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
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, plt.001
• Consistent with past research

15
Music Preference Commitment

• Country Constraint Commitment
• .305, plt.05
• Christian Constraint Commitment
• .357, plt.05
• Heavy Metal Constraint Commitment
• -.264, plt.05

16
Surprising Findings

• Soft Rock Structural Investments
• -.281, plt.05
• Soft Rock Primacy of Relationships
• -.365, plt.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?