STOMPR scale.\par
As a result, the created questionnaire measures musical preferences by this question: "Please rate how much you like these music genres by circling the appropriate answer for each genre:  {\ref [}  \hyperref[b17]{18}. Punk]". For each genre respondents were asked to evaluate their preferences with a 5-point scale, where 1 -"Completely dislike", 2 -"Dislike more than like", 3 -"Partly like, partly dislike ", 4 -"Like more than dislike", 5 -"Completely like" [Direct translation]. Also, an option "Do not know this genre" was available. 
\section[{ii. Musician behaviour pattern}]{ii. Musician behaviour pattern}\par
Subjective frequency of conscious listening of music is captured by the question: "Please rate how often you listen by your decision to these music genres by circling the appropriate answer for each genre". The list of genres was the equivalent. The answer options are 1 -"Never", 2 -"Rarely", 3 -"Sometimes", 4 -"Often", 5 -"Always" [Direct translation] and "Do not know this genre". 
\section[{iii. The gap between the degree of liking and listening to music}]{iii. The gap between the degree of liking and listening to music}\par
The absence of a cleavage means a perfect correlation between listening and liking. By subtracting the degree of listening from the degree of liking, the gap is calculated. Respondents with negative values and with the gap larger than three are dropped from the analysis as outliers (less than 10\% for each genre). The value ranges from 0 [no gap] to 3 [the highest gap]. 
\section[{iv. Indicators of cultural omnivorousness}]{iv. Indicators of cultural omnivorousness}\par
This article uses the breadth of musical tastes separately as a sum of liked musical genres (expressed emotional preferences) and the breadth of musical pattern behaviour as a sum of frequently or always listened to musical genres (expressed behavioural patterns). The absence of knowledge on a particular genre conceptualises as not consciously liking and not consciously listening to it. The most frequent unknown genre, however, is excluded from the index. 
\section[{v. Absorption in music}]{v. Absorption in music}\par
The scale consists of 34 items (Sandstrom and Russo 2013). The variable is computed as an additive index. The detailed wording and translation of the items are available in Appendix A and B, respectively. 
\section[{vi. Indicators of cultural capital and control variables}]{vi. Indicators of cultural capital and control variables}\par
Two questions measure education of parents: "Specify the level of education of the father" and "Specify the level of education of the mother" where 1 means "Secondary school", 2 -"College / Technical school", 3 -"Higher education (bachelor/master/specialist)" and 4 -"Scientific degree" [Direct translation].\par
Regarding the cultural patterns, this study focuses on the objective frequency of theatres/operas attendance ("Please indicate how often you attend each of the proposed events or establishments: [Theatres/ Operas]") and the frequency of reading book ("Indicate how often you now engage to these actions: [Reading books]"). For the first variable, a 6-point scale unfolds as 1 -"Do not visit at all", 2 -"Once every six months or less", 3 -"Every 4-5 months", 4 -"Every 2-3 months", 5 -"Once a month", 6 -"Twice a month or more often"; for the second: 1 -"Never", 2 -"Every two months or less", 3 -"Several times in two months", 4 -"Several times a month", 5 -"Several times a week", 6 -"Every day".\par
The instrument additionally captures the gender identification and financial situation in the family. For the original wording of all questions and a detailed translation refer to Appendix A and B. 
\section[{vii. Data collection}]{vii. Data collection}\par
Data were collected among students as a homogeneous group at the National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy" (Kyiv, Ukraine), who participate on a volunteer basis \hyperref[b50]{(Voronin 2018}). The fieldwork lasts five weeks from 7 th October until 15 th November. With the help of intra-university data, a list of university students was determined, which numbered to 3865 people. The random sample size with a 5\% deviation was set to 363 respondents. Recruitment took place by searching for the corresponding students from the sample on social networks and with help from the Student Council. During the data collection stage, ethics in sociological research were adhered (Orton-Johnson 2010). This survey was conducted anonymously, and the collected data is used only in aggregate form.\par
Due to the refusal and unavailability of respondents, the list was expanded to 500 students who were randomly selected through the online randomisation services. The number of final established contacts is 400. The number of completed questionnaires is 263, 99\% of which were collected via the Internet, 1\% filled pen and pencil questionnaire. Thus, the percentage of responses to the sample size is 72.5\%. The limitation of the data collection is a shift towards people who have had direct access through online sources. 
\section[{viii. Applied methods}]{viii. Applied methods}\par
The data analysis includes three main components:\par
1. Descriptive statistics of the collected data in terms of the gap between musical preferences and behaviour patterns;\par
2. Identification of perceived highbrow genres in the sample with an exploratory factor analysis; 3. Regression analysis to estimate the effects of cultural omnivorousness, absorption in music and cultural capital on the size of the gap between emotional musical preferences and behaviour patterns for highbrow genres.\par
III. 
\section[{Results}]{Results} 
\section[{a) Descriptive statistics}]{a) Descriptive statistics}\par
For estimating a gap between musical preferences and frequency of listening for all genres, this study combines answers per questions into the categories "Like" ("Like more than dislike" and "Completely liked") and "Often or Always listen". As for cognitive dimensions, most times, respondents did not know the genres of funk (62 cases), Reggae \hyperref[b34]{(33)}, Punk \hyperref[b32]{(31)} and Indi \hyperref[b27]{(27)}. The first category was dropped from the analysis. For other cases, these answers are coded as missing for the degree of liking and as an option "Never" for the frequency of listening. Namely, in the absence of a cognitive distinction of a particular musical style, the absence of conscious listening is assumed.\par
Students show the highest preferences towards rock (65\% likes), classical music (57\%), jazz (54\%), indie (53\%) and alternative (53\%) music (see Figure \hyperref[fig_2]{2}). The most underrated is a chanson (5\%) genre. Regarding behavioural patterns, some other categories lead. Respondents listen to rock (51\% often or always), pop (44\%) and indie (38\%) and alternative (38\%) with the highest frequency. The most underlistened are punk (11\%), folk (10\%), country (9\%), reggae (6\%) and chanson (2\%).  A correlation analysis suggests that the degree of liking is closely connected to the degree of listening to the corresponding genre (0.59 ? r i, spearman ? 0.86). The lowest coefficient is between liking and listening to the genre "Rhythm and Blues (R\&B)/ Soul/Blues" (r = 0.60), and the highest -to the metal (r = 0.85), indie (r = 0.84) and rap (r = 0.85). Even that all correlations are strong (r ? 0.5), there is no perfect alignment between emotional and behavioural dimensions in the sample. 
\section[{Note}]{Note}\par
Assuming the proportionality of two scales, a high correspondence describes rap, pop and metal genres. These categories relate to either contemporary music or marginalised groups. In contrast, the gap between degree of liking and listening to classical music, jazz, R\&B/soul/blues are the most prominent in terms of both percentage difference and relatively high popularity among students.\par
The gaps are calculated by subtraction of 5point scale degree of listening from the degree of liking. Figure \hyperref[fig_3]{3} presents the frequency of gaps by selected three genres with the most prominent differences. A general pattern looks similar and indicates that only one third in each analytical sample has a perfect alignment of the emotional and behavioural dimensions. In contrast, almost a quarter have a gap with 2-or 3points. As an illustration, the 3-point gap indicates that a respondent either completely likes and rarely listens or likes more than dislike and never listens to the corresponding genres. 2-points gap includes these combinations of answers: 1) like completely and sometimes listen 2) like more than dislike and listen rarely and 3) Partly like, partly do not like and listen to it never. Regarding the breadth of musical preferences, it is divided into two dimensions -the breadth of liked genres and the breadth of always or often listened to genres. Figure 4 presents the distribution of both variables. The average number of liked genres in the sample is 6.08 (SD = 2.87). In contrast, a mean number of the highly-frequency-listened genres is 3.89 (SD = 2.38). Left skewness characterises the distribution of both variables.   The first factor is loaded by mostly listening to jazz, classical music and R\&B/soul/ blues. Three genres with the highest gap between emotional and behavioural components of musical preferences unite in one dimension. Country and Folk genres also indicate relatively high coefficients, but their loadings on other latent dimensions are bigger. Overall, this dimension corresponds to the highbrow tastes -fine or sophisticated music. 
\section[{Note: All negative values and the highest value of 4 are considered as outliers. This variable has values from 0 [no gap] to 3 [the highest gap] and indicates the shift towards liking but not listening to them. The higher the value, the higher the difference between the degree of liking and degree of listening. Original dataset, author's calculations.}]{Note: All negative values and the highest value of 4 are considered as outliers. This variable has values from 0 [no gap] to 3 [the highest gap] and indicates the shift towards liking but not listening to them. The higher the value, the higher the difference between the degree of liking and degree of listening. Original dataset, author's calculations.}\par
The hip-hop/gram and rap music categories shape the next factor and combine bit music. The third factor unites preferences towards intensive resistance music as indie, rock, alternative, punk, reggae and country. In turn, metal and punk refer to the marginalised music in the next music dimensions. The last fifth factor is loaded by the most unpretentious and simple considering musical structure genres: club/ disco/dance, chanson (as perceived in Ukraine), folk, pop and electronic music.\par
Correlation matrix of latent factors reveals only several significant (p < 0.05) relations. Significant correlations are found between the preference of highbrow music (factor 1) and resistance music (factor 3) (r = 0.24); between the preference for unpretentious music (factor 5) and the preference for bit music (factor 2) (r = 0.36); between listening to intense resistance music (factor 3) and heavy marginalised music (factor 4) (r = 0.23). Other correlations between factors are relatively low. 
\section[{c) Effects of the breadth of tastes, musical absorption and cultural capital on the gap between the degree of liking and listening to highbrow music}]{c) Effects of the breadth of tastes, musical absorption and cultural capital on the gap between the degree of liking and listening to highbrow music}\par
Constructed models demonstrate a good fit in terms of explained variance of the dependant variable. For the gap between the degree of liking and listening to jazz, the regression explains 20.06\% of the variance. For classical music and R\&B/soul/blues, the values are a little bit smaller -17.58\% and 17.78\% respectively. Overall, the selected predictors have a bright explanatory power.\par
Speaking about results (see Table \hyperref[tab_4]{2}), linear regressions show the great importance of the indicators of cultural omnivorousness. From one point of view, the higher number of genres that respondents often or always listen to decrease the gap between the degree of liking and listening to sophisticated genres. It means that people who have a broader pattern of taste according to their behavioural practices tend to maintain a better correspondence between two dimensions compared to people with a lower volume of tastes. This pattern works for classical music, jazz and R\&B/soul/ blues almost the same way and supports proposed H1. The breadth of liked genres, however, bears significant negative effects on the correspondence between emotional and behavioural levels of highbrow musical tastes. In contrast to the number of frequently listened genres, the more musical genres respondents like, the bigger the gap for sophisticated music. This Absorption in music, in turn, finds to be positively related to the gap between degree of liking and listening to highbrow music. Only for the gap in classical music, a growth in absorption by one standard deviation significantly increase the gap by 0.13 scale points. The effects of jazz and R\&B /soul/blues tend to be smaller and equals 0.08 and 0.10, respectively. These values are close to the cut-point of the p-value of 0.05 but do not cross it. Nevertheless, the expected assumption of the negative relations between absorption and gaps is not supported (H2). The point is that higher absorption in music does not decrease, or even in some cases significantly increase, the gap between degree of liking and listening to sophisticated music.\par
Embedded and behavioural indicators of cultural capital in our sample bear no significant effect on the gap. One exclusion is that a higher mother's education increases the gap for classical music. Other variables are found to be insignificant in all models. This finding indicates that students with higher cultural capital do not prefer to like and listen to highbrow music the same way. There are almost no differences in gaps due to cultural capital. This result does not support H3.\par
Overall, the model reveals three new patterns: 1) the more music I like, the bigger the gap for highbrow music; 2) the more music I listen to, the lower the gap; 3) the higher absorption I have, the higher the gap; 4) cultural capital with only one exemption neither increase nor decrease the gaps. 
\section[{IV.}]{IV.} 
\section[{Conclusion and Discussion}]{Conclusion and Discussion}\par
This study proposes a new way of understanding the difference between how people like and how often listen to sophisticated music. Why does someone report a high degree of liking in combination with a lower degree of listening, when others have a relatively perfect alignment? In the original sample collected among student at the National University of "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy" in Ukraine, three genres are identified as being sophisticated (or highbrow): classical music, jazz, R\&B/soul/blues. For these dimensions, the gap between how much a person like and how often listen to them are the largest.\par
Regarding "Omnivore-univore thesis", the results show the great importance of an individual's omnivorousness. However, the breadth of liked genres increases the gap between the degree of emotional and behavioural dimensions, when the volume of frequently listened musical genres reduces the gap. Emotional omnivores tend to create a gap and exaggerate the level of liking compared to the frequency of listening, while behavioural omnivores deliver a better accordance. Further research can focus on the omnivore audience separately by the emotional and behavioural dimensions and estimate their features, attitudes towards culture, values and potential differences.\par
The second factor, a musical absorption, also contributes (closely to the significant indicators) to the exaggerating -if individuals have a more in-depth perception of music, they are ready to report the high liking, but not frequent listening to the sophisticated music genres. They either prefer to other genres for listening or hyperbolise the degree of liking in contrast to the showed behavioural patterns. This study emphasises that the emotional response to music, even controlling for differences in household income, omnivorousness, cultural capital and gender, is an important dimension that should not be neglected while explaining musical preferences.\par
Considering Distinction theory, the indicators of cultural capital, in turn, find to be insignificant predictors (with several exemptions) and does not explain the gap. Distinctions in our sample are not explicitly expressed. It can be partially explained that the respondents represent, for a certain degree, a homogenous group of people, where differences in capitals are not pronounced. Nevertheless, the inherited cultural capital as parents' education differ between individuals but cannot explain the gap (with one exemption).\par
One considerable limitation of the study belongs to the perception of scales. In this research, the correspondence between the frequency of listening to the music and the degree of liking is assumed. In other words, people who like metal music very much is expected to always listen to it -this situation means the absence of gaps. The gap is calculated by holding this assumption. However, in addition to different wording of scale-points, both of them focus on the subjective perception. In turn, it can be influenced by situational (availability of the resources to listen to music) and individual (how much like the music overall) characteristics. Therefore, the results of the analysis are recommended to be considered as a case-study with a primary assumption of the scale correspondence. Additionally, a common understanding of the genre categories is presumed.\par
This research is the first of its type that offers a comprehensive approach to estimate the gap in musical preferences between emotional and behavioural dimensions. The results present a good starting point for the potential development in the field of sociology of culture and empirical research in other cultural domains in order to investigate the universality of the findings.  Hello! I ask you to take part in the survey of NaUKMA students about musical preferences and attending musical events. You are guaranteed the confidentiality of the answers and their presence only in a generalised form. It will take about 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire.\par
You were chosen randomly so that the results of this study reflect the views of students, it is very important that you participate in the survey and ensure the truthfulness of your answers. - - - We can't even afford to buy food 1 We can afford food, but not clothes 2 We can afford food and clothing but struggle with more expensive things like a television or refrigerator 3--1--- ---2--- ---3--- ---4--- -----1--- ---2--- ---3--- ---4--- -----1--- ---2--- ---3--- ---4--- ---5--- ---\textbf{6}\par
We can afford a car, but can't say that we don't suffer from financial limitations 4 We don't have to limit our purchases 5\par
Thank you for your contribution to the study!\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}Figure 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3}\includegraphics[]{image-5.png}
\caption{\label{fig_3}Figure 3 :}\end{figure}
       \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.390606936416185\textwidth}P{0.0884393063583815\textwidth}P{0.11546242774566473\textwidth}P{0.1130057803468208\textwidth}P{0.07369942196531791\textwidth}P{0.06878612716763005\textwidth}}
Musical Genre\tabcellsep Factor 1\tabcellsep Factor 2\tabcellsep Factor 3\tabcellsep Factor 4\tabcellsep Factor 5\\
Jazz\tabcellsep 0.95\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Classicalmusic\tabcellsep 0.54\tabcellsep -0.23\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
R\&B / Soul / Blues\tabcellsep 0.37\tabcellsep 0.29\tabcellsep 0.16\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Country\tabcellsep 0.35\tabcellsep -0.18\tabcellsep 0.41\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Folk\tabcellsep 0.34\tabcellsep -0.29\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.42\\
Reggae\tabcellsep 0.28\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.45\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Hip-hop / Gram\tabcellsep 0.18\tabcellsep 0.82\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Rap\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.76\tabcellsep -0.17\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Club / Disco / Dance\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.34\tabcellsep -0.20\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.62\\
Electronic music\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.32\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.35\\
Alternative\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.24\tabcellsep 0.67\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Indie\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.82\tabcellsep -0.37\tabcellsep \\
Rock\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.52\tabcellsep 0.29\tabcellsep \\
Punk\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.49\tabcellsep 0.36\tabcellsep \\
Metal\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.81\tabcellsep \\
Pop\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep -0.33\tabcellsep 0.34\\
Chanson\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.55\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Note: exploratory methods, all cross-loading and correlations are allowed. Estimator -WLSMV; Rotation -Geomin. Only coefficients with p < 0.05 are presented. Author's calculations.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3090909090909091\textwidth}P{0.019318181818181818\textwidth}P{0.09659090909090909\textwidth}P{0.019318181818181818\textwidth}P{0.38636363636363635\textwidth}P{0.019318181818181818\textwidth}}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Classical music}\tabcellsep Jazz\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{R\&B / Soul / Blues}\\
b\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep b\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep b\tabcellsep t\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Note: N classical music = 253, N jazz = 255, N r\&b/soul/blues = 226. * p ? 0.05, ** p ? 0.01, *** p ? 0.001. Robust standard errors are reported. Source: original dataset, author's calculation.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.7927551020408162\textwidth}P{0.004336734693877551\textwidth}P{0.05290816326530612\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{23 ???? ??????Ñ?"???? ????????? ??????????????, ??????? ?? ????????????? ? ???????????? ??????}\tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
24 ???????? ??????, ? ???? ???????? ???????? ????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{25 ???? ??? ????????? ?????? ?????????? (?????????, ????????? ????????, ?????????), ?, ??}\tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
???????, ???????? ??????????, ??? ?????? ????????? ??? ?????\tabcellsep \\
26 Ð?"???? ????????? ???? ??? ????????, ?? ? ???? ???????????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{27 ?????? ????? ????????Ñ?" ???? ????? ?? ????? «????????? ?????» ?? ??????? ?????? ?????, ?????????}\tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
«???? ?????»\tabcellsep \\
28 ???????? ??????, ? ????? ?????? ??????????, ??? ?????? ?? ??????????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
29 ???????? ?????? ??????, ? ????? ???????? ???? ??????????, ???? ?????????? ??? ?????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
30 ???? ? ?????? ??????, ? ???? ???????????? ??? ??????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
31 ? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ? ???? ??????, ???? ? ?????? ??????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
32 ? ????? ???????? ???, ??? ?????????? ????? ?? ??????, ??? ? ??????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
33 ? ???????, ???? ? ?????? ?? ?????, ????? ?? ?????? ??????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
34 ? ????? ????????, ?? ???????? ??????, ? Ñ?" ???????? ?????? ????????, ??? ?????? ????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1 2 3 4 5\\
?2. ???????? ???? ?????:\tabcellsep \\
???????\tabcellsep 1\\
?????\tabcellsep 2\\
?9. ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????:\tabcellsep \\
??????? ?????\tabcellsep 1\\
???????/????????\tabcellsep 2\\
???? ?????? (???????? /??????? / ??????????)\tabcellsep 3\\
???????? ???????\tabcellsep 4\\
?10. ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????:\tabcellsep \\
??????? ?????\tabcellsep 1\\
???????/????????\tabcellsep 2\\
???? ?????? (???????? / ??????? / ??????????)\tabcellsep 3\\
???????? ???????\tabcellsep 4\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{?11. ???? ?????, ????????, ??? ? ????????? ???????i?? ?i????i??Ñ?" ?i????????? ????????? ????? ?i?'??}\\
??? ?? ???????Ñ?" ?????? ?????? ?? ???\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1\\
??? ???????Ñ?" ?????? ?? ???, ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 2\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{? ??? ????????? ?????? ?? ??? ? ????, ? ?? ?????? ???? ??????????, ??? ????? ?? ??????, ??? ???????? ?????? ???? (????, ?? ????????? ??? ???????????)}\tabcellsep 3\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{?? ?????? ????????? ???? ???????? ????? ?????? ???? (????, ?? ????????? ??? ???????????)}\tabcellsep 4\\
?? ?????? ????????? ???i ?????? ???, ?? ????????\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 5\\
Ð?"???? ?? ?????? ? ???????????!\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Appendix B. Relevant questions from the questionnaire [English translation]}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2020 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter  			 
\subsection[{Appendix}]{Appendix}\par
Ð?"?????? ???! ? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????????? ?? ???????????? ???????? ???????. ??? ???????Ñ?"???? ???????????????? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ? ????????????? ???????. ?????????? ?????? ????? ??????? 10-?? ??????.\par
?? ???? ?????? ?????????? ?????, ????, ??? ?????????? ????? ??????????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ?????????, ???? ???????, ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ? ?????????? ?? ??????????? ??????????? ??????? ??????????. ?1. ???????, ???? ?????, ????????? ??? ??????????? ????????? ??????? ?????, ??????? ??????? ????????? ??? ??????? ?????: - 			 			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ American Journal of Sociology]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of Sociology}  		116  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[ Sociological Research Online]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{Sociological Research Online}  		15  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bennett et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Tony Bennett 		,  		 			Mike Savage 		,  		 			Elizabeth Bortolaia Silva 		,  		 			Alan Warde 		,  		 			Modesto Gayo-Cal 		,  		 			David Wright 		.  	 	 		\textit{Class, Distinction. Routledge}  		2009.  	 	 (Culture) 
\bibitem[Sandstrom and Russo ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		‘Absorption in Music: Development of a Scale to Identify Individuals with Strong Emotional Responses to Music’.  		 			Gillian M Sandstrom 		,  		 			Frank A Russo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychology of Music}  		2013. 41  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ashwood and Bell ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Affect and Taste: Bourdieu, Traditional Music, and the Performance of Possibilities'’.  		 			Loka Ashwood 		,  		 			Michael M Bell 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sociologia Ruralis}  		2017. 57  (S1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bryson ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Anything But Heavy Metal": Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes'’.  		 			Bethany Bryson 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Sociological Review}  		1996. 61  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rimmer ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		‘Beyond Omnivores and Univores: The Promise of a Concept of Musical Habitus'’.  		 			Mark Rimmer 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cultural Sociology}  		2012. 6  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cebula ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Beyond Social Class and Status. The Network Embeddedness of Music Consumption'’.  		 			Micha ? Cebula 		.  	 	 		\textit{Przegl?d Socjologiczny}  		2019. 68  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Prior ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘Bourdieu and the Sociology of Music Consumption: A Critical Assessment of Recent Developments'’.  		 			Nick Prior 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sociology Compass}  		2013. 7  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Peterson and Kern ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore'’.  		 			R A Peterson 		,  		 			R M Kern 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Sociological Review}  		1996. 61  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Peterson and Kern ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		‘Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore'’.  		 			Richard A Peterson 		,  		 			Roger M Kern 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Sociological Review}  		1996. 61  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kwon et al. ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Cultural Omnivores' Consumption: Strategic and Inclusively Exclusive'’.  		 			Yoo Kwon 		,  		 			Kyoung-Nan Jin 		,  		 			Kwon 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Marketing Studies}  		2013. 5  (1)  p. 118.  	 
\bibitem[Van Eijck et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Cultural Omnivorousness as a Combination of Highbrow, Pop, and Folk Elements: The Relation between Taste Patterns and Attitudes Concerning Social Integration’.  		 			Van Eijck 		,  		 			John Koen 		,  		 			Lievens 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		2008. 36  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Roose et al. ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		‘Culture of Distinction or Culture of Openness? Using a Social Space Approach to Analyse the Social Structuring of Lifestyles’.  		 			Henk Roose 		,  		 			Koen Van Eijck 		,  		 			John Lievens 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		2012. 40  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[García-Álvarez et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Deconstructing Cultural Omnivorousness 1982-2002: Heterology in Americans' Musical Preferences'’.  		 			García-Álvarez 		,  		 			Tally Ercilia 		,  		 			Jordi Katz-Gerro 		,  		 			López-Sintas 		.  	 	 		\textit{Social Forces}  		2007. 86  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chen ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Distinction or Omnivorousness? --An Analysis of Cultural Participation and Class Reproduction in Kaohsiung from the Perspective of Pierre Bourdieu’.  		 			Chih-Hsien Chen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Mass Communication Research}  		2016. 126 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bourdieu ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste},  		 			Pierre Bourdieu 		.  		1984. Harvard university press.  	 
\bibitem[Finnas ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Do Young People Misjudge Each Others' Musical Taste?’.  		 			Leif Finnas 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychology of Music}  		1987. 15  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Orton-Johnson ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		\textit{Ethics in Online Research; Evaluating the ESRC Framework for Research Ethics Categorisation of Risk},  		 			Kate Orton-Johnson 		.  		2010.  	 
\bibitem[Veenstra et al. ()]{b49}\label{b49} 	 		\textit{Exploring Film Genre Preferences through Taste Cultures: A Survey on Contemporary Film Consumption amongst Youth in Flanders (Belgium},  		 			Aleit Veenstra 		,  		 			Philippe Meers 		,  		 			Daniël Biltereyst 		.  		2019.  	 	 (Communications 0(0)) 
\bibitem[Elvers et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Exploring the Musical Taste of Expert Listeners: Musicology Students Reveal Tendency toward Omnivorous Taste'’.  		 			Paul Elvers 		,  		 			Diana Omigie 		,  		 			Wolfgang Fuhrmann 		,  		 			Timo Fischinger 		.  	 	 		\textit{Frontiers in Psychology}  		2015. 6.  	 
\bibitem[Voronin ()]{b50}\label{b50} 	 		\textit{Factors of attending of musical events among NaUKMA students},  		 			Yevhen Voronin 		.  		2018. Kyiv, Ukraine.  		 			National University of 'Kyiv-Mohyla Academy 		 	 	 (Bachelor's Thesis) 
\bibitem[Osypchuk ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘Habitus as the mechanism of structure-agency synthesis in Pierre Bourdieu's sociological theory’.  		 			Anna Osypchuk 		.  	 	 		\textit{Naukovi Zapysky NaUKMA}  		2013. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Goldberg ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{Mapping Shared Understandings Using Relational Class Analysis: The Case of the Cultural Omnivore},  		 			Amir Goldberg 		.  		2011.  	 
\bibitem[Denora ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Music in Everyday Life},  		 			Tia Denora 		.  		2000. Cambridge University Press.  	 	 (1st ed) 
\bibitem[Schwartz and Fouts ()]{b47}\label{b47} 	 		‘Music Preferences, Personality Style, and Developmental Issues of Adolescents'’.  		 			Kelly D Schwartz 		,  		 			Gregory T Fouts 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Youth and Adolescence}  		2003. 32  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Horsfall et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		\textit{Music Sociology an Introduction to the Role of Music in Social Life},  		 			Sara Horsfall 		,  		 			Jan-Martijn Meij 		,  		 			Meghan D Probstfield 		.  		2014.  	 
\bibitem[Hernandez-Ruiz et al. ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{Music Stimuli in Mindfulness Meditation: Comparison of Musician and Non-Musician Responses},  		 			Hernandez-Ruiz 		,  		 			Abbey L Eugenia 		,  		 			Kevin Dvorak 		,  		 			Weingarten 		.  		2020.  	 	 (Psychology of Music 0305735620901338) 
\bibitem[Bonneville-Roussy et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Music through the Ages: Trends in Musical Engagement and Preferences from Adolescence through Middle Adulthood'’.  		 			Arielle Bonneville-Roussy 		,  		 			Peter J Rentfrow 		,  		 			Man K Xu 		,  		 			Jeff Potter 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}  		2013. 105  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Purhonen et al. ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘Nordic Democracy of Taste? Cultural Omnivorousness in Musical and Literary Taste Preferences in Finland’.  		 			Semi Purhonen 		,  		 			Jukka Gronow 		,  		 			Keijo Rahkonen 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		2010. 38  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Frith ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		\textit{Performing Rites: On the Value of Popular Music. 1. Harvard Univ. Press pb},  		 			Simon Frith 		.  		1999. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press.  	 
\bibitem[Peterson and Simkus ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		 			Richard A Peterson 		,  		 			Albert Simkus 		.  		\textit{Seven How Musical Tastes Mark Occupational Status Groups'. Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality 152},  				1992.  	 
\bibitem[De Boise and Sam ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘Post-Bourdieusian Moments and Methods in Music Sociology: Toward a Critical, Practice-Based Approach'’.  		 			De Boise 		,  		 			Sam 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cultural Sociology}  		2016. 10  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Peterson ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘Problems in Comparative Research: The Example of Omnivorousness'’.  		 			Richard A Peterson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		2005. 33  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lizardo and Skiles ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		\textit{Reconceptualising and Theorising "Omnivorousness": Genetic and Relational Mechanisms'. Sociological Theory},  		 			Omar Lizardo 		,  		 			Sara Skiles 		.  		2012. 30 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Tampubolon ()]{b48}\label{b48} 	 		‘Revisiting Omnivores in America circa 1990s: The Exclusiveness of Omnivores?’.  		 			Gindo Tampubolon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		2008. 36  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rentfrow and Gosling ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		\textit{Short Test of Music Preferences (STOMP)'. Measurement Instrument Database for the Social Science},  		 			P J Rentfrow 		,  		 			S D Gosling 		.  		2013.  	 
\bibitem[Chan et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Social Stratification and Cultural Consumption: Music in England'’.  		 			Tak Chan 		,  		 			John H Wing 		,  		 			Goldthorpe 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Sociological Review}  		2007. 23  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dixon ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Suggested Scales for the Measurement of Musical Involvement and Genre Tastes’.  		 			Richard D Dixon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Popular Music and Society}  		1980. 7  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ter Bogt et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		 			Ter Bogt 		,  		 			F M Tom 		,  		 			Q A W Raaijmakers 		,  		 			W A M Vollebergh 		,  		 			F W Van Wel 		,  		 			Paul Sikkema 		.  		\textit{Youngsters and Their Musical Taste: Musical Styles and Taste Groups},  				2003.  	 
\bibitem[Warde and Gayo-Cal ()]{b51}\label{b51} 	 		‘The Anatomy of Cultural Omnivorousness: The Case of the United Kingdom’.  		 			Alan Warde 		,  		 			Modesto Gayo-Cal 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		2009. 37  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[George et al. ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘The Association between Types of Music Enjoyed and Cognitive, Behavioral, and Personality Factors of Those Who Listen’.  		 			Darren George 		,  		 			Kelly Stickle 		,  		 			Faith Rachid 		,  		 			Alayne Wopnford 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music Cognition}  		2007. 19  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Haz?r et al. ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{The Cultural Omnivore Thesis: Methodological Aspects of the Debate'. Pp. 97-151 in Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Art and Culture},  		 			Irmak Haz?r 		,  		 			Alan Karademir 		,  		 			Warde 		.  		2015.  	 	 (Routledge) 
\bibitem[Rentfrow and Gosling ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		‘The Do Re Mi's of Everyday Life: The Structure and Personality Correlates of Music Preferences’.  		 			Peter J Rentfrow 		,  		 			Samuel D Gosling 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}  		2003. 84  (6)  p. 1236.  	 
\bibitem[Bourdieu ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{The Forms of Capital},  		 			Pierre Bourdieu 		.  		1986.  	 
\bibitem[Rossman and Peterson ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		‘The Instability of Omnivorous Cultural Taste over Time’.  		 			Gabriel Rossman 		,  		 			Richard A Peterson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		2015. 52 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Coulangeon ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘The Omnivore and the "Class Defector’.  		 			Philippe Coulangeon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Musical Taste and Social Mobility in Contemporary France},  				2013.  	 
\bibitem[Warde et al. ()]{b53}\label{b53} 	 		‘The Omnivorous Orientation in the UK'’.  		 			Alan Warde 		,  		 			David Wright 		,  		 			Modesto Gayo-Cal 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		2008. 36  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chung et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘The Relationship between Musical Preferences and Type D Personality’.  		 			Yu-Chi Chung 		,  		 			Alinka E Greasley 		,  		 			Li-Yu Hu 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychology of Music}  		2019. 47  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rentfrow et al. ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		‘The Song Remains the Same: A Replication and Extension of the MUSIC Model'’.  		 			Peter J Rentfrow 		,  		 			R Lewis 		,  		 			David J Goldberg 		,  		 			Michal Stillwell 		,  		 			Samuel D Kosinski 		,  		 			Daniel J Gosling 		,  		 			Levitin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Music Perception}  		2012. 30  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rentfrow et al. ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		‘The Structure of Musical Preferences: A Five-Factor Model'’.  		 			Peter J Rentfrow 		,  		 			R Lewis 		,  		 			Daniel J Goldberg 		,  		 			Levitin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}  		2011. 100  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Peterson ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘Understanding Audience Segmentation: From Elite and Mass to Omnivore and Univore’.  		 			Richard A Peterson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Poetics}  		1992. 21  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Warde et al. ()]{b52}\label{b52} 	 		‘Understanding Cultural Omnivorousness: Or, the Myth of the Cultural Omnivore’.  		 			Alan Warde 		,  		 			David Wright 		,  		 			Modesto Gayo-Cal 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cultural Sociology}  		2007. 1  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lukas ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{Universal Pattern of Cultural Omnivorousness? : A Comparison of Cultural Taste Patterns in Estonia and the Netherlands},  		 			Triinu Lukas 		.  		2015.  	 
\bibitem[Willekens et al. ()]{b54}\label{b54} 	 		‘Whose Education Matters More? Mothers' and Fathers' Education and the Cultural Participation of Adolescents'’.  		 			Mart Willekens 		,  		 			Stijn Daenekindt 		,  		 			John Lievens 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cultural Sociology}  		2014. 8  (3)  p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
