Music Preference and Music Preference and Relationship Relationship SatisfactionSatisfaction
Kory Sims
Expressions of PersonalityExpressions of Personality
Music preference
Attitudes toward relationships.
Personality & Music PreferencePersonality & Music Preference
Music has different “badge” functions for different groups of people. (North And Hargreaves,1999)
Music preference is “a manifestation of more explicit personality traits” (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003)
Personality & RelationshipsPersonality & Relationships
An “individuals traits and dispositions are not only maintained and validated within personal relationships; they are created there as well” (Blumstein & Kollock, 1988).
Assumptions:– Music and personality are reflective of each other.– Relationships are influenced by personality and vice versa.
What Makes a Satisfying What Makes a Satisfying Relationship?Relationship?
Commitment (Rusbult and Bunnk, 1993)
Intimacy (Berscheid and Reis, 1998)
Theoretical ModelTheoretical Model
Music Preference
Attitudes Toward Relationships - commitment
Relationship Satisfaction
Musical PreferenceMusical Preference
Hard Musical Forms:– Rap– Heavy Metal– Hard Rock
Soft Musical Forms:– Christian– Country– Classical– Pop– Soft Rock
HypothesisHypothesis
Individuals who prefer Hard Musical Forms will be lower in commitment and less satisfied with their relationships.
Individuals preferring Soft Musical Forms will be higher in commitment and relationship satisfaction.
MethodMethod
57 participants from a small Midwestern College.
Age ranged from 18-22
17 Males & 40 Females
84% affiliated
56% currently involved romantically
Participants
MeasuresMeasures
The Commitment Inventory (Stanley & Markman, 1992)– 60 questions– Includes 10 subscales (all significantly reliable)– Alpha = .84– Example: “I want to grow old with my partner.”
Commitment SubscalesCommitment Subscales
Constraint Commitment (a = .70)– Morality of Divorce (a = .94)– Availability of Partners (a = .82)– Social Pressure (a = .92)– Structural Investments (a = .82)
Dedication Commitment (a = .78)– Relationship agenda (a = .94)– Meta-Commitment (a = .79)– Couple Identity (a = .90)– Primacy of Relationship (a = .87)– Satisfaction with Sacrifice (a = .84)– Alternative Monitoring (a = .89)
Relationship AssessmentRelationship Assessment
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) – Adapted from Hendrick (1988):– A seven item questionnaire – Alpha = .90– Example: “How well do your partners usually meet your
needs?”
ResultsResults
Reliability analysis of groupings:– Hard Musical Forms: Alpha = .58
– Soft Musical Forms: Alpha = .33
Commitment & SatisfactionCommitment & Satisfaction
The Commitment Inventory & Relationship Assessment Scale – r = .628, p<.001
Consistent with past research
Music Preference & CommitmentMusic Preference & Commitment
Country & Constraint Commitment– .305, p<.05
Christian & Constraint Commitment– .357, p<.05
Heavy Metal & Constraint Commitment– -.264, p<.05
Surprising FindingsSurprising Findings
Soft Rock & Structural Investments– -.281, p<.05
Soft Rock & Primacy of Relationships– -.365, p<.o5
Men Vs WomenMen Vs Women
Music and the Sexes:– Preference for Pop: t = -5.695, df = 55, p = .00
Men: mean = 4.059 Women: mean = 5.800
– Preference for Hard Rock: t = 2.935, df = 55, p= .05 Men: mean = 5.177 Women: mean = 3.725
– Preference for Heavy Metal: t = 2.502, df = 55, p=.015 Men: mean = 3.765 Women: mean = 2.375
♀♀
♂♂
DiscussionDiscussion
Hypothesis was not significant– Scales were significant
Country & Christian correlated with Constraint Commitment
Heavy Metal correlated negatively with Constraint Commitment
Was a difference between males and females and music preference
LimitationsLimitations
Small uniformed sample– 70% of sample was women– 84% affiliated– Categories
Larger selection
Not a relationship between categories?
Future ResearchFuture Research
Same categories with a much larger and diverse sample.
Inclusion of other types of music:– Alternative– Gospel– International– Punk
Difference between sexes
Intensity
Any Questions?Any Questions?
