Music Preference and Relationship Satisfaction

1. Music Preference and Relationship Satisfaction Kory Sims

2. Expressions of Personality • Music preference • Attitudes toward relationships.

3. Personality & 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)

4. Personality & 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.

5. What Makes a Satisfying Relationship? • Commitment (Rusbult and Bunnk, 1993) • Intimacy (Berscheid and Reis, 1998)

6. Music Preference Attitudes Toward Relationships - commitment Relationship Satisfaction Theoretical Model

7. Musical Preference • Hard Musical Forms: • Rap • Heavy Metal • Hard Rock • Soft Musical Forms: • Christian • Country • Classical • Pop • Soft Rock

8. Hypothesis • 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.

9. Method Participants • 57 participants from a small Midwestern College. • Age ranged from 18-22 • 17 Males & 40 Females • 84% affiliated • 56% currently involved romantically

10. Measures • 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.”

11. Commitment 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)

12. Relationship 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?”

13. Results • Reliability analysis of groupings: • Hard Musical Forms: Alpha = .58 • Soft Musical Forms: Alpha = .33

14. Commitment & Satisfaction • The Commitment Inventory & Relationship Assessment Scale • r = .628, p<.001 • Consistent with past research

15. Music Preference & Commitment • Country & Constraint Commitment • .305, p<.05 • Christian & Constraint Commitment • .357, p<.05 • Heavy Metal & Constraint Commitment • -.264, p<.05

16. Surprising Findings • Soft Rock & Structural Investments • -.281, p<.05 • Soft Rock & Primacy of Relationships • -.365, p<.o5

17. Men 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 ♀

18. Discussion • 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

19. Limitations • Small uniformed sample • 70% of sample was women • 84% affiliated • Categories • Larger selection • Not a relationship between categories?

20. Future Research • Same categories with a much larger and diverse sample. • Inclusion of other types of music: • Alternative • Gospel • International • Punk • Difference between sexes • Intensity

21. Any Questions?