Love songs and serenades: a theoretical review of music and romantic relationships

The paper addresses why and how music may function within romantic relationships, integrating evolutionary theories of musicality with social-psychological models of love. While music and romantic love are both culturally ubiquitous, evolutionary work on music has emphasized social bonding and coalition signaling more than sexual selection. The authors propose that two ultimate functions—music for attraction (sexual selection) and music for connection (social bonding)—may jointly operate in romantic relationships. They aim to bridge these accounts with Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love (passion, intimacy, commitment) across stages of relationship development (attraction, building, maintenance). Key questions include whether music’s bonding effects differ in romantic vs. non-romantic contexts, how attraction and bonding functions relate, and how these functions vary across relationship stages and types.

The review situates music and love within Tinbergen’s four questions (causation, ontogeny, phylogeny, function). Causally, overlapping neurohormonal systems (endorphins, dopamine, oxytocin) underlie social bonding, romantic attachment, and musicking; interpersonal synchrony and music/dance engage these systems. Ontogenetically, early parent–infant synchrony, infant-directed song/speech, and early rhythmic experiences scaffold later musicality and social bonding capacities, paralleling how early attachment shapes adult romantic expectations. Phylogenetically, components of romantic love (lust, attraction, attachment) and mother–infant bonding systems likely predate their use in pair-bonding; music’s bonding functions may have originated in infant-directed song. Functionally, literature on sexual selection and musicality is mixed: some studies report enhanced attractiveness from musical displays or dance quality, while a large twin study found no link between musical aptitude and mating success. Evidence for sex differences in musicality is limited or context-dependent, aligning with mutual mate choice in humans. By contrast, evidence for social bonding via synchrony (music/dance, laughter) is robust, with effects on closeness, cooperation, and reward systems. The review also covers cultural variability, nightclub/dance-floor contexts, the role of music preferences in signaling identity and compatibility, and prior work on group vs. dyadic musicking, including therapy contexts.

This is a theoretical/narrative review and model-building paper. The authors synthesize cross-disciplinary literature from evolutionary biology, psychology, anthropology, and music cognition, organizing evidence via Tinbergen’s framework and integrating it with social psychological theories of relationship stages and Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love. They propose the Music–Evolution–Love (MEL) model that maps music’s hypothesized functions (attraction vs. connection) onto relationship stages (attraction, building, maintenance) and love components (passion, intimacy, commitment). No new empirical data are collected; the paper formulates testable predictions and future research questions.

- Two putative functions of music in romantic contexts are delineated: music for attraction (virtuosic displays signaling general fitness or compatibility) and music for connection (synchrony-based bonding enhancing intimacy). - The MEL model maps these functions across relationship stages: • Attraction phase: Music/dance may elevate passion and initial intimacy via arousal, signaling creativity/fitness, and enabling structured flirtation; shared music preferences can rapidly reveal personality, values, and compatibility. Evidence is mixed regarding universally higher attractiveness of musicians (e.g., Marin & Rathgeber, 2022; Madison et al., 2018, vs. Mosing et al., 2015). • Relationship-building: Joint musicking and dance reduce uncertainty, accelerate bonding (the “icebreaker effect”: singing groups show faster early closeness than control groups), and promote intimacy through synchrony, shared goals, and reward engagement (oxytocin/endorphins). Improvisation may further heighten bonding compared to pre-composed singing. • Maintenance: Dyadic musical activities relate to higher commitment via interpersonal coordination and self-disclosure; “couple-defining songs” help maintain a shared identity and evoke positive autobiographical memories (60% reported such songs in Harris et al., 2020). Musical rituals and synchrony support prosociality, commitment, and can buffer stress, aiding intimacy and passion in established couples. - Mechanistic overlaps: Music/dance and romantic bonding recruit oxytocin, endorphins, and dopamine systems; synchrony increases liking, cooperation, and perceived self–other overlap. - Predictive processing lens: Music/dance facilitate optimal predictability and shared priors; music for connection tends toward predictability (supporting synchrony) whereas music for attraction may employ greater complexity (signaling skill). - Notable data points from cited literature include: no correlation between musical aptitude/performance and mating success in >10,000 twins (Mosing et al., 2015); faster initial closeness in singing vs. non-singing groups (Pearce et al., 2015); increased oxytocin and bonding markers in collective singing and improvisation (e.g., Kreutz, 2014; Keeler et al., 2015; Bowling et al., 2022); 60% prevalence of couple-defining songs (Harris et al., 2020).

The paper argues that music’s dual roles in attraction and bonding can be coherently integrated within romantic relationship dynamics and mapped to passion, intimacy, and commitment across stages. This framework addresses gaps in evolutionary accounts that have emphasized social bonding while underplaying sexual selection, and in social bonding research that has focused on non-romantic contexts. The authors discuss evolutionary mismatch (modern mating markets, technology, and music listening culture vs. ancestral conditions) and propose that while modalities change (e.g., playlists), underlying functions (signaling compatibility, synchrony-bonding) may persist. They hypothesize that bonding functions likely preceded attraction displays in evolutionary history, with rhythmic synchrony as an early mechanism later elaborated into sexually selected virtuosity. A predictive processing perspective suggests that musical interactions provide a microcosm for balancing predictability and novelty, supporting relationship development. They also consider music’s specificity relative to other activities: while not unique, music’s precise temporal coordination, simultaneous co-action, and strong affective power may make it especially efficacious for fostering intimacy, commitment, and stress regulation in couples. The authors outline concrete, testable research questions about prevalence, compatibility, diagnostics, and phase-specific effects of musical activities.

The paper contributes a synthesized theoretical account linking evolutionary functions of music (attraction and connection) to romantic relationship processes via the MEL model. It posits specific roles for music in enhancing passion, intimacy, and commitment at attraction, building, and maintenance stages, respectively, and highlights overlapping neurohormonal mechanisms with love. The authors propose numerous avenues for empirical validation (e.g., whether dyadic musicking accelerates uncertainty reduction, whether musical compatibility predicts relationship outcomes, distinguishing musical features of attraction vs. connection). They suggest translational applications such as music-based couples interventions leveraging synchrony, improvisation, and ritualized musical practices to support intimacy, communication, stress reduction, and commitment.

- The work is theoretical; no new empirical data are presented. Several inferences extrapolate from general social bonding findings to romantic contexts, which remain comparatively understudied. - Evidence for music’s impact on passion and commitment in couples is less developed than for intimacy and synchrony-bonding; findings on sexual selection and musical attractiveness are mixed. - Cultural variability and modern evolutionary mismatch complicate generalizability; many cited effects may be context-dependent (e.g., nightclub culture, genre norms, WEIRD samples). - The model focuses on formation and maintenance, not dissolution; it does not systematically address non-monogamous structures or diverse relationship trajectories. - Operationalization of love via the Triangular Theory, while influential, omits other dimensions (e.g., satisfaction) and may not capture all cultural variants.