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 Music Preference
Attitudes Toward Relationships - commitment
Relationship Satisfaction

7. Musical Preference Hard Musical Forms: Soft 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
Soft Rock & Primacy of Relationships
-.365, p<.o5

17. ♂ ♀ Men Vs Women Music and the Sexes:
Preference for Pop: t = , 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 Larger selection
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?